BIBLIOGRAPHY TONGED, ONOFRE C. OCTOBER...

BIBLIOGRAPHY

TONGED, ONOFRE C. OCTOBER 2007. Evaluation of Bush Snapbean
Varieties Under Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Guerzon A. Payangdo, MSc.
ABSTRACT

Ten bush snapbean varieties were evaluated to determine their growth and seed
yield and identify which of these varieties would perform best under Poblacion, Sablan,
Benguet condition.

Bush snapbean varieties significantly varied on the number of days to flowering,
plant height at maturity, number of flowers per cluster, pods per cluster, length and width
of pods harvest, number of marketable and non-marketable seeds and computed seed
yield.

“Lipstican”, Maroon and Contender were the earliest to produce flower and China
804 was the tallest at maturity. Maroon and China 804 produced the most number of
flowers and pods per cluster. “Lipstican” and Contender significantly produced the
heaviest marketable seed and had the highest return on cash expense.

Varieties of Contender, “Lipstican”, Maroon and china 804 had the best growth
and seed yield performance and most profitable under Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet
condition.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Abstract. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
i
Table of Contents .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
3
MATERIALS AND METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Meteorological Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Days to Emergence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
12
Days to Flowering, Planting to First Harvest and Last Harvest . . . . . . . . .
12
Days to Maturity and Plant Height at Maturity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
13
Number of Flowers Per Cluster, Pods Per
Cluster and Days to Pod Setting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
16

Number of Clusters Per Plant and Pods Per Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Percentage Pod Set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
17
Length and Width of Pods at Harvest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
18
Weight of Marketable and Non-Marketable Seed Yield Per Plot . . . . . . .
18
Number of Seeds Per Pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Total seed yield per pot Pod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
Computed Seed Yield Per Plot and Per Hectare . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
Insect and Disease Incidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
ii

Return on Cash Expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
22
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
24
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25
Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
25

iii

INTRODUCTION

Bush snapbean, scientifically known as Phaseolus vulgaris is one of the vegetable
legumes grown in many parts of Cordillera region. It is not only grown for its economic
value but also for nutrients as it is a good source of proteins, vitamins and others that are
important for human health (Celoy, 1999).

The bush snapbean is locally called by Kankana-ey of Benguet as “Tokdo-an” is
bushy and determinate; hence it does not require trellising. Bush bean is grown for their
tender pods or seeds, and commercially grown in highlands of Cordillera. They are
considered as one of the good crop in Benguet and Mountain Province as nourishing
vegetable since it is an important source of fiber, riboflavin, niacin, phosphorous, calcium
and iron (Loakan, 2003). Moreover, the crops are grown for economic value.

This varietal evaluation was done to identify varieties that are suitable, high
yielding, early maturing, resistance to insect pest and diseases. The identified varieties
could be an alternate to some of the low yielding farmers’ variety.

At present, farmers in the locality are not planting bush snapbean since the main
crop produce is rice. Sometimes, when water is available especially during dry season,
farmers plant pechay, pole snapbeans, cucumber and others that are early maturing as
crop substitute to rice. Because of these practices, it is advisable to introduce and
encourage farmers to plant other cash crops like bush snapbean for a better profit.

The use of high yielding varieties is the cheapest means of increasing yield
(Rosario, 1974). Furthermore, varietal evaluation is the process in crop breeding program
which provides comparison of promising lines developed by breeder. It is only through
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

2
varietal evaluation that a breeder observes the performance of developed lines in terms of
yield, quality, adaptability and resistance to pest and disease.
The objectives of the study were; to determine the growth and seed yield of
different bush snapbean varieties and identify the best performing bush snapbean under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet condition.
This study was conducted at Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet from March to June
2007.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The Plant

Bush snapbean varieties belong to Leguminosae family which are dwarf and
determinate plant. Varieties of bush bean are dwarf and that does not require trellis for
support due to its determinate growth habit and early maturing. Bush snapbean is a warm
temperate season annual crop grown for fresh pods, which are harvested while they are
still tender with small seeds. Flat or oval and stringless pods are preferred for the fresh
market. On the other hand, round-podded varieties with white seeds are preferred for
canning (Purseglove, 1978).

A study by PCARRD (1983) showed that vegetable legumes have trifoliate
leaves. The leaflets are ovate, oblong or oblong lancolate and vary in size from small to
large. The flowers vary also in size and in color depending on varieties. Calyxes are
generally green and purple. The corolla is white, yellow, purple and blue. It was further
stated that the characteristics also varies with varieties.

Varietal Evaluation

Varietal evaluation gathers data on plant characteristics, yield performance and
pod quality. Hence, we can obtain high yielding and improve varieties that are known to
plants important role in boosting production (Regmi, 1990). Moreover, Bautista and
Mabesa (1977) stated that the variety to be selected should be high yielding, pest and
disease resistant, and early maturing so that production would entail less expense, and
ensure more profit. Selecting the right variety will minimize problems associated with
water and fertilizer management.
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

4

Reily and Shry (1991) reported that variety must be adapted to the area in which it
is grown. Different varieties which are grown under the same method of culture have a
great variation in the yielding ability. A variety that yields will in one region is not a
guarantee that it will perform well in another region.

High yielding and improved cultivars are known to play an important role in
boosting production. Large numbers of indigenous and exotic accessories of various plant
species are evaluated and the number of cultivars are selected and recommended for mass
growing (Bitaga, 2002).
AVRDC (1990) reported that the closest source of varieties for testing are the
farmers, who produce their own seeds. They are also excellent sources of information
about the characteristics of what they are using. Secondly, there are several local seeds
traders. Another source is government institutions, such as universities and the
Department of Agriculture, which are involved in variety development. In addition, the
most important decisions to commercial grower must use each season for the selection of
variety. Observation on plant performance, characteristics and yield can be noted and
recorded by using a few number of varieties for evaluation.

Yield performance of any variety is affected by environmental factors like soil
condition, climate and incidence of pest and diseases (PCARRD, 1989). Diseases are
some major problems of snap beans throughout the world. As mentioned by Sunil (1990),
varietal evaluation is a process of crop breeding programs which provides comparison of
promising lines developed by a breeder. It is only through varietal evaluation that a
breeder can see the yield, quality, adaptability, insect pest and disease resistance and
stress tolerance.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

5
Suitable areas for Bush Snapbean Production
The flowering of “green matured” pods start 60 days from planting under La
Trinidad condition. In warmer area it is earlier to mature while in higher elevations takes
longer period with cooler temperature. Harvesting is dependent on the variety used,
location and temperature. Seeds are harvested after the pods are mature and when seed
moisture content is approximately 16-20 %. Harvesting and handling low-moisture beans
(less than 14%) may result in mechanical and seed loss (Kudan, 1991).

It is reported that beans grows best on soils that hold water well and have a good
air and water filtration. Soil should have a pH of 5.8 to 6.6. Pacher (2002) stated that
bush beans are warm temperature season vegetables that will not tolerate frost. It requires
adequate amount of moisture. Temperatures are important for rapid growth. Good pod
set, and early maturity.

Bush snapbean grow best in areas with temperature between 15 to 21 degree
celcius. However this crop can tolerate warmer temperature up to 25 degree Celsius
(HARRDEC, 2000). Growth and yield of snap bean are also best in high elevation. Yield
was significantly low in lower elevation, and maturity was longer in higher elevation than
in lower elevation (Bantog, 1993).

Ware and Swiader (2002) said that for rapid, uniform emergence, bean seeds
should be planted in warm soils. Bush beans grow best on soils that have a temperature
range from 60 to 85 degree Fahrenheit (°F) with an optimum of 80oF for seed
germination. Below 50oF and above 95oF will slow down the growth and maturation of
the crop. If you grow beans in cool, wet soil germination will be delayed, and seed may
rot, which can also produce low yield.
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

6
Planting Distance, Fertilizer and Irrigation
Beans should be planted the whole year round. It is commonly direct seeded in
the rows for easy cultivation. Seeding rates may differ depending on seed size,
percentage germination, irrigation and row spacing. The planting distance is 20x20 cm
both ways with two to three seed per hill is best for snap bean production. Seeds planted
during dry season should be covered with soil equal to the tripled size of seeds planted.
During rainy season, less soil is needed to avoid rotting of seeds (HARRDEC, 1989).

In seed production, Ap-apid (1991) found out that the wider the spacing between
hills, the heavier were the marketable seeds produced per plant with 10 cm. distance due
to high competition for light and nutrients among plant per unit area. Similarly, Ingles
(1990) found out that density of two seeds per hill at a distance of 20cm to 30cm between
hills yielded the heaviest seeds per plot.

Irrigation is an essential requirement in the farm when rainfall is not secured.
Without the selection of seeds, application of adequate fertilizers, insect pest and disease
control and the practice of improved cultural management could ensure production of
crops with maximum economic returns (Aquision, 1996).

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

7
MATERIALS AND METHODS

An area of 300 sq. m. was properly cleaned and prepared into raise beds. The area
was divided into three blocks consisting of ten plots per blocks measuring 1m x10 m. The
experiment was laid out using randomized complete block design (RCBD) with three
replications.
The bush snapbean varieties are as follows;
Variety

Source

V1-
Maroon
(check)
Sablan

V2-
HAB
63
BSU

V3-
HAB
323
BSU

V4-
BBL
274
BSU

V5-
Torrent
BSU

V6-
Landmark
BSU

V7-
Greencrop
BSU

V8-
Contender
BSU

V9-
China
804
BSU

V10-
“Lipstican”
Kalinga

To ensure growth and yield, cultural management practices such as irrigation,
weeding, fertilizer application, side dressing and hilling-up, insect and disease control
were properly employed.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

8
Data Gathered

A. Maturity

1. Days to emergence. This was taken by counting the number of days from
planting up to the time when at least 50% of the plants per plot emerged.

2. Days to flowering. This was recorded by counting the number of days from
planting up to the time when at least 50% of the plants set flowers.

3. Days from planting to first harvest. This was recorded by counting the days
from planting to first harvesting.

4. Days from planting to last harvest. This was recorded by counting the days
from planting to last harvesting.

5. Days to maturity. This was recorded by counting the number of days from
planting up to the time when pods turned yellowish in color.

6. Plant height at maturity (cm). This was taken by measuring ten sample plants
per plot from base to shoot tip by random at maturity.

B. Growth Parameters

1. Number of flower per cluster. This was recorded by counting the flower per
cluster that develops per plant from ten sample plants per plot.

2. Number of days to pod setting. This was recorded by counting the days when
50% of the flower breaks up and pod measured 1 inch long.

3. Number of pods per cluster. This was recorded by counting the number of pods
per cluster per plant.
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

9

4. Number of cluster per plant. This was recorded by counting the number of
clusters per plant.

5. Percentage pod set (%). This was determined using the data in numbers 1 and
3.

Total number of pods per cluster

Percentage pod (%) =

x100
Total number of flower per cluster

6. Number of pods per plant. This was recorded using these formula.

Total number of pods harvested per plot

Number of pods per plant =

x100
Total number of plants harvested per plot

7. Length of pod at harvest (cm). Ten random sample pods will be obtained per
treatment and pod length was measured from pedicel end to distal end using a foot ruler.

8. Width of pod at harvest (cm). This was measured from the ten sample pods
used in getting the length of pod from its middle portion using foot ruler.

C. Yield components

1. Weight of marketable seed yield per plot (kg). This was the total weight of
marketable seeds harvested per plot after threshing, cleaning and removing deformed or
insect and disease damaged seeds.
2. Weight of non-marketable seed yield per plot (kg). This was the total weight of
non-marketable seeds harvested per plot. Seeds was considered non-marketable when
they are malformed/ abnormal and damaged by pest beyond control.

3. Number of seeds per pod. This was taken by counting the number of seeds
from ten sample plants per treatment taken at random.
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

10
4. Total seeds yield per plot (kg). This was taken by weighing and recording the
dry seeds harvested per plot including non-marketable.
5. Computed seed yield per hectare (kg) . This was computed based on the yield
per plot using this formula:

Yield (kg/ha) = Total yield/ plot x 10,000

Plot size (m2)

6. Insect and Disease Incidence. This was taken by assessing the degree of
damage caused by specific insect and disease to the crop.
a. Pod Borer (Jose,2004)

Scale Percent
Infestation

Description
1
No
infection
Highly
resistance
2
1-25% of the plant/plot infested ` Mild
resistance
3
26-50% of the plant/plot infested
Moderate
resistance
4
51-75% of the plant/plot infested

Susceptible
5
76-100% of the plant/plot infested
Very
susceptible
b. Bean rust (Jose, 2004)

Scale Percent
Infestation

Description
1
No
infection
Highly
resistance
2
1-25% of the plant/plot infested Mild
resistance
3
26-50% of the plant/plot infested
Moderate
resistance
4
51-75% of the plant/plot infested

Susceptible
5
76-100% of the plant/plot infested
Very
susceptible

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

11
7. Return on Cash Expense (ROCE). This was analyzed using this formula:

ROCE = NET income
x 100

Total
production
cost

Analysis of Data

All quantitative data were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for
RCBD. The significance of difference among treatment means was tested using Duncan’s
Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at 5% level of significance.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

12
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Meteorological Data During the Conduct of the Study

Table 1 shows the minimum and maximum temperature of the month during the
conduct of the study. This temperature ranges was appropriate since legume crops like
bush snapbean perform well at 16 0C to 31 0C.

Days to Emergence

Greencrop, Maroon and China 804 were the earliest to emerge in six days
followed by the rest which emerge seven days after planting except for Landmark and
BBL 274 which was the latest to emerge at eight days from planting, although result
indicates no significant differences.

Days to Flowering, Planting to First Harvest to the Last Harvest

Based on the statistical analysis of the data obtained from the different varieties in
terms of the number of days to emergence, no significant differences were obtained. As
to the number of days to flowering, significant differences were among the varieties,
Table 1. Minimum and maximum temperature of the month during the conduct of the
study

Temperature (oC)
Months
Minimum Maximum
March 16.4
29.5
April 18.2
32.4
May 17.8
29.2
June 18.0
31.2
Mean 17.35
30.58

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

13
Table 2. Number of days to emergence, days to flowering, days from planting to first
harvesting and last harvesting of ten varieties of bush snapbean varieties
evaluated

NUMBER OF DAYS TO:

VARIETY
FIRST
LAST
EMERGENCE FLOWERING HARVESTING HARVESTING
Greencrop 6 33d
65 79
“Lipstican” 7 30a
65 82
Maroon (check)
6
30a
64 83
Hab 323
7
32c
70 80
China 804
6
31b
64 78
Contender 7 30a
64 83
Hab 63
7
32 c 69 80
Torrent 7
31 b 68 82
Landmark 8 34 e 70 83
BBL 274
8
31 b 71 86
CV
(%) 0.00 1.33 0.00 0.00
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.

Landmark was latest to flower. While on the number of days to the first and last harvest,
no significant differences were noted.

Days to maturity, plant height at maturity

Table 3 shows the number of days to maturity with no significant differences
noted among the treatments. Although numerically, Contender was the earliest to mature.
On plant height at maturity, China 804 was the tallest followed by Torrent and the
shortest was Landmark. The significant differences existed among the varieties was
attributed to the genetic characteristics. Fig. 1 shows the plants at maturity.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

14
Table 3. Number of days to maturity and plant height at maturity of ten bush snapbean
varieties evaluated

VARIETY
DAYS TO MATURITY
HEIGHT AT MATURITY
(cm)
Greencrop 61
56.00ef
“Lipstican” 60
59.33 cd
Maroon (check)
59
55.67 efg
Hab 323
62
56.67 deg
China 804
60
65.00 a
Contender 58
54.00fg
Hab 63
61
60.00bc
Torrent 62
62.33 b
Landmark 64
53.00 g
BBL 274
64
58.00 cdc
CV (%)
0.00
2.71
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

15

Figure 1. Plants at maturity

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

16
Number of Flowers Per Cluster, Pods Per Cluster and Days to Pod Setting

Table 4 shows significant differences on the number of flowers per cluster which
is obtained from Maroon and China 804 varieties, Although, flowers per cluster did not
differ statistically for “Lipstican”, HAB 323, Contender and HAB 63. For the pods per
cluster, Maroon and China 804 had the most numerous pods per cluster followed by
“Lipstican”, HAB 323, Contender and HAB 63. The least pods were obtained from BBL
274. On the number of days to pod setting, Landmark significantly was the latest to set
pod followed by HAB 63 and Greencrop and the earliest to set pod were Contender then
Maroon, China 804, “Lipstican”, Torrent, HAB 323 and BBL 274. Significant differences
were due to the characteristics inherent in each variety.

Table 4. Number of flowers per cluster, pods per cluster, and days to pod setting of ten
bush snapbean varieties evaluated

NUMBER OF
NUMBER OF
DAYS TO POD
VARIETY
FLOWER/CLUSTER
PODS/CLUSTER SETTING
Greencrop 5b
4bc 39e
“Lipstican” 6ab
5b 37c
Maroon (check)
7a
6a 36b
Hab 323
6ab
5b 38d
China 804
7a
6a 36b
Contender 6ab
5b 35a
Hab 63
6ab
5b 39e
Torrent 5b
4bc 38d
Landmark 5b
4bc 40f
BBL 274
5b
3c 38d
CV (%)
10.71
12.25
1.31
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

17
Number of Cluster Per Plant, Pods Per Plant

Table 5 indicates that the number of clusters per plant was not significant. For the
number of pod per plant, China 804 had significantly the most numerous pods for plant
(12) followed by Maroon and Contender with 11 pods per plant. The lowest registered
pods per plant were noted from Torrent, Landmark and BBL 274. The significance
differences on percentage pod set could had been influenced by their varietal nature.

Percentage Pod Set (%)

Table 5 indicates no significant differences in terms of days to pod setting
although numerically, Maroon variety had the highest pod set percentage and the lowest
was Landmark.
Table 5. Number of cluster per plant, number of pods per plant and percentage pod set of
ten varieties of bush snapbean evaluated
NUMBER OF NUMBER OF
PERCENTAGE POD
VARIETY
CLUSTERS/PLANT
PODS/PLANT
SET (%)
Greencrop
3 9 75.56
“Lipstican”
3 10 83.01
Maroon (check)
3 11 84.92
Hab 323
3 9 83.33
China 804
3 12 82.14
Contender
3 11 79.36
Hab 63
3 8 82.22
Torrent
2 7 74.44
Landmark
2 7 68.89
BBL 274
3 7 71.67
CV (%)
15.94
6.00
9.25
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

18
Length and Width of Pods at Harvest

Significant differences were observed among the varieties in terms of pod length
at harvest (Table 6). China 804, Greencrop and Contender had the longest pods which
were comparable with “Lipstican”. The shortest pods were obtained from HAB 323. On
pod width at harvest, Greencrop, “Lipstican” and Contender had the widest pods which
were not significantly different with that of Maroon, HAB 323, HAB 63, Torrent and
BBL 274 and narrowest pods were obtained from China 804. These significant
differences were attributed to their varietal characteristics.

Table 6. Length and width of pods at harvest of ten varieties of bush snapbean evaluated

VARIETY LENGTH
WIDTH
(cm)
(cm)
Greencrop 16.33a
1.40a
“Lipstican” 15.67ab 1.40a
Maroon (check)
14.67bc 1.27ab
Hab 323
12.33e 1.30c
China 804
16.67a 1.10a
Contender 16.00a 1.40a
Hab 63
13.30de 1.27ab
Torrent 13.33de 1.33ab
Landmark 14.00bc 1.23bc
BBL 274
13.33de 1.33ab
CV (%)
5.09
6.54
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.

Weight of Marketable and Non-marketable Seed Yield Per Plot (kg)

Table 7 shows the weight of marketable and non-marketable seed yield per plot.
Significant differences were noted on both weight of marketable and non-marketable
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

19
seed yield per plot. Such that Contender and “Lipstican” followed by Maroon yielded the
heaviest weight of seed yield per plot and the lightest was obtained from BBL 274. On
the weight of non-marketable seed yield per plot, “Lipstican” produced the heaviest seeds
which were comparable with Contender and China 804 while HAB 323 produced the
lightest. The significant differences in terms of marketable seed yield per plot was the
effect on the differences in terms of seed sizes. Fig.2 shows the marketable seeds
harvested from the different varieties.

Table 7. Weight of marketable and non-marketable seed yield per plot and the number of
seeds per pod of ten bush snapbean evaluated.

MARKETABLE
NON-
NUMBER OF
VARIETY
SEED
MARKETABLE
SEEDS PER POD
SEEDS
Greencrop 0.73c
0.40bc
5b
“Lipstican” 1.03a
0.52a
5b
Maroon (check)
0.88b
0.30cd
6a
Hab 323
0.72c
0.22d
6a
China 804
0.57d
0.50ab
6a
Contender 1.13a
0.50ab
6a
Hab 63
0.68cd
0.32cd
6a
Torrent 0.57d
0.40bc
5b
Landmark 0.38e
0.27d
5b
BBL 274
0.32e
0.33cd
5b
CV (%)
10.05
16.01
7.97
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

20

Figure 2. Marketable seeds harvested from the ten bush snapbean varieties
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

21
Number of Seeds Per Pod

The varieties which produced highest yield per pod were Maroon, HAB 323,
China 804, Contender and HAB 63. The significant differences could be attributed to
their varietal characteristics since each variety differ in the number of seeds per pod and
length.

Total Seed Yield Per Plot

The total seed yield per plot of ten bush snapbeans studied revealed that
“Lipstican” and Contender varieties yielded the heaviest per plot followed by Maroon
and China 804. The lowest was noted from Landmark and BBL 274 varieties.

Table 8. Total seed yield per plot and computed seed yield per hectare of ten bush
snapbean varieties evaluated

SEED YIELD/PLOT
COMPUTED SEED YIELD
VARIETY
(kg/10m2)
(tons/ha)
Greencrop 1.13bc
1130.00
“Lipstican” 1.55a
1550.00
Maroon (check)
1.18b
1180.00
Hab 323
0.93d
930.00
China 804
1.07bcd
1070.00
Contender 1.63a
1630.00
Hab 63
1.00cd
1000.00
Torrent 0.97d
970.00
Landmark 0.65e
650.00
BBL 274
0.65e
650.00
CV (%)
7.22
16.42
Means with the same letter are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

22
Computed Seed Yield Per Hectare (kg)

Table 8 presents the computed seed yield per hectare of ten bush snapbean
varieties evaluated. Based on statistical analysis, significant differences exist among
varieties. Contender and Lipstican varieties had the heaviest seed yield per plot and per
hectare followed by Maroon in the seed yield per plot and Greencrop, China 804, HAB
63, Torrent for the computed seed yield per hectare and the lowest were Landmark and
BBL 274. This seed yield weight differences were accounted to their seed size
differences.

Insect and Disease Incidence

Visual rating for the occurrence of bean rust and pod borer among ten varieties
was done during the growth and reproductive stage. Due to the weekly application of
insecticides and fungicide, it was observed that mostly all the varieties had no damage by
pod borer and bean rust.

Return on Cash Expense
Table 9 presents the computed return on cash expense (ROCE) of the ten varieties
of bush snapbeans evaluated which Contender had 240% as the highest followed by the
Lipstican with 209.97%. The lowest was obtained from BBL 274 with a negative ROCE
of -05.00%. This high ROCE indicated by Contender was the result of its high seed yield
per hectare and the higher selling price per kg.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

23
Table 9. Return on cash expense (ROCE) of ten bush snapbean varieties evaluated

VARIETY TOTAL
SEED
ROCE
GROSS
NET
COST OF
YIELD
(%)
INCOME
INCOME
PROD’N
TON/HA
Greencrop 1760
2.20
3872.00
2112.00
120.00
Lipstican 1725
3.10
5347.05
3622.05
209.97
Maroon (check)
1725
2.65
4571.25
2846.25
165.00
Hab 323
1760
2.15
3784.00
2024.00
115.00
China 804
1725
1.70
2932.05
1207.05
69.97
Contender 1760
3.40
5984.00
4225.00
240.00
Hab 63
1760
2.05
3608.00
1848.00
105.00
Torrent 1760
1.70
2992.00
1232.00
70.00
Landmark 1760
1.15
2024.00
264.00
15.00
BBL (%)
1760 0.95 1672.00 -88.00 -05.00
-total expenses include land preparation, seeds, fertilizer and maintenance like weeding,
irrigation, spraying and hilling-up.
-selling price; China 804, Maroon (check) and Lipstican = Php250.00/kg
-HAB 323, HAB63, Torrent, Landmark, Contender, Greencrop, BBL 274=Php320.00/kg

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

24
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

A total of ten bush snapbean varieties were evaluated for the growth and seed
yield performance under Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet from March to June 2007.

No significant differences among treatments were noted on the number of days to
emergence, number of days from planting to first harvesting to the last harvesting. While
on the days to flowering, significant differences existed among the cultivars. Landmark
variety had the latest while Maroon and Contender varieties were the earliest to flower.
Significant differences were noted on the number of flower per cluster, pods per cluster
and days to pod setting. Maroon and China 804 varieties had the highest number of
flowers and pods per cluster and BBL 274 had the lowest number of pods per cluster.

China 804 variety had the longest pods and the tallest plants. Significant
differences were noted both on weight of marketable and non-marketable seed yield per
plot. “Lipstican” and Contender varieties produced the highest weight followed by
maroon while BBL variety had the lowest on marketable seed yield per plot. On the other
hand, “Lipstican” variety produced the highest weight which is comparable with
Contender and HAB 63 while HAB 323 had the lowest weight on non-marketable seed
yield per plot.

As to computed seed yield per hectare, significant differences exist among the
varieties. Contender and “Lipstican” varieties had the heaviest seed yield while
Landmark and BBL 274 varieties had the lowest seed yield. Results on the return on cash
expense (ROCE) shows that Contender and “Lipstican” varieties obtained the highest
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

25
percentage of 240% and 209.97% followed by maroon with165%. The lowest was
obtained from BBL 274 with –05%.

On the occurrence of insects and disease incidence, varieties of bush snapbean are
rated mild resistance to pod borer and bean rust. This could be due to the alternate
application of insecticides and fungicides every week.

Conclusion

Not all varieties of bush snapbean had good response in terms of growth
parameters and seed yield. “Lipstican” and Contender varieties produced the heaviest
weight on marketable seed yield per plot. This indicates that these varieties are adapted
under Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet condition.

Recommendation

Based on the results, varieties of “Lipstican” and Contender are recommended for
seed yield production at Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

26
LITERATURE CITED

AP-APID, N.W. 1991. Optimum spacing requirement for seed production of pole
snapbenas. BS. Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet Pp. 17-18.

AQUISISION, A.D. 1996. Varietal evaluation of advanced breeding lines of snapbeans.
BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp. 17-18.

ASEAN VEGETABLE RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT CENTER(AVRDC).1990.

Vegetable Production Training Manual. AVRDC Publication. Tainan Taiwan,
ROC. P. 95.

BANTOG, N.A. 1993. Farm evaluation of promising lines and farmers production
practices of pole snapbean in different evaluations. BS Thesis, BSU La Trinidad,
Benguet. P. 39.

BAUTISTA, O.K. and R.G. MABESA 1997. Vegetable Production. Los Banos:
University of the Philippines Los Banos. P. 28.

BITAGA, R.D. 2002. Growth and yield performance of ten sweetpotato varieties in
Beling-belis, Kapangan, Benguet. BSU La Trinidad, Benguet, Pp 3-4.

CELOY, I.W. 1999. The effect of frequency of fertilizer application on the growth and
yield of pole snapbean. BS. Thesis. Benguet State University, :a Trinidad,
Benguet. P.8.

GIBSON, M.S. 2003. Growth and yield performance of single plant selection in six
strains of pole snapbeans cultivar ‘ALNO”. BS Thesis. BSU La Trinidad,
Benguet P. 18.

HARRDEC. 1989. Snap bean Technoguide for the highlands. BSU La Trinidad,
Benguet. Pp. 1-5

HARRDEC. 2000. Snap bean farmer production guide. BSU La Trinidad, Benguet.
Pp.1-8.

INGLES, E.M. 1990. Seed production of two snapbean cultivars as affected by plant
density. BS Thesis. Benguet State Univaersity, La Trinidad, Benguet.

KUDAN, S.L. 1991. How to grow snap bean. Department of Crop Science. BSU La
Trinidad, Benguet Technical Bulletin Number 4. Pp. 18-21.

LOAKAN, M.S. 2003. Evaluation of Alno-derive selections of snap bean obtained from
different sources in Benguet B.S Thesis, BSU La Trinidad, Benguet. Pp.1-11.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

27
PACHER, S. 2002. Kitchen garden about snapbeans. http://www.motherearthnews.com

PCARRD. 1983. Vegetable Legume Research. Los Banos: University of the Philippines
Los Banos. P. 28.

PCARRD. 1989. Snapbean technoguide for the highlands. First Edition. BSU, La
Trinidad, Benguet. Pp.1-5.

PURSEGLOVE J.W. 1978. Tropical Crops Dicotyledon. University of the West Indies,
St. Agustin Trinidad. P. 297.

REGMI. S.K. 1990. Varietal Evaluation of promising lines and path coefficient analysis
in pole snapbean. MS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad Benguet. Pp. 39-40.

REILY H.E and SHRY L.C.JR. 1991. Introductory Horticulture. New York: Delmar
publishers, Inc. P.562.

SUNIL, R.R. 1990. Varietal evaluation of promising lines and path coefficient analysis
in Pole snapbeans. BS Thesis. BSU, LTB. P.86

WARE G.W. and SWIADER J.M. 2002. Producing Vegetables Crops. U.S.A: the
Interstate printers and publishers, Inc. Pp. 252-253.

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

28
APPENDICES

Appendix Table 1. Days to emergence

VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
6 6 6 18
6

Lipstican
7 7 7 21
7
Maroon 6 6 6 18
6
Hab
323 7 7 7 21
7
China
804
6 6 6 18
6
Contender
7 7 7 21
7
Hab
63
7 7 7 21
7
Torrent 7 7 7 21
7
Landmark
8 8 8 24
8
BBL
274
8 8 8 24
8
TOTAL 69
69
69
207
69

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

29
Appendix Table 2. Number of days to flowering

VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
33
33
33
99
33b
Lipstican
30
31
30
91
30e
Maroon 30
30
30
90
30e
Hab
323 32
31
32
95
32c
China
804
30
31
31
92
31d
Contender
30
30
30
90
30e
Hab
63
32
32
31
95
32c
Torrent 31
31
30
92
31d
Landmark
34
34
34
102
34a
BBL
274
31
31
31
93
31d
TOTAL 313
314
312
939
314

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES SUM OF MEAN OF COMPUTED
TABULAR
OF OF
SQUARES SQUARES
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2
0.200 0.100

Variety 9
46.967 5.219 29.98** 2.46
3.60
Error 18 3.133.
0.174

TOTAL 29
50.300

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

30
Appendix Table 3. Number of days from planting to first harvest

VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
65
65
65
195
65
Lipstican
65
65
65
195
65
Maroon 64
64
64
192
64
Hab
323 70
70
70
210
70
China
804
64
64
64
192
64
Contender
64
64
64
192
64
Hab
63
69
69
69
207
69
Torrent 68
68
68
204
68
Landmark
70
70
70
210
70
BBL
274
71
71
71
213
71
TOTAL 670
670
670
2010
670

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

31
Appendix Table 4.Number of days from planting to last harvest
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
79
79
79
237
79
Lipstican
82
82
82
246
82
Maroon 83
83
83
249
83
Hab
323 80
80
80
240
80
China
804
78
78
78
234
78
Contender
83
83
83
249
83
Hab
63
80
80
80
240
80
Torrent 82
82
82
246
82
Landmark
83
83
83
249
83
BBL
274
86
86
86
258
86
TOTAL 816
816
816
2448
816

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

32
Appendix Table 5. Number of days to maturity
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
61
61
61
183
61
Lipstican
60
60
60
180
60
Maroon 59
59
59
177
59
Hab
323 62
62
62
186
62
China
804
60
60
60
180
60
Contender
58
58
58
174
58
Hab
63
61
61
61
183
61
Torrent 62
62
62
186
62
Landmark
64
64
64
192
64
BBL
274
64
64
64
192
64
TOTAL 611
611
611
1833
611

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

33
Appendix Table 6. Plant height at maturity (cm)
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop

54

58

56

168
56.00ef
Lipstican

56

62

60

178
59.33cd
Maroon

57

55

55

167
55.67efg
Hab 323

58

55

57

170 56.67def
China 804

63

65

67

195
65.00a
Contender

54

54

54

162
54.00fg
Hab 63

60

60

60

180
60.00bc
Torrent

62

64

61

187
62.33b
Landmark

53

54

52

159
53.00g
BBL 274

57

58

59

174
58.00cde
TOTAL 574
585
581
1740
580.00

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 6.200
3.100
Variety
9
377.333 41.926
16.97**
2.46 3.60
Error
18
44.467
2.470
Total
29
428.000
**-
highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 2.71%

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

34
Appendix Table 7. Number of flowers per cluster
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
5 6 5 16
5b
Lipstican
7 5 6 18
6ab
Maroon 7 7 8 22
7a
Hab
323 6 6 6 18
6ab
China
804
7 8 7 22
7a
Contender
7 6 6 19
6ab
Hab
63
6 6 5 17
6ab
Torrent 5 6 5 16
5b
Landmark
5 5 6 16
5b
BBL
274
4 5 5 14
5b
TOTAL 59
60
59
178
59

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 0.067
0.033

Variety 9 20.533
2.281
5.65**
2.46

3.60
Error
18
7.267
0.404
TOTAL 29
27.867
**
-highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 10.71%

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

35
Appendix Table 8. Number of days to pod setting
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
39
39
39
117
39b
Lipstican
37
37
37
111
37d
Maroon 36
36
36
108
36e
Hab
323 38
38
37
113
38c
China
804
35
37
37
109
36e
Contender
35
35
35
105
35f
Hab
63
39
40
39
118
39b
Torrent 39
38
38
115
38c
Landmark
40
40
40
120
40a
BBL
274
38
38
38
114
38c
TOTAL 376
378
376
1130
377

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 0.267
0.133
Variety
9 68.000
7.556
30.91**
2.46 3.60
Error
18
4.400
0.244
TOTAL 29
72.667
**
-highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 1.31%

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

36
Appendix Table 9. Number of pods per cluster
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
4 4 4 12
4bc
Lipstican
6 4 5 15
5b
Maroon 6 6 5 17
6a
Hab
323 5 5 5 15
5b
China
804
6 6 6 18
6a
Contender
5 5 5 15
5b
Hab
63
5 5 4 14
5b
Torrent 4 5 3 12
4bc
Landmark
3 4 4 11
4bc
BBL
274
3 4 3 10
3c
TOTAL 47
48
44
139
46

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block

2 0.867
0.433

Variety
9
20.300
2.256
7.00**
2.46 3.60
Error
18
5.800
0.322
TOTAL 29
26.967
**
-highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 12.25%
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

37
Appendix Table 10. Number of cluster per plant
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
3 3 2 8 3
Lipstican
3 3 3 9 3
Maroon 3 3 4 10
3
Hab
323 3 3 3 9 3
China
804
4 3 3 10
3
Contender
3 4 3 10
3
Hab
63
3 3 3 9 3
Torrent 2 3 2 7 2
Landmark
2 2 3 7 2
BBL
274
3 3 3 9 3
TOTAL 29
30
29
88
29

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 0.067
0.033
Variety 9 3.867
0.430
1.97ns
2.46 3.60
Error
18
3.933
0.219
TOTAL 29
7.867
ns –not significant

Coefficient of Variance = 15.94%
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

38
Appendix Table 11. Percentage pod set (%).
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
80.00
66.67
80.00
226.67
75.56
Lipstican
85.71
80.00
83.33
249.04
83.01
Maroon 85.71
85.71
83.33
254.75
84.92
Hab
323 83.33
83.33
83.33
249.99
83.33
China
804
75.00
85.71
85.71
246.42
82.14
Contender
71.43
83.33
83.33
238.09
79.36
Hab
63
83.33
83.33
80.00
246.66
82.22
Torrent 80.00
83.33
60.00
223.33
74.44
Landmark
60.00
80.00
66.67
206.67
68.89
BBL
274
75.00
80.00
60.00
215.00
71.67
TOTAL 779.51
811.41
765.70
2356.62 785.54

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 109.924 54.962
Variety 9 830.530 92.281
1.75ns
2.46 3.60
Error
18
949.551 52.753
TOTAL 29
1890.005
ns
–not
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 9.25%

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

39
Appendix Table 12. Number of pods per plant
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
9 9 10
28

9d
Lipstican
10
10
10
30
10c
Maroon 11
10
11
32
11b

Hab
323 8 10
9 27

9d
China
804
12
12
12
36
12a
Contender
11
11
11
33
11b
Hab
63
7 9 9 25

8e
Torrent 7 8 7 22

7f
Landmark
7 7 7 21

7f
BBL
274
7 7 7 21

7f
TOTAL 89
93
93
275
92

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 1.067
0.533

Variety
9
83.500
9.728
29.82**
2.46 3.60
Error
18
5.600
0.311
TOTAL 29
90.167
**
-highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 6.00%

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

40
Appendix Table 13. Length of pods at harvest (cm).
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
16
17
16
49
16.33a
Lipstican

15

15

17

47
15.67ab
Maroon

14

15

15

44
14.67bc
Hab
323 13
12
12
37
12.33e
China
804
17
16
17
50
16.67a
Contender
16
16
16
48
16.00a
Hab 63

14

12

13

39
13.00de
Torrent

13

13

14

40
13.33de
Landmark

14

14

14

42
14.00bc
BBL 274

13

15

12

40
13.33de
TOTAL 145
145
146
436
145.33

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 0.200
0.100

Variety
9
67.500
7.500
13.78**
2.46 3.60
Error
18
9.800
0.544
TOTAL 29
77.800
**
-highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 5.09%

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

41
Appendix Table 14. Width of pods at harvest (cm).

VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
1.4
1.4
1.4
4.2
1.40a
Lipstican
1.5
1.4
1.3
4.2
1.40a
Maroon 1.2
1.3
1.3
3.8
1.27ab
Hab
323 1.3
1.3
1.3
3.9
1.30ab
China
804
1.0
1.2
1.1
3.3
1.10c
Contender
1.4
1.3
1.5
4.2
1.40a
Hab
63
1.2
1.4
1.2
3.8
1.27ab
Torrent 1.3
1.5
1.2
4.0
1.33ab
Landmark
1.2
1.2
1.3
3.7
1.23bc
BBL
274
1.3
1.3
1.4
4.0
1.33ab
TOTAL 12.8
13.3
13.0
39.1
13.03

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block

2 0.009
0.004

Variety 9 0.199
0.022
3.03*
2.46

3.60
Error
18
0.131
0.007
TOTAL 29
0.339
*
-significant
Coefficient
of
Variance
=
6.54%

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

42
Appendix Table 15. Weight of marketable seed yield per plot (kg).

VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
0.70
0.85
0.65
2.20
0.73c
Lipstican
1.15
1.05
0.90
3.10
1.03a
Maroon 0.80
0.95
0.90
2.65
0.88b
Hab
323 0.75
0.65
0.75
2.15
0.72c
China
804
0.55
0.60
0.55
1.70
0.57d
Contender
1.10
1.25
1.05
3.40
1.13a
Hab
63
0.70
0.75
0.60
2.05
0.68cd
Torrent 0.60
0.55
0.55
1.70
0.57d
Landmark
0.40
0.35
0.40
1.15
0.38e
BBL
274
0.35
0.30
0.30
0.95
0.32e
TOTAL 7.10
7.30
6.65
21.05
7.02

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE

SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 0.022
0.011
Variety 9 1.851
0.206
45.36** 2.46

3.60
Error
18
0.090
0.005
TOTAL 29
1.963
**
-highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 10.05%
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

43
Appendix Table 16. Weight of non-marketable seed yield per plot (kg).
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL
MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
0.35
0.35
0.50
1.20
0.40bc
Lipstican
0.50
0.50
0.55
1.55
0.52a
Maroon 0.25
0.35
0.30
0.90
0.30cd
Hab
323 0.20
0.25
0.20
0.65
0.22d
China
804
0.50
0.45
0.55
1.50
0.50ab
Contender
0.45
0.45
0.60
1.50
0.50ab
Hab
63
0.40
0.20
0.35
0.95
0.32cd
Torrent 0.40
0.35
0.45
1.20
0.40bc
Landmark
0.25
0.25
0.30
0.80
0.27d
BBL
274
0.30
0.40
0.30
1.00
0.33cd
TOTAL 3.60
3.55
4.10
11.25
3.75

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 0.021
0.010
Variety 9 0.289
0.032
8.97**
2.46

3.60
Error
18
0.064
0.004
TOTAL 29
0.374
**
-highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 16.01%

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

44
Appendix Table 17. Number of seeds per pod
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
5 5 5 15
5b
Lipstican
5 5 5 15
5b
Maroon 6 5 6 17
6a
Hab
323 5 6 6 17
6a
China
804
6 7 6 19
6a
Contender
6 6 6 18
6a
Hab
63
6 6 6 18
6a
Torrent 5 5 5 15
5b
Landmark
5 5 4 14
5b
BBL
274
5 4 5 14
5b
TOTAL 54
54
54
162
54

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 0.000
0.000
Variety 9 9.867
1.096
5.92**
2.46

3.60
Error
18
3.333
0.185
TOTAL 29
13.200
**
-highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 7.97%

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

45

Appendix Table 18. Total seed yield per plot (kg)
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop
1.05
1.20
1.15
3.40
1.13bc
Lipstican
1.65
1.55
1.45
4.65
1.55a
Maroon 1.05
1.30
1.20
3.55
1.18b
Hab
323 0.95
0.90
0.95
2.80
0.93d
China 804

1.05
1.05
1.10
3.20 1.07bcd
Contender
1.55
1.70
1.65
4.90
1.63a
Hab
63
1.10
0.95
0.95
3.00
1.00cd
Torrent 1.00
0.90
1.00
2.90
0.97d
Landmark
0.65
0.60
0.70
1.95
0.65e
BBL
274
0.65
0.70
0.60
1.95
0.65e
TOTAL 10.70
10.85
10.75
32.30
10.77

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 0.001
0.001

Variety
9

2.854
0.317
52.44**
2.46 3.60
Error
18
0.109
0.006
TOTAL 29
2.964
**
-highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 7.22%
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

46
Appendix Table 19. Computed yield per hectare (kg).
VARIETY
REPLICATION
TOTAL MEAN

I

II

III

Greencrop

1050
1200
1150
3400 1133.33
Lipstican

1650
1550
1450
4650 1550.00
Maroon

1050
1300
1200
3550 1183.33
Hab 323

950

900

950

2800 933.33b
China 804

1050
1050
1100
3200 1066.67
Contender

1550
1700
1650
4900 1633.33
Hab 63

1100
950

950

3000 1000.00
Torrent

1000
900

1000
2900 966.67
Landmark

650

600

700

1950 650.00
BBL 274

650

700

600

1950 650.00
TOTAL

10700
10850
10750
32300 1066.67

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF
COMPUTED TABULAR F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIANCE FREEDOM

Block
2 58166.667
29083.033
Variety 9 3294666.667
366073.074
12.39** 2.46
3.60
Error
18
531833.333
29546.296
TOTAL 29
3884666.667
**
-highly
significant
Coefficient of Variance = 16.42%
Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under
Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition / Onofre C. Tonged. 2007

Document Outline

Evaluation of Bush Snapbean Varieties Under Poblacion, Sablan, Benguet Condition
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- ABSTRACT
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES