BIBLIOGRAPHY DALOS, WILER T. MARCH 2012....
BIBLIOGRAPHY
DALOS, WILER T. MARCH 2012. Performance of Potato (Solibao var.) Applied with
Vermicompost Under Protected Environment. Benguet State University La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Jose G. Balaoing, Ph. D.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to determine: 1) the effects of vermicompost on the growth and
tuber yield performance of potato (Solibao var.), 2) some physical and chemical properties of the
soil under protected environment; 3) economic analysis of potato applied with vermicompost
under protected environment at the Certified Organic Demo Farm, Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
The height of potato plants were influenced by the application of different rates of
vermicompost. The number of super extra large tubers, extra large tubers, big and small tubers
increased with increasing rates of vermicompost application from 10, 15 and 20 t ha-1.
Conversely, the super extra large, extra large, big potato tubers decreased on plots applied with
25 t ha-1 except that small tubers was greater in number. The same trend was observed on the
weights of potato tubers.
The bulk density, total porosity, and water holding capacity of the soil were improved by
vermicompost application. Likewise, increasing application of vermicompost from 10 to 25 tha-1
increased the soil pH, %OM and % Nitrogen content of the soil.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………
i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………...
i
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………
ii
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Potato Crops………… ...……………......................................................
3
Vermicompost ………………………......................................................
4
Effects of organic fertilizer
on plant growth ….. …………………………………………………..
5
Effects of organic matter
on soil properties ………………………………………………….……
5
Physical properties of soil as
influenced by organic matter ………………………………….............
6
Physical properties of soil as
influenced by vermicompost …………………………………………….
6
Chemical properties ……………………………………………………… 6
Chemical characteristic of vermicompost………………………………….. 7
Biological properties ………………………………………………………. 8
Analyzed raw materials …………………………………………………… 8
MATERIALS AND METHOD .............................................................................. 9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...…………………………………………………. 14
Growth parameters of potato as
influenced by the application rates
ofvermicompost .…...……………………………………………………... 14
Yield parameters of potato as
influenced by the application rates
ofvermicompost .…...….………………………………………………….. 16
Some physical properties of the Soil
as influenced by the application rates
ofvermicompost ..…...………… ………………………………………….. 24
Some chemical properties of the soil
as influenced by the application rates
ofvermicompost .…...……………………………………………………... 27
Economic Importance ..…………………………………………………….. 30
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ……………………… 32
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................. ………... 34
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………….................. 36
1
INTRODUCTION
Potato (Solanumtuberosum L.) isa herbaceous annual crop grown for its edible
tubers. It is mostly used as a vegetable as a source of starch and for other commercial
purposes. This crop becomes the world’s most important tuber crop and it is considered
as the fourth most important of food energy after rice, wheat, and maize. Farmers and
gardeners grow them worldwide. Growers cultivate thousand of different varieties of
potato (Mosley 2003) as cited by Faustino (2011).
FNRI (2006) as cited by Faustino (2011), potatoes are best suited in highlands
like Benguet and Mountain province because of their similar climate conditions. Thus it
became a major source of income to growers in the Cordillera.
An Egyptian study, published in March 2009 in the journal of "Food Chemistry
and Toxicology," reported that conventionally grown potatoes had almost two times the
amount of pesticides and heavy metal contamination than those organically grown
ones.Crinnion (1982), states that measurements taken by the USDA and other consumer
agencies produced data showing that organically grown foods had no amount of chemical
residues found unlike in conventionally raised foods (Denholm, 2010).
The production of organically produce potato needs to be supplied with the right
kind of organic fertilizer inputs. The main problems of today’s farmers are the degraded
soil qualitiesmaterials due to indiscriminate and improper use of synthetic fertilizers.
Likewise improper use and handling of chemical pesticidesdo not only kill the beneficial
microorganisms inherent in the soil but also the health of the farmer is badly affected.
Using organic inputs helps bring back the original conditions of the degraded soil for its
ability to improve the physical, biological and chemical properties of the soil.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
2
Composting organic materials is one of the best methods in the production of organic
fertilizer inputs. It is a process allowing the biodegradable materials to be composted
under natural or controlled environment to produce end-products essential for the
improvement of soil’s physical, chemical and biological properties desirable for the
plants to grow. There are many ways on how to produce compost. Vermicomposting is
one. It is a process of composting using earthworms to convert organic biodegradable
materials into very high quality of compost called vermin cast or the combination of cast
plus compost. Vermicompost is one of the best organic fertilizers by improving the soil
qualities like increasing microbial activity, decreases plant and soil susceptibility to pest
and diseases and lessen compaction leading to better aerated soils and higher nutrient
levels for the nutrition of the plants.
Generally, the study was conducted to determine the effects of vermicompost
application the growth and tuber yield performance of potato (Solibao var.) under
protected environment. Specifically, the study aims to determine; 1)the best rate of
vermicompost on the growth of organic potato grown under protected environment; 2)
the best rate of vermicompost on the yield of organic potato; 3) the effects of
vermicompost on some physical properties of the soil; and 4) the effects of vermicompost
on some chemical properties of the soil; and 4) the economic analysis of growing potato
applied with vermicompost under protected environment.
The research study was conducted under protected environment at the newly
Certified Organic Demo FarmBenguet State University Organic Demo Farm, Balili, La
Trinidad,Benguet from November 2011 to February 2012.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Potato Crop
In terms of nutrition, the potato is best known for its carbohydrate content
(approximately 26 grams in a medium potato). The predominant form of this
carbohydrate is starch. A small but significant portion of this starch is resistant to
digestion by enzymes in the stomach and small intestine, and so reaches the large
intestine essentially intact. This resistant starch is considered to have similar
physiological effects and health benefits as fiber: It provides bulk, offers protection
against colon cancer, improves glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity, lowers plasma
cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations, increases satiety, and possibly even reduces
fat storage. The amount of resistant starch in potatoes depends much on preparation
methods. Cooking and then cooling potatoes significantly increases resistant starch. For
example, cooked potato starch contains about 7% resistant starch, which increases to
about 13% upon cooling (FAO 2009).
FNRI (2006) cited by Faustino (2011) stated that potato has a high nutritive value.
It contains carbohydrates, proteins, minerals and vitamins in moderate amounts. Mendel
(1997) stated that potato contains vitamins and minerals, as well as an assortment of
phytochemicals, such as carotenoids and natural phenols. Chlorogenic acid constitutes up
to 90% of the potato tuber natural phenols. Others found in potatoes are 4-O-
caffeoylquinic (crypto-chlorogenic acid), 5-O-caffeoylquinic (neo-chlorogenic acid), 3,4-
dicaffeoylquinic and 3,5-dicaffeoylquinic acids. A medium-size 150 g (5.3 oz) potato
with the skin provides 27 mg of vitamin C (45% of the Daily Value (DV)), 620 mg of
potassium (18% of DV), 0.2 mg vitamin B6 (10% of DV) and trace amounts of thiamin,
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
4
riboflavin, foliate, niacin, magnesium, phosphorus, iron, and zinc. The fiber content of a
potato with skin (2 g) is equivalent to that of many whole grain breads, pastas, and
cereals.
Vermicompost
Vermicompost (also called worm compost, vermicast, worm castings, worm
humus or manure) is the end product of the breakdown of organic matter by some species
of earthworm. Vermicompost is a nutrient rich, organic fertilizer and soil conditioner, the
process of producing vermicompost is called vermicomposting. The earthworm species
or composting worm most often used are Redwinglers (Eiseniafetida) or Red
Earthworm (Lumbricusrubellus), the species are commonly found in the organic rich soil
throughout Europe and North America and especially prefer the special condition in
rooting vegetation compost and manure piles as cited by Aboen Jr. (2009).
Vermicompostshave a fine particulate structure, low C:N ratio, with the organic
matter oxidized and stabilized and converted into humic materials. They contain
nutrients transformed into plant-available forms and are extremely microbially-
active. Additions of low rates of substitution of vermicomposts into greenhouse
soil less plant growth media or low application rates to field crops have
consistently increased plant germination, growth, flowering, and fruiting, independent
of nutrient availability; This can be at least partially, attributed by the greatly
increased microbial populations, of plant growth regulators, including plant hormones,
such as indole-acetic acid, gibberellins and cytokinins and also humicacids, which
simulate the effects of hormones. Vermicompostscan suppress the incidence of plant
pathogens such as Pythium, Rhizoctonia andVerticillium significantly, by general or
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
5
specific suppression mechanisms. Vermicompost applied to soils have considerable
influence on the trophic structure of nematode populations, significantly suppressing
plant parasitic organisms. Greenhouse experiments have shown thatlow substitutions of
vermicomposts into soil-less plant growth media can decrease the amounts of feeding
and nutrition for crops (Edwards , Dominguez and Arancon 2011).
Effects of Organic Fertilizer on Plant growth
Kinoshita (1970) revealed that organic fertilizers turn heavy soil lighter, more
crumbly,friable and they hold light soil particles together to act as an anchor against
erosion and to increase water holding capacity of the soil. They provide some of the large
quantities needed by the plants and released nutrients present in the soil by turning them
into soluble compounds that can be absorbed by the roots of the plants. Finally, they
carry considerable quantity of elements, often insufficient into the soil and provide
readily available microelements, both activities that promote plant growth.
Brady and Weil (2002) tabulated that some humic substances directly influenced
plant growth by accelerating water uptake and enhance germination of seeds (humic
acid), stimulating root initiation and elongation (humic and fulvic acid), enhance root cell
elongation (humic acid), and enhance growth of plants shoots and roots (humic and fulvic
acids).
Effects of OM on Soil Properties
Agriculture Technologies, Inc. (2010) reported that vermicompost is beneficial
for soil in many ways by improving the physical structure of the soil, the biological
properties of the soil, the water holding capacity of the soil, and the root growth and
structure of the plant. It also attracts deep-burrowing earthworms already present in the
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
6
soil, enhances germination, plant growth and yield. In addition vermicompost also
increases microbial activity, decreases plant and soil susceptibility to pest and diseases
and lessen compaction leading to better aerated soils and higher nutrient levels and
availability of nutrients to the plants.
In the study conducted by Azarmi in 2008, addition of 5, 10 and 15 tons/ha of
vermicompost in soil has significant positive effect on the uptake of element nutrients
such as P, K, Fe and Zn.Vermicompost also had improved the bulk density and porosity
of the soil.
Physical Properties of Soil as
Influenced byOrganic Matter
Brady and Weil (2002) stated that the humic fraction help reduce the plasticity,
cohesions, and stickiness of clayey soils, making those soils easier to manipulate. Soil
water retention is also improved, since organic matter increases both infiltration rate and
water-holding capacity.
Physical Properties of Soil as
Influenced by Vermicompost
Vermicompost has a very high water holding capacity. It has a good structure
which makes it desirable component of potting mixes (Lacay 2008) as cited by Cabading
(2010).Vermicompost also had improved the bulk density and porosity of the soil
(Asarmi 2008).
Chemical Properties
Addison and Hiraga (2010) stated that worm cast also contains five times more
nitrogen, seven times more phosphorous, and eleven times more potassium than ordinary
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
7
soil. These are main minerals needed for plant growth, but the large numbers of
beneficial soil micro-organism in worm casts have at least as much to do with it, the casts
are also rich in humic acids, which conditions the soil, have a perfect pH balance and
contain plant growth factors similar to those found in sea weeds.
Singh (2001) stated that vermicompost has a pH of 7-7.5% and a C:N ratio of 12-
15.1. Through chemical analysis, it contains 1.75-2.5% N, about 1.25-2% K, calcium,
magnesium, sulfate which are 3-5% times better than farm manure.
Chemical Characteristic
of Vermicompost
Bohn et al. (1998) as cited by Lagman (2003) stated that organic matter of
vermicompost supplies nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur for plant growth, serves as
energy source for soil microfloral and macro faunal organisms, and promotes good soil
structure. It indirectly affects the plant uptake of micronutrients and heavy metal cat ions,
and the performance (availability) of herbicides and other agricultural chemicals. It
supplies nearly all the nitrogen, 50 – 60% of the phosphate, perhaps as much as 80% of
sulfur, and a large part of the boron and molybdenum absorbed by plants from fertilized,
temperate region soils. Indirectly, it affects the supply of mineral nutrients from other
sources. The onions of vermicompost also combined with toxic ions such as cadmium
and mercury, as well as with micronutrients cat-ions at high concentrations, and reduce
their availability. Whether the metals are strongly absorbed by the solid-phase soil
organic matter or complex by high molecular weight humic acid is not known. Organic
amendments, however often decrease cat-ion toxicities in acid soils.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
8
Biological Properties
Arancon and Edwards (2005) cited that vermicompost have many outstanding
biological properties. They are rich in bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi and cellulose-
degrading bacteria. In addition earthworm castings, obtained after sludge digestion, were
rich in microorganisms, especially bacteria. The vermicompost had much larger
population of bacteria (5.7 x 107), fungi (22.7 x 104) and actinomycetes (17.7 x 106)
compared with those in conventional composts. The outstanding physic-chemical
chemical and biological properties of vermicompost make the excellent materials as
additives to greenhouse container media, organic fertilizers or soil amendments for
various horticultural crops.
