BIBLIOGRAPHY KINAHINGAN, VICENTE Jr. PANGSIL....
BIBLIOGRAPHY
KINAHINGAN, VICENTE Jr. PANGSIL. APRIL 2012. Organic Fertilizer
Application for the Optimum Production of Potato (Solanumtuberosum) var. Raniag.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Emilia F Dayap, MSc.
Co-Adviser: Prof. Alexander W. Fagyan
ABSTRACT
The study on the organic fertilizer application for the optimum production of
potato var. Raniag was conducted at the Benguet State University Organic Demo Farm,
La Trinidad, Benguet from January 2011 to March 2011 to: determine the effect of the
organic fertilizers on the physical and chemical properties of the soil; to determine the
effect of organic fertilizers on the yield of potato tubers and to determine the best
combination of different organic fertilizers to produce optimum yield of potato tubers.
Application of any organic materials to the soil either separately or in
combination with others improves the physical and chemical properties such as bulk
density, organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus content of the soil.
Applications of pure chicken manure enhance the marketable and non-marketable
yield of potato. Moreover, the weights of classified tubers were significantly influenced
by the application of different organic fertilizers.
Applications of fresh wild sunflower directly to the soil significantly increase the
pH of the soil.
Organic Fertilizer Application for the Optimum Production of Potato (Solanumtuberosum) var.
Raniag/ Vicente Jr. PangsilKinahingan. 2012
Application of 5 tons/ha growers compost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower is
the best combination for optimum yield of potato. Moreover, application of chicken
manure significantly enhanced yield of potato.
Organic Fertilizer Application for the Optimum Production of Potato (Solanumtuberosum) var.
Raniag/ Vicente Jr. PangsilKinahingan. 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography..................................................................................................... i
Abstract............................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents..............................................................................................
ii
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE...........................................................................
3
Effect of Organic Fertilizer on
Crop......................................................................................................
3
Effect of Organic Fertilizer on
Physical Properties of the Soil..............................................................
4
Effect of Organic Fertilizer on
Chemical Properties of the Soil............................................................
5
Chicken Manure...................................................................................
5
Importance of Vermicompost...............................................................
5
Wild Sunflower.....................................................................................
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS..................................................................... 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.......................................................................
10
Some Chemical Properties of
the Soil..................................................................................................
10
Soil pH.........................................................................................
10
Organic matter content of the
soil...............................................................................................
11
Total nitrogen content of the
soil...............................................................................................
12
Available phosphorus content
of the soil....................................................................................
14
Some Physical Properties of the
soil........................................................................................................
15
Bulk density of the soil................................................................
15
Agronomic Parameters.........................................................................
16
Weight of classified tubers.......................................................... 16
Marketable yield..........................................................................
17
Non-marketable yield..................................................................
18
Total yield....................................................................................
18
Economic Analysis..............................................................................
20
Return on Cash Expenses............................................................
20
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.........................
22
Summary........................................................................................................... 22
Conclusion........................................................................................................ 23
Recommendation.............................................................................................. 23
LITERATURE CITED.....................................................................................
24
APPENDICES.................................................................................................. 26
1
INTRODUCTION
Potato
(Solanumtuberosum) is classified as a cool season cropgrown especiallyin
Benguet and Mt. Province because of its favorable climatic conditions. Potato production
is one of the principal sources of income of the Filipino farmers speciallyin Benguet and
Mt. Porvince. People in many countries make potato as one of the major foods in their
diet because it provides energy, vitamins, minerals and amino acids. It is also an essential
ingredientof snack foodssuch as mashed potato, potato chips, potato flour, and an
excellent mixture for pork adobo. Aside from being eaten as food it is also used as an
industrial source of starch and other derivatives.
Organic fertilizer is very rich in nutrients such as the macronutrients that are
needed in the healthy growth of plants.Likewise, it improves the physical and chemical
properties of the soil. On the other hand, inorganic fertilizers are also rich in nutrients
needed by the plants. However, in terms of the repetitive application,it will destroy the
physical and chemical properties of the soil. Organic fertilizer is the best alternative
because it improves the soil structure, soil tilth, water holding capacity, aeration and it
can also reduce inputs of the farmers.
Due to continuous cropping, crop and grass removal to the farm, it is simply
noticed that nutrient depletion of the soil is very fast. To avoid depletion of the soil,
farmers need to convert to using organic material instead of using the commercial
fertilizersto return back the natural condition of the soil and also to promote good
condition of the soil.
Organic Fertilizer Application for the Optimum Production of Potato (Solanumtuberosum) var.
Raniag / Vicente Jr. PangsilKinahingan. 2012
2
The findings of this study can provide information on the best organic fertilizer
application that could be introduced to improve soil fertility and to minimize high cost of
potato production.
The study aimed to:
1) Determine the effect of different organic fertilizers on physical and chemical
properties of the soil.
2) Determine the effect of organic fertilizers on the yield of potato tubers; and,
3)Determine the best combination of organic fertilizers to produce optimum
yield of potato.
The study was conducted at the Organic Demo Farm,Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguetfrom January 2011 to March 2011.
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Effect of Organic Fertilizer on Crop
Organic fertilizers have great and favorable effects to crops. Plant resistance to
pest and diseases are increased when fertilized with organic matter. Little or no soil borne
disease will occur in the soil that is high in organic matter because of oxygen ethylene
cycle in the soil (Abadilla, 1982).
Adchak (1993)found out that application of 60 kg N/ha in combination with 15
tons chopped wild sunflower improved the growth and yield of cabbage. Likewise, it
improved the physical and chemical properties of the soil.
Pandosen (1986) stated thatplants treated with either composted or fresh wild
sunflower or chicken manure gave higher yield than the plants treated with inorganic
fertilizers and those with inoculation. This result could be due to the higher values
obtained from organic fertilizers.
Boltican (2008) reported that different mixture of organic fertilizer significantly
affected the height of potato plants and the weight of extra large potato tubers.
Application of 6 tons/ha chicken manure, 6 tons/ha fresh sunflower enhance better height
and total yield of potato per plot.
Organic matter level in the soil could be maintained by the liberal use or
application of green farm and green manure to the soil. Organic fertilizers supply some
amount of the nutrient requirements of the crop and they promote favorable soil
properties, such as granulation and good tilth for efficient aeration, easy root penetration
and improved water holding capacity (PCARRD, 1982). Organic fertilizers are generally
used on vegetable crops, root crops and ornamentals in combination with inorganic
4
fertilizers. Organic fertilizers are as effective as chemical fertilizers in increasing crop
yields. They make the soil rich since they contain a substantial amount of nutrients.
Plants nourished with organic fertilizers are healthier and more resistant to pest and
diseases (PCARRD, 1983).
Donahue (1971) also stated that organic matter supplies nutrients needed by the
growing plants as well as hormones and antibiotics. These nutrients are released in
harmony with the needs of plants when the environmental condition favors a rapid
release of nutrients for the organic matter. Organic matter contains a large part of the total
reserve of boron, molybdenum, 5-6% phosphorous up to 80% sulfur and particularly
most of nitrogen.
Farm manure has high nitrogen content and has good influence on the soil and it
is available to crops (Toledo, 1982). Besides, Brady (1990) reported that plants fertilized
with chicken dung matured earlier and were taller than the plants fertilized with sawdust,
cow manure and also with pig manure.
Koshino (1990), pointed out that during the decomposition of organic matter,
nutrient elements are slowly released which is particularly important in avoiding salt
injury, ensuring a continuous supply of nutrients throughout the growing season.
Likewise, it is important in producing better quality of crops.
Effect of Organic Fertilizers on Physical Properties of the soil.
Brady and Weil (2000) claimed that organic matter binds mineral particles into
granular soil structure that is largely responsible for the loose, easily managed condition
of productive soil. It also increases the amount of water a soil can hold and the proportion
of water available for the plant growth.
5
Chapman (1976) mentioned that organic matter includes green manure and animal
manure which provide not only an important effect on the soil but also provide both
macro and microelements as source of nutrition to plants. One of the effect is the
loosening of the soil, enhances good soil structure thereby increasing the water holding
capacity and infiltration rate of the soil.
Lacay (2008) said that vermicompost have a very high water holding capacity.It
has a good structure which makes it desirable component of potting mixes.
Effect of Organic Matter on Chemical Properties of the Soil
Brady and Weil (2002) reported that organic matter is a source of the plant
nutrients. It also provides much of the cation exchange and water holding capacities of
surface soil. Furthermore, organic matter supplies energy and body building constituents
for most of the microorganisms.
Chicken manure
De la Cruz (2004) stated that crops applied with animal manure performed better
compared to those crops that were grown with commercial organic fertilizers. The slow
release of nutrient from animal manure minimized the nutrient losses in the soil resulting
to the efficient uptake to crops that lead in higher yield. Animal manure also serves as a
valuable conditioner of the soil retaining humidity and improving structure and internal
drainage.
Importance of vermicompost
Singh (2001) stated that vermicompost has a pH of 7 to 7.5 and a C: N ratio of 12
to 15: 1. Through chemical analysis, it contains 1.75 to 2.5% N, about 1.25 to 2% K,
calcium, magnesium, sulfate which is 3-5% times better than farm manure.
6
Wild sunflower.
Wild sunflower has been known to be a good source of organic nitrogen besides
being free; it is readily available on the farmyards. Sunflower as organic fertilizer insures
vigorous growth of plants and influences nutrient absorption due to its role in granulation
thereby improving the physical and chemical properties of the soil (Brady, 1974) as cited
by Durante (1982).
Victor (1974) as cited by Bernard (2009) stated that wild sunflower which is
abundant in the highlands can be a substitute organic nitrogen source and as a starter of
compost for it hastens further decomposition. Through laboratory analysis, Pandosen
(1986) found that fresh wild sunflower contains 3.76% nitrogen and wild sunflower
based compost contains 3.22% nitrogen.
7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials used in the experiment were the following: chicken manure,
grower’s compost, vermicompost, fresh wild sunflower and potato seed tubers
varietyRaniag.
An area of 120 m2 was divided into three blocks with each block containing eight
individual plots measuring 1m x 5m. Each plot represents a treatment and was laid out in
a simple RCBD with three replications.
The different treatments are as follows:
T1= control
T2= 10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
T3= 10 tons/ha vermicompost
T4= 10 tons/ha growers compost
T5= 10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
T6= 5 tons /ha chicken manure plus5 tons/ha FWS
T7= 5 tons /ha vermicompost plus5 tons /ha FWS
T8= 5 tons /ha growers compost plus5 tons /ha FWS
All the organic fertilizers were applied one week before planting following the
differenttreatments. The fresh wild sunflower was chopped into small pieces prior to
application. Potato tubers were planted at a distance of 20 cm x 30 cm between hills and
rows in order to have equal number of hills per plot. Hilling up was done two weeks after
planting.All other cultural practices such as irrigation and disease control were done
including removal of the weeds if there is an occurrence to prevent competition.
8
The data gathered were the following:
A. Chemical Properties of the Soil
1. Soil pH. Theinitial and final pH was determinedusing 1:1 soil and water
suspension.
2. Organic matter content of the soil (%). This was analyzed using theWalkley-
Black method.
3.Totalnitrogen content (%). The total nitrogen content of the soil was computed
by multiplying the factor 0.05 to the % OM content of the soil.
4.Available Phosphorus content (ppm). This was determined using the Bray No.
twomethod.
B. Physical Properties of the Soil
1. Bulk density (g/cm3). This was obtained using the core method. The working
formula used to compute the bulk density was:
Db = Oven dry weight of soil (g)
Volume of the soil (cm3)
C. Agronomic parameters
1.Marketable yield. The classifications were basedon the weight as follows:
a) Large(kg) = tubers weighing 80-99g
b) Medium (kg) = tubers weighing 50-79g
c) Small (kg) = tubers weighing <50g
d) Total weight of marketable tubers (kg)
e) Total weight of non-marketable tubers (kg)
2. Total yield of marketable and non-marketable tubers (kg)
9
D. Economic Analysis
1. Return on Cash Expenses (%). The return on cash expenses was computed per
plotusing the formula:
ROCE (%) = Gross Income – Total Expenses x 100
Total Expenses
10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Some Chemical Properties of the Soil
Soil
pH.The initial soil pH of 5.12 was significantly increased by the different
organic fertilizers applied as presented in Table 1. As individually applied 10 tons/ha
fresh wild sunflower (T5) effected the highest soil pH with a mean of 5.91 which
significantly differed from the other treatments when combined, however, with the other
organic fertilizers the pH decreased.
Table 1. Soil pH as affected by different organic fertilizers
TREATMENT
pH
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control 5.48e
10
tons/ha
dry
chicken
manure 5.55d
10
tons/ha
vermicompost
5.78c
10
tons/ha
growers
compost
5.78c
10
tons/ha
fresh
wild
sunflower
5.91a
5 tons /ha chicken manure + 5
tons/ha
FWS
5.18f
5 tons /ha vermicompost + 5 tons /ha FWS
5.84bc
5 tons /ha growers compost + 5 tons /ha FWS
5.87ab
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initial
5.12
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
11
The result shows that fresh wild sunflower and growers compost have greater
capacity to increase soil pH. This could be due to the calcium (1.90 %) content and
magnesium (0.39 %) content of fresh wild sunflower aside from its high amount of NPK
content Pandosen (1986).
She further confirmed that application of organic fertilizers like chicken manure,
fresh wild sunflower, and based-compost increased the pH of the soil which indicates that
the use of organic fertilizer do not add to the acidity of the soil to a greater extent.
Organic matter content of the soil. Table 2 shows that the application of organic
fertilizers significantly increased the organic matter content of the soil, however, the
increase varies on the kind of material. Further, application of five tons/ha chicken
manure plus five tons/ha fresh wild sunflower registered the highest organic matter
content of the soil. The result could be attributed to the low pH as shown in Table 1.
Acidity can slow down organic matter decomposition due to acid precipitation on the site
has caused high acidity in the litter of the organic layer causing a reduction in
decomposition. Wolters and Schaefer (1994).
As stated bCabading (2010) the application of different organic fertilizers
improved the organic matter content of the soil by 5.49% to 6.098%.
On the other hand, application of 10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower registered the
lowest organic matter of 0.95% after harvest. The result implies that most of the nutrient
contained in wild sunflower was utilized by potato.
Sun–ho-yoo and Yeong San Jung (1992) as cited by Lacay (2008) stated that
organic matter is the principal reservoir of nitrogen and other nutrients.
12
Table 2. Organic matter content of the soil as affected by different organic fertilizers
TREATMENT
OM
(%)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control
0.94c
10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
1.63abc
10
tons/ha
vermicompost
1.00bc
10
tons/ha
growers
compost
1.06bc
10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
0.95c
5 tons /ha chicken manure + 5 tons/ha FWS
2.05a
5 tons /ha vermicompost + 5 tons /ha FWS
1.76ab
5 tons /ha growers compost + 5 tons /ha FWS
1.31abc
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initial
0.93
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
It increase soil buffering capacity, helps maintain a good soil structure and protect
soil from erosion and maintains a high community of soil microorganism.
Total nitrogen content of the soil. As presented in Table 3,the plots applied with
the combination of chicken dung plus fresh wild sunflower registered the highest total
nitrogen content of the soil with a mean of 0.10%. This is due to the high content of
chicken manure especially in nitrogen and because of the wild sunflower combined. The
result implies that combination of chicken manure and wild sunflower can store nitrogen
in longer period of time as compared to other organic fertilizer combinations. Moreover,
the combination of 5 tons/ha vermicompost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower gave the
13
mean of 0.09% total nitrogen content of the soil. As observed, the control registered the
lowest total nitrogen with a mean of 0.05 % implying that whatever nitrogen present in
the soil was utilized. Statistically, the differences between the treatments are significant.
Brady and Weil (2008) cited that soil organic matter contains large quantities of
plant nutrients and act as a slow-release nutrient storehouse, especially for nitrogen.
Sunflower also increases the nutrient content of compost. Through laboratory analysis,
Pandosen (1986) found that fresh wild sunflower contains 3.76 % nitrogen and wild
sunflower based compost contains 3.22 % nitrogen. It is therefore a good source of
organic nitrogen.
Table 3.Total nitrogen content of the soil as affected by different organic fertilizers
TREATMENT NITROGEN
(%)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control
0.05c
10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
0.08abc
10
tons/ha
vermiccompost
0.05c
10 tons/ha growers compost
0.05bc
10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
0.05c
5 tons /ha chicken manure + 5 tons/ha FWS
0.10a
5 tons /ha vermicompost + 5 tons /ha FWS
0.09ab
5 tons /ha growers compost + 5 tons /ha FWS
0.06bc
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initial
0.050
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
14
Available phosphorus content of the soil. Table 4 reveals that soils applied with
10 tons/ha chicken manure registered the highest available phosphorus content of the
soil.The result indicates that application of chicken manure somewhat deters the
phosphorus absorption by plants maybe due to the acidy although application of different
organic fertilizers highly influenced the available phosphorous content of the soil. Soils
not applied with organic fertilizer gave the lowest available phosphorus content of the
soil with a mean of 18.03 ppm.The increase in the phosphorus content can be attributed
to the role of organic material which is a residue of dead and dying plant materials is a
reservoir of nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur and other macronutrient elements essential for
plant growth (Jones, 1982).
Table 4. Available phosphorus content of the soil as affected by organic fertilizers
TREATMENT PHOPHORUS
(ppm)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control
18.03c
10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
30.92a
10 tons/ha vermicompost
24.42b
10 tons/ha growers compost
29.90a
10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
23.34b
5 tons /ha chicken manure (T2) + 5 tons/ha FWS (T5)
26.99ab
5 tons /ha vermicompost (T3) + 5 tons /ha FWS (T5)
27.06ab
5 tons /ha growers compost (T4) + 5 tons /ha FWS (T5)
27.27ab
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initial
19.33
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
15
The findings conform the finding of Cox and Jackson (1960) that the increase in
soil phosphorus was due to the organic materials applied which contains appreciable
amount of organic phosphates which are present as complex organic phosphorus esters.
Some Physical Properties of the Soil
Bulk density of the soil. Table 5 shows the bulk density of soil as affected by the
different organic fertilizer applications. It is observed that bulk density of the soil was
improved from an initial value of 1.25 g/cm3.
The lowest bulk density was observed in the plots applied with fresh wild
sunflower with a mean of 1.04 g/cm3. The control plots registered the highest bulk
density with a mean of 1.27 g/cm3. Result shows the relevance of applying organic to
soils. This is because organic matter encourages granulation, and makes the soil porous,
which result in low bulk density values (Brady, 1990).
Among the organic materials applied, application of fresh wild sunflower gave the
lowest bulk density of 1.04 g/cm3 which is significantly lower compared to the other
organic materials. This confirms with the report of Pandosen (1986) that a decrease in
bulk density of the soil is realized when it is applied with fresh wild sunflower and
sunflower-based compost. This indicates that the application of sunflower either as solid
or in liquid fertilizer form improves the bulk density of the soil.
This is in consonance with the findings of Hausenbuiller (1978) that organic
matter tends to lower bulk density, either by encouraging higher porosity through soil
aggregation or by reducing the average density of the soil. This characteristic signifies
that more organic matter will hold more water at a longer duration.
16
Table 5. Bulk density of the soil as affected by different organic fertilizers
TREATMENT
BULK DENSITY
(g/cm3)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control 1.27d
10
tons/ha
dry
chicken
manure 1.17c
10
tons/ha
vermicompost
1.10bc
10
tons/ha
growers
compost
1.08bc
10
tons/ha
fresh
wild
sunflower
1.04a
5 tons /ha chicken manure +
5
tons/ha
FWS
1.09bc
5 tons /ha vermicompost + 5 tons /ha FWS
1.07b
5 tons /ha growers compost + 5 tons /ha FWS
1.07b
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initial
1.25
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Agronomic Parameters
Weight of classified potato tubers. Table 6 shows the weight of classified small,
medium and large potato tubers. As separate organic fertilized for potato, it is observed
that the fertilizer that produced the heaviest large tubers, the weight of medium and small
also followed. The rank from highest to lowest is with the use of chicken manure,
growers compost, vermicompost and wild sunflower respectively.
Combining fresh wild sunflower with the other materials improved the weight of
large, medium but decrease the weight of small tubers. This is realized on plants fertilized
with fresh wild sunflower combined with chicken manure.
17
Table 6.Weight of classified potato tubers as affected by different organic fertilizer
TREATMENT ___MEAN (kg/5m2)________
LARGE MEDIUM SMALL
Control
2.13d
2.73c
1.15e
10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
4.38a
6.12a
1.92ab
10 tons/ha vermicompost
3.63b
5.68a
1.58bcd
10 tons/ha growers compost
3.73b
5.85a
1.72bc
10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
2.92c
4.77b
1.43cde
5 tons /ha chicken manure + 5 tons/ha FWS
4.52a
5.60ab
1.25de
5 tons /ha vermicompost + 5 tons /ha FWS
4.07ab
5.53ab
2.15a
5 tons /ha growers compost + 5 tons /ha FWS
4.08ab
5.65ab
1.85ab
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Statistical analysis showed that the difference between treatments was observed to
be highly significant.
Boltican (2008) reported that different mixture of organic fertilizer significantly
affected the height, weight and yield of potato tubers. Application of 6 tons/ha chicken
manure, 6 tons/ha fresh sunflower enhance better height and total yield of potato per plot.
Marketableyield.
The weight of marketable yield of potato was significantly affected by the
different organic fertilizers(Table 7). The highest marketable yield was obtained from
plotsapplied with 10 tons/ha chicken manure with a mean of 12.42 kg/5m2that
18
significantly differed from the plots treated with 10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower and
control plots with a mean of 9.12 and 6.02 kg/5m2except for the plots treated with 10
tons/ha vermicompost, 10 tons/ha growers compost, 5 tons/ha chicken manure plus 5
tons/ha fresh wild sunflower, 5 tons/ha vermicompost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild
sunflower, 5 tons/ha growers compost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower. This conforms
to the study of Lipawen (2009) that the application of 5 tons/ha chicken manure produced
the highest marketable yield of carrots kg/5m2.This effect on yield was attributed to the
manure that contains essential plant nutrients as well as some trace elements not
generally found in chemical fertilizers (Jones, 1982). With this, application of 5 tons/ha
chicken manure enhanced higher yield of carrots plants.
Non – marketable Yield
The weight of non-marketable yield of potato was significantly affected by
different organic fertilizers is shown in Table 7. Soils applied with 10 tons/ha growers
compost recorded the lowest non-marketable yield with a mean of 0.15 kg/5m2. This
could be attributed to the higher marketable yield and less infected of potato tubers.
Lower non-marketable yield was obtained from these treatments due to the higher
marketable yield obtained. Higher non-marketable yield was obtained from plots applied
with 10 tons/ha chicken manure due to higher marketable yield and high tubers produced.
Total Yield
Total yield of potato as affected by different organic fertilizers is shown in Table
7. Heaviest tuber was obtained from the plots applied with 10 tons/ha chicken manure
with a mean of 13.05 kg/5m2. The mean differed significantly from thecontrol and those
19
plots applied with 10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower. This result conforms to the findings of
Lingaling (2006) as cited by Cabading (2010) that carrots grown in plots applied with
chicken manure matured earlier that resulted in the production of heavier carrots. This
could be attributed to the other organic fertilizers. Growers compost also produced
heavier yield due to the chicken manure and wild sunflower contained in it with higher
nutrient content of 1.66 % N, 2.49 % P and 2.82 % K. The different organic fertilizers
applied had greatly influenced the total yield of potato tubers.
Table 7. Marketable, non-marketable and total yield of potato tubers as affected by
different organic fertilizers
____ ____MEAN(kg/5 m2)__________
TREATMENT
MARKETABLE
NON
TOTAL
YIELD
MARKETABLE
YIELD
YIELD
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control
6.02d
0.47bc
6.48d
10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
12.42a
0.63a
13.05a
10 tons/ha vermicompost
10.90b
0.37c
11.27b
10 tons/ha growers compost
11.30b
0.15d
11.45b
10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
9.12c
0.55ab
9.67c
5 tons /ha chicken dung + 5 tons/ha FWS
11.37b
0.53ab
11.90b
5 tons /ha vermicompost+ 5 tons/ha FWS
11.75ab
0.38c
12.13ab
5 tons /ha growerscompost+5tons/ha FWS
11.58ab
0.38c
11.97b
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
20
As stated by Brady and Weil (2002) as soil organic matter decays, nutrient
elements which are present in organic combination are released as soluble ions that can
be taken up by plant roots.
Economic Analysis
Return on cash expenses.The highest return on cash expenses was realized from
the application ofthe combination of 5 tons/ha growers compost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild
sunflowerwith a value of 145.80% due to high content of nutrient regardless with
minimal inputs (Table 8).
Table 8. Return on cash expense
TOTAL
GROSS PRODUCTION
NET
ROCE
TREATMENT
YIELD
INCOME
COST
INCOME
(%)
(kg)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control
6.02 382.2 268.29 113.91
42.46
Chicken manure
12.42 793.62 343.29 450.33
131.18
Vermicompost
10.90 693.63 388.29 95.34
78.64
Growers compost
11.30 718.47 343.29 375.18
109.29
Fresh wild sunflower
9.12 578.13 280.79 297.34
105.89
Chicken manure plus
11.37 738.75 300.79 437.96
145.60
wild sunflower
Vermicompost plus wild
11.75 746.7 353.29 393.41
111.4
sunflower
Growers compost plus
11.58 739.35 300.79 438.56
145.80
wild sunflower
21
Likewise, the application of 5 tons/ha chicken manure plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild
sunflower ranked second with a value of 145.60%. Although vermicompost yielded high,
it has a low ROCE of 78.64% and this is due to the higher cost of vermicompost.
Likewise, the use of other fertilizers that gave high ROCE can be attributed to high yield
and minimal fertilizer cost.
Cabading (2010) stated that the application of 5 tons/ha chicken manure increased
a total production cost of PhP 420.93 and net income of 491.39 with the highest return on
cash expenses.
22
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study on the organic fertilizer application for optimum production of potato
var. Raniag using different organic fertilizers was conducted at the Benguet State
University Organic Demo Farm, La Trinidad, Benguet from January 2011 to March 2011
to determine the organic fertilizers on the physical and chemical properties of the soil, to
determine the effect of organic fertilizers on the growth and yield of potato tubers; and, to
determine the best combination of different organic fertilizers to produce optimum yield
of potato tubers.
Application of differentorganic fertilizers significantly reduced the bulk density of
the soil due to granulation. The soil pH, organic matter, nitrogen, and available
phosphorus content of the soil were improved with the application of organic fertilizer as
compared to the control.
Plots treated with pure wild sunflower significantly increased thesoil pH, reduced
total nitrogen, organic matter and available phosphorus in the soil. It can be deduced that
the nutrient content of the wild sunflower has been utilized by potato. of the soil from an
initial of 5.12 to 5.91.
Conversely, application of 10 tons/ha chicken manure plus 5 tons of wild
sunflower gave the highest organic matter content of the soil due to acidity.
In terms of yield of potato tubers, soils applied with 5 tons/ha growers compost
plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild sunflowersignificantly produced the highest marketable yield,
total yield and highest Return on Cash Expense.
23
Conclusion
Based on the result of the study, application of the different organic fertilizers
significantly affected the physical and chemical properties of the soil. It improved the
bulk density, increased pH, organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus content of the soil
after harvest.Application of 5 tons/ha growers compost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild
sunflower is the best combination that gave the optimum yield of potato. Moreover,
application of pure chicken manure significantly enhanced higher marketable and total
yield of potatoes.
Recommendation
Based from the result and findings of the study, it is recommended that a follow-
up study should be done to further investigate the effect of organic fertilizer application
for the optimum production of potato var. Raniagusing thedifferent organic fertilizers.
24
LITERATURE CITED
ABADILLA, D.C. 1982. Organic Farming. Quezon City. AFA Publication Inc. Pp. 181 –
187.
ADCHAK, C.L. 1993. Effect of different rates of inorganic nitrogen in combination with
wildsunflower and cabbage. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad
Benguet.Pp.
20-21.
BERNARD, R.M. 2009. Performance of celery (Apiumgraveolensvar PS) on soil
amended with organic materials as source of nitrogen. BS Thesis. Benguet State
University. La Trinidad Benguet. P. 5
BOLTICAN, L.M. 2008. Fermented papaya fruit juice as organic liquid fertilizer for bush
bean. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.Pp.1-7.
BRADY, N.C. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Fourth Edition.New York.
The McMillan Publishing Co., Pp. 210-280.
BRADY, N. C. and R. R. WEIL, 2000.The Nature andProperties of soils.11th Ed. New
York: McMillian Publishing Co., Inc. Pp.498-2025.
BRADY, N. C. and R. R. WEIL, 2002.The Nature andProperties of soils.13th Ed. New
York: McMillian Publishing Co., Inc. Pp. 120, 521, 545-548.
BRADY, N. C. and R. R. WEIL, 2008.The Nature andProperties of soils.14th Ed. New
York: McMillian Publishing Co., Inc. P. 969.
CABADING F.S. 2010.Nitrogen mineralization in organic carrot production.BS.Thesis.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.Pp.22, 29.
CHAPMAN, J.P. 1976. Crop Production.Principles andPratices. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman Co. Pp. 245-356.
COX, J.F. and L.E. JACKSON. 1960. Crop Improvement and Soil Conservation Second
Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Inc., New York, London.Pp. 21-87.
DE LA CRUZ, R.T. 2004.Growing vegetable organically. BAR. Research and
Development Digest.Bureau of Agricultural Research Department of Agriculture.
Pp.1,2,9
DONAHUE, R.L. et al. 1971. Soils.Third Edition. Practice Hall Inc. New Jersey, P. 236.
25
DURANTE, B.C. 1982. Effects of different rates of wild sunflower on the growth and
yield of inoculated garden pea.BS.Thesis.Benguet State University, La Trinidad
Benguet.P.
1,4.
HAUSENBUILLER, R.L. 1978. Soil science, principles and practices.Second ed. Wm.
C. Brown Company Publisher.P. 144.
JONES, U.S. 1982. Fertilizers and Soil Fertility. Reston, Virginia. Reston Publishing
Company. Pp. 3-22.
KOSHINO, S.O. 1990. The Use of Organic and Chemical Fertilizers in Japan.Food and
Fertilizer Technology Center. Bul. No. 83: Pp. 13 & 15.
LACAY, N. B. 2008. Organic fertilizer application on seed tuber production of potato
(Solanumtuberosum) variety Igorota (PO3). BS Thesis. Benguet State University,
La Trinidad Benguet. P.7
LIPAWEN, M.Y. 2009 Rates of potassium and organic fertilization on the yield and
quality of carrots (Daucuscarota) CV. New Kuroda. Pp. 7-109.
PANDOSEN, M.D. 1986.Potential of wild sunflower asorganic fertilizer. MSThesis.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet.Pp.41, 50, 55, 135,149 and 175.
PCARRD, 1982.The Philippine Recommends for Fertilizer Usage. Technical Bulletin
Series No. 52. Los Baños, Laguna. Pp. 63-71.
PCARRD, 1983.ThePhilippine Recommends forFertility Management. Technical
Bulletin Series No.36. Los Baños, Laguna.Pp.1 & 2.
SINGH, D. 2001 Tropical Vermiculture. Retrieved on 02 March 2010 from
http://www.search.com!organic%20gardenc.htm.
TOLEDO, L.R. 1982. Growth and yield response of white potato to different kinds of
organicmatter undergreen houseconditions.BS.Thesis.Benguet State
University. La Trinidad Benguet.p.11.
WOLTERS V. andM. SCHAEFER (1994) Effects of acid deposition on soil organisms
and decomposition processes. In: Godbold DL, Huttermann (eds) Effects on
Acid rain on forest processes. Wiley, New York, Pp. 83-128.
26
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1.Soil pH
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
T1
5.50 5.46 5.48 16.44 5.48
T2 5.55
5.57
5.54
16.66
5.55
T3
5.79 5.79 5.77 17.35 5.78
T4 5.85
5.72
5.78
17.35
5.78
T5 5.96
5.85
5.92
17.73
5.91
T6 5.21
5.18
5.16
15.55
5.18
T7 5.86
5.81
5.84
17.51
5.84
T8 5.85
5.87
5.89
17.61
5.87
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 45.57 45.25 45.38 136.20 5.68
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
Block
2
0.0065
0.0032
Treatment
7
1.3123
0.1875
200.99**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
0.0131
0.0009
TOTAL 23
1.3318
** = highly significant CV= 0.54%
27
Appendix Table 2.Organic matter content of the soil (%)
REPLICATIONS
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.96 0.90 0.96 2.82 0.94
T2 1.19
1.86
1.84
4.89
1.63
T3
1.03 1.23 0.85 3.11 1.04
T4 0.78
1.25
1.16
3.19
1.06
T5 0.90
0.96
0.99
2.85
0.95
T6 1.30
2.76
2.08
6.14
2.05
T7 2.33
1.10
1.86
5.29
1.76
T8 1.48
1.08
1.39
3.95
1.32
TOTAL 9.97
10.06
11.13
32.24
1.34
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
Block
2
0.1035
0.5177
Treatment
7
3.8004
0.5229
3.33**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
2.2827
0.1630
TOTAL 23
6.187
**= highly significant CV= 30.16%
28
Appendix Table 3.Total nitrogen content of the soil (%)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.05
T2 0.06
0.09
0.06
0.24
0.08
T3
0.05 0.06 0.05 0.15 0.05
T4 0.04
0.06
0.04
0.16
0.05
T5 0.05
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.09
T6 0.07
0.14
0.07
0.31
0.10
T7 0.12
0.06
0.12
0.27
0.09
T8 0.07
0.05
0.07
0.19
0.06
TOTAL 0.46 0.56 0.55 1.57 0.07
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.00017
0.00008
Treatment
7
0.00925
0.00123
3.41*
2.77 4.28
Error 14
0.00542
0.00038
TOTAL 23
0.01484
*= significant CV= 29.16%
29
Appendix Table 4.Available phosphorus content of the soil (ppm)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
T1
18.15 20.41 15.54 54.10 18.03
T2 31.19
31.58
29.98
92.75
30.92
T3
27.52 25.86 19.88 86.93 28.98
T4 27.69
28.47
33.55
89.71
29.90
T5 25.81
24.75
19.46
70.02
23.34
T6 26.47
27.97
26.52
80.96
26.99
T7 28.31
24.96
27.91
80.59
26.86
T8 28.30
27.37
26.15
81.82
27.27
TOTAL 213.44 211.37 286.11 636.88 26.54
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
15.2647
7.6323
Treatment
7
348.5020
49.7860
8.28**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
84.1683
6.0120
TOTAL 23
447.93
** = highly significant CV= 9.43%
30
Appendix Table 5.Bulk density of soil (g/cm3)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
T1
1.27 1.25 1.29 3.81 1.27
T2 1.18
1.15
1.17
3.50
1.17
T3
1.10 1.08 1.11 3.29 1.10
T4 1.12
1.07
1.06
3.25
1.08
T5 1.04
1.02
1.05
3.11
1.04
T6 1.09
1.08
1.11
3.28
1.09
T7 1.06
1.05
1.09
3.20
1.07
T8 1.04
1.08
1.10
3.22
1.07
TOTAL 8.9 8.78 8.98 26.66 1.11
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
Block
2
0.0025
0.0013
Treatment
7
1.1157
0.0165
46.91**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
0.00493
0.0004
TOTAL 23
0.12317
**= highly significant CV= 1.69%
31
Appendix Table 6.Weight of large size tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
2.15 1.90 2.35 6.40 2.13
T2 3.70
4.90
4.55
13.15
4.38
T3
4.15 3.45 3.30 10.90 3.63
T4 3.95
3.75
3.50
11.20
3.73
T5 3.10
2.90
2.75
8.75
2.92
T6 4.75
4.30
4.50
13.55
4.52
T7 4.15
3.80
4.25
12.20
4.07
T8 3.95
4.10
4.20
12.25
4.08
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 29.9 29.1 29.4 88.4 3.68
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Block
2
0.0408
0.0204
Treatment
7
13.4600
1.9229
16.39**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
1.6425
0.1173
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 23
13.5008
**= highly significant CV = 9.30%
32
Appendix Table 7.Weight of medium size tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
3.10 2.20 2.90 8.20 2.73
T2 6.30
5.95
6.10
18.35
6.12
T3
5.55 5.80 5.70 17.45 5.82
T4 5.70
5.35
6.50
17.55
5.85
T5 4.20
4.35
5.75
14.30
4.77
T6 5.90
4.75
6.15
16.80
5.60
T7 5.60
5.90
5.10
16.60
5.53
T8 5.70
5.50
5.75
16.95
5.65
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 42.05 39.8 38.2 126.2 5.26
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Block
2
1.0789
0.53947
Treatment
7
24.6850
3.52642
15.95**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
3.0943
0.22102
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 23
28.86
**= highly significant CV = 8.97%
33
Appendix Table 8.Weight of small size tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
1.15 1.10 1.20 2.45 1.15
T2 1.90
1.75
2.10
5.75
1.92
T3
1.70 1.60 1.45 4.75 1.58
T4 2.10
1.40
1.65
5.15
1.72
T5 1.85
1.25
1.20
4.30
1.43
T6 1.30
1.30
1.15
3.75
1.25
T7 2.20
2.30
1.95
6.45
2.15
T8 1.95
1.85
1.75
5.55
1.85
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 14.15 12.55 12.45 32.7 1.63
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Block
2
0.2275
0.1136
Treatment
7
2.4724
0.3532
10.21**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
0.4842
0.4842
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 23
**= highly significant CV = 4.91%
34
Appendix Table 9.Weight of marketable tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
6.40 5.20 6.45 18.05 6.02
T2 11.90
12.60
12.75
37.25
12.42
T3
11.40 10.85 10.45 32.70 10.90
T4 11.75
10.50
11.65
33.90
11.30
T5 9.15
8.50
9.70
27.35
9.12
T6 11.95
10.35
11.80
34.10
11.37
T7 11.95
12.00
11.30
35.25
11.15
T8 11.60
11.45
11.70
34.75
11.58
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 86.10 81.45 85.50 253.35 10.56
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Block
2
1.6931
0.8465
Treatment
7
89.8482
12.835
47.79**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
3.7602
0.2686
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 23
95.30
** = highly significantCV = 4.91%
35
Appendix Table 10.Weight of non- marketable tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
0.40 0.50 0.50 1.40 0.13
T2 0.60
0.70
0.60
1.90
0.63
T3
0.50 0.35 0.25 1.10 0.37
T4 0.20
0.15
0.10
0.45
0.15
T5 0.65
0.55
0.45
1.65
0.55
T6 0.60
0.55
0.45
1.60
0.53
T7 0.45
0.35
0.35
1.15
0.38
T8 0.40
0.30
0.45
1.15
0.38
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 3.80 3.45 3.15 10.40 0.43
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Block
2
0.0265
0.0132
Treatment
7
0.4633
0.0662
12.60**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
0.0735
0.0053
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 23
** = highly significant CV = 16.73%
36
Appendix Table 11.Total yield of potato tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
6.80 5.70 6.95 19.45 6.48
T2 12.50
13.30
13.35
39.15
13.05
T3
11.90 11.20 10.70 33.80 11.27
T4 11.95
10.65
11.75
34.35
11.45
T5 9.80
9.05
10.15
29.00
9.67
T6 12.55
10.90
12.25
35.70
11.90
T7 12.40
12.35
11.65
36.40
12.13
T8 12.00
11.75
12.15
35.90
11.97
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 89.90 84.90 88.95 263.75 10.99
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
Block
2
1.7627
0.2815
Treatment
7
89.0466
12.7209
45.19**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
3.9406
0.2815
TOTAL 23
94.75
** = highly significant CV = 4.83%
37
Appendix Table 12.Return On Cash Expenses
TREATMENT (PhP)
PARTICULAR
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
Production
cost:
Potato
tubers 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Fertilizers:
Chicken dung
0
75
0
0
0
37.5
0
0
Vermicompost 0 0 120 0 0 0 60 0
Growerscompost 0 0 0 75 0 0 0
37.5
Wild sunflower
0
0
0
0
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Grub
hoe
3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12
Labor:
Tractor
22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Land
preparation 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06
Fertilizer -
14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06
application
Planting
18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75
Watering
35.17 35.17 35.17 35.17 35.17 35.17 35.17 35.17
Hilling
–
up
23.44 23.44 23.44 23.44 23.44 23.44 23.44 23.44
Weeding
4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69
Harvesting
112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5
TOTAL EXPENSES
268.29 343.29
388.29 343.29
280.79 318.29 353.29 318.29
Gross income:
Small (17.00/kg)
58.65
97.92
80.58
87.72
279.75
63.75
109.65
94.35
Medium (20.00/kg) 163.80
367.2
340.8
351
286.2
336
331.8
339
Large (25.00/kg)
159.75
328.5
272.25 279.75
219
339
305.25
306
TOTALINCOME382.2793.62 693.63 718.47 578.13 738.75 746.7 739.35
Net income
113.91 450.33 95.34 375.18 297.34 420.46 393.41 421.06
ROCE% 42.46
131.18
78.64
109.29 105.89 132.09
111.4 132.29
Rank
8
3
7
5
6
2
4
1
38
KINAHINGAN, VICENTE Jr. PANGSIL. APRIL 2012. Organic Fertilizer
Application for the Optimum Production of Potato (Solanumtuberosum) var. Raniag.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.
Adviser: Emilia F Dayap, MSc.
Co-Adviser: Prof. Alexander W. Fagyan
ABSTRACT
The study on the organic fertilizer application for the optimum production of
potato var. Raniag was conducted at the Benguet State University Organic Demo Farm,
La Trinidad, Benguet from January 2011 to March 2011 to: determine the effect of the
organic fertilizers on the physical and chemical properties of the soil; to determine the
effect of organic fertilizers on the yield of potato tubers and to determine the best
combination of different organic fertilizers to produce optimum yield of potato tubers.
Application of any organic materials to the soil either separately or in
combination with others improves the physical and chemical properties such as bulk
density, organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus content of the soil.
Applications of pure chicken manure enhance the marketable and non-marketable
yield of potato. Moreover, the weights of classified tubers were significantly influenced
by the application of different organic fertilizers.
Applications of fresh wild sunflower directly to the soil significantly increase the
pH of the soil.
Organic Fertilizer Application for the Optimum Production of Potato (Solanumtuberosum) var.
Raniag/ Vicente Jr. PangsilKinahingan. 2012
Application of 5 tons/ha growers compost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower is
the best combination for optimum yield of potato. Moreover, application of chicken
manure significantly enhanced yield of potato.
Organic Fertilizer Application for the Optimum Production of Potato (Solanumtuberosum) var.
Raniag/ Vicente Jr. PangsilKinahingan. 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Bibliography..................................................................................................... i
Abstract............................................................................................................. i
Table of Contents..............................................................................................
ii
INTRODUCTION............................................................................................ 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE...........................................................................
3
Effect of Organic Fertilizer on
Crop......................................................................................................
3
Effect of Organic Fertilizer on
Physical Properties of the Soil..............................................................
4
Effect of Organic Fertilizer on
Chemical Properties of the Soil............................................................
5
Chicken Manure...................................................................................
5
Importance of Vermicompost...............................................................
5
Wild Sunflower.....................................................................................
6
MATERIALS AND METHODS..................................................................... 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.......................................................................
10
Some Chemical Properties of
the Soil..................................................................................................
10
Soil pH.........................................................................................
10
Organic matter content of the
soil...............................................................................................
11
Total nitrogen content of the
soil...............................................................................................
12
Available phosphorus content
of the soil....................................................................................
14
Some Physical Properties of the
soil........................................................................................................
15
Bulk density of the soil................................................................
15
Agronomic Parameters.........................................................................
16
Weight of classified tubers.......................................................... 16
Marketable yield..........................................................................
17
Non-marketable yield..................................................................
18
Total yield....................................................................................
18
Economic Analysis..............................................................................
20
Return on Cash Expenses............................................................
20
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.........................
22
Summary........................................................................................................... 22
Conclusion........................................................................................................ 23
Recommendation.............................................................................................. 23
LITERATURE CITED.....................................................................................
24
APPENDICES.................................................................................................. 26
1
INTRODUCTION
Potato
(Solanumtuberosum) is classified as a cool season cropgrown especiallyin
Benguet and Mt. Province because of its favorable climatic conditions. Potato production
is one of the principal sources of income of the Filipino farmers speciallyin Benguet and
Mt. Porvince. People in many countries make potato as one of the major foods in their
diet because it provides energy, vitamins, minerals and amino acids. It is also an essential
ingredientof snack foodssuch as mashed potato, potato chips, potato flour, and an
excellent mixture for pork adobo. Aside from being eaten as food it is also used as an
industrial source of starch and other derivatives.
Organic fertilizer is very rich in nutrients such as the macronutrients that are
needed in the healthy growth of plants.Likewise, it improves the physical and chemical
properties of the soil. On the other hand, inorganic fertilizers are also rich in nutrients
needed by the plants. However, in terms of the repetitive application,it will destroy the
physical and chemical properties of the soil. Organic fertilizer is the best alternative
because it improves the soil structure, soil tilth, water holding capacity, aeration and it
can also reduce inputs of the farmers.
Due to continuous cropping, crop and grass removal to the farm, it is simply
noticed that nutrient depletion of the soil is very fast. To avoid depletion of the soil,
farmers need to convert to using organic material instead of using the commercial
fertilizersto return back the natural condition of the soil and also to promote good
condition of the soil.
Organic Fertilizer Application for the Optimum Production of Potato (Solanumtuberosum) var.
Raniag / Vicente Jr. PangsilKinahingan. 2012
2
The findings of this study can provide information on the best organic fertilizer
application that could be introduced to improve soil fertility and to minimize high cost of
potato production.
The study aimed to:
1) Determine the effect of different organic fertilizers on physical and chemical
properties of the soil.
2) Determine the effect of organic fertilizers on the yield of potato tubers; and,
3)Determine the best combination of organic fertilizers to produce optimum
yield of potato.
The study was conducted at the Organic Demo Farm,Benguet State University, La
Trinidad, Benguetfrom January 2011 to March 2011.
3
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Effect of Organic Fertilizer on Crop
Organic fertilizers have great and favorable effects to crops. Plant resistance to
pest and diseases are increased when fertilized with organic matter. Little or no soil borne
disease will occur in the soil that is high in organic matter because of oxygen ethylene
cycle in the soil (Abadilla, 1982).
Adchak (1993)found out that application of 60 kg N/ha in combination with 15
tons chopped wild sunflower improved the growth and yield of cabbage. Likewise, it
improved the physical and chemical properties of the soil.
Pandosen (1986) stated thatplants treated with either composted or fresh wild
sunflower or chicken manure gave higher yield than the plants treated with inorganic
fertilizers and those with inoculation. This result could be due to the higher values
obtained from organic fertilizers.
Boltican (2008) reported that different mixture of organic fertilizer significantly
affected the height of potato plants and the weight of extra large potato tubers.
Application of 6 tons/ha chicken manure, 6 tons/ha fresh sunflower enhance better height
and total yield of potato per plot.
Organic matter level in the soil could be maintained by the liberal use or
application of green farm and green manure to the soil. Organic fertilizers supply some
amount of the nutrient requirements of the crop and they promote favorable soil
properties, such as granulation and good tilth for efficient aeration, easy root penetration
and improved water holding capacity (PCARRD, 1982). Organic fertilizers are generally
used on vegetable crops, root crops and ornamentals in combination with inorganic
4
fertilizers. Organic fertilizers are as effective as chemical fertilizers in increasing crop
yields. They make the soil rich since they contain a substantial amount of nutrients.
Plants nourished with organic fertilizers are healthier and more resistant to pest and
diseases (PCARRD, 1983).
Donahue (1971) also stated that organic matter supplies nutrients needed by the
growing plants as well as hormones and antibiotics. These nutrients are released in
harmony with the needs of plants when the environmental condition favors a rapid
release of nutrients for the organic matter. Organic matter contains a large part of the total
reserve of boron, molybdenum, 5-6% phosphorous up to 80% sulfur and particularly
most of nitrogen.
Farm manure has high nitrogen content and has good influence on the soil and it
is available to crops (Toledo, 1982). Besides, Brady (1990) reported that plants fertilized
with chicken dung matured earlier and were taller than the plants fertilized with sawdust,
cow manure and also with pig manure.
Koshino (1990), pointed out that during the decomposition of organic matter,
nutrient elements are slowly released which is particularly important in avoiding salt
injury, ensuring a continuous supply of nutrients throughout the growing season.
Likewise, it is important in producing better quality of crops.
Effect of Organic Fertilizers on Physical Properties of the soil.
Brady and Weil (2000) claimed that organic matter binds mineral particles into
granular soil structure that is largely responsible for the loose, easily managed condition
of productive soil. It also increases the amount of water a soil can hold and the proportion
of water available for the plant growth.
5
Chapman (1976) mentioned that organic matter includes green manure and animal
manure which provide not only an important effect on the soil but also provide both
macro and microelements as source of nutrition to plants. One of the effect is the
loosening of the soil, enhances good soil structure thereby increasing the water holding
capacity and infiltration rate of the soil.
Lacay (2008) said that vermicompost have a very high water holding capacity.It
has a good structure which makes it desirable component of potting mixes.
Effect of Organic Matter on Chemical Properties of the Soil
Brady and Weil (2002) reported that organic matter is a source of the plant
nutrients. It also provides much of the cation exchange and water holding capacities of
surface soil. Furthermore, organic matter supplies energy and body building constituents
for most of the microorganisms.
Chicken manure
De la Cruz (2004) stated that crops applied with animal manure performed better
compared to those crops that were grown with commercial organic fertilizers. The slow
release of nutrient from animal manure minimized the nutrient losses in the soil resulting
to the efficient uptake to crops that lead in higher yield. Animal manure also serves as a
valuable conditioner of the soil retaining humidity and improving structure and internal
drainage.
Importance of vermicompost
Singh (2001) stated that vermicompost has a pH of 7 to 7.5 and a C: N ratio of 12
to 15: 1. Through chemical analysis, it contains 1.75 to 2.5% N, about 1.25 to 2% K,
calcium, magnesium, sulfate which is 3-5% times better than farm manure.
6
Wild sunflower.
Wild sunflower has been known to be a good source of organic nitrogen besides
being free; it is readily available on the farmyards. Sunflower as organic fertilizer insures
vigorous growth of plants and influences nutrient absorption due to its role in granulation
thereby improving the physical and chemical properties of the soil (Brady, 1974) as cited
by Durante (1982).
Victor (1974) as cited by Bernard (2009) stated that wild sunflower which is
abundant in the highlands can be a substitute organic nitrogen source and as a starter of
compost for it hastens further decomposition. Through laboratory analysis, Pandosen
(1986) found that fresh wild sunflower contains 3.76% nitrogen and wild sunflower
based compost contains 3.22% nitrogen.
7
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The materials used in the experiment were the following: chicken manure,
grower’s compost, vermicompost, fresh wild sunflower and potato seed tubers
varietyRaniag.
An area of 120 m2 was divided into three blocks with each block containing eight
individual plots measuring 1m x 5m. Each plot represents a treatment and was laid out in
a simple RCBD with three replications.
The different treatments are as follows:
T1= control
T2= 10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
T3= 10 tons/ha vermicompost
T4= 10 tons/ha growers compost
T5= 10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
T6= 5 tons /ha chicken manure plus5 tons/ha FWS
T7= 5 tons /ha vermicompost plus5 tons /ha FWS
T8= 5 tons /ha growers compost plus5 tons /ha FWS
All the organic fertilizers were applied one week before planting following the
differenttreatments. The fresh wild sunflower was chopped into small pieces prior to
application. Potato tubers were planted at a distance of 20 cm x 30 cm between hills and
rows in order to have equal number of hills per plot. Hilling up was done two weeks after
planting.All other cultural practices such as irrigation and disease control were done
including removal of the weeds if there is an occurrence to prevent competition.
8
The data gathered were the following:
A. Chemical Properties of the Soil
1. Soil pH. Theinitial and final pH was determinedusing 1:1 soil and water
suspension.
2. Organic matter content of the soil (%). This was analyzed using theWalkley-
Black method.
3.Totalnitrogen content (%). The total nitrogen content of the soil was computed
by multiplying the factor 0.05 to the % OM content of the soil.
4.Available Phosphorus content (ppm). This was determined using the Bray No.
twomethod.
B. Physical Properties of the Soil
1. Bulk density (g/cm3). This was obtained using the core method. The working
formula used to compute the bulk density was:
Db = Oven dry weight of soil (g)
Volume of the soil (cm3)
C. Agronomic parameters
1.Marketable yield. The classifications were basedon the weight as follows:
a) Large(kg) = tubers weighing 80-99g
b) Medium (kg) = tubers weighing 50-79g
c) Small (kg) = tubers weighing <50g
d) Total weight of marketable tubers (kg)
e) Total weight of non-marketable tubers (kg)
2. Total yield of marketable and non-marketable tubers (kg)
9
D. Economic Analysis
1. Return on Cash Expenses (%). The return on cash expenses was computed per
plotusing the formula:
ROCE (%) = Gross Income – Total Expenses x 100
Total Expenses
10
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Some Chemical Properties of the Soil
Soil
pH.The initial soil pH of 5.12 was significantly increased by the different
organic fertilizers applied as presented in Table 1. As individually applied 10 tons/ha
fresh wild sunflower (T5) effected the highest soil pH with a mean of 5.91 which
significantly differed from the other treatments when combined, however, with the other
organic fertilizers the pH decreased.
Table 1. Soil pH as affected by different organic fertilizers
TREATMENT
pH
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control 5.48e
10
tons/ha
dry
chicken
manure 5.55d
10
tons/ha
vermicompost
5.78c
10
tons/ha
growers
compost
5.78c
10
tons/ha
fresh
wild
sunflower
5.91a
5 tons /ha chicken manure + 5
tons/ha
FWS
5.18f
5 tons /ha vermicompost + 5 tons /ha FWS
5.84bc
5 tons /ha growers compost + 5 tons /ha FWS
5.87ab
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initial
5.12
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
11
The result shows that fresh wild sunflower and growers compost have greater
capacity to increase soil pH. This could be due to the calcium (1.90 %) content and
magnesium (0.39 %) content of fresh wild sunflower aside from its high amount of NPK
content Pandosen (1986).
She further confirmed that application of organic fertilizers like chicken manure,
fresh wild sunflower, and based-compost increased the pH of the soil which indicates that
the use of organic fertilizer do not add to the acidity of the soil to a greater extent.
Organic matter content of the soil. Table 2 shows that the application of organic
fertilizers significantly increased the organic matter content of the soil, however, the
increase varies on the kind of material. Further, application of five tons/ha chicken
manure plus five tons/ha fresh wild sunflower registered the highest organic matter
content of the soil. The result could be attributed to the low pH as shown in Table 1.
Acidity can slow down organic matter decomposition due to acid precipitation on the site
has caused high acidity in the litter of the organic layer causing a reduction in
decomposition. Wolters and Schaefer (1994).
As stated bCabading (2010) the application of different organic fertilizers
improved the organic matter content of the soil by 5.49% to 6.098%.
On the other hand, application of 10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower registered the
lowest organic matter of 0.95% after harvest. The result implies that most of the nutrient
contained in wild sunflower was utilized by potato.
Sun–ho-yoo and Yeong San Jung (1992) as cited by Lacay (2008) stated that
organic matter is the principal reservoir of nitrogen and other nutrients.
12
Table 2. Organic matter content of the soil as affected by different organic fertilizers
TREATMENT
OM
(%)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control
0.94c
10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
1.63abc
10
tons/ha
vermicompost
1.00bc
10
tons/ha
growers
compost
1.06bc
10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
0.95c
5 tons /ha chicken manure + 5 tons/ha FWS
2.05a
5 tons /ha vermicompost + 5 tons /ha FWS
1.76ab
5 tons /ha growers compost + 5 tons /ha FWS
1.31abc
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initial
0.93
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
It increase soil buffering capacity, helps maintain a good soil structure and protect
soil from erosion and maintains a high community of soil microorganism.
Total nitrogen content of the soil. As presented in Table 3,the plots applied with
the combination of chicken dung plus fresh wild sunflower registered the highest total
nitrogen content of the soil with a mean of 0.10%. This is due to the high content of
chicken manure especially in nitrogen and because of the wild sunflower combined. The
result implies that combination of chicken manure and wild sunflower can store nitrogen
in longer period of time as compared to other organic fertilizer combinations. Moreover,
the combination of 5 tons/ha vermicompost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower gave the
13
mean of 0.09% total nitrogen content of the soil. As observed, the control registered the
lowest total nitrogen with a mean of 0.05 % implying that whatever nitrogen present in
the soil was utilized. Statistically, the differences between the treatments are significant.
Brady and Weil (2008) cited that soil organic matter contains large quantities of
plant nutrients and act as a slow-release nutrient storehouse, especially for nitrogen.
Sunflower also increases the nutrient content of compost. Through laboratory analysis,
Pandosen (1986) found that fresh wild sunflower contains 3.76 % nitrogen and wild
sunflower based compost contains 3.22 % nitrogen. It is therefore a good source of
organic nitrogen.
Table 3.Total nitrogen content of the soil as affected by different organic fertilizers
TREATMENT NITROGEN
(%)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control
0.05c
10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
0.08abc
10
tons/ha
vermiccompost
0.05c
10 tons/ha growers compost
0.05bc
10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
0.05c
5 tons /ha chicken manure + 5 tons/ha FWS
0.10a
5 tons /ha vermicompost + 5 tons /ha FWS
0.09ab
5 tons /ha growers compost + 5 tons /ha FWS
0.06bc
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initial
0.050
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
14
Available phosphorus content of the soil. Table 4 reveals that soils applied with
10 tons/ha chicken manure registered the highest available phosphorus content of the
soil.The result indicates that application of chicken manure somewhat deters the
phosphorus absorption by plants maybe due to the acidy although application of different
organic fertilizers highly influenced the available phosphorous content of the soil. Soils
not applied with organic fertilizer gave the lowest available phosphorus content of the
soil with a mean of 18.03 ppm.The increase in the phosphorus content can be attributed
to the role of organic material which is a residue of dead and dying plant materials is a
reservoir of nitrogen, phosphorus, sulfur and other macronutrient elements essential for
plant growth (Jones, 1982).
Table 4. Available phosphorus content of the soil as affected by organic fertilizers
TREATMENT PHOPHORUS
(ppm)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control
18.03c
10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
30.92a
10 tons/ha vermicompost
24.42b
10 tons/ha growers compost
29.90a
10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
23.34b
5 tons /ha chicken manure (T2) + 5 tons/ha FWS (T5)
26.99ab
5 tons /ha vermicompost (T3) + 5 tons /ha FWS (T5)
27.06ab
5 tons /ha growers compost (T4) + 5 tons /ha FWS (T5)
27.27ab
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initial
19.33
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
15
The findings conform the finding of Cox and Jackson (1960) that the increase in
soil phosphorus was due to the organic materials applied which contains appreciable
amount of organic phosphates which are present as complex organic phosphorus esters.
Some Physical Properties of the Soil
Bulk density of the soil. Table 5 shows the bulk density of soil as affected by the
different organic fertilizer applications. It is observed that bulk density of the soil was
improved from an initial value of 1.25 g/cm3.
The lowest bulk density was observed in the plots applied with fresh wild
sunflower with a mean of 1.04 g/cm3. The control plots registered the highest bulk
density with a mean of 1.27 g/cm3. Result shows the relevance of applying organic to
soils. This is because organic matter encourages granulation, and makes the soil porous,
which result in low bulk density values (Brady, 1990).
Among the organic materials applied, application of fresh wild sunflower gave the
lowest bulk density of 1.04 g/cm3 which is significantly lower compared to the other
organic materials. This confirms with the report of Pandosen (1986) that a decrease in
bulk density of the soil is realized when it is applied with fresh wild sunflower and
sunflower-based compost. This indicates that the application of sunflower either as solid
or in liquid fertilizer form improves the bulk density of the soil.
This is in consonance with the findings of Hausenbuiller (1978) that organic
matter tends to lower bulk density, either by encouraging higher porosity through soil
aggregation or by reducing the average density of the soil. This characteristic signifies
that more organic matter will hold more water at a longer duration.
16
Table 5. Bulk density of the soil as affected by different organic fertilizers
TREATMENT
BULK DENSITY
(g/cm3)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control 1.27d
10
tons/ha
dry
chicken
manure 1.17c
10
tons/ha
vermicompost
1.10bc
10
tons/ha
growers
compost
1.08bc
10
tons/ha
fresh
wild
sunflower
1.04a
5 tons /ha chicken manure +
5
tons/ha
FWS
1.09bc
5 tons /ha vermicompost + 5 tons /ha FWS
1.07b
5 tons /ha growers compost + 5 tons /ha FWS
1.07b
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Initial
1.25
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Agronomic Parameters
Weight of classified potato tubers. Table 6 shows the weight of classified small,
medium and large potato tubers. As separate organic fertilized for potato, it is observed
that the fertilizer that produced the heaviest large tubers, the weight of medium and small
also followed. The rank from highest to lowest is with the use of chicken manure,
growers compost, vermicompost and wild sunflower respectively.
Combining fresh wild sunflower with the other materials improved the weight of
large, medium but decrease the weight of small tubers. This is realized on plants fertilized
with fresh wild sunflower combined with chicken manure.
17
Table 6.Weight of classified potato tubers as affected by different organic fertilizer
TREATMENT ___MEAN (kg/5m2)________
LARGE MEDIUM SMALL
Control
2.13d
2.73c
1.15e
10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
4.38a
6.12a
1.92ab
10 tons/ha vermicompost
3.63b
5.68a
1.58bcd
10 tons/ha growers compost
3.73b
5.85a
1.72bc
10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
2.92c
4.77b
1.43cde
5 tons /ha chicken manure + 5 tons/ha FWS
4.52a
5.60ab
1.25de
5 tons /ha vermicompost + 5 tons /ha FWS
4.07ab
5.53ab
2.15a
5 tons /ha growers compost + 5 tons /ha FWS
4.08ab
5.65ab
1.85ab
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
Statistical analysis showed that the difference between treatments was observed to
be highly significant.
Boltican (2008) reported that different mixture of organic fertilizer significantly
affected the height, weight and yield of potato tubers. Application of 6 tons/ha chicken
manure, 6 tons/ha fresh sunflower enhance better height and total yield of potato per plot.
Marketableyield.
The weight of marketable yield of potato was significantly affected by the
different organic fertilizers(Table 7). The highest marketable yield was obtained from
plotsapplied with 10 tons/ha chicken manure with a mean of 12.42 kg/5m2that
18
significantly differed from the plots treated with 10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower and
control plots with a mean of 9.12 and 6.02 kg/5m2except for the plots treated with 10
tons/ha vermicompost, 10 tons/ha growers compost, 5 tons/ha chicken manure plus 5
tons/ha fresh wild sunflower, 5 tons/ha vermicompost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild
sunflower, 5 tons/ha growers compost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower. This conforms
to the study of Lipawen (2009) that the application of 5 tons/ha chicken manure produced
the highest marketable yield of carrots kg/5m2.This effect on yield was attributed to the
manure that contains essential plant nutrients as well as some trace elements not
generally found in chemical fertilizers (Jones, 1982). With this, application of 5 tons/ha
chicken manure enhanced higher yield of carrots plants.
Non – marketable Yield
The weight of non-marketable yield of potato was significantly affected by
different organic fertilizers is shown in Table 7. Soils applied with 10 tons/ha growers
compost recorded the lowest non-marketable yield with a mean of 0.15 kg/5m2. This
could be attributed to the higher marketable yield and less infected of potato tubers.
Lower non-marketable yield was obtained from these treatments due to the higher
marketable yield obtained. Higher non-marketable yield was obtained from plots applied
with 10 tons/ha chicken manure due to higher marketable yield and high tubers produced.
Total Yield
Total yield of potato as affected by different organic fertilizers is shown in Table
7. Heaviest tuber was obtained from the plots applied with 10 tons/ha chicken manure
with a mean of 13.05 kg/5m2. The mean differed significantly from thecontrol and those
19
plots applied with 10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower. This result conforms to the findings of
Lingaling (2006) as cited by Cabading (2010) that carrots grown in plots applied with
chicken manure matured earlier that resulted in the production of heavier carrots. This
could be attributed to the other organic fertilizers. Growers compost also produced
heavier yield due to the chicken manure and wild sunflower contained in it with higher
nutrient content of 1.66 % N, 2.49 % P and 2.82 % K. The different organic fertilizers
applied had greatly influenced the total yield of potato tubers.
Table 7. Marketable, non-marketable and total yield of potato tubers as affected by
different organic fertilizers
____ ____MEAN(kg/5 m2)__________
TREATMENT
MARKETABLE
NON
TOTAL
YIELD
MARKETABLE
YIELD
YIELD
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control
6.02d
0.47bc
6.48d
10 tons/ha dry chicken manure
12.42a
0.63a
13.05a
10 tons/ha vermicompost
10.90b
0.37c
11.27b
10 tons/ha growers compost
11.30b
0.15d
11.45b
10 tons/ha fresh wild sunflower
9.12c
0.55ab
9.67c
5 tons /ha chicken dung + 5 tons/ha FWS
11.37b
0.53ab
11.90b
5 tons /ha vermicompost+ 5 tons/ha FWS
11.75ab
0.38c
12.13ab
5 tons /ha growerscompost+5tons/ha FWS
11.58ab
0.38c
11.97b
Means with the same letter/s are not significantly different at 5% level by DMRT
20
As stated by Brady and Weil (2002) as soil organic matter decays, nutrient
elements which are present in organic combination are released as soluble ions that can
be taken up by plant roots.
Economic Analysis
Return on cash expenses.The highest return on cash expenses was realized from
the application ofthe combination of 5 tons/ha growers compost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild
sunflowerwith a value of 145.80% due to high content of nutrient regardless with
minimal inputs (Table 8).
Table 8. Return on cash expense
TOTAL
GROSS PRODUCTION
NET
ROCE
TREATMENT
YIELD
INCOME
COST
INCOME
(%)
(kg)
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Control
6.02 382.2 268.29 113.91
42.46
Chicken manure
12.42 793.62 343.29 450.33
131.18
Vermicompost
10.90 693.63 388.29 95.34
78.64
Growers compost
11.30 718.47 343.29 375.18
109.29
Fresh wild sunflower
9.12 578.13 280.79 297.34
105.89
Chicken manure plus
11.37 738.75 300.79 437.96
145.60
wild sunflower
Vermicompost plus wild
11.75 746.7 353.29 393.41
111.4
sunflower
Growers compost plus
11.58 739.35 300.79 438.56
145.80
wild sunflower
21
Likewise, the application of 5 tons/ha chicken manure plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild
sunflower ranked second with a value of 145.60%. Although vermicompost yielded high,
it has a low ROCE of 78.64% and this is due to the higher cost of vermicompost.
Likewise, the use of other fertilizers that gave high ROCE can be attributed to high yield
and minimal fertilizer cost.
Cabading (2010) stated that the application of 5 tons/ha chicken manure increased
a total production cost of PhP 420.93 and net income of 491.39 with the highest return on
cash expenses.
22
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Summary
The study on the organic fertilizer application for optimum production of potato
var. Raniag using different organic fertilizers was conducted at the Benguet State
University Organic Demo Farm, La Trinidad, Benguet from January 2011 to March 2011
to determine the organic fertilizers on the physical and chemical properties of the soil, to
determine the effect of organic fertilizers on the growth and yield of potato tubers; and, to
determine the best combination of different organic fertilizers to produce optimum yield
of potato tubers.
Application of differentorganic fertilizers significantly reduced the bulk density of
the soil due to granulation. The soil pH, organic matter, nitrogen, and available
phosphorus content of the soil were improved with the application of organic fertilizer as
compared to the control.
Plots treated with pure wild sunflower significantly increased thesoil pH, reduced
total nitrogen, organic matter and available phosphorus in the soil. It can be deduced that
the nutrient content of the wild sunflower has been utilized by potato. of the soil from an
initial of 5.12 to 5.91.
Conversely, application of 10 tons/ha chicken manure plus 5 tons of wild
sunflower gave the highest organic matter content of the soil due to acidity.
In terms of yield of potato tubers, soils applied with 5 tons/ha growers compost
plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild sunflowersignificantly produced the highest marketable yield,
total yield and highest Return on Cash Expense.
23
Conclusion
Based on the result of the study, application of the different organic fertilizers
significantly affected the physical and chemical properties of the soil. It improved the
bulk density, increased pH, organic matter, nitrogen and phosphorus content of the soil
after harvest.Application of 5 tons/ha growers compost plus 5 tons/ha fresh wild
sunflower is the best combination that gave the optimum yield of potato. Moreover,
application of pure chicken manure significantly enhanced higher marketable and total
yield of potatoes.
Recommendation
Based from the result and findings of the study, it is recommended that a follow-
up study should be done to further investigate the effect of organic fertilizer application
for the optimum production of potato var. Raniagusing thedifferent organic fertilizers.
24
LITERATURE CITED
ABADILLA, D.C. 1982. Organic Farming. Quezon City. AFA Publication Inc. Pp. 181 –
187.
ADCHAK, C.L. 1993. Effect of different rates of inorganic nitrogen in combination with
wildsunflower and cabbage. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad
Benguet.Pp.
20-21.
BERNARD, R.M. 2009. Performance of celery (Apiumgraveolensvar PS) on soil
amended with organic materials as source of nitrogen. BS Thesis. Benguet State
University. La Trinidad Benguet. P. 5
BOLTICAN, L.M. 2008. Fermented papaya fruit juice as organic liquid fertilizer for bush
bean. BS Thesis. Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.Pp.1-7.
BRADY, N.C. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Fourth Edition.New York.
The McMillan Publishing Co., Pp. 210-280.
BRADY, N. C. and R. R. WEIL, 2000.The Nature andProperties of soils.11th Ed. New
York: McMillian Publishing Co., Inc. Pp.498-2025.
BRADY, N. C. and R. R. WEIL, 2002.The Nature andProperties of soils.13th Ed. New
York: McMillian Publishing Co., Inc. Pp. 120, 521, 545-548.
BRADY, N. C. and R. R. WEIL, 2008.The Nature andProperties of soils.14th Ed. New
York: McMillian Publishing Co., Inc. P. 969.
CABADING F.S. 2010.Nitrogen mineralization in organic carrot production.BS.Thesis.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad, Benguet.Pp.22, 29.
CHAPMAN, J.P. 1976. Crop Production.Principles andPratices. San Francisco: W. H.
Freeman Co. Pp. 245-356.
COX, J.F. and L.E. JACKSON. 1960. Crop Improvement and Soil Conservation Second
Edition. John Wiley and Sons. Inc., New York, London.Pp. 21-87.
DE LA CRUZ, R.T. 2004.Growing vegetable organically. BAR. Research and
Development Digest.Bureau of Agricultural Research Department of Agriculture.
Pp.1,2,9
DONAHUE, R.L. et al. 1971. Soils.Third Edition. Practice Hall Inc. New Jersey, P. 236.
25
DURANTE, B.C. 1982. Effects of different rates of wild sunflower on the growth and
yield of inoculated garden pea.BS.Thesis.Benguet State University, La Trinidad
Benguet.P.
1,4.
HAUSENBUILLER, R.L. 1978. Soil science, principles and practices.Second ed. Wm.
C. Brown Company Publisher.P. 144.
JONES, U.S. 1982. Fertilizers and Soil Fertility. Reston, Virginia. Reston Publishing
Company. Pp. 3-22.
KOSHINO, S.O. 1990. The Use of Organic and Chemical Fertilizers in Japan.Food and
Fertilizer Technology Center. Bul. No. 83: Pp. 13 & 15.
LACAY, N. B. 2008. Organic fertilizer application on seed tuber production of potato
(Solanumtuberosum) variety Igorota (PO3). BS Thesis. Benguet State University,
La Trinidad Benguet. P.7
LIPAWEN, M.Y. 2009 Rates of potassium and organic fertilization on the yield and
quality of carrots (Daucuscarota) CV. New Kuroda. Pp. 7-109.
PANDOSEN, M.D. 1986.Potential of wild sunflower asorganic fertilizer. MSThesis.
Benguet State University, La Trinidad Benguet.Pp.41, 50, 55, 135,149 and 175.
PCARRD, 1982.The Philippine Recommends for Fertilizer Usage. Technical Bulletin
Series No. 52. Los Baños, Laguna. Pp. 63-71.
PCARRD, 1983.ThePhilippine Recommends forFertility Management. Technical
Bulletin Series No.36. Los Baños, Laguna.Pp.1 & 2.
SINGH, D. 2001 Tropical Vermiculture. Retrieved on 02 March 2010 from
http://www.search.com!organic%20gardenc.htm.
TOLEDO, L.R. 1982. Growth and yield response of white potato to different kinds of
organicmatter undergreen houseconditions.BS.Thesis.Benguet State
University. La Trinidad Benguet.p.11.
WOLTERS V. andM. SCHAEFER (1994) Effects of acid deposition on soil organisms
and decomposition processes. In: Godbold DL, Huttermann (eds) Effects on
Acid rain on forest processes. Wiley, New York, Pp. 83-128.
26
APPENDICES
Appendix Table 1.Soil pH
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
T1
5.50 5.46 5.48 16.44 5.48
T2 5.55
5.57
5.54
16.66
5.55
T3
5.79 5.79 5.77 17.35 5.78
T4 5.85
5.72
5.78
17.35
5.78
T5 5.96
5.85
5.92
17.73
5.91
T6 5.21
5.18
5.16
15.55
5.18
T7 5.86
5.81
5.84
17.51
5.84
T8 5.85
5.87
5.89
17.61
5.87
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 45.57 45.25 45.38 136.20 5.68
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
Block
2
0.0065
0.0032
Treatment
7
1.3123
0.1875
200.99**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
0.0131
0.0009
TOTAL 23
1.3318
** = highly significant CV= 0.54%
27
Appendix Table 2.Organic matter content of the soil (%)
REPLICATIONS
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.96 0.90 0.96 2.82 0.94
T2 1.19
1.86
1.84
4.89
1.63
T3
1.03 1.23 0.85 3.11 1.04
T4 0.78
1.25
1.16
3.19
1.06
T5 0.90
0.96
0.99
2.85
0.95
T6 1.30
2.76
2.08
6.14
2.05
T7 2.33
1.10
1.86
5.29
1.76
T8 1.48
1.08
1.39
3.95
1.32
TOTAL 9.97
10.06
11.13
32.24
1.34
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
Block
2
0.1035
0.5177
Treatment
7
3.8004
0.5229
3.33**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
2.2827
0.1630
TOTAL 23
6.187
**= highly significant CV= 30.16%
28
Appendix Table 3.Total nitrogen content of the soil (%)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
T1
0.05 0.05 0.05 0.15 0.05
T2 0.06
0.09
0.06
0.24
0.08
T3
0.05 0.06 0.05 0.15 0.05
T4 0.04
0.06
0.04
0.16
0.05
T5 0.05
0.05
0.05
0.15
0.09
T6 0.07
0.14
0.07
0.31
0.10
T7 0.12
0.06
0.12
0.27
0.09
T8 0.07
0.05
0.07
0.19
0.06
TOTAL 0.46 0.56 0.55 1.57 0.07
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
0.00017
0.00008
Treatment
7
0.00925
0.00123
3.41*
2.77 4.28
Error 14
0.00542
0.00038
TOTAL 23
0.01484
*= significant CV= 29.16%
29
Appendix Table 4.Available phosphorus content of the soil (ppm)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
T1
18.15 20.41 15.54 54.10 18.03
T2 31.19
31.58
29.98
92.75
30.92
T3
27.52 25.86 19.88 86.93 28.98
T4 27.69
28.47
33.55
89.71
29.90
T5 25.81
24.75
19.46
70.02
23.34
T6 26.47
27.97
26.52
80.96
26.99
T7 28.31
24.96
27.91
80.59
26.86
T8 28.30
27.37
26.15
81.82
27.27
TOTAL 213.44 211.37 286.11 636.88 26.54
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
Block
2
15.2647
7.6323
Treatment
7
348.5020
49.7860
8.28**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
84.1683
6.0120
TOTAL 23
447.93
** = highly significant CV= 9.43%
30
Appendix Table 5.Bulk density of soil (g/cm3)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
T1
1.27 1.25 1.29 3.81 1.27
T2 1.18
1.15
1.17
3.50
1.17
T3
1.10 1.08 1.11 3.29 1.10
T4 1.12
1.07
1.06
3.25
1.08
T5 1.04
1.02
1.05
3.11
1.04
T6 1.09
1.08
1.11
3.28
1.09
T7 1.06
1.05
1.09
3.20
1.07
T8 1.04
1.08
1.10
3.22
1.07
TOTAL 8.9 8.78 8.98 26.66 1.11
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
Block
2
0.0025
0.0013
Treatment
7
1.1157
0.0165
46.91**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
0.00493
0.0004
TOTAL 23
0.12317
**= highly significant CV= 1.69%
31
Appendix Table 6.Weight of large size tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
2.15 1.90 2.35 6.40 2.13
T2 3.70
4.90
4.55
13.15
4.38
T3
4.15 3.45 3.30 10.90 3.63
T4 3.95
3.75
3.50
11.20
3.73
T5 3.10
2.90
2.75
8.75
2.92
T6 4.75
4.30
4.50
13.55
4.52
T7 4.15
3.80
4.25
12.20
4.07
T8 3.95
4.10
4.20
12.25
4.08
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 29.9 29.1 29.4 88.4 3.68
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Block
2
0.0408
0.0204
Treatment
7
13.4600
1.9229
16.39**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
1.6425
0.1173
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 23
13.5008
**= highly significant CV = 9.30%
32
Appendix Table 7.Weight of medium size tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
3.10 2.20 2.90 8.20 2.73
T2 6.30
5.95
6.10
18.35
6.12
T3
5.55 5.80 5.70 17.45 5.82
T4 5.70
5.35
6.50
17.55
5.85
T5 4.20
4.35
5.75
14.30
4.77
T6 5.90
4.75
6.15
16.80
5.60
T7 5.60
5.90
5.10
16.60
5.53
T8 5.70
5.50
5.75
16.95
5.65
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 42.05 39.8 38.2 126.2 5.26
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Block
2
1.0789
0.53947
Treatment
7
24.6850
3.52642
15.95**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
3.0943
0.22102
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 23
28.86
**= highly significant CV = 8.97%
33
Appendix Table 8.Weight of small size tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
1.15 1.10 1.20 2.45 1.15
T2 1.90
1.75
2.10
5.75
1.92
T3
1.70 1.60 1.45 4.75 1.58
T4 2.10
1.40
1.65
5.15
1.72
T5 1.85
1.25
1.20
4.30
1.43
T6 1.30
1.30
1.15
3.75
1.25
T7 2.20
2.30
1.95
6.45
2.15
T8 1.95
1.85
1.75
5.55
1.85
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 14.15 12.55 12.45 32.7 1.63
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Block
2
0.2275
0.1136
Treatment
7
2.4724
0.3532
10.21**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
0.4842
0.4842
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 23
**= highly significant CV = 4.91%
34
Appendix Table 9.Weight of marketable tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
6.40 5.20 6.45 18.05 6.02
T2 11.90
12.60
12.75
37.25
12.42
T3
11.40 10.85 10.45 32.70 10.90
T4 11.75
10.50
11.65
33.90
11.30
T5 9.15
8.50
9.70
27.35
9.12
T6 11.95
10.35
11.80
34.10
11.37
T7 11.95
12.00
11.30
35.25
11.15
T8 11.60
11.45
11.70
34.75
11.58
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 86.10 81.45 85.50 253.35 10.56
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Block
2
1.6931
0.8465
Treatment
7
89.8482
12.835
47.79**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
3.7602
0.2686
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 23
95.30
** = highly significantCV = 4.91%
35
Appendix Table 10.Weight of non- marketable tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
0.40 0.50 0.50 1.40 0.13
T2 0.60
0.70
0.60
1.90
0.63
T3
0.50 0.35 0.25 1.10 0.37
T4 0.20
0.15
0.10
0.45
0.15
T5 0.65
0.55
0.45
1.65
0.55
T6 0.60
0.55
0.45
1.60
0.53
T7 0.45
0.35
0.35
1.15
0.38
T8 0.40
0.30
0.45
1.15
0.38
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 3.80 3.45 3.15 10.40 0.43
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE OF
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
VARIATION
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
FREEDOM
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Block
2
0.0265
0.0132
Treatment
7
0.4633
0.0662
12.60**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
0.0735
0.0053
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 23
** = highly significant CV = 16.73%
36
Appendix Table 11.Total yield of potato tubers (kg/5m2)
REPLICATION
TREATMENT I
II
III TOTAL
MEAN
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
T1
6.80 5.70 6.95 19.45 6.48
T2 12.50
13.30
13.35
39.15
13.05
T3
11.90 11.20 10.70 33.80 11.27
T4 11.95
10.65
11.75
34.35
11.45
T5 9.80
9.05
10.15
29.00
9.67
T6 12.55
10.90
12.25
35.70
11.90
T7 12.40
12.35
11.65
36.40
12.13
T8 12.00
11.75
12.15
35.90
11.97
________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
TOTAL 89.90 84.90 88.95 263.75 10.99
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
SOURCE
DEGREES
SUM OF
MEAN OF COMPUTED TABULATED F
OF
OF
SQUARES
SQUARES
F
0.05 0.01
VARIATION FREEDOM
Block
2
1.7627
0.2815
Treatment
7
89.0466
12.7209
45.19**
2.77 4.28
Error 14
3.9406
0.2815
TOTAL 23
94.75
** = highly significant CV = 4.83%
37
Appendix Table 12.Return On Cash Expenses
TREATMENT (PhP)
PARTICULAR
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8
Production
cost:
Potato
tubers 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Fertilizers:
Chicken dung
0
75
0
0
0
37.5
0
0
Vermicompost 0 0 120 0 0 0 60 0
Growerscompost 0 0 0 75 0 0 0
37.5
Wild sunflower
0
0
0
0
12.5
12.5
12.5
12.5
Grub
hoe
3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12 3.12
Labor:
Tractor
22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5 22.5
Land
preparation 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06
Fertilizer -
14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06 14.06
application
Planting
18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75 18.75
Watering
35.17 35.17 35.17 35.17 35.17 35.17 35.17 35.17
Hilling
–
up
23.44 23.44 23.44 23.44 23.44 23.44 23.44 23.44
Weeding
4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69 4.69
Harvesting
112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5 112.5
TOTAL EXPENSES
268.29 343.29
388.29 343.29
280.79 318.29 353.29 318.29
Gross income:
Small (17.00/kg)
58.65
97.92
80.58
87.72
279.75
63.75
109.65
94.35
Medium (20.00/kg) 163.80
367.2
340.8
351
286.2
336
331.8
339
Large (25.00/kg)
159.75
328.5
272.25 279.75
219
339
305.25
306
TOTALINCOME382.2793.62 693.63 718.47 578.13 738.75 746.7 739.35
Net income
113.91 450.33 95.34 375.18 297.34 420.46 393.41 421.06
ROCE% 42.46
131.18
78.64
109.29 105.89 132.09
111.4 132.29
Rank
8
3
7
5
6
2
4
1
38
Document Outline
- Organic FertilizerApplication for the Optimum Production of Potato (Solanumtuberosum) var. Raniag
- BIBLIOGRAPHY
- TABLE OF CONTENTS
- INTRODUCTION
- REVIEW OF LITERATURE
- MATERIALS AND METHODS
- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
- SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
- LITERATURE CITED
- APPENDICES