BIBLIOGRAPHY PILPILING, JEROME E....
BIBLIOGRAPHY
PILPILING, JEROME E. APRIL 2010. Growth and Yield of Pak Choi
‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with and without Pine Needle Litters. Banguet State
University, La Trinidad Benguet.
Adviser: Silvestre L. Kudan, Ph.D.
ABSTRACT
Result of the study shows that pak choi grown in plots far from pine trees stand
applied with alnus compost produced longer leaves, has slightly more number of leaves
per plant, heavier weight of individual plants and heavier marketable yield.
Soil under pine trees stand had lower pH compared to the soil far from pine trees
stand before and after harvesting the crop, but the application of alnus compost has
improved the growth and yield of pak choi.
In the return on investment, the plants far from pine trees stand obtained the
highest return on investment (ROI) of 87.32% or PhP 0.87 for every peso spent in the
production. This was followed by the plants under pine trees stand and the plants far from
pine trees stand plus alnus compost with 67.48%, 32.70% respectively. The lowest return
on investment of 30.23% was obtained from the plants under pine trees stand applied
with alnus compost.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography ………………………………………………………………….. i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………. i
Table of Content………………………………………………………………… ii
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………………… 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Description of Pak Choi……………….……………………………….... 3
Importance of the Crop……….………………………………………..... 3
Climate and Soil Requirement…………………………………………... 4
Importance of Soil Organic Matter….…………………………………... 4
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Soil Sampling……………………………………………………………. 6
Land Preparation……………………………………………………….... 7
Planting the Seeds and Irrigating………………………………………… 7
Care and Management…………………………………………………... 7
Harvesting……………………………………………………………….. 7
Data Gathered……………………………………………………………. 10
RESULT AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………….. 12
Weekly Changes in Soil pH……………………………………………… 12
Leaf Length………………………………………………………………. 13
Number of Leaves Produced
at Harvest……………………………………………………………….… 14
ii
Weight of Individual Plant………………………………………………... 15
Weight of Marketable Plants
per Plot……………………………………………………………………. 16
Weight of Non-marketable Plants
per Plot……………………………………………………………………. 16
Total Yield per Plot……………………………………………………..... 17
Computed Yield per Hectare……………….…………………………….. 19
Cost and Return Analysis………………………………………………… 20
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary………………………………………………………………….. 22
Conclusion………………………………………………………………... 22
Recommendation…………………………………………………………. 23
LITERATURE CITED…………………………………………………………… 24
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………… 25
iii
1
INTRODUCTION
The continuous application of synthetic fertilizer has resulted to depletion of
humus in the soil and acidic soil in Benguet and Mountain Province .This can be seen in
the report of Laurean and Badayos (2009) during the agency in house review where soil
samples taken from Ngano-an, Boboc, Benguet with 2.19% organic matter has 3.96 pH;
Ballay, Kabayan, Benguet with 4.44% organic matter has 4.45 pH; Lib-atan, Guinaoang,
Mankayan, Benguet with 0.99% organic matter and 3.72 pH; Batauan, Nangalisan, Tuba
with 0.96 % organic matter and 4.17 pH; and Magmagaling, Buguias, Benguet with 2.60
% organic matter and 5.08 pH.
Aside from the continuous application of synthetic fertilizer, the continuous
planting of vegetables lead to the depletion of organic matter and nutrient element in the
soil. Although farmers continuously apply undecompost chicken dung every cropping,
the chicken manure cannot provide enough organic matter to the soil.
While some farmers complain that there is no other source of organic fertilizer
aside from the chicken manure, there are still wide forests of pine trees where pine needle
can be collected. However, several farmers are asking if the pine needles are acidic
because their plants near pine trees where pine needles are falling do not grow. In order
to provide the answer to the question, experiment be conducted under pine tree stand so
that pine needles will be falling on the plots planted with pak choi while another area not
receiving pine needles also be planted to compare. The extremely acidic soils in most
area of Benguet where vegetables are produced require improvement and rehabilitation.
