BIBLIOGRAPHY OSSOG, LESTER F. APRIL 2010. ...
BIBLIOGRAPHY
OSSOG, LESTER F. APRIL 2010. Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions
applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1) in La Trinidad, Benguet. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad Benguet.
Adviser: Guerzon A. Payangdo,MSc
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to determine the effect of EM1 on the growth and yield
of garden pea accessions, the growth and pod yield of the promising garden pea
accessions under organic production, the interaction of garden pea accessions and EM1
application, and the profitability of growing different garden pea accessions applied with
EM1.
The garden pea accessions significantly differed with each other in terms of
height, number of days from emergence to flowering, number of pods per plant, pod
length and width and pod yield. Accession CGP 116 produced the tallest plants and
highest pod yield resulting to higher ROCE.
Application of EM1 significantly affected pod width and weight of marketable
pods of the different accessions.
EM1 application and the garden pea accession had significant interaction effect on
the number of days from flowering to pod setting, pod length and width of the garden pea
accessions.
Plants untreated with EM1 and accession CGP 116 obtained the highest fresh pod
yield and ROCE.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography…………………………………………………………... i
Abstract………… ……………………………………………………...
i
Table of Contents .……………………………………………………..
ii
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………. 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………
4
MATERIALS AND METHODS……………………………………..
9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Soil Analysis of the Area
Before Planting and
after Harvest…………………………………………………...
12
Agro-climatic Data…………………………………………….
12
Days to Emergence……………………………………………
14
Days from Emergence to First Flowering……………………..
15
Days from Flowering to Pod Setting…………………………..
15
Plant Height……………………………………………………
17
Number of Harvest……………………………………………….
16
Number of Pods per Plant………………………………………...
18
Pod Length………………………………………………………..
19
Pod Width………………………………………………………...
21
Disease Infection (Powdery Mildew)…………………………….
22
ii
Pest Infestation (Pod Borer)……………………………………...
22
Weight of Marketable pods……………………………………...
23
Weight of Non-Marketable Pods…………………………………
24
Total Yield……………………………………………………......
25
Computed Yield………………………………………………......
25
Return on Cash Expense………………………………………….
27
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………
28
Summary…………………………………………………………. 27
Conclusions………………………………………………………. 28
Recommendations……………………………………………....... 28
LITERATURE CITED……………………………………………………
29
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………. 31
iii
1
INTRODUCTION
In the Philippines particularly in Benguet, garden pea (Pisum sativum) is one of
the top money making crop cultivated. Demand for this crop is great due to its food
value, industrial and agricultural needs and importance. Green pods are prepared as
vegetable food; the seeds are processed into canned products, while the byproducts and
vines are used as animal feed (Swiader and Ware, 2002).
At present, garden pea production is still short of demand due to many reasons.
First, there are few farmers engaging in garden pea production because of high
production costs, resulting to very low profit. This is attributed by the rapid
multiplication of major insect pests and diseases of the crop and the continuous increase
in the prices of commercial fertilizers and chemicals used to control these problems that
ordinary farmers can hardly afford.
Thus, finding an alternative way to reduce cost of inputs in garden pea production
and bringing back to life the sick soil must be done. Organic farming promotes the use of
natural inputs and effective cropping and farming system to reduce the production inputs.
The practice is less costly and is environment friendly.
One practice in organic farming is the use of resistant varieties against diseases and
insects. The garden pea accession which was used in this study were evaluated through
the conventional way of farming. A need to evaluate these garden pea accessions under
organic production is also important. On the other hand, a means of sustaining the
soil nutrients has been developed and found significant. This is the use of effective
microorganisms (EM1) which when present in the soil can give numerous benefits to
crops. These microorganisms work harmoniously with beneficial microorganisms to
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
2
produce enzymes, bioactive substances, and vitamins that support plant growth directly
or indirectly. One typical example is the Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza, which can
supply phosphate to plants and will breed and co-exist with azotobacter. Garden pea can
host this effective microorganism thereby increasing their population in the soil and in
return improving growth and yield performance of the plant.
The result of the study if successful and found significant will be introduced to
farmers to help them lessen their production input and make garden pea production more
sustainable.
The study was conducted to:
1. determine the growth and pod yield of the promising garden pea accessions at
La Trinidad, Benguet;
2. determine the effect of EM1 on the growth and yield of the garden pea
accessions;
3. determine the interaction of the garden pea accessions and EM1 application;
and
4. determine the profitability of growing the different garden pea accessions
applied with EM1.
The study was conducted at BSU Organic farm, from November 2008 to February
2009.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Importance of Variety Evaluation for Organic Farming
Varietal evaluation is a process in Plant Breeding which provides a comparison of
promising lines developed by breeders. It is through varietal evaluation that a breeder
selects the best performing variety among the developed lines in terms of yield, quality,
adaptability, stress, tolerance and resistance to pest and diseases (Sunil, 1990).
Bautista and Mabesa (1997) cited that selecting the right variety would minimize
problem associated with water and fertilizer management. Varieties should be high
yielding, pest and disease resistant and early maturing so that production would entail
less expense and ensure more profit.
HARRDEC (1996) further cited that varietal evaluation is important in order to
observe performance character such as yield, earliness, vigor, maturity and keeping
quality because different varieties have wide range of differences in plant size and in
yield performance. However the varieties to be selected should be high yielding, insect
and disease resistant and early maturing. There is variation in the yielding ability of the
different varieties when grown under the same method of culture. A variety that yields
well in one region is not a guarantee that it will perform well in another region, in
addition, choosing variety that is most suited to the prevailing climatic condition.
Definition and Importance of organic farming
Briones (1997) defined organic farming as whole system approach that works to
optimize the natural fertility resources of the farm. This is done through traditional
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
4
practices of recycling farm-produced livestock manures, composting, crop rotation, and
green manuring and crop residue management.
“Organic farming like all various forms of sustainable agriculture such as organic
agriculture, biodynamic agriculture and natural way of farming share a concern for the
health and welfare of the farmer in the future. A way of farming that avoids the use of
synthetic fertilizers as well as genetically modified organisms (GMO’s), and usually
subscribe the principles of sustainable agriculture. Organic farming management relies on
developing biological diversity in the field to disrupt habitat for pest’s organisms, and
replenishment of soil fertility. While they have different practices they are guided with
the seven principles of sustainable agriculture; ecologically sound, economic viability,
socially just, cultural sensitivity, appropriate technology, holistic science, and human
development”.
NPRCRTC (1998), stated that organic farming methods are practical ways to
increase yield, conserve the soil, and maintain the water quantity and lower operating
costs. Organic farms produce the same amount yield of the same quality for the same
costs as conventional farms of the same size. Moreover, organic farm are relatively free
from the possible toxicities to soil and to flora and fauna in general.
In addition (Keupper, 2002), claimed that crop rotation, cover cropping, green
manuring, use of livestock manure and composting are all soil building practices that do
much more than provide Nitrogen, By adding organic matter and stimulating biological
activity in the soil, these practices make mineral nutrients more available to plants,
generate the microbial production of plant beneficial chemicals and improve soil tilth.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
5
Spreading livestock manure in particular cycles essential macro and micro nutrients back
onto the field.
Anonymous (2005), further reported that, according to the research of the team
led by Pad Madera organic farms can nearly as productive as regular farms for some
crops, and they leave soils healthier. Organic soil management improves soil structure by
increasing soil activity, thus reducing the risk of soil erosion. In addition to advantages in
soil fertility management, organic farming enhances biodiversity. Organic management
results in farms hosting more kinds of beneficial insects.
EM1 Defined
“EM1 are live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts
confer a health benefit on the host”. This definition has the following characteristics;
probiotic must be alive, must be delivered a measured Physiological benefit.
Use of EM1
While soils are populated by many organisms such as animals and
microorganisms, it is generally considered that microorganism play an important roles in
soil. The recycling of key nutrients and for degrading organic matter and even the
Oxygen us breath is the result of microbial activity (FAO-WHO, 2001).
One of the promising products of biotechnology is the effective microorganisms
(EM1) technology developed by Professor Teruo Higa in 1994, University of the Ryukus,
Okinawa Japan. Effective microorganisms consist of mixed cultures of beneficial and
naturally occurring microorganisms that can be applied as inoculants to increase the
microbial diversity of soils and plants. Research has shown that the inoculation of EM1
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
6
cultures to the soil, plant ecosystem improve soil quality, soil health and the growth, yield
and quality of crops. Effective microorganisms contain selected species of
microorganisms including predominant population of lactic bacteria, yeast and smaller
numbers of photosynthetic bacteria/ actinomycetes and other types of microorganisms.
All of these are mutually compatible with one another and can co- exist in liquid culture.
Effective microorganisms is no substitute for other management practices as crop
rotations, use of organic amendments, conservation tillage, crop residue recycling and
biocontrol pests. If used properly, effective microorganisms can significantly enhance the
beneficial effects of these practices (Higa and Parr, 1994).
Crop protection in Organic Farming
Pest control in organic farming involves a lot of strategy, these includes the
various cropping systems such as crop rotation, multiple cropping, mixed cropping and
diversification. The used of pesticide is strictly prohibited. An organic farmer relies on
the diverse population of beneficial insects that helps in maintaining the pest population.
Organic growers also employ natural control on insects through the technique which is
known as Integrated Pest control (IPM). It involves handpicking, use of repellants and the
use of Organic pesticides or botanical extracts (Pawar, 2005).
Soybeans, according to Keupper (2002), organic soybeans are best grown in
rotation with other several crops that ideally compensate for one another. Organic
production is further enhanced when livestock enterprises that involve grazing and
generate manure are also part of the system. It was found that a good crop rotation with
proper fertility management appears to suppress most soybean pest problems in organic
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
7
production. Rotating to non-host crops and integrating nematicidal crops into the crop
mix have proved effective to control nematodes.
Rice, according to Sullivan (2003), leguminous green manure crops can supply 30
to 50 percent of Nitrogen needs of high yielding rice varieties depending on the quality,
quantity and type of green manure crop.
Corn, according to Diver et al. (2001), the production of the sweet corn was
improved when the field was intercropped with white clover as living mulch. White
clover was mutilated or not tilled with the middle fines removed, leaving strips of clover
growing between the corn rows.
According to Dela Cruz (2004), crops that were applied with animal manure
performed better compared to those crops that were grown with commercial organic
fertilizer. The slow released of nutrients of the animal manure minimizes the nutrient
losses in the soil resulting the efficient uptake.
Bacod (2007) evaluated the effect of probiotics on the growth and yield of
different potato accessions under organic production. He revealed as for economic
analysis, plants not applied with probiotics obtained higher return on cash expense
(ROCE). So he concluded that potatoes can be grown organically either with or without
application of probiotics.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An area of 120 m2 was thoroughly prepared and divided into three blocks
representing the three replications. Each block contained 10 plots measuring 1m x 5m.
The plots were applied with mushroom compost as basal fertilizer at the rate of 5kg/5m2
plot. The compost was mixed thoroughly with the soil.
Planting was done one week after application with three seeds sown per hill at a
distance of 20 cm between rows and 15 cm between hills. Soil samples were taken before
the application of mushroom compost and after harvesting for soil analysis. Sunflower
compost juice was applied uniformly three weeks after emergence and two weeks before
flowering.
All necessary practices employed in garden pea production were properly
implemented from planting until harvest.
EM1 was mixed with water and applied to the plots uniformly through spraying. It
was applied three times before planting, two weeks after emergence and before
flowering.
The experiment was laid out following split-plot design with three replications.
EM1 treatment was assigned as the main plot and the five accessions of garden pea as
subplots.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
9
The treatments were as follows:
Main Plot
with EM1 - applied with EM1
without EM1- no application of EM1
Sub Plot (Garden Pea Accession)
Source
1
CLG
BSU-IPB-HCRS
2
CGP 11O
BSU-IPB-HCRS
3
CGP 116
BSU-IPB-HCRS
4
CGP 34
BSU-IPB-HCRS
5
CGP 18-A
BSU-IPB-HCRS
Data Gathered
1. Maturity
a. Number of days from sowing to emergence. This was taken when 80% of the
seeds have emerged.
b. Number of days from emergence to first flowering. This was recorded by
counting the number of days from the emergence to the time when 50% of the plants in
the plot had at least two fully opened flowers.
c. Number of days from flowering to pod setting. This was taken by counting the
number of days from flowering until the pods were fully developed.
2. Growth Parameter
a. Height at maturity. This was recorded by measuring the height of ten sample
plants taken at random per treatment during the last harvest.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
10
b. Pod length. This was taken by measuring the length of the ten sample pods
taken per treatment.
c. Pod width. This was taken by measuring the width of the ten sample pods
taken per treatment.
3. Yield and Yield Components
a. Total marketable pods (kg/plot). This was the total weight of marketable pods
harvested at the end of cropping season.
b. Total non-marketable pods (kg/plot). This was the total weight of harvested
non- marketable pods which included those that are deformed and diseased damage.
c. Total yield (kg/15m2).This was the total weight of harvested pods per plot.
d. Number of harvest. This was taken by recording the number of harvest from
the first up to the last harvest.
e. Total number of harvested pods. This was taken by recording the number of
pods produced from the ten sample plants per treatment at the end of the cropping season.
f. Computed yield (t/ha). This was the total yield per hectare based on the yield
per plot. It was computed using the formula:
Computed yield = yield (Kg/ plot) x 10,000
4. Pest and disease occurrence
a. Pest Infestation (leaf miner and pod borers). This was determined by using the
following scale (Teng1987):
Scale Description Remarks
1
No Damage
Highly resistant
2
1-25% infestation
Mildly resistant
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
11
3
26-50% infestation Moderately
resistant
4
51-75% infestation
Moderately susceptible
5
76-100% infestation
Very susceptible
b. Disease infection (powdery mildew). This was determined by using the
following scale (Buena, 2004):
Scale Description Remarks
1
No Damage
Highly resistant
2 1-25%
infestation
Mildly
resistant
3 26-50%
infestation
Moderately resistant
4 51-75%
infestation
Moderately
susceptible
5
76-100% infestation
Very susceptible
5. Other data
a. Return on cash expenses. This was computed using the formula:
ROCE = Gross Income – Production Cost x 100
Production Cost
Data Analysis
All quantitative data was subjected to the analysis of variance using the split plot
design with three replications. Significance of difference among treatments was tested
using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 5% level of significance.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Soil Analysis Before Planting and After Harvest
Table 1 presents the pH and nutrient content of the soil before and after planting.
The pH of the soil increased to nearly neutral pH and the organic matter content of the
soil also increased. There was a remarkable increase on the phosphorus and potassium
contents of the soil after the conduct of the study.
This noted increase in soil pH, percent OM, phosphorus and potassium after
harvest may be due to the application of mushroom compost, sunflower compost juice
and EM1. This noted improvement on the soil was favorable to the crop, since the pH
requirement of the plant is in between 6-7. It also helped in suppressing soil borne
diseases that usually thrives in low pH soils.
Agro-climatic Data
Table 2 shows the temperature, relative humidity, amount of rainfall and sunshine
duration during the conduct of the study. Temperature ranged from 13.4˚C to 25.2˚C.
Mean relative humidity was 55.69% while rainfall amount recorded was 2.88 mm. Total
sunshine ranged from 304.6 to 3.87 Kj.
Table 1. Soil pH, Organic Matter, Phosphorus, and Potassium before planting and after
harvest
pH
OM %
P (ppm)
K(ppm)
Before planting
6.5
0.63
109
215
After harvest
With EM1
6.9
0.82
300
308
Without EM1
6.9
0.76
164
300
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
13
Garden pea is a temperate crop which grows best in areas with 10˚C-25˚C and
with good relative humidity throughout the season. Highest percentage of seed
emergence can be expected in October planting when sufficient moisture favors
germination. This planting period produces more yield and attractive pods due to the
relatively lower temperature that prevails during the growing and flowering stage (Dayag,
1980).
Table 2. Temperature, relative humidity, amount of rainfall and sunshine duration during
the conduct of the study
MONTHS TEMPERATURE
RELATIVE
RAINFALL
SUNSHINE
˚C
HUMIDITY
AMOUNT
DURATION
MAX MIN
(%)
(mm)
(Kj)
November
25.2 16.20
75.20
3.10
304.60
December
24.4 13.60
82.00
0.10
369.80
January
24.6
13.40
85.00
0.03
349.00
February
24.5 14.05
85.25
3.45
387.20
Mean
24.7 15.67
55.69
2.88
364.04
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
14
Table 3. Number of days from sowing to emergence, from emergence to first flowering
and from flowering to pod setting of garden pea accessions applied with EM1
TREATMENT
NUMBER OF DAYS FROM
SOWING TO
EMERGENCE FLOWERING
EMERGENCE
TO FIRST
TO POD
FLOWERING
SETTING
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
with EM1
8
48
8
without EM1
8
49
8
GARDEN PEA ACCCESIONS
(GPA)
CLG
8a
50cb
7a
CLG 110
7a
49ab
9b
CGP 116
8a
52c
9b
CGP 34
10b
51bc
9b
CGP 18-A
7a
40a
8ab
PT x GPA
ns
ns
*
CV a (%)
8.98
1.06
11.28
CV b (%)
5.02
1.61
9.40
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Days to Emergence
Effect of EM1. Application and no application of EM1 treatment did not show a
significant effect on the number of days from sowing to emergence. Untreated and treated
plants emerged eight days after sowing (Table 3).
Effect of accessions. CGP 110 and CGP 18-A were the first to emerge at 7 days
after sowing, followed by CLG and CGP116 while CGP 34 was the last to emerge. This
was probably due to the condition when the seeds were sown; it rained heavily afterward
compacting the soil and covered the seeds with thick soil.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
15
Interaction effect. EM1 treatment and the garden pea accessions had no significant
interaction on the number of days from sowing to emergence.
Days from Emergence to First Flowering
Effect of EM1. There was no significant difference observed on the plants
untreated and treated with EM1 on the number of days from emergence to first flowering
(Table 3).
Effect of accession. There were slight differences recorded on the number of days
from emergence to first flowering of the garden pea accessions. CGP 18-A was the
earliest to flower (40 DAE) while CGP 116 was the latest to bear flowers (52 DAE). This
is because each accession exhibit different genetic characteristics, those which flower
earlier is a descendant from Chinese garden pea which has early maturity (Benguet
Technoguide for Gardenpea, 1985).
Interaction effect. There was no significant interaction among the treatments
observed.
Number of Days from Flowering to Pod setting
Effect of EM1. As shown in Table 3, application and non-application of EM1 on
the garden pea accessions had no significant effect on pod setting. Both treatments
developed pods eight days after flowering.
Effect of accession. There were significant differences observed on pod setting of
the garden pea accessions tested. CLG was the earliest to form pods, followed by CGP
18-A and CGP 110, CGP 116 and CGP 34 were the latest to flower. These differences
were also due to their different genetic make-up. This also corroborates with the result of
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
16
the evaluation conducted by Gawidan in 2006, which revealed that CLG and CGP 18-A
set pod earlier than the other entries evaluated.
Interaction effect. Statistics shows that there was a significant interaction between
application of EM1 and the accessions (Fig.1). The plants (e.g. CLG) applied with EM1
set pod one day earlier than those plants not applied with EM1. This has something to do
with the introduction of additional beneficial microorganisms to the soil which may have
enhanced the availability of nutrients present in the soil for easier absorption by the
plants.
10
9
8
g
t
i
n
7
set
d
6
o
p
o
5
w/EM1
4
w/oEM1
ays t
f
d
3
.
o
o
No pod setting
2
1
0
No. of days t
CLG
CGP 110
CGP 116
CGP 34
CGP 18-A
Accessions
Accessions
Figure 1. Interaction effect of EM1 application and garden pea accessions on the
number of days from flowering to pod setting
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
17
Height of Garden Pea
Effect of EM1. Table 4 shows the height of the plant at maturity. There were no
significant differences observed as an effect of application and non-application of EM1 on
the height of garden pea at 100 DAP.
Effect of accessions. There was a highly significant difference among the garden
pea accessions observed. Accession CGP 116 was the tallest (131.167cm) followed by
CLG and CGP 34. Accession CGP 18-A and CGP 110 were the shortest. This results
corroborates with the evaluation conducted by Lynette Gawidan (2006) wherein CGP 18-
A was the shortest among the ten accessions evaluated.
Interaction effect. There was no significant interaction observed between the
application of EM1 and accessions on plant height.
Number of Harvest
Effect
EM1. There were no significant differences observed on the application and
non-application of EM1 on the garden pea accessions. Remarkably higher number of
harvest is recorded on the plants applied with EM1. This may be because the plants
applied with EM1 were slightly taller than the untreated ones (Table 5).
Effect of accession. Table 5 shows that the accessions were significantly different
in terms of the number of harvest. Accession CGP 116, CGP 34 and CLG recorded the
highest number of harvest (6x). Accession CGP 110 and CGP 18-A had the least number
of harvests. This was due to the severe occurrence of powdery mildew on CGP 18-A and
CGP 110 which may have suppressed further flowering.
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction noted between the
application of EM1 and the accession on the number of harvest.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
18
Table 4. Plant height of garden pea accessions applied with EM1 at 100 DAP
TREATMENT
PLANT HEIGHT
(cm)
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
with EM1
124.73
without EM1
113.13
GARDEN PEA ACCESSIONS (GPA)
CLG
121.17b
CGP 110
105.50c
CGP 116
131.17a
CGP 34
126.50ab
CGP 18-A
110.33c
PT x GPA
ns
CV a(%)
6.45
CV b(%)
1.78
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Number of Pods per Plant
Effects of EM1. There was no significant difference noted on the number of pods
produced per plant as an effect of application and non-application of EM1 (Table 5).
Effect of accession. Significant difference was noted among the five garden pea
accessions in the total number of pods produced per plant (Table 5). Accession CGP 116
and CLG obtained the highest number of pods per plant while CGP 18-A and CGP 110
registered the lowest pods produced per plant. It was observed that accession CGP 116
and CGP 34 had two flowers per cluster but are now significantly different on the number
of pods per plant.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction between the application of EM1 and
the different garden pea accession was noted on the number of pods per plant.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
19
Table 5. Number of harvest and total number of pods per plant of garden pea accessions
applied with EM1
TREATMENT NUMBER
OF
NUMBER OF PODS
HARVEST
PER PLANT
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
with EM1
6
23
without EM1
5
21
GARDEN PEA ACCESSION (GPA)
CLG
6a
26a
CGP110
5b
17c
CGP116
6a
27a
CGP34
6a
24b
CGP18-A
5b
16c
PT x GPA
ns
ns
CV a (%)
6.06
6.06
CV b (%)
13.61
13.61
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Pod Length
Effect of EM1. Table 6 shows that no significant difference was noted on the pod
length as affected by application and non-application of an effect of EM1.
Effect of accession. There was a highly significant difference noted among the
accessions in their pod length. CGP 18-A had the longest pod while CLG registered the
shortest pod (Table 6).
Interaction
effect. A highly significant interaction effect was noted on the
application of EM1 and garden pea accessions (Fig.2). Longer pods were produced by
accessions CGP 18-A, CGP 34 and CGP 110 as affected by EM1 application. This can be
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
20
attributed to the microorganisms present in EM1, particularly their ability to enhance
photosynthetic capacity of the crops.
Table 6. Pod length and width of garden pea accessions applied with EM1
TREATMENT POD
LENGTH (cm)
WIDTH (cm)
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
with EM1
7.68
1.41a
without EM1
7.54
1.36b
GARDEN PEA ACCESSION (GPA)
CLG
7.11d
1.36b
CGP110
7.33cd
1.35b
CGP116
7.61bc
1.54a
CGP34
7.81b
1.29c
CGP18-A
8.19a
1.39b
PT x GPA
**
**
CV a (%)
2.31
2.27
CV b (%)
2.32
0.87
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
9
8
7
h
6
th
g
5
w/EM1
e
ngt
e
n
l
w/oEM1
d l
d
4
Po
Po
3
2
1
0
CLG
CGP 110
CGP 116
CGP 34
CGP 18-A
Ac
cessions
Accessions
Figure 2. Interaction of EM1 application and garden pea accessions on the length of
pods
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
21
Pod Width
Effect of EM1. There was a significant difference noted on the width of the pods
as an effect of the application and non- application of EM1 (Table 6). The pods produced
by the plants applied with EM1 exhibited wider pods in comparison with the pods
produced by the plants not applied with EM1. This difference may be attributed to the
microorganisms introduced to the soil. The plants applied with EM1 were also
significantly taller and more vigorous than the plants not applied with EM1.
Effect of accession. Table 6 shows that a highly significant difference was shown
on the pod width of the garden pea accessions. Accession CGP 116 had the widest pods
while the narrowest pods were measured on accession CGP 34.
Interaction effect. A highly significant interaction on the application of EM1 and
garden pea accessions was noted (Fig.3). An increase on pod width was observed on
accessions CLG, CGP 116 and CGP 18-A as an effect of the application of EM1. These
findings imply that accessions CLG, CGP 116 and CGP 18-A applied with EM1 may
result in wider pods.
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
t
h
1
i
d
w/EM1
thd W 0.8
w/oEM1
idPo
w 0.6
Pod 0.4
0.2
0
CLG
CGP 110
CGP 116
CGP 34
CGP 18-A
Accessions
Accessions
Figure 3. Interaction of EM1 application and garden pea accessions on the width of
pods
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
22
Reaction to Powdery Mildew
Effect of EM1. Table 7 shows the response of the accessions to powdery mildew
as affected by EM1 application. No significant difference was observed on the two
treatments since both had a rating of moderate resistance to powdery mildew.
Effect of accession. It was observed that all accessions were moderately resistant
to powdery mildew, except accession CGP 34 which was moderately susceptible to the
disease. This can be attributed to the plant characteristic, it was observed that CGP 34
had a softer stem texture when compared to CLG.
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction noted on EM1 application
and the garden pea accessions in their response to powdery mildew. Results showed
moderate resistance to moderately susceptible response.
Reaction to Pod Borer
Effect of EM1. There was no significant response noted as an effect of application
and non- application of EM1 on pod borer occurrence (Table 7).
Effect of accession. Table 7 shows the response of the accessions to pod borer. It
was noted that there was a significant difference manifested by the accessions on pod
borer incidence. Four accessions were moderately resistant while CGP 34 was
moderately susceptible to pod borer.
Interaction effect. No significant interaction was observed on pod borer
occurrence as an effect of EM1 application and garden pea accessions.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
23
Table 7. Reaction to powdery mildew and pod borer incidence of the garden pea
accessions applied with EM1
TREATMENT
PEST RATING _____ __
POWDERY MILDEW POD BORER
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
with EM1
3
3
without EM1
3
3
GARDEN PEA ACCESSION (GPA)
CLG
3b
3b
CGP110
3b
3b
CGP116
3b
3b
CGP34
4a
4a
CGP18-A
3b
3b
PT x GPA
ns
ns
CV a (%)
6.06
6.06
CV b (%)
13.61
13.61
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Rating scale: 1 highly resistant, 2 mildly resistant, 3 moderately resistant,4 moderately
susceptible,5 very susceptible
Weight of Marketable Pods
Effect of EM1. There was a significant difference noted on the weight of the
marketable pods harvested as a result of application and non-application of EM1 (Table
7). Plants applied with EM1 produced higher marketable pods. This may be attributed to
the higher number of harvest and pods harvested per plant of garden peas.
Effect of accession. The accessions significantly differed in their harvested
marketable pods. Accession CGP 116 produced the highest weight of marketable pods
among the five accessions, followed by CGP 34 and CGP 18-A which had comparable
weights of marketable pods. Meanwhile accession CGP 110 produced the least
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
24
marketable pods. This result is with reference to their pod length and width. It was
observed that CGP 116 and CGP 18-A and CGP 34 produced bigger and heavier pods in
comparison to the pods produced by CLG and CGP 110 (Table 7).
Interaction effect. The interaction between the EM1 treatment and the accessions
were not significant on the marketable pods harvested.
Weight of Non-marketable Pods
Effect of EM1. The table shows that there was no significant difference noted on
the non-marketable pods harvested as an effect of EM1 application. Plants applied with
EM1 had a higher non-marketable pods harvested.
Effect of accessions. The different garden pea accessions had a highly significant
difference on the weight of non-marketable pods produced. Accession CGP 116 had the
highest non-marketable pods harvested, followed by CGP 34 (Table 8).
Interaction effect. No interaction effect was realized on the weight of non-
marketable pods harvested as affected by EM1 application and garden pea accessions.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
25
Table 8. Pod yield of garden pea accessions applied and not applied with EM1
TREATMENT
TOTAL WEIGHT OF (g)
NON-
MARKETABLE
MARKETABLE
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
With EM1
185.53a
642.87
Without EM1
156.07b
560.33
GARDEN PEA ACCESSION (GPA)
CLG
151.50bc
604.17b
CGP110
122.33c
443.17c
CGP116
217.50a
806.17a
CGP34
181.83b
654.83b
CGP18-A
180.83b
499.67c
PT x GPA
ns
ns
CV a (%)
10.18
12.05
CV b (%)
11.71
8.03
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Total and Computed Yield
Effect of EM1. Table 9 showed the total and computed yield of garden pea
accessions applied with EM1. There were no significant differences noted on the total and
computed yield as an effect of application and non-application of EM1. Although plants
applied with EM1 had higher total and computed yield. The recorded yield represents the
first six harvest of the garden pea.
Effect of accessions. The different garden pea accessions exhibited highly
significant differences on their total and computed yield. Accession CGP 116 which had
the highest pod count also registered the highest weight of marketable and non-
marketable pods.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
26
Interaction effect. There was no significant interaction observed between the
application of EM1 and the accessions in terms of their total and computed yield.
Table 9. Total and computed yield of garden pea accessions applied with EM1
TREATMENT YIELD
COMPUTED YIELD
(g/15 m2)
(tons/ ha)
EM1TREATMENT (PT)
With EM1
276.13
1.66
Without
EM1
238.80
1.43
GARDEN PEA ACCESSION (GPA)
CLG
251.89bc
1.51bc
CGP110
188.50d
1.13d
CGP116
341.22a
2.05a
CGP34
278.83b
1.67b
CGP18-A
226.83c
1.36c
PT x GPA
ns
ns
CV a (%)
12.10
11.58
CV b (%)
7.91
7.90
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)
Effect of EM1. Table 10 shows that plants applied with EM1 had higher total pod
yield and gross sales but had a lower net income and ROCE because of the added cost of
the EM1 applied. Plants not applied with EM1 had a higher net income and ROCE
although they had a lower pod yield since it had a lower total expense incurred.
Effect of accession. Accession CGP 116 recorded the highest total pod yield
among the five accessions, resulting to higher net income and ROCE. Meanwhile two
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
27
accessions realized a negative ROCE, namely CGP 110 and CGP 18-A. This was due to
the low marketable, non-marketable and total pod yield produced by the accessions.
Table 10. ROCE of growing garden pea accessions applied with EM1
TREATMENT YIELD
GROSS
TOTAL
NET
ROCE
(kg/15m2) SALES EXPENSES INCOME
(%)
(PhP)
EM1TREATMENT (PT)
With EM1
4.14
621
600
21
4
Without
EM1
3.58
537
400
87
19
ACCESSIONS (GPA)
CLG
1.51
226
210
26
12
CGP110
1.13
170
210
-40
-19
CGP116
1.00
307
210
97
46
CGP34
1.67
251
210
41
20
CGP18-A
1.36
204
210
-6
-3
*Total expenses include: land preparation, seeds, cost of mushroom compost and cost of
gasoline used in irrigation
* Priced at PhP 150/ kg (organic price) in the month of February 2009
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
28
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted to determine the growth and pod yield of the promising
garden pea accessions under organic production; determine the effect of EM1 on the
growth and yield of garden pea accessions; determine the interaction of the garden pea
accessions and EM1application and; determine the profitability of growing the different
garden pea accessions applied with EM1.
The garden pea accessions had slight differences on the number of days to
emergence. CGP 110 and CGP 18-A were the earliest to emerge. CGP 18-A was the
earliest to bear flower. CLG was the earliest to develop pods and produced the most
numerous pods per plant. Accession CGP 116 was the tallest of all the accessions, had
the widest pods and produced the highest marketable, non-marketable and total yield.
Plants applied with EM1 significantly had wider pods and higher marketable yield
than those not applied with EM1.
Result of the economic analysis showed a higher yield in the garden pea
accessions applied with EM1 but incurred higher total cost of production.
On the other hand, accession CGP 116 produced the highest yield and ROCE.
Accession CGP 34 and CLG also had comparable yields and ROCE.
EM1 application and the garden pea accessions interacted significantly only on the
number of days to flowering, length and width of the pods. While no significant
interaction was noted on the other vegetative and yield parameters gathered.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
29
Conclusions
Application
of
EM1 enhanced wider pods and marketable fresh pod yield of the
garden pea accessions.
Results showed that CGP 116 was found as the best accession under organic
production because of its wide pods, high fresh pod yield and ROCE, which exceeded the
ROCE of CLG (check).
Producing CGP 116 with or without application of EM1 may result to early pod
setting and longer and wider pods.
Although application of EM1 resulted to higher yield, growing garden peas
without EM1 application is still more profitable.
Recommendations
Based on the results, accession CGP116 is recommended for production under
organic management.
The recommended garden pea accessions can be grown organically with or
without EM1 application. Application of EM1 enhanced some beneficial effect on the
growth and yield performance of the plants; however it served only as an added expense.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
30
LITERATURE CITED
ANONYMOUS. 2005. Organicfarming. Accessed at http://www.yelworms.com/organic
farming/ benefit.html
BACOD. 2007. Effect of probiotics on the growth and yield of different potato
accessions. BS Thesis. Benguet State University. Pp. 35-37
BAUTISTA and MABESA. 1997. Vegetable Production. Revised edition. Los Baños,
Laguna. College of Agriculture. P 18
BRIONES. 1997. Sustainable Development through Organic Agriculture. Department
of Science and Technology. P. 18
BRADY, N. K. 1974. Nature and Properties of soil, New York: McMillan Pub. Co,
Inc. P. 685
DELA CRUZ, R. T. 2004. Growing Vegetables Organically. BAR - Research and
Development Digest. Bureau of Agricultural Research, Department
Of Agriculture. P. 1-2, 9
DIVER, S. KUEPPER. and G. SULLIVAN, P. 2001. Organic Corn Production.
Accessed at http://www.attra.ncat.org.
FAO-WHO, 2001. Probiotics: Consideration for Human Health nutrition. Accessed at
http//www.mesanders. com/ Probiotic definitions. html.
HIGHLAND AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER.1996.
Highland Potato Technoguide.(3rd ed.), La Trinidad Benguet.Pp.1-3
HIGA, T. and J. F.PARR.1994. Beneficial microorganism for a sustainable Agriculture
and Environment. International Nature Farming Research Center, Atami,
Japan Retrieved 03/26/09 from http//www.agriton. nl/html.
KEUPPER, G. 2002. Organic Soybean Production. Accessed at http://www.attra.org/
attar-pub/organic soy:html.
NORTHERN PHILIPPINE ROOT CROP RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
CENTER. 2005. Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet.
PAWAR, V. M. and S. PURI. 2005. Organic Farming. Accesed at In/agri /Extension/
html.Chapter 9.
SULLIVAN, P. 2003. Organic Rice Production. Accessed at http://www. Attar.org/attar
-pub/Rice.htm.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
31
SUNIL, 1990. Varietal Evaluation of the Promising lines and Path Coefficient analysis in
Pole Snap Beans. MS Thesis.Benguet State University La Trinidad Benguet.
SWAIDER, J. M. AND G. W. WARE. 2002. Producing Vegetable Crops. U.S.A. The
Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. Pp. 252-254
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
32
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Number of days from sowing to emergence of garden pea accessions
as affected by application of EM1
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
8
9
8
25
8.33
2.CGP 110
7
8
7
22
7.33
3.CGP 116
8
8
9
25
8.33
4.CGP 34
9
10
10
29
9.67
5.CGP 18-A
7
7
8
22
7.33
Sub Total
39
42
42
8.20
w/oEM1
1.CLG
8
8
8
24
8.00
2.CGP 110
7
7
7
21
7.00
3.CGP 116
9
8
8
25
8.33
4.CGP 34
10
10
10
30
10.00
5.CGP18-A
7
7
7
21
7.00
SUB TOTAL
41
40
40
8.07
GRAND TOTAL
8.14
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
33
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
8.33
8.00
16.33
8.17
2.CGP 110
7.33
7.00
14.33
7.17
3.CGP 116
8.33
8.33
16.66
8.33
4.CGP 34
9.67
10.00
19.67
9.84
5.CGP18-A
7.33
7.00
14.33
7.17
TOTAL
40.99 4.33 81.43
40.65
MEAN
8.20
8.07
8.14
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
Replication
2
0.27
0.13
EM1 (A)
1
0.13
0.13
0.25
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
1.07
0.53
Accessions (B)
4
28.80
7.20
43.20*
3.01 4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.53
0.13
0.80ns
3.01 4.77
Error (b)
16
2.67
0.17
TOTAL
29
33.47
ns – not significant
C.V. (A)% = 8.98
** - highly significant
C.V. (B)% = 5.02
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
34
Appendix Table 2. Number of Days from Emergence to First Flowering of garden pea
accessions as affected by application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
50
51
49
150
50.00
2.CGP 110
48
49
47
144
48.00
3.CGP 116
52
52
53
157
52.33
4.CGP 34
51
51
52
154
51.33
5.CGP 18-A
39
40
39
118
39.33
SUB TOTAL
240
243
240
48.20
w/oEM1
1.CLG
49
51
51
151
50.33
2.CGP 110
50
49
49
148
49.33
3.CGP 116
52
53
52
157
52.33
4.CGP 34
50
52
51
153
51.00
5.CGP18-A
40
40
41
121
40.33
SUB TOTAL
245
244
48.67
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
35
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
50.00
50.33
100.33
50.17
2.CGP 110
48.00
49.33
97.99
48.67
3.CGP 116
52.33
52.33
104.66
52.33
4.CGP 34
51.33
51.00
102.33
51.17
5.CGP18-A
39.33
40.33
79.66
39.83
TOTAL
240.99 243.32 484.97
MEAN 48.20
48.67
48.44
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATE D
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
Replication
2
2.467
1.233
EM1 (A)
1
1.633
1.633
7.0ns
18.51
98.49
Error (a)
2
0.467
0.233
Accessions (B)
4
598.200
149.550
245.83**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
2.867
0.717
1.18ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
9.733
0.608
TOTAL 29
615.367
ns – not significant
C.V. (A)% = 1.06
** - highly significant
C.V. (B)% = 1.61
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
36
Appendix Table 3: Number of days from flowering to pod setting of garden pea accession
as affected by application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
6
7
7
20
6.67
2.CGP 110
9
8
8
25
8.33
3.CGP 116
9
9
8
27
9.00
4.CGP 34
8
9
10
27
9.00
5.CGP 18-A
9
8
9
26
8.67
SUB TOTAL
41
41
41
41.67
w/oEM1
1.CLG
8
9
7
24
8.00
2.CGP 110
10
9
8
27
9.00
3.CGP 116
9
10
9
28
9.43
4.CGP 34
9
8
7
24
8.00
5.CGP18-A
7
7
8
22
7.33
SUB TOTAL
43
43
39
34.46
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
37
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
6.67
8.00
14.67
7b
2.CGP 110
8.33
9.00
17.33
9a
3.CGP 116
9.00
9.43
18.33
9a
4.CGP 34
9.00
8.00
17.00
9a
5.CGP18-A
8.67
7.33
16.00
8ab
TOTAL
41.67 41.76 83.33
MEAN 41.67ns
34.46b
38.07
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
Replication
2
0.60
0.30
EM1 (A)
1
0.03
0.03
0.04ns
18.51
9.49
Error (a)
2
1.67
0.83
Accessions (B)
4
10.13
2.53
4.16*
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
8.13
2.03
3.34*
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
9.73
0.61
TOTAL 29
30.30
ns – not significant
C.V. (A)% = 11.28
** - highly significant
C.V. (B) % = 9.40
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
38
Appendix Table 4. Height at maturity of garden pea accessions as affected by application
of EM1(cm)
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
122
132
134
388
129
2.CGP 110
109
112
108
329
110
3.CGP 116
136
144
134
414
138
4.CGP 34
122
132
134
388
129
5.CGP 18-A
116
121
115
352
117
SUB TOTAL
605
642
622
124.60
w/oEM1
1.CLG
118
113
108
339
113
2.CGP 110
112
101
91
304
101
3.CGP 116
125
124
124
373
124
4.CGP 34
124
128
119
371
124
5.CGP18-A
96
102
112
310
103
SUB TOTAL
568
554
113
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
39
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
WP WOP
1.CLG
129
113
242
121.00
2.CGP 110
110
101
211
105.50
3.CGP 116
138
124
262
131.00
4.CGP 34
129
124
253
126.50
5.CGP18-A
117
103
220
110.00
TOTAL
623
565
1,188
MEAN 124.6
113
237.60
118.80
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
Replication
2
58.07
29.03
EM1 (A)
1
1009.20
1009.20
17.13ns
Error (a)
2
117.80
58.90
Accessions (B)
4
2797.87
699.47
21.62**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
117.47
29.37
0.91ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
517.47
32.34
TOTAL 29
30.30
ns – not significant
C.V. (A)% = 6.45
** - highly significant
C.V. (B) % = 4.78
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
40
Appendix Table 5.Number of harvest of garden pea accessions as affected by application
of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
6
5
6
17
6
2.CGP 110
5
6
4
15
5
3.CGP 116
6
6
6
18
6
4.CGP 34
6
6
6
18
6
5.CGP 18-A
6
5
4
15
5
SUB TOTAL
29
28
26
83
5.6
w/oEM1
1.CLG
6
5
5
16
5
2.CGP 110
5
4
4
13
4
3.CGP 116
6
6
5
17
6
4.CGP 34
6
5
5
16
5
5.CGP18-A
5
5
4
14
5
SUB TOTAL
28
24
23
76
5
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
41
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
6
5
11
5.5
2.CGP 110
5
4
9
4.5
3.CGP 116
6
6
12
6.0
4.CGP 34
6
5
11
5.5
5.CGP18-A
5
5
10
5.0
TOTAL
28 25 53
MEAN 5.6
5.0
5.3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
3.20
1.60
EM1 (A)
1
1.63
1.63
12.25ns
18.51
98.4
9
Error (a)
2
0.27
0.13
Accessions (B)
4
6.47
1.62
5.71**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.20
0.50
0.18ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
4.53
0.28
TOTAL 29
16.30
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 6.88
* - significant
C.V. (B) % = 10.04
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
42
Appendix Table 6. Total number of harvested pods per plant of garden pea accessions
as affected by application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
29
26
23
78
26
2.CGP 110
21
14
16
51
17
3.CGP 116
27
30
28
85
28
4.CGP 34
25
26
22
73
24
5.CGP 18-A
15
18
15
50
17
Sub Total
117
114
104
337
22
w/oEM1
1.CLG
27
25
22
74
24
2.CGP 110
20
18
13
51
18
3.CGP 116
26
28
23
77
25
4.CGP 34
21
22
20
63
21
5.CGP18-A
16
15
13
44
15
Sub Total
110
108
91
309
21
GRAND TOTAL 227
222
195
21
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
43
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
26
24
50
25
2.CGP 110
17
18
35
17.5
3.CGP 116
28
25
53
26.5
4.CGP 34
24
21
45
22.5
5.CGP18-A
17
15
32
16
TOTAL
112 103 215
MEAN
21.5
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREED0M
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
8.47
4.233
EM1 (A)
1
8.53
8.533
13.47ns
18.51
98.4
9
Error (a)
2
1.27
0.633
Accessions (B)
4
20.80
5.200
9.31**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
1.47
0.367
0.66ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
8.93
0.558
TOTAL 29
49.47
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 13.56
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 12.74
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
44
Appendix Table 7. Pod length of garden pea accessions as affected by application of
EM1 (cm)
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
6.72
6.70
6.75
20.15
6.72
2.CGP 110
7.44
7.46
7.45
22.35
7.45
3.CGP 116
7.84
7.80
7.82
23.46
7.82
4.CGP 34
8.14
8.15
8.13
24.42
8.14
5.CGP 18-A
8.28
8.26
8.29
24.83
8.28
SUB TOTAL
38.42
38.37
38.42
7.68
w/oEM1
1.CLG
6.86
7.80
7.84
22.5
7.50
2.CGP 110
7.22
7.20
7.19
21.61
7.20
3.CGP 116
7.40
7.38
7.41
22.19
7.40
4.CGP 34
7.48
7.46
7.49
22.43
7.48
5.CGP18-A
8.10
8.14
8.12
24.36
8.12
SUB TOTAL
37.06
37.99
8.05
7.54
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
45
PT x GPA TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
6.72
7.50
14.22
7.11cd
2.CGP 110
7.45
7.20
14.65
7.33cd
3.CGP 116
7.82
7.40
15.25
7.61bc
4.CGP 34
8.14
7.48
15.60
7.81b
5.CGP18-A
8.28
8.12
16.40
8.20a
TOTAL
38.41 37.7 76.11
MEAN 7.68a
7.54b
7.61
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.06
0.030
EM1 (A)
1
0.15
0.153
4.87ns
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
0.06
0.031
Accessions (B)
4
4.28
1.071
34.43**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
1.81
0.452
14.54**
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
0.50
0.031
TOTAL 29
6.87
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 2.31
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 02.32
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
46
Appendix Table 8. Pod width of garden pea accessions as affected by application of
EM1(cm)
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
1.36
1.38
1.36
4.1
1.37
2.CGP 110
1.34
1.35
1.33
4.02
1.34
3.CGP 116
1.60
1.58
1.57
4.75
1.58
4.CGP 34
1.26
1.24
1.25
3.75
1.25
5.CGP 18-A
1.52
1.50
1.51
3.53
1.51
SUB TOTAL
7.08
7.05
7.02
20.15
1.41
w/oEM1
1.CLG
1.34
1.35
1.37
4.06
1.35
2.CGP 110
1.38
1.35
1.38
4.11
1.37
3.CGP 116
1.51
1.47
1.52
4.50
1.50
4.CGP 34
1.35
1.33
1.34
4.02
1.34
5.CGP18-A
1.28
1.25
1.26
3.79
1.26
SUB TOTAL
6.86
6.75
6.87
20.48
1.36
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
47
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
1.37
1.35
2.72
1.36b
2.CGP 110
1.34
1.37
2.71
1.36b
3.CGP 116
1.58
1.50
3.08
1.52a
4.CGP 34
1.25
1.34
2.59
1.30c
5.CGP18-A
1.51
1.26
2.77
1.39b
TOTAL
7.05
6.82
13.87
MEAN 1.41a
1.36b
1.39
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.01
0.01
EM1 (A)
1
0.02
0.01
26.56*
18.51
98.49
Error (a)
2
0.01
0.01
Accessions (B)
4
0.21
0.05
351.12**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.10
0.03
172.26**
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
0.02
0.00
TOTAL 29
0.32
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 2.27
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 0.87
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
48
Appendix Table 9. Reaction of the garden pea accessions to powdery mildew as affected
by application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
3
3
3
9
3
2.CGP 110
2
3
3
8
3
3.CGP 116
3
3
3
9
3
4.CGP 34
4
3
4
11
4
5.CGP 18-A
3
3
3
9
3
SUB TOTAL
15
15
16
46
3.2
w/oEM1
1.CLG
3
2
3
8
3
2.CGP 110
3
3
3
9
3
3.CGP 116
3
3
3
9
3
4.CGP 34
3
4
4
11
4
5.CGP18-A
2
2
3
7
2
SUB TOTAL
14
14
16
44
5
GRAND TOTAL 29
29
32
90
4.1
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
49
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
3
3
6
3.0
2.CGP 110
3
3
6
3.0
3.CGP 116
3
3
6
3.0
4.CGP 34
4
4
8
4.0
5.CGP18-A
3
2
5
2.5
TOTAL
16 15 31
MEAN 3.2
5.0
4.1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.60
0.30
EM1 (A)
1
0.13
0.13
4.00ns
18.51
98.49
Error (a)
2
0.07
0.03
Accessions (B)
4
3.67
0.92
5.50**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.87
0.22
1.30ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
2.67
0.17
TOTAL 29
8.0
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 6.06
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 13.61
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
50
Appendix Table 10. Pod borer infestation of the garden pea accessions as affected
by application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
3
3
3
9
3
2.CGP 110
2
3
3
8
3
3.CGP 116
3
3
3
9
3
4.CGP 34
4
3
4
11
4
5.CGP 18-A
3
3
3
9
3
SUB TOTAL
15
15
16
46
3.2
w/oEM1
1.CLG
3
2
3
8
3
2.CGP 110
3
3
3
9
3
3.CGP 116
3
3
3
9
3
4.CGP 34
3
4
4
11
4
5.CGP18-A
2
2
3
7
2
SUB TOTAL
14
14
16
44
5
GRAND TOTAL 29
29
32
90
4.1
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
51
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
3
3
6
3.0
2.CGP 110
3
3
6
3.0
3.CGP 116
3
3
6
3.0
4.CGP 34
4
4
8
4.0
5.CGP18-A
3
2
5
2.5
TOTAL
16 15 31
MEAN 3.2
5.0
4.1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTE
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
D F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.60
0.30
EM1 (A)
1
0.13
0.13
4.00ns
18.51
98.49
Error (a)
2
0.07
0.03
Accessions (B)
4
3.67
0.92
5.50**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.87
0.22
1.30ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
2.67
0.17
TOTAL 29
8.00
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 6.06
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 13.61
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
52
Appendix Table 11. Weight of Marketable pods/plot of garden pea accessions as
affected by application of EM1 (g/5m2)
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
134
151
182
468
156
2.CGP 110
121
123
157
401
134
3.CGP 116
225
277
253
755
251
4.CGP 34
160
248
219
627
209
5.CGP 18-A
192
168
173
533
178
Sub Total
832
967
984
185.60
w/oEM1
1.CLG
159
139
144
442
147
2.CGP 110
93
109
131
333
111
3.CGP 116
170
186
194
550
183
4.CGP 34
140
151
173
464
155
5.CGP18-A
185
193
174
550
183
Sub Total
747
778
816
56.00
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
53
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
156
147
303
151.50
2.CGP 110
134
111
243
122.50
3.CGP 116
251
183
436
218.0
4.CGP 34
209
155
364
182.00
5.CGP18-A
178
183
361
180.50
TOTAL 928
779
1709
928
MEAN 185.60
156.07
170.84
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTE
TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
D F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
Replication
2
2647.40
1323.70
EM1 (A)
1
6512.13
6512.13
21.53ns
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
604.87
302.43
Accessions (B)
4
30748.80
7687.20
19.10**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
5855.20
1463.80
3.64ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
6438.40
402.40
TOTAL 29
30.30
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 10.18
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 11.74
**- highly significant
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
54
Appendix Table 12. Weight of non-marketable pods/plot of garden pea accessions as
affected by application of EM1 (g/5m2)
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
643
710
684
2037
679
2.CGP 110
463
490
515
1468
489
3.CGP 116
835
856
780
2471
824
4.CGP 34
550
760
787
2097
699
5.CGP 18-A
490
520
560
1570
523
SUB TOTAL
2981
3336
3326
642.8
w/oEM1
1.CLG
568
525
495
1188
529
2.CGP 110
385
356
450
1191
397
3.CGP 116
760
810
796
2356
785
4.CGP 34
615
630
587
1832
611
5.CGP18-A
505
473
450
1428
476
SUB TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
55
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
679
529
1208
604.00
2.CGP 110
489
397
886
443.00
3.CGP 116
824
785
1609
804.50
4.CGP 34
699
611
1310
655.00
5.CGP18-A
523
476
999
499.5
TOTAL
3211 2798 6012
MEAN 642.8
559.6
601.2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
6154.40
3077.20
EM1 (A)
1
51088.13
51088.13
9.72ns
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
10509.07
5254.53
Accessions (B)
4
481076.53 120269.13
51.56**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
12202.53
3050.63
1.31ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
37320.53
2332.53
TOTAL 29
598351.2
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 12.05
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 8.03
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
56
Appendix Table 13. Total yield of garden pea accessions as affected by application of
EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
777
861
866
2504
835
2.CGP 110
584
613
672
1869
623
3.CGP 116
1060
1133
1033
3226
1075
4.CGP 34
710
1008
1006
2724
908
5.CGP 18-A
682
688
733
2103
701
SUB TOTAL
3813
4303
4310
12426
4142
w/oEM1
1.CLG
727
664
639
2030
677
2.CGP 110
478
465
581
1524
508
3.CGP 116
930
996
990
2916
972
4.CGP 34
755
781
760
2296
765
5.CGP18-A
690
666
624
1980
660
SUB TOTAL
3580
3572
3594
10746
3582
GRAND TOTAL 7393
7875
7904
23172
7724
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
57
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
2504
677
3181
1591
2.CGP 110
1869
508
2377
1189
3.CGP 116
3226
972
4198
2099
4.CGP 34
2724
765
3489
1745
5.CGP18-A
2103
660
2763
1382
TOTAL 12426
3582
3181
MEAN
2485
716
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
16476.20
8238.10
EM1 (A)
1
94080.00
94080.00
11.72ns
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
16050.60
8025.30
Accessions (B)
4
712790.20
178197.55
47.78**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
12272.33
3068.08
0.82ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
59677.87
3729.87
TOTAL 29
6.87
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 12.40
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 7.91
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
58
Appendix Table 14. Computed Yield (tons/ha) of garden pea accessions as affected by
application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
1.55
1.72
1.73
5.01
1.67
2.CGP 110
1.17
1.23
1.34
3.74
1.25
3.CGP 116
2.12
2.27
2.07
6.43
2.15
4.CGP 34
1.42
2.02
2.01
5.45
1.82
5.CGP 18-A
1.36
1.38
1.47
4.21
1.40
SUB TOTAL
7.63
8.61
8.62
24.85
8.28
w/o EM1
1.CLG
1.45
1.33
1.29
4.06
1.35
2.CGP 110
956
.93
1.16
3.05
1.02
3.CGP 116
1.86
1.99
1.98
5.83
1.94
4.CGP 34
1.51
1.56
1.52
4.59
1.53
5.CGP18-A
1.38
1.33
1.25
3.96
1.32
SUB TOTAL
7.16
7.14
7.19
21.49
7.16
GRAND TOTAL 14,786
15,786 15,808 46,344 15,448
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
59
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
5.01
4.06
9.07
4.53
3.74
3.05
6.79
3.39
2.CGP 110
6.45
5.83
12.28
6.14
3.CGP 116
5.45
4.59
10.04
5.02
4.CGP 34
4.21
3.96
8.166
4.53
5.CGP18-A
TOTAL 24.85
21.49
9.07
MEAN 4.790
4.298
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.066
0.033
EM1 (A)
1
0.375
0.375
11.60ns
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
0.065
0.032
Accessions (B)
4
2.854
0.713
47.97**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.049
0.012
0.83ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
0.238
0.015
TOTAL 29
6.867
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 11.58
* - significant
C.V. (B) % = 7.90
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
60
Appendix Table 15. Return on cash expense
Treatment Yield Gross
Total
Net income
ROCE
(g/15m2)
Sales (PhP)
Expenses
(%)
(15m2)
w/EM1
1. CLG
835
125.25
120
5.25
4.38
2. CGP 110
623
93.45
120
-26.55
-22.13
3. CGP 116
1,075
161.25
120
41.25
34.38
4. CGP 34
908
136.20
120
16.20
13.50
5. CGP 18-A
701
105.15
120
-48.85
-12.38
w/oEM1
1. CLG
677
101.55
90
11.55
12.83
2. CGP 110
508
76.20
90
-13.80
-15.33
3. CGP 116
972
145.80
90
55.80
62.00
4. CGP 34
765
114.75
90
24.75
27.50
5. CGP 18-A
660
99
90
9.00
10.00
*Total expenses include: land preparation, seeds, cost of mushroom compost and cost of
gasoline used in irrigation
* Priced at PhP 150/ kg (organic price) in the month of February 2009
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
OSSOG, LESTER F. APRIL 2010. Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions
applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1) in La Trinidad, Benguet. Benguet State
University, La Trinidad Benguet.
Adviser: Guerzon A. Payangdo,MSc
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to determine the effect of EM1 on the growth and yield
of garden pea accessions, the growth and pod yield of the promising garden pea
accessions under organic production, the interaction of garden pea accessions and EM1
application, and the profitability of growing different garden pea accessions applied with
EM1.
The garden pea accessions significantly differed with each other in terms of
height, number of days from emergence to flowering, number of pods per plant, pod
length and width and pod yield. Accession CGP 116 produced the tallest plants and
highest pod yield resulting to higher ROCE.
Application of EM1 significantly affected pod width and weight of marketable
pods of the different accessions.
EM1 application and the garden pea accession had significant interaction effect on
the number of days from flowering to pod setting, pod length and width of the garden pea
accessions.
Plants untreated with EM1 and accession CGP 116 obtained the highest fresh pod
yield and ROCE.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography…………………………………………………………... i
Abstract………… ……………………………………………………...
i
Table of Contents .……………………………………………………..
ii
INTRODUCTION……………………………………………………. 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE…………………………………………
4
MATERIALS AND METHODS……………………………………..
9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Soil Analysis of the Area
Before Planting and
after Harvest…………………………………………………...
12
Agro-climatic Data…………………………………………….
12
Days to Emergence……………………………………………
14
Days from Emergence to First Flowering……………………..
15
Days from Flowering to Pod Setting…………………………..
15
Plant Height……………………………………………………
17
Number of Harvest……………………………………………….
16
Number of Pods per Plant………………………………………...
18
Pod Length………………………………………………………..
19
Pod Width………………………………………………………...
21
Disease Infection (Powdery Mildew)…………………………….
22
ii
Pest Infestation (Pod Borer)……………………………………...
22
Weight of Marketable pods……………………………………...
23
Weight of Non-Marketable Pods…………………………………
24
Total Yield……………………………………………………......
25
Computed Yield………………………………………………......
25
Return on Cash Expense………………………………………….
27
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………
28
Summary…………………………………………………………. 27
Conclusions………………………………………………………. 28
Recommendations……………………………………………....... 28
LITERATURE CITED……………………………………………………
29
APPENDICES……………………………………………………………. 31
iii
1
INTRODUCTION
In the Philippines particularly in Benguet, garden pea (Pisum sativum) is one of
the top money making crop cultivated. Demand for this crop is great due to its food
value, industrial and agricultural needs and importance. Green pods are prepared as
vegetable food; the seeds are processed into canned products, while the byproducts and
vines are used as animal feed (Swiader and Ware, 2002).
At present, garden pea production is still short of demand due to many reasons.
First, there are few farmers engaging in garden pea production because of high
production costs, resulting to very low profit. This is attributed by the rapid
multiplication of major insect pests and diseases of the crop and the continuous increase
in the prices of commercial fertilizers and chemicals used to control these problems that
ordinary farmers can hardly afford.
Thus, finding an alternative way to reduce cost of inputs in garden pea production
and bringing back to life the sick soil must be done. Organic farming promotes the use of
natural inputs and effective cropping and farming system to reduce the production inputs.
The practice is less costly and is environment friendly.
One practice in organic farming is the use of resistant varieties against diseases and
insects. The garden pea accession which was used in this study were evaluated through
the conventional way of farming. A need to evaluate these garden pea accessions under
organic production is also important. On the other hand, a means of sustaining the
soil nutrients has been developed and found significant. This is the use of effective
microorganisms (EM1) which when present in the soil can give numerous benefits to
crops. These microorganisms work harmoniously with beneficial microorganisms to
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
2
produce enzymes, bioactive substances, and vitamins that support plant growth directly
or indirectly. One typical example is the Vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhiza, which can
supply phosphate to plants and will breed and co-exist with azotobacter. Garden pea can
host this effective microorganism thereby increasing their population in the soil and in
return improving growth and yield performance of the plant.
The result of the study if successful and found significant will be introduced to
farmers to help them lessen their production input and make garden pea production more
sustainable.
The study was conducted to:
1. determine the growth and pod yield of the promising garden pea accessions at
La Trinidad, Benguet;
2. determine the effect of EM1 on the growth and yield of the garden pea
accessions;
3. determine the interaction of the garden pea accessions and EM1 application;
and
4. determine the profitability of growing the different garden pea accessions
applied with EM1.
The study was conducted at BSU Organic farm, from November 2008 to February
2009.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Importance of Variety Evaluation for Organic Farming
Varietal evaluation is a process in Plant Breeding which provides a comparison of
promising lines developed by breeders. It is through varietal evaluation that a breeder
selects the best performing variety among the developed lines in terms of yield, quality,
adaptability, stress, tolerance and resistance to pest and diseases (Sunil, 1990).
Bautista and Mabesa (1997) cited that selecting the right variety would minimize
problem associated with water and fertilizer management. Varieties should be high
yielding, pest and disease resistant and early maturing so that production would entail
less expense and ensure more profit.
HARRDEC (1996) further cited that varietal evaluation is important in order to
observe performance character such as yield, earliness, vigor, maturity and keeping
quality because different varieties have wide range of differences in plant size and in
yield performance. However the varieties to be selected should be high yielding, insect
and disease resistant and early maturing. There is variation in the yielding ability of the
different varieties when grown under the same method of culture. A variety that yields
well in one region is not a guarantee that it will perform well in another region, in
addition, choosing variety that is most suited to the prevailing climatic condition.
Definition and Importance of organic farming
Briones (1997) defined organic farming as whole system approach that works to
optimize the natural fertility resources of the farm. This is done through traditional
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
4
practices of recycling farm-produced livestock manures, composting, crop rotation, and
green manuring and crop residue management.
“Organic farming like all various forms of sustainable agriculture such as organic
agriculture, biodynamic agriculture and natural way of farming share a concern for the
health and welfare of the farmer in the future. A way of farming that avoids the use of
synthetic fertilizers as well as genetically modified organisms (GMO’s), and usually
subscribe the principles of sustainable agriculture. Organic farming management relies on
developing biological diversity in the field to disrupt habitat for pest’s organisms, and
replenishment of soil fertility. While they have different practices they are guided with
the seven principles of sustainable agriculture; ecologically sound, economic viability,
socially just, cultural sensitivity, appropriate technology, holistic science, and human
development”.
NPRCRTC (1998), stated that organic farming methods are practical ways to
increase yield, conserve the soil, and maintain the water quantity and lower operating
costs. Organic farms produce the same amount yield of the same quality for the same
costs as conventional farms of the same size. Moreover, organic farm are relatively free
from the possible toxicities to soil and to flora and fauna in general.
In addition (Keupper, 2002), claimed that crop rotation, cover cropping, green
manuring, use of livestock manure and composting are all soil building practices that do
much more than provide Nitrogen, By adding organic matter and stimulating biological
activity in the soil, these practices make mineral nutrients more available to plants,
generate the microbial production of plant beneficial chemicals and improve soil tilth.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
5
Spreading livestock manure in particular cycles essential macro and micro nutrients back
onto the field.
Anonymous (2005), further reported that, according to the research of the team
led by Pad Madera organic farms can nearly as productive as regular farms for some
crops, and they leave soils healthier. Organic soil management improves soil structure by
increasing soil activity, thus reducing the risk of soil erosion. In addition to advantages in
soil fertility management, organic farming enhances biodiversity. Organic management
results in farms hosting more kinds of beneficial insects.
EM1 Defined
“EM1 are live microorganisms which when administered in adequate amounts
confer a health benefit on the host”. This definition has the following characteristics;
probiotic must be alive, must be delivered a measured Physiological benefit.
Use of EM1
While soils are populated by many organisms such as animals and
microorganisms, it is generally considered that microorganism play an important roles in
soil. The recycling of key nutrients and for degrading organic matter and even the
Oxygen us breath is the result of microbial activity (FAO-WHO, 2001).
One of the promising products of biotechnology is the effective microorganisms
(EM1) technology developed by Professor Teruo Higa in 1994, University of the Ryukus,
Okinawa Japan. Effective microorganisms consist of mixed cultures of beneficial and
naturally occurring microorganisms that can be applied as inoculants to increase the
microbial diversity of soils and plants. Research has shown that the inoculation of EM1
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
6
cultures to the soil, plant ecosystem improve soil quality, soil health and the growth, yield
and quality of crops. Effective microorganisms contain selected species of
microorganisms including predominant population of lactic bacteria, yeast and smaller
numbers of photosynthetic bacteria/ actinomycetes and other types of microorganisms.
All of these are mutually compatible with one another and can co- exist in liquid culture.
Effective microorganisms is no substitute for other management practices as crop
rotations, use of organic amendments, conservation tillage, crop residue recycling and
biocontrol pests. If used properly, effective microorganisms can significantly enhance the
beneficial effects of these practices (Higa and Parr, 1994).
Crop protection in Organic Farming
Pest control in organic farming involves a lot of strategy, these includes the
various cropping systems such as crop rotation, multiple cropping, mixed cropping and
diversification. The used of pesticide is strictly prohibited. An organic farmer relies on
the diverse population of beneficial insects that helps in maintaining the pest population.
Organic growers also employ natural control on insects through the technique which is
known as Integrated Pest control (IPM). It involves handpicking, use of repellants and the
use of Organic pesticides or botanical extracts (Pawar, 2005).
Soybeans, according to Keupper (2002), organic soybeans are best grown in
rotation with other several crops that ideally compensate for one another. Organic
production is further enhanced when livestock enterprises that involve grazing and
generate manure are also part of the system. It was found that a good crop rotation with
proper fertility management appears to suppress most soybean pest problems in organic
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
7
production. Rotating to non-host crops and integrating nematicidal crops into the crop
mix have proved effective to control nematodes.
Rice, according to Sullivan (2003), leguminous green manure crops can supply 30
to 50 percent of Nitrogen needs of high yielding rice varieties depending on the quality,
quantity and type of green manure crop.
Corn, according to Diver et al. (2001), the production of the sweet corn was
improved when the field was intercropped with white clover as living mulch. White
clover was mutilated or not tilled with the middle fines removed, leaving strips of clover
growing between the corn rows.
According to Dela Cruz (2004), crops that were applied with animal manure
performed better compared to those crops that were grown with commercial organic
fertilizer. The slow released of nutrients of the animal manure minimizes the nutrient
losses in the soil resulting the efficient uptake.
Bacod (2007) evaluated the effect of probiotics on the growth and yield of
different potato accessions under organic production. He revealed as for economic
analysis, plants not applied with probiotics obtained higher return on cash expense
(ROCE). So he concluded that potatoes can be grown organically either with or without
application of probiotics.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An area of 120 m2 was thoroughly prepared and divided into three blocks
representing the three replications. Each block contained 10 plots measuring 1m x 5m.
The plots were applied with mushroom compost as basal fertilizer at the rate of 5kg/5m2
plot. The compost was mixed thoroughly with the soil.
Planting was done one week after application with three seeds sown per hill at a
distance of 20 cm between rows and 15 cm between hills. Soil samples were taken before
the application of mushroom compost and after harvesting for soil analysis. Sunflower
compost juice was applied uniformly three weeks after emergence and two weeks before
flowering.
All necessary practices employed in garden pea production were properly
implemented from planting until harvest.
EM1 was mixed with water and applied to the plots uniformly through spraying. It
was applied three times before planting, two weeks after emergence and before
flowering.
The experiment was laid out following split-plot design with three replications.
EM1 treatment was assigned as the main plot and the five accessions of garden pea as
subplots.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
9
The treatments were as follows:
Main Plot
with EM1 - applied with EM1
without EM1- no application of EM1
Sub Plot (Garden Pea Accession)
Source
1
CLG
BSU-IPB-HCRS
2
CGP 11O
BSU-IPB-HCRS
3
CGP 116
BSU-IPB-HCRS
4
CGP 34
BSU-IPB-HCRS
5
CGP 18-A
BSU-IPB-HCRS
Data Gathered
1. Maturity
a. Number of days from sowing to emergence. This was taken when 80% of the
seeds have emerged.
b. Number of days from emergence to first flowering. This was recorded by
counting the number of days from the emergence to the time when 50% of the plants in
the plot had at least two fully opened flowers.
c. Number of days from flowering to pod setting. This was taken by counting the
number of days from flowering until the pods were fully developed.
2. Growth Parameter
a. Height at maturity. This was recorded by measuring the height of ten sample
plants taken at random per treatment during the last harvest.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
10
b. Pod length. This was taken by measuring the length of the ten sample pods
taken per treatment.
c. Pod width. This was taken by measuring the width of the ten sample pods
taken per treatment.
3. Yield and Yield Components
a. Total marketable pods (kg/plot). This was the total weight of marketable pods
harvested at the end of cropping season.
b. Total non-marketable pods (kg/plot). This was the total weight of harvested
non- marketable pods which included those that are deformed and diseased damage.
c. Total yield (kg/15m2).This was the total weight of harvested pods per plot.
d. Number of harvest. This was taken by recording the number of harvest from
the first up to the last harvest.
e. Total number of harvested pods. This was taken by recording the number of
pods produced from the ten sample plants per treatment at the end of the cropping season.
f. Computed yield (t/ha). This was the total yield per hectare based on the yield
per plot. It was computed using the formula:
Computed yield = yield (Kg/ plot) x 10,000
4. Pest and disease occurrence
a. Pest Infestation (leaf miner and pod borers). This was determined by using the
following scale (Teng1987):
Scale Description Remarks
1
No Damage
Highly resistant
2
1-25% infestation
Mildly resistant
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
11
3
26-50% infestation Moderately
resistant
4
51-75% infestation
Moderately susceptible
5
76-100% infestation
Very susceptible
b. Disease infection (powdery mildew). This was determined by using the
following scale (Buena, 2004):
Scale Description Remarks
1
No Damage
Highly resistant
2 1-25%
infestation
Mildly
resistant
3 26-50%
infestation
Moderately resistant
4 51-75%
infestation
Moderately
susceptible
5
76-100% infestation
Very susceptible
5. Other data
a. Return on cash expenses. This was computed using the formula:
ROCE = Gross Income – Production Cost x 100
Production Cost
Data Analysis
All quantitative data was subjected to the analysis of variance using the split plot
design with three replications. Significance of difference among treatments was tested
using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 5% level of significance.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Soil Analysis Before Planting and After Harvest
Table 1 presents the pH and nutrient content of the soil before and after planting.
The pH of the soil increased to nearly neutral pH and the organic matter content of the
soil also increased. There was a remarkable increase on the phosphorus and potassium
contents of the soil after the conduct of the study.
This noted increase in soil pH, percent OM, phosphorus and potassium after
harvest may be due to the application of mushroom compost, sunflower compost juice
and EM1. This noted improvement on the soil was favorable to the crop, since the pH
requirement of the plant is in between 6-7. It also helped in suppressing soil borne
diseases that usually thrives in low pH soils.
Agro-climatic Data
Table 2 shows the temperature, relative humidity, amount of rainfall and sunshine
duration during the conduct of the study. Temperature ranged from 13.4˚C to 25.2˚C.
Mean relative humidity was 55.69% while rainfall amount recorded was 2.88 mm. Total
sunshine ranged from 304.6 to 3.87 Kj.
Table 1. Soil pH, Organic Matter, Phosphorus, and Potassium before planting and after
harvest
pH
OM %
P (ppm)
K(ppm)
Before planting
6.5
0.63
109
215
After harvest
With EM1
6.9
0.82
300
308
Without EM1
6.9
0.76
164
300
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
13
Garden pea is a temperate crop which grows best in areas with 10˚C-25˚C and
with good relative humidity throughout the season. Highest percentage of seed
emergence can be expected in October planting when sufficient moisture favors
germination. This planting period produces more yield and attractive pods due to the
relatively lower temperature that prevails during the growing and flowering stage (Dayag,
1980).
Table 2. Temperature, relative humidity, amount of rainfall and sunshine duration during
the conduct of the study
MONTHS TEMPERATURE
RELATIVE
RAINFALL
SUNSHINE
˚C
HUMIDITY
AMOUNT
DURATION
MAX MIN
(%)
(mm)
(Kj)
November
25.2 16.20
75.20
3.10
304.60
December
24.4 13.60
82.00
0.10
369.80
January
24.6
13.40
85.00
0.03
349.00
February
24.5 14.05
85.25
3.45
387.20
Mean
24.7 15.67
55.69
2.88
364.04
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
14
Table 3. Number of days from sowing to emergence, from emergence to first flowering
and from flowering to pod setting of garden pea accessions applied with EM1
TREATMENT
NUMBER OF DAYS FROM
SOWING TO
EMERGENCE FLOWERING
EMERGENCE
TO FIRST
TO POD
FLOWERING
SETTING
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
with EM1
8
48
8
without EM1
8
49
8
GARDEN PEA ACCCESIONS
(GPA)
CLG
8a
50cb
7a
CLG 110
7a
49ab
9b
CGP 116
8a
52c
9b
CGP 34
10b
51bc
9b
CGP 18-A
7a
40a
8ab
PT x GPA
ns
ns
*
CV a (%)
8.98
1.06
11.28
CV b (%)
5.02
1.61
9.40
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Days to Emergence
Effect of EM1. Application and no application of EM1 treatment did not show a
significant effect on the number of days from sowing to emergence. Untreated and treated
plants emerged eight days after sowing (Table 3).
Effect of accessions. CGP 110 and CGP 18-A were the first to emerge at 7 days
after sowing, followed by CLG and CGP116 while CGP 34 was the last to emerge. This
was probably due to the condition when the seeds were sown; it rained heavily afterward
compacting the soil and covered the seeds with thick soil.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
15
Interaction effect. EM1 treatment and the garden pea accessions had no significant
interaction on the number of days from sowing to emergence.
Days from Emergence to First Flowering
Effect of EM1. There was no significant difference observed on the plants
untreated and treated with EM1 on the number of days from emergence to first flowering
(Table 3).
Effect of accession. There were slight differences recorded on the number of days
from emergence to first flowering of the garden pea accessions. CGP 18-A was the
earliest to flower (40 DAE) while CGP 116 was the latest to bear flowers (52 DAE). This
is because each accession exhibit different genetic characteristics, those which flower
earlier is a descendant from Chinese garden pea which has early maturity (Benguet
Technoguide for Gardenpea, 1985).
Interaction effect. There was no significant interaction among the treatments
observed.
Number of Days from Flowering to Pod setting
Effect of EM1. As shown in Table 3, application and non-application of EM1 on
the garden pea accessions had no significant effect on pod setting. Both treatments
developed pods eight days after flowering.
Effect of accession. There were significant differences observed on pod setting of
the garden pea accessions tested. CLG was the earliest to form pods, followed by CGP
18-A and CGP 110, CGP 116 and CGP 34 were the latest to flower. These differences
were also due to their different genetic make-up. This also corroborates with the result of
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
16
the evaluation conducted by Gawidan in 2006, which revealed that CLG and CGP 18-A
set pod earlier than the other entries evaluated.
Interaction effect. Statistics shows that there was a significant interaction between
application of EM1 and the accessions (Fig.1). The plants (e.g. CLG) applied with EM1
set pod one day earlier than those plants not applied with EM1. This has something to do
with the introduction of additional beneficial microorganisms to the soil which may have
enhanced the availability of nutrients present in the soil for easier absorption by the
plants.
10
9
8
g
t
i
n
7
set
d
6
o
p
o
5
w/EM1
4
w/oEM1
ays t
f
d
3
.
o
o
No pod setting
2
1
0
No. of days t
CLG
CGP 110
CGP 116
CGP 34
CGP 18-A
Accessions
Accessions
Figure 1. Interaction effect of EM1 application and garden pea accessions on the
number of days from flowering to pod setting
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
17
Height of Garden Pea
Effect of EM1. Table 4 shows the height of the plant at maturity. There were no
significant differences observed as an effect of application and non-application of EM1 on
the height of garden pea at 100 DAP.
Effect of accessions. There was a highly significant difference among the garden
pea accessions observed. Accession CGP 116 was the tallest (131.167cm) followed by
CLG and CGP 34. Accession CGP 18-A and CGP 110 were the shortest. This results
corroborates with the evaluation conducted by Lynette Gawidan (2006) wherein CGP 18-
A was the shortest among the ten accessions evaluated.
Interaction effect. There was no significant interaction observed between the
application of EM1 and accessions on plant height.
Number of Harvest
Effect
EM1. There were no significant differences observed on the application and
non-application of EM1 on the garden pea accessions. Remarkably higher number of
harvest is recorded on the plants applied with EM1. This may be because the plants
applied with EM1 were slightly taller than the untreated ones (Table 5).
Effect of accession. Table 5 shows that the accessions were significantly different
in terms of the number of harvest. Accession CGP 116, CGP 34 and CLG recorded the
highest number of harvest (6x). Accession CGP 110 and CGP 18-A had the least number
of harvests. This was due to the severe occurrence of powdery mildew on CGP 18-A and
CGP 110 which may have suppressed further flowering.
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction noted between the
application of EM1 and the accession on the number of harvest.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
18
Table 4. Plant height of garden pea accessions applied with EM1 at 100 DAP
TREATMENT
PLANT HEIGHT
(cm)
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
with EM1
124.73
without EM1
113.13
GARDEN PEA ACCESSIONS (GPA)
CLG
121.17b
CGP 110
105.50c
CGP 116
131.17a
CGP 34
126.50ab
CGP 18-A
110.33c
PT x GPA
ns
CV a(%)
6.45
CV b(%)
1.78
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Number of Pods per Plant
Effects of EM1. There was no significant difference noted on the number of pods
produced per plant as an effect of application and non-application of EM1 (Table 5).
Effect of accession. Significant difference was noted among the five garden pea
accessions in the total number of pods produced per plant (Table 5). Accession CGP 116
and CLG obtained the highest number of pods per plant while CGP 18-A and CGP 110
registered the lowest pods produced per plant. It was observed that accession CGP 116
and CGP 34 had two flowers per cluster but are now significantly different on the number
of pods per plant.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction between the application of EM1 and
the different garden pea accession was noted on the number of pods per plant.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
19
Table 5. Number of harvest and total number of pods per plant of garden pea accessions
applied with EM1
TREATMENT NUMBER
OF
NUMBER OF PODS
HARVEST
PER PLANT
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
with EM1
6
23
without EM1
5
21
GARDEN PEA ACCESSION (GPA)
CLG
6a
26a
CGP110
5b
17c
CGP116
6a
27a
CGP34
6a
24b
CGP18-A
5b
16c
PT x GPA
ns
ns
CV a (%)
6.06
6.06
CV b (%)
13.61
13.61
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Pod Length
Effect of EM1. Table 6 shows that no significant difference was noted on the pod
length as affected by application and non-application of an effect of EM1.
Effect of accession. There was a highly significant difference noted among the
accessions in their pod length. CGP 18-A had the longest pod while CLG registered the
shortest pod (Table 6).
Interaction
effect. A highly significant interaction effect was noted on the
application of EM1 and garden pea accessions (Fig.2). Longer pods were produced by
accessions CGP 18-A, CGP 34 and CGP 110 as affected by EM1 application. This can be
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
20
attributed to the microorganisms present in EM1, particularly their ability to enhance
photosynthetic capacity of the crops.
Table 6. Pod length and width of garden pea accessions applied with EM1
TREATMENT POD
LENGTH (cm)
WIDTH (cm)
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
with EM1
7.68
1.41a
without EM1
7.54
1.36b
GARDEN PEA ACCESSION (GPA)
CLG
7.11d
1.36b
CGP110
7.33cd
1.35b
CGP116
7.61bc
1.54a
CGP34
7.81b
1.29c
CGP18-A
8.19a
1.39b
PT x GPA
**
**
CV a (%)
2.31
2.27
CV b (%)
2.32
0.87
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
9
8
7
h
6
th
g
5
w/EM1
e
ngt
e
n
l
w/oEM1
d l
d
4
Po
Po
3
2
1
0
CLG
CGP 110
CGP 116
CGP 34
CGP 18-A
Ac
cessions
Accessions
Figure 2. Interaction of EM1 application and garden pea accessions on the length of
pods
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
21
Pod Width
Effect of EM1. There was a significant difference noted on the width of the pods
as an effect of the application and non- application of EM1 (Table 6). The pods produced
by the plants applied with EM1 exhibited wider pods in comparison with the pods
produced by the plants not applied with EM1. This difference may be attributed to the
microorganisms introduced to the soil. The plants applied with EM1 were also
significantly taller and more vigorous than the plants not applied with EM1.
Effect of accession. Table 6 shows that a highly significant difference was shown
on the pod width of the garden pea accessions. Accession CGP 116 had the widest pods
while the narrowest pods were measured on accession CGP 34.
Interaction effect. A highly significant interaction on the application of EM1 and
garden pea accessions was noted (Fig.3). An increase on pod width was observed on
accessions CLG, CGP 116 and CGP 18-A as an effect of the application of EM1. These
findings imply that accessions CLG, CGP 116 and CGP 18-A applied with EM1 may
result in wider pods.
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
t
h
1
i
d
w/EM1
thd W 0.8
w/oEM1
idPo
w 0.6
Pod 0.4
0.2
0
CLG
CGP 110
CGP 116
CGP 34
CGP 18-A
Accessions
Accessions
Figure 3. Interaction of EM1 application and garden pea accessions on the width of
pods
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
22
Reaction to Powdery Mildew
Effect of EM1. Table 7 shows the response of the accessions to powdery mildew
as affected by EM1 application. No significant difference was observed on the two
treatments since both had a rating of moderate resistance to powdery mildew.
Effect of accession. It was observed that all accessions were moderately resistant
to powdery mildew, except accession CGP 34 which was moderately susceptible to the
disease. This can be attributed to the plant characteristic, it was observed that CGP 34
had a softer stem texture when compared to CLG.
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction noted on EM1 application
and the garden pea accessions in their response to powdery mildew. Results showed
moderate resistance to moderately susceptible response.
Reaction to Pod Borer
Effect of EM1. There was no significant response noted as an effect of application
and non- application of EM1 on pod borer occurrence (Table 7).
Effect of accession. Table 7 shows the response of the accessions to pod borer. It
was noted that there was a significant difference manifested by the accessions on pod
borer incidence. Four accessions were moderately resistant while CGP 34 was
moderately susceptible to pod borer.
Interaction effect. No significant interaction was observed on pod borer
occurrence as an effect of EM1 application and garden pea accessions.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
23
Table 7. Reaction to powdery mildew and pod borer incidence of the garden pea
accessions applied with EM1
TREATMENT
PEST RATING _____ __
POWDERY MILDEW POD BORER
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
with EM1
3
3
without EM1
3
3
GARDEN PEA ACCESSION (GPA)
CLG
3b
3b
CGP110
3b
3b
CGP116
3b
3b
CGP34
4a
4a
CGP18-A
3b
3b
PT x GPA
ns
ns
CV a (%)
6.06
6.06
CV b (%)
13.61
13.61
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Rating scale: 1 highly resistant, 2 mildly resistant, 3 moderately resistant,4 moderately
susceptible,5 very susceptible
Weight of Marketable Pods
Effect of EM1. There was a significant difference noted on the weight of the
marketable pods harvested as a result of application and non-application of EM1 (Table
7). Plants applied with EM1 produced higher marketable pods. This may be attributed to
the higher number of harvest and pods harvested per plant of garden peas.
Effect of accession. The accessions significantly differed in their harvested
marketable pods. Accession CGP 116 produced the highest weight of marketable pods
among the five accessions, followed by CGP 34 and CGP 18-A which had comparable
weights of marketable pods. Meanwhile accession CGP 110 produced the least
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
24
marketable pods. This result is with reference to their pod length and width. It was
observed that CGP 116 and CGP 18-A and CGP 34 produced bigger and heavier pods in
comparison to the pods produced by CLG and CGP 110 (Table 7).
Interaction effect. The interaction between the EM1 treatment and the accessions
were not significant on the marketable pods harvested.
Weight of Non-marketable Pods
Effect of EM1. The table shows that there was no significant difference noted on
the non-marketable pods harvested as an effect of EM1 application. Plants applied with
EM1 had a higher non-marketable pods harvested.
Effect of accessions. The different garden pea accessions had a highly significant
difference on the weight of non-marketable pods produced. Accession CGP 116 had the
highest non-marketable pods harvested, followed by CGP 34 (Table 8).
Interaction effect. No interaction effect was realized on the weight of non-
marketable pods harvested as affected by EM1 application and garden pea accessions.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
25
Table 8. Pod yield of garden pea accessions applied and not applied with EM1
TREATMENT
TOTAL WEIGHT OF (g)
NON-
MARKETABLE
MARKETABLE
EM1 TREATMENT (PT)
With EM1
185.53a
642.87
Without EM1
156.07b
560.33
GARDEN PEA ACCESSION (GPA)
CLG
151.50bc
604.17b
CGP110
122.33c
443.17c
CGP116
217.50a
806.17a
CGP34
181.83b
654.83b
CGP18-A
180.83b
499.67c
PT x GPA
ns
ns
CV a (%)
10.18
12.05
CV b (%)
11.71
8.03
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Total and Computed Yield
Effect of EM1. Table 9 showed the total and computed yield of garden pea
accessions applied with EM1. There were no significant differences noted on the total and
computed yield as an effect of application and non-application of EM1. Although plants
applied with EM1 had higher total and computed yield. The recorded yield represents the
first six harvest of the garden pea.
Effect of accessions. The different garden pea accessions exhibited highly
significant differences on their total and computed yield. Accession CGP 116 which had
the highest pod count also registered the highest weight of marketable and non-
marketable pods.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
26
Interaction effect. There was no significant interaction observed between the
application of EM1 and the accessions in terms of their total and computed yield.
Table 9. Total and computed yield of garden pea accessions applied with EM1
TREATMENT YIELD
COMPUTED YIELD
(g/15 m2)
(tons/ ha)
EM1TREATMENT (PT)
With EM1
276.13
1.66
Without
EM1
238.80
1.43
GARDEN PEA ACCESSION (GPA)
CLG
251.89bc
1.51bc
CGP110
188.50d
1.13d
CGP116
341.22a
2.05a
CGP34
278.83b
1.67b
CGP18-A
226.83c
1.36c
PT x GPA
ns
ns
CV a (%)
12.10
11.58
CV b (%)
7.91
7.90
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)
Effect of EM1. Table 10 shows that plants applied with EM1 had higher total pod
yield and gross sales but had a lower net income and ROCE because of the added cost of
the EM1 applied. Plants not applied with EM1 had a higher net income and ROCE
although they had a lower pod yield since it had a lower total expense incurred.
Effect of accession. Accession CGP 116 recorded the highest total pod yield
among the five accessions, resulting to higher net income and ROCE. Meanwhile two
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
27
accessions realized a negative ROCE, namely CGP 110 and CGP 18-A. This was due to
the low marketable, non-marketable and total pod yield produced by the accessions.
Table 10. ROCE of growing garden pea accessions applied with EM1
TREATMENT YIELD
GROSS
TOTAL
NET
ROCE
(kg/15m2) SALES EXPENSES INCOME
(%)
(PhP)
EM1TREATMENT (PT)
With EM1
4.14
621
600
21
4
Without
EM1
3.58
537
400
87
19
ACCESSIONS (GPA)
CLG
1.51
226
210
26
12
CGP110
1.13
170
210
-40
-19
CGP116
1.00
307
210
97
46
CGP34
1.67
251
210
41
20
CGP18-A
1.36
204
210
-6
-3
*Total expenses include: land preparation, seeds, cost of mushroom compost and cost of
gasoline used in irrigation
* Priced at PhP 150/ kg (organic price) in the month of February 2009
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
28
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
The study was conducted to determine the growth and pod yield of the promising
garden pea accessions under organic production; determine the effect of EM1 on the
growth and yield of garden pea accessions; determine the interaction of the garden pea
accessions and EM1application and; determine the profitability of growing the different
garden pea accessions applied with EM1.
The garden pea accessions had slight differences on the number of days to
emergence. CGP 110 and CGP 18-A were the earliest to emerge. CGP 18-A was the
earliest to bear flower. CLG was the earliest to develop pods and produced the most
numerous pods per plant. Accession CGP 116 was the tallest of all the accessions, had
the widest pods and produced the highest marketable, non-marketable and total yield.
Plants applied with EM1 significantly had wider pods and higher marketable yield
than those not applied with EM1.
Result of the economic analysis showed a higher yield in the garden pea
accessions applied with EM1 but incurred higher total cost of production.
On the other hand, accession CGP 116 produced the highest yield and ROCE.
Accession CGP 34 and CLG also had comparable yields and ROCE.
EM1 application and the garden pea accessions interacted significantly only on the
number of days to flowering, length and width of the pods. While no significant
interaction was noted on the other vegetative and yield parameters gathered.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
29
Conclusions
Application
of
EM1 enhanced wider pods and marketable fresh pod yield of the
garden pea accessions.
Results showed that CGP 116 was found as the best accession under organic
production because of its wide pods, high fresh pod yield and ROCE, which exceeded the
ROCE of CLG (check).
Producing CGP 116 with or without application of EM1 may result to early pod
setting and longer and wider pods.
Although application of EM1 resulted to higher yield, growing garden peas
without EM1 application is still more profitable.
Recommendations
Based on the results, accession CGP116 is recommended for production under
organic management.
The recommended garden pea accessions can be grown organically with or
without EM1 application. Application of EM1 enhanced some beneficial effect on the
growth and yield performance of the plants; however it served only as an added expense.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
30
LITERATURE CITED
ANONYMOUS. 2005. Organicfarming. Accessed at http://www.yelworms.com/organic
farming/ benefit.html
BACOD. 2007. Effect of probiotics on the growth and yield of different potato
accessions. BS Thesis. Benguet State University. Pp. 35-37
BAUTISTA and MABESA. 1997. Vegetable Production. Revised edition. Los Baños,
Laguna. College of Agriculture. P 18
BRIONES. 1997. Sustainable Development through Organic Agriculture. Department
of Science and Technology. P. 18
BRADY, N. K. 1974. Nature and Properties of soil, New York: McMillan Pub. Co,
Inc. P. 685
DELA CRUZ, R. T. 2004. Growing Vegetables Organically. BAR - Research and
Development Digest. Bureau of Agricultural Research, Department
Of Agriculture. P. 1-2, 9
DIVER, S. KUEPPER. and G. SULLIVAN, P. 2001. Organic Corn Production.
Accessed at http://www.attra.ncat.org.
FAO-WHO, 2001. Probiotics: Consideration for Human Health nutrition. Accessed at
http//www.mesanders. com/ Probiotic definitions. html.
HIGHLAND AGRICULTURE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER.1996.
Highland Potato Technoguide.(3rd ed.), La Trinidad Benguet.Pp.1-3
HIGA, T. and J. F.PARR.1994. Beneficial microorganism for a sustainable Agriculture
and Environment. International Nature Farming Research Center, Atami,
Japan Retrieved 03/26/09 from http//www.agriton. nl/html.
KEUPPER, G. 2002. Organic Soybean Production. Accessed at http://www.attra.org/
attar-pub/organic soy:html.
NORTHERN PHILIPPINE ROOT CROP RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY
CENTER. 2005. Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet.
PAWAR, V. M. and S. PURI. 2005. Organic Farming. Accesed at In/agri /Extension/
html.Chapter 9.
SULLIVAN, P. 2003. Organic Rice Production. Accessed at http://www. Attar.org/attar
-pub/Rice.htm.
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
31
SUNIL, 1990. Varietal Evaluation of the Promising lines and Path Coefficient analysis in
Pole Snap Beans. MS Thesis.Benguet State University La Trinidad Benguet.
SWAIDER, J. M. AND G. W. WARE. 2002. Producing Vegetable Crops. U.S.A. The
Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. Pp. 252-254
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
32
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1. Number of days from sowing to emergence of garden pea accessions
as affected by application of EM1
REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
8
9
8
25
8.33
2.CGP 110
7
8
7
22
7.33
3.CGP 116
8
8
9
25
8.33
4.CGP 34
9
10
10
29
9.67
5.CGP 18-A
7
7
8
22
7.33
Sub Total
39
42
42
8.20
w/oEM1
1.CLG
8
8
8
24
8.00
2.CGP 110
7
7
7
21
7.00
3.CGP 116
9
8
8
25
8.33
4.CGP 34
10
10
10
30
10.00
5.CGP18-A
7
7
7
21
7.00
SUB TOTAL
41
40
40
8.07
GRAND TOTAL
8.14
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
33
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
8.33
8.00
16.33
8.17
2.CGP 110
7.33
7.00
14.33
7.17
3.CGP 116
8.33
8.33
16.66
8.33
4.CGP 34
9.67
10.00
19.67
9.84
5.CGP18-A
7.33
7.00
14.33
7.17
TOTAL
40.99 4.33 81.43
40.65
MEAN
8.20
8.07
8.14
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
Replication
2
0.27
0.13
EM1 (A)
1
0.13
0.13
0.25
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
1.07
0.53
Accessions (B)
4
28.80
7.20
43.20*
3.01 4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.53
0.13
0.80ns
3.01 4.77
Error (b)
16
2.67
0.17
TOTAL
29
33.47
ns – not significant
C.V. (A)% = 8.98
** - highly significant
C.V. (B)% = 5.02
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
34
Appendix Table 2. Number of Days from Emergence to First Flowering of garden pea
accessions as affected by application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
50
51
49
150
50.00
2.CGP 110
48
49
47
144
48.00
3.CGP 116
52
52
53
157
52.33
4.CGP 34
51
51
52
154
51.33
5.CGP 18-A
39
40
39
118
39.33
SUB TOTAL
240
243
240
48.20
w/oEM1
1.CLG
49
51
51
151
50.33
2.CGP 110
50
49
49
148
49.33
3.CGP 116
52
53
52
157
52.33
4.CGP 34
50
52
51
153
51.00
5.CGP18-A
40
40
41
121
40.33
SUB TOTAL
245
244
48.67
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
35
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
50.00
50.33
100.33
50.17
2.CGP 110
48.00
49.33
97.99
48.67
3.CGP 116
52.33
52.33
104.66
52.33
4.CGP 34
51.33
51.00
102.33
51.17
5.CGP18-A
39.33
40.33
79.66
39.83
TOTAL
240.99 243.32 484.97
MEAN 48.20
48.67
48.44
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATE D
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
Replication
2
2.467
1.233
EM1 (A)
1
1.633
1.633
7.0ns
18.51
98.49
Error (a)
2
0.467
0.233
Accessions (B)
4
598.200
149.550
245.83**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
2.867
0.717
1.18ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
9.733
0.608
TOTAL 29
615.367
ns – not significant
C.V. (A)% = 1.06
** - highly significant
C.V. (B)% = 1.61
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
36
Appendix Table 3: Number of days from flowering to pod setting of garden pea accession
as affected by application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
6
7
7
20
6.67
2.CGP 110
9
8
8
25
8.33
3.CGP 116
9
9
8
27
9.00
4.CGP 34
8
9
10
27
9.00
5.CGP 18-A
9
8
9
26
8.67
SUB TOTAL
41
41
41
41.67
w/oEM1
1.CLG
8
9
7
24
8.00
2.CGP 110
10
9
8
27
9.00
3.CGP 116
9
10
9
28
9.43
4.CGP 34
9
8
7
24
8.00
5.CGP18-A
7
7
8
22
7.33
SUB TOTAL
43
43
39
34.46
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
37
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
6.67
8.00
14.67
7b
2.CGP 110
8.33
9.00
17.33
9a
3.CGP 116
9.00
9.43
18.33
9a
4.CGP 34
9.00
8.00
17.00
9a
5.CGP18-A
8.67
7.33
16.00
8ab
TOTAL
41.67 41.76 83.33
MEAN 41.67ns
34.46b
38.07
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
Replication
2
0.60
0.30
EM1 (A)
1
0.03
0.03
0.04ns
18.51
9.49
Error (a)
2
1.67
0.83
Accessions (B)
4
10.13
2.53
4.16*
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
8.13
2.03
3.34*
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
9.73
0.61
TOTAL 29
30.30
ns – not significant
C.V. (A)% = 11.28
** - highly significant
C.V. (B) % = 9.40
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
38
Appendix Table 4. Height at maturity of garden pea accessions as affected by application
of EM1(cm)
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
122
132
134
388
129
2.CGP 110
109
112
108
329
110
3.CGP 116
136
144
134
414
138
4.CGP 34
122
132
134
388
129
5.CGP 18-A
116
121
115
352
117
SUB TOTAL
605
642
622
124.60
w/oEM1
1.CLG
118
113
108
339
113
2.CGP 110
112
101
91
304
101
3.CGP 116
125
124
124
373
124
4.CGP 34
124
128
119
371
124
5.CGP18-A
96
102
112
310
103
SUB TOTAL
568
554
113
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
39
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
WP WOP
1.CLG
129
113
242
121.00
2.CGP 110
110
101
211
105.50
3.CGP 116
138
124
262
131.00
4.CGP 34
129
124
253
126.50
5.CGP18-A
117
103
220
110.00
TOTAL
623
565
1,188
MEAN 124.6
113
237.60
118.80
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
Replication
2
58.07
29.03
EM1 (A)
1
1009.20
1009.20
17.13ns
Error (a)
2
117.80
58.90
Accessions (B)
4
2797.87
699.47
21.62**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
117.47
29.37
0.91ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
517.47
32.34
TOTAL 29
30.30
ns – not significant
C.V. (A)% = 6.45
** - highly significant
C.V. (B) % = 4.78
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
40
Appendix Table 5.Number of harvest of garden pea accessions as affected by application
of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
6
5
6
17
6
2.CGP 110
5
6
4
15
5
3.CGP 116
6
6
6
18
6
4.CGP 34
6
6
6
18
6
5.CGP 18-A
6
5
4
15
5
SUB TOTAL
29
28
26
83
5.6
w/oEM1
1.CLG
6
5
5
16
5
2.CGP 110
5
4
4
13
4
3.CGP 116
6
6
5
17
6
4.CGP 34
6
5
5
16
5
5.CGP18-A
5
5
4
14
5
SUB TOTAL
28
24
23
76
5
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
41
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
6
5
11
5.5
2.CGP 110
5
4
9
4.5
3.CGP 116
6
6
12
6.0
4.CGP 34
6
5
11
5.5
5.CGP18-A
5
5
10
5.0
TOTAL
28 25 53
MEAN 5.6
5.0
5.3
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
3.20
1.60
EM1 (A)
1
1.63
1.63
12.25ns
18.51
98.4
9
Error (a)
2
0.27
0.13
Accessions (B)
4
6.47
1.62
5.71**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.20
0.50
0.18ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
4.53
0.28
TOTAL 29
16.30
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 6.88
* - significant
C.V. (B) % = 10.04
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
42
Appendix Table 6. Total number of harvested pods per plant of garden pea accessions
as affected by application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
29
26
23
78
26
2.CGP 110
21
14
16
51
17
3.CGP 116
27
30
28
85
28
4.CGP 34
25
26
22
73
24
5.CGP 18-A
15
18
15
50
17
Sub Total
117
114
104
337
22
w/oEM1
1.CLG
27
25
22
74
24
2.CGP 110
20
18
13
51
18
3.CGP 116
26
28
23
77
25
4.CGP 34
21
22
20
63
21
5.CGP18-A
16
15
13
44
15
Sub Total
110
108
91
309
21
GRAND TOTAL 227
222
195
21
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
43
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
26
24
50
25
2.CGP 110
17
18
35
17.5
3.CGP 116
28
25
53
26.5
4.CGP 34
24
21
45
22.5
5.CGP18-A
17
15
32
16
TOTAL
112 103 215
MEAN
21.5
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREED0M
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
8.47
4.233
EM1 (A)
1
8.53
8.533
13.47ns
18.51
98.4
9
Error (a)
2
1.27
0.633
Accessions (B)
4
20.80
5.200
9.31**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
1.47
0.367
0.66ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
8.93
0.558
TOTAL 29
49.47
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 13.56
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 12.74
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
44
Appendix Table 7. Pod length of garden pea accessions as affected by application of
EM1 (cm)
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
6.72
6.70
6.75
20.15
6.72
2.CGP 110
7.44
7.46
7.45
22.35
7.45
3.CGP 116
7.84
7.80
7.82
23.46
7.82
4.CGP 34
8.14
8.15
8.13
24.42
8.14
5.CGP 18-A
8.28
8.26
8.29
24.83
8.28
SUB TOTAL
38.42
38.37
38.42
7.68
w/oEM1
1.CLG
6.86
7.80
7.84
22.5
7.50
2.CGP 110
7.22
7.20
7.19
21.61
7.20
3.CGP 116
7.40
7.38
7.41
22.19
7.40
4.CGP 34
7.48
7.46
7.49
22.43
7.48
5.CGP18-A
8.10
8.14
8.12
24.36
8.12
SUB TOTAL
37.06
37.99
8.05
7.54
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
45
PT x GPA TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
6.72
7.50
14.22
7.11cd
2.CGP 110
7.45
7.20
14.65
7.33cd
3.CGP 116
7.82
7.40
15.25
7.61bc
4.CGP 34
8.14
7.48
15.60
7.81b
5.CGP18-A
8.28
8.12
16.40
8.20a
TOTAL
38.41 37.7 76.11
MEAN 7.68a
7.54b
7.61
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.06
0.030
EM1 (A)
1
0.15
0.153
4.87ns
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
0.06
0.031
Accessions (B)
4
4.28
1.071
34.43**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
1.81
0.452
14.54**
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
0.50
0.031
TOTAL 29
6.87
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 2.31
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 02.32
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
46
Appendix Table 8. Pod width of garden pea accessions as affected by application of
EM1(cm)
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
1.36
1.38
1.36
4.1
1.37
2.CGP 110
1.34
1.35
1.33
4.02
1.34
3.CGP 116
1.60
1.58
1.57
4.75
1.58
4.CGP 34
1.26
1.24
1.25
3.75
1.25
5.CGP 18-A
1.52
1.50
1.51
3.53
1.51
SUB TOTAL
7.08
7.05
7.02
20.15
1.41
w/oEM1
1.CLG
1.34
1.35
1.37
4.06
1.35
2.CGP 110
1.38
1.35
1.38
4.11
1.37
3.CGP 116
1.51
1.47
1.52
4.50
1.50
4.CGP 34
1.35
1.33
1.34
4.02
1.34
5.CGP18-A
1.28
1.25
1.26
3.79
1.26
SUB TOTAL
6.86
6.75
6.87
20.48
1.36
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
47
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
1.37
1.35
2.72
1.36b
2.CGP 110
1.34
1.37
2.71
1.36b
3.CGP 116
1.58
1.50
3.08
1.52a
4.CGP 34
1.25
1.34
2.59
1.30c
5.CGP18-A
1.51
1.26
2.77
1.39b
TOTAL
7.05
6.82
13.87
MEAN 1.41a
1.36b
1.39
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.01
0.01
EM1 (A)
1
0.02
0.01
26.56*
18.51
98.49
Error (a)
2
0.01
0.01
Accessions (B)
4
0.21
0.05
351.12**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.10
0.03
172.26**
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
0.02
0.00
TOTAL 29
0.32
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 2.27
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 0.87
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
48
Appendix Table 9. Reaction of the garden pea accessions to powdery mildew as affected
by application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
3
3
3
9
3
2.CGP 110
2
3
3
8
3
3.CGP 116
3
3
3
9
3
4.CGP 34
4
3
4
11
4
5.CGP 18-A
3
3
3
9
3
SUB TOTAL
15
15
16
46
3.2
w/oEM1
1.CLG
3
2
3
8
3
2.CGP 110
3
3
3
9
3
3.CGP 116
3
3
3
9
3
4.CGP 34
3
4
4
11
4
5.CGP18-A
2
2
3
7
2
SUB TOTAL
14
14
16
44
5
GRAND TOTAL 29
29
32
90
4.1
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
49
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
3
3
6
3.0
2.CGP 110
3
3
6
3.0
3.CGP 116
3
3
6
3.0
4.CGP 34
4
4
8
4.0
5.CGP18-A
3
2
5
2.5
TOTAL
16 15 31
MEAN 3.2
5.0
4.1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCES
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.60
0.30
EM1 (A)
1
0.13
0.13
4.00ns
18.51
98.49
Error (a)
2
0.07
0.03
Accessions (B)
4
3.67
0.92
5.50**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.87
0.22
1.30ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
2.67
0.17
TOTAL 29
8.0
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 6.06
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 13.61
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
50
Appendix Table 10. Pod borer infestation of the garden pea accessions as affected
by application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
3
3
3
9
3
2.CGP 110
2
3
3
8
3
3.CGP 116
3
3
3
9
3
4.CGP 34
4
3
4
11
4
5.CGP 18-A
3
3
3
9
3
SUB TOTAL
15
15
16
46
3.2
w/oEM1
1.CLG
3
2
3
8
3
2.CGP 110
3
3
3
9
3
3.CGP 116
3
3
3
9
3
4.CGP 34
3
4
4
11
4
5.CGP18-A
2
2
3
7
2
SUB TOTAL
14
14
16
44
5
GRAND TOTAL 29
29
32
90
4.1
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
51
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
3
3
6
3.0
2.CGP 110
3
3
6
3.0
3.CGP 116
3
3
6
3.0
4.CGP 34
4
4
8
4.0
5.CGP18-A
3
2
5
2.5
TOTAL
16 15 31
MEAN 3.2
5.0
4.1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTE
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
D F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.60
0.30
EM1 (A)
1
0.13
0.13
4.00ns
18.51
98.49
Error (a)
2
0.07
0.03
Accessions (B)
4
3.67
0.92
5.50**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.87
0.22
1.30ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
2.67
0.17
TOTAL 29
8.00
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 6.06
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 13.61
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
52
Appendix Table 11. Weight of Marketable pods/plot of garden pea accessions as
affected by application of EM1 (g/5m2)
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
134
151
182
468
156
2.CGP 110
121
123
157
401
134
3.CGP 116
225
277
253
755
251
4.CGP 34
160
248
219
627
209
5.CGP 18-A
192
168
173
533
178
Sub Total
832
967
984
185.60
w/oEM1
1.CLG
159
139
144
442
147
2.CGP 110
93
109
131
333
111
3.CGP 116
170
186
194
550
183
4.CGP 34
140
151
173
464
155
5.CGP18-A
185
193
174
550
183
Sub Total
747
778
816
56.00
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
53
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
156
147
303
151.50
2.CGP 110
134
111
243
122.50
3.CGP 116
251
183
436
218.0
4.CGP 34
209
155
364
182.00
5.CGP18-A
178
183
361
180.50
TOTAL 928
779
1709
928
MEAN 185.60
156.07
170.84
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTE
TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARE
SQUARE
D F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
Replication
2
2647.40
1323.70
EM1 (A)
1
6512.13
6512.13
21.53ns
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
604.87
302.43
Accessions (B)
4
30748.80
7687.20
19.10**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
5855.20
1463.80
3.64ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
6438.40
402.40
TOTAL 29
30.30
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 10.18
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 11.74
**- highly significant
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
54
Appendix Table 12. Weight of non-marketable pods/plot of garden pea accessions as
affected by application of EM1 (g/5m2)
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
643
710
684
2037
679
2.CGP 110
463
490
515
1468
489
3.CGP 116
835
856
780
2471
824
4.CGP 34
550
760
787
2097
699
5.CGP 18-A
490
520
560
1570
523
SUB TOTAL
2981
3336
3326
642.8
w/oEM1
1.CLG
568
525
495
1188
529
2.CGP 110
385
356
450
1191
397
3.CGP 116
760
810
796
2356
785
4.CGP 34
615
630
587
1832
611
5.CGP18-A
505
473
450
1428
476
SUB TOTAL
GRAND TOTAL
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
55
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
679
529
1208
604.00
2.CGP 110
489
397
886
443.00
3.CGP 116
824
785
1609
804.50
4.CGP 34
699
611
1310
655.00
5.CGP18-A
523
476
999
499.5
TOTAL
3211 2798 6012
MEAN 642.8
559.6
601.2
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
6154.40
3077.20
EM1 (A)
1
51088.13
51088.13
9.72ns
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
10509.07
5254.53
Accessions (B)
4
481076.53 120269.13
51.56**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
12202.53
3050.63
1.31ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
37320.53
2332.53
TOTAL 29
598351.2
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 12.05
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 8.03
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
56
Appendix Table 13. Total yield of garden pea accessions as affected by application of
EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
777
861
866
2504
835
2.CGP 110
584
613
672
1869
623
3.CGP 116
1060
1133
1033
3226
1075
4.CGP 34
710
1008
1006
2724
908
5.CGP 18-A
682
688
733
2103
701
SUB TOTAL
3813
4303
4310
12426
4142
w/oEM1
1.CLG
727
664
639
2030
677
2.CGP 110
478
465
581
1524
508
3.CGP 116
930
996
990
2916
972
4.CGP 34
755
781
760
2296
765
5.CGP18-A
690
666
624
1980
660
SUB TOTAL
3580
3572
3594
10746
3582
GRAND TOTAL 7393
7875
7904
23172
7724
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
57
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
2504
677
3181
1591
2.CGP 110
1869
508
2377
1189
3.CGP 116
3226
972
4198
2099
4.CGP 34
2724
765
3489
1745
5.CGP18-A
2103
660
2763
1382
TOTAL 12426
3582
3181
MEAN
2485
716
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
16476.20
8238.10
EM1 (A)
1
94080.00
94080.00
11.72ns
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
16050.60
8025.30
Accessions (B)
4
712790.20
178197.55
47.78**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
12272.33
3068.08
0.82ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
59677.87
3729.87
TOTAL 29
6.87
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 12.40
* - significant
C.V. (B)% = 7.91
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
58
Appendix Table 14. Computed Yield (tons/ha) of garden pea accessions as affected by
application of EM1
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN
I II
III
w/EM1
1.CLG
1.55
1.72
1.73
5.01
1.67
2.CGP 110
1.17
1.23
1.34
3.74
1.25
3.CGP 116
2.12
2.27
2.07
6.43
2.15
4.CGP 34
1.42
2.02
2.01
5.45
1.82
5.CGP 18-A
1.36
1.38
1.47
4.21
1.40
SUB TOTAL
7.63
8.61
8.62
24.85
8.28
w/o EM1
1.CLG
1.45
1.33
1.29
4.06
1.35
2.CGP 110
956
.93
1.16
3.05
1.02
3.CGP 116
1.86
1.99
1.98
5.83
1.94
4.CGP 34
1.51
1.56
1.52
4.59
1.53
5.CGP18-A
1.38
1.33
1.25
3.96
1.32
SUB TOTAL
7.16
7.14
7.19
21.49
7.16
GRAND TOTAL 14,786
15,786 15,808 46,344 15,448
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
59
PT x GPA TWO-WAY TABLE
TREATMENTS
ACCESSIONS
TOTAL MEAN
w/EM1
w/oEM1
1.CLG
5.01
4.06
9.07
4.53
3.74
3.05
6.79
3.39
2.CGP 110
6.45
5.83
12.28
6.14
3.CGP 116
5.45
4.59
10.04
5.02
4.CGP 34
4.21
3.96
8.166
4.53
5.CGP18-A
TOTAL 24.85
21.49
9.07
MEAN 4.790
4.298
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
OF
TABULATED
SQUARE
SQUARE
F
VARIANCE
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication
2
0.066
0.033
EM1 (A)
1
0.375
0.375
11.60ns
18.51 98.49
Error (a)
2
0.065
0.032
Accessions (B)
4
2.854
0.713
47.97**
3.01
4.77
PT x GPA
4
0.049
0.012
0.83ns
3.01
4.77
Error (b)
16
0.238
0.015
TOTAL 29
6.867
ns - not significant
C.V. (A)% = 11.58
* - significant
C.V. (B) % = 7.90
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
60
Appendix Table 15. Return on cash expense
Treatment Yield Gross
Total
Net income
ROCE
(g/15m2)
Sales (PhP)
Expenses
(%)
(15m2)
w/EM1
1. CLG
835
125.25
120
5.25
4.38
2. CGP 110
623
93.45
120
-26.55
-22.13
3. CGP 116
1,075
161.25
120
41.25
34.38
4. CGP 34
908
136.20
120
16.20
13.50
5. CGP 18-A
701
105.15
120
-48.85
-12.38
w/oEM1
1. CLG
677
101.55
90
11.55
12.83
2. CGP 110
508
76.20
90
-13.80
-15.33
3. CGP 116
972
145.80
90
55.80
62.00
4. CGP 34
765
114.75
90
24.75
27.50
5. CGP 18-A
660
99
90
9.00
10.00
*Total expenses include: land preparation, seeds, cost of mushroom compost and cost of
gasoline used in irrigation
* Priced at PhP 150/ kg (organic price) in the month of February 2009
Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1)
in La Trinidad, Benguet / Lester F. Ossog. 2010
Document Outline
- Evaluation of Garden pea Accessions
applied with Effective Microorganisms (EM1) in La Trinidad, Benguet
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES