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. 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. 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. 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. Performance is the manner by which bush sitao react to the different levels of chicken dung in
terms of growth and yield.

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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