This can only be done through the continuous application of organic matter from plant
compost and animal manure.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
2
Pine needles are abundant in the locality and are claimed to be acidic without
basis. The result of this study will be of help to the vegetable industry. When it is proven
that there are no bad effect to pak choi, this will encourage farmers to utilized pine
needles in improving the fertility which has very low organic matter due to the
continuous application of inorganic fertilizers. The information that will be attained from
this study will be added to knowledge for the following generation to use.
The study was conducted to evaluate the growth and yield of pak choi planted on
soil with pine needles and without pine needles, compare the chemical properties of the
soil with pine needles and without pine needles in terms of pH, N, P, and K before and
after harvesting the crop and determine the profitability of pak choi from with and
without pine needles
The study was conducted at the College of Forestry Area, Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from December 2009 to January 2010.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
3
REVIEW OF LITERETURE
Description of Pak Choi
Pak choi (
Brassica chenensis l.) is a leafy vegetable that provide nutrition to
human. It’s grown in all part of the world, although it is not well popular in the
Philippines (Tamayo, 1975). Pak choi is an Asian vegetable, which is being cultivated in
China since Century.
Pak choi contains 14 g calories of food energy, 1.0 g protein, 2.73 g
carbohydrates, 0.18 g total fat, and 0.84 fibers (Kinoshita, 1972). The heads formed loose
upright with dark green leave and the seeds are round, dark brown weight of 1000 seeds
is 3 g (Tindall, 1983). Pak choi is succulent and mild in flavor, and may be eaten either
cooked or raw (Mc Donald, 1993). Both part is edible and use frequently in stir fries. The
stalks can be consumed raw with dip or chopped and include in salad. Pak choi has high
water content and becomes limp very quickly upon cooking. It should be cooked very
quickly over high temperature so that the leaves become tender and stalks stay crisp.
Importance of the Crop
Next to the water we drink and the air we breathe, food is basic to our existence.
Food is necessary for our health and well being. The main constituents of food may be
classified in to six groups: carbohydrate, protein, fat, vitamins, mineral, and water.
At present the demand of pak choi in the local market is quit well due to its
nutrient content. Its importance food source of medicine due to its sweet astringent and
cool nature flavor affecting the stomach and large intestine (Doubrava, 2000). Can cool
fever quench thirst, and benefit intestine and stomach. Pingalo (2008) stated that Chinese
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
4
medicinal doctors use it for petrol poisoning, small fibers in the eye, and other needs. The
plant help to eliminate poison disperse blood poisoning and diminish swelling.
Climate and Soil Requirement
Pak choi is tolerant to a wide range of soil condition, including pH; although
excessively well drained soil is unsuitable for this crop which matures rapidly. Normally
grown at elevation up to 1,500 m sea level. although the leaves are liable to damage by
wind in exposed situation. Withstand periods of relatively high rainfall but require full
exposure to sun for optimum development. Flowering is reduces under high temperature
condition but relatively low temperature of less than 16 c promote precocious flower
production. High yielding, firm headed crop of the pak choi are produced at high
elevation during weather at lower elevation during weather, at lower elevation heading is
less likely to occur (Tindall, 1983).
Pak choi withstands wet weather relatively well if not flooded. Fertile alluvial
sandy to clayey loam with pH 5.5 to 7 is preferred for cultivation. However, other soil
type such as peat and latasols are also suitable if well provided with organic manure and
fertilizer (Prosea, 1994). In addition Pears (2002) stated that the soil must be humus rich,
moisture retensive to ensure the past growth for a good crop.
Importance of Soil Organic Matter
Organic matter enhances water and nutrient holding capacity and improves soil
structure, managing for soil carbon can enhance productivity and environmental quality,
and can reduce the severity and costs of natural phenomena, such as drought, flood, and
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
5
disease. In addition, increasing soil organic matter levels can reduce atmospheric CO2
levels that contribute to climate change (Anonymous, nd).
Healthy soil is the foundation of the food system. It produces healthy crops that in
turn nourish people. Soil organic matter provide nutrient to plant and providing nutrient
and habitat to organisms living in the soil. Healthy soil is teeming with microscopic and
larger organisms that perform many vital functions including converting dead and
decaying matter as well as minerals to plant nutrients. Different soil organisms feed on
different organic Substrates. Their biological activity depends on the organic matter.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials used were pak choi seeds, garden tools, identifying tags, measuring
tape and weighing scale.
The experiment was laid out in two adjacent areas where one is near pine trees
whose leaves are falling on the area while the other area is not. The treatments were
replicated three times were as follows:
Treatment Code Description
T1 plants grown under pine trees stand
T2 plants grown under pine trees stand +
compost of alnus leaves
T3 plants grown far from pine trees stand
T4 plants grown far from pine trees stand +
compost of alnus leaves
Soil Sampling
Before preparing the plots and after harvesting the crops, soil samples from each
area were taken and brought to the soils laboratory at Pacdal, Baguio City for OM, N, P,
K and pH analysis.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
7
Land Preparation
An area of 60 sq. m was prepared for the study. The area of 30 sq m was prepared
into six plots measuring 1m x 5 m under pine trees stand while another 30 sq m not under
pine trees stand was prepared into six plots measuring 1m x 5m each.
After digging the experiment plots, these were leveled, and those plots that should
be applied with 10 kg compost of alnus leaves were applied and mixed with the soil.
Planting the Seeds and Irrigating
One seed of pak choi ‘Cherokee’ per hill were planted directly on the plot at a
distance of 15 cm x 15 cm within rows and between rows. There were four rows of plants
per plot with 33 plants per row or a total of 132 plants per plot. The plots were watered
after planting the seeds and irrigating the plots was done after three days or twice a week
up to harvest (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Care and Management
The plants were taken cared of by uprooting weeds, collecting insect larvae and
destroying them in order to ensure optimum growth and yield of all the plants, because
agricultural chemicals were not used in the experiment.
Harvesting
The plants were harvested 40-45 days after planting by cutting the base of the
plant with a sharp knife. Harvesting was done by replication so that gathering data and
marketing was not done in just one day.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
8
(a)
(b)
Figure 1. (a) Upper photo shows the researcher being helped during planting while (b)
the lower photo shows the plants spaced at 15 cm x 15 cm on plots
under pine trees stand at 40 days after planting
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
9
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. (a) Upper photo shows the researcher irrigating the planted seeds and (b) the
lower photo shows the 40-day old plants far from the pine trees stand
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
10
Data Gathered
The data gathered, tabulated, computed, and means subjecting to separation test
using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) were the following:
1. Soil pH. Soil pH of the different treatment plots was monitored weekly after
planting to harvesting.
2. Leaf length (cm). This was measured from the base of the leaf petiole to the tip
of longest leaf from ten samples plants per plot.
3. Number of leaves produced at harvest. Ten sample plants were harvested per
plot and the leaves were counted, recorded, and the average number of leaves per plant
were computed.
4. Weight of marketable plants per plot (kg). This was the weight of all harvested
plants per plot without defects that was sold to the market.
5. Weight of non-marketable plants per plot (kg). This was the weight of plants
per plot that was not sold in the market due to defect such as rotting, deformation, and
severe pest damage.
6. Weight of individual plant (g). The weight of marketable plants per plot was
divided by the number of marketable plants per plot.
7. Total yield (kg/plot). This was the total weight of marketable and non-
marketable plants harvested per plot.
8. Computed yield per hectare (t/ha). The yield per plot was converted to yield
per hectare by multiplying with 2000 then dividing by 1000. Two thousand is the number
of plots per hectare based on the dimension of plot (1m x 5m) used in the study while the
one thousand is the weight per ton.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
11
9. Return on Investment (ROI). This was computed by deducting the total
expenses from the total sales per plot and the difference was divided by the total expenses
multiplied by 100.
10. Documentation in picture. All observations which cannot be measured such as
the color of the leaves, and other abnormalities of the plant were recorded in pictures
(photograph).
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Weekly Changes in Soil pH
With the use of portable pH meter, the different treatment plots were monitored
weekly, the result of which is presented in Figure 3. As presented, the plots under pine
tree stand had the lowest pH on the fifth week while the plots away from pine tree stand
had highest pH on the fifth week. The application of alnus compost to plots under pine
tree stand seem to increase the soil pH five week after application while the pH of the
plots without alnus compost decreased, which imply that the falling pine needles release
some compound that will lower the soil pH.
