BIBLIOGRAPHY
SUYAM, BENJAMIN A. APRIL 2006. Response of Six Varieties of Bush
Snapbeans to Mulching. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Leoncia L. Tandang, PhD.
ABSTRACT

The study was conducted to evaluate the response of six varieties of bush
snapbeans to mulching, identify the most responsive variety of bush snapbeans to
mulching, evaluate the effect of mulching materials in bush snapbean production and to
determine the best mulching materials for bush snapbean production.

Bush snapbean plants mulched with different materials significantly differed in
plant height at first harvest, number of pod clusters per plant, number of pods per plant
and per plot, weight of marketable pods per plot and distance of pod cluster to the
ground. Unmulched plot and plot with pine needle mulch significantly produced the
tallest plants at first harvest. Mulching of bush snapbean with “Taaw” grass and pine
needle significantly gave the highest number of pods clusters per plant, and number of
pods per plant and per plot. “Taaw” grass as mulch significantly increased the
marketable yield per plot of bush snapbean plants. Unmulched plot had the significantly
the longest distance pod clusters to the ground.

Highly significant differences were observed among the six varieties of bush
snapbeans evaluated in number of pods and pod clusters per plant, pod length and pod
width, distance of pod and pod clusters to the ground number and weight of marketable

---

yield per plot, total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare. HAB 63 got the
highest number of pods and pod clusters per plant. BBL 274 and Torrent had the longest
and widest pods. Torrent had the longest distance of pod and pod clusters to the ground.
BBL and Torrent also produced the highest number and heaviest marketable pods per
plot, total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare.

Significant interaction effect was observed between mulching material and variety
on the distance of pod clusters to the ground, pod width and number of pod clusters per
plant.

Economically, even without mulching, snapbean production is already profitable
because a grower could realize more than 40 % ROCE. Planting Torrent and Landmark
resulted in 29 and 25 % ROCE, respectively. Growing Torrent, BBL 274 and Landmark
even without mulching gave 51 to 90 % ROCE. Mulching of pine needles to BBL 274
gave 42 % ROCE and mulching of “Taaw” grass in BBL 274 and Torrent gave 48 and 30
% ROCE, respectively.

ii

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS


Page
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
The Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
Mulching and Mulching Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4
Varietal Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Number of Days to First Flowering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Number of Days to Last Flowering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Number of Days to First Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Number of Days to Last Harvest
14
Plant Height at First Harvest (cm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
14
Number of Pods Per Cluster . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16
Number of Pods Per Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17

Number of Pods Per Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19

Number of Pods Cluster Per Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
19
Pod Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
20
Pod Width (mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
iii

---

Distance of the Pods to the Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Distance of Cluster to the Ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
23
Straightness of the Pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
Number of Marketable Pod Per Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
27
Number of Non-marketable Pods Per Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
Weight of Marketable Pods Per Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
28
Weight of Non-marketable Pods Per Plot (kg) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Total Yield Per Plot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
30
Computed Yield Per Hectare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31
Number of Seeds Per Pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31

Number of Days to Last Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
31

Insect Pest and Disease . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32

Reaction to Leafminer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
32
Reaction to Pod Borer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
Reaction to Rust Infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
33
Reaction to Rot Infection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
34
Return on Cash Expenses (ROCE) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
35
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
38
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
40
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
41
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
42
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
44

iv

---

1
INTRODUCTION


Bush snapbean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) belongs to the leguminous family. This
crop is excellent source of protein and vitamins. It is the one most important cash crop.

Legumes like bush snapbean has the ability to fix nitrogen from the atmosphere
and convert it into available form with the presence of nitrogen fixing bacteria in their
root nodules to help in maintaining soil fertility. Aside from that, to man and animals,
legumes serve as source of food and feed respectively (PCARRD, 1983).

Snapbeans are annual crop adapted to wide type of soil with short maturity period
and have a trifoliate leaves. This crop is harvested by hand picking. The bushy type are
harvested 2 to 5 times but those harvested several times are necessary for the pole type.
Mulching involves the covering of the soil surface with various kind of organic
matter and manufactured products such as plastics, foil, paper, etc. Mulching materials
can help to protect the soil so that sun heat or rainfall cannot attack directly to the soil.
Therefore with the presence of mulch above the soil surface will reduce the washing
away of the soil particles and prevents raindrops on splashing on the soil. Aside from
this the soil moisture will be saved. More layers of mulch allows the soil to soak up more
water so that if there is heat and drying winds, there is less evaporation. It also prevent
the attack of pest and diseases; improve the condition of the soil and provide better
growing environment for successful production.
In the Cordillera, particularly in Benguet, bush snapbean is planted as intercrop or
monocrop in order to have enough food supply. With this, there is still a problem
encountered by the farmers in the production of bush snapbeans. Marketable pods are
reduced due to its poor quality caused by the soil surface at the base of the plant. When
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

2
the ground is wet, developing pods reach the soil which usually cause rotting tendering
them non marketable. Still the farmers commonly allow them to mature for fresh pod or
for seed production. To prevent rotting of pods, one possible remedy is to use best
mulching materials to help the farmers increase the marketability of bush snapbean pods,
hence increasing productivity and income.
This study was conducted to evaluate the response of six varieties of bush
snapbeans to mulching; identify the most responsive variety of bush snapbeans to
mulching; evaluate the effect of mulching materials in bush snapbean production; and
determine the best mulching materials for bush snapbean production.
The study was conducted at the BSU-IPB Highland Crops Research Station,
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet from November 2005 to February 2006.

Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE


The Plant


According to PCARRD (1983) vegetable legumes have trifoliate leaves. The
leaflets are ovate, oblong, and lanceolate and vary in size from small to large. The color
of the pods is light green, yellow or mottled, and the shape is linear, laterally compress
beaked and slightly curved.
Tindal (1983) states that dwarf or bush type is day neutral plant, early maturing
with 20 to 60cm in height. The roots are rapidly growing toproot, reaching at depth of
90cm. Well modulated roots mainly limited to a depth of 20 cm. Stems are slender,
twisted, angled, almost square in cross section, often with purple streaks.

Snap beans are all annuals grown from seeds. The fruits are pods in which the
seeds are contained. In green or snapbean, pods are harvested before ripening and both
pods and the immature seeds are consumed, in some kinds, the seed when near full
grown, but while still immature seeds are threshed from the pods and frozen or canned.
In dry or field beans, pods and seeds are allowed to ripen then threshed and only the
seeds are consumed (HARRDEC, 1989).
Snapbeans are harvested by hand from 2-5 pickings are sufficient to harvest the
dwarf varieties, but several pickings are necessary for the pole varieties. In many cases
the pods are picked when they have reached their full size but when the seeds are only
about one fourth mature.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

4
Mulching and Mulching Materials

Mulch is any covering material placed over the soil surface to modify soil
physical properties, create favorable environments for root development and nutrients
uptake and reduce soil erosion and degradation (Wilson and Akapa, 1983) Webster
(1960). Defined mulch as leaves, straw, or other loose material spread on the ground
around the plants.

Wilken (1987) distinguished between crop residues, which are developed in situ,
and mulches, which include fresh and dried plant materials and composts brought to the
field. However it should be noted that crop residues are frequently used as mulches.
Pathogens are often killed by the heat generated the production of composts.

Unfortunately, mulches provide a good environment for the multiplication or
survival of slugs, which sometimes cause serious losses to crops such as beans when
mulched. In Costa Rica the same slugs that attacks beans also provide vector a serious
human nematode pathogen (Beaver et al., 1984). Mulches may also provide nutrition and
a suitable environment for certain plant pathogens. The effect of mulches incorporated to
the soil on the C/N ratio is important, as a soluble soil nitrogen may be locked up in the
microorganisms decomposing the organic materials. This may cause a serious nitrogen
deficiency, and make some organic crops more susceptible to soil borne pathogens.
According to Wilken (1987) and Wilson and Akapa (1983) any material used for
mulches are traditional. Cereal straw and stalks are perhaps the most commonly used
mulches, but other examples are crop debris, sawdust, leaves etc. In modern or
commercial agriculture, the list is even longer and include manufactured products such as
various plastic material, aluminum foil and paper. Some authors refer to live mulches
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

5
that is similar to green manures (Akubondo 1984, Karunairajan 1982). Live mulches are
intercropped with the crop of interest for their mulch value, where as green manure are
also crops grown for their mulch value, but plowed under before planting the crop of
interest.
Wilson and Akapa (1983) also reported that mulches also decrease soil moisture
evaporation, increase infiltration rate, smother weeds, lower soil temperature, and enrich
soil.” Mulches are especially valuable for protecting seedlings from the impact of rain,
hail, and the wind. Mulches can be especially important in tropical areas with heavy
rainfall, as they improve water absorption and are important in water conservation.
Mulches reduce rain splashing, an important means of dissemination for numerous
bacterial and fungal pathogens. Soil temperatures are lower under mulches in warm
tropical areas.

Wrigley (1988) cited a number of benefits from mulching coffee with non-living
crop residues. He suggested that mulches reduced soil temperatures, protected against
rain, conserved rainfall, increased soil nutrients, increased soil organic matter, produced
conditions ideal for root growth, reduced weeds, reduced soil acidity, and increased
coffee yields. The main advantage Wrigley cited for the use of mulches was high labor
costs.
Bawang and Lapade (1991-1992) stated that mulching of pine needles are
suitable for snapbean. They found that pine needle mulch combined with fertilizers
tremendously increased yields of the crop studied and effectively controlled weeds, such
as broad leaves, grasses and sedges. These also prevent fertilizer from leaching, regulate
soil temperature and conserve soil moisture with no residual effect. Similarly with the
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

6
use of dried straw, they found out that mungo yield increased while the unmulched plot
have lower yield despite the application of high rate of fertilizers (Petate, 1978).

Studies showed the effects of rice hull mulch and nitrogen in maize. They
concluded that maize yield responded significantly due to mulching the crop and was
taller than the unmulched. They also claimed that mulch provides better soil moisture,
temperature regimes and reduces weed competition (Nnadi et al., 1984).

Varietal Evaluation


The importance of having varietal evaluation is to observe performance such as
yield, earliness, vigor, maturity and keeping quality because different varieties have a
wide range of difference of plant, in size and in yield performance (Work and Carew,
1995). Varietal evaluation gathers data on plant character, yield, and pod quality. Hence
we can obtain high yielding and improved cultivars that are known to play role in
boosting production (Regmi, 1990).

Varietal evaluation of bush snapbean conducted by Lab-oyan in 1987 revealed
that plants spaced of 30 cm between rows produced the largest pods. The test varieties
and spacing on the seed production had no significant interaction effect. Flo had the
highest seed yield among the varieties tested.
Dagson (2000) evaluated the six varieties of bush snapbean at La Trinidad and
found out that HAB 63, Torrent and String Valentine significantly produce the highest
marketable pods per plot. BBL 274 and Torrent significantly had the highest total fresh
pod yield of 8 to 9 kg/5m2 plot. All varieties studied exhibited moderate resistance to
pod borer except for HAB 232 which was susceptible to pod borer. On the other hand,
Loakan (2003) evaluated Alno selection obtained from different sources in Benguet.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

7
Alno from Tublay and La Trinidad produced significantly longest pod and highest fresh
pod yield fallowed by Alno from Mankayan, Kabayan and Bokod.
Likewise, Pog-ok (2001) revealed that Pencil Pod performed significantly better
than the other varieties with regards to the number of days to first harvesting, pod length,
pod diameter, and resistance unlike Alno, Blue Lake; B-21 and Kentucky Wonder with
aromatic pods.

































Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

8
MATERIALS AND METHODS



An area of 390 m2 was thoroughly prepared for the experiment consisting of 78
plots including the border plot. Each plot measured 1 m x 5 m.

In this study, mulching materials were assigned as factor A while the six varieties
of bush snapbean were considered factor B, as follows.
Factor A =
Mulching materials (M)


M1 = Unmulched plot


M2 = Pine needles


M3 = ““Taaw”” grass
Factor B =
Varieties (V)


V1 = BBL 274


V2 = HAB 19


V3 = HAB 232


V4 = HAB 63


V5 = Torrent


V6 = Landmark


The experiment was laid out following 3 x 6 factor factorial in randomized
complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. Mulching materials were placed
uniformly on the top of the plot at 30 days after planting (DAP). Other cultural practices
were done when needed.



Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

9
Data Gathered
1. Number of days to first flowering. This was recorded when at least 50 % of
the plants per plot had at least one fully opened flower per plant.
2. Number of days to first and last harvest of fresh pod. These were obtained by
counting the number of days from planting up to the time of first harvesting and last
harvesting of fresh pods.
3. Plant height at first harvest. The height of ten sample plants were measured
from the base up to the tip of the youngest shoots during the first harvesting of fresh pod.
4. Number of pods per cluster. The number of pods that developed per cluster
was counted from ten random sample cluster per plant.
5. Number of pod cluster per plant. This was counted from ten random sample
plants per plot.
6. Number of pods per plant. The number pods were counted from ten sample
plants per treatment and the average number of pods per plant was per computed.
7. Number of pods per plot. This was obtained by counting the number of
harvested marketable and non marketable pods produced per plot.
8. Pod length (cm). This was taken by measuring the length of the ten sample
pod per plot from the base up to the tip of the pod.
9. Pod width. The width of the pod was taken by measuring the mid portion of
the ten sample pods per plot using a vernier caliper.
10. Distance of the pod to the ground. The distance of ten sample pods produced
per plot was measured from the tip of the pod up to the ground using foot ruler.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

10
11. Distance of cluster to the ground. The distance of ten selected sample clusters
produced per plant was measured using a foot ruler from the peduncle attachment of the
cluster to the soil surface.
12. Straightness of the pod. This was noted from ten random sample pod per
plant produced per plot through visual observation and was recorded as straight, slightly
curve or curve.
13. Number and weight of marketable pods per plot. Marketable pods were
counted and weighed. Marketable pods were smooth, straight, tender and free from
insect pest damage and disease infection.
14. Number and Weight of non marketable pods per plot. These were recorded by
getting the number and weight of harvested non marketable pods. Non marketable pods
were very short, abnormal, over matured and damaged by insect pest and diseases.
15. Total yield per plot (kg/3m2). This was obtained by getting the total weight of
marketable and non marketable pods per plot
16. Computed yield per ha (t/ha). This will be computed using the formula
following formula per plot basis.
Yield (kg)
Yield /ha (t/ha) =
X 3.33
3m2

Where 3.33 is a factor to used to convert yield in kg/5m2 into yield per hectare in
t/ha.
17. Number of seeds per pod. The seeds were counted from ten selected sample
pods per plot.
18. Number of days to last flowering. This was obtained by counting the number
of days from planting up to the time that the plants stopped to produce flower.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

11
19. Insect pest and disease rating
a. Reaction to leaf miner and pod borer. This was monitored using the
following scale used by Dagson in 2000.
SCALE
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1
No infestation
High resistance
2
1-25 % infestation
Moderate resistance
3
26-50 % infestation
Resistant
4
51-75 % infestation
Susceptible
5
75 and above
Very susceptible
b. Reaction to rust and rot infection. This was monitored using the fallowing
scale used by Loakan in 2003.
RANK
DESCRIPTION
REMARKS
1
No infection
High resistance
2
20-30 % infection
Moderate resistance
3
30-40 % infection
Resistant
4
40-60 % infection
Susceptible
5
60 and above
Very susceptible
20. Return on Cash Expenses (ROCE). This was obtained using the fallowing
formula per plot basis:
Gross sales –Total expenses
ROCE =
X 100


Total expenses


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

12
Analysis of Data
All quantitative data were analyzed using analysis of variance for 3 x 6 factor
factorial in randomized complete block design (RCBD) with four replications. The
significance of differences among treatment means were tested using Duncan’s Multiple
Range Test (DMRT) at 95 % level of significance.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

13
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Number of Days to First Flowering

Effect
of
mulch. All the bush snapbean plants regardless of mulching materials
flowered within 40 days after sowing (DAS).

Effect of variety. No significant differences were observed among the six
varieties of bush snapbean used in the study. All varieties took 40 to 41 days to first
flowering after planting
Interaction
effect. There was no interaction effect on the number of days to first
flowering between mulching materials and variety. Results showed that mulching of pine
needle and “Taaw” grass had no effect on the number of days to first flowering of bush
snapbean plant.

Number of Days to Last Flowering
Effect
of
mulch. All the plants took 57 days to last flowering regardless of the
mulching materials used in the study.

Effect of variety. There were no significant differences in terms of the number of
days to last flowering among the six varieties evaluated. All the varieties evaluated took
57 days to last flowering.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction effect of mulching material and
varieties was noted on the number of days to last flowering.

Number of Days to First Harvest
Effect
of
mulch. There were no significant differences among plants with
different mulching materials observed in terms of days to first harvest. Both unmulched
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

14
and mulched plot had a similar number of days to first harvest. They took 59 days to first
harvesting of fresh pods.

Effect of variety. No significant differences were also observed on the number of
days to first harvest among the varieties evaluated. All the varieties took 59 days to first
harvest
Interaction
effect. There was no significant interaction effect observed on the
number of days to first harvest between mulch and variety.

Number of Days to Last Harvest
Effect
of
mulch. No significant differences in number of days to last harvest
among plants mulched with different materials were observed in this study. All plants
with different mulching materials had similar number of days to last harvest of fresh pod,
70 days after planting.

Effect of variety. There were no significant differences on the number of days to
last harvest of fresh pod among the six varieties evaluated. All of them were harvested at
70 days after sowing.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction effect of mulching material and
variety were observed on number of days to last harvest.

Plant Height at First Harvest
Effect
of
mulch. Statistical analysis revealed highly significant differences in
plant height at harvest among plants mulched with different materials. Table 1 showed
that unmulched plot produced the tallest, together with plots mulched with pine needle.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

15
Plants mulched with “Taaw” grass exhibited significantly shorter plants which was
comparable to the height of plants mulched with pine needle.

Effect of variety. There were no significant differences observed among the six
varieties used in the study in terms of plant height (Table 1). Plant height ranged from
40.8 cm (BBL 274) to 46.7 cm (Torrent).
Interaction
effect. It was observed that mulch and variety did not interact
significantly with each other, in plant height at first harvest (Table 1).

Table 1. Plant height at first harvest of six varieties of bush snapbeans as affected by
different mulching materials

PLANT HEIGHT
TREATMENT
(cm)
Mulch (a)
M1 – Unmulched 46.8a
M2 – Pine needle
43.4ab
M3 – “Taaw” grass
38.0b
Variety (b)

V1 – BBL 274 40.8
V2 – HAB 19
42.3
V3 – HAB 323
42.2
V4 – HAB 63
41.6
V5 – Torrent
46.7
V6 – Landmark
42.8

axb ns
CV (%)
10.68
*Means with common letter are not significantly different at 95 % level of
significance using DMRT.


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

16
Number of Pods Per Cluster
Effect
of
mulch. No significant differences were observed in number of pods per
cluster among the different mulching materials used (Table 2). Mulch and unmulched
plants had 3 to 4 pods per cluster.
Effect of variety. There were no significant differences in number of pods per
cluster among the six varieties used in the study. Table 2 showed that all the varieties
had 3 pods per cluster except Landmark which had 4 pods per cluster.
Interaction
effect. It was observed that mulch and variety did not interact with
each other in number of pods per cluster (Table 2).

Table 2. Number of pods per cluster per plant and per plot (3 m2) of six varieties of bush
snapbeans as affected by different mulching materials

NUMBER OF:
TREATMENT
PODS PER CLUSTER
POD CLUSTERS PER PLANT
Mulch (a)


M1 – Unmulched 3 6b
M2 – Pine needle
4
7a
M3 – “Taaw” grass
3
7a
Variety (b)


V1 – BBL 274 3 6b
V2 – HAB 19
3
7b
V3 – HAB 323
3
7b
V4 – HAB 63
3
8a
V5 – Torrent
3
6b
V6 – Landmark
4
6b

Axb ns
*
CV (%)
13.21
9.68
*Means with common letter are not significantly different at 95 % level of
significance using DMRT.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

17
Number of Pod Clusters Per Plant
Effect
of
mulch. Statistical analysis showed highly significant differences
observed on the number of clusters per plant (Appendix Table 6). Mulching pine needle
and “Taaw” grass mulch gave significantly higher number of pod clusters per plant than
the unmulched plot. It was observed that Pine needle and “Taaw” grass produced
statistically similar number of pod clusters per plant (Table 2).

Effect of variety. Highly significant differences on the number of pod clusters per
plant were observed among the six varieties of bush snapbean used in the study. HAB 63
significantly produced the highest number pod of clusters per plant. The other varieties
BBL evaluated produced significantly lower number of pods clusters per plant (Table 2).
Interaction
effect. It was observed that mulch and variety showed significant
interaction effect on the number of pod clusters per plant (Figure 1). Results showed that
the highest producer was HAB 63 mulched with “Taaw” grass, HAB 19 and HAB 63
were also the highest mulched with pine needle while in the unmulched plot, HAB 63
was the highest. All the varieties without mulched except HAB 63 was the lowest. HAB
63 and Torrent mulched with pine needle and BBL 274 and Landmark mulched with
“Taaw” grass had a similar number of pod clusters per plant (6).


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

18






9.5
Unmulched
Pine needle
"Taaw" grass mulch
9
8.5
PER PLANTS
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
NUMBER OF POD CLUSTER
VARIETY
Figure1. Interaction effect between mulch and variety on the number
of pod clusters per plant
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

19
Number of Pods Per Plant

Effect
of
mulch. Statistical analysis showed highly significant differences among
the plants mulched with different materials in terms of number of pods per plant.
Mulching of bush snapbean with pine needles and “Taaw” grass gave significantly higher
number of pods per plant than the unmulched plants (Table 3). This indicates that
mulching increased the number of pods per plant of bush snapbean.

Effect of variety. Highly significant differences on number of pods per plant were
noted among the varieties evaluated. Results showed that HAB 63 gave significantly
highest number of pods per plants among the six varieties tested. The other five varieties
recorded statistically similar number of pod per plant which ranged from 17 to 19 (Table
3).
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction on the number of pods per plant
between mulch and variety was observed (Table 3).

Number of Pods Per Plot
Effect
of
mulch. Statistical analysis showed highly significant differences among
the plants mulched with different materials in terms of number of pods per plot.
Mulching of Pine needles and “Taaw” grass gave significantly higher number of pods per
plot that unmulched plot (Table 3).

Effect of variety. No significant differences in number of pods per plot were
recorded among the six varieties evaluated (Table 3). Landmark produced the
numerically highest pods per plot (437) and the lowest producer was HAB 63 (361).
Interaction effect. No significant interaction effect on the number of pods per plot
between mulch and varieties observed (Table 3).
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

20
Table 3. Number of pods per plants and per plot of six varieties of bush snapbeans as
affected by different mulching materials

NUMBER OF PODS PER
TREATMENT
PLANT PLOT
(3m2)
Mulch (a)
M1 – Unmulched 17b 374b
M2 – Pine needle
19a 410a
M3 – “Taaw” grass
19a 430a
Variety (b)


V1 – BBL 274 17b 414
V2 – HAB 19
19b 386
V3 – HAB 323
19b 411
V4 – HAB 63
21a 361
V5 – Torrent
17b 417
V6 – Landmark
17b 437


axb ns
ns
CV (%)
9.63
18.72
*Means with common letter are not significantly different at 95 % level of
significance using DMRT.


Pod Length

Effect
of
mulch. Statistically, no significant differences in length of pods were
observed among the different mulching materials used in the study (Table 4). All had
similar pod length of 15 cm.

Effect of variety. Highly significant differences in length of pods were observed
among the six varieties evaluated (Table 4). Torrent and BBL 274 significantly gave the
longest pod length of 16 cm. HAB 19 and Landmark gave 15 cm while HAB 323 and
HAB 63 recorded the significantly shortest pod length (14 cm).
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

21
Interaction effect. Result showed no significant interaction effect between mulch
and the variety observed in pod length bush snapbean (Table 4).

Pod Width (mm)
Effect
of
mulch. Results showed no significant differences observed on the width
of the pod among the different mulching materials used. All of them gave statistically
similar width of pod which ranged from 6 8 to 7.0 mm (Table 4).

Effect of variety. Highly significant differences in pod width were observed
among the varieties evaluated. Torrent, BBL 274 and Landmark had statistically similar
width of pods of more than 9.0 mm, respectively. These varieties gave significantly the
widest pods. HAB 63 and HAB 323 recorded the narrowest pods with 6.5 and 6.3 mm
respectively.
Interaction
effect. Highly significant interaction effect between mulch and variety
was observed on the width of pod (Figure 2). It was shown that the widest pod of 8 mm
was measured in BBL 274 without mulch and Torrent mulched with “Taaw” grass. All
the varieties mulched with pine needles except HAB 323 had also the widest pod. HAB
63 without mulched and HAB 323 with pine needle mulch had the narrowest pod width.
Using “Taaw” grass mulch in HAB 323 and HAB 63 also produced the narrowest pod
width.








Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

22
Table 4. Pod length and width of six varieties of bush snapbeans as affected by different
mulching materials

POD
TREATMENT
LENGTH
WIDTH
(cm)
(mm)
Mulch (a)
M1 – Unmulched 15
6.9
M2 – Pine needle
15
7.0
M3 – “Taaw” grass
15
6.8
Variety (b)


V1 – BBL 274 16a 7.2a
V2 – HAB 19
15b 7.0a
V3 – HAB 323
14c 6.3b
V4 – HAB 63
14c 6.5b
V5 – Torrent
16a 7.4a
V6 – Landmark
15b 7.1a

axb ns
**
CV (%)
3.65
4.87
*Means with common letter are not significantly different at 95 % level of
significance using DMRT.


Distance of the Pods to the Ground
Effect
of
mulch. Statistical analysis showed no significant differences observed
in distance of the pods to the ground among the different mulching materials used (Table
5).





Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

23








Unmulched
Pine needle mulch
"Taaw" grass mulch
8.5
8
7.5
)
m
(m
7
I
DTH
6.5
POD W
6
5.5
5
VARIETY
Figure 2. Interaction effect between mulch and varieties in pod width





Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

24
Effect of variety. Highly significant differences in distance of the pods to the
ground were observed among the varieties evaluated. Table 5 showed that Torrent had
significantly longest distance of pods from the ground together with HAB 323. The other
varieties exhibited statistically similar and lower distance which was also comparable to
HAB 323.
Interaction effect. There was no significant interaction effect between mulch and
variety observed in distance of pod to the ground (Table 5).


Distance of Cluster to the Ground
Effect
of
mulch. Statistically significant differences were observed on the
distance of cluster to the ground among the different mulching materials used in the study
(Table 5). Unmulched plot had the significantly longest distance of pod clusters to the
ground than Pine needle mulch and “Taaw” grass.
Effect of variety. Highly significant differences were observed among the
varieties evaluated. Torrent significantly obtained the longest distance of cluster to the
ground while, HAB 63 obtained the shortest distance of the cluster to the ground which
was statistically similar to the distance of other varieties studied.
Interaction
effect. Highly significant interaction effect of mulch and variety were
observed on the distance of pod clusters to the ground (Figure 3 and Appendix Table 12).
Results showed that mulching with different materials in Torrent had the highest distance
of pod clusters to the ground. BBL 274 without mulch, HAB 19 mulched with pine
needle and Landmark mulched with “Taaw” grass had the lowest distance of pod clusters
to the ground.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

25
Table 5. Distance of the pods and cluster to the ground of six varieties of bush snapbeans
as affected by different mulching materials

DISTANCE OF:
TREATMENT
PODS
POD CLUSTER
(cm)
(cm)
Mulch (a)
M1 – Unmulched 8.1 10.1a
M2 – Pine needle
7.6
9.4b
M3 – “Taaw” grass
8.2
9.2b
Variety (b)


V1 – BBL 274 7.0b 8.8b
V2 – HAB 19
7.2b 8.7b
V3 – HAB 323
8.4ab 8.9b
V4 – HAB 63
8.1b 8.4b
V5 – Torrent
9.8a 13.7a
V6 – Landmark
7.2b 8.9b

axb ns
**
CV (%)
13.30
11.01
*Means with common letter are not significantly different at 95 % level of
significance using DMRT.

Straightness of the Pod

The straightness of the pod was noted through visual observation and recorded as
straight, slightly curve and curve. After 1st harvesting of fresh pod, it was recorded that
most of the varieties with different mulching materials had a pod with slightly curve
except for Torrent and Landmark which had straight pods. Curve pod was observed
during the 2nd and or late resulting to non-marketability of pods. However, during second
harvest curve pod were lesser than the 3rd harvest or later.


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

26




)
Unmulched
Pine needle mulch
"Taaw" grass mulch
16
(cm
D
15
14
13
12
TO THE GROUN
11
S
10
9
CLUSTER
8
7
OF POD
6
DISTANCE
VARIETY

Figure 3. Interaction effect between mulch and varieties on the distance
of pod clusters to the ground
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

27
Number of Marketable Pod Per Plot
Effect
of
mulch. There were no significant differences observed among the
different mulching materials used in the study in terms of number of marketable pods per
plot. Mulching of “Taaw” grass produced the numerically highest number of marketable
pods, followed by Pine needle mulched and the lowest was the unmulched (Table 6).

Effect of variety. Highly significant differences in number of marketable pods
per plot were observed among the five varieties tested. Results showed that BBL 274 and
Torrent had significantly highest number of marketable pods per plot, among the five
varieties evaluated (Table 6). The other varieties tested had all statistically lower
number of marketable pods per plot.

Table 6. Number of marketable and non-marketable pods per plot
TREATMENT
NUMBER OF PODS PER PLOT (3 m2)
MARKETABLE NON-MARKETABLE
Mulch (a)
M1 – Unmulched 220
156
M2 – Pine needle
259
155
M3 – “Taaw” grass
271
153
Variety (b)


V1 – BBL 274 285a 137
V2 – HAB 19
243b 152
V3 – HAB 323
223b 178
V4 – HAB 63
208b 154
V5 – Torrent
286a 132
V6 – Landmark
257b 173

axb ns
ns
CV (%)
23.20
26.57
*Means with common letter are not significantly different at 95 % level of significance using
DMRT.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

28
Interaction effect. No significant interaction effect was noted between mulch and
variety of bush snapbeans plant were observed in number of marketable pods per plot.
Although varieties applied with mulch obtained numerically higher number of marketable
pods per plot than the unmulched (Appendix Table 14).

Number of Non-marketable Pods Per Plot
Effect
of
mulch. There were no significant differences observed on the number of
non-marketable pods per plot among the different mulching materials used. Mulching of
“Taaw” grass produced 153 non-marketable pods per plant, while unmulched produced
156 non-marketable pod per plant (Table 6).

Effect of variety. Statistically no significant differences in number of non-
marketable pods per plot among the six varieties evaluated were recorded (Table 6).
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction between mulching material and
variety was observed on the number of non-marketable pods per plot (Table 6).

Weight of Marketable Pods Per Plot
Effect
of
mulch. Statistical analysis showed highly significant differences in
terms of marketable pods per plot among the different mulching materials used in the
study (Table 7). Plot mulched with “Taaw” grass significantly recorded the heaviest
marketable pods per plot. It was statistically similar with plot mulched with Pine needles.
The lowest weight of marketable pods per plot was recorded in the unmulched plot (M1).






Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

29
Table 7. Weight of marketable, non-marketable and total yield per plot
YIELD PER PLOT
TREATMENT
(kg/3m2)
MARKETABLE NON-MARKETABLE
TOTAL
Mulch (a)

M1 – Unmulched 1.53b 0.81
230
M2 – Pine needle
1.81ab 0.86
2.67
M3 – “Taaw” grass
1.89a 0.80
2.69
Variety (b)



V1 – BBL 274 2.17a 0.87
3.03a
V2 – HAB 19
1.70ab 0.81
2.51abc
V3 – HAB 323
1.41b 0.89
2.24bc
V4 – HAB 63
1.28b 0.72
2.00c
V5 – Torrent
2.11a 0.80
2.90ab
V6 – Landmark
1.79ab 0.84
2.63abc

axb ns
ns
ns
CV (%)
22.45
28.10
19.50
*Means with common letter are not significantly different at 95 % level of
significance using DMRT.

Effect of variety. There were highly significant differences observed among the
varieties evaluated in terms of weight of marketable pods per plot BBL 274 and Torrent
had significantly heaviest marketable pods per plot. They were statistically comparable
with marketable yield of Landmark and HAB 19. The lowest was HAB 323 (Table 7).
Interaction
effect. Statistical analysis revealed no significant interaction effect of
mulching and variety (Table 7) in weight of marketable pods per plot.



Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

30
Weight of Non-marketable Pods Per Plot (kg)
Effect
of
mulch. There was no significant difference on the weight of non-
marketable pods per plot between the different mulching materials used in the study.
Plots with mulch and without mulch got statistical similar weight of non-marketable pods
per plot (Table 7).

Effect of variety. No significant differences were observed among the six
varieties evaluated in terms of non-marketable pods per plot. They had statistically
similar weight of non-marketable pods per plot (Table 7).
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction of mulching material and variety was
observed in weight of non-marketable pods per plot.

Total Yield Per Plot
Effect
of
mulch. There were no significant differences in total yield among the
plot mulched with different materials (Table 7).

Effect of variety. Statistical analysis showed that there were highly significantly
differences in total yield per plot among the six varieties evaluated (Table 7). BBL 274
gave significantly the highest total yield of 3.03 kg per 3 m2 comparable with the yield
HAB 19, Torrent and Landmark. The lowest producer was HAB 63.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction of mulch and variety was noted on
the total yield per plot of bush snapbean (Table 7).




Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

31
Computed Yield Per Hectare
Effect of mulch. The computed yield in tons per hectare was computed based on
the total yield per plot. There were no significant differences in terms of computed yield
per hectare among the different mulching materials was noted. It was observed that
application of mulch gave numerically more yield per hectare than the plots without
mulch (Table 8).

Effect of variety. Highly significant differences among the varieties were
observed in terms of computed yield per hectare (Table 8). BBL 274 and Torrent
significantly obtained the highest yield per hectare which was statistically comparable to
computed yield per hectare of Landmark, HAB 19 and HAB 323. HAB 63 significantly
obtained the lowest.
Interaction
effect. There was no significant interaction effect noted between
mulch and variety on the computed yield per hectare (Table 8).

Number of Seeds Per Pod
Effect
of
mulch. The number of seeds per pod did not differ significantly among
the different mulching materials used in this study (Table 8). All of the plants produced
similar number of seeds per pod (6).

Effect of variety. No significant differences were observed on the number of
seeds per pod among the six varieties evaluated in the study. All of the varieties
produced the same number of seeds per pod (Table 8).
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction effect between mulched and varieties
used was noted in number of seeds per pod (Table 8).

Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

32
Table 8. Computed yield per hectare and number of seeds per pod of six varieties of bush
snapbeans as affected by different mulching materials

TREATMENT
YIELD
NUMBER OF SEED
(t/ha)
PER POD
Mulch (a)
M1 – Unmulched 7.72aa 6
M2 – Pine needle
8.81aa 6
M3 – “Taaw” grass
8.86aa 6
Variety (b)


V1 – BBL 274 10.01a 6
V2 – HAB 19
8.29ab 6
V3 – HAB 323
7.40ab 6
V4 – HAB 63
6.81ba 6
V5 – Torrent
9.57aa 6
V6 – Landmark
8.69ab 6

axb ns
ns
CV (%)
20.05
13.21
*Means with common letter are not significantly different at 95 % level of
significance using DMRT.


Insect Pest and Disease Incidence


Reaction to Leafminer
Effect of mulch. There were no significant differences on the reaction to
leafminer among the different mulching materials used in the study (Table 9). All plants
regardless of mulching materials was monitored and rated as resistant to leafminer
infestation.
Effect of variety. No significant differences were observed among the varieties
evaluated (Table 9). All the bush snapbean plants were resistant to leafminer infestation.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

33
Interaction effect. There was no significant interaction observed on the reaction
of bush snapbean to leafminer infestation between mulching materials and variety (Table
9).

Reaction to Pod Borer
Effect of mulch. No significant differences were noted among the different
mulching materials used in the study. All plants were rated resistant to of pod borer on
infestation.
Effect of variety. There were no significant differences monitored and rated on
the reaction to pod borer among the six varieties of bush snapbean studied. HAB 19,
HAB 323 and HAB 63 were rated as resistant to pod borer while the other varieties were
rated moderately resistance (Table 9).
Interaction effect. No significant interaction of mulching materials and variety
was observed in the reaction of pod borer (Table 9).

Reaction to Rust Infection
Effect of mulch. All the bush snapbean plants regardless of mulching materials
were monitored and rated as moderately resistant to rust infection (Table 9).
Effect of variety. No significant differences were observed among the six
varieties rated in the study. All were moderately resistant to rust infection (Table 9).
Interaction effect. There was no significant interaction effect on the reaction of
bush snapbeans to rust infection between mulching material and variety (Table 9).




Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

34
Table 9. Reaction to leafminer, pod borer, rot infection and rust
REACTION TO:
TREATMENT
LEAF MINER
POD BORER
ROT
RUST
Mulch (a)




M1 – Unmulched
3 3 1 2
M2 – Pine needle
3
3
1
2
M3 – “Taaw” grass
3
3
1
2
Variety
(b)

V1 – BBL 274 3 2 1 2
V2 –
HAB
19 3 3 1 2
V3 –
HAB
323 3 3 1 2
V4 –
HAB
63 3 3 1 2
V5 –
Torrent 3 2 1 2
V6 –
Landmark 3 2 1 2

axb
ns ns ns
CV (%)
3.95
4.69
11.62


Remarks: 1 – High resistance, 2 – Moderate resistance, 3 – Resistance, 4-
Susceptible, 5 – Very susceptible.


Reaction to Rot Infection
Effect of mulch. No significant differences were monitored and rated on the
different mulching materials used. All were rated highly resistant rot infection (Table 9).
Effect of variety. There were no significant differences among the varieties
evaluated. All the bush snapbean plants were monitored and rated as highly resistant in
terms to rot infection (Table 9).
Interaction effect. No significant interaction of mulching materials and variety
was observed in the reaction to rot infection (Table 9).


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

35
Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)
Effect
of
mulch. Table 10 presents the return on cash expenses (ROCE) on
producing bush snapbean mulched with different materials used in the study. It was
observed that unmulched plot gave the highest return on total cash expenses, 40.79 %. It
was fallowed by plants mulched with “Taaw” grass and the lowest was the pine needle
mulch with a total cash expense of 12.76 % ROCE. This implies that highest ROCE on
plants without mulched is due to low cost of production and low cost of labor. Lowest
return on cash expenses is due to high cost of production and labor.
Effect of variety. The return on cash expense of six varieties of bush snapbeans is
shown in Table 11. It was observed that BBL 274 registered the highest return on cash
expense of 50.61 %. It was followed by Torrent with 29.04 % ROCE. Negative ROCE
was noted in producing HAB 63. This implies that highest ROCE on the variety is due to
high yield and higher income could be expected. Negative ROCE is due to low yield and
high cost of production.

Table 10. Return on cash expenses of bush snapbeans as affected by mulching materials
per plot (3m2) basis

YIELD
GROSS
TOTAL
NET
ROCE
TREATMENT
(kg/plot)
SALE
EXPENSES
INCOME
(%)
Unmulched
6.20 99.12 70.40 28.72 40.79
Pine
needle
6.75 115.92 102.80 13.12 12.76
“Taaw”
grass 7.43 118.8 102.80 16.00 15.56
*Total expenses include cost of labor, seeds and fertilizers.
**The selling price was Php 16/kg.




Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

36
Table 11. Return on cash expense of bush snapbeans as affected by mulching materials
per plot (3m2) basis

YIELD
GROSS
TOTAL
NET
ROCE
TREATMENT
(kg/plot)
SALE
EXPENSES
INCOME
(%)
BBL 274
8.66 138.56 92.00 31.56 50.61
HAB
19
6.69 106.93 92.00 14.93 16.23
HAB
323
5.93 94.88 92.00 2.88 3.13
HAB 63
4.85
77.60
92.00
-14.4
-15.65
Torrent
7.24 118.72 92.00 26.72 29.04
Landmark
7.19 114.99 92.00 22.99 25.00
*Total expenses include cost of labor, seeds and fertilizers.
**The selling price was Php 16/kg.


Interaction effect. Table 12 presents the of six bush snapbeans varieties as
affected by mulching materials. It shows that Torrent without mulching registered the
highest total return on cash expense of 90 % followed by BBL 274 with 67 % ROCE.
This indicates that plants without mulched was profitable during the month of December
to February. Using pine needle mulch, BBL 274 registered the highest with 42 % ROCE
and using “Taaw” grass, BBL 274 obtained the highest with 48 % ROCE fallowed by
Torrent with 30 % ROCE, HAB 19 with 20 % ROCE and Landmark with 17 % ROCE.
This indicates that plants with mulch was also profitable during the months of December
to February, however it has a lower ROCE than the unmulched.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

37
Table 12. Return on cash expenses of bush snapbeans as affected by mulching materials
per plot (3 m2) basis

YIELD
GROSS
TOTAL
NET
ROCE
TREATMENT
(kg/plot)
SALE
EXPENSES
INCOME
(%)
M1V1 7.35
117.60
70.40
47.2 67
V2 5.32
85.12
70.40
14.72 21
V3
5.10
81.6
70.40
11.20
16
V4 4.37
69.92
70.40
-0.48 -6
V5
8.37 133.92 70.40 63.52
90
V6
6.66 106.56 70.40 36.16
51
M2V1 9.14
146.24
102.80
43.44 42
V2 7.00
112.00
102.80
9.20 9
V3
6.36
101.76
102.80
-0.04
-3
V4 5.02
80.32
102.80
-22.48 -21
V5 5.57
89.12
102.80
-13.68
-13.31
V6 7.38
118.08
102.80
15.28 15
M3V1 9.49
151.84
102.80
49.04 48
V2 7.73
123.68
102.80
20.88 20
V3
6.33
101.28
102.80
-1.52
-1
V4 5.16
82.56
102.80
-20.24 -19
V5 8.32
133.12
102.80
30.32 30
V6 7.52
120.32
102.80
17.52 17
Note: Total expenses include cost of labor, seeds and fertilizers the selling price was Php
16/kg.

Legend: M1 – Unmulched
V1 – BBL 274
M2 – Pine needle mulch
V2 – HAB 19
M3 – “Taaw” grass mulch
V3 – HAB 323

V4 – HAB 63

V5 – Torrent

V6 – Landmark

Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

38

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION


Summary

This study was conducted to: evaluate the response of six varieties of bush
snapbeans to mulching; to identify the most responsive variety of bush snapbeans to
mulching; to evaluate the effect of mulching materials in bush snapbean production; and
to determine the best mulching materials for bush snapbean production.

Plants mulched with different materials were similar on the number days to first
and last flowering, first and last harvesting, number of pods per cluster, number of seeds
per pod, pod length and pod width, distance of pods to the ground, non-marketable yield
per plot, total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare and reaction to leafminer,
pod borer, rust and rot.

Highly significant differences among the kinds of mulching materials were
observed on plant height at first harvest, number of pod clusters per plant, number of
pods per plant and per plot and weight of marketable pods per plot. Significant
differences were also observed on distance of pod clusters to the ground. The longest
distance of pod and pod cluster was recorded in the unmulched plot. The highest number
of pod clusters per plant was recorded in plants mulched with pine needle. Pine needle
mulched resulted the widest pod. Plants mulched with “Taaw” grass had the highest
number of pods per plot, the highest number and heaviest marketable pods and non-
marketable pods per plot.

Among the six varieties of bush snapbeans evaluated, highly significant
differences were observed on number of pod clusters per plant, number of pods per plant,
pod length and pod width, distance of pod and pod clusters to the ground, number and
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

39
weight of marketable pods per plot, total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare.
HAB 63 got the highest number of pod and pod clusters per plant. BBL 274 and Torrent
had the longest and widest pod. Torrent had the longest distance of pod and pod clusters
to the ground. BBL 274 and Torrent produced the highest number of marketable pods.
These varieties also obtained the heaviest marketable pods per plot, total yield per plot
and computed yield per hectare. No significant differences on the other parameters
gathered were noted among the six varieties studied.

Highly significant interaction effect were observed between mulching material
and variety on the distance of pod clusters to the ground and pod width. Significant
interaction was also noted in the number of pod clusters per plant. Torrent significantly
had the longest distance of pod clusters to the ground and gave the significantly widest
pod with pine needle mulch. HAB 63 significantly had the highest number of pod
clusters per plant when mulched with pine needle and “Taaw” grass. Economically, even
without mulching, snapbean production is already profitable because grower could
realized more than 40 % ROCE. Among the six varieties studied growing BBL 274
could result in 51 % ROCE. Planting Torrent and Landmark could also be profitable
because 29 and 25 % ROCE could be obtained. Growing Torrent, BBL 274 and
Landmark even without mulching could be profitable because 51 to 90 % ROCE could be
obtained. When pine needle is available for mulching, BBL 274 could be planted to get
42 % ROCE, and when “Taaw” grass is used as mulching material, planting BBL 274
and Torrent could give 48 and 30 % ROCE, respectively HAB 19 and Landmark could
also be grown because 20 and 17 % ROCE could also be obtained.

Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

40
Conclusion

Significant differences were observed among the kinds of mulching materials
used in the study in terms of plant height at first harvest number of pod clusters per plant,
number of pods per plant and per plot, distance of pod clusters to the ground and weight
of marketable pods per plot.

Mulching of pine needle and “Taaw” grass to bush snapbean could increased
number of pod clusters per plant, number of pods per plant and per plot and weight of
marketable pods per plot. They could also reduce height of plant at first harvest and
distance of pod clusters to the ground.

Highly significant differences were observed among the six varieties of bush
snapbeans evaluated in terms of number with pod cluster per plant, number of pod per
plant, pod length and pod width, distance of pod and pod clusters to the ground number
and weight of marketable yield per plot, total yield per plot and computed yield per
hectare. HAB 63 produce the highest number of pods per plant and pod clusters per
plant, BBL 274 and Torrent had the longest pod length and widest pod including HAB 19
and Landmark. Torrent has the longest distance of pods and pod clusters to the ground.
Torrent and BBL 274 had the highest number and heaviest marketable yield, total yield
per plot and computed yield per hectare.

Based on the return on cash expense unmulched plot recorded the highest ROCE
among the different mulching materials used. BBL 274 registered the highest ROCE
(50.61 %) among the six varieties evaluated. It was fallowed by Torrent and Landmark
with 29.04 % and 25 % ROCE, respectively. BBL 274, Torrent and Landmark obtained
the highest ROCE even without mulch was profitable which recorded 51 to 90 % ROCE.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

41
BBL 274 could be mulched with pine needle to get 42 % ROCE. BBL 274 and Torrent
could also be mulched with “Taaw” grass to get 48 and 30 % ROCE, respectively.

Recommendation
Mulching may not be recommended to bush snapbean growers during November
to February planting season because growers could only realize 40 % ROCE. Even
without mulch, Torrent, BBL 274 and Landmark could be recommended to growers to
get 51 to 90 % ROCE. Whenever pine needle is available as mulching material, BBL
274 is recommended to get 42 % ROCE. “Taaw” grass could also be used as mulching
material for profitable in growing of BBL 274, Torrent, HAB 19 and Landmark. The
farmer could use BB 274 to get 51 % ROCE or may used Torrent and Landmark to get 51
% ROCE, respectively.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

42
LITERATURE CITED

AKOBUNDO, I.O. 1984. Advances in live mulches crop production in the tropics. Proc.
Western Soc. With Weed Science. 37:51-57.

BAWANG, F.T. and B. LAPADE. 1992. Utilization of Pine needles and mulch. Their
effects on weeds and the germination growth yield and some post harvest qualities
of snapbean. BSU Research Journal. Vol. III. La Trinidad Benguet. P. 27.

DAGSON, M.B. 2000. Performance and acceptability of six varieties of bush snapbeans
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under La Trinidad Benguet Condition. BS Thesis. BSU,
La Trinidad Benguet. P.7.

EDMOND, J.B. 1964. Fundamentals of horticulture. New Delhi: Tata. McGrawHIll
Publishing Co. Ltd. P. 476.

GINDRA T. 1979. Traditional agricultural resource management in Mexico and Central
America. University California Press, Berkeley, CA. P. 302.

HARRDEC. 1989. Snapbean technoguide for the highlands. 2nd Ed. BSU, La Trinidad
Benguet

HOINTINK, H.A. and FAHY 1981. Basis for the control of soil borne plants pathogens
with Composts. Annu. Rev. Physiopathology. 24:43-114.

LOAKAN, M.J. 2003. Evaluation of alno-derived selections of snapbeans obtained from
different sources in Benguet. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. Pp. 10-11.

NNADI, L.B.T. KANG and EN. O.IWNAFOR. 1984. Effects of mulches and nitrogen on
Maize, Southern Guinea Savanna, Central Nigeria. IITA Annual Report.
International Latitude of Tropical Agriculture. Oyo Road, Ibadan, Nigeria. Pp.
164-165.

PALTE, J. 1981. Cultural practices and infectious crop diseases. Springer-Verlay, Berlin.
P.243.

PCARRD. 1983. Snapbean technoguide for the highlands. 2nd Ed. BSU, La Trinidad
Benguet. Pp. 1-3.

PETATE, E.P. 1978. Effects of different mulching materials on the growth and yield of
green union. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. P. 25.

POG-OK J. F. 2000. On farm evaluation of potential varieties of pole snapbeans at Pico
La Trinidad Benguet. BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. P. 8.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

43
REGMI, S.K. 1990. Varietal evaluation of promising lines and path coefficients analysis
in pole snapbeans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). MS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad
Benguet. Pp. 39-40.

ROWE-DUTTON P. 1957. The mulching of vegetables. Common Wealth Agriculture
Business Tech. Comm. No.24 Farmhand Royal England. P. 4.

TINDALL, H.D. 1983. Vegetables in the tropics. London: McMillan Education., Ltd. P.
533.

THURSON, H.D. 1992. Sustainable practices for plant disease management in traditional
farming systems. West View, Boulder, Co. P. 279.

WEBSTER, C.C. and P.N. WILSON. 1999. Agriculture in the tropics. 3rd Col. Longman,
London. P. 640.

WILKEN J. 1987. Good farmers. Traditional agricultural resource management in
Mexico and Central America. University California Press, Berkeley, CA. P. 302.

WILSON, G.F. and K.L. AKAPA. 1983. Providing mulches for no tillage cropping in the
tropics. In. I.Q. IPPC, Oregon State University. P.208.

WORK D. and J. CAREW. 1995. Producing vegetable crops. The Interstate Printers and
Publishers, Inc. Printed in the united state of America. P. 238.
Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

44
APPENDICES


APPENDIX TABLE 1. Number of days to first flowering

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
40 40 40 40 160 40
V2
41 41 41 41 164 41
V3

41 41 41 41 164 41
V4
41 41 41 41 164 41
V5
40 40 40 40 160 40
V6
40 40 40 40 160 40
M2V1
40 40 40 40 160 40
V2
41 41 41 41 164 41
V3

41 41 41 41 164 41
V4
41 41 41 41 164 41
V5
40 40 40 40 160 40
V6
40 40 40 40 160 40
M3V1
40 40 40 40 160 40
V2
41 41 41 41 164 41
V3

41 41 41 41 164 41
V4
41 41 41 41 164 41
V5
40 40 40 40 160 40
V6
40 40 40 40 160 40
BLOCK TOTAL
729
729
729
729
2,916
40.5

Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

45
APPENDIX TABLE 2. Number of days to first harvest

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
59 59 59 59 236 59
V2
59 59 59 59 236 59
V3

59 59 59 59 236 59
V4
59 59 59 59 236 59
V5
59 59 59 59 236 59
V6
59 59 59 59 236 59
M2V1
59 59 59 59 236 59
V2
59 59 59 59 236 59
V3

59 59 59 59 236 59
V4
59 59 59 59 236 59
V5
59 59 59 59 236 59
V6
59 59 59 59 236 59
M3V1
59 59 59 59 236 59
V2
59 59 59 59 236 59
V3

59 59 59 59 236 59
V4
59 59 59 59 236 59
V5
59 59 59 59 236 59
V6
59 59 59 59 236 59
BLOCK
TOTAL
1,062 1,062 1,062 1,062 4,248
59

Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

46
APPENDIX TABLE 3. Number of days to last harvest

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
70 70 70 70 280 70
V2
70 70 70 70 280 70
V3

70 70 70 70 280 70
V4
70 70 70 70 280 70
V5
70 70 70 70 280 70
V6
70 70 70 70 280 70
M2V1
70 70 70 70 280 70
V2
70 70 70 70 280 70
V3

70 70 70 70 280 70
V4
70 70 70 70 280 70
V5
70 70 70 70 280 70
V6
70 70 70 70 280 70
M3V1
70 70 70 70 280 70
V2
70 70 70 70 280 70
V3

70 70 70 70 280 70
V4
70 70 70 70 280 70
V5
70 70 70 70 280 70
V6
70 70 70 70 280 70
BLOCK
TOTAL
1,260 1,260 1,260 1,260



Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

47
APPENDIX TABLE 4. Plant height at 1st harvest

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
36.4 43.1 44.9 45.5 169.9 42.5
V2
38.8 46.4 56.0 42.4 183.6 45.9
V3

39.7 51.9 45.5 43.1 180.2 45.1
V4
36.6 49.0 53.2 48.2 187.0 46.8
V5
54.6 50.4 52.9 55.5 213.4 53.4
V6
51.6 47.8 44.9 45.5 189.8 47.5
M2V1
39.2 45.8 47.2 38.0 170.2 42.6
V2
41.2 45.8 47.9 36.6 171.5 42.9
V3

42.6 50.0 40.5 35.7 168.8 42.2
V4
35.3 47.1 40.9 41.1 164.4 41.1
V5
59.2 55.1 41.9 37.8 194.0 48.3
V6
45.8 49.6 42.8 34.3 172.5 43.1
M3V1
34.7 37.7 38.9 37.7 119.0 29.8
V2
38.3 40.4 36.2 37.3 152.2 38.1
V3

39.8 38.0 39.2 40.6 157.6 39.4
V4
36.6 38.8 36.9 35.4 147.7 36.9
V5
42.7 35.8 36.5 38.5 153.5 34.4
V6
36.0 39.8 37.1 39.0 151.9 38.0


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3
213.794
71.265


Treatment 17
1,365.840
80.344

A – Mulch
(2)
951.713
475.856
21.99** 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
261.141
52.228
2.21ns 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
152.986
15.299
0.71ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
113.442
21.636

TOTAL 71
2,683.076

** – highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 10.88 %
ns – not significant


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

48
APPENDIX TABLE 5. Number of pods per cluster

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
3 6 6 4 13 3
V2
3 3 4 3 13 3
V3

4 4 3 3 14 4
V4
3 4 4 3 14 4
V5
3 3 4 3 13 3
V6
3 3 3 4 13 3
M2V1
3 3 3 3 12 3
V2
4 3 4 3 14 4
V3

3 4 3 4 14 4
V4
4 4 3 3 14 4
V5
4 4 4 4 16 4
V6
3 3 3 3 12 3
M3V1
3 3 3 3 12 3
V2
3 3 4 4 14 4
V3

3 3 3 3 12 3
V4
3 4 4 3 14 4
V5
3 3 3 3 12 3
V6
3 3 3 3 12 3


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3
0.278 0.093


Treatment 17
5.278 0.310

A – Mulch
(2)
0.778
0.389
2.04ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
1.944
0.389
2.04ns 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
2.556
0.256
1.34ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
9.722
0.191

TOTAL 71
15.278
ns – not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 13.21 %



Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

49
APPENDIX TABLE 6. Number of pod clusters per plant

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III
IV
M1V1
4 6 6 6 22 6
V2
7 6 6 6 25 6
V3

6 6 6 6 24 6
V4
6 8 8 8 30 8
V5
5 6 6 6 23 6
V6
5 8 6 6 25 6
M2V1
5 7 6 7 25 6
V2
9 8 8 8 32 8
V3

6 6 6 7 25 6
V4
7 9 8 9 33 8
V5
6 7 6 6 25 6
V6
6 8 7 7 28 7
M3V1
6 6 5 6 23 6
V2
7 8 7 8 30 8
V3

8 7 8 8 31 8
V4
9 8 9 9 35 9
V5
6 7 7 7 27 7
V6
6 6 6 6 24 6


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 5.375
1.792


Treatment 17
63.736
3.749

A – Mulch
(2)
11.194
5.597
13.05** 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
41.569
8.314
19.38** 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
10.972
1.097
2.56* 2.01
2.61
Error 51
21.875
0.429

TOTAL 71
90.986

** – highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 9.68 %
* – significant


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

50
APPENDIX TABLE 7. Number of pods per plant

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
17 16 15 15 63 16
V2
20 17 17 16 70 18
V3

20 18 17 17 72 18
V4
19 25 18 21 83 21
V5
15 17 17 16 65 16
V6
14 20 16 17 67 17
M2V1
15 19 17 19 70 18
V2
23 20 21 21 85 21
V3

19 17 17 22 78 19
V4
22 24 22 23 91 23
V5
15 17 17 17 66 17
V6
17 19 17 18 71 18
M3V1
17 15 19 17 68 18
V2
21 20 19 19 71 20
V3

23 17 21 20 81 20
V4
25 19 22 22 88 22
V5
15 17 18 18 68 17
V6
16 17 17 17 67 17


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 2.153
0.718


Treatment 17
310.625
18.272

A – Mulch
(2)
34.083
17.042
5.40** 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
253.125
50.625
16.03** 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
23.417
2.343
0.74ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
161.097
3.159

TOTAL 71
473.875

** – highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 9.63 %
ns – not significant


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

51
APPENDIX TABLE 8. Number of pods per plot (3 m2)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
259 380 540 206
1,385 346
V2
211 432 476 353
1,472 368
V3

293 348 404 285
1,330 333
V4
287 379 468 474
1,696 424
V5
375 379 468 474
1,696 424
V6
407 463 471 434
1,775 444
M2V1
348 399 471 630
1,848 462
V2
357 275 468 435
1,535 384
V3

446 449 370 408
1,673 418
V4
432 250 385 303
1,370 343
V5
439 307 453 421
1,620 405
V6
322 478 411 575
1,786 447
M3V1
315 448 423 554
1,740 435
V2
280 512 335 504
1,631 408
V3

435 452 474 568
1,929 482
V4
453 399 432 359
1,643 411
V5
360 414 453 464
1,691 423
V6
360 399 471 459
1,689 422


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication 3
77,330.500
25,776.833


Treatment 17
138,477.944
8,145.761

A – Mulch
(2)
38,470.887
19,235.389
3.36* 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
43,059.944
10,611.989
1.51 ns 2.29 3.39
A x B
(10)
56,947.222
5,694.722
0.99ns 2.01 2.61
Error 51
192,411.375
5,733.556

TOTAL 71


* – significant
Coefficient of Variation = 18.72 %
ns – not significant


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

52
APPENDIX TABLE 9. Pod length (cm)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
16.8 16.3 15.8 16.0 64.9 16.2
V2
14.1 14.7 14.9 14.4 58.1 14.5
V3

14.2 14.4 14.0 14.8 57.4 14.4
V4
13.8 14.9 14.6 13.9 57.2 14.3
V5
16.3 15.1 16.7 16.2 64.3 16.1
V6
15.2 15.2 15.1 14.3 59.8 15.0
M2V1
15.8 15.5 15.5 16.8 63.6 16.0
V2
13.2 14.9 14.9 14.5 57.5 14.4
V3

13.7 15.4 14.8 13.7 57.6 14.4
V4
15.3 14.4 14.1 14.8 58.6 14.7
V5
16.6 16.3 16.4 14.8 64.1 16.0
V6
15.1 14.9 14.8 14.4 59.2 14.8
M3V1
16.4 16.2 15.8 15.5 63.9 16.0
V2
15.1 15.1 14.8 14.9 60.0 15.0
V3

14.6 15.0 14.9 14.6 59.1 14.8
V4
14.7 14.5 14.3 14.6 58.1 14.5
V5
14.5 15.4 16.1 16.2 62.1 15.6
V6
15.5 15.2 14.3 14.6 59.6 14.9


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 0.562
0.187


Treatment 17
32.081
1.887

A – Mulch
(2)
0.101
0.050
0.18ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
29.668
5.934
19.55** 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
2.313
0.231
0.78ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
15.426
0.302

TOTAL 71
48.069

** – highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 3.65 %
ns – not significant


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

53
APPENDIX TABLE 10. Pod width (mm)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
8 7 7 8 30 8
V2
7 7 7 7 28 7
V3

6 6 7 7 26 7
V4
6 6 6 6 24 6
V5
7 7 8 7 29 7
V6
7 7 7 7 28 7
M2V1
7 7 7 7 28 7
V2
7 7 7 7 28 7
V3

6 6 6 7 25 6
V4
7 7 7 7 28 7
V5
8 7 7 8 30 7
V6
7 7 7 8 29 7
M3V1
7 7 7 7 28 7
V2
7 7 7 7 28 7
V3

6 6 6 6 24 6
V4
6 6 7 7 26 6
V5
7 7 8 8 30 8
V6
7 7 7 7 28 7


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 1.486
0.495


Treatment 17
18.069
0.886

A – Mulch
(2)
0.361
0.181
1.59ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
11.569
2.314
20.47** 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
3.139
0.302
2.78** 2.01
2.61
Error 51
5.764
0.113

TOTAL 71
22.319

** – highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 4.87 %
ns – not significant


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

54
APPENDIX TABLE 11. Distance of the pod to the ground (cm)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
7.7 6.5 7.3 6.7 28.2 7.1
V2
5.9 5.9 6.9 6.4 27.7 6.9
V3
10.2
10.2
9.1
8.7
34.7
8.7
V4
7.9 7.9 7.8 7.8 31.6 7.9
V5
12.3 12.3 10.2 8.3 40.6 10.2
V6
6.1 6.1 7.1 9.0 30.8 7.7
M2V1
6.8 6.8 6.2 7.0 25.7 6.4
V2
6.0 6.0 6.3 6.8 26.3 6.6
V3

6.6 6.6 7.5 7.3 29.8 7.6
V4
7.9 7.9 8.3 7.5 31.7 7.9
V5
10.1 10.1 9.9 8.4 40.3 10.1
V6
7.4 7.4 7.3 7.9 28.6 7.2
M3V1
7.5 7.5 7.7 8.7 30.6 7.7
V2
8.3 8.3 7.6 7.6 32.1 8.0
V3
7.6
7.6
8.2
10.9
35.8
9.0
V4
6.9 6.9 9.1 8.6 34.0 8.5
V5
9.1 9.1 7.8 8.4 36.8 9.2
V6
6.2 6.2 8.4 6.9 28.5 7.1


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 2.626
0.875


Treatment 17
82.144
4.832

A – Mulch
(2)
5.287
2.644
2.36ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
65.496
13.099
11.66** 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
11.360
1.136
1.03ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
57.320
1.124

TOTAL 71
142.079

** – highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 13.30 %
ns – not significant


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

55
APPENDIX TABLE 12. Distance of pod clusters to the ground (cm)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
8.3 8.6 9.2 8.7 34.8 8.7
V2 10.4 7.9 7.6 9.2 35.1 8.8
V3
11.6
9.8
8.4
10.2
40.0
10.0
V4
8.4 9.5 8.5 8.6 35.0 8.8
V5
11.6 14.8 16.6 13.8 56.8 14.2
V6
8.8 10.7 11.0 9.1 39.6 9.9
M2V1
8.7 6.7 9.8 7.8 33.0 8.3
V2
7.7 7.4 7.3 7.3 29.7 7.4
V3

8.9 9.9 8.4 7.9 35.1 8.8
V4
8.5 8.5 9.0 8.5 34.5 8.6
V5
12.4 16.8 17.0 14.0 60.2 15.1
V6
7.6 8.7 9.5 8.0 33.8 8.4
M3V1 8.8
10.1
10.1
8.4
37.4
9.4
V2 9.4
11.2
9.3
9.2
39.1
9.8
V3

8.0 8.5 7.1 8.0 31.6 7.9
V4
8.1 8.2 7.8 7.5 31.6 7.9
V5
12.6 11.3 13.2 10.9 48.0 12.0
V6
8.7 8.3 8.0 8.1 33.1 8.3


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 6.450
2.150


Treatment 17
304.776
17.928

A – Mulch
(2)
9.382
4.691
4.23* 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
254.431
50.886
45.86** 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
40.963
4.096
3.69** 2.01
2.61
Error 51
56.585
1.110

TOTAL 71
367.811

* – significant
Coefficient of Variation = 11.02 %
** – highly significant





Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

56
APPENDIX TABLE 13. Straightness of the pod

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V2
Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V3

Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V4
Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V5
S
S
S
S
S
S
V6
S S S S S S
M2V1
Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V2
Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V3

Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V4
Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V5
S
S
S
S
S
S
V6
S S S S S S
M3V1
Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V2
Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V3

Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V4
Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc Sc
V5
S
S
S
S
S
S
V6
S S S S S S
Legend:
S =
Straight
Sc =
Slightly Curve
C =
Curve


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

57
APPENDIX TABLE 14. Number of marketable pods per plot (3 m2)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
191 245 322 180 938 235
V2
132 228 259 174 793 198
V3

156 195 173 172 696 174
V4
159 162 223 193 737 184
V5
261 253 326 294
1,134 283
V6
243 250 230 259 982 245
M2V1
270 277 291 419
1,257 314
V2
348 161 232 264
1,005 257
V3

285 271 219 182 957 239
V4
297 153 206 136 792 198
V5
319 224 351 248
1,142 285
V6
221 294 260 294
1,069 267
M3V1
249 311 277 393
1,130 282
V2
200 345 188 383
1,116 279
V3

237 218 254 309
1,018 254
V4
317 254 231 161 963 241
V5
206 252 330 363
1,151 288
V6
297 226 283 228
1,034 258


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication 3
5,132.500
1,710.833

Treatment 17
109,556.000
6,444.471

A – Mulch
(2)
61,987.278
17,286.722
3.12ns 3.18
5.04
B –
(5)
17,105.556
12,397.456
3.67** 2.29
3.39
Variety
A x B
(10)
171,876.500
1,710.556
0.51ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
290,675.278
3,370.127

TOTAL 71


** – highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 23.20 %
ns – not significant


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

58
APPENDIX TABLE 15. Number of non-marketable pods per plot

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
68 135 218 124 545 136
V2
79 204 217 179 679 170
V3

147 153 231 113 644 161
V4
128 186 109 158 581 145
V5
114 126 142 180 562 141
V6
164 213 181 175 733 183
M2V1
74 126 180 211 591 148
V2
109 114 236 171 630 158
V3

161 178 151 200 690 173
V4 155
97
177
167
596
149
V5
119 83 102 173 477 119
V6
101 194 151 281 727 182
M3V1
66 137 147 161 511 128
V2
80 167 147 121 515 129
V3

198 134 210 259 801 200
V4
136 145 211 190 682 171
V5
154 162 123 101 540 135
V6
63 173 148 231 615 154


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

DEGREES
TABULATED
SOURCE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
OF
F
VARIATION
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
FREEDOM
0.05 0.01
Replication 3
39,251.708
13,083.903


Treatment 17
32,873.403
1,933.730

A – Mulch
(2)
134.194
67.347
0.04ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
20,599.736
4,119.947
2.45ns 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
12,138.972
1,213.897
0.72ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
85,814.452
0.153

TOTAL 71
157,939.653

ns – not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 26.57 %






Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

59
APPENDIX TABLE 16. Weight of marketable pods per plot (kg)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
1.55 2.05 2.37 1.38 7.35 1.84
V2
0.94 1.74 1.93 1.21 5.82 1.46
V3

0.98 1.15 1.01 1.10 4.24 1.06
V4
0.90 1.00 1.28 1.19 4.37 1.09
V5
1.93 1.92 2.51 2.01 8.37 2.09
V6
1.52 1.73 1.61 1.60 6.46 1.62
M2V1
1.85 2.25 2.00 3.04 9.14 2.29
V2
2.31 1.38 1.48 1.85 7.02 1.76
V3

1.69 2.07 1.44 1.16 6.36 1.59
V4
1.48 0.97 1.68 0.89 5.02 1.26
V5
2.41 1.75 2.53 1.88 8.57 2.14
V6
1.48 1.98 1.70 2.22 7.38 1.85
M3V1
2.03 2.46 2.05 2.95 9.49 2.37
V2
1.40 2.22 1.23 2.64 7.58 1.90
V3

1.58 1.32 1.61 1.82 6.33 1.58
V4
1.91 1.59 1.42 1.10 6.02 1.51
V5
1.43 1.81 2.48 2.60 8.32 2.08
V6
2.24 1.76 2.04 1.60 7.94 1.91


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 0.279
0.093


Treatment 17 9.955
0.586

A – Mulch
(2)
1.775
0.888
5.80** 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
7.608
1.521
9.94** 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
0.573
0.057
0.37ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
7.806
0.153

TOTAL 71
18.040

** – highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 22.45 %
ns – not significant




Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

60
APPENDIX TABLE 17. Weight of non-marketable pods/plot (kg)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
0.50 0.92 1.35 0.78 3.55 0.89
V2
0.66 0.93 1.16 0.95 3.70 0.93
V3

0.66 0.80 1.05 0.61 3.12 0.78
V4
0.55 0.81 0.51 0.85 2.72 0.68
V5
0.75 0.75 0.80 0.89 3.19 0.80
V6
0.71 0.67 1.07 0.79 3.24 0.81
M2V1
0.80 0.83 0.93 1.18 3.74 0.94
V2
0.65 0.57 1.28 0.90 3.40 0.85
V3

0.60 0.82 0.76 1.05 3.23 0.81
V4
0.80 0.47 0.77 0.90 2.94 0.74
V5
1.55 0.32 0.72 0.86 3.45 0.86
V6
0.50 1.08 0.77 1.50 3.85 0.96
M3V1
0.44 0.78 1.06 0.89 3.17 0.79
V2
0.32 0.83 0.77 0.72 2.64 0.66
V3

0.98 1.11 1.13 1.15 4.37 1.09
V4
0.61 0.68 0.88 0.75 2.92 0.73
V5
0.70 0.79 0.74 0.70 3.93 0.73
V6
0.30 0.96 0.86 0.92 3.04 0.76


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 0.759
0.253


Treatment 17 0.808
0.027

A – Mulch
(2)
0.052
0.026
0.49ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
0.242
0.048
0.91ns 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
0.509
0.051
0.75ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
2.722
0.053

TOTAL 71 4.284

ns – not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 28.10 %



Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

61
APPENDIX TABLE 18. Total yield per plot

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
2.02 2.93 3.72 2.16 10.86 2.72
V2
1.60 2.67 3.09 2.16 9.52 2.38
V3

1.64 1.23 2.06 1.71 6.64 1.66
V4
1.45 1.81 1.79 2.01 7.06 1.77
V5
2.64 2.67 3.31 2.90 11.52 2.88
V6
2.23 2.40 2.68 2.39 9.70 2.43
M2V1
2.65 3.08 2.93 4.22 12.88 3.22
V2
2.95 1.95 2.76 2.75 10.41 2.60
V3

2.29 2.89 2.20 2.21 9.59 2.40
V4
2.28 1.44 2.45 1.79 7.96 1.99
V5
3.96 2.07 3.25 2.74 12.02 3.01
V6
1.98 3.06 2.47 3.72 11.23 2.81
M3V1
2.47 3.24 3.11 3.84 12.66 3.17
V2
1.72 3.05 2.09 3.36 10.19 2.55
V3

2.56 2.43 2.74 2.97 10.70 2.68
V4
2.52 2.27 2.30 1.85 8.94 2.24
V5
2.13 2.60 3.22 3.30 11.25 2.81
V6
2.54 2.72 2.90 2.52 10.68 2.67


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 2.058
0.690


Treatment 17
12.908
0.759

A – Mulch
(2)
2.238
1.119
3.11ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
9.164
1.833
7.39** 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
1.506
0.151
0.61ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
12.647
0.248

TOTAL 71
27.624

** – highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 19.50%
ns – not significant



Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

62
APPENDIX TABLE 19. Computed yield (t/ha)

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
6.77 9.67 12.28 7.13 35.85 8.96
V2
5.28 8.81 10.20 7.13 31.42 7.86
V3

5.41 4.06 6.80 5.64 21.91 5.48
V4
4.78 5.97 5.91 6.33 11.99 5.75
V5
8.71 8.81 10.92 9.57 38.01 9.50
V6
7.36 7.92 8.84 7.89 38.01 8.00
M2V1
8.75 10.16 9.67 13.93 42.51 10.63
V2
9.74 6.44 9.11 9.08 34.37 8.59
V3

7.56 9.54 7.26 7.29 31.65 7.91
V4
7.52 4.75 8.09 5.91 26.27 6.57
V5
13.07 6.83 10.73 9.04 39.67 9.92
V6
6.53 10.1 8.15 12.28 37.06 9.27
M3V1
8.15 10.69 10.26 12.67 41.77 10.44
V2
5.68 10.07 6.90 11.09 33.74 8.44
V3

8.45 8.02 9.04 9.80 35.31 8.83
V4
8.32 7.49 7.59 6.11 29.51 7.37
V5
7.03 8.58 10.63 10.89 37.13 9.28
V6
8.38 8.98 9.57 8.32 35.25 8.81


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 22.258
7.419


Treatment 17
142.201
8.365

A – Mulch
(2)
24.912
12.456
3.08ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
100.928
20.186
7.48** 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
16.361
1.636
0.61ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
137.675
2.700

TOTAL 71
302.134

** – highly significant
Coefficient of Variation = 19.51 %
ns – not significant


Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

63
APPENDIX TABLE 20. Number of seed per pod

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
5 5 5 5 20 5
V2
5 5 5 6 21 5
V3

6 6 6 6 24 6
V4
6 6 6 6 24 6
V5
5 6 6 6 23 6
V6
6 5 6 6 23 6
M2V1
6 6 6 6 24 6
V2
6 5 5 6 22 6
V3

7 6 6 6 25 6
V4
6 6 6 6 24 6
V5
6 5 5 6 22 6
V6
6 6 6 6 24 6
M3V1
6 6 6 6 24 6
V2
6 6 6 6 24 6
V3

6 6 6 6 24 6
V4
5 6 6 6 23 6
V5
6 6 6 6 24 6
V6
6 6 6 6 24 6


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 0.486
0.162


Treatment 17 6.903
0.406

A – Mulch
(2)
1.444
0.722
3.01ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
2.069
0.414
2.21ns 2.29
3.39
A x B
(10)
3.389
0.339
0.43ns 2.01
2.61
Error 51
5.264
0.103

TOTAL 71
12.653

ns – not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 5.52 %




Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

64
APPENDIX TABLE 21. Number of days to last flowering

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
57 57 57 57 228 57
V2
57 57 57 57 228 57
V3

57 57 57 57 228 57
V4
57 57 57 57 228 57
V5
57 57 57 57 228 57
V6
57 57 57 57 228 57
M2V1
57 57 57 57 228 57
V2
57 57 57 57 228 57
V3

57 57 57 57 228 57
V4
57 57 57 57 228 57
V5
57 57 57 57 228 57
V6
57 57 57 57 228 57
M3V1
57 57 57 57 228 57
V2
57 57 57 57 228 57
V3

57 57 57 57 228 57
V4
57 57 57 57 228 57
V5
57 57 57 57 228 57
V6
57 57 57 57 228 57
BLOCK
TOTAL
1,026 1,026 1,026 1,026 4,104 1,026

Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

65
APPENDIX TABLE 22. Reaction to leafminer

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
3 3 3 3 12 3
V2
3 3 3 3 12 3
V3

3 3 3 3 12 3
V4
3 3 3 3 12 3
V5
3 3 3 3 12 3
V6
3 3 3 3 12 3
M2V1
3 3 3 3 12 3
V2
3 3 3 3 12 3
V3

3 3 3 3 12 3
V4
3 3 3 3 12 3
V5
3 3 3 3 12 3
V6
3 3 3 3 12 3
M3V1
3 3 3 3 12 3
V2
3 3 3 3 12 3
V3

3 3 3 3 12 3
V4
3 3 3 3 12 3
V5
3 3 3 3 12 3
V6
3 3 3 3 12 3


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 0.000
0.000


Treatment 17 0.042
0.014

A – Mulch
(2)
0.028
0.014
1.0ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
0.000
0.000



A x B
(10)
0.000
0.000



Error 51
0.000
0.000

TOTAL 71
0.042

ns – not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 3.95 %



Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

66
APPENDIX TABLE 23. Reaction to pod borer

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
2 2 2 2 8 2
V2
3 3 3 3 12 3
V3

3 3 3 3 12 3
V4
3 3 3 3 12 3
V5
2 2 2 2 8 2
V6
2 2 2 2 8 2
M2V1
2 2 2 2 8 2
V2
3 3 3 3 12 3
V3

3 3 3 3 12 3
V4
3 3 3 3 12 3
V5
2 2 2 2 8 2
V6
2 2 2 2 8 2
M3V1
2 2 2 2 8 2
V2
3 3 3 3 12 3
V3

3 3 3 3 12 3
V4
3 3 3 3 12 3
V5
2 2 2 2 8 2
V6
2 2 2 2 8 2


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 0.000
0.000


Treatment 17 17.236
1.014

A – Mulch
(2)
0.028
0.014
1.0ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
0.000
0.000



A x B
(10)
0.000
0.000



Error 51
0.000
0.000

TOTAL 71
17.236

ns – not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 4.69 %



Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

67
APPENDIX TABLE 24. Reaction to rust

BLOCK
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
2 2 2 2 8 2
V2
2 2 2 2 8 2
V3

2 2 2 2 8 2
V4
2 2 2 2 8 2
V5
2 2 2 2 8 2
V6
2 2 2 2 8 2
M2V1
2 2 2 2 8 2
V2
2 2 2 2 8 2
V3

2 2 2 2 8 2
V4
2 2 2 2 8 2
V5
2 2 2 2 8 2
V6
2 2 2 2 8 2
M3V1
2 2 2 2 8 2
V2
2 2 2 2 8 2
V3

2 2 2 2 8 2
V4
2 2 2 2 8 2
V5
2 2 2 2 8 2
V6
2 2 2 2 8 2
BLOCK
TOTAL
36 36 36 36

Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

68
APPENDIX TABLE 25. Reaction to rot infection

REPLICATION
TREATMENT
TOTAL MEAN
I II III IV
M1V1
1 1 1 1 4 1
V2
1 1 1 1 4 1
V3

1 1 1 1 4 1
V4
1 1 1 1 4 1
V5
1 1 1 1 4 1
V6
1 1 1 1 4 1
M2V1
1 1 1 1 4 1
V2
1 1 1 1 4 1
V3

1 1 1 1 4 1
V4
1 1 1 1 4 1
V5
1 1 1 1 4 1
V6
1 1 1 1 4 1
M3V1
1 1 1 1 4 1
V2
1 1 1 1 4 1
V3

1 1 1 1 4 1
V4
1 1 1 1 4 1
V5
1 1 1 1 4 1
V6
1 1 1 1 4 1


ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

TABULATED
SOURCE OF
DEGREES OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED
F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05 0.01
Replication 3 0.000
0.000


Treatment 17 0.231
0.014

A – Mulch
(2)
0.028
0.014
1.0ns 3.18
5.04
B – Variety
(5)
0.000
0.000



A x B
(10)
0.000
0.000



Error 51
0.000
0.000

TOTAL 71 0.231

ns – not significant
Coefficient of Variation = 11.62 %






Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching / Benjamin A. Suyam. 2006

---

Document Outline

• Response of Six Varieties of Bush Snapbeans to Mulching.
  • BIBLIOGRAPHY
  • ABSTRACT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • INTRODUCTION
  • REVIEW OF LITERATURE
  • MATERIALS AND METHODS
  • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  • SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
  • LITERATURE CITED
  • APPENDICES

---