Analyzed Raw Materials
BSWM (2011) analysis of raw materials with a substrate of banana trunk, water
lily, grass mixtures and cow manure has 4.33% nitrogen content, 0.96% phosphorus,
2.09% potassium, 2.62% calcium, 1.04% magnesium, 7.2 pH, 53.39% moisture content,
145ppm zinc, 2,719ppm manganese, 21,358ppm iron and 24.69% organic carbon.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
9
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials used are potato tubers (Solibao var.), vermicompost derived from
water lily, cow manure, banana trunk, and grass mixtures, green house, farm implements
like grab hoe, watering cans, cultivate and bolo, ruler and meter stick, plastic bags and
laboratory equipments and chemicals.
The materials with a ratio of 2:2:2:1 are; banana trunk (200 kg), water lily (200
kg), grass mixtures of (200 kg) and cow manure (100 kg) were gathered, shredded, mixed
thoroughly and piled into the compost pit and composted for one and a half month. The
pile was turned once a week after a month for proper aeration. After a month of
decomposition, vermin (earthworms) were introduced in the compost pile for further
decomposition. Vermicompost (cast + compost) were gathered after a month of worm
inoculation.
An area of 4.5m x 22m were sampled before and after the start and final conduct
of the trial for initial and final soil physical and chemical analysis. The area were
cultivated thoroughly before seeding and prepared with three (3) blocks having each
treatment dimension of 0.9m x 7m. The amounts of vermicompost were applied and
incorporated thoroughly in each treatment plot following the different treatments. Potato
seed pieces were planted with a distance of 30 x 30 cm between hills and rows. The
different treatments were laid out in the experimental site following Randomized
Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three (3) replications (Figure 1).
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
10
Figure 1.Field Layout of the Experimental Area at BSU Organic
DemoFarm, La Trinidad, Benguet. Area was thoroughly
Preparedbefore planting.
The following treatments were as follows:
M1-Control (No Fertilizer)
M2- 10 tons/ ha
M3- 15 tons/ ha
M4- 20 tons/ ha
M5- 25 tons/ ha
Cultural management practices were employed equally to all the treatments such
as weeding, watering, hilling-up, insects and disease control and nutrient supplementation
by applying liquid organic fertilizer extract (Sunflower + Banana + Molasses) done every
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
11
other week during the conduct of the study. Compost tea was also appliedin 1:2
dilutions.This was applied at every 2 weeks interval.
The data gathered were the following:
A. Agronomic Parameters
1. Plant Height (cm)
1.1. Initial height (cm). The initial height of the plant was taken 10 days after
germination. Ten sample plants were randomly tagged for the measurement.
1.2. Final height (cm). The final height of the plants were taken a week before
harvest. The same sample plants used in gathering the initial height were used in
determining the final heights of potato.
2. Tuber Yield
2.1 Numbers of classified tubers. The total numbers of classified tubers
wereobtained using NPRTC classification.Tubers were classified according totuber
weight as follows:
DescriptionSize (g)
A. Small
<
20
B. Big 20-55
C. Extra Large56-85
D. Super Extra Large
>85
3. Dry matter content of the tubers was determined by oven–dry method. The DMC of
tubers were measured using the formula:
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
12
% DMC=100-% MC
%MC=FW-ODW X 100
FW
Where: MC= percent moisture content
FW= fresh weight of tubers
ODW= oven dry weight of tubers
3. Return on Cash Expenses. This was obtained through the following formula:
ROCE = Gross Sales -Total Expenses x 100
Total expenses
Where: ROCE= Return of Cash Expense
4. Physical Properties of the Soil
4.1 Bulk density (Db) of the Soil (g cm-3). This was obtained by paraffin clod
method. The bulk density was obtained with the following formula.
Db (g cm-3) = wt. of the soil bulk (g)
Bulk volume of soil (cm3)
4.2. Water holding capacity (WHC) of the soil (%). This wasdetermined through
Saturation method, wherein core samplers was filled with soil then the bottom of the
cylinders was soaked in water saturated through capillarity.
% WHC = Wt. of saturated Soil – Oven Dry Soil (g) x 100
Oven Dry Soil (g)
4.3. % Porosity of the Soil was determined by PCCARRD StandardMethod of
Analysis.This is obtained using the following formula:
Pore Space (%) = 1- Db x 100
Dp
Where: Db = bulk density, g cm-3
Dp = particle density, g cm-3
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
13
5. Chemical properties
5.1. Soil pH. The initial and final pH of the soil was determinedusing the 1:2.5
CaCl2 solutions. The samples were read in a pH meter.
5.2. Organic matter content of the soil (%). The soil organicmatter was analyzed
using Walkey-Black Method.
5.3. Total nitrogen content of the soil (%). This was computed usingthe formula:
N (%) = % OM x 0.05
Where: (%) OM = value of the organic matter computed
0.05 = constant.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
14
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Growth Parameters of Potato
as Influenced by the Rates of Application
of Vermicompost
Initial Height
Vermicompost application affected the initial heights of plants 10 days after
emergence (Table 1). Vermicompost applied at the rates of 10 to 25 tha-1 increased the
initial heights by 29.90%, 36.13%, 38.88% and 31.88%, respectively over the control
plants. There was a decrease of 0.74 cm on the height of plants as the amount of
vermicompost was applied from 20 tha-1 to 25 tha-1. Likewise, plants grown in plots
applied with the different rates of vermicompost did differs from each other as to initial
height is concern. This observation can be attributed to the influence of vermicompost on
the growth of potato plants by improving the chemical properties of the soil (Singh, 2001,
Adison and Hiraga 2010).
Table 1.Initial height of the plant 10 days after emergence as influenced by the
different rates of vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (cm)
Control10.57b
10
13.73a
15
14.46a
20
14.68a
25
13.93a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
15
Final Height
Similar trend were observed on the final height of potato plants grown in plots
applied with different rates of vermicompost (Table 2). Vermicompost applied at the
rates of 10 to 25 t ha-1increased the final height by 27.12%, 32.03%, 39.87% and 39.87%
respectively over the control plants. There were increases on the height of plants as the
amounts of the vermicompost applied were increased. Likewise, plants grown in plots
applied with different rates of vermicompost did differ from each other as to the final
heights is concerned. This observation attributed to the component of humic substances
probably act as regulators of specific plant-growth functions (Brady and Weil, 1996), and
the nutrients from the vermicompost (Adison and Hiraga 2010, Signh, 2001).
Table 2. Final height of the plant 80 days after emergence as influenced by different
rates of vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (cm)
Control
30.6b
10
38.9a
15
40.4a
20
42.8a
25
42.8a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
16
Yield Parameters of Potato as Influenced
by the Application Rates of
Vermicompost
Number of Super ExtraLarge-size Potato Tubers
Table 3 shows the super extra-large size potato tubers as influenced by the
different rates of vermicompost application. Application of vermicompost from 20 t ha-1
to 25 tha-1 gave corresponding increases of super extra-large tubers from 150%, 450%,
450%, and 300%, respectively over the control. However, potatoes grown in plots applied
with 25 t ha-1 vermicompost registered identical decreases by 27.27% over those plants
grown in plots applied with 15-20 t ha-1, respectively. This observation can be attributed
to the effects of vermicompost by improving the physical, chemical and biological
properties of the soil that enhance growth and tuber development.
Table 3. Number of super extra large-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1)
Control
2d
10
5c
15
11a
20
11a
25
8b
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
17
Number of Extra Large-size Potato Tubers
Application of different rates of vermicompost influenced the extra large-size
potato tubers (Table 4.) Application of vermicompost from 10 t ha-1 to 25 t ha-1 gave the
differences to each other. It gave the corresponding increases by 33.33%, 66.67%, 100%
and 16.67% over the control respectively. Application of 20 t ha-1 of vermicompost
registered the highest produced extra large-size of potato tuber. These observations
correspond to the contribution of vermicompost on the yield of potato (Edwards and
Bohlen 1996, Edwards 1998, Lavelle and Spain 2001).
Table 4. Number of extra large-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1)
Control
6c
10
8bc
15
10ab
20
12a
25
7bc
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
18
Number of Big-size Potato Tubers
Table 5 shows the big-size potato tubers as influenced by the different rates of
vermicompost application. Application of vermicompost from 25 t ha-1 gave
corresponding increases of big-size tubers by 33.33%, 11.11%, and 55.56%, respectively
over the control. Application of 10 t ha-1 did not differ from the control.
This observation maybe attributed due to the rates of vermicompost applied in the soil
that affects the yield of potato (Edwards, Dominguez and Arancon, 2011).
Table 5. Number of big-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1)
Control
9c
10
9c
15
12b
20
10c
25
14a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Number of Small Size Potato Tubers
Table 6 shows the number of small size potato tubers as influenced by the
different rates of vermicompost application. Application of 10 t ha-1 and 25 t ha-1 gave
corresponding increase by 18% and 63.64% respectively over the control. However,
application of 20 t ha-1 vermicompost did not differ over the control. Moreover
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
19
application of 15 t ha-1 vermicompost decreased by 36% from the untreated plot. This
implication shows that different rates of vermicompost application has its own
corresponding effects for the yield of potato.
Table 6. Number of small-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1)
Control
11bc
10
13b
15
7d
20
11c
25
18a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Super Extra Large-size Potato Tubers
Weight of super extra-large potato tubers as influenced by the different rates of
vermicompost application is shown in table 7. Vermicompost applied at the rates of 10-
25 t ha-1 increased the weight of super extra-large size potato tubers by 213.98%,
470.50%, 520.08% and 197.17% respectively over the control. However, 25 t ha-1 had
decreased at about 79.92% from the highest mean. On the other hand this shows that
application of vermicompost in increasing rates affects the weights of the tubers. This
conform to the statement of Addison and Hiraga (2010) that vermicompost contain plant
growth factor. Likewise they stated that worm cast five times nitrogen, seven times
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
20
phosphorous and eleven times potassium more than ordinary soil. These are main
minerals needed for plant growth and yield.
Table 7. Weight of super extra large-size potato tubers as influenced by differentrates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (g)
Control
201.7c
10
633.3b
15
1,150.0a
20
1,250.0a
25
600.0b
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Extra Large-size Potato Tubers
Table 8 shows the weight of extra large size potato tubers as influenced by the
different rates of vermicompost application. Application of vermicompost by 10 to 25 t
ha-1 gave corresponding increases by 93.74%, 106.49%, 168.73% and 43.72%
respectively over the control. However, potatoes grown in plots applied with 25 t ha-
1registered a decrease of 125.01% from the highest result (20 t ha-1). On the one hand,
this observation agree with the report that vermicompost improved the root growth and
structure of the plant (Agricultural Technologies, Inc. (2011) by improving the physical,
chemical and biological structure of the soil that benefits the potato plants for their
growth and yield.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
21
Table 8. Weight of extra large-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (g)
Control
266.7d
10
516.7b
15
550.0b
20
716.7a
25
383.3c
Means with the same letters are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Big-size Potato Tubers
Table 9 shows the weight of big-size potato tubers as influenced by the different
rates of vermicompost application. Application by 10 to 25 t ha-1 vermicompost affect the
weight of the tubers over the control having a corresponding increases by 21%, 115.76%,
21% and 68.39% respectively. However it was registered that 15 t ha-1 produce the
highest weight as far as big-size is concerned. This observation maybe caused by the
rates of vermicompost applied to the potato to its corresponding capacity as far as
producing big-size tubers is concerned. Furthermore, in the study of Azarmi (2008),
addition of 5, 10, 15 t ha-1 of vermicompost in soil has positive effect on the uptake of
element nutrients as P, K, Fe and Zn.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
22
Table 9.Weight of big-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates vermicompost
applicayion.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (g)
Control
316.7c
10
383.3c
15
683.3a
20
383.3c
25
533.3b
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Small-size Potato Tubers
Table 10 shows the weight of small-size potato tubers as influenced by the
different rates application of vermicompost. Application of 10 t ha-1, 20 t ha-1 and 25 t ha-
1 differed over the control by 2.47%, 81.21%, 93.74% respectively. However a decreased
was observed in treatment 3 applied with the rate of 15 t ha-1 of vermicompost. This
observation maybe due to the rates of vermicompost to its superiority of producing big-
size tubers shown in table 9. Likewise application of 25 t ha-1vermicomposthas
registeredthe highest weight as far as small-size potato tuber is concern. This may be
considered as the issue caused its shortage to produce bigger tubers as shown in the
previews table.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
23
Table 10. Weight of small-size potato tubersas influenced by different rates of vermi-
compost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (g)
Control
266.7b
10
273.3b
15
133.3c
20
483.3a
25
516.7a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Dry Matter Content
Table 11 shows the dry matter content of potato tubers as influenced by the
different rates of vermicompost application. Application of 10 t ha-1 to 25 t ha-1
vermicompost affect the dry matter content of tubers by 1.02%, 5.51%, 2.51% and 3.52%
respectively. This implies that increasing application rates of vermicompost increases dry
matter content of potato tubers (Solibao var.). Furthermore, this result shows that
growing organic potato with the use of vermicompost as organic fertilizer can improve
the quality of potato specially Solibao variety for food processing. From 18.76%, it was
increased up to 19.42%. The dry matter content of tubers ranged from 19-22% meeting
the required dry matter content of above 19% for processing (Kuntz, 1996). Dry matter is
influenced mainly by the genetic characteristics of the entry, but may also be affected by
environmental factors (Ratsovski et al., 1981) as cited by Tad-awan et al., (2008).
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
24
Table 11. Dry matter content of tubers as influenced by different rates of vermicompost
application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (%)
Control
18.76b
10
18.95ab
15
19.23ab
20
19.23ab
25
19.42a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Some Physical Properties of the Soil as
Influenced by the Application Rates
of Vermicompost
Water Holding Capacity of the Soil
The water holding capacity of the soil as affected by the different application rates
of vermicompost is shown in Table 12. Plots applied with the rate of 10, 15, 20 and 25
tha-1 increased the water holding capacity by 36.51%, 59.12%, 65% and 71.99%
respectively over the initial value of 41.05%. Brady and Weil (1996) as cited by Ocampo
(2011) said that organic matter improves the soil structure which influences water
retention, drainage and release of nutrient.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
25
Table 12. Water holding capacity of the soil as influenced by different rates of vermicom-
post application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST WHC
(t ha-1) (%)
Control
55.44d
10
64.65c
15
65.32c
20
67.77b
25
70.60a
Initial
41.05
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Bulk Density of the Soil
Table 13 showed the bulk density of the soil as affected by the different
application rates of vermicompost. Application rates of vermicompost from 10 to 25 tha-1
influenced the bulk density of the soil over the control. Bulk density of plots treated with
25, 20, 15, and 10 tha-1 decreased at about 4.55%, 12.12%, 15.19% and 17.42 %
respectively over the control. This shows that increasing the rates of vermicompost
application tend to decrease the bulk density of the soil.Azarmi (2008)said that
vermicompost improved the bulk density of the soil. Smith et.al. (1999) as cited by
Ocampo (2011) reported that the bulk density tend to decrease with the addition of both
compost and vermicompost.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
26
Table 13. Bulk density of the soil as influenced by different rates of vermicompost
application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST Db
(t ha-1) (g cm-3)
Control
1.32a
10
1.26ab
15
1.16bc
20
1.11c
25
1.09c
Initial
1.34
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Total porosity of the Soil
Application of different rates of vermicompost influenced the total porosity of the
soil. Table 14 shows that application of 10 tha-1 to 25tha-1 of vermicompost increased the
porosity of the soil by 11.88%, 19.06%, 27.63% and 30.25% respectively over the initial
value. This shows that as the rates of application for vermicompost is increasing, the pore
space tend to increase. This attributed to the report of the Agriculture Technologies, Inc
(2010) that vermicompost increases microbial activity that lessen compaction leading to
better aerated soils.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
27
Table 14. Total porosity of the soil as influenced by different rates of vermicompost
application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST TOTAL
(t ha-1) POROSITY (%)
Control
56.33b
10
56.67b
15
60.33ab
20
64.67a
25
66.00a
Initial
50.67
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Some Chemical Properties of the Soil
as Influenced by the application
rates of vermicompost
Soil pH
Application of increasing rates vermicompost from 10, 15, 20, 25 tha-1 increases
the soil pH (Table 15). Vermicompost applied at the rates of 10 to 25 tha-1 increased the
pH of the soil near to its neutral by 3.49%, 4.60%, 5.51%, and 5.87% respectively over
the control. It confirms to the statement of Singh (2001) that vermicompost has a pH of
7-7.5%. Addison and Hiraga (2010) also said that worm casts are rich in humic acid,
which conditions the soil, have a perfect pH balance and contain plant growth factors.
Arancon et al. (2005) as cited by Ocampo (2011) stated that vermicompost tend to have
pH values near neutrality which may be due to the production of CO2 and organic acids
produce during microbial metabolism.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
28
Table 15.Soil pH of the soil as influenced by different rates of vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST
(t ha-1) (SOIL pH)
Control
6.3d
10
6.52c
15
6.59b
20
6.65a
25
6.67a
Initial
6.30
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Organic Matter Content of the Soil
Application of vermicompost as shown in table 16 influenced the organic content
of the soil. Increasing rates of vermicompost increased the organic matter content of the
soil by 62.5%, 84.38%, 117% and 134% over the initial value of 1.94%. Application of
25 tha-1 registered the highest amount of organic matter with a mean of 2.62. This shows
that increasing the application rates of vermicompost from 10 to 25 tha-1 increased the
organic matter content of the soil. This observation can be attributed to the influence of
vermicompost on the organic matter content of the soil (Betayan, 2009). Arancon and
Edwards (2005) cited that vermicompost have many outstanding biological properties.
They are rich in bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi and cellulose-degrading bacteria.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
29
Table 16. Organic matter content of the soil as influenced by different rates ofvermicom-
postapplication.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST OM
(t ha-1) (%)
Control
1.28d
10
2.08c
15
2.36b
20
2.45ab
25
2.62a
Initial
1.94
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Nitrogen Content of the Soil
Table 17 shows the Nitrogen content of the soil as influenced by the different
rates of vermicompost application. Application of vermicompost from 10 to 25 tha-1 gave
corresponding increase of Nitrogen content by 1%, 140%, % and 160% respectively over
the initial value. This shows that as the rate of vermicompost is increased, nitrogen
content also increases. This confirms with the statement of Bohn et al. (1998)that organic
content of vermicompost supplies nitrogen. The same with Addison and Hiraga (2010)
who stated that worm cast contains five times nitrogen more than ordinary soil.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
30
Table 17. Total nitrogen content of the soil as influenced by different rates of vermicom-
postapplication.
RATES OF VERMICOMPOST TOTAL
(t ha-1) (%)
Control
0.06b
10
0.11ab
15
0.12ab
20
0.12ab
25
0.13a
Initial
0.05
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Economic Importance
Return on Cash Expenses
Table 18 shows that different rates of vermicompost influenced the (ROCE)
return on cash expense. It increased the yield of potato. Application of 20 tha-1 of
vermicompost were superior over 25 tha-1 much the more to the untreated plot. This
showed that application of vermicompost from the rate of 10 to 20 tha-1 increased the
yield of potato that results to high return on cash expense. However application of 25 tha-
1 rate of vermicompost resulted to a decrease of 28.21% net return lower than 10 ton ha-1
application of vermicompost. This could be due to high production cost resulting to a low
net return.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
31
Table 18. Return on cash expense of potato as influenced by different application rates of
vermicompost.
TREATMENT Yield
/Plot
GROSS
COST OF
NET %ROCE
(kg/plot)
INCOME PRODUC- INCOME
(Php)
TION
(
Php)__(Php)
_____________
Control 2.94
176.40
182.75
-6.35
-3.47
10
tons/ha
5.42
325.20
230.35
94.85
41.18
15
tons/ha
7.55
453.00
254.15
198.85
78.24
20
tons/ha
9.00
540.00
277.95
262.06
94.28
25tons/ha
6.00
360.00
301.79
58.21
19.29
Price used in the computation of gross income was Php 60/kg.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
32
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the newly certified Organic Demo Farm at Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet under protected Environment from November
2011 to February 2012 using RCBD. Application rates of 10 tha-1, 15 tha-1, 20 tha-1 and
25 tha-1 were studied. The study was conducted to 1) determine the best rate of
vermicompost on the growth of organic potato grown under protected environment, 2)
the best rate of vermicompost on the yield of organic potato, 3) the effects of
vermicompost on some physical and chemical properties of the soil and 4) the economic
analysis of growing potato applied with vermicompost under protected environment.
The different rates of vermicompost affect the growth and yield of potato as well
as some of the physical and chemical properties of the soil. The bulk density was
improved as the different rates of vermicompost were applied, the higher the rates, the
lower the bulk density. Likewise with the pore space and water holding capacity of the
soil in which the higher the rates, the higher increase in percent.
On the other hand, growth of potato with the rates 20 and 25 tha-1 registered the
tallest plants. However, they did not differ much, 20 tha-1 is a little superior over 25 tha-1
application of vermicompost. Same to the yield of potato, vermicompost with the rate of
20 tha-1 gave the highest yield over the other treatment.
The dry matter content of the potato tuber was influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application. The increasing application rate of vermicompost raised the
dry matter content meeting the requirement for processing.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
33
The return on cash expense (ROCE) that obtained the highest percentage was
noted from plots applied with 20 tha-1 vermicompost with a corresponding return on cash
expense of 94.28%.
Conclusion
The best rate of vermicompost application appeared to be 20 tha-1 for the growth
and yield of organic potato under protected environment.
Application of vermicompost increased the physical properties of the soil like,
bulk density, pore space and water holding capacity.
Likewise, the chemical properties like pH, soil organic matter and total nitrogen
content of the soil was increased.
Application of vermicompost with 20 t ha-1 registered to be the best based on the
economic importance.
Recommendation
It is therefore recommended based on the results and conclusions that application
of 20 t ha-1 vermicompost is the best rate for the production of organic potato (Solibao
var.) under protected environment.
In addition, a follow-up study is recommended to verify the results for the
controlled and open field condition.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
34
LITERATURE CITED
ARANCON, N. Q. AND C. A. EDWARDS. 2005. Effects of vermicomposts on plant
growth. Paper presenting during the international symposium workshop on
vermin technologies for developing countries ( ISWVT ), Los Banus
Philippines. Retrieved June 30, 2011 from http://www.Slocountywor-
ms.com/wp-content/upload/2010/12/effectsofvermicomposts-on-plnt growth.pdf
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE. "Phytochemical Profilers Investigate Potato
Benefits” "Agricultural Research”, September 2007. Retrieved June 30 2011 from
http://en.Wikipedea.org/wiki/potato.
AZRMI,R. 2008. Influenced of vermicompost on soil chemical and physicalproperties
(Lycopersiconesculentum) field. African Journal ofBiotechnology vol. 7 Pp.
2397~2401.Retrieved 18March 2011 from:http://www.academicjournals.org
/ajb/PDF/pdf 2008/18 July/Azarmi%20et%20 al.pdf.
BRADY and WEIL, 2002.The nature and properties of soils.13th Edition. Pp. 518,521
EDWARDS, C.A. and N.Q. ARANCON, 2007. The science ofvermiculture:earthworm
in organic waste management. Retrieved 18 March 20 12 from http://www.biosci
.ohiostate.edu~soilecol/Earthworms%20 and %20vermiculture%Publications/the
% 20 SCIENCE%20 VERMICULTURE.pdf
EDWARDS. R, L.G. Villegas and L.A. GUERRERO.1990.Studieson the production
and utilization of vermicompost produced with the African night crawler
(Eudriluseugenial) in the Phil technology Journal 24 (1):57-631
CABADING, F. S. 2010. Nitrogen mineralization in organic carrot production.BS
Thesis. Benguet State University La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 6
CRINNION, W. J. 1982. Organic foods contain higher levels of certain Nutrients, lower
levels of pesticides, and may provide health benefits for the consumer. Retrieved
January 12, 2012
fromhttp://altmedrev.com/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=sobi2Details
&sobi2Id=456&Itemid=70
DENHOLM, D. 2010. What are the benefits ofeating organic vegetables? Retrieved
Oct. 10, 2011 from http://www.livestrong.com/article/288677-what-are-the-
benefits-of-eating- organic vegetables/
FAO 2009.Potato. Retrieved January 30, 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
35
FAUSTINO, D. P. 2011. Wet season evaluation of five potato entries for organic
production in La Trindad, Benguet condition, BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad,
Benguet P. 1.
HALOG, J. M and L. R. MOLINA. 1981. Field and greenhouse study on the biological
control of diamond bakmoth on cabbage bactospeine and dipel. BS Thesis. BSU
La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 26
KINOSHITA, K. M. 1970. Vegtable Production in Soil East Asia. NEW York: Willy and
Son’s, Inc. Pp 323-240
LAGMAN C. A. Jr, 2003. Performance of selected horticultural crops using formulated
Vermicompost as growing medium. BS Thesis. BSU La Trinidad Benguet. Pp 8-9
LASILAS, N, L. 2010. Status of virus infection in potato variety Igorota and its implica-
tion to the informal seed system. BS Thesis. BSU La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 16
MENDEL, F. 1997. Chemistry, biochemistry, and dietary role of potato polyphenols. A
review. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/potato.
OCAMPO, P.P. 2011. Soil qualities as influenced by different rates of vermicompost
application
in
organic potato (Solanumtuberosum)-based farming system under
protected environment. BS Thesis. BSU La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 11-12
SINGH, D. 2001. Tropical vermiculture.Retrieved 18March, 2012 from http://searle.
coman/organic%20 garden.htm
TAD-AWAN, B. A, SIMONGO, D.K, PABLO, J.P, SAGALA EJ. D, KISWA, C.G. and
properties and Practices in Benguet, Philippines. P 14
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
36
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1.Initial height of the plant 10 days after emergence (cm)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
11.55
10.40
9.76
31.66
10.57
M2
14.28
15.20
11.70
41.18
13.73
M3
13.95
15.23
14.21
43.39
14.46
M4
13.2
15.15
15.68
44.03
14.68
M5
14.00
12.85
14.96
41.81
13.94
Total 53.28
68.83
66.31
202.07
13.28
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication
2
0.681
0.341
0.1932
Treatment
4
33.409
8.352
4.7365*
3.84 7.01
Error
8
14.107
1.763
Total 14 48.197
* = significant CV= 9.85%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
37
Appendix Table 2. Final height of the plant 80 days after planting (cm)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I
II III
TOTAL
MEAN
M1 33.30
28.50
30.00
91.80
30.60
M2
41.10 38.10 37.50 116.70 38.90
M3
42.30
40.50
38.40
121.20
40.40
M4
41.30
45.80
41.30
128.40
42.80
M5
40.50
44.80
43.10
128.40
42.80
Total
198.50 197.70 190.30 586.50
39.1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication
2
8.176
4.088
0.7819
Treatment
4
304.080
76.020
14.5409**
3.84
701
Error
8
41.824
5.228
Total 14 354.080
** = highly significant CV= 5.85 %
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
38
Appendix Table 3.Number of super extra large-size tubers
BLOCKS
TREATMENT
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
2
2
3
7
2
M2
5
6
4
15
5
M3
10
11
11
32
11
M4
12
10
10
32
11
M5
9
7
7
23
8
TOTAL
38
36
35
109
7.4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.933 0.467 0.4828
Treatment
4
158.267
39.567
40.9310*
3.84
7.01
Error
8
7.733
0.967
Total 14
166.933
*= significant CV=13.53%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
39
Appendix Table 4.Number of extra large-size tubers
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
6
5
6
17
6
M2
9
8
8
25
8
M3
8
10
12
30
10
M4
14
11
11
36
12
M5
7
8
7
22
7
TOTAL
44
42
44
130
8.6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.533 0.267 0.1379
Treatment
4
71.333
17.833
9.2241**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
15.467
1.933
Total 14
87.333
** = highly significant
CV= 16.04%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
40
Appendix Table 5.Number of big-size tubers
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
10
10
8
28
9
M2
10
9
9
28
9
M3
13
11
11
35
12
M4
10
10
9
29
10
M5
13
16
14
43
14
TOTAL
56
56
51
163
10.8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2
3.333
1.667
1.6667
Treatment
4
56.400
14.100
14.1000**
3.84 7.01
Error
8
8.00
1.000
Total 14 67.73
** = highly significant CV = 9.20%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
41
Appendix Table 6.Number of small-size tubers
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
10
13
10
33
11
M2
12
12
13
37
12
M3
6
7
7
20
7
M4
10
10
12
32
11
M5
18
17
18
53
18
TOTAL
56
59
60
175
11.8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 2.800 1.400 1.2174
Treatment
4
192.400
48.100
41.8261**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
9.200
1.150
Total 14
204.400
** = highly significant CV = 9.09%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
42
Appendix Table 7.Weight of superextra large-size tubers (g plot-1)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
175
180
250
605
201.7
M2
650
700
550
1,900
633.3
M3
1,150
1,150
1,150
3,450
1,150.0
M4
1,250
1,500
1,500
4,250
1,250.0
M5
700
500
600
1,800
600.0
TOTAL
3,935
4,030
4,050
12,005
767
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTE
TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARE
D F
F
VARIANCE FREEDO
0.05% 0.01%
M
Replication
2
0.7563
25470.000
12735.000
Treatment
4
2236006.66
559001.66
33.1965**
3.84 7.01
7
7
Error
8
1134713.33
3
16839.167
Total 14 2396190.00
** = highly significant CV =16.92%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
43
Appendix Table 8.Weight of extra large-size tubers (g plot-1)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
T1
250
250
300
575
226.7
T2
550
500
500
1,550
516.7
T3
500
500
650
1,650
550.0
T4
750
700
700
2,150
716.7
T5
400
400
350
1,150
383.3
TOTAL
2,450
2,350
2,500
7,075
478.68
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2
2333.333 1166.667 0.4828
Treatment
4
350666.667 87666.667 36.2759**
3.84 7.01
Error
8
19333.333
2416.667
Total 14 372333.333
** = highly significant CV = 10.10%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
44
Appendix Table 9.Weight of big-size tubers (g plot-1)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
T1
350
350
250
950
316.67
T2
400
350
400
1,150
383.33
T3
750
650
650
2,050
683.33
T4
400
400
350
1,150
383.33
T5
500
600
500
1,600
533.33
TOTAL
2,400
2,350
2,150
6,900
459.99
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication
2
7000.000 3500.000
1.7143
Treatment
4
262666.667 65666.667 32.1633**
3.84 7.01
Error
8
16333.333 2041.667
Total 14 286000.000
** = highly significant CV = 9.82%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
45
Appendix Table 10.Weight of small-size tubers (g plot-1).
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
T1
250
300
250
800
266.7
T2
250
270
300
820
273.3
T3
100
150
150
400
133.3
T4
450
450
550
1,450
483.3
T5
550
450
550
1,550
516.7
TOTAL
1,600
1,620
1,250
5,020
334.66
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2
4853.333 2426.667 1.4842
Treatment
4
312440.000 78110.000 47.7737**
3.84 7.01
Error
8
13080.000
1635.000
Total 14 330373.333
** = highly significant CV = 12.08%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
46
Appendix Table 11.Dry matter content potato tubers (g)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
18.48
19.33
18.48
56.29
18.76
M2
19.33
19.04
19.04
56.85
18.95
M2
19.04
19.33
19.33
57.70
19.23
M2
19.33
19.04
19.33
57.70
19.23
M2
19.33
19.61
19.33
58.27
19.42
TOTAL
94.51
96.35
95.51
286.81
19.12
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2
0.094
0.047 0.6189
Treatment
4
0.714
0.178
2.3482ns
3.84 7.01
Error
8
0.068
0.076
Total 14
1.416
ns = not significant CV = 1.44%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
47
Appendix Table 12.Bulk density of the soil (g cm-3)
RATES OF
BLOCKS
VERMICOMPOST
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
1.29
1.30
1.38
3.97
1.32
M2
1.29
1.25
1.25
3.79
1.26
M3
1.21
1.14
1.13
3.48
1.16
M4
1.03
1.19
1.12
3.34
1.11
M5
1.06 1.01
1.21
3.28
1.09
TOTAL
5.88
5.89
6.09
17.86
1.19
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.006 0.003
Treatment
4
0.118
0.029
6.0966*
3.84
7.01
Error
8
0.039
0.005
Total 14
0.162
* = significant CV = 5.84%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
48
Appendix Table 13.Water Holding Capacity of the soil (%)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
57.60 57.60
51.13
166.33
55.44
M2
64.91 64.32
64.71
193.94
64.65
M3
65.27 65.19
65.49
195.95
65.32
M4
68.06 67.62 67.62
203.30
67.77
M5
72.09
70.76
68.94
211.79
70.60
TOTAL
327.93
324.73
317.89
971.31
64.76
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 1.836 0.918
Treatment
4
292.122
73.030
151.7662**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
3.850
0.481
Total 14
** = highly significant CV = 1.06%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
49
Appendix Table 14. Total porosity of the soil (%)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1 60
55
54
169
56.33
M2
56
61
53
170
56.67
M3
58
62
61
181
60.33
M4
65
63
66
194
64.67
M5
67
70
61
198
66.00
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 26.800
13.400 1.3094
Treatment
4
237.733
59.433
5.8078*
3.84
7.01
Error
8
81.867
10.233
Total 14
346.400
* = significant CV = 5.26%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
50
Appendix Table 15.Soil pH
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
6.30
6.30
6.30
18.90
6.30
M2
6.50
6.52
6.53
19.55
6.52
M3
6.64
6.53
6.59
19.76
6.59
M4
6.67
6.63
6.65
19.95
6.65
M5
6.62
6.70
6.68
20.00
6.67
TOTAL 32.73
36.68
32.75
98.16
6.55
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.001 0.000
Treatment
4
0.265
0.066
51.5877**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
0.010
0.001
Total 14
** = highly significant CV = 0.55%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
51
Appendix Table 16.Total N content of the soil (%)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.19
.06
M2
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.32
0.11
M3
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.35
0.12
M4
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.36 0.12
M5
0.13 0.14 0.13 0.40 0.13
TOTAL 0.53
0.55
0.54
1.62
0.10
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.000 0.000
Treatment
4
0.008
0.002
75.6471**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
0.001
0.001
Total 14
0.009
** = highly significant CV = 4.93%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
52
Appendix Table 17.Organic matter content of the soil (%)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
1.11
1.35
1.39
3.85
1.28
M2
2.03
2.12
2.08
6.23
2.08
M3
2.46
2.26
2.36
7.08
2.36
M4
2.46
2.41
2.47
7.34
2.45
M5
2.55
2.70
2.62
7.87
2.62
TOTAL
8.15
10.84
8.3
27.29
2.16
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.010 0.005
Treatment
4
3.337
0.834
91.5409**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
0.037
0.009
Total 14
3.420
** = highly significant CV = 4.42%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
53
Appendix Table 18.Return on cash expense (%)
TREATMENTS TOTAL GROSS PRODUCTION NET ROCE
YEILD INCOME COST INCOME (%)
(kg/plot) (Php) (Php) (Php)
Control
2.94 176.40 182.75 -6.35 -3.47
10 tons/ha
5.42
325.20
230.35
94.85
41.18
15 tons/ha
7.55
453.00
254.15
198.85
78.24
20 tons/ha
9.00
540.00
277.95
262.05
94.28
25 tons/ha
6.00
360.00
301.79
58.21
19.29
Price used in the computation of gross income was Php 60/kg.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
DALOS, WILER T. MARCH 2012. Performance of Potato (Solibao var.) Applied with
Vermicompost Under Protected Environment. Benguet State University La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Jose G. Balaoing, Ph. D.
ABSTRACT
The study was conducted to determine: 1) the effects of vermicompost on the growth and
tuber yield performance of potato (Solibao var.), 2) some physical and chemical properties of the
soil under protected environment; 3) economic analysis of potato applied with vermicompost
under protected environment at the Certified Organic Demo Farm, Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguet.
The height of potato plants were influenced by the application of different rates of
vermicompost. The number of super extra large tubers, extra large tubers, big and small tubers
increased with increasing rates of vermicompost application from 10, 15 and 20 t ha-1.
Conversely, the super extra large, extra large, big potato tubers decreased on plots applied with
25 t ha-1 except that small tubers was greater in number. The same trend was observed on the
weights of potato tubers.
The bulk density, total porosity, and water holding capacity of the soil were improved by
vermicompost application. Likewise, increasing application of vermicompost from 10 to 25 tha-1
increased the soil pH, %OM and % Nitrogen content of the soil.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography……………………………………………………………………
i
Abstract…………………………………………………………………………...
i
Table of Contents…………………………………………………………………
ii
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………..
1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Potato Crops………… ...……………......................................................
3
Vermicompost ………………………......................................................
4
Effects of organic fertilizer
on plant growth ….. …………………………………………………..
5
Effects of organic matter
on soil properties ………………………………………………….……
5
Physical properties of soil as
influenced by organic matter ………………………………….............
6
Physical properties of soil as
influenced by vermicompost …………………………………………….
6
Chemical properties ……………………………………………………… 6
Chemical characteristic of vermicompost………………………………….. 7
Biological properties ………………………………………………………. 8
Analyzed raw materials …………………………………………………… 8
MATERIALS AND METHOD .............................................................................. 9
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...…………………………………………………. 14
Growth parameters of potato as
influenced by the application rates
ofvermicompost .…...……………………………………………………... 14
Yield parameters of potato as
influenced by the application rates
ofvermicompost .…...….………………………………………………….. 16
Some physical properties of the Soil
as influenced by the application rates
ofvermicompost ..…...………… ………………………………………….. 24
Some chemical properties of the soil
as influenced by the application rates
ofvermicompost .…...……………………………………………………... 27
Economic Importance ..…………………………………………………….. 30
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION ……………………… 32
LITERATURE CITED ................................................................................. ………... 34
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………….................. 36
1
INTRODUCTION
Potato (Solanumtuberosum L.) isa herbaceous annual crop grown for its edible
tubers. It is mostly used as a vegetable as a source of starch and for other commercial
purposes. This crop becomes the world’s most important tuber crop and it is considered
as the fourth most important of food energy after rice, wheat, and maize. Farmers and
gardeners grow them worldwide. Growers cultivate thousand of different varieties of
potato (Mosley 2003) as cited by Faustino (2011).
FNRI (2006) as cited by Faustino (2011), potatoes are best suited in highlands
like Benguet and Mountain province because of their similar climate conditions. Thus it
became a major source of income to growers in the Cordillera.
An Egyptian study, published in March 2009 in the journal of "Food Chemistry
and Toxicology," reported that conventionally grown potatoes had almost two times the
amount of pesticides and heavy metal contamination than those organically grown
ones.Crinnion (1982), states that measurements taken by the USDA and other consumer
agencies produced data showing that organically grown foods had no amount of chemical
residues found unlike in conventionally raised foods (Denholm, 2010).
The production of organically produce potato needs to be supplied with the right
kind of organic fertilizer inputs. The main problems of today’s farmers are the degraded
soil qualitiesmaterials due to indiscriminate and improper use of synthetic fertilizers.
Likewise improper use and handling of chemical pesticidesdo not only kill the beneficial
microorganisms inherent in the soil but also the health of the farmer is badly affected.
Using organic inputs helps bring back the original conditions of the degraded soil for its
ability to improve the physical, biological and chemical properties of the soil.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
2
Composting organic materials is one of the best methods in the production of organic
fertilizer inputs. It is a process allowing the biodegradable materials to be composted
under natural or controlled environment to produce end-products essential for the
improvement of soil’s physical, chemical and biological properties desirable for the
plants to grow. There are many ways on how to produce compost. Vermicomposting is
one. It is a process of composting using earthworms to convert organic biodegradable
materials into very high quality of compost called vermin cast or the combination of cast
plus compost. Vermicompost is one of the best organic fertilizers by improving the soil
qualities like increasing microbial activity, decreases plant and soil susceptibility to pest
and diseases and lessen compaction leading to better aerated soils and higher nutrient
levels for the nutrition of the plants.
Generally, the study was conducted to determine the effects of vermicompost
application the growth and tuber yield performance of potato (Solibao var.) under
protected environment. Specifically, the study aims to determine; 1)the best rate of
vermicompost on the growth of organic potato grown under protected environment; 2)
the best rate of vermicompost on the yield of organic potato; 3) the effects of
vermicompost on some physical properties of the soil; and 4) the effects of vermicompost
on some chemical properties of the soil; and 4) the economic analysis of growing potato
applied with vermicompost under protected environment.
The research study was conducted under protected environment at the newly
Certified Organic Demo FarmBenguet State University Organic Demo Farm, Balili, La
Trinidad,Benguet from November 2011 to February 2012.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Potato Crop
In terms of nutrition, the potato is best known for its carbohydrate content
(approximately 26 grams in a medium potato). The predominant form of this
carbohydrate is starch. A small but significant portion of this starch is resistant to
digestion by enzymes in the stomach and small intestine, and so reaches the large
intestine essentially intact. This resistant starch is considered to have similar
physiological effects and health benefits as fiber: It provides bulk, offers protection
against colon cancer, improves glucose tolerance and insulin sensitivity, lowers plasma
cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations, increases satiety, and possibly even reduces
fat storage. The amount of resistant starch in potatoes depends much on preparation
methods. Cooking and then cooling potatoes significantly increases resistant starch. For
example, cooked potato starch contains about 7% resistant starch, which increases to
about 13% upon cooling (FAO 2009).
FNRI (2006) cited by Faustino (2011) stated that potato has a high nutritive value.
It contains carbohydrates, proteins, minerals and vitamins in moderate amounts. Mendel
(1997) stated that potato contains vitamins and minerals, as well as an assortment of
phytochemicals, such as carotenoids and natural phenols. Chlorogenic acid constitutes up
to 90% of the potato tuber natural phenols. Others found in potatoes are 4-O-
caffeoylquinic (crypto-chlorogenic acid), 5-O-caffeoylquinic (neo-chlorogenic acid), 3,4-
dicaffeoylquinic and 3,5-dicaffeoylquinic acids. A medium-size 150 g (5.3 oz) potato
with the skin provides 27 mg of vitamin C (45% of the Daily Value (DV)), 620 mg of
potassium (18% of DV), 0.2 mg vitamin B6 (10% of DV) and trace amounts of thiamin,
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
4
riboflavin, foliate, niacin, magnesium, phosphorus, iron, and zinc. The fiber content of a
potato with skin (2 g) is equivalent to that of many whole grain breads, pastas, and
cereals.
Vermicompost
Vermicompost (also called worm compost, vermicast, worm castings, worm
humus or manure) is the end product of the breakdown of organic matter by some species
of earthworm. Vermicompost is a nutrient rich, organic fertilizer and soil conditioner, the
process of producing vermicompost is called vermicomposting. The earthworm species
or composting worm most often used are Redwinglers (Eiseniafetida) or Red
Earthworm (Lumbricusrubellus), the species are commonly found in the organic rich soil
throughout Europe and North America and especially prefer the special condition in
rooting vegetation compost and manure piles as cited by Aboen Jr. (2009).
Vermicompostshave a fine particulate structure, low C:N ratio, with the organic
matter oxidized and stabilized and converted into humic materials. They contain
nutrients transformed into plant-available forms and are extremely microbially-
active. Additions of low rates of substitution of vermicomposts into greenhouse
soil less plant growth media or low application rates to field crops have
consistently increased plant germination, growth, flowering, and fruiting, independent
of nutrient availability; This can be at least partially, attributed by the greatly
increased microbial populations, of plant growth regulators, including plant hormones,
such as indole-acetic acid, gibberellins and cytokinins and also humicacids, which
simulate the effects of hormones. Vermicompostscan suppress the incidence of plant
pathogens such as Pythium, Rhizoctonia andVerticillium significantly, by general or
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
5
specific suppression mechanisms. Vermicompost applied to soils have considerable
influence on the trophic structure of nematode populations, significantly suppressing
plant parasitic organisms. Greenhouse experiments have shown thatlow substitutions of
vermicomposts into soil-less plant growth media can decrease the amounts of feeding
and nutrition for crops (Edwards , Dominguez and Arancon 2011).
Effects of Organic Fertilizer on Plant growth
Kinoshita (1970) revealed that organic fertilizers turn heavy soil lighter, more
crumbly,friable and they hold light soil particles together to act as an anchor against
erosion and to increase water holding capacity of the soil. They provide some of the large
quantities needed by the plants and released nutrients present in the soil by turning them
into soluble compounds that can be absorbed by the roots of the plants. Finally, they
carry considerable quantity of elements, often insufficient into the soil and provide
readily available microelements, both activities that promote plant growth.
Brady and Weil (2002) tabulated that some humic substances directly influenced
plant growth by accelerating water uptake and enhance germination of seeds (humic
acid), stimulating root initiation and elongation (humic and fulvic acid), enhance root cell
elongation (humic acid), and enhance growth of plants shoots and roots (humic and fulvic
acids).
Effects of OM on Soil Properties
Agriculture Technologies, Inc. (2010) reported that vermicompost is beneficial
for soil in many ways by improving the physical structure of the soil, the biological
properties of the soil, the water holding capacity of the soil, and the root growth and
structure of the plant. It also attracts deep-burrowing earthworms already present in the
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
6
soil, enhances germination, plant growth and yield. In addition vermicompost also
increases microbial activity, decreases plant and soil susceptibility to pest and diseases
and lessen compaction leading to better aerated soils and higher nutrient levels and
availability of nutrients to the plants.
In the study conducted by Azarmi in 2008, addition of 5, 10 and 15 tons/ha of
vermicompost in soil has significant positive effect on the uptake of element nutrients
such as P, K, Fe and Zn.Vermicompost also had improved the bulk density and porosity
of the soil.
Physical Properties of Soil as
Influenced byOrganic Matter
Brady and Weil (2002) stated that the humic fraction help reduce the plasticity,
cohesions, and stickiness of clayey soils, making those soils easier to manipulate. Soil
water retention is also improved, since organic matter increases both infiltration rate and
water-holding capacity.
Physical Properties of Soil as
Influenced by Vermicompost
Vermicompost has a very high water holding capacity. It has a good structure
which makes it desirable component of potting mixes (Lacay 2008) as cited by Cabading
(2010).Vermicompost also had improved the bulk density and porosity of the soil
(Asarmi 2008).
Chemical Properties
Addison and Hiraga (2010) stated that worm cast also contains five times more
nitrogen, seven times more phosphorous, and eleven times more potassium than ordinary
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
7
soil. These are main minerals needed for plant growth, but the large numbers of
beneficial soil micro-organism in worm casts have at least as much to do with it, the casts
are also rich in humic acids, which conditions the soil, have a perfect pH balance and
contain plant growth factors similar to those found in sea weeds.
Singh (2001) stated that vermicompost has a pH of 7-7.5% and a C:N ratio of 12-
15.1. Through chemical analysis, it contains 1.75-2.5% N, about 1.25-2% K, calcium,
magnesium, sulfate which are 3-5% times better than farm manure.
Chemical Characteristic
of Vermicompost
Bohn et al. (1998) as cited by Lagman (2003) stated that organic matter of
vermicompost supplies nitrogen, phosphorus, and sulfur for plant growth, serves as
energy source for soil microfloral and macro faunal organisms, and promotes good soil
structure. It indirectly affects the plant uptake of micronutrients and heavy metal cat ions,
and the performance (availability) of herbicides and other agricultural chemicals. It
supplies nearly all the nitrogen, 50 – 60% of the phosphate, perhaps as much as 80% of
sulfur, and a large part of the boron and molybdenum absorbed by plants from fertilized,
temperate region soils. Indirectly, it affects the supply of mineral nutrients from other
sources. The onions of vermicompost also combined with toxic ions such as cadmium
and mercury, as well as with micronutrients cat-ions at high concentrations, and reduce
their availability. Whether the metals are strongly absorbed by the solid-phase soil
organic matter or complex by high molecular weight humic acid is not known. Organic
amendments, however often decrease cat-ion toxicities in acid soils.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
8
Biological Properties
Arancon and Edwards (2005) cited that vermicompost have many outstanding
biological properties. They are rich in bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi and cellulose-
degrading bacteria. In addition earthworm castings, obtained after sludge digestion, were
rich in microorganisms, especially bacteria. The vermicompost had much larger
population of bacteria (5.7 x 107), fungi (22.7 x 104) and actinomycetes (17.7 x 106)
compared with those in conventional composts. The outstanding physic-chemical
chemical and biological properties of vermicompost make the excellent materials as
additives to greenhouse container media, organic fertilizers or soil amendments for
various horticultural crops.
Analyzed Raw Materials
BSWM (2011) analysis of raw materials with a substrate of banana trunk, water
lily, grass mixtures and cow manure has 4.33% nitrogen content, 0.96% phosphorus,
2.09% potassium, 2.62% calcium, 1.04% magnesium, 7.2 pH, 53.39% moisture content,
145ppm zinc, 2,719ppm manganese, 21,358ppm iron and 24.69% organic carbon.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
9
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials used are potato tubers (Solibao var.), vermicompost derived from
water lily, cow manure, banana trunk, and grass mixtures, green house, farm implements
like grab hoe, watering cans, cultivate and bolo, ruler and meter stick, plastic bags and
laboratory equipments and chemicals.
The materials with a ratio of 2:2:2:1 are; banana trunk (200 kg), water lily (200
kg), grass mixtures of (200 kg) and cow manure (100 kg) were gathered, shredded, mixed
thoroughly and piled into the compost pit and composted for one and a half month. The
pile was turned once a week after a month for proper aeration. After a month of
decomposition, vermin (earthworms) were introduced in the compost pile for further
decomposition. Vermicompost (cast + compost) were gathered after a month of worm
inoculation.
An area of 4.5m x 22m were sampled before and after the start and final conduct
of the trial for initial and final soil physical and chemical analysis. The area were
cultivated thoroughly before seeding and prepared with three (3) blocks having each
treatment dimension of 0.9m x 7m. The amounts of vermicompost were applied and
incorporated thoroughly in each treatment plot following the different treatments. Potato
seed pieces were planted with a distance of 30 x 30 cm between hills and rows. The
different treatments were laid out in the experimental site following Randomized
Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three (3) replications (Figure 1).
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
10
Figure 1.Field Layout of the Experimental Area at BSU Organic
DemoFarm, La Trinidad, Benguet. Area was thoroughly
Preparedbefore planting.
The following treatments were as follows:
M1-Control (No Fertilizer)
M2- 10 tons/ ha
M3- 15 tons/ ha
M4- 20 tons/ ha
M5- 25 tons/ ha
Cultural management practices were employed equally to all the treatments such
as weeding, watering, hilling-up, insects and disease control and nutrient supplementation
by applying liquid organic fertilizer extract (Sunflower + Banana + Molasses) done every
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
11
other week during the conduct of the study. Compost tea was also appliedin 1:2
dilutions.This was applied at every 2 weeks interval.
The data gathered were the following:
A. Agronomic Parameters
1. Plant Height (cm)
1.1. Initial height (cm). The initial height of the plant was taken 10 days after
germination. Ten sample plants were randomly tagged for the measurement.
1.2. Final height (cm). The final height of the plants were taken a week before
harvest. The same sample plants used in gathering the initial height were used in
determining the final heights of potato.
2. Tuber Yield
2.1 Numbers of classified tubers. The total numbers of classified tubers
wereobtained using NPRTC classification.Tubers were classified according totuber
weight as follows:
DescriptionSize (g)
A. Small
<
20
B. Big 20-55
C. Extra Large56-85
D. Super Extra Large
>85
3. Dry matter content of the tubers was determined by oven–dry method. The DMC of
tubers were measured using the formula:
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
12
% DMC=100-% MC
%MC=FW-ODW X 100
FW
Where: MC= percent moisture content
FW= fresh weight of tubers
ODW= oven dry weight of tubers
3. Return on Cash Expenses. This was obtained through the following formula:
ROCE = Gross Sales -Total Expenses x 100
Total expenses
Where: ROCE= Return of Cash Expense
4. Physical Properties of the Soil
4.1 Bulk density (Db) of the Soil (g cm-3). This was obtained by paraffin clod
method. The bulk density was obtained with the following formula.
Db (g cm-3) = wt. of the soil bulk (g)
Bulk volume of soil (cm3)
4.2. Water holding capacity (WHC) of the soil (%). This wasdetermined through
Saturation method, wherein core samplers was filled with soil then the bottom of the
cylinders was soaked in water saturated through capillarity.
% WHC = Wt. of saturated Soil – Oven Dry Soil (g) x 100
Oven Dry Soil (g)
4.3. % Porosity of the Soil was determined by PCCARRD StandardMethod of
Analysis.This is obtained using the following formula:
Pore Space (%) = 1- Db x 100
Dp
Where: Db = bulk density, g cm-3
Dp = particle density, g cm-3
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
13
5. Chemical properties
5.1. Soil pH. The initial and final pH of the soil was determinedusing the 1:2.5
CaCl2 solutions. The samples were read in a pH meter.
5.2. Organic matter content of the soil (%). The soil organicmatter was analyzed
using Walkey-Black Method.
5.3. Total nitrogen content of the soil (%). This was computed usingthe formula:
N (%) = % OM x 0.05
Where: (%) OM = value of the organic matter computed
0.05 = constant.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
14
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Growth Parameters of Potato
as Influenced by the Rates of Application
of Vermicompost
Initial Height
Vermicompost application affected the initial heights of plants 10 days after
emergence (Table 1). Vermicompost applied at the rates of 10 to 25 tha-1 increased the
initial heights by 29.90%, 36.13%, 38.88% and 31.88%, respectively over the control
plants. There was a decrease of 0.74 cm on the height of plants as the amount of
vermicompost was applied from 20 tha-1 to 25 tha-1. Likewise, plants grown in plots
applied with the different rates of vermicompost did differs from each other as to initial
height is concern. This observation can be attributed to the influence of vermicompost on
the growth of potato plants by improving the chemical properties of the soil (Singh, 2001,
Adison and Hiraga 2010).
Table 1.Initial height of the plant 10 days after emergence as influenced by the
different rates of vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (cm)
Control10.57b
10
13.73a
15
14.46a
20
14.68a
25
13.93a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level of DMRT.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
15
Final Height
Similar trend were observed on the final height of potato plants grown in plots
applied with different rates of vermicompost (Table 2). Vermicompost applied at the
rates of 10 to 25 t ha-1increased the final height by 27.12%, 32.03%, 39.87% and 39.87%
respectively over the control plants. There were increases on the height of plants as the
amounts of the vermicompost applied were increased. Likewise, plants grown in plots
applied with different rates of vermicompost did differ from each other as to the final
heights is concerned. This observation attributed to the component of humic substances
probably act as regulators of specific plant-growth functions (Brady and Weil, 1996), and
the nutrients from the vermicompost (Adison and Hiraga 2010, Signh, 2001).
Table 2. Final height of the plant 80 days after emergence as influenced by different
rates of vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (cm)
Control
30.6b
10
38.9a
15
40.4a
20
42.8a
25
42.8a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
16
Yield Parameters of Potato as Influenced
by the Application Rates of
Vermicompost
Number of Super ExtraLarge-size Potato Tubers
Table 3 shows the super extra-large size potato tubers as influenced by the
different rates of vermicompost application. Application of vermicompost from 20 t ha-1
to 25 tha-1 gave corresponding increases of super extra-large tubers from 150%, 450%,
450%, and 300%, respectively over the control. However, potatoes grown in plots applied
with 25 t ha-1 vermicompost registered identical decreases by 27.27% over those plants
grown in plots applied with 15-20 t ha-1, respectively. This observation can be attributed
to the effects of vermicompost by improving the physical, chemical and biological
properties of the soil that enhance growth and tuber development.
Table 3. Number of super extra large-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1)
Control
2d
10
5c
15
11a
20
11a
25
8b
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
17
Number of Extra Large-size Potato Tubers
Application of different rates of vermicompost influenced the extra large-size
potato tubers (Table 4.) Application of vermicompost from 10 t ha-1 to 25 t ha-1 gave the
differences to each other. It gave the corresponding increases by 33.33%, 66.67%, 100%
and 16.67% over the control respectively. Application of 20 t ha-1 of vermicompost
registered the highest produced extra large-size of potato tuber. These observations
correspond to the contribution of vermicompost on the yield of potato (Edwards and
Bohlen 1996, Edwards 1998, Lavelle and Spain 2001).
Table 4. Number of extra large-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1)
Control
6c
10
8bc
15
10ab
20
12a
25
7bc
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
18
Number of Big-size Potato Tubers
Table 5 shows the big-size potato tubers as influenced by the different rates of
vermicompost application. Application of vermicompost from 25 t ha-1 gave
corresponding increases of big-size tubers by 33.33%, 11.11%, and 55.56%, respectively
over the control. Application of 10 t ha-1 did not differ from the control.
This observation maybe attributed due to the rates of vermicompost applied in the soil
that affects the yield of potato (Edwards, Dominguez and Arancon, 2011).
Table 5. Number of big-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1)
Control
9c
10
9c
15
12b
20
10c
25
14a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Number of Small Size Potato Tubers
Table 6 shows the number of small size potato tubers as influenced by the
different rates of vermicompost application. Application of 10 t ha-1 and 25 t ha-1 gave
corresponding increase by 18% and 63.64% respectively over the control. However,
application of 20 t ha-1 vermicompost did not differ over the control. Moreover
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
19
application of 15 t ha-1 vermicompost decreased by 36% from the untreated plot. This
implication shows that different rates of vermicompost application has its own
corresponding effects for the yield of potato.
Table 6. Number of small-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1)
Control
11bc
10
13b
15
7d
20
11c
25
18a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Super Extra Large-size Potato Tubers
Weight of super extra-large potato tubers as influenced by the different rates of
vermicompost application is shown in table 7. Vermicompost applied at the rates of 10-
25 t ha-1 increased the weight of super extra-large size potato tubers by 213.98%,
470.50%, 520.08% and 197.17% respectively over the control. However, 25 t ha-1 had
decreased at about 79.92% from the highest mean. On the other hand this shows that
application of vermicompost in increasing rates affects the weights of the tubers. This
conform to the statement of Addison and Hiraga (2010) that vermicompost contain plant
growth factor. Likewise they stated that worm cast five times nitrogen, seven times
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
20
phosphorous and eleven times potassium more than ordinary soil. These are main
minerals needed for plant growth and yield.
Table 7. Weight of super extra large-size potato tubers as influenced by differentrates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (g)
Control
201.7c
10
633.3b
15
1,150.0a
20
1,250.0a
25
600.0b
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Extra Large-size Potato Tubers
Table 8 shows the weight of extra large size potato tubers as influenced by the
different rates of vermicompost application. Application of vermicompost by 10 to 25 t
ha-1 gave corresponding increases by 93.74%, 106.49%, 168.73% and 43.72%
respectively over the control. However, potatoes grown in plots applied with 25 t ha-
1registered a decrease of 125.01% from the highest result (20 t ha-1). On the one hand,
this observation agree with the report that vermicompost improved the root growth and
structure of the plant (Agricultural Technologies, Inc. (2011) by improving the physical,
chemical and biological structure of the soil that benefits the potato plants for their
growth and yield.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
21
Table 8. Weight of extra large-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (g)
Control
266.7d
10
516.7b
15
550.0b
20
716.7a
25
383.3c
Means with the same letters are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Big-size Potato Tubers
Table 9 shows the weight of big-size potato tubers as influenced by the different
rates of vermicompost application. Application by 10 to 25 t ha-1 vermicompost affect the
weight of the tubers over the control having a corresponding increases by 21%, 115.76%,
21% and 68.39% respectively. However it was registered that 15 t ha-1 produce the
highest weight as far as big-size is concerned. This observation maybe caused by the
rates of vermicompost applied to the potato to its corresponding capacity as far as
producing big-size tubers is concerned. Furthermore, in the study of Azarmi (2008),
addition of 5, 10, 15 t ha-1 of vermicompost in soil has positive effect on the uptake of
element nutrients as P, K, Fe and Zn.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
22
Table 9.Weight of big-size potato tubers as influenced by different rates vermicompost
applicayion.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (g)
Control
316.7c
10
383.3c
15
683.3a
20
383.3c
25
533.3b
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Weight of Small-size Potato Tubers
Table 10 shows the weight of small-size potato tubers as influenced by the
different rates application of vermicompost. Application of 10 t ha-1, 20 t ha-1 and 25 t ha-
1 differed over the control by 2.47%, 81.21%, 93.74% respectively. However a decreased
was observed in treatment 3 applied with the rate of 15 t ha-1 of vermicompost. This
observation maybe due to the rates of vermicompost to its superiority of producing big-
size tubers shown in table 9. Likewise application of 25 t ha-1vermicomposthas
registeredthe highest weight as far as small-size potato tuber is concern. This may be
considered as the issue caused its shortage to produce bigger tubers as shown in the
previews table.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
23
Table 10. Weight of small-size potato tubersas influenced by different rates of vermi-
compost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (g)
Control
266.7b
10
273.3b
15
133.3c
20
483.3a
25
516.7a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Dry Matter Content
Table 11 shows the dry matter content of potato tubers as influenced by the
different rates of vermicompost application. Application of 10 t ha-1 to 25 t ha-1
vermicompost affect the dry matter content of tubers by 1.02%, 5.51%, 2.51% and 3.52%
respectively. This implies that increasing application rates of vermicompost increases dry
matter content of potato tubers (Solibao var.). Furthermore, this result shows that
growing organic potato with the use of vermicompost as organic fertilizer can improve
the quality of potato specially Solibao variety for food processing. From 18.76%, it was
increased up to 19.42%. The dry matter content of tubers ranged from 19-22% meeting
the required dry matter content of above 19% for processing (Kuntz, 1996). Dry matter is
influenced mainly by the genetic characteristics of the entry, but may also be affected by
environmental factors (Ratsovski et al., 1981) as cited by Tad-awan et al., (2008).
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
24
Table 11. Dry matter content of tubers as influenced by different rates of vermicompost
application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST MEAN
( t ha-1) (%)
Control
18.76b
10
18.95ab
15
19.23ab
20
19.23ab
25
19.42a
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Some Physical Properties of the Soil as
Influenced by the Application Rates
of Vermicompost
Water Holding Capacity of the Soil
The water holding capacity of the soil as affected by the different application rates
of vermicompost is shown in Table 12. Plots applied with the rate of 10, 15, 20 and 25
tha-1 increased the water holding capacity by 36.51%, 59.12%, 65% and 71.99%
respectively over the initial value of 41.05%. Brady and Weil (1996) as cited by Ocampo
(2011) said that organic matter improves the soil structure which influences water
retention, drainage and release of nutrient.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
25
Table 12. Water holding capacity of the soil as influenced by different rates of vermicom-
post application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST WHC
(t ha-1) (%)
Control
55.44d
10
64.65c
15
65.32c
20
67.77b
25
70.60a
Initial
41.05
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Bulk Density of the Soil
Table 13 showed the bulk density of the soil as affected by the different
application rates of vermicompost. Application rates of vermicompost from 10 to 25 tha-1
influenced the bulk density of the soil over the control. Bulk density of plots treated with
25, 20, 15, and 10 tha-1 decreased at about 4.55%, 12.12%, 15.19% and 17.42 %
respectively over the control. This shows that increasing the rates of vermicompost
application tend to decrease the bulk density of the soil.Azarmi (2008)said that
vermicompost improved the bulk density of the soil. Smith et.al. (1999) as cited by
Ocampo (2011) reported that the bulk density tend to decrease with the addition of both
compost and vermicompost.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
26
Table 13. Bulk density of the soil as influenced by different rates of vermicompost
application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST Db
(t ha-1) (g cm-3)
Control
1.32a
10
1.26ab
15
1.16bc
20
1.11c
25
1.09c
Initial
1.34
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Total porosity of the Soil
Application of different rates of vermicompost influenced the total porosity of the
soil. Table 14 shows that application of 10 tha-1 to 25tha-1 of vermicompost increased the
porosity of the soil by 11.88%, 19.06%, 27.63% and 30.25% respectively over the initial
value. This shows that as the rates of application for vermicompost is increasing, the pore
space tend to increase. This attributed to the report of the Agriculture Technologies, Inc
(2010) that vermicompost increases microbial activity that lessen compaction leading to
better aerated soils.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
27
Table 14. Total porosity of the soil as influenced by different rates of vermicompost
application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST TOTAL
(t ha-1) POROSITY (%)
Control
56.33b
10
56.67b
15
60.33ab
20
64.67a
25
66.00a
Initial
50.67
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Some Chemical Properties of the Soil
as Influenced by the application
rates of vermicompost
Soil pH
Application of increasing rates vermicompost from 10, 15, 20, 25 tha-1 increases
the soil pH (Table 15). Vermicompost applied at the rates of 10 to 25 tha-1 increased the
pH of the soil near to its neutral by 3.49%, 4.60%, 5.51%, and 5.87% respectively over
the control. It confirms to the statement of Singh (2001) that vermicompost has a pH of
7-7.5%. Addison and Hiraga (2010) also said that worm casts are rich in humic acid,
which conditions the soil, have a perfect pH balance and contain plant growth factors.
Arancon et al. (2005) as cited by Ocampo (2011) stated that vermicompost tend to have
pH values near neutrality which may be due to the production of CO2 and organic acids
produce during microbial metabolism.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
28
Table 15.Soil pH of the soil as influenced by different rates of vermicompost application.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST
(t ha-1) (SOIL pH)
Control
6.3d
10
6.52c
15
6.59b
20
6.65a
25
6.67a
Initial
6.30
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Organic Matter Content of the Soil
Application of vermicompost as shown in table 16 influenced the organic content
of the soil. Increasing rates of vermicompost increased the organic matter content of the
soil by 62.5%, 84.38%, 117% and 134% over the initial value of 1.94%. Application of
25 tha-1 registered the highest amount of organic matter with a mean of 2.62. This shows
that increasing the application rates of vermicompost from 10 to 25 tha-1 increased the
organic matter content of the soil. This observation can be attributed to the influence of
vermicompost on the organic matter content of the soil (Betayan, 2009). Arancon and
Edwards (2005) cited that vermicompost have many outstanding biological properties.
They are rich in bacteria, actinomycetes, fungi and cellulose-degrading bacteria.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
29
Table 16. Organic matter content of the soil as influenced by different rates ofvermicom-
postapplication.
RATE OF VERMICOMPOST OM
(t ha-1) (%)
Control
1.28d
10
2.08c
15
2.36b
20
2.45ab
25
2.62a
Initial
1.94
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Nitrogen Content of the Soil
Table 17 shows the Nitrogen content of the soil as influenced by the different
rates of vermicompost application. Application of vermicompost from 10 to 25 tha-1 gave
corresponding increase of Nitrogen content by 1%, 140%, % and 160% respectively over
the initial value. This shows that as the rate of vermicompost is increased, nitrogen
content also increases. This confirms with the statement of Bohn et al. (1998)that organic
content of vermicompost supplies nitrogen. The same with Addison and Hiraga (2010)
who stated that worm cast contains five times nitrogen more than ordinary soil.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
30
Table 17. Total nitrogen content of the soil as influenced by different rates of vermicom-
postapplication.
RATES OF VERMICOMPOST TOTAL
(t ha-1) (%)
Control
0.06b
10
0.11ab
15
0.12ab
20
0.12ab
25
0.13a
Initial
0.05
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT.
Economic Importance
Return on Cash Expenses
Table 18 shows that different rates of vermicompost influenced the (ROCE)
return on cash expense. It increased the yield of potato. Application of 20 tha-1 of
vermicompost were superior over 25 tha-1 much the more to the untreated plot. This
showed that application of vermicompost from the rate of 10 to 20 tha-1 increased the
yield of potato that results to high return on cash expense. However application of 25 tha-
1 rate of vermicompost resulted to a decrease of 28.21% net return lower than 10 ton ha-1
application of vermicompost. This could be due to high production cost resulting to a low
net return.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
31
Table 18. Return on cash expense of potato as influenced by different application rates of
vermicompost.
TREATMENT Yield
/Plot
GROSS
COST OF
NET %ROCE
(kg/plot)
INCOME PRODUC- INCOME
(Php)
TION
(
Php)__(Php)
_____________
Control 2.94
176.40
182.75
-6.35
-3.47
10
tons/ha
5.42
325.20
230.35
94.85
41.18
15
tons/ha
7.55
453.00
254.15
198.85
78.24
20
tons/ha
9.00
540.00
277.95
262.06
94.28
25tons/ha
6.00
360.00
301.79
58.21
19.29
Price used in the computation of gross income was Php 60/kg.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
32
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION
Summary
The study was conducted at the newly certified Organic Demo Farm at Benguet
State University, La Trinidad, Benguet under protected Environment from November
2011 to February 2012 using RCBD. Application rates of 10 tha-1, 15 tha-1, 20 tha-1 and
25 tha-1 were studied. The study was conducted to 1) determine the best rate of
vermicompost on the growth of organic potato grown under protected environment, 2)
the best rate of vermicompost on the yield of organic potato, 3) the effects of
vermicompost on some physical and chemical properties of the soil and 4) the economic
analysis of growing potato applied with vermicompost under protected environment.
The different rates of vermicompost affect the growth and yield of potato as well
as some of the physical and chemical properties of the soil. The bulk density was
improved as the different rates of vermicompost were applied, the higher the rates, the
lower the bulk density. Likewise with the pore space and water holding capacity of the
soil in which the higher the rates, the higher increase in percent.
On the other hand, growth of potato with the rates 20 and 25 tha-1 registered the
tallest plants. However, they did not differ much, 20 tha-1 is a little superior over 25 tha-1
application of vermicompost. Same to the yield of potato, vermicompost with the rate of
20 tha-1 gave the highest yield over the other treatment.
The dry matter content of the potato tuber was influenced by different rates of
vermicompost application. The increasing application rate of vermicompost raised the
dry matter content meeting the requirement for processing.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
33
The return on cash expense (ROCE) that obtained the highest percentage was
noted from plots applied with 20 tha-1 vermicompost with a corresponding return on cash
expense of 94.28%.
Conclusion
The best rate of vermicompost application appeared to be 20 tha-1 for the growth
and yield of organic potato under protected environment.
Application of vermicompost increased the physical properties of the soil like,
bulk density, pore space and water holding capacity.
Likewise, the chemical properties like pH, soil organic matter and total nitrogen
content of the soil was increased.
Application of vermicompost with 20 t ha-1 registered to be the best based on the
economic importance.
Recommendation
It is therefore recommended based on the results and conclusions that application
of 20 t ha-1 vermicompost is the best rate for the production of organic potato (Solibao
var.) under protected environment.
In addition, a follow-up study is recommended to verify the results for the
controlled and open field condition.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
34
LITERATURE CITED
ARANCON, N. Q. AND C. A. EDWARDS. 2005. Effects of vermicomposts on plant
growth. Paper presenting during the international symposium workshop on
vermin technologies for developing countries ( ISWVT ), Los Banus
Philippines. Retrieved June 30, 2011 from http://www.Slocountywor-
ms.com/wp-content/upload/2010/12/effectsofvermicomposts-on-plnt growth.pdf
AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE. "Phytochemical Profilers Investigate Potato
Benefits” "Agricultural Research”, September 2007. Retrieved June 30 2011 from
http://en.Wikipedea.org/wiki/potato.
AZRMI,R. 2008. Influenced of vermicompost on soil chemical and physicalproperties
(Lycopersiconesculentum) field. African Journal ofBiotechnology vol. 7 Pp.
2397~2401.Retrieved 18March 2011 from:http://www.academicjournals.org
/ajb/PDF/pdf 2008/18 July/Azarmi%20et%20 al.pdf.
BRADY and WEIL, 2002.The nature and properties of soils.13th Edition. Pp. 518,521
EDWARDS, C.A. and N.Q. ARANCON, 2007. The science ofvermiculture:earthworm
in organic waste management. Retrieved 18 March 20 12 from http://www.biosci
.ohiostate.edu~soilecol/Earthworms%20 and %20vermiculture%Publications/the
% 20 SCIENCE%20 VERMICULTURE.pdf
EDWARDS. R, L.G. Villegas and L.A. GUERRERO.1990.Studieson the production
and utilization of vermicompost produced with the African night crawler
(Eudriluseugenial) in the Phil technology Journal 24 (1):57-631
CABADING, F. S. 2010. Nitrogen mineralization in organic carrot production.BS
Thesis. Benguet State University La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 6
CRINNION, W. J. 1982. Organic foods contain higher levels of certain Nutrients, lower
levels of pesticides, and may provide health benefits for the consumer. Retrieved
January 12, 2012
fromhttp://altmedrev.com/index.php?option=com_sobi2&sobi2Task=sobi2Details
&sobi2Id=456&Itemid=70
DENHOLM, D. 2010. What are the benefits ofeating organic vegetables? Retrieved
Oct. 10, 2011 from http://www.livestrong.com/article/288677-what-are-the-
benefits-of-eating- organic vegetables/
FAO 2009.Potato. Retrieved January 30, 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potato.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
35
FAUSTINO, D. P. 2011. Wet season evaluation of five potato entries for organic
production in La Trindad, Benguet condition, BS Thesis. BSU, La Trinidad,
Benguet P. 1.
HALOG, J. M and L. R. MOLINA. 1981. Field and greenhouse study on the biological
control of diamond bakmoth on cabbage bactospeine and dipel. BS Thesis. BSU
La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 26
KINOSHITA, K. M. 1970. Vegtable Production in Soil East Asia. NEW York: Willy and
Son’s, Inc. Pp 323-240
LAGMAN C. A. Jr, 2003. Performance of selected horticultural crops using formulated
Vermicompost as growing medium. BS Thesis. BSU La Trinidad Benguet. Pp 8-9
LASILAS, N, L. 2010. Status of virus infection in potato variety Igorota and its implica-
tion to the informal seed system. BS Thesis. BSU La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 16
MENDEL, F. 1997. Chemistry, biochemistry, and dietary role of potato polyphenols. A
review. Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/potato.
OCAMPO, P.P. 2011. Soil qualities as influenced by different rates of vermicompost
application
in
organic potato (Solanumtuberosum)-based farming system under
protected environment. BS Thesis. BSU La Trinidad, Benguet. P. 11-12
SINGH, D. 2001. Tropical vermiculture.Retrieved 18March, 2012 from http://searle.
coman/organic%20 garden.htm
TAD-AWAN, B. A, SIMONGO, D.K, PABLO, J.P, SAGALA EJ. D, KISWA, C.G. and
properties and Practices in Benguet, Philippines. P 14
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
36
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1.Initial height of the plant 10 days after emergence (cm)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
11.55
10.40
9.76
31.66
10.57
M2
14.28
15.20
11.70
41.18
13.73
M3
13.95
15.23
14.21
43.39
14.46
M4
13.2
15.15
15.68
44.03
14.68
M5
14.00
12.85
14.96
41.81
13.94
Total 53.28
68.83
66.31
202.07
13.28
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication
2
0.681
0.341
0.1932
Treatment
4
33.409
8.352
4.7365*
3.84 7.01
Error
8
14.107
1.763
Total 14 48.197
* = significant CV= 9.85%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
37
Appendix Table 2. Final height of the plant 80 days after planting (cm)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I
II III
TOTAL
MEAN
M1 33.30
28.50
30.00
91.80
30.60
M2
41.10 38.10 37.50 116.70 38.90
M3
42.30
40.50
38.40
121.20
40.40
M4
41.30
45.80
41.30
128.40
42.80
M5
40.50
44.80
43.10
128.40
42.80
Total
198.50 197.70 190.30 586.50
39.1
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication
2
8.176
4.088
0.7819
Treatment
4
304.080
76.020
14.5409**
3.84
701
Error
8
41.824
5.228
Total 14 354.080
** = highly significant CV= 5.85 %
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
38
Appendix Table 3.Number of super extra large-size tubers
BLOCKS
TREATMENT
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
2
2
3
7
2
M2
5
6
4
15
5
M3
10
11
11
32
11
M4
12
10
10
32
11
M5
9
7
7
23
8
TOTAL
38
36
35
109
7.4
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.933 0.467 0.4828
Treatment
4
158.267
39.567
40.9310*
3.84
7.01
Error
8
7.733
0.967
Total 14
166.933
*= significant CV=13.53%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
39
Appendix Table 4.Number of extra large-size tubers
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
6
5
6
17
6
M2
9
8
8
25
8
M3
8
10
12
30
10
M4
14
11
11
36
12
M5
7
8
7
22
7
TOTAL
44
42
44
130
8.6
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.533 0.267 0.1379
Treatment
4
71.333
17.833
9.2241**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
15.467
1.933
Total 14
87.333
** = highly significant
CV= 16.04%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
40
Appendix Table 5.Number of big-size tubers
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
10
10
8
28
9
M2
10
9
9
28
9
M3
13
11
11
35
12
M4
10
10
9
29
10
M5
13
16
14
43
14
TOTAL
56
56
51
163
10.8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2
3.333
1.667
1.6667
Treatment
4
56.400
14.100
14.1000**
3.84 7.01
Error
8
8.00
1.000
Total 14 67.73
** = highly significant CV = 9.20%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
41
Appendix Table 6.Number of small-size tubers
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
10
13
10
33
11
M2
12
12
13
37
12
M3
6
7
7
20
7
M4
10
10
12
32
11
M5
18
17
18
53
18
TOTAL
56
59
60
175
11.8
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 2.800 1.400 1.2174
Treatment
4
192.400
48.100
41.8261**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
9.200
1.150
Total 14
204.400
** = highly significant CV = 9.09%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
42
Appendix Table 7.Weight of superextra large-size tubers (g plot-1)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
175
180
250
605
201.7
M2
650
700
550
1,900
633.3
M3
1,150
1,150
1,150
3,450
1,150.0
M4
1,250
1,500
1,500
4,250
1,250.0
M5
700
500
600
1,800
600.0
TOTAL
3,935
4,030
4,050
12,005
767
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTE
TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARE
D F
F
VARIANCE FREEDO
0.05% 0.01%
M
Replication
2
0.7563
25470.000
12735.000
Treatment
4
2236006.66
559001.66
33.1965**
3.84 7.01
7
7
Error
8
1134713.33
3
16839.167
Total 14 2396190.00
** = highly significant CV =16.92%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
43
Appendix Table 8.Weight of extra large-size tubers (g plot-1)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
T1
250
250
300
575
226.7
T2
550
500
500
1,550
516.7
T3
500
500
650
1,650
550.0
T4
750
700
700
2,150
716.7
T5
400
400
350
1,150
383.3
TOTAL
2,450
2,350
2,500
7,075
478.68
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2
2333.333 1166.667 0.4828
Treatment
4
350666.667 87666.667 36.2759**
3.84 7.01
Error
8
19333.333
2416.667
Total 14 372333.333
** = highly significant CV = 10.10%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
44
Appendix Table 9.Weight of big-size tubers (g plot-1)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
T1
350
350
250
950
316.67
T2
400
350
400
1,150
383.33
T3
750
650
650
2,050
683.33
T4
400
400
350
1,150
383.33
T5
500
600
500
1,600
533.33
TOTAL
2,400
2,350
2,150
6,900
459.99
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication
2
7000.000 3500.000
1.7143
Treatment
4
262666.667 65666.667 32.1633**
3.84 7.01
Error
8
16333.333 2041.667
Total 14 286000.000
** = highly significant CV = 9.82%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
45
Appendix Table 10.Weight of small-size tubers (g plot-1).
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
T1
250
300
250
800
266.7
T2
250
270
300
820
273.3
T3
100
150
150
400
133.3
T4
450
450
550
1,450
483.3
T5
550
450
550
1,550
516.7
TOTAL
1,600
1,620
1,250
5,020
334.66
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2
4853.333 2426.667 1.4842
Treatment
4
312440.000 78110.000 47.7737**
3.84 7.01
Error
8
13080.000
1635.000
Total 14 330373.333
** = highly significant CV = 12.08%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
46
Appendix Table 11.Dry matter content potato tubers (g)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
18.48
19.33
18.48
56.29
18.76
M2
19.33
19.04
19.04
56.85
18.95
M2
19.04
19.33
19.33
57.70
19.23
M2
19.33
19.04
19.33
57.70
19.23
M2
19.33
19.61
19.33
58.27
19.42
TOTAL
94.51
96.35
95.51
286.81
19.12
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2
0.094
0.047 0.6189
Treatment
4
0.714
0.178
2.3482ns
3.84 7.01
Error
8
0.068
0.076
Total 14
1.416
ns = not significant CV = 1.44%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
47
Appendix Table 12.Bulk density of the soil (g cm-3)
RATES OF
BLOCKS
VERMICOMPOST
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
1.29
1.30
1.38
3.97
1.32
M2
1.29
1.25
1.25
3.79
1.26
M3
1.21
1.14
1.13
3.48
1.16
M4
1.03
1.19
1.12
3.34
1.11
M5
1.06 1.01
1.21
3.28
1.09
TOTAL
5.88
5.89
6.09
17.86
1.19
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.006 0.003
Treatment
4
0.118
0.029
6.0966*
3.84
7.01
Error
8
0.039
0.005
Total 14
0.162
* = significant CV = 5.84%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
48
Appendix Table 13.Water Holding Capacity of the soil (%)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
57.60 57.60
51.13
166.33
55.44
M2
64.91 64.32
64.71
193.94
64.65
M3
65.27 65.19
65.49
195.95
65.32
M4
68.06 67.62 67.62
203.30
67.77
M5
72.09
70.76
68.94
211.79
70.60
TOTAL
327.93
324.73
317.89
971.31
64.76
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 1.836 0.918
Treatment
4
292.122
73.030
151.7662**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
3.850
0.481
Total 14
** = highly significant CV = 1.06%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
49
Appendix Table 14. Total porosity of the soil (%)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1 60
55
54
169
56.33
M2
56
61
53
170
56.67
M3
58
62
61
181
60.33
M4
65
63
66
194
64.67
M5
67
70
61
198
66.00
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 26.800
13.400 1.3094
Treatment
4
237.733
59.433
5.8078*
3.84
7.01
Error
8
81.867
10.233
Total 14
346.400
* = significant CV = 5.26%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
50
Appendix Table 15.Soil pH
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
6.30
6.30
6.30
18.90
6.30
M2
6.50
6.52
6.53
19.55
6.52
M3
6.64
6.53
6.59
19.76
6.59
M4
6.67
6.63
6.65
19.95
6.65
M5
6.62
6.70
6.68
20.00
6.67
TOTAL 32.73
36.68
32.75
98.16
6.55
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.001 0.000
Treatment
4
0.265
0.066
51.5877**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
0.010
0.001
Total 14
** = highly significant CV = 0.55%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
51
Appendix Table 16.Total N content of the soil (%)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
0.06
0.07
0.06
0.19
.06
M2
0.10
0.11
0.11
0.32
0.11
M3
0.12
0.11
0.12
0.35
0.12
M4
0.12 0.12 0.12 0.36 0.12
M5
0.13 0.14 0.13 0.40 0.13
TOTAL 0.53
0.55
0.54
1.62
0.10
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.000 0.000
Treatment
4
0.008
0.002
75.6471**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
0.001
0.001
Total 14
0.009
** = highly significant CV = 4.93%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
52
Appendix Table 17.Organic matter content of the soil (%)
TREATMENT BLOCKS
I II
TOTAL MEAN
III
M1
1.11
1.35
1.39
3.85
1.28
M2
2.03
2.12
2.08
6.23
2.08
M3
2.46
2.26
2.36
7.08
2.36
M4
2.46
2.41
2.47
7.34
2.45
M5
2.55
2.70
2.62
7.87
2.62
TOTAL
8.15
10.84
8.3
27.29
2.16
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREE
SUM OF
MEAN
COMPUTED TABULATED
OF
OF
SQUARES SQUARE
F
F
VARIANCE FREEDOM
0.05% 0.01%
Replication 2 0.010 0.005
Treatment
4
3.337
0.834
91.5409**
3.84
7.01
Error
8
0.037
0.009
Total 14
3.420
** = highly significant CV = 4.42%
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
53
Appendix Table 18.Return on cash expense (%)
TREATMENTS TOTAL GROSS PRODUCTION NET ROCE
YEILD INCOME COST INCOME (%)
(kg/plot) (Php) (Php) (Php)
Control
2.94 176.40 182.75 -6.35 -3.47
10 tons/ha
5.42
325.20
230.35
94.85
41.18
15 tons/ha
7.55
453.00
254.15
198.85
78.24
20 tons/ha
9.00
540.00
277.95
262.05
94.28
25 tons/ha
6.00
360.00
301.79
58.21
19.29
Price used in the computation of gross income was Php 60/kg.
Applied with Vermicompost Under Protected Environment /
Wiler T. Dalos. 2012
Document Outline
- Performance of Potato (Solibao var.) Applied withVermicompost Under Protected Environment
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION.
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECCOMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES