BIBLIGRAPHY
MENES, ALIZER A. APRIL 2010. Response of Pole Snapbeans to Animal
Manure Application at La Trinidad, Benguet. Benguet State University. La Trinidad,
Benguet.
Adviser: Guerzon A. Payangdo, MSc
ABSTRACT

This study was conducted to determine the best performing pole snapbean variety
grown organically under La Trinidad condition; to determine the best animal manure to
be applied in pole snapbean; to determine the interaction effect between varieties of pole
snapbean and animal manures; and to determine the profitability of different pole
snapbean varieties applied with different manure.
Significant differences were noted in the application of chicken manure from the
horse and pig manure in terms of percent survival, total yield per plot and computed yield
per hectare. Mild resistance to Bean rust was observed in crops applied with the different
animal manure during 45 DAP and were very susceptible during 60 DAP. All plants were
susceptible to pod borer at 60 DAP.
Among the varieties, “Taichung” had the highest percent survival, had the longest
pods, highest marketable pods and highest ROCE. Blue Lake was the earliest to flower
and had the highest percentage pod setting. However, it had the lowest ROCE. All
varieties showed mild resistance to bean rust except Blue Lake which showed moderate
resistance at 45 DAP but all were very susceptible during 60 DAP. All plants were

---

susceptible to pod borer at 60 DAP. Significant interaction effect were observed on pod
length, width and number of seeds per pod. Interaction indicates that Chicken manure
enhances pod length and number of seeds per pod of the pole snapbean varieties.
Significant interaction also indicates that the three animal manure treatments enhance pod
width of the four pole snapbean varieties.
The application of chicken manure realized the highest net income but highest
ROCE was obtained from the application of pig manure. Among the varieties,
“Taichung” is the most profitable since it had the highest ROCE of 203.50 %.

ii

---

TABLE OF CONTENTS



Page


Bibliography…………………………………………………………………...
i
Abstract……………………………………………………………………….. i
Table of Contents …………………………………………………………….
iii

INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………....................
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE ………………………………………………...
3
The Plant ………………………………………………………………...
3
Organic Production ……………………………………………………...
3
Varietal Evaluation under Organic
Production ……………………………………………………………….
4
Varietal Evaluation in La Trinidad,
Benguet ………………………………………………………………….
4

Use of Manure …………………………………………………………..
5
MATERIALS AND METHODS ……………………………………………..
7
Cultural Management …………………..………………………………..
7
Treatment and Lay-out …………………………………………………..
7
Data Gathered …………………………………………………………...
8
Data Analysis ……………………………………………………………
11
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ……………………………………………...
12
Agroclimatic Data ……………………………………………………….
12
Soil Property …………………………………………………………….
13
iii

---

Plant Survival ……………………………………………………………
14
Days from Sowing to Emergence ……………………………………….
14
Number of Days from Emergence to
Flowering ………………………………………………………………..
16

Number of Days from Flowering to
Pod Setting ………………………………………………………………
17

Days From Sowing to First Harvest…………………………………..….
18
Days From Sowing to Last Harvest ……………………………………..
18
Number of Flowers per Cluster …………………...……………………..
20
Number of Pods per Cluster …….……………………………………….
20
Percentage Pod Set per Cluster ……….…………………………………
20
Pod Length …………………………………..…………………………..
22
Pod Width ……………………………………………………………….
22
Number of Seeds per Pod ………………………………..………………
23
Reaction to Bean Rust at 15,30,45

and 60 DAP ………..………………………………………………..…... 26
Reaction to Pod Borer ………………………..………………………….
26
Number of Harvesting per Treatment …………………………………...
26
Weight of marketable fresh pod (kg) …...……………………………….
27
Weight of non-marketable pods …………………………………………
32
Total yield and computed yield ………………………………….………
32
Return on Cash Expense (ROCE) ……………………………………….
33


iv

---

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ….....................
36
Summary ………………………………………………………………...
36
Conclusion ………………………………………………………………
37
Recommendation ………………………………………………………..
37
LITERATURE CITED ……………………………………………………….
38
APPENDICES ………………………………………………………………..
40

v

---

1

INTRODUCTION


Legumes including pole snap beans are one of the most important food crops in
the world. They are characterized by their high protein and low fat content. Therefore, the
need to increase legume production and supply an adequate quantity in order to meet the
nutritional requirements of the growing world population is widely appreciated. In
developing countries, cultivation of legumes is the best and the quickest way to augment
the production of food proteins (Chapman, 1976).
In Benguet, the use of agricultural pesticides is a common practice among pole
bean farmers. In fact, pesticide residues are found in samples of vegetables, fruits, rice
and other kinds of foods that are present in the market (PCARRD, 1989). The soil that is
also utilized for farming many times was found to be heavy with toxic chemicals which
can adversely affect production. Due to the effects of pesticide application, some farmers
switch to organic farming (VLIR-PIUC and SLU, 2000).

Organic production is a system that not only avoids the use of synthetic farm
chemicals but also uses organic manure as fertilizer (PCARRD, 2000). Manures
contribute to the fertility of the soil by adding organic matter and nutrients such as
nitrogen (Chastain, 2008). Organic matter that is present in animal manures can reduce
the toxicity of the soil that has been built up due to the continuous use of insecticides and
fungicides. Aside from that, it has a special function in making phosphorus more readily
available in acidic soils upon decomposition (FAO, 1978). Thus, evaluation of pole snap
bean varieties using animal manure should be done to give correct recommendations with
regard to the right varieties and fertilizer in which they can be grown and can most
profitably be used (FAO, 1978).
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

2

This study had the following objectives:
1 determine the best performing variety of pole snapbean grown organically under
La Trinidad condition;
2. determine the best animal manure to be applied in pole snapbean;
3. determine the interaction between varieties of pole snapbean and the organic
fertilizers; and
4. determine the profitability of pole snapbean varieties applied with different
manure.
The study was conducted at Benguet State University Experimental Area, Balili,
La Trinidad, Benguet from October 2008- January 2009.


























Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

3


REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The Plant


Snapbeans grow best in the areas with temperature between 15 to 21 degrees
centigrade. Maturity is earlier in warmer areas that take 45 to 55 days after planting than
in cooler areas that take 56 to 60 days. Harvesting is dependent on the variety used,
location and temperature. It is usually done by hand or selective harvesting at 3 to 4 days
interval (HARRDEC, 2000).

Kudan (1991), reported that the expected yield of pole snapbean under highlands
condition ranges from 17-23 tons/ha. First harvest is expected from 60 days after
planting. In warmer areas, pods mature earlier than in cooler temperature.

Organic Production

Organic production is the conservation and maintenance of environment quality.
Foods are safe to consume and contains significantly lower levels of pesticide residues
than conventionally produced. Organic production relies heavily upon crop and soil
management practices that aid water infiltration, resist soil erosion, improve soil tilt and
productivity, recycle organic waste and reduce pollution of the soil and water (USDA,
2000).
According to Hopkins et al. (2001), the advantage of organic farming is the higher
prices for organically produced because it reflects the true cost of growing the food.
Prices for organic foods include cost of growing, harvesting, transportation and storage.

Organic production is a system that sustains the health of soils, ecosystem and
people. It relies on ecological processes, biodiversity and cycles adapted to local
conditions, rather than the use of inputs with adverse effects. Organic production
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

4

combines tradition, innovation and science to benefit the environment and promote fair
relationships and a good quality of life (IFOAM, 2008).
Varietal Evaluation under Organic
Production

Varietal evaluation is a process in plant breeding, which provides comparison of
promising lines developed by breeders. It is through varietal evaluation that a breeder
selects the best performing variety in terms of yield, quality, adaptability, stress tolerance
and resistance to pest and disease (Sunil, 1990).

Bacod (2007), reported that potato accessions namely, 13.1.1, 38 0251.17,
573275, 5.19.2.2, 676089 and Ganza can be produced through organic production with or
without probiotics application.

In 2007, Wesley characterized bush snapbean varieties under organic production.
The result revealed that varieties Green Crop and Torrent produced the tallest plants.
However, Lipstican and HAB 19 produced the highest yield among the varieties.

Bautista and Mabesa (1977), suggested that varieties should be high yielding,
resistant to pest and diseases, early maturing and these should have traits that could make
the growing of the crop productive and less expensive.
Varietal Evaluation in La Trinidad,
Benguet


Pog-ok (2001), recommended the pole snapbean varieties Pencil Pod and B-21
because of their better growth and yield performance among other varieties under La
Trinidad, Benguet condition. However, Neyney (2005), stated in his study that Violeta
and Taichung has a yielding potential with regards to number of flower cluster per plant,
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

5

flower per cluster, number of pod per plant and weight of marketable and total pods
yield.
Furthermore, Dagson (2000), reported that varieties of bush snapbean namely,
HAB. 63, Stringless Valentine, Torrent and BBL 274 could be grown at La Trinidad,
Benguet due to its better growth and yield performance.

Use of Manure
Briones (1981), revealed that applying animal manure improves the structure of
the soil. This may be due to the presence of nutrient elements in the organic matter. He
mentioned that C:N ratio may indicate the availability of N in organic matter since the
lower C:N ratio is better due to the availability of nitrogen.

In addition, Rasnake (2001), stressed that animal manures are the digestive by-
products of the feed ingested by the animals and any associated bedding materials or
water used in the animal production. Therefore, the nutrient content of manure is closely
related to the chemical content of feeds consumed by the animals. During digestion, the
animals retain some of the energy, nutrients, vitamins and minerals in food. However,
most of the nutrients pass through the animal in urine or feces.

Several homemade manures such as compost, stable manure, fermented night soil,
livestock urine, chicken dropping, and green manure containing mainly nitrogen tend to
improve the physical and chemical properties of the soil. Farm manure tends to increase
crop yield and organic residues and enhances soil granulation that binds or lightens and
expands soil aggregates making the soil porous (Kinoshita, 1972).
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

6


Brady (1990), also pointed out that farm manure is valuable to crops because of
its nitrogen content and influence in the soil. Farm manure increases crop yield and the
value of farm manure is determined not only by the organic matter it furnishes but
especially by the quality of nitrogen that it supplies.

Moreover, manure stimulates the work of soil microbes that unlock plant food
held in the soil borne mineral compounds. It adds nutrients and humus to the soil, aids
composting operations and provides heat for cold frames in the green state as it
decomposes. In addition, it also improves the physical conditions of heavy soils (Bohn et
al, 2001).

Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

7

MATERIALS AND METHODS

An area of 180 m2 was thoroughly prepared and divided into three blocks
consisting of 12 plots per block measuring 1m x 5m each. Two seeds were sown in a
double row with a distance of 25 cm between hills and 30 cm between rows.

Cultural Management
Mushroom compost was incorporated to the soil during plot preparation. Corn
plants were planted around the area as barriers against pest and diseases. Zero chemical
spraying was strictly implemented. All the recommended cultural management practices
like irrigation, leaf thinning and weeding were done to maintain the growth of the crop.
Trellis support was administered as soon as the vines reach 20 cm after hilling-up. The
organic fertilizers was basally applied before sowing following the recommended rate for
snapbean, which is 50-120-50 kg N-P20-K20/ ha.

Treatment and Lay-out

The experimental lay-out was split-plot design. The organic fertilizers were
assigned as the main plots and the varieties served as sub-plots.
The treatments were as follows:
Main plot (Organic fertilizer) Rate of Application
F1 Chicken manure 3 kg/ plot (4-1.98-2.32)

F2 Horse manure 6 kg/ plot (1.54-1.05-0.65)

F3 Pig manure 5 kg/ plot (2.81-1.16-0.52)
Sub-plot (Variety) Place of Collection
V1 Alno BSU- IPB HCRS
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

8


V2 Blue Lake La Trinidad, Benguet
V3 Maroon Tublay, Benguet

V4 Taichung BSU- IPB HCRS
The data gathered were:
1. Soil property. One kg of soil sample from the site of experiment was collected
randomly before land preparation and after harvest for the determination of the initial and
final soil properties like pH, NPK and organic matter.
2. Percent Survival. This was obtained by using the formula:
Total number of plant per plot at maturity
% Survival =
Total number of seed sown per plot
X 100

3. Maturity
a. Days from sowing to emergence. This was obtained by counting the number of
days from sowing to emergence.
b. Days from emergence to flowering. This was obtained by counting the days
from emergence to the time when 75% of the plants per entry started to produce flowers.
c. Number of days to pod setting. This was recorded by counting the days from
flowering up to when 75% of the flowers break up and pod length is measured 2 cm.
d. Days from sowing to first harvest. This was obtained by counting the days
from sowing to first harvest.
e. Days from sowing to last harvest. This was done by counting the days from
sowing to last harvest.
4. Flower and Pod Characteristics
a. Number of flowers per cluster. This was obtained by counting the number of
flowers per cluster of ten plant samples per entry.
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

9

b. Number of pods per cluster. This was obtained by counting the number of
pods developed per cluster.
c. Percentage pod set per cluster. This was determined by using the formula:

Total number of pod per cluster

% Pod set =
Total number of flower per cluster
X 100

d. Length of pods (cm). Ten sample pods per entry were selected and measured
from pedicel end to distal end.
e. Width of pods (cm). Ten sample pods per entry were selected and measured at
the broadest part.
f. Number of seeds per pod. This was obtained by counting the number of seeds
of pods of ten sample plants per treatment.
5. Yield and Yield Components
a. Weight of marketable fresh pod (kg). Pods that were free from pest and
disease and were straight were weighed from first to last harvest.
b. Weight of non- marketable pods (kg). Pods that were malformed and damaged
by pest and disease were weighed from first to last harvest.
c. Total yield per plot (kg). This was the total weight of marketable and non
marketable pods per plot.


d. Computed yield per hectare (t/ha). The data was computed by using the
following formula:

Yield (t/ha) = Total yield/ plot x 2

e. Number of harvesting per treatment. This was recorded by counting the number
of harvest per entry.
6. Reaction to bean rust and pod borer
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

10

a. Reaction to bean rust. This was obtained by using the following rating scale at
15, 30, 45 and 60 DAP (Cho, 1987):
Scale Description Remarks
1 No infection High resistance
2 1-25% of the total plant Mild resistance
3 26-50 of the total plant Moderate resistance
4 51-75 of the total plant Susceptible
5 76-100 of the total plant/ plot is infected Very susceptible
b. Reaction to pod borer. This was obtained during the first harvest using the
following scale (Cho, 1987):
Scale Description Remarks
1 No infection High resistance
2 1-25% of the total plant Mild resistance
3 26-50% of the total plant Moderate resistance
4 51- 75% of the total plant Susceptible
5 76-100% of the total plant/ plot is affected Very Susceptible
7. Return on Cash Expense (ROCE). Production cost, gross and net income were
determined and computed using the formula:

Gross sales - total expenses
ROCE =
Total expenses
X 100








Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

11

Analysis of Data


All the quantitative data gathered were statistically analyzed. The significance of
difference among means was tested using the Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) at
5% level of significance.




















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

12


RESULTS AND DISCUSSION


Agroclimatic Data

Table 1 shows the temperature, relative humidity, amount of rainfall and sunshine
duration during the conduct of the study. Minimum temperature ranges from 13.4 ˚C to
16.2 ˚C and maximum temperature ranges from 24.4 ˚C to 25.2 ˚C. Relative humidity
was at mean of 80.7 %. Rainfall amount was at mean of 1.07 mm and the sunshine
duration was at a mean of 341.1 Kj.

The temperature during the conduct of the study was favorable to snapbean
production which ranges between 15 to 21 ˚C. However, snapbean can tolerate warm
temperature up to 25 ˚C (PCARRD, 1989). As stated by Kudan, (1999) snapbean is a
short day plant and planting from October to November shows higher percentage pod set
of 62.5 %.

Table 1. Temperature, relative humidity, amount of rainfall and sunshine duration during
the conduct of the study

MONTHS TEMPERATURE
RELATIVE
RAINFALL
SUNSHINE
___ (˚C) ___
HUMIDITY
AMOUNT
DURATION
MAX MIN
(%)
(mm)
(Kj)





November
25.2 16.2
75.2
3.10
304.6
December
24.4 13.6
82.0
0.10
369.8
January
24.6
13.4
85.0
0.03
349.0
Mean
24.7
14.4
80.7
1.07
341.1



Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

13

Soil Property
As shown in Table 2, the soil pH before and after the experiment was 5.5 which
favors the growth of pole snapbean. The percent soil organic matter before and after
planting was 2.5 % except for the soil applied with pig manure (1.5 %). On nitrogen
content, no change in the amount was observed before and after the application of
chicken and horse manure except for soil applied with pig manure. This may imply that
the nitrogen in the soil is enough for the nutrient need of the snapbean plant since it can
also fix its own nitrogen.
The Phosphorus content of the soil after the experiment increased from 116 to as
high as 260. On potassium content, there was an increase from soil applied with chicken
manure (190). Soil applied with horse and pig manure had decreased to potassium
content (88 and 60, respectively). The decrease in the amount of Potassium to soil applied
with horse and chicken manure after the experiment could be due to the high Potassium
requirement of the plant which is needed for photosynthesis and respiration.

Table 2. Soil pH, organic matter, nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium before planting and
after harvesting

pH ORGANIC NITROGEN PHOSPHORUS POTASSIUM
MATTER (%) (%) (ppm)
(%)
Before planting 5.5 2.5 0.125 116 112

After harvesting

Chicken manure 5.5 2.5 0.125 260 190

Horse manure 5.5 2.5 0.125 155 88

Pig manure 5.5 1.5 0.075 230 60


Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

14

Plant Survival


Effect of animal manure. Among the three animal manures used, the application
of chicken manure gave the highest plant survival of 91 % followed by plants applied
with horse and pig manure (89% and 88%, respectively). No significant differences were
noted as shown in Table 3.
Effect of variety. Table 2 shows significant differences on plant survival.
“Taichung” obtained the highest percentage of plant survival of 94% which is
comparable with Alno and Maroon having plant survival of 93% and 92%, respectively.
The lowest percent plant survival was observed in Blue Lake (79%) as shown in Figure 1
and 2.
Interaction effect. There were no significant interaction effect between the
application of different animal manure and the different varieties of pole snapbean on
plant survival.

Number of Days from Sowing to Emergence
Effect of animal manure. Table 4 shows that the application of animal manure had
no significant effect on the number of days from sowing to emergence. All the pole
snapbean plants emerged eight days from sowing.

Effect of variety. Significant differences were noted among the varieties. Most of
the varieties emerged after eight days while Blue Lake emerged nine days after planting.
The early emergence of the varieties maybe attributed to varietal characteristics.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction effect between the animal manures
and varieties on number of days from sowing to emergence was observed.
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

15


Figure 1. Overview of pole snapbean plants at 25 days after planting.





Figure 2. Overview of pole snapbean plants at 60 days after planting.
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

16

Table 3. Plant survival of pole snapbean varieties as affected by the application of
different animal manure

TREATMENT PLANT
SURVIVAL
(%)
Fertilizer (F)


91
Chicken manure



Horse manure
89


Pig manure
88

Variety (V)


93a
Alno


Blue Lake
79b


Maroon
92a


“Taichung”
94a
F x V
Ns
CV (a) %
7.66
CV (b) %
7.80
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT.


Number of Days from Emergence to Flowering

Effect of animal manure. Plants fertilized with pig manure flowered at 47 days
after emergence (DAE) followed by the plants applied with chicken and horse manure at
48 DAE. There were no significant differences among the treatments observed.

Effect of variety. Blue Lake was significantly the earliest to flower at 43 DAE
followed by Maroon at 47 DAE, Alno at 49 DAE and “Taichung” at 51 DAE. The
significant differences observed from Blue Lake may be attributed to the flowering
characteristic of the variety.
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

17

Interaction effect. No significant interaction was revealed in the application of
animal manures and pole snapbean varieties on the number of days from emergence to
flowering.
Number of Days from Flowering to Pod Setting


Effect of animal manure. Plants treated with different manure set pod at five days
from flowering as shown in Table 5. There were no significant differences among the
different animal manure used on days from flowering to pod setting.

Table 4. Number of days from sowing to emergence and emergence to flowering of the
pole snapbean varieties as affected by the application of different animal manure




TREATMENT
NUMBER OF DAYS FROM
SOWING TO EMERGENCE TO
EMERGENCE FLOWERING
Fertilizer (F)



Chicken manure

8 48


Horse manure
8 48


Pig manure
8 47

Variety (V)



Alno
8a 49bc


Blue Lake
9b 43a


Maroon
8a 47b


“Taichung”
8a 51c
F x V ns ns
CV (a) %
4.01


5.41
CV (b) %
5.68


4.24

Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

18

Effect of variety. No significant differences were observed on the number of days
from flowering to pod setting as affected by the varieties of pole snapbean. All the
varieties set pod at five days from flowering.
Interaction effect. No significant interaction was revealed in the application of
animal manures and pole snapbean varieties on the number of days from flowering to pod
setting.

Number of Days from Sowing to First Harvest


Effect of animal manure. The crops were first harvested at 68 DAE regardless of
the manure applied. No significant differences among the three animal manure used were
revealed.

Effect of variety. Alno, Blue Lake and Maroon were first harvested at 67 DAE
while “Taichung” was first harvested at 70 DAE. Significant differences obtained were
due to the varietal characteristics of the pole snapbeans.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction between the application of different
animal manure and pole snapbean varieties was observed on the days from emergence to
first harvest.


Number of Days from Sowing to Last Harvest
Effect of animal manure. No significant differences among the three animal
manure used was observed on the days from sowing to last harvest. Last harvesting was
done at 94 DAE in all the crops.
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

19

Effect of variety. Alno and “Taichung” were the last harvested at 96 DAE while
Blue Lake and Maroon were last harvested at 92 DAE. This indicates that Alno and
“Taichung” had longer life span than Blue Lake and Maroon.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction between the different manures and
varieties were noted on the days from sowing to last harvest.

Table 5. Number of days from emergence to pod setting, sowing to first and last harvest
of pole snapbean varieties as affected by the application of different animal
manure

TREATMENT

NUMBER OF DAYS FROM

FLOWERING TO
SOWING TO FIRST
SOWING TO
POD SETTING
HARVEST
LAST HARVEST
Fertilizer (F)







Chicken manure
5
68
94




Horse manure
5
68
94




Pig manure
5
68
94

Variety (V)







Alno
5
67a
96b




Blue Lake
5
67a
92a




Maroon
5
67a
92a




“Taichung”
5
70b
96b
F x V
ns
ns
Ns
CV (a) %
13.80
0.49
0.18
CV (b) %
11.12
0.94
0.18
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT








Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

20

Number of Flowers per Cluster

Effect of animal manure. Results revealed no significant differences on the
number of flowers per cluster as shown in Table 6. Six to seven flowers were produced
by the plants.
Effect of Variety. Seven flowers per cluster were gathered from Maroon and
“Taichung” which is significantly higher than Blue Lake and Alno which produced five
and six flowers per cluster, respectively.
Interaction
effect. The animal manure treatments and the four pole snapbean
varieties did not interact in the number of flower per cluster.


Number of Pods per Cluster

Effect of animal manure. The different animal manure applied did not
significantly affect the number of pods per cluster. Three pods per cluster were obtained
from the plants as shown in Table 6.

Effect of variety. There were no significant variations observed among the four
varieties of pole snapbeans on the number of pods per cluster. Three pods per cluster
were obtained from the different varieties.
Interaction effect. No significant interaction was noted between the application of
different animal manures and the pole snapbean varieties on the number of pods per
cluster.

Percentage Pod Set per Cluster

Effect of the animal manure. Among the animal manure used, pig and horse
manure application gave the highest percentage pod set of 47.7% and 45.77 %,
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

21

respectively while the lowest pod set (41.63 %) was obtained in plants applied with
chicken manure as shown in Table 6. Low pod set percentage may be attributed to bean
rust infection which may have affected flower and pod development.

Effect of variety. Blue Lake significantly obtained the highest percentage pod set
of 48.73% which was comparable with “Taichung” and Alno (46.31% and 44.98%,
respectively). Maroon had the lowest pod setting of 40.12%. The low percentage of pod
setting is due to the susceptibility of the varieties to bean rust.

Table 6. Number of flowers and pods per cluster and percent pod set of pole snapbean
varieties as affected by the application of different animal manure


TREATMENT
NUMBER PER CLUSTER

POD SET
FLOWERS PODS

(%)

Fertilizer (F)






Chicken manure
7 3
41.63b




Horse manure
6 3
45.77a




Pig manure
6 3

47.70a

Variety (V)







Alno
6ab 3

44.98a




Blue Lake
5b 3

48.73a




Maroon
7a 3

40.12b




“Taichung”
7a 3

46.31a
F x V
ns ns
Ns
CV(a)%
10.43 13.60

12.61
CV(b)%
13.47 11.15

11.89
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

22

Interaction effect. There was no significant interaction effect between the
application of animal manures and the different pole snapbean varieties on the percentage
pod set per cluster.

Pod Length

Effect of animal manure. No significant differences were noted on the pod length
of the pole snapbean plants treated with the different animal manure. Pod length ranges
from 13.35 to 13.88 cm as shown in Table 7.

Effect of variety. The significantly longest pod was gathered from “Taichung”
with a mean of 14.68 cm followed by Alno, Blue Lake and Maroon with means of 13.49
cm, 13.12 cm and 12.96 cm, respectively.
Interaction
effect. Results revealed significant interaction effect between the
animal manure treatments and the four pole snapbean varieties on pod length. As shown
in Figure 3, the pods length are longer in varieties treated with chicken manure compared
to plants applied with horse and pig manure. This indicates that chicken manure enhances
pod length of the pole snapbean varieties. Chicken manure had higher micronutrient
contents like Calcium, Magnesium, Iron, Manganese and Zinc that support pod
development. Moreover, variety “Taichung” obtained the longest pods among the
varieties regardless of the animal manure applied. This implies that pod length is not only
enhanced by treatments but is also a varietal characteristic.

Pod Width

Effect of animal manure. Table 6 showed no significant differences on the pod
width of plants applied with the different animal manure. All plants obtained 1.01 cm pod
width.
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

23


Effect of variety. Statistical results showed no significant differences on the pod
width. Numerically, “Taichung” produced the widest pod (1.03 cm) followed by Alno
and Maroon (1.01 cm). Blue Lake produced the narrowest pod of 0.99 cm.
Interaction effect. As shown in Figure 4, significant interaction effect was noted
on the animal manure treatments and the four pole snapbean varieties. Alno and Maroon
applied with chicken manure, Blue Lake applied with horse manure, and “Taichung”
applied with pig manure produced the widest pods. This implies that the animal manure
treatments enhanced the pod width of the pole snapbean varieties.

Number of Seeds per Pod


Effect of animal manure. Among the treatments, application of chicken manure
significantly gave the highest number of seeds per pod (8) as shown in Table 7. Plants
applied with horse and pig manure gave seven seeds per pod.

Effect of variety. Significant varietal differences on the number of seeds were
obtained in “Taichung” with eight seeds per pod while seven seeds per pod were gathered
from Alno, Blue Lake and Maroon. The significant difference could be attributed to
varietal characteristics (Table 7).
Interaction
Effect. There was a significant interaction effect between the different
animal manure treatment and the pole snapbean varieties as shown in Figure 5. Plants
applied with chicken manure produced more seeds per pod. However, “Taichung”
applied with horse and pig manure managed to produce higher number of pods. This
implies that number of seeds per pod could not only be enhanced by the application of
manure but also by the agronomic characteristics of the varieties.


Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

24

Table 7. Pod length and width and number of seeds per pod of pole snapbean varieties
as affected by the application of different animal manure




TREATMENT POD
LENGTH
POD WIDTH SEED NUMBER
(cm)
(cm) PER POD
Fertilizer (F)





Chicken manure

13.88
1.01 8a



Horse manure
13.45
1.01 7b



Pig manure
13.35
1.01 7b

Variety (V)





Alno
13.49b
1.01 7b



Blue Lake
12.96c
0.99 7b



Maroon
13.12bc
1.01 7b



“Taichung”
14.68a
1.03 8a
F x V
**
** **
CV (a) %
2.86 4.43 2.79
CV (b) %
1.83
4.58 3.21
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT

 

48


46


44
)

Fertilizer
(cm

42
Chicken Manure
Horse Manure
gth
Pig Manure

40

38
Pod Len

36


34

Alno
Blue Lake
Maroon
Taichung

Variety

Figure 3. Interaction effect between animal manure treatments and pole snapbean
varieties on pod length
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

25

 

3.3


3.2


3.1


3
Fertilizer
)


Chicken Manure

(
cm
2.9
Horse Manure

2.8

Pig Manure

2.7

Pod Width

2.6


2.5

2.4


Alno
Blue Lake
Maroon
Taichung

Variety


Figure 4. Interaction effect between animal manure treatments and pole snapbean
varieties on pod width

 

30


25


o
d

Fertilizer

20

p
er P
Chicken Manure

15
Hog Manure

Pig Manure

10



5
Number of Seeds


0

Alno
Blue Lake
Maroon
Taichung


Variety

Figure 5. Interaction effect between animal manure treatments and pole snapbean
varieties on number of seeds per pod
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

26

Reaction to Bean Rust


Effect of animal manure. All the plants treated with animal manure were not
infected by bean rust until 30 DAP but showed mild resistance during 45 DAP and were
very susceptible at 60 DAP.

Effect of variety. All the varieties showed no infection until 30 DAP but at 45
days after planting, Blue Lake showed moderate resistance while the other varieties
showed mild resistance. However, all the varieties were very susceptible during 60 DAP.

Reaction to Pod Borer
Effect of animal manure. All plants applied with animal manure were found to be
susceptible to pod borer at 60 DAP as shown in Table 8.

Effect of variety. Among the varieties, Blue Lake was moderately resistant to pod
borer as shown by the small number of plants that survived and produced less pods.
Meanwhile, Alno, Maroon and “Taichung” were susceptible to pod borer (Table 8).

Number of Harvesting
Effect of animal manure. The crops were harvested five times (Table 9). No
significant differences were observed among the three animal manures used on the
number of harvesting.

Effect of variety. Alno had significantly greater number of harvesting (6) than
Blue Lake, Maroon and “Taichung” which were harvested five times. The significant
difference obtained from Alno is attributed to higher number of pods produced.


Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

27

Table 8. Reaction to bean rust and pod borer at 45 and 60 DAP of pole snapbean
varieties as affected by the application of animal manure




TREATMENT
BEAN RUST RATING POD BORER RATING
45 DAP
60 DAP 60 DAP
Fertilizer (F)





Chicken manure
Mild resistant
Very susceptible Susceptible



Horse manure
Mild resistant
Very susceptible Susceptible



Pig manure
Mild resistant
Very susceptible Susceptible

Variety (V)





Alno
Mild resistant
Very susceptible Susceptible



Blue Lake
Moderately resistant
Very susceptible Moderately resistant



Maroon
Mild resistant
Very susceptible Susceptible



“Taichung”
Mild resistant
Very susceptible Susceptible




Interaction effect. No significant interaction effect was observed between the
application of the animal manure and the four varieties of pole snapbean on number of
harvesting.

Weight of Marketable Fresh Pod

Effect of animal manure. Plants applied with chicken manure produced 2.83 kg of
marketable fresh pod followed by plants applied with horse and pig manure (2.59 kg and
2.58 kg, respectively). There was no significant difference revealed on the effect of
manure application as shown in Table 10 (Figures 6, 7 and 8).





Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

28

Marketable



Alno Blue Lake Maroon


Non-marketable



Alno Blue Lake


Maroon “Taichung”

Figure 6. Marketable and non- marketable pods obtained from plants applied with
chicken manure
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

29

Marketable



Alno Blue Lake




Maroon “Taichung”

Non-marketable



Blue Lake Maroon “Taichung”


Figure 7. Marketable and non-marketable pods obtained from plants applied with horse
manure
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

30

Marketable



Alno Blue Lake




Maroon “Taichung”

Non-marketable


Alno Blue Lake Maroon “Taichung”

Figure 8. Marketable and non-marketable pods obtained from plants applied with pig
manure

Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

31

Table 9. Number of harvesting of pole snapbean varieties as affected by the application
of different animal manure



TREATMENT NUMBER
OF
HARVEST

Fertilizer (F)



Chicken manure

5


Horse manure
5


Pig manure
5

Variety (V)



Alno
6a


Blue Lake
5b


Maroon
5b


“Taichung”
5b


F x V
ns
CV (a) %
10.88
CV (b) %
7.01
Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT

Effect of variety. Among the varieties, Taichung produced significantly higher
marketable fresh pods (3.66 kg). Alno produced 2.76 kg, Maroon produced 2.52 kg and
the lowest marketable pod was recorded from Blue Lake (1.74 kg). The significant
differences were due to the longer pod length and greater seed number per pod produced
by “Taichung”.
Interaction effect. The interaction effect between animal manure application and
the pole snapbean varieties on the weight of marketable fresh pod was not significant.


Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

32

Weight of Non-marketable Pods

Effect of animal manure. There were no significant differences noted on the effect
of animal manure application as shown in Table 10. Numerically, heaviest non-
marketable pods was observed from plants applied with chicken manure (2.20 kg)
followed by plants applied with pig manure (1.97 kg) and horse manure (1.90 kg).

Effect of variety. Blue Lake significantly produced the least weight of non-
marketable pods with a mean of 1.33 kg followed by Alno, Maroon and “Taichung” with
means of 2.10 kg, 2.22, and 2.44, respectively. The significant difference observed in
Blue Lake might be due to its moderate resistance to pod borer.
Interaction
effect. No significant interaction effect was observed on the weight of
non-marketable pod produced as affected by animal manure application and the different
pole snapbean varieties.

Total Yield and Computed Yield


Effect of animal manure. Table 10 showed that chicken manure application
produced the heaviest total and computed yield per hectare followed by pig manure and
horse manure application. No significant difference was revealed as an effect of the
application of animal manure.
Effect of variety. Significant differences were observed from the pole snapbean
varieties on total and computed yield. “Taichung” significantly recorded the highest total
and computed yield of 6.00 kg per 5m2 and 12 tons per hectare, respectively. The lowest
total and computed yield was obtained from Blue Lake (3.07 kg per 5m2 and 6.14 tons
per hectare, respectively).


Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

33

Interaction effect. No significant interaction effect was noted on the total and
computed yield as affected by the application of different animal manure and the pole
snapbean varieties.

Return on Cash Expense (ROCE)


Effect of animal manure. Table 11 shows that the application of chicken manure
gave the highest net income of PhP 80.75 while the lowest was realized from the
application of horse manure (PhP 71.00). However, the highest ROCE was recorded from
the application of pig manure (185 %) followed by chicken manure application (179 %)
while horse manure application had the lowest ROCE of 177.50 %. The high ROCE
obtained from pig manure application was due to the cheaper cost of the fertilizer
material.
Effect of variety. Among the varieties, “Taichung” is the most profitable due to
the higher net income and ROCE of PhP 101.75 and 203.50 %, respectively. “Taichung”
having the highest yield also had the highest ROCE.















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

34

Table 10. Weight of marketable and non-marketable fresh pods, total and computed
yield of pole snapbean varieties as affected by the application of different
animal manure

TREATMENT

NON-
TOTAL
COMPUTED
MARKETABLE
MARKETABLE
YIELD PER
YIELD PER
(kg)
(kg)
PLOT
HECTARE
(kg/5m2)
(t/ha)
Fertilizer (F)










Chicken manure
2.83
2.20
5.03
10.06








Horse manure
2.59
1.90
4.54
9.08






Pig manure
2.58
1.97
4.55
9.10

Variety (V)










Alno
2.76b
2.10a
4.86b
9.72b






Blue Lake
1.74c
1.33b
3.07c
6.14c






Maroon
2.52b
2.22a
4.74b
9.48b






“Taichung”
3.66a
2.44a
6.00a
12.00a






F x V

ns
ns
ns
ns
CV (a) %
18.07
18.37
15.20
15.20

CV (b) %
10.19
10.11
9.07
9.07

Means followed by common letters are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT














Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

35

Table 11. Cost and return analysis of pole snapbean varieties as affected by the
application of animal manure

TREATMENT YIELD
VARIABLE
GROSS
NET
ROCE
(kg)(5m2)
COST
INCOME
INCOME (%)
PhP
PhP
PhP
Fertilizer (F)











Chicken manure
5.03
45
125.75
80.75
179.44








Horse manure
4.44
40
111.00
71.00
177.50






Pig manure
4.56
40
114.00
74.00
185.00


Variety (V)











Alno
4.86b
50
121.50
71.00
142.00






Blue Lake
3.07c
50
76.75
26.75
53.50





Maroon
4.70b
50
117.50
67.50
135.00





Taichung
6.07a
50
151.75
101.75
203.50






*Variable cost includes cost of seeds, fertilizers and fuel for irrigation
* Sales was based on the average of 25 PhP per kilo










Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

36


SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary


This study was conducted to determine the best performing pole snapbean variety
grown organically under La Trinidad condition; determine the best animal manure to be
applied in pole snapbean; determine the interaction effect between varieties of pole
snapbean and organic fertilizers; and determine the profitability of different pole
snapbean varieties with different manure application.
Significant differences were noted in animal manure application in terms of
percent survival, total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare. Mild resistance to
bean rust was observed in crops applied with different manure during 45 DAP and were
very susceptible during 60 DAP. All plants were susceptible to pod borer at 60 DAP.
Among the varieties, “Taichung” had the highest percentage in terms of survival,
had the longest pods, highest marketable pods produced and highest ROCE. Blue Lake
was the earliest to flower and had the highest percentage pod set. However, it had the
lowest ROCE. All varieties showed mild resistance to bean rust except Blue Lake which
showed moderate resistance at 45 DAP and were very susceptible at 60 DAP. All plants
were susceptible to pod borer at 60 DAP.

Significant interaction effect was observed on pod length, width and number of
seeds per pod. Significant interaction indicates that chicken manure enhances pod length
and number seeds per pod of pole snapbean varieties. Alno and Maroon applied with
chicken manure had the widest pods. Moreover, variety “Taichung” obtained the longest
pods and had the most number of seeds per pod in all the animal manure treatments.

Chicken manure application had the highest net income but highest ROCE was
Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

37

obtained from pig manure application (185 %) due to. Among the varieties, “Taichung”
is the most profitable with ROCE of 203.50 %.

Conclusion
Taichung is the best variety for organic production based on its high percentage of
survival, long pods, heaviest marketable pods and highest ROCE.
Chicken manure is the best manure to be applied on pole snapbeans due to its
significant effect on percent survival, total yield per plot and computed yield per hectare.
However, application of Pig manure to Pole snapbean varieties is the most profitable due
to the high ROCE.

“Taichung” applied with chicken or pig manure is the best combination to
produce high yield and ROCE.


Recommendation
Taichung variety is recommended for organic production at La Trinidad, Benguet due
to its significant performance in terms of percent survival, pod length, production of
marketable pods and ROCE.
Application of chicken manure to pole snapbean is recommended due to its
outstanding effect in terms of percent survival, total yield per plot and computed yield per
hectare. However, application of pig manure is the best for increased profitability.
Further study on pole snapbean varieties under organic production in different areas is
recommended.



Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

38


LITERATURE CITED


BACOD, P.Q. 2007. Agronomis characters of promising potato accessions applied with
probiotics in an organic farm at Puguis, La Trinidad, Benguet, BS Thesis.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 36.

BAUTISTA, O.K. and R.C. MABESA. 1977. Vegetable Production. University of the
Phi;ippines, Los Banos, Laguna. Pp. 27-28.

BRADY, N.G. 1960. The Nature and Properties of Soil. New York: Mc Millan
Publishing Co., inc. Pp. 559-560.

BRIONES, M. 1981. Nitrogen absorption of baguio beans as affected by rhizobial
inoculation and soil reaction. BS Thesis. MSAC, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 40.

CHAPMAN, S.R. 1976. Crop production, Principles and Practices. San Francisco: W.H.
Freeman and Co. P 109.

CHASTAIN, J.P. 2008. Animal Manures. Accessed at http://hubcap. clemson. Edu/ ~
blpprt/ manure.html.

DAGSON, M.B. 2000. Performance and acceptability of six varieties of bush beans
under La Trinidad condition. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet. P. 19.

FAO. 1978. Agricultural and Horticultural Seeds. Rome, Italy: FAO. Pp. 23,24.

HARRDEC. 2000. Snap bean Farmer Production Guide. La Trinidad, Benguet: Benguet
State University. P 2.

HOPKINS, A.B. et al. 2001. Organic Production Productivity and Profitabilty. Accessed
at http://www.org /wiki/Organic_production#Productivity_and_profitability.

JANKOWIAK, N.S. 1978. Organic Farming. Chicago, USA: Rex Printing Company. Inc.
P. 158.

IFOAM. 2008. Organic Producton. Accessed at http://en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/
Organic_food.

KINOSHITA, K. I. 1972. Vegetable Production in the Subtropic. Tokyo, Japan: Overseas
Corporation Agency. Pp. 106-107.

KUDAN, S.L. 1999. Snapbean and Garden Pea Production. Office of the Director of
Extension (ODE). Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 5.

Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

39

KUDAN, S. L. 1991. How to grow snapbean. Department of Crop Science. Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. Technical Bulletin Number 4. P. 20.

NEYNEY, B.C. 2005. Pod setting and fresh pod yield potential of commonly grown pole
snapbean varieties in La Trinidad, Benguet. BS Thesis. Benguet State University,
La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 20.

PCARRD. 1989. Sustainable Development Through Organic Agriculture. Los Banos,
Laguna, Philippines: PCARRD. Pp. 18,37,39.

POG-OK, J.F. 2001. On-farm evaluation of potential varieties of pole snapbens at Pico,
La Trinidad, Benguet. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad,
Benguet. P. 22.

RASNAKE, W.L. 2001. Soil Fertility and Fertilizer. New York, Usa: Mc Millan
Publishing Co., Inc. P. 575.

SUNIL, K. R. 1990. Varietal evaluation of promising lines of path coefficient analysis in
pole snapbean. MS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 4.
USDA. 2000. Organic Production. Accessed at http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/Organic.
VLIR-PIUC. 1997. Soil Fertility Evaluation. Accessed at http://vlir-piuc. slu. edu.
ph/index.phpoption=com.
WESLEY, D.O. 2007. Agronomic characters of bush snapbean varieties under organic
production at La Trinidad, Benguet. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet. P. 30.



Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

40

APPENDICES


Appendix Table 1. Percent plant survival

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
87
94
94
275
92
V2
76
85
86
247
82
V3
89
96
97
282
94
V4
89
99
96
284
95




Subtotal
341
374
373
1088
363
F2 V1
91
96
93
280
93
V2
90
74
69
233
78
V3
88
100
83
271
90
V4
85
100
100
285
95




Subtotal
354
370
345
1069
356
F3 V1
94
87
100
281
94
V2
80
85
65
230
77
V3
97
87
89
273
91
V4
89
100
89
278
93

Subtotal
360 359 343 1062
92

TOTAL
1055 1103 1061 3219
82



















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

41

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1
275
280
281
836 279
V2
247
233
230
710 237
V3
282
271
273
826 275
V4
284
285
278
847 282


TOTAL
1088
1069
1082
3219






Mean
272
267
266



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
114.000
57.000







Main-plot factor (A)
2
30.167
15.083
0.32ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
187.833
46.958








Subplot factor (B)
3
1354.528
451.509
9.28**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
64.056
10.676
0.22ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
876.167
48.676







TOTAL
35
2626.750
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 7.66
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 7.80









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

42

Appendix Table 2. Number of days from sowing to emergence

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
8
8
8
24
8
V2
9
9
9
27
9
V3
8
8
8
24
8
V4
8
8
8
24
8






Subtotal
33
33
33
99
33
F2 V1
8
8
8
24
8
V2
8
10
10
28
9
V3
8
8
8
24
8
V4
8
8
8
24
8






Subtotal
32
34
34
100
33
F3 V1
8
8
8
24
8
V2
8
10
10
28
9
V3
8
8
8
24
8
V4
8
8
8
24
8






Subtotal
32
34
34
100
33






TOTAL
97
101
101
299
99






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

43

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 24
24
24
72
24
V2 27
28
28
83
28
V3 24
24
24
72
24
V4 24
24
24
72
24






TOTAL
99
100
100
299






Mean
33
33
33



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.889
0.444







Main-plot factor (A)
2
0.056
0.028
0.25ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
0.444
0.111








Subplot factor (B)
3
10.083
3.361
15.12**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
0.167
0.028
0.12ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
4.000
0.222







TOTAL
35
15.639
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 4.01
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 5.68









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

44

Appendix table 3. Number of days from emergence to flowering

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
50
49
45
144
48
V2
40
45
44
129
43
V3
49
48
48
145
49
V4
51
50
55
156
52






Subtotal
190
192
192
574
192
F2 V1
45
53
53
151
50
V2
41
42
41
124
41
V3
45
46
46
137
46
V4
51
53
54
158
53






Subtotal
182
192
192
574
192
F3 V1
48
48
49
145
48
V2
47
43
44
134
45
V3
47
46
47
140
47
V4
51
49
49
149
50


Subtotal
193 186 189 568 190


TOTAL
565 570 573 1716 574






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

45

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 144
151
145
440
146.7
V2 129
124
134
387
129
V3 145
137
140
422
140.7
V4 156
158
149
463
154.3





TOTAL
574
574 568 1712






Mean
143.5
142.5
142



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
4.389
2.194







Main-plot factor (A)
2
1.556
0.778
0.12ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
26.444
6.611








Subplot factor (B)
3
342.889
114.296
28.12**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
50.444
8.407
2.06ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
73.167
4.065








TOTAL
35
498.889
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 5.41
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 4.24









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

46

Appendix Table 4. Number of days to pod setting

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
6
6
5
17
5.66
V2
5
6
5
16
5.33
V3
6
5
5
16
5.33
V4
5
5
5
15
5.00






Subtotal
22
22
20
64
21.32
F2 V1
5
5
6
15
5.00
V2
6
5
5
17
5.66
V3
5
5
5
15
5.00
V4
5
5
6
15
5.00






Subtotal
21
20
22
63
20.66
F3 V1
5
5
6
16
5.33
V2
5
5
6
16
5.33
V3
5
5
6
16
5.33
V4
5
7
5
17
5.66






Subtotal
20
22
23
65
21.65






TOTAL
63
64
65
192
63.63






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

47

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 17
15
16
48.0
16.0
V2 16
17
16
49
16
V3 16
15
16
47.0
15.7
V4 15
15
17
47.0
15.7






TOTAL
64
63
65
191.0






Mean
16
15.5
16.25



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.167
0.083







Main-plot factor (A)
2
0.167
0.083
0.15ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
2.167
0.542








Subplot factor (B)
3
0.222
0.074
0.21ns
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
0.944
0.157
0.45ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
6.333
0.352







TOTAL
35
10.000
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 13.80
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 11.12









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

48

Appendix Table 5. Number of days from sowing to first harvest

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
69
67
69
205
68.33
V2
67
67
67
201
67.00
V3
67
69
67
203
67.66
V4
70
70
70
210
70.00





Subtotal
273
273
273
819 272.99
F2 V1
67
67
67
201
67.00
V2
67
67
67
201
67.00
V3
67
67
67
201
67.00
V4
70
70
70
210
70.00





Subtotal
271
271
271
813 271.00
F3 V1
67
67
67
201
67.00
V2
67
67
67
201
67.00
V3
69
67
67
203
67.66
V4
70
70
70
210
70.00

Subtotal
273 271 271 815
271.66

TOTAL
817 815 815
2447.0
815.65






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

49

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 201
201
201
603
201
V2 201
201
201
603
201
V3 203
203
203
609
203
V4 210
210
210
630
210





TOTAL
819
813 815 2445






Mean
203.75
203.75
203.75



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.222
0.111







Main-plot factor (A)
2
1.556
0.778
7.0ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
0.444
0.111








Subplot factor (B)
3
50.528
16.843
16.84**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
2.889
0.481
1.18ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
7.333
0.407







TOTAL
35
62.972
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 0.94
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 0.49









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

50

Appendix Table 6. Number of days from sowing to last harvest

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
96
96
96
288
96
V2
92
93
92
277
92
V3
92
92
92
276
92
V4
96
96
96
288
96






Subtotal
376
377
376
1129
376
F2 V1
96
96
96
288
96
V2
92
92
92
276
92
V3
92
92
92
276
92
V4
96
96
96
288
96






Subtotal
376
376
376
1128
376
F3 V1
96
96
96
288
96
V2
92
92
92
276
92
V3
92
92
92
276
92
V4
96
96
96
288
96

Subtotal
376 376 376 1128 376

TOTAL
1128 1129 1128 3384 1128






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

51

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 288
288
288
864
288
V2 277
276
276
829
276.3
V3 276
276
276
828
276
V4 288
288
288
864
288





TOTAL
1129
1128 1128 3385






Mean
282.3
282
282



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.056
0.028







Main-plot factor (A)
2
0.056
0.028
1.0ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
0.111
0.028








Subplot factor (B)
3
140.083
46.694
1681**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
0.167
0.028
1.0ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
0.500
0.028







TOTAL
35
140.972
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 0.18
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 0.18









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

52

Appendix Table 7. Number of harvesting per treatment

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
6
6
6
18
6.0
V2
5
5
5
15
5.0
V3
5
4
5
14
4.6
V4
5
5
5
15
5.0






Subtotal
21
20
21
62
20.6
F2 V1
6
6
6
18
6.0
V2
5
5
5
15
5.0
V3
5
5
5
15
5.0
V4
5
5
5
15
5.0






Subtotal
21
21
21
63
21.0
F3 V1
6
6
6
18
6.0
V2
5
5
4
14
4.6
V3
5
5
3
13
4.3
V4
5
5
5
15
5.0






Subtotal
21
21
18
60
19.3






TOTAL
63
61
60
185
60.9






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

53

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 18
18
18
54
18
V2 15
15
14
44
15
V3 14
15
13
42
14
V4 15
15
15
45
15






TOTAL
62
63
60
185


Mean 15.5
15.75
15




ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.389
0.194







Main-plot factor (A)
2
0.389
0.194
0.61ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
1.278
0.319








Subplot factor (B)
3
9.417
3.139
24.21**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
0.500
0.083
0.64ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
2.333
0.130







TOTAL
35
14.306
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 10.88
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 7.01









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

54

Appendix Table 8. Number of flowers per cluster

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
6
7
7
21
7
V2
5
6
6
17
6
V3
8
9
7
24
8
V4
7
7
8
22
7

Subtotal 26 29 28 83 28
F2 V1
6
7
6
19
6
V2
5
6
5
16
5
V3
7
7
7
21
7
V4
6
7
6
19
6

Subtotal 23 27 24 74 25
F3 V1
6
7
6
19
6
V2
4
5
6
15
5
V3
6
9
4
19
6
V4
6
7
6
19
6

Subtotal 23 28 22 73 24




TOTAL
71
85
75 231 77






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

55

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 21
19
19
59
20
V2 17
16
15
48
16
V3 24
21
19
64
21
V4 22
19
19
60
20

TOTAL 83
74
73
231



Mean 21
19
18



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
6.889
3444







Main-plot factor (A)
2
5.389
2.694
6.06ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
1.778
0.444








Subplot factor (B)
3
15.444
5.148
6.95**.
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
1.722
0.287
0.39ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
13.333
0.741







TOTAL
35
44.556
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 10.43
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 13.47









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

56

Appendix Table 9. Number of pods per cluster

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1

V1 3 2 3 8 3
V2
3
3
3
9
3
V3
3
3
3
9
3
V4
3
3
3
9
3

Subtotal 12 11 12 35 12
F2

V1 3 3 3 9 3
V2
2
3
2
7
2
V3
2
3
3
8
3
V4
3
3
3
9
3

Subtotal 10 12 11 33 11
F3

V1 3 3 3 9 3
V2
2
3
3
8
3
V3
3
3
3
9
3
V4
3
3
3
9
3

Subtotal 11 12 12 35 12




TOTAL
34
35
34 103 34






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

57

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 8
9
9


V2 9
7
8
26
9
V3 9
8
9
24
8
V4 9
9
9
26
9

TOTAL 35
33
35
27 9



Mean 9
8
9



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.222
0.111







Main-plot factor (A)
2
0.222
0.111
0.73ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
0.611
0.153








Subplot factor (B)
3
0.528
0.176
1.73ns
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
0.889
0.148
1.45ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
1.833
0.102







TOTAL
35
4.306
** Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 13.67
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 11.15









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

58

Appendix Table 10. Percentage pod set per cluster

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
42.85
28.76
42.05
113.66
37.89
V2
51.85
44.82
48.38
145.05
48.35
V3
38.66
35.10
36.61
110.37
36.79
V4
45.58
42.85
42.10
130.53
43.51

Subtotal 178.94
151.53
169.14
499.61
166.54
F2 V1
56.14
44.28
55.00
155.42
51.81
V2
42.30
45.07
51.06
138.43
46.14
V3
34.78
40.84
38.35
113.97
37.99
V4
55.35
39.18
46.87
141.40
47.13


Subtotal 188.57
169.37
191.28 549.22 183.07
F3 V1
53.44
39.72
42.62
135.78
45.26
V2
55.81
50.98
48.27
155.06
51.69
V3
44.26
35.63
56.81
136.70
45.57
V4
52.38
46.47
46.03
144.88
48.29

Subtotal 205.89
172.80
193.73
572.42
190.81

TOTAL 573.40
493.70
554.15
1621.25
540.42






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

59

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 113.66
155.42
135.78
404.86
134.95
V2 145.05
138.43
155.06
438.54
146.18
V3 110.37
113.97
136.70
361.04
120.35
V4 130.53
141.40
144.88
416.81
138.94

TOTAL 499.61
549.22
572.42
1621.25







Mean
124.90
137.31
143.11



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
288.246
144.123







Main-plot factor (A)
2
230.575
115.287
23.51**
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
19.618
4.905








Subplot factor (B)
3
355.169
118.390
4.12*
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
280.378
46.730
1.62ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
516.077
28.671







TOTAL
35
1690.063
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 4.61
*significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 11.89
ns = not significant








Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

60

Appendix Table 11. Length of pods

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1

V1 13.50 14.00 14.50 42.00 14.00
V2
13.00
13.00
13.10
39.10
13.03
V3
13.20
13.50
13.30
40.00
13.33
V4
15.00
15.50
15.00
45.50
15.17



Subtotal
54.70 56.00 55.90 166.60 55.53
F2

V1 13.00 12.70 13.40 39.10 13.03
V2
13.00
12.30
13.40
38.70
12.90
V3
13.30
13.50
13.30
40.10
13.37
V4
14.50
14.50
14.50
43.50
14.50




Subtotal
53.80
53.00
54.60 161.40 53.80
F3

V1 13.40 13.50 13.40 40.30 13.43
V2
12.90
13.00
12.90
38.80
12.93
V3
12.50
13.00
12.50
38.00
12.67
V4
14.30
14.60
14.20
43.10
14.37

Subtotal
53.10 54.10 53.00 160.20 53.40

TOTAL
13.50 14.00 14.50 42.00 14.00






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

61

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 42.00
39.10
40.30
121.40
40.47b
V2 39.10
38.70
38.80
116.60
38.87d
V3 40.00
40.10
38.00
118.10
39.37c
V4 45.50
43.50
43.10
132.10
44.03a

TOTAL 166.60
161.40
160.20
488.20





Mean
41.65 40.35 40.05



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.167
0.084







Main-plot factor (A)
2
1.929
0.964
6.44ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
0.599
0.150








Subplot factor (B)
3
16.303
5.434
87.86**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
1.553
0.259
4.19**
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
1.113
0.062







TOTAL
35
21.666
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 2.86
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 1.83









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

62

Appendix Table 12. Width of pods

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1

V1 1.06 1.05 1.08 3.19 1.06
V2
1.00
0.90
0.80
2.70
0.90
V3
1.00
1.05
1.07
3.12
1.04
V4
1.00
1.03
1.05
3.08
1.03



Subtotal
4.06 4.03 4.00 12.09 4.03
F2

V1 1.00 0.90 1.00 2.90 0.97
V2
1.10
0.99
1.12
3.21
1.07
V3
0.99
0.99
0.99
2.97
0.99
V4
0.99
1.00
1.01
3.00
1.00




Subtotal
4.08
3.88
4.12 12.08 4.03
F3

V1 1.01 0.99 1.00 3.00 1.00
V2
0.99
1.00
1.01
3.00
1.00
V3
0.99
0.98
0.99
2.96
0.99
V4
1.00
1.09
1.12
3.21
1.07

Subtotal
3.99 4.06 4.12 12.17 4.06

TOTAL
12.13 11.97 12.24 36.34 12.11






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

63

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 3.19
2.90
3.00
9.09
3.03ab
V2 2.70
3.21
3.00
8.91
2.97b
V3 3.12
2.97
2.96
9.05
3.02b
V4 3.08
3.00
3.21
9.29
3.10a

TOTAL 12.09
12.08
12.17
36.34






Mean
3.02
3.02
3.04



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.003
0.002







Main-plot factor (A)
2
0.000
0.000
0.10ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
0.008
0.002








Subplot factor (B)
3
0.008
0.003
1.28ns
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
0.071
0.012
5.51**
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
0.038
0.002







TOTAL
35
0.129
0.002
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 4.43
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 4.58









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

64

Appendix Table 13. Bean rust reaction at 30 DAP

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1

V1 1 1 1 3 1
V2
1
1
1
3
1
V3
1
1
1
3
1
V4
1
1
1
3
1






Subtotal
4
4
4
12
4
F2

V1 1 1 1 3 1
V2
1
1
1
3
1
V3
1
1
1
3
1
V4
1
1
1
3
1






Subtotal
4
4
4
12
4
F3

V1 1 1 1 3 1
V2
1
1
1
3
1
V3
1
1
1
3
1
V4
1
1
1
3
1






Subtotal
4
4
4
12
4






TOTAL
12
12
12
36
12






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

65

Appendix Table 14. Bean rust reaction at 45 DAP

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1

V1 2 3 2 7 2
V2
3
3
2
8
3
V3
2
2
3
7
2
V4
3
2
2
7
2




Subtotal
10
10
9 29 10
F2

V1 3 2 2 7 2
V2
2
3
3
8
3
V3
2
3
2
7
2
V4
2
2
3
7
2




Subtotal
9
10
10 29 10
F3

V1 2 3 2 7 2
V2
3
2
3
8
3
V3
2
2
3
7
2
V4
3
2
2
7
2

Subtotal 10 9 10 29 10






TOTAL
29
29
29
78
30






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

66

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 7
7
7
21
7
V2 8
8
8
24
8
V3 7
7
7
21
7
V4 7
7
7
21
7



TOTAL 29
29
29
87






Mean
7
7
7



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.000
0.000







Main-plot factor (A)
2
0.000
0.000
0.0ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
0.500
0.125









Subplot factor (B)
3
0.750
0.250
0.60ns
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
0.000
0.000
0.0ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
7.500
0.417







TOTAL
35
8.750
ns= not significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 14.62
Coefficient of Variance (b): 26.71









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

67

Appendix Table 15. Bean rust reaction at 60 DAP

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
5
4
5
14
4.7
V2
5
5
5
15
5.0
V3
5
5
4
14
4.7
V4
5
4
5
14
4.7




Subtotal
20
18
19 57 19.0
F2 V1
4
5
5
14
4.7
V2
5
5
5
15
5.0
V3
5
5
4
14
4.7
V4
4
5
5
14
4.7




Subtotal
18
20
19 57 19.0
F3 V1
5
4
5
14
4.7
V2
5
5
5
15
5.0
V3
4
5
5
14
4.7
V4
5
5
4
14
4.7

Subtotal 19 19 19 57 19.0

TOTAL 5 4 5 14
4.7






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

68

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 14
14
14
42
14
V2 15
15
15
45
15
V3 14
14
14
42
14
V4 14
14
14
42
14



TOTAL 57
57
57
171






Mean
14
14
14



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.000
0.000







Main-plot factor (A)
2
0.000
0.000
0.0ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
1.000
0.250









Subplot factor (B)
3
0.750
0.250
0.90ns
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
0.000
0.000
0.0ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
5.000
0.278







TOTAL
35
6.750
ns= not significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 10.53
Coefficient of Variance (b): 11.10









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

69

Appendix Table 16. Pod borer reaction at 60 DAP

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
4
3
4
11
4
V2
3
4
3
10
3
V3
4
4
3
11
4
V4
3
4
4
11
4




Subtotal
14
15
14 43 14
F2 V1
3
4
3
10
3
V2
4
3
3
10
3
V3
4
4
3
11
4
V4
4
4
3
11
4



Subtotal
15 15 12 42 14
F3 V1
4
3
4
11
4
V2
3
3
4
10
3
V3
3
4
4
11
4
V4
4
4
3
11
4

Subtotal 14 14 15 43 14






TOTAL
43
44
42
128
42






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

70

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 11
10
11
32
11
V2 10
10
10
30
10
V3 11
11
11
33
11
V4 11
11
11
33
11

TOTAL 43
42
43
128






Mean
11
11
11



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.389
0.194







Main-plot factor (A)
2
0.056
0.028
0.08ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
1.444
0.361








Subplot factor (B)
3
0.667
0.222
0.65ns
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
0.167
0.028
0.08ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
6.167
0.343







TOTAL
35
8.889
ns= not significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 16.90
Coefficient of Variance (b): 11.10









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

71

Appendix Table 17. Number of seeds per pod

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
8
8
8
24
8
V2
7
7
7
21
7
V3
7
7
7
21
7
V4
8
8
8
24
8




Subtotal
30
30
30 90 30
F2 V1
7
7
7
21
7
V2
8
7
8
23
8
V3
7
7
7
21
7
V4
8
8
8
24
8



Subtotal
30 29 30 89 30
F3 V1
7
7
7
21
7
V2
7
7
7
21
7
V3
7
6
6
19
6
V4
8
8
8
24
8

Subtotal 29 28 28 85 28

TOTAL 89 87 88 264 88






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

72

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 24
21
21
66
22b
V2 21
23
21
65
22b
V3 21
21
19
61
20c
V4 24
24
24
72
24a

TOTAL 90
89
85
264






Mean
23
22
21



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.167
0.083







Main-plot factor (A)
2
1.167
0.583
14.00*
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
0.167
0.042








Subplot factor (B)
3
6.889
2.296
41.33**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
2.611
0.435
7.83**
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
1.000
0.056







TOTAL
35
12.000
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 2.79
*significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 3.21









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

73

Appendix Table 18. Weight of marketable fresh pods

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1

V1 2.970 2.600 2.920 8.490 2.830
V2
1.720
1.630
2.200
5.550
1.850
V3
2.610
2.020
3.160
7.790
2.597
V4
4.110
4.110
3.950
12.170
4.057




Subtotal
11.410
10.360
12.230 34.000 11.333
F2

V1 2.320 2.620 2.610 7.550 2.517
V2
1.660
1.770
1.900
5.330
1.777
V3
2.520
3.000
2.400
7.920
2.640
V4
3.210
3.740
3.400
10.350
3.450



Subtotal
9.7100 11.130 10.310 31.1500 10.383
F3

V1 2.860 3.250 2.680 8.790 2.930
V2
1.465
1.860
1.500
4.825
1.608
V3
2.420
2.730
1.850
7.000
2.333
V4
2.960
3.570
3.870
10.400
3.467

Subtotal
9.705 11.410 9.900 31.015 10.338

TOTAL
30.825 32.900 32.440 96.165 32.055






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

74

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 8.490
7.550
8.790
24.83
8.277
V2 5.550
5.330
4.825
15.705
5.235
V3 7.790
7.920
7.000
22.71
7.570
V4 12.170
10.350
10.400
32.92
10.973

TOTAL 34.000
31.1500
31.015
96.165






Mean
8.500
7.788
7.754



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.198
0.099







Main-plot factor (A)
2
0.474
0.237
1.02ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
0.931
0.233








Subplot factor (B)
3
16.747
5.582
75.36**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
0.779
0.130
1.75ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
1.333
0.074







TOTAL
35
20.462
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 18.07
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 10.19









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

75

Appendix Table 19. Weight of non-marketable pods

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1

V1 2.170 2.300 2.510 6.980 2.327
V2
1.300
1.270
1.450
4.020
1.340
V3
2.310
1.875
2.690
6.875
2.292
V4
2.550
3.200
2.750
8.500
2.833




Subtotal
8.330
8.645
9.400 26.375 8.792
F2

V1 1.880 1.600 1.990 5.470 1.823
V2
1.210
1.230
1.440
3.880
1.293
V3
2.310
2.130
2.110
6.550
2.183
V4
2.550
2.100
2.250
6.900
2.300




Subtotal
7.950
7.060
7.790 22.800 7.600
F3

V1 2.160 2.430 1.880 6.470 2.157
V2
1.300
1.420
1.310
4.030
1.343
V3
2.350
2.450
1.79
6.590
2.197
V4
2.255
2.250
2.070
6.575
2.192

Subtotal
8.065 8.550 7.050 23.665
11.833

TOTAL
24.345 24.255 24.240 72.840 52.504






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

76

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 6.980
5.470
6.470
18.920
6.307
V2 4.020
3.880
4.030
11.930
3.977
V3 6.875
6.550
6.590
20.015
6.672
V4 8.500
6.900
6.575
21.975
7.325

TOTAL 26.375
22.800
23.665
72.840






Mean
6.594
5.700
5.916



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.001
0.000







Main-plot factor (A)
2
0.580
0.290
2.08ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
0.556
0.139








Subplot factor (B)
3
6.375
2.125
50.79**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
0.547
0.091
2.18ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
0.753
0.042







TOTAL
35
8.812
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 18.37
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 10.11









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

77

Appendix Table 20. Total yield per plot (5m2)

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
5.140
4.900
5.430
15.470
5.157
V2
3.020
2.900
3.650
9.570
3.190
V3
4.920
3.895
5.850
14.665
4.888
V4
6.660
7.310
6.700
20.670
6.890




Subtotal
19.740
19.005
21.630 60.375 20.125
F2 V1
4.200
4.220
4.600
13.020
4.340
V2
2.870
3.000
3.340
9.210
3.070
V3
4.430
5.130
4.510
14.070
4.690
V4
5.460
5.840
5.650
16.950
5.650




Subtotal
16.960
18.190
18.100 53.250 17.750
F3 V1
5.020
5.680
4.560
15.260
5.087
V2
2.765
3.280
2.810
8.855
2.952
V3
4.770
5.180
3.640
13.590
4.530
V4
5.215
5.820
5.940
16.975
5.658

Subtotal
17.770 19.960 16.950 54.680 18.227

TOTAL
54.470 57.155 56.680 168.305 56.102






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

78

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 15.470
13.020
15.260
43.750
14.583
V2 9.570
9.210
8.855
27.635
9.212
V3 14.665
14.070
13.590
42.325
14.108
V4 20.670
16.950
16.975
54.595
18.198

TOTAL 60.375
53.250
54.680
168.305



Mean 15.094
13.313
13.670



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
0.342
0.171







Main-plot factor (A)
2
2.368
1.184
2.34ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
2.020
0.505








Subplot factor (B)
3
40.904
13.635
75.82**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
2.195
0.366
2.03ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
3.237
0.180







TOTAL
35
51.066
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 15.20
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 9.07









Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

79

Appendix Table 21. Computed yield per hectare (t/ha)

TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL
MEAN
I II III
F1 V1
10.28
9.80
10.86
30.94
10.313
V2
6.04
5.80
7.30
19.14
6.380
V3
9.84
7.79
11.70
29.33
9.777
V4
13.32
14.62
13.40
41.34
13.780

Subtotal
39.48 38.01 43.26 120.75
40.250
F2 V1
8.40
8.44
9.20
26.04
8.680
V2
5.74
6.00
6.68
18.42
6.140
V3
8.86
10.26
9.02
28.14
9.380
V4
10.92
11.68
11.30
33.90
11.300

Subtotal
33.92 36.38 36.20 106.50
35.500
F3 V1
10.04
11.36
9.12
30.52
10.173
V2
5.53
6.56
5.62
17.71
5.903
V3
9.54
10.36
7.28
27.18
9.060
V4
10.43
11.64
11.88
33.95
11.317

Subtotal
35.54 39.92 33.9 109.36
10.313

TOTAL
108.94 114.31 113.36 336.61 112.203






















Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

80

TWO WAY TABLE
TREATMENT TOTAL MEAN
FERTILIZER



F1
F2
F3
V1 30.94
26.04
30.52


V2 19.14
18.42
17.71
87.5
29.17
V3 29.33
28.14
27.18
55.27
18.42
V4 41.34
33.90
33.95
84.65
28.22

TOTAL 120.75
106.50
109.36
109.19
36.40



Mean 30.19
26.63
27.34



ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE







SOURCE OF
DEGREE OF
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULAR F
VARIATION
FREEDOM
SQUARES
SQUARE
F
0.05
0.01







Replication
2
1.369
0.684







Main-plot factor (A)
2
9.472
4.736
2.34ns
6.94
18.00







Error (a)
4
8.082
2.020








Subplot factor (B)
3
163.614
54.538
75.82**
3.16
5.09







A x B
6
8.779
1.463
2.03ns
3.66
4.01







Error (b)
18
12.947
0.719







TOTAL
35
**Highly significant Coefficient of Variance (a): 15.20
ns = not significant Coefficient of Variance (b): 9.07


Response Of Pole Snapbeans To Animal Manure Application
At La Trinidad, Benguet / Alezer A. Menes. 2010

---

Document Outline

• Response of Pole Snapbeans to Animal Manure Application at La Trinidad, Benguet
  • BIBLIGRAPHY
  • ABSTRACT
  • TABLE OF CONTENTS
  • INTRODUCTION
  • REVIEW OF LITERATURE
  • MATERIALS AND METHODS
  • RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
  • SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
  • LITERATURE CITED
  • APPENDICES

---