Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Growth and yield performance of bush sitao to the different levels of chicken dung

18,604 views

Published on

Published in: Education
  • Follow the link, new dating source: ♥♥♥ http://bit.ly/2Q98JRS ♥♥♥
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Sex in your area is here: ❶❶❶ http://bit.ly/2Q98JRS ❶❶❶
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • We called it "operation mind control" - as we discovered a simple mind game that makes a girl become obsessed with you. (Aand it works even if you're not her type or she's already dating someone else) Here's how we figured it out... ●●● http://t.cn/AiurDrZp
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Is it possible to improve your memory? How can I improve my memory recall? more info... ♣♣♣ https://bit.ly/2GEWG9T
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • ➤➤ 3 Reasons Why You Shouldn�t take Pills for ED (important) ♣♣♣ https://tinyurl.com/rockhardxxx
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Growth and yield performance of bush sitao to the different levels of chicken dung

  1. 1. CHAPTER I INTODUCTION The Philippines is predominantly an agricultural country with about 70 percent of the people living in villages. However, but greater industrial activities done in the cities has drawn them to stay in urban areas that becomes the center of population. An agricultural product that has serious implication on the vegetable supply of the country. Considering the vast area of land to be cultivated, it is clearly apparent that the Philippines could greatly increase its vegetable production to general benefit on the health of the population. This involves the improvement of many factors such as irrigation profit incentives for the growers. (http://faostat.fao.org) Bush sitao, scientifically known as Phaseolusvulgariesis one of the most popular vegetable crops planted in the country today. Though a less efficient source of protein as compared to animal sources, Bush sitao together with other legumes are recognized as significant protein supplements. It is cheap, abundant and easy to grow but people have several benefit from this vegetable. (http://www.nevegetable.org/). Bush sitao has several benefits to health; this crop is nutritious and can reduce the occurrence of Beri-beri and though less efficient source of protein as compare to animal source. Bush sitao and other legumes are recognized as significant protein supplement. Since legumes are soil improving-crops, many believe that the application of fertilizer may not be very beneficial. However, it could be denied that beans are found to perform better at good levels of fertility. Like other crops, the need for more readily available nutrients is necessary for plant growth and development. Therefore, the application of commercial fertilizer is recommended. Today, our country is experiencing economic crisis. The price of inorganic fertilizers as well as other agricultural supplies increase prices tremendously. Hence, our farmers cannot afford to provide the needed farm inputs especially for commercial
  2. 2. fertilizers.(www.ecoresearcg.com.au) With this pressing condition, supply of vegetables, particularly beans were decreasing unless something can be done to substitute the high-priced synthetic fertilizers. This problem could be remedied only if farmers change this high-priced fertilizer with readily available and cheaper organic fertilizer, which abound mostly in the farms. Organic fertilizer like chicken dung are considered to be cheap source of NPK which are essential to the growth of the beans. However, due to lack of information as to their use as fertilizer, their use in the production of Bush sitao beans are less popular to farmers. Hence, this study was conducted. Poultry manure has long been recognized as the most desirable of the organic fertilizers because of its high nitrogen content and free of any chemicals that can get into the soil. Chicken manure provides more Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium to plants than cow, steer, sheep, or horse fertilizer. Chicken manure also adds organic matter to soil, increases the water holding capacity and beneficial biota. Poultry manure helps to restore depleted soil to a healthy PH balance. The helpful bacteria and nutrients in chicken manure are enhanced with aging, so it will maintain its benefits long after months of dry storage. (http://www.organic- revision.org/feed/seed.html) Special attention should be paid, that chicken manure is considered as "hot" and must be proceeded before it is added to any garden soil. Pellets are the most comfortable way using chicken manure as organic fertilizer. Dried and granulated chicken manure brings all its benefits to soil in a period of time avoiding "burning" and over fertilizing. (http://www.urbantischer.de/journal/pedo) The quality of fertilizer directly depends on material from which it is produced. Only chicken manure from European Union certified farms is used for our organic fertilizer production. (http://scholarworks.umass.edu/theses/24)
  3. 3. Statement of the Study Generally, this study attempt to determine the growth and yield performance of Bush sitao as affected of different levels of chicken dung. Specifically, is sought to answer the following questions: 1. What level of chicken dung would give the bush sitao plant the highest plant height 30 and 45 DAP? 2. What level of chicken dung would give the bush sitao plant the highest number of pods per plot? 3. What level of chicken dung would give the bush sitao plant the heaviest weight of pods per plot. Objectives of the Study This study was conducted with the following objectives: 1. To find out the effects of the different levels of chicken dung on the growth of bush sitao in terms of: a. Plant height every 30 and 45 DAP 2. To evaluate the effect of different levels of chicken dung in terms of: a. Number of pods per plot b. Weight of pods per plot
  4. 4. Scope and Delimitation of the Study This study is limited to the growth and yield performance of bush sitao applied with different levels different levels of chicken dung. It has four treatments replicated three times in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD). The treatment were as follows: Treatment A- Control, Treatment B- 10 tons per hectare or 1 kg/plot, Treatment C- 15 tons per hectare or 1.5kg/plot, Treatment D- 20 tons per hectare or 2 kg/plot. tons per hectare. Growth was limited to height of bush sitao 30 and 45 DAP from planting to flowering. Yield was limited to the number of pods per plot and weight per plot. Time and Place of the Study The study was conducted from December to February 2013 at the experimental area of Capiz State University, Pontevedra, Capiz. Definition of Terms The following terms are operationally defined in understanding the study. Chicken dung refers to the feces of chicken thoroughly dried and used as fertilizer. Growth refers to the germination ability and increase in the height of the bush sitao plants from planting to maturity. Height refers to the bush sitao plant measured vertically from the base to the tallest leaf. Hillis a plant or group of plants planted at specific distance in a particular space or location. Yield refers to the produce obtained from the harvested crops.
  5. 5. Performance is the manner by which bush sitao react to the different levels of chicken dung in terms of growth and yield.
  6. 6. CHAPTER II REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE Chicken manure fertilizer is very high in nitrogen and also contains a good amount of potassium and phosphorus. The high nitrogen and balanced nutrients is the reason that chicken manure compost is the best kind of manure to use. (http://www.fao.org/, p2.) But, the high nitrogen in the chicken manure is dangerous to plants if the manure has not been properly composted. Raw chicken manure fertilizer can burn and even kill plants if used. Composting chicken manure mellows the nitrogen and makes the manure suitable for the garden. It takes about 6 – 9 months, on average, for chicken manure compost to be done properly. The exact amount of time it takes for composting chicken manure depends on the conditions under which it is composed. If you are uncertain how well your chicken manure has been composted, you can wait up to 12 months to use your chicken manure compost vegetables to grow in. You will find that your vegetables will grow bigger and healthier as a result of using chicken manure fertilizer. Delpha (2008) plant applied with chicken dung produce the tallest plant 30 days after planting with a mean of 58.50cm.The shortest are plant in Treatment A(no application of organic fertilizer) with a mean of 51.01cm at 40 days after planting, the tallest plants are obtained from plants in Treatment A with 119.67cm. Maypa (2004) reported that application of Natural Farming System (NFS) concoction resulted to better growth and higher yield of vegetable crops were 52.35% for Cauli Flower, 60.4% for Cabbage, 58.60% for Ampalaya, 73% for Eggplant and 40% for Snap Beans. Mapusua, (2008) organic agriculture is also being investigated by universities and other competent agencies in the region. Organic aquaculture, sustainable forestry; sustainable fisheries
  7. 7. and sustainable tourism are generating interest by governments throughout the region, and there is full support from local stakeholders involved to collaborate in supporting regional development. However, there has been VERY little research done in the Pacific islands on organics, and even less on vegetables. Micheloni and Roviglioni,( 2007) but for emancipation to be realized active organic breeding, including the enhancement of land races, should be done coupled with systematic organic seed production to be able to obtain high quality seeds at competitive prices. Neeson,(2005) even Australia, which has the biggest organic production area in the World, is still into organic seed production using conventional varieties whether OPV or hybrids or heirloom varieties. Willer and Kilcher,(2009) organic agriculture, particularly organic vegetable production in the broad sense have had a long history in the Asia-Pacific region. However as currently defined and based on standards it is rather recent. World organic area stands at more than 31 million hectares (2006) and Asia accounts for only 13%. Most of the world’s organic land is in Australia / Oceania (39 %), followed by Europe (21 %) and Latin America (20 %). North America contributed 4 % and Africa ,3 %. (Willer and Kilcher, 2009) The total organic area in Asia is nearly 3.1 million hectares, managed by almost 130’000 farms. This constitutes ten percent of the world’s organic agricultural land. The leading countries in Asia-Pacific are China (2.3 million hectares), India (528’171 hectares) and Indonesia (41’431 hectares).
  8. 8. LITERATURE CITED DELPHA 2006.Plant Applied with Chicken Dung. Int. J. Agri. Biol., Vol. 3, No. 4. MAPUSUA, K. 2008.Organic Agriculture in the Pacific. In: IFOAM/FiBL (2008): The World of Organic Agriculture. Statistics and Emerging Trends 2008.IFOAM, Bonn &FiBL, Frick MAYPA , 2004 Growth and Yield Performance of Tomato as Affected by the Different Organic Fertilizer. MICHELONI C., ROVIGLIONI R. 2007.Organic farming dependency on conventional seeds and propagation materials.Organic Revisions. http://www.organic revision.org/feed/seed.html NEESON, R. 2005. Meeting the Regulation: Organic Seed &Seedling Production in Australia.OrganicNews.2(8). July/August 2005. WILLER, HELGA AND KILCHER, LUKAS, EDS. (2009)The World of Organic Agriculture - Statistics and Emerging Trends 2009. IFOAM, Bonn; FiBL, Frick; ITC, Genf.vanEeuwijk, F.,M. Malosetti, X. Yin, P. C. Struik and P. Stam. 2004. Modelling differential phenotypic expression. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress Brisbane, Australia, 26 Sep – 1 Oct 2004.
  9. 9. CHAPTER III RESEARCH METHODOLOGY Materials An area of 66.5 square meters, bush sitao seeds, weighing scale, strings, bamboo sticks, chicken dung and trowel was use in this study. The Experimental Design Site An experiment having four treatments arranged in a randomized complete block design(RCBD) is used in this study. It was conducted in an area of 66.5 square meter at the experimental area at Capiz State University, Pontevedra, Capiz. Land Preparation and Field Layout Land preparation begins on November 2012. The area is plowed and harrow. Tractor is used in plowing. The prepared area was layout using a meter stick, string and pegs. The area is divided into three blocks. The three blocks is subdivided into four plots, each having a dimension of 2 meters x 2 meters. Each block and plot was separated with the pathway measuring 0.5 meters in between. Border rows with a width of 0.5 meters was also provided. Assignment of Treatment and Experimental.Assignment of Treatment and Experimental Layout. An experimental having four treatment in a randomized complete block design is layout in the well-prepared area. Randomization is done by assigning the different
  10. 10. treatments in each replication. This was accomplished by using simple random sampling through drawing of lots. Figure 1 shows the assignment of the different treatments in each replication. Furrowing Furrowing is set 50 cm in between rows and oriented in an east-west direction. The depth of furrows was 15 to 20 cm. the furrows is made with the use of hoe with plastic string as a guide to make the furrows straight. Basal Application of Chicken Dung Before planting, chicken dung was applied basally. Application of chicken dung will be made according to treatments. The different treatments were: Treatment A- Control, Treatment B- 10 tons per hectare or 1 kg/plot, Treatment C- 15 tons per hectare or 1.5 kg/plot, Treatment D- 20 tons per hectare or 2 kg/plot. The different levels of chicken dung was applied at full dose in previously marked hills in the furrows. The chicken dung was taken then covered with fine soil with an appropriate thickness of 5 to 10 cm. Planting Planting bush sitao seeds was done after applying the different levels of chicken dung. Planting was done by dropping three seeds per hill. Seeds was be covered with fine soil of about 3 to 5 cm. The planting distance was 30 cm between hills and 50 cm between rows. Each plot have four rows with 4 hills per row.
  11. 11. Block I Block II Block III Figure 1. Layout of the experimental in the Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) Legend: Treatment A- Control Treatment B- 10 tons/ha or 1 kg/plot Treatment C- 15 tons/ha or 1.5 kg/plot Treatment D- 20 tons/ha or 2 kg/plot 𝐷𝐵𝐶 𝐶𝐴𝐴 𝐵𝐴𝐶 𝐷2 m 2 m 9.5 m 7 m 0.5 m 𝐷𝐵 0.5 m
  12. 12. Weeding and Cultivation The weed was control by hoeing as they emerge. After weeding, cultivation followed. Cultivation was done by turning over the soil towards the base of the plants to provide better soil aeration and anchorage of the plants. Final cultivation and hilling up was done 30 days after planting. Pest Prevention and Control Cleaning the surroundings and spraying insecticide in the experimental area is done to prevent insect pest and infections. Harvesting Harvesting of bush sitaopods start approximately 56-60 DAP when pods started to fade from green to yellowish-brown. Harvestable pods waspicking into three priming. Harvesting wasdone early in the morning and late in the afternoon. Data Gathering 1. Growth The growth of plants was determine in terms of height in 30 and 45 DAP. The data on Height was collected by measuring the height of the ten sample hills from the ground level to the tip of the tallest leaf using a meter stick.
  13. 13. Average height of bush sitao= sum ofheight of plants in 10 representative sample hills 10 2. Yield a) Number of fruits per plant. This was taken by adding the total number of pods per plant from 5 sample plants and divide by the total number of sample plants. b) Weight of pods/plant. The average weight of pods/plant were done by weighing the entire number of pods from 10 representative sample plants divide the total number of sample plants. The formula for determining the average weight of pods is here under. Average weight of pods (g/plant) = Sum of weight of 10 sample number of samples a) Weight of pods/plot. The average weight of pods/plot were done by weighing the entire number of pods from 10 representative sample plants divide the total number of sample times the total population. Average weight of pods(g/plot)= sumof weight of 10 samples number of samples × total population Analysis of Data All data collected was gathered, recorded, tabulate and analyze statistically following the ANOVA for Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD).
  14. 14. CHAPTER 4 RESULT AND DISCUSSION This chapter includes the presentation of the data gathered and their analysis and interpretation. It discusses the various observations on the growth and yield performance of bush sitao applied with different levels of chicken dung. Plant Growth Plant Height 30 and 45 DAP The growth of bush sitao was determined on the following parameter: plant height 30 and 45 DAP. Table 1 show the height of bush sitao 30 days after planting obtained the tallest plant height a mean of 28.47. This was followed by those plants in Control(no fertilizer applied), 1.5 kg/plot of chicken dung with a mean of 27.13 and 26.84. The lowest plant height is fertilized with 2 kg/plot of chicken dung with average height with a mean of 23.63, respectively. The analysis of variance revealed no significant difference among the four treatments applied (Appendix Table 1a). Table 1.The growth of bush sitao from planting to 45 DAP applied different levels of chicken dung. TREATMENTS MEANS Height 30 DAP Height 45 DAP Treatment A- Control 27.13 47.29 Treatment B- 1kg/plot 28.47 48.81 Treatment C-1.5 kg/plot 26.84 45.75 Treatment D-2 kg/plot 23.63 49.79
  15. 15. Table 1.The growth of bush sitao 30 and45 DAP applied different levels of chicken dung. The plant height 45 DAP, indicates that the plants fertilized with 2kg/plot of chicken dung obtained the tallest plant with a mean of 49.79. This was followed by those plants fertilized with 1 kg/plot of chicken dung, Control (no fertilizer applied) and 1.5 kg/plot of chicken dung with a mean of 48.81, 47.29 and 45.81, respectively. Plant Yield Number of pods/plot The data on plant yield were determined by the data on number of pods/plot (Table 2). Plants obtained the highest number of pods/hill were with Control (no fertilizer applied) with a mean of 10.33 , followed by plants fertilized by plants with 1.5 kg/plot of chicken dung and 1 kg/plot of chicken dung with a mean of 9.53 and 9.43. The lowest number of pods was obtained from 2 kg/plot of chicken dung with a mean of 9.8. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 A B C D 27.13 28.47 26.84 23.63 47.29 48.81 45.75 49.79 30 DAP 45 DAP
  16. 16. Table 2. Average number of pods of bush sitao applied with different levels of chicken dung. Treatment Block I II III Treatment Total Treatment Means Treatment A- Control Treatment B-1kg/plot Treatment C-1.5kg/plot Treatment D-2 kg/plot 9.4 9.7 10.3 11.8 12 9.6 9.1 8.2 9.6 9 9.2 9.4 31 28.3 28.6 29.4 10.33 9.43 9.53 9.8 Block Total: Grand Total: Grand Mean: 41.2 38.9 37.2 117.3 9.78 Table 2. Average number of pods of bush sitao applied with different levels of chicken dung. 8.8 9 9.2 9.4 9.6 9.8 10 10.2 10.4 A B C D 10.33 9.43 9.53 9.8 TREATMENT TREATMENT
  17. 17. Average Weight of pods/plant Table 3 presents the weight of pods per plant. Treatment D obtained 52.91 g/plant followed by treatment B and A with an average of 46.27 and 43.11 g/plant, respectively. And treatment C obtained the lowest yield of 42.3 g/plant. Analysis of variance showed not significant differences among treatment means in the average weight of fruits per plot applied with different level chicken dung of. Table 3.Average weight of pods per plant. Treatment Block I II III Treatment Total Treatment Means Treatment A- Control Treatment B-1kg/plot Treatment C-1.5kg/plot Treatment D-2 kg/plot 12.24 15.06 12.04 21.59 15.43 17.6 14.92 17.14 15.44 13.61 15.34 14.18 43.11 46.27 42.3 52.91 14.37 15.42 14.1 17.64 Block Total: Grand Total: Grand Mean: 60.93 65.09 58.57 184.59 15.38
  18. 18. Table 3.Average weight of pods per plant. Average Weight of pods/plot Table 4 presents the weight of pods per plot. Treatment D obtained 52.91 g/plot followed by treatment B and A with an average of 46.27 and 43.11 g/plot, respectively. And treatment C obtained the lowest yield of 42.3 g/plot. Analysis of variance showed not significant differences among treatment means in the average weight of fruits per plot applied with different levels of chicken dung. 0 5 10 15 20 A B C D 14.37 15.42 14.1 17.64 TREATMENTS TREATMENTS
  19. 19. Table 4.Average weight of pods per plot. Treatment Block I II III Treatment Total Treatment Means Treatment A- Control Treatment B-1kg/plot Treatment C-1.5kg/plot Treatment D-2 kg/plot 195.84 240.96 192.64 345.44 246.88 282.56 238.72 274.24 247.04 217.76 245.44 26.88 689.76 741.28 767.8 846.66 229.92 247.09 225.6 283.19 Block Total: Grand Total: Grand Mean: 974.88 1042.4 937.12 2954.4 246.45 Table 4.Average weight of pods per plot.
  20. 20. CHAPTER V SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND DESCUSSION Summary This study was conducted at the experimental area of Capiz State University (CapSU) Bailan, Pontevedra, Capiz, from December 18 to February 25 2013 to determine the growth and Yield performance of bush sitao applied with different levels of chicken dung. The different treatments used in the study were Treatment A: Control (no chicken dung applied), Treatment B: 1 kg/plot of chicken dung, Treatment C: 1.5 kg/plot of chicken dung and Treatment D: 2 kg/plots of chicken dung. The different levels of chicken dung were applied basally. Each treatment was replicated three times in a randomized complete block design (RCBD). Weeds were removed 15 DAP and plant were cultivated to provide better aeration and anchorage. Spraying insecticides minimized aphids. Matured pods were harvested early in the morning and late in the afternoon by cutting using a scissor. The result revealed that the plants fertilized with 1 kg/plot of chicken dung produced the tallest plants 30 DAP with a mean of 28.47 cm. the shortest were plants fertilized with 2
  21. 21. kg/plot with a mean of 23.63 cm. At 45 DAP, the tallest plants were obtained from plants fertilized with 2 kg/plot of chicken dung with a mean of 49.79 cm while the shortest were obtained from plants fertilized with 1.5 kg/plot of chicken dung with a mean of 45.75 cm. The analysis of variance showed that there were no significant differences in height among treatments. As to weight of pods/plot, plants fertilized with 2 kg/plot of chicken dung obtained the heaviest weight with a mean of 17.64 grams, followed by plants fertilized with 1 kg/plot of chicken dung and Control(no fertilizer applied) with a mean of 15.42 and 14.37 grams/plot. The lightest weight was obtained by plants fertilized with 1.5 kg/plot of chicken dung with a mean of 14.1 grams/plot.The analysis of variance showed that the weight of pods/plot produced b bush sitao was not significantly affected by the different levels of chicken dung used in the study. Conclusion Based on the findings of the study, the following conclusions were drawn. 1. Growth parameter of bush sitao fertilized with 2 kg/plot of chicken dung gave the tallest height in cm. 2. Yield parameter in terms of weight in bush sitao with Treatment D obtained the highest yield in 215.9 g/plot and also and also gave the highest number of pods per plot. Recommendations Based on the results of the study: 1. Any of the three organic fertilizers can be used as fertilizers for tomato.
  22. 22. 2. Similar studies should be conducted using the organic fertilizer for more information and results. 3. A study may also be conducting in other location using the experimental crops. Table 1. Average height of bush sitao30 DAP Treatment Block I II III Treatment Total Treatment Means Treatment A- Control Treatment B-1kg/plot Treatment C-1.5kg/plot Treatment D-2 kg/plot 25.26 29.62 28.68 29.57 25.57 28.17 23.92 19.2 30.55 27.63 27.91 22.11 81.38 85.42 80.51 70.88 27. 13 28.47 26.84 23.63 Block Total: Grand Total: Grand Mean: 113.13 96.86 108.2 318.19 26.52 Appendix Table 1a. Analysis of Variance of Average height of bush sitao 30 DAP SV SS Df MS Comp F Tab F 5% 1% Treatment 37.97 3 12.66 1.28 4.76 9.78 Block 34.80 2 17.4 1.89 5.14 10.92
  23. 23. Error means 55.22 6 9.20 Total: 127.99 11 CV=28.02% ns=not significant Table 2. Average height of bush sitao 45 DAP Treatment Block I II III Treatment Total Treatment Means Treatment A- Control Treatment B-1kg/plot Treatment C-1.5kg/plot Treatment D-2 kg/plot 45.7 50.62 43.73 49.67 45.57 48.17 45.59 47.67 50.59 47.63 47.49 52.04 141.86 146.42 137.26 149.38 47.29 48.81 45.85 49.79 Block Total: Grand Total: Grand Mean: 189.72 45.57 198.2 574.92 47.91 Appendix Table 1b. Analysis of Variance of Average height of bush sitao45 DAP SV df SS MS Comp F Tab F 5% 1% Treatment 3 28.47 9.49 2.48 4.76 9.78 Block 2 17.06 8.53 2.23 5.14 10.92
  24. 24. Error means 6 22.93 3.82 Total: 11 68.96 CV=11.23% ns=not significant Table 3.Average number of pods per plot. Treatment Block I II III Treatment Total Treatment Means Treatment A- Control Treatment B-1kg/plot Treatment C-1.5kg/plot Treatment D-2 kg/plot 9.4 9.7 10.3 11.8 12 9.6 9.1 8.2 9.6 9 9.2 9.4 31 28.3 28.6 29.4 10.33 9.43 9.53 9.8 Block Total: Grand Total: Grand Mean: 41.2 38.9 37.2 117.3 9.78 Appendix Table 2a. Analysis of Variance of Average number of bush sitao per plot. SV df SS MS Comp F Tab F 5% 1%
  25. 25. Treatment 3 1.46 0.49 0.29 4.76 9.78 Block 2 2.01 1.01 0.60 5.14 10.92 Error means 6 10.07 1.68 Total: 11 13.54 CV= 20.63% ns=not significant Table 4.Average weight of pods per plant. Treatment Block I II III Treatment Total Treatment Means Treatment A- Control Treatment B-1kg/plot Treatment C-1.5kg/plot Treatment D-2 kg/plot 12.24 15.06 12.04 21.59 15.43 17.6 14.92 17.14 15.44 13.61 15.34 14.18 43.11 46.27 42.3 52.91 14.37 15.42 14.1 17.64 Block Total: Grand Total: Grand Mean: 60.93 65.09 58.57 184.59 15.38
  26. 26. Appendix Table 2b. Analysis of Variance of Average weight of pods per plant. SV df SS MS Comp F Tab F 5% 1% Treatment 3 23.35 7.78 1.07 4.76 9.78 Block 2 5.44 2.72 0.37 5.14 10.92 Error means 6 43.71 7.26 Total: 11 72.5 CV= 2.86% ns=not significant Table 5.Average weight of pods per plot. Treatment Block I II III Treatment Total Treatment Means Treatment A- Control Treatment B-1kg/plot Treatment C-1.5kg/plot Treatment D-2 kg/plot 195.84 240.96 192.64 345.44 246.88 282.56 238.72 274.24 247.04 217.76 245.44 26.88 689.76 741.28 767.8 846.66 229.92 247.09 225.6 283.19 Block Total: Grand Total: Grand Mean: 974.88 1042.4 937.12 2954.4 246.45
  27. 27. Appendix Table 3a. Analysis of Variance of Average weight of pods per plant. SV df SS MS Comp F Tab F 5% 1% Treatment 3 5955.71 1985.24 1.06 4.76 9.78 Block 2 1422.24 711.12 0.28 5.14 10.92 Error means 6 11250.97 1875.16 Total: 11 18628.95 CV=17.57% ns=not significant APPENDICES

×