BIO-N FERTILIZER APPLICATION ON THE GROWTH AND YIELD
OF SWEET CORN (Zea mays var. rogusa)
LIEZL JANE C. SEGURA
KLEO MARLO R. SIALONGO
A SPECIAL PROJECT PRESENTED TO THE FACULTY OF CROP SCIENCE UNIT
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, XAVIER UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT
FOR THE COURSE AGRI 124
MARCH 2005
INTRODUCTION
Nitrogen is one of the main nutrients required by plants. Although the atmosphere
is composed of 78% nitrogen, plants cannot readily utilize the gas as a nutrient. It has to
be converted into a form that can be used by the plants. Traditionally, farmers apply
chemical nitrogen like urea and diammonium phosphate to their crops. But sometimes,
chemical fertilizers can do more harm than good. Synthetic fertilizers can make the soil
acidic, degrading its fertility. In the long run, they pollute the soil, air and water table.
Aside from these, most of the chemical fertilizers used in our country, particularly urea,
are imported. With the current peso-dollar exchange and the rising prices of petroleum
products, the prices of synthetic fertilizers are far from being affordable for the common
farmer.
Bio-N is a new supplement to corn. It is a microbial-based fertilizer for corn;
made from a microorganism that has the ability to fix N from the air making it available
for plant growth. Bio-N is a bio-fertilizer technology that can drastically reduce N-
fertilizer input and enhance the yield of sweet corn. The active organisms (bacteria) in
Bio-N were isolated from the roots of talahib (Saccharum spontaneum), a common weed
in our fields. These bacteria can convert the nitrogen (N) gas from the air into ammonia
and fix at an equivalent rate of 40 kg of N per hectare or higher. It complements the use
of chemical fertilizer by 30-50%, an apparent big savings for the farmers. Other results
show that Bio-N inoculation, in the presence of ½ the recommended inorganic fertilizer,
could parallel the yield of fully fertilized corn.
Sweet corn is a member of the Graminae or Grass family. It is similar to field corn in
physical and morphological structure. It differs from the latter only by a recessive gene su
(sugary) which replaces the gene Su (starchy) of field corn. This recessive gene prevents
the conversion of some sugar into starch. Sweet corn (Zea Mays var. rugosa) is believed
to be a mutation of field or dent corn. It was grown by the Indians and first collected and
described by settlers in about 1780. By 1900, over 63 cultivars had been described.
Today, over 2000 cultivars and hybrids are available
Statement of the problem
The main objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of Bio-N fertilizer on sweet
corn. Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:
What is the effect of Bio-N fertilizer on the growth and yield of sweet corn?
How does the performance of Bio-N fertilizer differ with the complete fertilizer in terms
of growth, yield and cost?
Objective of the Study
The study will be conducted in order to evaluate the effect of Bio-N fertilizer on the
growth and yield of sweet corn. Specifically, the study will be aimed to:
Assess the influence of Bio-N fertilizer on the growth and yield performance of sweet
corn
Compare the effect of bio-N with complete fertilizer in terms of growth, yield and cost.
To provide a cost and return analysis on the efficiency of using bio-N fertilizer
recommendation compared to the standard recommended practice.
Scope and delimitations
This study will be conducted under the environmental condition of Manresa farm and that
any environmental factors will be disregarded.
Definition of terms
Bio-N fertilizer—a microbial-based fertilizer for corn; made from a microorganism that
has the ability to fix N from the air making it available for plant growth.
Complete fertilizer (14-14-14)—a chemically synthesized fertilizer containing 14% N,
14% P, 14% K.
Sweet Corn—a variety of corn that contains the sweetness gene making it two times
sweeter than the field corn and is produced for human consumption as either a fresh or a
processed product.
Sweetness gene—a gene that causes the endosperm of seed that accumulate about two
times more sugar than field corn.
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Large yields and good quality are possible only if the soil contains an abundance of
readily available nutrients. Commercial fertilizers alone in some soils are insufficient to
give good results and humus or other organic materials should be supplied. The use of
soil-improving crop ahead of sweet corn is highly desirable.
A study was made on the effect of different rates of nitrogen on the growth of twelve
varieties of sweet corn. The plants were 25 cm apart in the row. All plots received 60 kg
each of Phosphoric acid and potash at planting. The nitrogen was applied in a split
application, half at planting and half four weeks later. The nitrogen rates were 0,30,60,90
and 120 kg per hectare. The results of some of this research are given below:
Table 1. Result of different rates of nitrogen on the growth of 12 varieties of sweet corn.
Characteristics Nitrogen Application HSD at
0 30 60 90 120 5% point
Plant Height at harvest(cm) 137.0 148.8 158.3 165.9 174.9 1.07
Weight of stover per plot(kg) 6.42 8.07 9.50 10.86 12.24 0.22
Ear length (cm) 11.1 12.9 14.0 15.1 15.9 1.00
Ear Circumference (cm) 11.0 12.0 12.5 13.0 13.5 0.76
Yield of green corn/plot (kg) 3.73 4.92 5.64 6.41 7.51 0.17
Tip-fill rating(scale of 1-9) 4.7 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.4 0.01
Ear length was increased by each increment of nitrogen as was plant height, weight
of stover and yield of green corn. Ear circumference was increased only by 30 kg of
nitrogen per hectare compared to none. The filling out of the ears was improved by each
increase in nitrogen. There was no significant effect of the increments of nitrogen on the
eating quality.
The nitrogen and copper concentrations in the sweet corn plant were found to
decrease with age but that of phosphorus, calcium, magnesium and manganese increased
as the plants got older. The potassium concentration increased with age until the peak of
the vegetative stage and then declined.
It was observed that the average number of rows of kernels per ear was
determined before the plants were 20 cm high under the conditions of these experiments.
Nitrogen applications of 55 or 110 kg of nitrogen per hectare at planting were effective
during early growth in giving a progressive increase in the number of rows of kernels per
ear as compared to the number of rows on ears produced with no supplemental nitrogen.
This was on a sandy soil containing an extremely low level of nitrogen. Adequate
available nitrogen is necessary during internode elongation and during fruiting as this will
increase the number of ears and their individual weight.
Besides its influence on yield the fertilizer application affects also the quality of
the ears. Tests conducted on a very fine sandy loam soil showed that shriveling of the
kernels at the tip of the ear just prior to market maturity was related to a nitrogen stress in
the plant during ear development. The ovules had been pollinated but did not fill out.
Shriveling was reduced significantly when the corn was side dressed with at the tassel
stage with ammonium sulfate, as compared to an application made when the plants were
30 cm high. This effect was especially apparent when a relatively low quantity of
nitrogen was used and when sweet corn was planted at 20 cm spacing in the row
compared to 40, 60, or 80 cm. The three wider spacing had little shrivel that did not differ
significantly between them.
Since most soils in the tropics are deficient in nitrogen, an application of 60 to 90
kilograms of nitrogen per hectare is considered desirable. A split application of nitrogen
is usually recommended during the wet season. One half is applied at planting and the
other half when the plants are in the ear initiation stage. Some soils should receive
phosphorus and potassium also depending on the level of these in soil. (Gaudiel et.al,
1960)
Two years ago (2002), Queensland-based company, Nutri-Tech Solutions P/L (NTS),
released a revolutionary microbial inoculum designed to fix nitrogen from the
atmosphere. Gimmicks come and go, and there have been some embarrassing failures
amongst competing products in recent years, but Nutri-Life Bio-N has proven a runaway
success in horticulture and broadacre. In fact, sales of the product have quadrupled in the
last six months alone. Nutri-Life Bio-N is now exported to several Asian locations and,
just recently a New Zealand distributor reported a soon-to-be completed trial where half
of a corn crop was grown with Nutri-Life Bio-N and the other half with urea. At this
point, the Bio-N crop is one meter taller and has produced two fully developed cobs per
plant, compared to a single cob on the urea plot. The amazing feature of this trial was the
fact that there was a mistake with the application rates. The trial should have involved 1
liter of Bio-N per hectare (at a cost of $33 (Inc GST) per hectare), compared to 200 kg of
urea (at a cost of around $88 (Inc GST) per hectare). Instead, there was just 200 ml of
Bio-N applied (costing just $6), vs. 200 kg of urea. This may not be a typical result and
may have been a reflection of ideal microbial conditions (due to good rainfall), but it does
highlight the potential of this biological nitrogen source.
The viticulture industry in South Australia and Victoria has embraced this natural
alternative, with repeated claims that this form of nitrogen is better suited to wine-grape
production than commercial nitrogen. Small-crop growers and orchardists have also
discovered the benefits of natural nitrogen, with many reports of quality produce and
reduced pest pressure (www. http://www.upd.edu.ph/biotech/indus/bion.htm).
In the Philippines, A Joint Venture BIO-N Project, an output of both UPLB-BIOTECH
and TLRC that agreed and worked together in order to assist the national government to
attain food security.
Both parties complement their resources together in order to accelerate the development,
production and mass commercialization of BIO-N.
The National Institute of Molecular Biology and Biotechnology (BIOTECH) of UPLB
through Dr. Mercedes U. Garcia developed BIO-N - a bio-fertilizer technology that can
drastically reduce N-fertilizer input and enhance yield of rice and corn. The active
organisms (bacteria) in BIO-N were isolated from the roots of talahib (Saccharum
spontaneum) (http://www.tlrc.gov.ph/bio_n.html).
BIO-N can be considered as a "breakthrough technology" that promises very significant
impact on the country's rice and corn farmers in terms of increasing farm productivity
and income (Garcia, 2004).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Time and Place of the Study
The study was conducted at the St. Ignatius Allotment Garden of the Peri-Urban
Vegetable Project (PuVep), Manresa Research Station, Upper Balulang, Cagayan de Oro
City. The study started on December 3, 2004 and was terminated on February 23, 2005.
Experimental Materials
The seeds were acquired from the Crop Science Unit of XU-College of Agriculture. The
Bio-N seed inoculant/fertilizer was bought from the Department of Agriculture-Regional
Soils Testing Laboratory (RSTL). The fertilizer and insecticides that were used in the
conduct of the study was provided by PuVep.
Experimental Design and Treatments
The study was laid out using Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with
four replications. The following are the treatments:
Table 2. Treatments and their Treatment Codes
Treatment Treatment Code
Treatment 1 : SOP-PuVep T1
Treatment 2: SOP + Bio-N T2
Treatment 3: Organic Fertilizer T3
Treatment 4: Organic Fertilizer +
Bio-N
T4
Cultural Practices and Management of the Area
Land Preparation
Land preparation was done by plowing the area once with a carabao-drawn plow and then
it was harrowed.
Lay-outing and Staking
In lay-outing the area, measuring tape was used in determining the area needed in this
experiment. There were four beds or replication with three treatments applied in each
bed. Each bed has a dimension of 20 m length x 1.3 m width x 0.5 m height. Each bed
was then divided into four sub-plots corresponding to the treatments in each block. Each
sub-plot has a dimension of 1.4 m width and 5 m length. Walking space between beds is
0.5 m. Therefore, the total area that will be used in this study is 114 square meters. (See
Appendix A).
Formation of Plots
After the lay-outing and staking, planting beds were formed in the area with a dimension
of 1.4 m width and 20 m in length. Each bed corresponds to a particular replication.
Sowing of Seeds
Seeds were sown directly into the soil at 2 seeds per hill with a distance of 20 cm within
rows and 70 cm between rows. A furrow was made first in each plot, after that fertilizers
were applied basally, based on the treatment. Seeds were sown at a depth of 3 cm-4 cm.
A small amount of soil was placed after the fertilizer to prevent the fertilizer burn of the
seedling. After that the seed was placed and covered with ample amount of soil.
Fertilizer Application
The fertilizer that was applied in the experimental plots was based on the
treatment. During the plating period the following treatments were followed:
T1=Standard Operating Procedure of PuVep (Table 2), T2= SOP-PuVep + Bio-N (seeds
were inoculated first), T3=Organic fertilizer (100-150 g chicken dung only), and T4=
Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N. During side-dressing, the following treatments were applied:
T1=SOP-PuVep (urea + muriate of potash), T2= SOP (urea + muriate of potash),
T3=organic fertilizer (chicken dung) and T4=organic fertilizer (chicken dung).
Table 3. PuVep Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for sweet corn
Amount of Fertilizer (grams/seedling)
Fertilization Schedule
Chicken Dung/ compost
DAP (18-46-00) Urea M. Potash
Basal Application 187.2/100 6.25 5
Side Dress (3 WAP) 5
WAP-Weeks after planting DAP-Diammonium Phosphate
Bio-N technology
In using the BIO-N technology the following procedure was applied: First, the
corn seeds were placed in a container and moistened with a small amount of water. Next,
the Bio-N fertilizer/inoculant was added. After that, the moistened seeds and the Bio-N
were mixed thoroughly until every seed is evenly coated with the Bio-N
fertilizer/inoculant. The seeds were planted immediately after inoculation since exposure
to sunlight can kill the microorganisms in the Bio-N. Exposure to sunlight should be
avoided.
Irrigation and Drainage
Immediately after planting of the seeds, the beds were watered with an ample
amount of water for the seeds to germinate. After that, watering was done daily early in
the morning. After a month, a drip irrigation was installed with the help of PuVep. The
barrels were filled with water every afternoon and then the drip irrigation system was
turned on next day.
Pest and Diseases Management
To prevent these insect pests, tolerant and treated seeds were used and
TrichoCards (Trichogramma spp.) were used as a biological control. The useof
insecticides and fungicides was the last resort used.
Harvesting and Handling
The sweet corn plants were harvested 75 days after sowing. The harvesting was
done when majority of the corn ears had silks that had dried back completely. At this
time, ears were fully developed and the kernels were still milky and soft. Harvesting was
done early in the morning when it is still cool. Harvested ears were then marketed
immediately after harvest, as sweetness of the corn gradually reduces and disappears 48
hours after harvest.
Data Gathering Procedure
Maturity
The days from sowing up to harvesting was recorded.
Plant height
A tape measure was used to measure the distance (in cm) from the base of the plant at the
soil level up to the uppermost part of the plant. Ten (10) plants were randomly chosen as
samples. Measurement in is centimeters.
Ear height
A tape measure was used to measure the distance (in cm) from the base of the plant at the
soil level to the uppermost ear-bearing node of the plant. Ten plants were randomly
chosen as samples. Measurement is in centimeters.
Pest and Disease Rating
A scale rating of 1-5 was used. The rating was a follows: 1=highly resistant,
2=moderately resistant, 3=fairly resistant, 4=moderately susceptible and 5=highly
susceptible.
Number of Plants Harvested per Treatment
The number of plants harvested per treatment were counted and recorded.
Number of Ears Harvested per Plot
The number of ears harvested per treatment was counted and recorded.
Yield per Plant
An ear/ears harvested from one plant was weighed and recorded as yield per plant. Five
(5) random plants were chosen as samples. Measurement is in grams.
Yield per Plot/Treatment
The total number of ears harvested was weighed and then recorded. Measurement is in
kilograms.
Cost and Return Analysis
A cost and return analysis was made in which the total cost of producing the
sweet corn per treatment and the return, based on prevailing market prices, were
computed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Plant Height
The Average plant height of sweet corn as influenced by Bio-N fertilizer
application is shown in Table 1.
Result showed that average plant height was not significantly affected by the different
fertilizer. Among the treatments, Organic + Bio-N with an average of 173.88cm has a
comparatively higher plant height followed by Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) of
PuVep + Bio-N with 172.35cm, SOP-PuVep (Control) with 167.13, and 140.58 cm of the
Organic Fertilizer treatment as the least compared to the rest of the treatments.
Table 4. Mean comparison using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) of the average plant height of sweet corn applied with the following treatments: T1—SOP-PuVep, T2—SOP +Bio-N, T3—Organic Fertilizer, and T4- Organic + Bio-N
Treatment Treatment Mean*
T4
T2
T1
T3
173.88a
172.35ab
167.13ab
140.58c
*Means with the same letter is not significantly different with each other
Average Yield per Plant
The Average Yield per Plant of sweet corn as influenced by Bio-N fertilizer
application is shown in Table 1.
Result showed that average yield per plant was significantly affected by the different
fertilizer at both 5% and 1% levels. Among the treatments, SOP + Bio-N with 208.75 g
has a comparatively higher yield followed by SOP-PuVep with 208.59 g, 210.13 g for
Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N and Organic Fertilizer treatment as the least with a yield of
only 191.13 g.
Table 5. Mean comparison using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) of the yield per plant of sweet corn applied with the following treatments: T1—SOP-PuVep, T2—SOP +Bio-N, T3—Organic Fertilizer, and T4- Organic + Bio-N
Treatment Treatment Mean*
T4
T2
T1
T3
210.77a
208.75ab
208.59ab
191.13c
*Means with the same letter is not significantly different with each other
Yield per Plot
The Average Yield per Plot of sweet corn as influenced by Bio-N fertilizer
application is shown in Table 1.
Result showed that average yield per plot was significantly affected by the different
fertilizer. Among the treatments, SOP-PuVep has a comparatively higher yield of 6.43
kg followed by 6.06 kg for Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N , 5.60 kg for SOP + Bio-N, and
2.99 kg for Organic Fertilizer treatment as the least.
Table 6. Mean comparison using Duncan’s Multiple Range Test (DMRT) of the yield per treatment of sweet corn applied with the following treatments: T1—SOP-PuVep, T2—SOP +Bio-N, T3—Organic Fertilizer, and T4- Organic + Bio-N
Treatment Treatment Mean*
T1
T4
T2
T3
6.43a
6.06ab
5.60ab
2.99c
*Means with the same letter is not significantly different with each other
Ear Height
The Average Ear Height of sweet corn as influenced by Bio-N fertilizer
application is shown in Table 1.
Result showed that average ear height was not significantly affected by the
different fertilizer. Among the treatments, SOP + Bio-N with 57.18 cm are comparatively
higher followed by 55.84 cm for SOP-PuVep, 52.73 cm for Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N
and 52.39 cm for Organic Fertilizer.
Pest and Disease Rating
The Average Pest and Disease Rating of sweet corn as influenced by Bio-N
fertilizer application is shown in Table 1.
Result showed that average pest and disease rating was not significantly affected
by the different fertilizer. The following ratings were obtained from the experiment for
the pest and disease rating: 2.88 for Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N, 2.43 for SOP-PuVep,
2.35 for SOP + Bio-N, and 2.20 for the Organic Fertilizer treatment. For the whole study,
the variety used had an over-all pest and disease rating of 2.46, which means that this
variety is fairly to moderately resistant to pest and disease. Insect pest that were found in
the study area includes corn borer (Ostrinia furnacalis), cutworm (Spodoptera
frugiperda) and armyworms (Spodoptera frugiperda). A disease that was diagnosed in
the study area is corn rust caused by Puccinia maydis.
Ears Harvested per Plot
The average number of ears harvested per plot of sweet corn as influenced by
Bio-N fertilizer application is shown in Table 1.
Result showed that average ear harvested per treatment height was not
significantly affected by the different fertilizer. Among the treatments, 31.25 for SOP-
PuVep has a comparatively higher number of ears harvested followed by Organic
Fertilizer + Bio-N with a mean of 29.5, 27.50 for SOP + Bio-N and 19.75 for Organic
Fertilizer.
Treatment Average Plant Height (cm)
Average Pest and Disease Rating
Average Ear Height (cm)
T1 (SOP- PuVep)
167.13 2.43 55.84
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
172.35 2.35 57.18
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
140.58 2.20 52.39
T4 (Organic Fertilizer +
Bio-N)
173.88 2.88 52.73
F-test 3.86 3.86 3.86 cv 7.53% 14.43% 13.49%
Treatment Number of Ears Harvested Per
Plot
Number of Plants Harvested per Plant
Yield per plant
(g)
Yield Per Plot
(kg)
Yield Per Hectare (ton/ha)
T1 (SOP-
PuVep)
31.25 32.0 208.59 6.43 2.297
T2 (SOP + Bio-
N)
27.5 28.25 208.75 5.60 2.00
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
19.75 19.75 191.13 2.99 1.067
T4 (Organic
Fertilizer + Bio-N)
29.50 30.25 210.77 6.06 2.118
F-test 3.86 3.86 3.86 3.86 3.86
cv 24.29 % 37.92 % 2.78% 16.54 % 16.04 %
Mean Comparison (Duncan’s Multiple Range Test) PLANT HEIGHT
Treatment Treatment Mean*
T4
T2
T1
T3
173.88a
172.35ab
167.13ab
140.58c
*Means with the same letter is not significantly different with each other
2 (EMS) (2) 151.44 Sd = r = = 8.70 4
p rp (0.05)
2
3
4
3.20
3.34
3.41
Computation for the Shortest Significant Ranges/SSR
P Rp = (rp)(Sd) 21/2
2 19.69
3 20.55
4 20.95
Mean Comparison
Means Compared D Rp Decision Notation
T4 T2
T1
T3
1.53
6.75
33.3
19.69
20.55
20.98
ns
ns
*
a
a
T2 T1
T3
5.22
26.55
19.69
20.55
ns
*
b
T1 T3 26.55 19.69 * c
Yield Per Plant
Treatment Treatment Mean*
T4
T2
T1
T3
210.77a
208.75ab
208.59ab
191.13c
*Means with the same letter is not significantly different with each other
2 (EMS) (2) 32.52 Sd = r = = 4.03 4
p rp (0.05)
2
3
4
3.20
3.34
3.41
Computation for the Shortest Significant Ranges/SSR
P Rp = (rp)(Sd) 21/2
2 9.12
3 9.52
4 9.72
Mean Comparison
Means Compared D Rp Decision Notation
T4 T2
T1
T3
2.02
2.18
19.64
9.12
9.52
9.72
ns
ns
*
a
a
T2 T1
T3
0.16
17.62
9.12
9.52
ns
*
b
T1 T3 17.46 9.12 * c
Yield per Treatment
Treatment Treatment Mean*
T1
T4
T2
T3
6.43a
6.06ab
5.60ab
2.99c
*Means with the same letter is not significantly different with each other
2 (EMS) (2) 0.76 Sd = r = = 0.62 4
p rp (0.05)
2
3
4
3.20
3.34
3.41
Computation for the Shortest Significant Ranges/SSR
P Rp = (rp)(Sd) 21/2
2 1.40
3 1.46
4 1.49
Mean Comparison
Means Compared D Rp Decision Notation
T1 T4
T2
T3
0.37
0.83
2.61
1.40
1.46
1.49
ns
ns
*
a
a
T4 T2
T3
0.46
3.07
1.40
1.46
ns
*
b
T2 T3 2.61 1.40 * c
APPENDICES
Appendix 1A. Layout of the Area 7.20 m
20m
5 m
0.5 m
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4
Location: St. Ignatius Allotment Garden, PuVep
Total Area= 112 m2
Area per Block= 26 m2
Walking Space= (0.5 m) (20 m) (4) = 40
T3R1
T1R1
T4R1
T2R1
T3R1
T1R1
T4R1
T2R1
T3R1
T1R1
T4R1
T2R1
T3R1
T1R1
T4R1
T2R1
Appendix 1B. Lay-out of Each Treatment
1.3 m
3.3 m
Hills per Treatment= 50 x 2 = 100 Distance between Rows = 70 cm
No. of Hills in a Block= 400 Distance within Rows = 20 cm
Distance between Rows and Edge = 30 cm
30 cm
70 cm
20 cm 70 cm
30 cm
Table 1a. Raw Data for Plant Height of sweet corn applied with : T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in centimeters)
Replication/Block Treatment
I II III IV T1
(SOP- PuVep)
154 163 140 154 165 151 164 162 153 167
171 174 170 165 189 156 166 163 163 155
175 164 177 174 186 189 184 478 181 183
154 174 157 170 176 169 165 162 161 161
Average
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
157.3
144 167 152 176 188 161 174 172 173 188
167.2
165 167 168 180 167 189 167 178 193 178
209.1
176 163 164 165 176 161 183 186 165 174
164.9
181 167 153 157 158 177 191 174 178 193
Average
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
169.50
123 135 76
154 120 132 124 127 107 100
175.2
161 139 140 136 135 171 156 147 151 165
171.3
167 162 154 132 144 163 146 132 137 159
172.9
165 145 18
138 108 161 153 147 138 115
Average
T4 (Organic
Fertilizer + Bio-N)
119.8
174 172 184 168 175 165 185 191 194
150.1
182 173 165 186 170 192 178 181 177 188
149.6
168 184 202 193 184 176 183 185 171 177
142.8
162 174 182 170 168 176 187 164 180 169
Average 160.8 179.2 182.2 173.2
Table 1b. Average plant height of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in centimeters).
Replication/Blocks Treatment I II III IV
Treatment Total
Treatment Mean
T1 (SOP- PuVep)
157.3 167.2 179.1 164.9 668.5 167.13
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
171.7 175.2 171.2 171.3 689.4 172.35
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
119.8 150.1 149.6 142.8 562.3 140.58
T4 (Organic Fertilizer
+ Bio-N)
160.8 179.2 182.2 173.2 695.5 173.88
Block Total 609.6 179.2 682.2 652.2
Grand Total 2, 615.7 Grand Mean 163.48 Table 1c. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on average plant height of sweet corn applied with : T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N)
Ft Sv d.f. SS MS Fc
5% 1% Replication Treatment Exp’l Error TOTAL
3 3 9 15
770.77 2, 898.63 1, 362.96 5, 032.36
256.92 966.21 151.44
1.70ns 6.38*
3.86 3.86
6.99 6.99
ns=non significant cv= 7.53% *= significant at 5% level
Table 2a. Raw Data for ear height of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in centimeters)
Replication/Block Treatment I II III IV
T1 (SOP- PuVep)
31 45.5 46 33 54 43 42 54 47 51
64 66 63 67 64 53 59 63 39 38
63 60 73 59 68 72 71 53 72 50
55 58 45 66 68 61 48 66 56 47
Average 44.65 57.6 64.1 57
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
55 58 49 53 53 44 67 45 58 67
50 42 64 60 63 55 58 66 58 69
63 53 54 56 65 54 67 60 56 60
48 55 45 48 47 53 76 53 62 78
Average 54.9 58.8 58.8 56.5
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
29 17 25 33 31 28 22 24 31
23.5
62 63 64 48 58 59 70 68 69 68
59 67 59 74 69 51 57 66 52 69
45 50 53 58 57 58 73 64 42 60
Average 26.35 62.9 62.3 58.0
T4 (Organic
Fertilizer + Bio-N)
41 37 39 36 36 41 36 37 32 44
62 65 65 66 41 49 38 60 62 47
62 58 62 62 68 63 68 67 58 64
48 59 45 60 40 62 61 52 69 41
Average 37.9 55.5 63.8 53.7
Table 2b. Average ear height of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in centimeters)
Replication/Blocks Treatment I II III IV
Treatment Total
Treatment Mean
T1 (SOP- PuVep)
44.65 57.6 64.1 57.0 223.35 55.84
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
54.9 58.5 58.8 56.5 228.7 57.18
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
26.35 62.9 62.3 58.0 209.9 52.39
T4 (Organic Fertilizer
+ Bio-N)
37.9 55.5 63.8 53.7 210.9 52.73
Block Total 163.8 234.5 249.0 225.20
Grand Total 872.50 Grand Mean 54.53 Table 2c. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on average ear height of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in centimeters)
Ft Sv d.f. SS MS Fc
5% 1% Replication Treatment Exp’l Error TOTAL
3 3 9 15
990.30 66.21
486.93 1, 543.44
330.1 22.07 54.10
6.10* 0.41ns
3.86 3.86
6.99 6.99
*= significant at 5% level cv= 13.49% ns= non significant
Table 3a. Raw data for pest and disease rating of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (1= highly resistant, 2= moderately resistant, 3= fairly resistant, 4=moderately susceptible, 5= highly susceptible)
Replication/Block Treatment I II III IV
T1 (SOP- PuVep)
2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2
1 1 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 2 2 2 3 3 2 3 3 3
Average 2.1 2.1 3.0 2.5
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
3 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 3
3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
2 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2
3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3
Average 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.3
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 3 2
3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3
2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Average 2.0 2.3 2.5 2.0
T4 (Organic
Fertilizer + Bio-N)
3 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2
3 3 2 3 3 3 3 2 3 2
3 3 3 3 4 3 4 3 3 3
3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 2
Average 2.2 3.4 3.2 2.7
Table 3b. Average pest and disease rating of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in centimeters)
Replication/Blocks Treatment I II III IV
Treatment Total
Treatment Mean
T1 (SOP- PuVep)
2.1 2.1 3.0 2.5 9.70 2.43
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
2.6 2.3 2.2 2.3 9.40 2.35
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
2.0 2.3 2.5 2.0 8.80 2.20
T4 (Organic Fertilizer
+ Bio-N)
2.2 3.4 3.2 2.7 11.50 2.88
Block Total 8.9 10.1 10.9 9.50
Grand Total 39.4 Grand Mean 2.46 1=highly resistant, 2=moderately resistant, 3=fairly resistant, 4=moderately susceptible and 5=highly susceptible.
Table 3c. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on the average pest and disease rating of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N
Ft sv d.f. SS MS Fc
5% 1% Replication Treatment Exp’l Error TOTAL
3 3 9 15
0.55 1.015 1.135 2.70
0.18 0.34 0.126
1.43ns
2.70ns 3.86 3.86
6.99 6.99
ns = non significant cv = 14.43 %
Table 4a. Average number of ears harvested per plot of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in number of pieces)
Replication/Blocks Treatment I II III IV
Treatment Total
Treatment Mean
T1 (SOP- PuVep)
34 24 36 31 125 31.25
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
23 31 28 28 110 27.5
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
11 24 27 17 79 19.75
T4 (Organic Fertilizer
+ Bio-N)
14 27 38 39 118 29.50
Block Total 82 106 129 115
Grand Total 432.0 Grand Mean 27.0 Table 4b. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on average number of ears per plot of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N
Ft Sv d.f. SS MS Fc
5% 1% Replication Treatment Exp’l Error TOTAL
3 3 9 15
292.50 308.50 387.0 988.0
97.50 102.83 43.0
2.27ns 2..39ns
3.86 3.86
6.99 6.99
ns = non significant cv = 24.29 %
Table 5a. Average number of plants harvested per plot of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in number of pieces)
Replication/Blocks Treatment I II III IV
Treatment Total
Treatment Mean
T1 (SOP- PuVep)
34 24 38 32 128 32.0
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
25 32 28 28 113 28.25
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
11 24 27 17 79 19.75
T4 (Organic Fertilizer
+ Bio-N)
14 29 39 39 121
Block Total 84 109 132 116
Grand Total 441 Grand Mean 27.56 Table 5b. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on average number of plants harvested per plot of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N
Ft Sv d.f. SS MS Fc
5% 1% Replication Treatment Exp’l Error TOTAL
3 3 9 15
299.19 253.69 983.06
1, 635.94
99.73 117.90 109.23
0.91ns
1.08ns 3.86 3.86
6.99 6.99
ns = non significant cv = 37.92 %
Table 6a. Raw Data for yield per plant of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in g)
Replication/Block Treatment
I II III IV
T1 (SOP- PuVep)
198.50
215.20
210.50
209.60
191.70
262.50
225.70
230.00
188.60
197.50
199.0
216.0
205.60
185.70
250.55
189.50
192.30
227.50
179.90
195.50
Average 205.10 220.86 211.47 196.94
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
173.90
189.10
218.60
230.50
198.40
195.30
218.40
225.70
185.10
236.10
194.50
198.20
214.70
250.60
225.60
213.10
198.20
208.00
214.10
190.50
Average 202.10 212.0 216.72 204.18
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
185.30
189.70
179.00
195.40
178.50
193.60
189.90
210.30
195.70
198.20
198.60
179.90
210.10
198.0
186.40
180.60
193.30
197.70
183.90
178.50
Average 185.58 197.54 194.58 186.80
T4 (Organic
Fertilizer + Bio-N)
221.10
215.40
189.10
225.10
189.90
183.70
197.50
217.60
230.50
192.30
210.50
225.10
229.85
226.00
198.90
196.70
199.10
232.00
209.50
215.30
Average 210.16 204.32 218.07 210.52
Table 6b. Mean yield per plant of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in g)
Replication/Blocks Treatment
I II III IV
Treatment Total
Treatment Mean
T1 (SOP- PuVep)
205.10 220.86 211.47 196.94 834.37 208.59
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
202.10 212.0 216.72 204.18 835.00 208.75
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
185.58 197.54 194.58 186.80 764.50 191.13
T4 (Organic Fertilizer
+ Bio-N)
210.16 204.32 218.07 210.52 843.07 210.77
Block Total 802.94 834.72 840.84 Grand Total 3276.94
Grand Mean 204.81 Table 6c. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) on mean yield per plant of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in centimeters)
Ft sv d.f. SS MS Fc
5% 1%
Replication Treatment Exp’l Error TOTAL
3 3 9 15
351.12 1, 010.40
292.69 1, 654.21
117.04 336.8 32.52
3.59ns
10.36** 3.86 3.86
6.99 6.99
** = highly significant at 1% and 5 % levels cv = 2.78 % ns = non significant
Table 7a. Average yield per plot of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N (in ton/ha)
Replication/Blocks
Treatment
I II III IV
Treatment Total
Treatment Mean
T1 (SOP- PuVep)
2.054 2.250 2.786 2.098 9.188 2.297
T2 (SOP + Bio-N)
1.429 2.464 1.786 2.321 8.00 2.00
T3 (Organic Fertilizer)
0.839 1.250 1.179 1.00 4.268 1.067
T4 (Organic Fertilizer
+ Bio-N)
1.464 2.123 2.500 2.384 8.471 2.118
Block Total 5.786 8.087 8.251 7.803 Grand Total 29.927
Grand Mean 1.87 Table 7b. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of yield per hectare of sweet corn applied with: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic
Fertilizer + Bio-N (in centimeters) ** = highly significant at 1 % & 5 % level cv = 16.04 % ns= non significant
Ft sv d.f. SS MS Fc
5% 1%
Replication
Treatment
Exp’l Error
TOTAL
3
3
9
15
0.98
3.62
0.80
5.4
0.33
1.21
0.09
0.37ns
13.44**
3.86
3.86
6.99
6.99
Cost and Return Analysis Table 8a. Total cost per hectare of producing sweet corn T1—Standard Operating Procedure (PuVep)
Item Quantity Price Per
Unit
Amount
Inputs: Chicken Dung Diammonium Phosphate (18-46-0) Muriate of Potash (0-0-60) Urea (46-0-0) Insecticide TrichoCards Sweet Corn Seeds
206 sacks 343.75 kg 275.0 kg 275.0 kg 500 mL
100 pieces 20 kg
P50.00/sack 750.00/sack 340.00/sack 630.00/sack 450.00/bottle
1.00/card 1, 200.00/kg
P10, 300.00 5, 250.00 2, 040.00 3, 750.00 450.00 100.00
24, 000.00 Operations: Plowing (2x) Harrowing (2x) Planting Hilling-up Placement of TrichoCards Insecticide Application Weeding (2x) Transportation and Hauling
1 MAD 1 MAD 2 MAD 1 MAD 1 MAD 1 MAD 2 MAD
P120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 500.00
P240.00 240.00 240.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 480.00 500.00
TOTAL COST P47, 950.00 Table 8b. Total cost of per hectare of producing sweet corn under T2—Standard Operating Procedure (PuVep) + Bio-N
Item Quantity Price Per
Unit
Amount
Inputs: Chicken Dung Diammonium Phosphate (18-46-0) Muriate of Potash (0-0-60) Urea (46-0-0) Insecticide TrichoCards Bio-N Fertilizer Sweet Corn Seeds
206 sacks 343.75 kg 275.0 kg 275.0 kg 500 mL
100 pieces 1 pack 20 kg
P50.00/sack 750.00/sack 340.00/sack 630.00/sack 450.00/bottle
1.00/card 60.00/pack
1, 200.00/kg
P10, 300.00 5, 250.00 2, 040.00 3, 750.00 450.00 100.00 60.00
24, 000.00 Operations: Plowing (2x) Harrowing (2x) Planting Hilling-up Placement of TrichoCards Insecticide Application Weeding (2x) Transportation and Hauling
1 MAD 1 MAD 2 MAD 1 MAD 1 MAD 1 MAD 2 MAD
P120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 500.00
P240.00 240.00 240.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 480.00 500.00
TOTAL COST P48, 010.00
Table 8c. Total cost per hectare of producing sweet corn under T3: Organic Fertilizer (Chicken Dung)
Item Quantity Price Per
Unit
Amount
Inputs: Chicken Dung Insecticide TrichoCards Sweet Corn Seeds
206 sacks 500 mL
100 pieces 20 kg
P50.00/sack 450.00/bottle
1.00/card 1, 200.00/kg
P10, 300.00 450.00 100.00
24, 000.00 Operations: Plowing (2x) Harrowing (2x) Planting Hilling-up Placement of TrichoCards Insecticide Application Weeding (2x) Transportation and Hauling
1 MAD 1 MAD 2 MAD 1 MAD 1 MAD 1 MAD 2 MAD
P120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 500.00
P240.00 240.00 240.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 480.00 500.00
TOTAL COST P36, 910.00 Table 8d. Total cost per hectare of producing sweet corn under T4: Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N
Item Quantity Price Per
Unit
Amount
Inputs: Chicken Dung Insecticide TrichoCards Bio-N Fertilizer Sweet Corn Seeds
206 sacks 500 mL
100 pieces 1 pack 20 kg
P50.00/sack 450.00/bottle
1.00/card 60.00/pack
1, 200.00/kg
P10, 300.00 450.00 100.00 60.00
24, 000.00 Operations: Plowing (2x) Harrowing (2x) Planting Hilling-up Placement of TrichoCards Insecticide Application Weeding (2x) Transportation and Hauling
1 MAD 1 MAD 2 MAD 1 MAD 1 MAD 1 MAD 2 MAD
P120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 500.00
P240.00 240.00 240.00 120.00 120.00 120.00 480.00 500.00
TOTAL COST P36, 970.00
Table 8e. Cost and return analysis of sweet corn production under the following treatments: T1= SOP-PuVep; T2= SOP + Bio-N; T3= Organic Fertilizer (Chicken dung); and T4= Organic Fertilizer + Bio-N
Treatment Total Cost (per ha)
Mean Yield/ Treatment
(per ha)
Market Price
Total Revenue (in Php)
Net Income/Return
(in Php) T1
T2 T3 T4
47, 950.00 48, 010.00 36, 910.00 36, 970.00
2.297 2.0
1.067 2.118
P30 P30 P30 P30
P68, 910.00 60, 000.00 32, 010.00 63, 540.00
P20, 960.00 11, 990.00 -4, 900.00 63, 540.00