6.5
6
plots under pine trees stand
l
pH 5.5
plots under pine trees stand
S
oi
+ alnus compost
plots away from pine trees
5
stand
plots away from pine trees
stand + alnus compost
4.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
Weeks
Figure 3. Soil pH of the different treatments monitored weekly with the use of pH meter
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
13
Leaf Length
As presented in Table 1, the plants under pine trees stand had significantly shorter
leaves compared to the rest of the treatments. Plants far from pine trees stand and the
plants under pine trees stand but applied with alnus compost had similar leaf length.
Before planting the area, the soil under pine tree stand had lower pH, organic
matter content and potassium compared to the soil far from pine trees stand (Table 2).
The soil pH decreased after planting which is even lower in plots under pine trees stand
as shown in the soil analysis. This may explain the significantly shorter leaves from the
plant grown under pine trees stand.
Number of Leaves Produced at Harvest
There were no significant differences among the treatment in the number of
leaves produced at harvest (Table 3). This means that the number of leaves was not
affected by the presence or absence of falling pine needles.
Table 1. Leaf length of plant grown in plot under and far from pine trees stand
TREATMENT
LEAF LENGTH (cm)
Plants grown under pine trees stand 18.81b
Plants grown under pine trees stand + 19.41a
Compost of alnus leaves
Plants grown far from pine trees stand 19.63a
Plants grown far from pine trees stand + 19.92a
Compost of alnus leaves
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
14
Table 2. Soil analysis of the experiment area before planting and after harvesting the crop
by the Department of Agriculture, Baguio Soil Laboratory
Before Planting
Soil pH OM P,ppm K,ppm N
Soil under pine trees stand 5.93 2.5 7 350 1.25
Soil far from pine trees stand 6.0 5 4 386 2.5
After Planting
Soil under pine trees stand 4.73 3.50 2 206 1.75
Soil far from pine trees stand 5.22 2.5 5 206 1.25
Table 3. Number of leaves produced per plant at harvest
TREATMENT
NUMBER OF LEAVES
Plants grown under pine trees stand 13.59a
Plants grown under pine trees stand + 13.62a
Compost of alnus leaves
Plants grown far from pine trees stand 13.66a
Plants grown far from pine trees stand + 14.20a
Compost of alnus leaves
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
15
Weight of Individual Plant
Table 4 shows that plants far from pine trees stand and applied with alnus leaves
compost had the heaviest weight of individual plant followed by plants under pine trees
stand and applied with alnus compost, plants far from pine trees stand and plants under
pine trees stand, but the differences are not significant statistically
The result clearly shows that the weight of pak choi is heavier when planted on
plots not under pine trees stand and applied with alnus compost. However, even the
plants grown in plots under pine trees stand when the soil is applied with alnus compost
before planting, there is slight advantage over the plants under pine trees stand without
application of alnus compost.
Table 4. Weight of individual plant
TREATMENT
WEIGHT (g)
Plants grown under pine trees stand 29.25b
Plants grown under pine trees stand + 32.15ab
Compost of alnus leaves
Plants grown far from pine trees stand 30.12b
Plants grown far from pine trees stand + 34.43a
Compost of alnus leaves
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
16
Weight of Marketable Plants per Plot
Table 5 shows the marketable plants per plot from the different treatments
studied. Marketable plants from plots far from pine trees stand applied with alnus
compost significantly surpassed the weight of marketable plants from the other treatment
studied, which obtained similar weight.
This observation seems to confirm the observation of farmers who were asking if
pine needles make the soil acidic because the growth and yield of vegetable crops they
plant under pine trees is affected.
Weight of Non-marketable Plants
As presented in Table 6, there were no significant differences among the
treatments in terms of weight of non-marketable plants per plots. This may suggest that
the weight of non-marketable plants was not affected by any of the treatments studied.
Table 5. Weight of marketable plant per 1x5 plot
TREATMENT
WEIGHT (kg)
Plants grown under pine trees stand 3.30b
Plants grown under pine trees stand + 3.72b
Compost of alnus leaves
Plants grown far from pine trees stand 3.69b
Plants grown far from pine trees stand + 4.36a
Compost of alnus leaves
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
17
Table 6. Weight of non-marketable plants per plot
TREATMENT
WEIGHT (kg)
Plants grown under pine trees stand 0.13a
Plants grown under pine trees stand + 0.08a
Compost of alnus leaves
Plants grown far from pine trees stand 0.13a
Plants grown far from pine trees stand + 0.12a
Compost of alnus leaves
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Total Yield per Plot
The total yield per plot from the different treatments shows slight differences as
presented in Table 7. However, the lowest yield per plot was harvested from those under
pine tree stand which has the lowest soil pH after harvesting (Table 2 and Figure 3). As
mentioned earlier, the weight of individual plant (Table 4) from plots under pine tree
stand was lighter due to some smaller plants as shown in Figure 4 compared to the plants
grown far from pine tree stand shown in Figure 5.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
18
Table 7. Total yield
TREATMENT
TOTAL YIELD (kg)
Plants grown under pine trees stand 3.44b
Plants grown under pine trees stand + 4.01ab
Compost of alnus leaves
Plants grown far from pine trees stand 3.82ab
Plants grown far from pine trees stand + 4.31a
Compost of alnus leaves
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Figure 4. Plant samples harvested under pine tree stand without alnus compost (T1) and
with alnus compost (T2).
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
19
Figure 5. Sample plants harvested from plots away from the pine tree stand, so no falling
pine needles.
Computed Yield per Hectare
The yield per plot was converted to yield per hectare and the differences among
the treatments were not significant (Table 8). Statistically, the difference between the
highest computed yield of 8.98 tons and 6.88 tons which is 2,100 kg is not negligible on
the part of farmer because the value is PhP 84,000.00 based on PhP 40.00 selling price
during the harvest of the pak choi. Interestingly, the application of alnus compost under
pine tree stand resulted to 1,140 kg more harvest compared to the plots without compost
which means PhP 45,600.00 additional income for the farmers which still have economic
importance.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
20
Table 8. Computed yield from 5 sq m plot to tons per hectare
TREATMENT
COMPUTED YIELD
(ton)
Plants grown under pine trees stand 6.88b
Plants grown under pine trees stand + 8.02ab
Compost of alnus leaves
Plants grown far from pine trees stand 7.64ab
Plants grown far from pine trees stand + 8.98a
Compost of alnus leaves
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Cost and Return Analysis
Table 9 presents the economic analysis of the different treatments studied. The
different total yield and levels of expenses resulted to varying net profit and return on
investment. As shown in the Table, plants grown on plots far from pine trees stand
obtained the highest return on investment (ROI) of 87.32 % or PhP 0.87 for every peso
invested in the production. This was followed by the plants grown on plots under pine
trees stand, plants grown on plots far from pine trees stand and applied with alnus
compost with 67.48 % and 32.70%, respectively. The lowest return on investment of
32.23% was obtained from the plants grown on plots under pine trees stand plus alnus
compost application. It was computed that with the total marketable yield and total
expenses, PhP 25.88 was spent to produce a kilo of pak choi.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
21
Table 9. Cost and Return analysis of each treatment in 15 sq m plot
TREATMENT
ITEMS
T1 T2 T3 T4
Yield (kg) 9.91 11.79 11.09 13.09
Sales (PhP) 396.72 471.92 443.72 523.60
Expenses
Inputs:
1. Seeds 18.12 18.12 18.12 18.12
2. Alnus 120.00 120.00
Compost
Labor cost (PhP)
3. Land
Preparation 37.5 37.50 37.50 37.50
4. Planting 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
5. Irrigation 75.00 75.00 75.00 75.00
6. Weeding 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75
7. Harvesting 37.50 37.50 37.50 37.50
8. Marketing 25.00 25.00 25.00 25.00
Total expenses
(PhP) 236.87 356.87 236.87 356.87
Net income
(PhP) 159.85 115.05 206.85 166.73
ROI (%) 67.48 32.23 87.32 32.70
Note: The selling price during the harvest was PhP 40.00/kg.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
22
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the College of Forestry area of Benguet State
University, La Trinidad, Benguet from December 2009 to January 2010. To evaluate the
growth and yield of pak choi planted in soil with litters of pine needles and without pine
needles, compare the chemical properties of soil with pine needles and without pine
needles in terms of pH, N, P and K before and after harvesting and determine the
profitability of pak choi planted on with and without pine needles.
Result of the study shows that pak choi grown on plots far from pine trees stand
plus alnus compost produced longer leaves, has slightly more number of leaves per plant,
heavier weight of individual plant and has heavier marketable yield.
Soil under pine trees stand had 5.9 pH and soil far from pine trees stand had a pH
of 6.0 before planting, but after harvest the plots under pine trees stand had a pH of 4.73
and plots not under pine trees stand had a pH of 5.22. In the return on investment, the
plots not under pine trees stand gave the highest return on investment (ROI) of 87.32% or
PhP 0.87 for every peso spent in the production. This was followed by the plots under
pine trees stand and plots not under pine trees stand plus alnus compost with 67.48%,
32.70% respectively. The lowest return on investment of 30.23% was obtained from the
plots under pine trees stand plus alnus compost.
Conclusion
Based on the results presented and discussed, plots not under pine trees stand
produced higher yield of pak choi compared to those plots under pine trees stand where
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
23
pine needles are falling. However, the effect of pine needles litters can be minimized by
the application of alnus compost. It appears that pine needles falling on the soil make the
soil acidic.
Recommendation
It is therefore recommended, that pak choi should be grown on soil far from pine
trees stand to obtain higher yield and return on investment. However, pak choi can still be
grown on plots under pine trees stand with the application of alnus compost to minimize
the effect of pine needles in the plants and still obtain a good yield.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
24
LITERATURE CITED
ANONYMOUS. Undated. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
http://soils.usda.gov/sqi/concepts/soil_organic_matter/som.html. January 4, 2010.
DOUBRAVA, C. M. Pak Choi Fall Volume: 2000 Issue: 7(3).
KINOSHITA, K . 1972. Vegetable Production on Sub-tropic and Tropic. Tokyo, Japan:
Lippincott, Inc. pp. 146-148
LAUREAN, C. P. and BADAYOS R. B. 2009. Development of Simplified Key to
Soil Series Identification as a Tool to the Establishment of Suitable Crop/
Agricultural Production System in Benguet. In proceeding: Agency In-house
Review. Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet. pp. 333-370
MC DONALD, E. 1993. The American Horticultural Society Encyclopedia of
Gardening. USA, Darling Kindersley, Inc. p. 320.
PEARS, P. 2002. Encyclopedia of Organic Gardening. D. K. Publishing Inc. Hudson
Street, New York. P357
PINGALO, A.V. 2008, Yield and profitability of Pakchoi ‘chirokee’ applied with Foliar
fertilizer. BS.Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet. p. 4
PROSEA.1994. Plant Resource of South-East Asia No.8 Vegetable. pp. 130-131
TAMAYO, D.B. 1975. R. P, S Top Favorite Vegetable. Queson City Forest and Farms
8(6):145
TINDALL, HD. 1983. Vegetables in the Tropics. Mc Millan Publication, Co. London,
Oxford University Press. Oxford. pp.110-113.
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
25
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Leaf length (cm)
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 18.59 18.83 19.01 56.43 18.81
T2 19.25 19.40 19.60 58.25 19.42
T3 19.34 20.00 19.57 58.91 19.64
T4 20.17 19.61 20.00 59.78 19.93
Total 77.35 77.84 78.18 233.37 77.80
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.087 0.044
Treatment 3 2.018 0.673 8.92* 4.76 9.78
Error 6 0.453 0.075
Total 11 2.558
* Significant Coefficient of variation: 1.41%
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
26
Appendix Table 2. Number of leaves produced at harvest
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 13.07 13.70 14.00 40.77 13.59
T2 14.00 13.50 13.38 40.88 13.63
T3 13.30 14.00 13.70 41.00 13.67
T4 14.50 14.40 13.70 42.60 14.20
Total 54.87 55.60 54.78 165.25 55.09
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.101 0.051
Treatment 3 2.746 0.249 1.25ns 4.76 9.78
Error 6 1.192 0.199
Total 11 2.039
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 3.24%
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
27
Appendix Table 3. Weight of individual plant (g)
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 26.59 31.54 29.62 87.75 29.25
T2 32.40 32.03 32.02 96.45 32.15
T3 26.58 31.71 32.07 90.36 30.12
T4 34.45 34.88 33.98 103.31 34.44
Total 120.02 130.16 127.69 377.87 127.96
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 13.979 6.990
Treatment 3 14.039 16.013 5.39* 4.76 9.78
Error 6 17.839 2.973
Total 11 79.857
*Significant Coefficient of variation: 5.48%
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
28
Appendix Table 4. Weight of marketable plants per plot (kg)
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 2.89 3.88 3.14 9.91 3.30
T2 3.92 3.87 4.00 11.79 3.93
T3 3.05 4.02 4.00 11.09 3.69
T4 4.41 4.50 4.18 13.09 4.36
Total 14.27 16.25 15.32 45.88 15.28
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.885 0.443
Treatment 3 1.724 0.575 5.77* 4.76 9.78
Error 6 0.597 0.110
Total 11 3.207
*Significant Coefficient of variation: 8.36%
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
29
Appendix Table 5. Weight of non-marketable plants per plot (kg)
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 0.120 0.180 0.110 0.410 0.137
T2 0.111 0.075 0.058 0.244 0.081
T3 0.168 0.104 0.124 0.396 0.132
T4 0.130 0.145 0.108 0.383 0.128
Total 0.529 0.504 0.400 1.383 0.461
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 0.004 0.002
Treatment 3 0.006 0.002 1.84ns 4.76 9.78
Error 6 0.006 0.001
Total 11 0.017
ns- not significant Coefficient of variation: 27.46%
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
30
Appendix Table 6. Total yield per plot (kg)
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 3.018 4.060 3.250 10.328 3.442
T2 4.031 3.951 4.060 12.042 4.014
T3 3.225 4.131 4.113 11.489 3.829
T4 4.540 4.645 4.288 12.959 4.319
Total 14.814 16.787 16.711 46.818 15.604
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 4.52 2.26
Treatment 3 1.21 0.40 1.82* 4.76 9.78
Error 6 1.29 0.22
Total 11 7.02
*Significant Coefficient of variation: 12.02%
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
31
Appendix Table 7. Computed yield (t/ha)
BLOCKS
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
I II III
T1 6.03 8.12 6.50 20.65 6.88
T2 8.06 7.90 8.12 24.08 8.02
T3 6.45 8.26 8.26 22.93 7.64
T4 9.08 9.29 8.57 26.94 8.98
Total 29.62 33.57 31.45 94.60 31.52
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF DEGREES OF SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION FREEDOM SQUARES SQUARES F 0.05 0.01
Replication 2 2.58 1.29
Treatment 3 6.84 2.28 4.65* 4.76 9.78
Error 6 2.92 .49
Total 11 12.34
*Significant Coefficient of variation: 8.87%
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
32
Weekly Changes in soil pH
TREATMENT WEEKS
0 1 2 3 4 5
T1 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.1 5.0
T2 5.0 5.1 5.1 5.0 5.1
T3 5.1 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.2
T4 5.2 5.2 5.2 5.1 5.2
Growth and Yield of Pak Choi ‘Cherokee’ Grown on Soil with
and without Pine Needle Litters / Jerome L. Pilpiling. 2010
Document Outline
- Growth and Yield of Pak Choi�Cherokee� Grown on Soil with and without Pine Needle Litters
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERETURE
- Description of Pak Choi
- Importance of the Crop
- Climate and Soil Requirement
- Importance of Soil Organic Matter
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- Soil Sampling
- Land Preparation
- Planting the Seeds and Irrigating
- Care and Management
- Harvesting
- Data Gathered
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- Weekly Changes in Soil pH
- Leaf Length
- Number of Leaves Produced at Harvest
- Weight of Individual Plant
- Weight of Marketable Plants per Plot
- Total Yield per Plot
- Computed Yield per Hectare
- Cost and Return Analysis
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- Summary
- Conclusion
- Recommendation
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES