Yield Performance, Physicochemical Properties and Sensory Attributes of Sweetcorn (Zea Mays L. Macho F1) Applied With Different Organic Materials Combined With Inorganic Fertilizers

YIELD PERFORMANCE, PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND
SENSORY ATTRIBUTES OF SWEETCORN (Zea mays L.) APPLIED

WITH DIFFERENT ORGANIC MATERIALS COMBINED
WITH INORGANIC FERTILIZERS
ENRIQUE ELISAN BIÑAS JR.
A THESIS MANUSCRIPT
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY, Visca, BAYBAY CITY, LEYTE
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE
(Agronomy)
JUNE 2018
i
APPROVAL SHEET
The thesis entitled: YIELD PERFORMANCE, PHYSICOCHEMICAL

PROPERTIES AND SENSORY ATTRIBUTES OF SWEETCORN (Zea mays L.)
APPLIED WITH DIFFERENT ORGANIC MATERIALS COMBINED WITH
INORGANIC FERTILIZERS prepared and submitted by ENRIQUE E. BIÑAS JR.
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE
(Agronomy) is hereby accepted.
ULYSSES A. CAGASAN
Adviser and Chairman
Graduate Advisory Committee (GAC)
____________________
Date signed
BERTA C. RATILLA ANTONIA CECILIA Y. SANDOVAL

Member, GAC Member, GAC
____________________ ____________________
Date signed Date signed
BERTA C. RATILLA
Head, Department of Agronomy
____________________
Date signed
Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER

OF SCIENCE (Agronomy)
ANABELLA B. TULIN
Dean, Graduate School
Visayas State University
__________________________
Date signed
ii
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
The author was born on January 31, 1991 in Maalan, Ma-ayon, Capiz as the
fourth among seven children of Mr. Enrique D. Biñas Sr. and Mrs. Jelly E. Biñas. He
finished his elementary education at Tuburan Elementary School, Tuburan, Maayon,
capiz and graduated with honors in 2003. He attended his secondary education at
Tuburan National High School and graduated with honors in 2008.
He completed his degree of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Crop Science)
at Capiz State University, Pontevedra Campus in 2016. While in college, he was
involved in course-related organizations and was elected as Agriculture Society
President and Supreme Student Council Treasurer (S.Y. 2014-2015), Future Leaders of
the Philippines (FLP) President, League of Innovative Students Organization (LISO)
Event Coordinator and Adventist Ministry to College and University Students
(AMICUS) Vice-President for Social (S.Y. 2015-2016).
He was awarded as the Most Outstanding FLP President in Region VI during
the 8th FLP Work Conference held at the University of Antique. He also received a
Leadership and Service Award in 2016 at Capiz State University, Pontevedra Campus.
After graduation, he served as a Farmers’ Supervisor in the Philippine
Horticultural Company, Lawa-an, Roxas City, Capiz for 3 months. He studied a Master
of Science in Agronomy at Visayas State University, Main Campus with an Accelerated
Science and Technology Human Resource Development Program (ASTHRDP) –
National Science Consortium (NSC) scholarship granted by the Department of Science
and Technology.
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
This thesis would not have been possible without the guidance and the help of
several individuals who in one way or another contributed and extended their valuable
assistance in the preparation and completion of this study. It is a pleasure to convey the
gratitude of the researcher to them all in his humble acknowledgement.
Dr. Ulysses A. Cagasan, for his patience, unselfish support, crucial contribution
and supervision as the thesis adviser and chairman of the Graduate Advisory Committee
of this study.
Dr. Berta C. Ratilla and Dr. Antonia Cecilia Y. Sandoval, members of the
Graduate Advisory Committee, for sharing their valuable insights, comments and
suggestions for the improvement of the study.
Ms. Cynthia V. Godoy of the Central Analytical Services Laboratory,
Philrootcrops Complex, VSU, for analyzing the soil samples. Department of
Horticulture and Department of Food Science and Technology for analyzing the
physicochemical properties and sensory evaluation of the sweetcorn.
Department of Science and Technology (DOST) for granting a PhP 50,000.00
to fulfill this study. Mr. Rogelio Coral for helping in gathering the data during the
conduct of the study. The VSU-PAGASA-PCAARRD Agrometeorological Station for
providing the meteorological data needed in the study.
To the loving family of the researcher for the motivation and inspiration. Above
all, to the Almighty God who always there and gives strength to the researcher to finish
the conduct of the study.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE i
APPROVAL SHEET ii
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv
TABLE OF CONTENT v
LIST OF TABLES viii
LIST OF FIGURES x
LIST OF APPENDICES xi
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES xii
LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES xvi
CHAPTER I. RESEARCH OVERVIEW 1
Introduction 2
Nature and Importance of the Study 2
Objectives of the Study 4
Time and Place of the Study 4
Scope and Limitation of the Study 4
Review of Literature 5
Corn Production in the Philippines 5
Organic Corn Production in the Philippines 6
Corn Nutritional Requirement and Fertilizer Management 7
Combined Application of Organic and Inorganic
Fertilizers 10
Fermented Golden Snail as Organic Foliar Fertilizers 12
Food Quality of Crops applied with Organic Fertilizer 13

Effects of Fertilizer on Physicochemical Properties of
Crops 14
Storability and Sensory Qualities of Organic Products 15
Law for Organic Agriculture 16
Literature Cited 17
CHAPTER II. YIELD PERFORMANCE OF SWEETCORN (Zea

mays L.) APPLIED WITH DIFFERENT
ORGANIC MAERIALS COMBINED WITH
INORGANIC FERTILIZERS 24
Abstract 25
Introduction 26
v
Materials and Method 28
Land Preparation 28
Experimental Design, Field Layout and Treatments 28
Soil Sampling Collection and Analysis 29
Organic Manures Collection and Nutrient Analysis 29
Fermented Golden Snail Preparation 30
Application of Fertilizer 30
Sweetcorn Variety and its Characteristics 31
Planting 32
Cultivation and Maintenance Management 32
Control of Insect Pests and Diseases 32
Botanical Pesticide Preparation 33
Harvesting 34
Data Gathered 34
Results and Discussion 40
General Observation 40
Soil Chemical Properties 42
Organic Fertilizers Chemical Properties 44
Agronomic Characteristics of Sweetcorn 44
Yield and Yield Components of Sweetcorn 47
Production Cost and Return Analysis 50
Conclusion and Recommendation 53
Literature Cited 54
CHAPTER III. PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND

SENSORY ATTRIBUTES OF SWEETCORN
(Zea mays L.) APPLIED WITH DIFFERENT
ORGANIC MATERIALS COMBINED WITH
INORGANIC FERTILIZERS 57
Abstract 58
Introduction 59
Materials and Method 61
Data Gathered 62
Results and Discussion 66
Physicochemical Properties of Sweetcorn 66
Sensory Evaluation of Sweetcorn 67
Conclusion and Recommendation 72
Literature Cited 73
CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND

RECOMMENDATION 75
Summary 76
Conclusion 78
vi
Recommendation 79
APPENDICES 80
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
Chapter I
1 Required nutrient rates (kg ha-1) in corn 8
Chapter II
1 Amount of organic and inorganic fertilizers applied 31
2 Amount of botanical pesticide applied (L plot-1) 33
3 Soil analysis before planting and after harvesting applied

with different organic materials combined with inorganic
fertilizers 43
4 Chemical properties of organic fertilizers 44
5 Number of days from planting to emergence, tasseling,

silking and boiling stages of hybrid sweetcorn applied with
different organic materils combined with inorganic
fertilizers 45
6 Plant height (cm) and stover yield yield (t ha-1) of sweetcorn

applied with different organic materials combined with
inorganic fertilizers 46
7 Number of ears, ear length and diameter and number of

marketable and non-marketable ears of hybrid sweetcorn
8 Ear yield and harvest index of hybrid sweetcorn 49
9 Cost and return analysis of hybrid sweetcorn production

viii
Chapter III
1 Physicochemical properties of hybrid sweetcorn applied

fertilizers 66
2 Sensory attributes of hybrid sweetcorn applied with

different organic materials combined with inorganic
fertilizers 68
3 Acceptability ratings from sensory evaluation of hybrid

sweetcorn applied with different organic materials
combined with inorganic fertilizers 69
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Title Page
Chapter II
1 Total weekly rainfall (mm), average daily minimum and

maximum temperature (0C) and relative humidity (%) during
the conduct of the study 40
Chapter III
1 Appearance of freshly and 5-day stored cooked sweetcorn

x
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix Title Page
A Instructions for Use and Care of Hand Refractometer

Postharvest Instrument 81
B Sensory Evaluation Sheet for Cooked Corn (Freshly harvest,

5 day Stored) 82
C Fertilizer Computation 83
D Calculations of total plot and harvestable area and their plant

population 136
xi
LIST OF APPENDIX TABLES
Appendix Title Page

Table
1 Amount of fertilizer applied per treatment (kgplot-1) 83
2 Sensory Evaluation Master Sheet 89
3 Set Plan of Incomplete Block Design used for sensory

evaluation 90
4 Total weekly rainfall (mm), average daily minimum and

maximum temperature (0C) and relative humidity (%) from
August 10 to November 15, 2017 obtained from Philippine
Atmospheric, Geographical and Astronomical Service
Administration (PAGASA) Station, VSU, Visca, Baybay
City, Leyte 90
5 Indices for soil pH, organic matter, total N, available

phosphorous and exchangeable K (Landon, 1991) 91
6 Initial characteristics of soil at 20 cm depth 91
7 pH content (1:2.5) of soil after harvest applied with different

organic materials combined with inorganic fertilizers 92
8 OM content (%) of soil after harvest applied with different

9 Total N content (%) of after harvest applied with different

10 Available P content (mg kg-1) of soil after harvest applied

fertilizers 95
11 Exchangeable K content (mg kg-1) of soil at 20 cm depth

after harvest applied with different organic materials
12 Number of days from planting to emergence of sweetcorn

xii
13 Number of days from planting to tasseling of sweetcorn
14 Number of days from planting to silking of sweetcorn

15 Number of days from planting to boiling stage of sweetcorn

16 Plant height (cm) of sweetcorn at 14 DAP applied with

fertilizers 101

fertilizers 102

fertilizers 103

fertilizers 104
20 Plant height (cm) of sweetcorn at harvest applied with

fertilizers 105
21 Fresh stover yield (t ha-1) of sweetcorn applied with different

22 Number of sweetcorn ears applied with different organic

materials combined with inorganic fertilizer 107
23 Ear length (cm) of sweetcorn applied with different organic

materials combined with inorganic fertilizers 108
24 Ear diameter (cm) of sweetcorn ears applied with different

25 Number of marketable ears applied with different organic

materials combined with inorganic fertilizers 110
xiii
26 Number of non-marketable ears applied with different
27 Weight (kgha-1) of marketable ears applied with different

28 Weight (kgha-1) of non-marketable ears applied with

fertilizers 113
29 Total ear yield (t ha-1) of sweetcorn applied with different

30 Harvest index (HI) of sweetcorn applied with different

31 Production cost (Php) of sweetcorn applied with different

32 Pest and disease monitoring at vegetative (30 to 35 DAP)

stage of sweetcorn applied with different organic materials
combined with inorganic fertilizers. 124
33 Pest and disease monitoring at reproductive stage of

combined with inorganic fertilizers. 125
34 Pest and disease monitoring at harvest of sweetcorn applied

fertilizers 126
35 Total soluble solid (0Brix) of sweetcorn applied with

fertilizers 127
36 Titratable acidity (%) of sweetcorn applied with different

37 pH of sweetcorn applied with different organic materials

38 Frequency (%) of color description of sweetcorn applied

fertilizers 130
xiv
39 Frequency (%) of taste description of sweetcorn applied
fertilizers 131
40 Frequency (%) of aroma description of sweetcorn applied

fertilizers 132
41 Frequency (%) of texture description of sweetcorn applied

fertilizers 133
42 Analysis of variance on the acceptability of freshly cooked

43 Analysis of variance on the acceptability of 5-day stored

cooked sweetcorn applied with different organic materials
xv
LIST OF APPENDIX FIGURES
Appendix Title Page

Figure
1 Schematic presentation of harvestable area 136
2 A field layout of corn in RCBD with three replications 138
xvi
17
CHAPTER I
RESEARCH OVERVIEW
17
18
INTRODUCTION
Nature and Importance of the Study
Corn (Zea mays L.) is the second most important cereal crop next to rice grown
for human consumption and used as raw materials for different food products. Because
of its versatility, it is consumed not only as food for humans and animals but also for
industrial and agricultural purposes (Sailer, 2012).
Sweetcorn is one of the types of corn, usually grown in smaller scale, but it is
becoming popular as snack items and sold in the local markets. The sweet kernels can
also be processed into canned products which can be utilized as ingredient for salads,
pastries and other processed food products. The sweet kernels contain higher
proportions of sugar than starch. Thus, it is boiled “green” which commands reasonably
higher price in the local market. It is also the most preferred edible corn because of its
nutritional values and health benefits plus its good flavor, aroma and texture (Macklouf
et al., 1995).
One of the management practices under intensive cultivation is through the
application of fertilizers. Organic fertilizers, such as animal manure and crop residues
can be used as an alternative for inorganic fertilizers (Sharma & Mittra, 1991).
However, recent studies revealed that the application of organic inputs alone cannot
meet the nutritional requirements of the crop that there is a need to integrate with
inorganic fertilizers in order to achieve better yields. Supply of nutrients from organic
materials can be complemented by enriching them with inorganic nutrients that will
be readily released and utilized by the crop to compensate for the slow release organic
nutrients.
18
19
The application of inorganic fertilizer is needed for modern corn varieties to
increase yield. However, fertilizers are so expensive nowadays and has a tendency to
pollute the environment and decrease production efficiency as well (Fageria et al.,
2007). Hence, combination of organic with the inorganic fertilizer is recommended to
minimize the adverse impact on the environment, health, wildlife and water source. A
sound fertilizer management must attempt to ensure both an enhanced and safe
environment; therefore, a balanced fertilization strategy that combines the use of
chemical, organic or biofertilizers must be developed and evaluated (Chen, 2010).
Judicious use of organic and inorganic nutrient sources is important to decrease
dependence on chemical fertilizers for sustainable high crop production by minimizing
nutrient losses to the environment and optimizing nutrient use efficiency (Akhtar et al.,
2011).
Fertilization practices can influence not only the growth and yield of the crops
but also the flavor, texture, color, shelf life, nutrient and physicochemical content of the
crop such as total soluble solid (TSS), titratable acidity (TA) , pH, etc. (Hornick, 1992).
Applying fertilizer materials according to soil test and crop nutrient requirements will
provide the basic nutrients needed for high yield and better quality. Nowadays, food
quality is influencing the market potential of the commodity as the consumers preferred
to patronize the best in their taste (Hornick, 1992).
Since there are limited studies on the evaluation of yield, physicochemical
properties and sensory qualities of sweetcorn as influenced by combined application of
organic and inorganic fertilizers, hence, this study.
19
20
Objectives of the Study
This study aimed to:
1. Evaluate the effects of organic and inorganic fertilizers on the growth and yield
performance of sweetcorn;
2. Determine the physicochemical properties (TSS, TA and pH) of sweetcorn as
influenced by organic and inorganic fertilizers;
3. Evaluate the sensory qualities of fresh and five (5) day stored sweetcorn as
influenced by organic and inorganic fertilizers; and
4. Assess the profitability of combined organic and inorganic fertilizers
application on sweetcorn production.
Time and Place of the Study
This study was conducted at the experimental area of the Department of
Agronomy, College of Agriculture and Food Science, Visayas State University (VSU),
Visca, Baybay City, Leyte from August 10 to November 15, 2017.
Scope and Limitation of the Study
The study was focused only on the growth and yield performance of sweetcorn,
physicochemical properties such as total soluble solids (TSS), titratable acidity (TA)
and pH of fresh sweetcorn and sensory attributes such as color, aroma, taste and texture
of freshly cooked and 5-day stored cooked sweetcorn. Initial and final soil chemical
properties were also analyzed.
20
21
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Corn Production in the Philippines
Corn is second to rice as the most important crop in the Philippines, with one-
third of Filipino farmers, depending on maize as their major source of livelihood. White
corn is the most important substitute staple in periods of rice shortage, especially in
rural areas. Yellow corn is the primary source of raw materials for making feeds in the
Philippines’ animal industry, and is being increasingly used by the manufacturing
sector. Maize production in the Philippines increased at an annual rate of 1.7% over a
20-year period (1980-2000). After production peaked in 1990 at 4.9 million metric tons,
a sharp decline was posted in 1998 when the El Niño phenomenon affected the region
(Gonzales & Lapiña, 2003).
Total area planted to maize was also highest in 1990, at 3.8 million hectares, but
declined at 1.9% per year from 1985 to 2001 (Gonzales & Lapiña, 2003). These long-
term figures reflect a sharper decline in white maize area in contrast to that planted to
yellow corn. While average yields for white corn are consistently low, yellow corn
yields increased by an annual rate of 4.9% over a 17-year period beginning in 1985
(Gonzales & Lapiña, 2003). The adoption of improved technology for yellow corn
production has resulted in significant yield increases.
Philippine Statistics Authority reported that corn production increased from
2011 to 2015 in terms of volume, area planted, and its value (Philippine Statistic
Authority, 2016). However, the April-June 2016 production fell to 0.91 million MT
from the 2015 output of 1.01 million MT by 10.00 %. Harvest area dropped to 271
thousand hectares from last year’s record of 330 thousand hectares. Nevertheless, yield
21
22
per hectare increased by 9.38 % from 3.07 MT in 2015 to 3.36 MT in 2016 (Ocampo,
2016).
In upland areas, maize production peaks from July to September; the lean
months are from January to June. The upland regions of Mindanao have the most area
planted to corn, and the highest production in the Philippines. Corn is also grown in the
rainfed lowlands, where it is planted during the dry season after rice crop has been
harvested (FSSRI, 2000; Eusebio & Labios, 2001).
Organic Corn Production in the Philippines
Environmental, social, and economic sustainability are the basic objectives of
organic farming (Stockdale et al., 2001). Organic farming is growing rapidly since the
last decade and has an annual increase of 20% (Avery 2007; Lotter, 2003). Statistics
indicated over 31 million hectares is under organic farming with annual revenue of over
26 billion US $ worldwide (Yussefi & Willer, 2003).
Ensuring food security, alleviating poverty and conserving the vital natural
resources is critically important (Rothschild, 1998). This can be addressed through
organic farming and other means without spoiling natural resources. The major concern
that compels scientists is that it is very difficult to feed the ever increasing population
with organic food (Moghtader et al., 2011). However, safe production and secure food
supply is one of the major needs of low income countries (Arshad & Shafqat, 2012) to
restore their reservoirs. The concept of food security therefore surrounds the
components of agriculture, environment, employment income, marketing, health
and nutrition and public policy (Pottier, 1999).
22
23
Organic agriculture, as defined by the International Federation of Organic
Agriculture Movement (IFOAM, 2010), includes all agricultural systems that promote
environmentally, socially and economically sound production of food, fibers, and
biofuels. These systems take local soil fertility as the key to successful production.
Organic agriculture dramatically reduces external inputs by refraining from the use of
chemo-synthetic fertilizers, pesticides and pharmaceuticals. Instead, it allows the
powerful laws of nature to increase both crop yield and pest resistance (Carating et al.,
2010). It is developed as holistic and ecosystem-based approach. This type of farming
is visualized as a feasible alternative to ecologically sound conventional agriculture. In
the Philippines, about 0.1M hectares of agricultural lands were managed organically
(Willer & Lernoud, 2015) with rice and corn as the major organic products in the
country. Philippine Partnership for the Development of Human Resource in Rural
Areas (PhilDHRRA) (2004) revealed that the Magsasaka at Siyentipiko para sa Pag-
unlad ng Agrikultura (MASIPAG) showed that there were 1,897 farmers (with 1,754
hectares) who were fully adopting organic rice and corn farming, and 11,052 farmers
(with 15,411 hectares) adopted the low chemical and pesticide practice.
Corn Nutritional Requirement and Fertilizer Management
The major contributor to enhance crop production and to maintain soil
productivity as well as prevent soil degradation are the mineral nutrients. Improvement
of the nutritional status of plants by applying fertilizers and maintaining soil fertility
has been the critical step in food production since the beginning of ‘Green Revolution’
both in developed and developing countries (Loneragan, 1997).
23
24
According to the SMART: Corn Fertilizer Recommendations, corn requires
adequate fertilizer management for profitable production. Applying the right fertilizers
at the right amount and at the right time is crucial for a successful crop production. The
nutrient requirements of corn depend on the yield goal and potential. New hybrids and
high-yielding corn varieties will have a higher nutrient demand. For example, to
produce 230 bushels per acre (approx. 14.5 ton/ha) of new hybrid corn, the crop
requires the following nutrient rates in kg/ha (Table. 13), (Required Fertilizer for Corn
Production n.d.):
Table 1. Required nutrient rates (kgha-1) in corn

Nutrients Required amount of nutrients needed (kgha-1) of corn
N 276.74
P 215.11
K 217.36
Ca 89.64
Mg 84.03
S 25.76
Fe 2.91
Mn 0.49
Ni 0.57
Cu 0.15
B 0.37
Based on Field Crops: Fertilizer for Corn Journal, starter fertilizers should
contain a small amount of nitrogen; most, if not all, of the recommended phosphorus;
and possibly some potassium. Thus, a good starter fertilizer might range from a ratio of
1-4-0, 1-3-1, 1-3-3, to 1-1-1, depending on the rate of fertilizer required. It is not
advisable to apply more than 89.67 kg to 112.08 kg per ha of N + K2O in the starter
band especially urea or diammonium phosphate.
Asio (1996) stated that the addition of organic materials in the soil could
improve its fertility status and productivity. The increased microbial activity also
24
25
enhanced release of immobilized nutrients present in the soil. These immobilized
nutrients can be converted by microbial decomposers into available forms for plant use
during mineralization process. Likewise, Pascual et al. (1997) reported that in the same
way, the soil increases biomass, basal respiration and metabolic quotients due to the
activity of soil microorganisms. Sarker et al. (2004) added that these microbial actions
also improved physical condition of soil. Applications of livestock manure, poultry
manure and crop residues have been found to bring about a gradual improvement in
soil productivity and crop performance (Shafi et al., 2007). Studies of organic matter
application in Japan showed that the root growth and nutrient uptake were increased
with the application of organic matter resulting in higher yield (Food and Fertilizer
Technology Center [FFTC], 1998). Ayoola and Makinde (2009) reported that the use
of high amount of organic manures could likely enriched soil fertility and obtained
high yield. Chau and Heong (2005) added that crops applied with organic fertilizers
have been shown to be more tolerant as well as resistant to insect attacks.
Another benefit from the use of organic materials is that it can help solve
pollution problems caused by agro-industrial wastes. However, the soil must not be
seen as a dumping ground for organic wastes. If too much nitrogen is applied, be in the
form of organic or chemical, excess nitrogen is converted to nitrate, which is harmful
to human health (Preap et al., 2002). Excessive accumulation of nitrate in the corn plant
may be also caused by prolonged drought and defoliation of leaves. The greatest risk
of high nitrate levels had been noted in drought-stunted fields that have received
excessive manure or nitrogen fertilizer. The risk is highest immediately following a
drought-ending rain. Nitrates accumulate in the lower portion of the plant, so cutting
higher under these conditions can help avoid high nitrate concentrations. Normally, the
25
26
ensiling process removes about one-half the nitrates present in the fresh corn silage
(Curran & Lingenfelter, 2015).
Combined Application of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers for Corn
The effects of combined organic and inorganic nutrients on soil fertility
improves nutrient availability to crops and moisture retention in the soil. Nutrient
uptake values were higher in the combined application than the sole application
(Gabriel, 2010), yet there are no guidelines for their management. Organic materials
are not magic; their roles with respect to soil fertility are known. Organic materials
influence nutrient availability (i) by nutrients added, (ii) through mineralization-
immobilization patterns, (iii) as an energy source for microbial activities, (iv) as
precursors to soil organic matter (SOM), and (v) by reducing P sorption of the soil. The
challenge is to combine organic with inorganic fertilizers to optimize nutrient
availability to plants. Increased nutrient recovery and residual effects are associated
with combined nutrient additions compared with inorganic fertilizers applied alone.
Unfortunately, for many trials information on the nutrient content and quality of the
organic inputs is lacking. Trials are needed that link the quality of the organic material
to its nutrient content and its effect on the long term composition of SOM and crop
yields. A systematic framework for investigating the combined use of organic and
inorganic nutrient sources includes farm surveys, characterization of the quality of
organic materials, nutrients analysis of organic fertilizer, and experimental designs for
determining optimal combinations of nutrient sources. The desired outcome is tools that
can be used by researchers, extensionists, and farmers for assessing options of using
26
27
scarce resource for maintaining soil fertility and improving crop yields (Palm et al.,
1997).
Most corn farmers prefer to use inorganic fertilizer in increasing the yield of
their crops due to readily available nutrients in the materials and ease in application.
However, due to the high cost of inorganic fertilizer and at time scarce supply caused
by both energy crisis and socio-economic constraints, farmers are hesitant to use it
alone. It is therefore necessary to integrate with organic fertilizer to augment the poor
fertility of the soil (Sofia et al., 2006). Integrated use of organic amendments and
chemical fertilizers may be a way to ensure sustainable agriculture and sustainable
environment (Ashraf et al., 2016). Low organic matter content is one of the
contributing factors for poor fertility status of soil. Application of bioslurry, a by-
product from the biogas plant, successfully improve crop productivity and soil health
(Muhmood et al., 2014).
Several studies have shown that corn plants respond well to the application of
combined organic and inorganic fertilizers or those nitrogenous fertilizers. Boone et al.
(1975), stated that corn adequately supplied with nitrogen from combined organic and
inorganic fertilizers are usually dark green in color with vigorous growth. Catingan
(1982) found that application of nitrogen from combined organic and inorganic
fertilizers at the rate appropriate for the crops stimulate roots, stem, and leaf growth
making the plants to photosynthesize effectively. In corn, either low or excess nitrogen
applied delays silking and maturity. Application of nitrogen from combined organic
and inorganic fertilizers at proper amount and time will promote the vigorous growth
and yield performance of corn crop, hence obtaining a high yield. Ponsica (1982) found
27
28
that poultry and cow manures combined with inorganic fertilizer enhanced early
tasseling, silking and maturity which led to production of large ears of corn.
The integrated nutrient management is an alternative system which reduced the
input of chemical fertilizers. The combined use of chemical fertilizers with animal
manures, crop residues, green manure, fermented foliar spray and composts have shown
to be highly beneficial. Combined use of chemical and organic fertilizers mitigated the
deficiency of micronutrients in fields that continuously received only N, P and K
fertilizers.
Fermented Golden Apple Snail as Organic Foliar Fertilizer
One of the benefits of organic foliar fertilization (OFF) is the increased uptake
of nutrients from the soil. This notion is based on the scientific knowledge that OFF
causes the plant to exude more sugars and other exudates from its roots into the
rhizosphere. Beneficial microbial populations in the root zone are stimulated by the
increased availability of these exudates. In turn, this increased biological activity
correspondingly increased the availability of nutrients, disease-suppressive
biochemicals, vitamins, and other processes beneficial to the plant.
The golden apple snail (GAS) (Pomocea canaliculata) Lamarck or “Kohol” is
an introduced pest in the Philippines that proliferates in rice paddies and consume
young rice seedlings (Jensen et al., 2006). Due to its high protein content (12%) it can
be used in the manufacture of Kohol Amino Acid (KAA) (Jensen et al., 2006) which
can be used as liquid nutrient formulation for vegetable production (Salas & Salas,
2014; Salas et al., 2015). The chemical composition of combined flesh and shell of
GAS (g/kg) is 181 dry matter, 621 crude protein and 149 ash (Kaensombath & Ogle
28
29
2015). In the case of Hamid et al. (2015), he showed the chemical composition of GAS
flesh only (%) with 83.85 MC, 1.54 ash, 10.79 protein, 1.40 fat, and 2.42 carbohydrate.
These composition showed that GAS is rich in nutrients, thus it improves the growth
and yield of lettuce (Salas & Salas, 2014; Casillano & Salas, 2013).
Fermented golden apple snail can be drenched on the soil surface or sprayed to
the plant. This improved crop yield because it restore and improve soil fertility, increase
population of beneficial microorganisms and quickly absorbed by plants (Alfajri,
2015).
Food Quality of Crops Applied with Organic Fertilizers
The principles and practices of organic food production are to encourage and
enhance biological cycles within the farming system so as to maintain and increase long
term fertility status of soils. Reducing the amount of commercial fertilizer and
pesticides in farming will also minimize pollution, produce high quality food and safe
to humans and environment (Bourn & Prescott, 2002).
The increasing demand for organic products is brought by the growing health
consciousness, and awareness of consumers on the nutritional value of organically
grown products (Woese et al., 1997). Consumers prefer organic products because it is
healthy, safe, keep our water clean, protect humans and animals and offers outstanding
flavor (Hugher et al. 2007; Chait, 2017). Most of the people now a days are conscious
of the safety food they eat.
Consumers’ concern regarding adverse health effects of foods produced through
conventional farming methods has led to considerable interest in the shift to organically
produced crop and animal products. Misner and Armstrong (2001) mentioned that there
29
30
is a significant difference between organically and non-organically grown foods. These
differences relate to food safety, primary and secondary nutrients and health outcomes.
Organically-grown fruits and vegetables had been found to be highly nutritious and rich
in ‘antioxidants’ (Sinha et al., 2011). Organic foods have high antioxidant levels 30%
higher than chemically-grown foods (Benbrook, 2005). Smith (1993) found high
mineral contents in organic foods. Vitamins, minerals, flavonoids and phytochemicals
contents also contributed greatly to human health protection. Likewise, organic foods
are high in ‘organic acids’ and poly-phenolic compounds’.
In view in the fact that organically-produced foods have great advantage and
the demands are higher than conventionally-produced crops, organic food items are
more expensive than those grown with commercial or chemically-formulated
fertilizers. The only way to lower production costs is for farmers to learn to process
their own organic fertilizers (Barcenas, 2015). Thus, the use of organic sources such as
green manuring, fermented golden apple snail, animal manures, vermicompost and any
formulation from natural sources reduced direct exposure to chemical fertilizers.
Effects of Fertilizer on Physicochemical Properties of Crops
Fertilization, either organic, inorganic or their combination affected the
physicochemical properties of produce (Champagne et al., 2017). Champagne et al.
(2007) reported that protein content in rice either increased or decreased with time and
rate of nitrogen fertilizer applied. Keawpeng and Meenune (2012) also reported that
rice applied with organic fertilizer alone had lower protein and anthocyanin content
than with inorganic fertilizer. Owureku-Asare et al. (2015) found that organic fertilizers
improves the sweetness and quality of pineapple. Its acidity decreases resulting low
30
31
astringency and longer the storage shelf life. It was also reported that with higher
potassium fertilizer resulted in the higher the acidity in fruit of any crops (Souza, 1991).
Increasing application levels of nitrogen fertilizer, on the other hand, resulted in a
reduction of the brix value (Py et al., 1987). .Abuh-Zahra (2016) also found that
pineapple fruits fertilized with inorganic fertilizer had bigger size, higher in TA,
moisture content, and ammonium and nitrate contents than fertilized by organic
fertilizer. However, those applied with organic fertilizer had higher anthocyanin, TSS,
dry matter content, ascorbic acid, total phenols, and crude fiber.
Storability and Sensory Qualities of Organic Products
The State of the Science Review 2006 attempts to answer this question: “Do
organic products taste better than conventional products?”.
First, 43% of consumers of organic food give “better taste” as a major reason
for purchasing organic fruits and vegetables (MORI Poll, 2001 as cited by Heaton,
2001). However, consumer conviction of “better taste” is due solely to the “halo effect
(cognitive bias that arises when information about one quality attribute of a product
serves to influence and bias the judgment of its other qualities)” of the organic label
and not real claim that organic produce tastes better. Second, the levels of phenolic
compounds are higher in organic products (Benbrook, 2005). Plants produced phenolic
compounds to make plant tissues less attractive to herbivores, insects, and other
predators. Some of these phenolic compounds actually taste bad (Drewnowski &
Gomez-Carneros, 2000; Lesschaeve & Noble, 2005).Third, many sellers, distributors,
and promoters of organic foods claim that organic foods taste better (Theuer, 2006).
Organic cultivation practices can influence storability and flavor of the products and
31
32
thus alter the organoleptic qualities of produce at the point of sale and consumption
(Theuer, 2006). Organoleptic is the sensory properties of a particular food which
includes: its taste, appearance and color, aroma, size and firmness, and even sound (e.g.,
the “snap” or “crack” when biting). Organoleptic measures however include mouth feel
and any other sensations in eating food. Organoleptic quality also include storability
since many products are stored at various periods to enable “non-seasonal” availability
(Theuter, 2006). Clearly, products that are stored for several days or long period will
result to soft spots, blemishes and lack of flavor. If the products are stored well, it will
be more appealing to consumers (Theuer, 2006).
In the case of organic sweetcorn when cooked a few days later, it was noticeably
less sweet and even had a slightly chalky mouthfeel. Freshly picked sweetcorn had high
sugar and low starch contents. However, the longer it is stored after harvesting, sugar
is turned into starch. This decreases good flavor and affects its texture when cooked
(Christensen, 2008). On the other hand, Hanson (2017) found that unhusked sweetcorn
stays tasty even stored for a couple of days when it is loosely packed in plastic bags to
allow the circulation of air.
Law for Organic Agriculture
The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) are issued pursuant to the
policies declared under RA 10068, to wit: “It is hereby declared the policy of the State
to promote, propagate, develop further and implement the practice of organic
agriculture in the Philippines that will cumulatively condition and enrich the fertility of
the soil, increase farm productivity, reduce pollution and destruction of the
environment, prevent the depletion of natural resources, further protect the health of
32
33
farmers, consumers and the general public, and save on imported farm inputs. Toward
this end, a comprehensive program for the promotion of community-based organic
fertilizers such as compost, pesticides and other farm inputs, together with a nationwide
educational and promotional campaign for the use and processing, as well as the
adoption of organic agricultural system as a viable alternative shall be undertaken
(Organic Act of 2010).
LITERATURE CITED
ABU-ZAHRA, T. R. 2016. Quality and Nutrient Contents of Fruits Produced Under

Organic Conditions. In Organic Farming-A Promising Way of Food
Production. InTech.
ALFAJRI, A. 2015. How to make organic fertilizer with pest snail material.
Independent agriculture. Retrieved from www.
organicfertilizerandpest.agri.ph.
ARSHAD, S. and A. SHAFQAT. 2012. Food security indicators, distribution and

techniques for agriculture sustainability in Pakistan. International J. of Applied
Science & Technology, 2: 137-147.
ASIO, V. B. 1996. Characteristics, weathering, formation and degradation of soils from

volcanic rocks in Leyte, Philippines. Hohenheimer bodenkundliche Hefte
Vol.33, Stuttgart, Germany. 209 pp.
ASHRAF, I., I. AHMAD, M. NAFEES, M. M. YOUSAF and B. AHMAD. 2016. A

review on organic farming for sustainable agricultural production. Pure and
Applied Biology, 5(2), 277.
AVERY, A. 2007. Going organic. Crops and Soils. Amer. Soc. Agron. 40:8-12. Bulluck
LR, Brosius M, Evanylo GK & Ristaino JB (2002). Organic and synthetic
fertility amendments influence soil microbial, physical and chemical
properties on organic and conventional farms. Applied Soil Ecology,
19:147160.
33
34
AYOOLA, O. T. and E. MAKINDE. 2009. Maize growth, yield and soil nutrient
changes with N-enriched organic fertilizers. African Journal of Food,
Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 9(1), 580-592.
BARCENAS, A. G. JR. 2015. Performance of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) grown using
locally formulated nutrient solution under SNAP hydroponic system.
Unpublished Dissertation. Visayas State University. Visca, Baybay City, Leyte.
48 pp.
BENBROOK, C. M. 2005. Elevating antioxidant levels in food through organic

farming and food processing. Organic Center, State of Science Review,
January. USA. 54 pp.
BENBROOK, C. M. 2005. Elevating Antioxidant Levels in Food through Organic

Farming and Food Processing, p. 81.
BOONE, L. V., A. CHESTER and H. K. WILSON. 1975. Producing farm crops. 2nd
edition. Danville, 302 pp.
BOURN, D. and J. PRESCOTT. 2002. A comparison of the nutritional value, sensory

qualities, and food safety of organically and conventionally produced foods.
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 42(1):1-34.
CARATING, R. B., M. FERNANDO, Y. ABRINA and S.Q. TEJADA. 2010. State of

Organic Agriculture in the Philippines: The Philippine Country Report. Paper
to be presented during Workshop on ANSOFT of AFACI PANASIAN Project.
CASILLANO, R. and F. M. SALAS. 2013. Formulation and evaluation of Golden

Kohol as Nutrient Solution for Lettuce production under SNAP System. In
Proceedings: Undergraduate Research Symposium held at the University of the
Philippines, Tacloban City on March 25, 2013.
CATINGAN, B. D. 1982. Growth, yield and yield components of flint corn as

influenced by varying nitrogen levels and tow spacing. Unpublished
undergraduate thesis. Visayas State College of Agriculture, Baybay, Leyte. 69
pp.
CHAIT, J. 2017. Gets the facts why consumers should buy organic food. Updated.
Retrieved from https://www.thebalance.com/reasons-to-buy-organic-food-
2538039 on August 16, 2017.
CHAMPAGNE, E. T., K. L., BETT-GARBER, C. C. GRIMM, and A.M. MC CLUNG.

2007. Effects of organic fertility management on physicochemical properties
and sensory quality of diverse rice cultivars. Cereal Chemistry 84: 320-327.
34
35
CHAU, L. M., and K. L. HEONG. 2005. Effects of organic fertilizers on insect pest
and diseases of rice. Omonrice, 13, 26-33.
CHRISTENSEN, E. 2008. Food science: When sweetcorn is not sweet. Retrieved from
http://www.thekitchn.com/food-science-when-sweet-corn-i-60006.
Corn Fertizer. n.d. Smart Fertilizer. Retrieved from http://www.smart-

fertilizer.com/articles/corn_fertilizer
CURRAN, W. A., and D. D. LINGENFELTER. 2015. The Agronomy Guide: 2015–

2016. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University. 88 pp.
DREWNOWSKI, A. and C. GOMEZ-CARNEROS. 2000. Bitter taste, phytonutrients,

and the consumer: a review. Am J Clin Nutr, 72, 1424-1435.
EUSEBIO, J. A. and R. V. LABIOS. 2001. Food Security: Integrated Farming Systems.

JMC Press, Inc. Quezon City, Philippines. 312 pp.
FFTC publication database .1998. Food and Fertilizer Technology Centre Taiwan
microbial and Organic. Retrieved from
http://www.fftc.agnet.org/veiw.php?id=20110714134417_529148 on June 9,
2015.
FAGERIA. N. K. 2007. Green manuring in crop production. J Plant Nutrition 30:691-

719.
GABRIEL, W. Q. 2015. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizers and their

combinations on the growth and yield of maize in the semi-deciduous forest
zone of Ghana. Published graduate thesis. Kwame Nkrumah University of
Science and Technology, Kumasi, Ghana. 98 pp.
GONZALES, L. A. and G. F. LAPIÑA. 2003. The Philippine Corn Industry in Global

Transition: Some Strategic Issues and Policy Directions. Paper presented during
the First Philippine Corn Annual Symposium and Planning Workshop, January
15-17, 2003, Monte Vista Resort, Calamba, Laguna, Philippines.
HAMID, S. A., N. R. A. HALIM and N. M. SARBON 2015. Optimization of enzymatic

hydrolysis conditions of Golden Apple snail (Pomacea canaliculata) protein by
Alcalase. International Food Research Journal, 22(4).
HANSON, C. 2017. All about corn: Picking, storing and cooking corn. Retrieved from
www.dish.allrecipes.com
35
36
HEATON, S. 2001. Organic farming, food quality and human health. A review of the
evidence., p. 88. Soil Association, Bristol. Retrieved from
https://www.soilassociation.org/media/4920/policy_report_2001_organic_far
ming_food_quality_human_health.pdf
HORNICK, S. B. (1992). Factors affecting the nutritional quality of crops. American

Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 7(1-2), 63-68.
HUGHNER R. S., P. McDONAGH, A. PROTHERO, C. J. SCHULTZ and J.

TANTON. 2007. Who are organic food consumers? A compilation and review of why
people purchase organic food. J of consumer Behaviour, 6: 94-110.
Implementing Rules and Regulations for Republic Act 10068 (Organic Act of 2010)
JENSEN, H., L. GUILARAN, R. JARANILLA and G. GARINGALAO. 2006. Nature

Farming Manual. A handbook of preparations, techniques and organic
amendments inspired by Nature Farming and adapted to locally available
materials and needs in the Western Visayas region of the region of the
Philippines. National Initiative on Seed and Sustainable Agriculture in the
Philippines Batong Malake, Los Baños Laguna, Philippines. 37p.
KAENSOMBATH, L. and B. OGLE 2005. Laboratory-scale ensiling of Golden Apple

snails (GAS)(Pomacea spp.). Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences: MSc
thesis.
KEAWPENG, I. and M. MEENUNE. 2012. Physicochemical properties of organic and

inorganic Phatthalung Sungyod rice. International Food Research
Journal, 19(3), 857-861.
LESSCHAEVE, I. and A. C NOBLE. 2005. Polyphenols: Factors influencing their

sensory properties and their effects on food and beverage preferences. Am J Clin
Nutr, 81(1 Suppl). 330S-335S.
LONERAGAN, J. F. 1997. Plant nutrition in the 20th and perspectives for the 21st
century. Plant and Soil, 196(2), 163-174.
LOTTER, D.W. 2003. Organic Agriculture. J. of Sustainable Agriculture. 21: 59-128.
MAKHLOUF, J., J. ZEE, N. TREMBLAY, A. BÉLANGER, M. H. MICHAUD and

A. GOSSELIN. 1995. Some nutritional characteristics of beans, sweet corn and
peas (raw, canned and frozen) produced in the province of Quebec. Food
research international, 28(3), 253-259.
36
37
MISNER, S., and F. T. ARMSTRONG. 2013. Organically grown foods versus non-
organically grown foods. The University of Arezona. College of Agriculture
and Life Sciences. Cooperative Extension. AZ1603.
MOGHTADER, M., H. SALARI and A. FARAHMAND. 2011. Evaluation of the

antifungal effects of rosemary oil and comparison with synthetic borneol and
fungicide on the growth of Aspergillus flavus. J. of Ecology and the Natural
Environment. 3(6): 210-214.
MUHMOOD, A., S. JAVID, Z. A. AHMAD, A. MAJEED and R. A. RAFIQUE. 2014.

Integrated use of bioslurry and chemical fertilizers for vegetable production.
Pak. J. Agri. Sci. 51(3). 565-570.
OCAMPO, V. 2016. Rice and Corn Situation Outlook. Philippine Statistics Authority
2016. Retrieved from https://psa.gov.ph/content/rice-and-corn-situation-and-
outlook-july-2016.
OWUREKU-ASARE, M., J. AGYEI-AMPONSAH, S. W. K. AGBEMAVOR, J.

APATEY, A. K. SARFO, A. A. OKYERE and M. T. DODOBI. 2015. Effect of
organic fertilizers on physical and chemical quality of sugar loaf pineapple
(Ananas comosus L) grown in two ecological sites in Ghana. African Journal of
Food, Agriculture, Nutrition and Development, 15(2), 9982-9995.
PALM, C. A., R. J. MYERS and S. M. NANDWA. 1997. Combined use of organic and
inorganic nutrient sources for soil fertility maintenance and
replenishment. Replenishing soil fertility in Africa, (replenishingsoi), 193-217.
PASCUAL, J. A., C. GARCIA and T. HERNANDEZ. 1997. Lasting micribiological

and biochemical effects of the addition of municipal solid waste to an arid soil.
Biol. Fertile. Soils. 30:1 – 6.
PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY 2016. Selected statistics on agriculture.

ISSN-2012-0362. (www.psa.gov.ph)
PONSICA, E. P. 1982. Effect of animal manure application on the growth and yield of
corn. Unpublished undergraduate thesis. Visayas State College of Agriculture,
Baybay, Leyte. 55 pp.
POTTIER, J. 1999. Anthropology of food: the social dynamics of food security. Polity
Press. ISBN-13: 978-0745615349. ISBN-10: 0745615341
PREAP, V. M., P. ZALUCKI and G. C. JHAN. 2002. Effect of nitrogen fertilizer and
host plant variety on fecundity and early instar survival of Nilaparvata lugens
(stal)
37
38
PY. C., J. J. LACOEUILHE and C. TEISON. 1987. The pineapple, cultivation and
uses. G.P. Maisonneuve et Larose, Paris.
ROTHSCHILD, M. 1998. The butterfly gardeners and elive farell, Great Britain,
pp128-130.
SAILER, L. 2012. The Importance of Corn Journal. Industry News. The Field Position.
(http://www.thefieldposition.com/2012/06/the-importance-of-corn/)
SALAS, F. M. and R. A. SALAS. 2014. Liquid nutrient formulations for lettuce

(Lactuca Sativa L.) production under aggregate hydroponic system. In
proceedings: AFSSA (Asian Food Security and Security Association)
conference on food safety and food security. Dong Nai province, Vietnam.
SALAS, F. M., A. BORINAGA and R. A. SALAS. 2015. Liquid nutrient formulation

for High Value Vegetables. In proceedings: 26th ViCARP Regional RRDEN
Scientific Symposium held at Visayas State University Convention Hall,
Baybay City, Leyte on March 27-28, 2015.
SARKER, M. A. R., M. Y. A. PRAMANIK, G. M. FARUK and M. Y. ALI. 2004.

Effect of green manures and levels of nitrogen on some growth attributes of
transplant aman rice. Pakistan J. Biol. Sci, 7, 739-742.
SHAFI, M., J. BAKHT, M. T. JAN and Z. SHAH. 2007. Soil C and N dynamics and
maize (Zea mays L.) yield as affected by cropping systems and residue
management in North-western Pakistan. Soil and Tillage Research, 94(2), 520-
529.-based cropping system. J. Agr. Sci. (Camb.) 1991; 117: 313-318.
SHARMA, A. R. and B. N. MITTRA. 1991. Effects of different rates of application of

organic and nitrogen fertilizers in a rice
SINHA, R. K., G. HAHN, P. K. SINGH, R. K. SUHANE and A. ANTHONYREDDY.

2011. Organic Farming by Vermiculture: Producing Safe, Nutritive and
Protective Foods by Earthworms (Charles Darwin’s Friends of Farmers);
American J. of Experimental Agriculture., 1(4): pp. 363-399; Science Domain
International (www.sciencedomain.org).
SMITH, B. L. 1993. Organic Foods Vs. Supermarket Foods: Elemental levels. J. of

Appl. Nutrition. 45: 53-39.
SOFIA, P. K., R. PRASAD and V. K. VIJAY. 2006. Organic farming-tradition

reinvented. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228782822_Organic_farming-
Tradition_reinvented.
SOUZA, L. F. S., G. A. P. CUNHA, J. R. S. CABRAL and O. A. CULTIVO. 1991. ,

agroindustria e economia. Brasila: EMBRAPA.1: 169 – 202.
38
39
STOCKDALE, E. A., N. H. LAMPKIN and M. HOVI 2001. Agronomic and

environmental implications of organic farming systems. Advances in
Agronomy, 70:261–327.
THEUER, R. C. 2006. Do organic fruits and vegetables taste better than conventional
fruits and vegetables?. State of Science Review, The Organic Center. 50.
WILLER, H. and J. LERNOUD (Eds.) 2015. The World of Organic Agriculture

Statistics and Emerging trends 2015. International federation of Organic
Agriculture Movements. Retrieved from www.organic-world.net.
WOESE, K., D. LANGE, C. BOESS and K.W. BOGL. 1997. A comparison of

organically and conventionally grown foods-results of a review of the relevant
literature. J Sci Food Agric., 74, 281-293.
YUSSEFI, M. and H. WILLER 2003. The World of Organic Agriculture-Statistics and

Future Prospects. International federation of organic agriculture movements
(IFOAM). 5th, revised edition. 316 pp.
39
40
CHAPTER II
GROWTH AND YIELD PERFORMANCE OF HYBRID SWEETCORN

(Zea mays L.) APPLIED WITH DIFFERENT ORGANIC
MATERIALS COMBINED WITH
INORGANIC FERTILIZERS
40
41
ABSTRACT
Organic manures can be used as an alternative for inorganic fertilizers.
However, application of organic inputs alone cannot meet the nutritional requirements
of the crop. There is a need to combine them with inorganic fertilizers in order to attain
better yield. This study was conducted to evaluate the effects of organic and inorganic
fertilizers on the growth and yield performance of sweetcorn and assess the profitability
of combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers on sweetcorn production.
The experiment was laid out in RCBD with 3 replications. Treatments were as follows:
T0 = Control (without fertilizer applied), T1 - Inorganic fertilizer at 90-60-60 kg ha-1 (N,
P2O5, K2O), T2 = 5 t ha-1 of vermicompost + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O, T3 = 5 t
ha-1 of poultry manure + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O, T4 = 5 t ha-1 of cow manure +
45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O, T5 = 5 t ha-1 of goat manure + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5,
K2O, T6 = 5 t ha-1 of mudpress + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O, T7 = Foliar spray
(Fermented Golden Snail) + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O.
Sweetcorn plants applied with organic + inorganic fertilizers regardless of
sources gave a significant growth and yield compared to those plants without fertilizer
applied.
The highest net income and ROI were obtained from plants applied with
combined goat manure and inorganic fertilizers at PhP 62,086.00 ha-1 and 72 %,
respectively.
Keywords: combined application, growth and yield performance, inorganic fertilizer,

organic manures, profitability, hybrid sweetcorn
41
42
INTRODUCTION
One of the management practices under intensive cultivation is through the
application of fertilizers. Organic fertilizers, such as animal manure and crop residues
can be used as an alternative for inorganic fertilizers (Sharma and Mittra, 1991).
However, recent studies revealed that the application of organic inputs alone cannot
meet the nutritional requirements of the crop that there is a need to integrate with
inorganic fertilizers in order to achieve better yields. Supply of nutrients from organic
materials can be complemented by enriching them with inorganic nutrients that will
be readily released and utilized by the crop to compensate for the slow release organic
nutrients.
2007). Hence, combination of organic and inorganic fertilizer is recommended to
42
43
dependence on chemical fertilizers. This will also lead to sustainably high crop
production due to minimal nutrient losses to the environment and optimum nutrient use
efficiency (Akhtar et al., 2011).
Several researches on fertilization has been studied on the yield performance
and profitability of corn. However, most of the practices only used either organic or
inorganic inputs alone. Hence, this study was conducted to evaluate the effects of
combined organic and inorganic fertilizer application on the growth and yield
performance of hybrid sweetcorn and to assess its profitability on hybrid sweetcorn
production.
43
44
MATERIALS AND M ETHODS
Land Preparation
An experimental area of 857.5 m2 was plowed and harrowed twice at weekly
interval to pulverize the soil. This was done to incorporate the weeds in the soil and
provide good soil condition for seed germination. Furrows were made at a distance of
0.75 m between rows after the second harrowing.
Experimental Design and Treatments
The experimental area of 857.5 m2 was laid out in Randomized Complete Block
Design (RCBD) with three replications. Each replication was divided into eight (8)
plots measuring 5 m X 4.5 m (Appendix Fig. 2). There were 24 plots in the experiment.
Each plot had six rows of sweetcorn. An alleyway of 1 m was provided between
replications and between treatment plots to facilitate farm operations and data
gathering. The treatments were designated as follows:
T0 – Control (without fertilizer applied)
T1 - Inorganic fertilizer at 90-60-60 kg ha-1 (N, P2O5, K2O)
T2 – 5 t ha-1 of vermicompost + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T3 – 5 t ha-1 of poultry manure + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T4 – 5 t ha-1 of cow manure + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T5 – 5 t ha-1 of goat manure + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T6 – 5 t ha-1 of mudpress + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T7 – Foliar spray (Fermented Golden Snail) + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
44
45
Soil Sampling and Analysis
Ten (10) soil samples were randomly collected from the experimental area at 20
cm depth before the conduct of the experiment. These were composited, air-dried and
sieved using 2.0 mm wire mesh. These were submitted to the Central Analytical Service
Laboratory (CASL), Philippine Root Crops Research Center (PhilRootcrops), VSU,
Visca, Baybay City, Leyte for the determination of soil pH, organic matter (%)
(Modified Walkley Black Method; PCARR, 1980), total N (%) (Modified Kjedahl
Method, PCARR 1980), available phosphorous (Modified Olsen Method, Olsen and
Sommer, 1982) and exchangeable potassium content (Ammonium Acetate Method,
PCARR, 1980).
After harvest, soil samples were gathered for final analysis. Samples were
collected per treatment plot at 20 cm depth and composited for the determination of the
same soil parameters mentioned above.
Organic Manures Collection and Nutrient Analysis
Vermicompost was collected from the Farm Resource and Management
Institute (Eco-FARMI), VSU, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte. Poultry manure was collected
from Ciabo Poultry Farm, Ciabo, Baybay City, Leyte. Cow and goat manures were
collected from the Department of Animal Science (DAS), VSU , Visca, Baybay City,
Leyte. Mud press was secured from Juanito Farm, Montebello, Kanangga, Leyte. The
raw organic materials secured were on their composted form.
One fourth (0.25) kilogram sample of each organic manures was collected and
analyzed for pH, total N, available P, exchangeable K and moisture content (%) at the
45
46
CASL, PhilRootCrops, VSU, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte. The actual amount of manure
applied was based on MC (%) using the formula:
5000 kgha-1
Actual amount of Organic Fertilizer = -----------------------
1 – % MC/100
Fermented Golden Snail Preparation
The golden snails were collected from the rice field. These were crushed and
mixed with muscovado sugar with a ratio of 2:1 kilos with a little amount of water. The
mixture was placed in an empty clean container and the top was covered with manila
paper and covered with its lid. It had been set aside for 2 weeks in a cool shaded place
to allow fermentation process. After fermentation, straining was done to separate solid
material from liquid. The liquid solution was placed in a clean container with lightly
closed lid to prevent contamination and gas build up. A 250 ml sample of fermented
golden snail was analyzed for pH, total N, available P, and exchangeable K at the
CASL, PhilRootCrops, VSU, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte.
Application of Fertilizers
The organic fertilizers were applied uniformly in the furrows and were
incorporated into the soil in each treatment plot two weeks before planting (WBP) at
the rate of 5 t ha-1 for treatments 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. The inorganic fertilizers were applied
in the furrows. Complete fertilizer (14-14-14) was drilled 10 days after planting (DAP)
at the rate of 90-60-60 for treatment 1 and 45-30-30 for treatments 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. Urea
(46-0-0) was sidedressed 30 DAP. The actual amount of organic manures and inorganic
fertilizer applied per plot are indicated in Table 1.
46
47
Table 1. Amount of organic and inorganic fertilizers applied

Types of fertilizer Amount of fertilizers applied (kg plot-1)
Organic Manures
 Vermicompost 11.47
 Poultry manure 11.47
 Cow manure 11.71
 Goat manure 12.23
 Mudpress 11.60
Inorganic fertilizers (90-60-60)

 Complete (14-4-14) 0.96
 Urea (46-0-0) 0.29
Inorganic fertilizers (45-30-30) 0.48

 Complete (14-4-14) 0.07
 Urea (46-0-0)
Fermented golden snail as foliar spray

(L plot-1)
 7 DAP 1.00
 14 DAP 1.50
 21 DAP 2.00
 28 DAP 2.55
 35 DAP 3.00
The fermented golden snail was applied as foliar spray in treatment 7, diluted at
a ratio of 3 tablespoons to 1 liter of water and sprayed to plants at weekly interval. This
was done at 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 days after planting (DAP). The dilution rate of
fermented golden snail vary in each application schedule by increasing the amount as
the plant grew. The older the plants, the higher is the dilution rate of fermented golden
snail (Table 1).
Sweetcorn Variety and its Characteristics
Macho F1 hybrid sweetcorn variety was used in the study. This variety produces
long cylindrical ears with 16-18 kernel rows and with good tip-filled kernels. Its green
47
48
husk makes it look fresh and more attractive to buyers. This variety is adaptable to wet
and dry season. It is a high yielding hybrid with wide market potential which can be
used for fresh and processed products. It is resistant against stalk rot and rust
(Sweetcorn Variety, 2016).
Planting
Seeds were directly planted at the rate of 1 seed hill-1 to have a desired plant
population of 53,333 plants ha-1 at a distance of 0.75 m between rows and 0.25 m
between hills 2 weeks after basal application of organic fertilizer. Seeds were also sown
on seed trays for replanting of missing hills. Replanting was done 7 DAP.
Cultivation and Maintenance
Off-baring was done using a carabao drawn implement to turn the soil away
from the base of the plants for better soil aeration and control of weeds 15 DAP. Hilling
up was employed 30 DAP to cover the sidedressed fertilizer on the second application
for better anchorage, stability and also minimize the occurrence of weeds.
Handweeding was done to control regrowth of weeds within the experimental
area after hilling up but the weeds in surrounding area was maintained to conserve the
population of the natural enemies. Weeds at the base of the plants was removed by hand
weeding.
Control of Insect Pests and Diseases
Insect pests and diseases infestation were controlled by application of botanical
pesticide derived from tobacco and mild liquid soap at weekly interval from V3 (third
leaf) until VT (tasseling). Daily monitoring of insect pest infestations and diseases
48
49
infections was done to assess damage. Marigold flower (Calendula officinalis) was also
planted along the sides of the experimental area at a distance of 0.5 meter from the
border plants at the sides and alleyways to serve as insect repellant.
Botanical Pesticide Preparation
Tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum Linn.) was used as botanical pesticides. It contains
varying amounts of nicotine, a powerful neurotoxin to pests. This was prepared
following the procedure of Isman (2006):
1. Mix 1 cup (250 ml) of tobacco extract in 1 gallon (4 liters) of water.
2. Sit the mixture out in the sun or in another warm location. Allow it to stand for
24 hours.
3. Check the color of the mixture. Ideally, the pesticides will look similar to the
hue of a light tea. If it is too dark, dilute it with water. If it is too light, allow it
to stand for another 1 to 2 hours.
4. Add small amount of liquid mild soap.
5. Pour the mixture into a large squirt bottle. Shake the solution inside the bottle
once more to combine it further.
6. Spray to sweetcorn plants at weekly interval from V3 (third leaf) until VT
(tasseling) using knapsack sprayer (Table 2).
Table 2. Amount of botanical pesticide applied (L plot-1)

Schedule of application (DAP) Amount of botanical pesticide (L plot-1)
7 1.0
14 1.5
21 2.0
28 2.5
35 3.0
49
50
Harvesting
Sweetcorn was harvested at boiling stage or the green cob stage when it reached
its R3 stage (Milking). All sample plants for gathering agronomic characteristics, yield
and yield components and harvest index were taken within the harvestable area (13.5
m2). Ears from harvestable area were detached from its stover and dehusked.
The following are the indicators and/or steps for the determination of green cob
ready to be harvested (Guidelines How to harvest Corn n.d.):
1. Inspect the appearance of the ears. Ripe sweet corn ears have dark green leaves
covering them. The silk on the ears turns brown as the corn ripens.
2. Squeeze the tip of the ears gently. Feel for a rounded end to the ear. If the end
still feels pointed, the corn is likely still growing and not ready for harvesting.
3. Peel back the husk slightly to inspect the corn kernels. Ears with plump, full
kernels that are soft indicate ripeness.
4. Puncture a kernel with your finger to evaluate the juice inside. Harvest the corn
when the juice shall have a milky appearance. If the juice appears watery, it is
still unfit to harvest.
Data Gathered
A. Agronomic Characteristics
1. Number of days from planting to emergence - this was determined by
counting the number of days from planting up to 50% of the crop population have
emerged.
50
51
2. Number of days from planting to tasseling - this was determined by counting the
number of days from planting to Vt stage or 50% of the population reached
tasseling [begins when hanging pollen (male flower) visible at the top of corn
plant].
3. Number of days from planting to silking - this was determined by counting the
number of days from planting to R1 stage or 50% of the population reached
silking or when the silks are visible at the tip of the husk.
4. Number of days from planting to boiling stage - this was recorded by counting
the number of days from planting up to the time when 80% of the population
reach the R3 (boiling stage). Ears is ready to be harvested when the kernels
contain milky juice and the silks are brown and dry. However, the husk are still
green and supple. To test, kernels can be pierced and bitten to observe the milky
juice.
5. Plant height (cm) - this was determined by measuring 10 sample plants in each
treatment plot from ground level up to the tip of the tallest plant part using a meter
stick. This was done 14, 28, 42, 56 DAP and at harvest.
6. Fresh stover yield (tha-1) - this was determined by weighing the fresh stalks
including the husks of the sweetcorn ears within the harvestable area in each
treatment plot after removing the ears using the formula:
Stover Yield (kg) 10,000 m2

Stover Yield (t ha -1) = ----------------------------------------X --------------------
Harvestable Area (13.5 m2) 1,000 kg t-1
Adjusted Stover Yield was calculated using the formula:
Weight of Stover Yield (t ha -1)

-1
Adjusted Stover Yield (t ha ) = ----------------------------------------X No. of possible hills
No. of hills harvested
51
52
B. Yield and Yield Components
1. Number of ears plant-1- this was determined by counting the developed ears of
ten (10) sample plants within the harvestable area of each treatment plot.
2. Ear length (cm) - this was determined by measuring the 10 sample dehusked
ears in each treatment plot from the base to tip of the ear with kernels using a
ruler at harvest.
3. Ear diameter (cm) - this was determined by measuring the diameter of 10 sample
dehusked ears in each treatment plot using a vernier caliper.
4. Number of marketable ears plot-1 - this was obtained by counting the dehusked
marketable ears within the harvestable area in each treatment plot. To consider
the missing hills, this was calculated using the formula:
No. of marketable ears

No. of marketable ears (plot-1) = ------------------------------- X No. of possible hills (72)
Ears were considered marketable when the following criteria was met
(Taber and Lawson, 2007):
a. The deshusked ear should be 15 cm and above in length.
b. The dehusked ear should be 5 cm and above in diameter.
c. The dehusked ear should be 0.25 kg and above in weight.
d. The kernels of the dehusked ear should be large and filled out the ear.
e. The dehusked ear should be free of damaged by insect pests, diseases, etc.
f. The dehusked ear should bear complete kernels in each cob rows, firm and
no soft spots and blemishes.
52
53
5. Number of non-marketable ears plot-1 - this was obtained by counting those
dehusked ears within the harvestable area in each treatment plot not classified as
marketable. To consider the missing hills, this was calculated using the formula:
No. of non-marketable ears

No. of non-marketable ears = ------------------------------------X No. of possible hills (72)
6. Weight of marketable ears (t ha-1) - this was obtained by weighing the dehusked
marketable ears within the harvestable area in each treatment plot. Weight of
marketable ears in kilogram ha-1 was computed using the formula:
Wt. (kgplot-1) 10,000 m2

Wt. of marketable ears (t ha-1) = ----------------------------------- X -----------------
Harvestable area (13.5 m2) 1,000 kgha-1
7. Weight of non-marketable ears (t ha-1) – this was the weight obtained from
those ears not classified as marketable ears from each treatment plot at harvest.
This was calculated using the same formula used in the calculation of the weight
of marketable ears.
8. Total ear yield (t ha-1) – The weights of marketable and non-marketable ears (t
ha-1) were summed up to obtain the total yield.
C. Insect Pest and Diseases Incidence - incidence of pests and diseases were
determined by adopting the following rating scale on the degree of damage or
infestation (Cruz et al. 2009):
1 - No damage/infestation
2 - Moderate light damage/infestation
3 - Light damage/infestation
4 - Moderate heavy damage/infestation
5 - Heavy damage/infestation
53
54
6 - Severe damage/infestation
D. Harvest Index – this was to ratio of the economic yield and biological yield of a
crop. The dehusked ears and herbage of three (3) sample plants from each treatment
plot were weighed separately to obtain the harvest index using the formula:
Economic Yield Fresh green cob yield (dehusked)

Harvest Index = ------------------------ = --------------------------------------------------------
Biological Yield Fresh herbage plus green cob yield (dehusked)
E. Meteorological Data
Total weekly rainfall (mm), average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures (0C) and relative humidity (%) throughout the conduct of the study were
taken from the records of Philippine Atmospheric Geophysical and Astronomical
Services (PAGASA) Station, Visayas State University, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte.
F. Statistical Tool Used
Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done using the Statistical Tool for
Agricultural Research (STAR). Treatment mean comparison was done using the
Tukey’s or Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test.
G. Production Cost and Return Analysis
The production cost was determined by recording all the expenses incurred
throughout the conduct of the study from land preparation up to harvesting. These
include fertilizers, materials and labor that were used in the conduct of the experiment.
Total cost (material, labor, etc.) incurred was subtracted to the gross income to obtain
the net income. The gross income was determined by multiplying the marketable ear
yield of each treatment plot by the current market price of sweet corn per kilogram. The
54
55
gross income, net income and return on investment were determined using the
following formula:
Gross Income = Total marketable ear yield (t ha-1) X current market price per
kilogram
Net Income = Gross Income – Total Expenses
Net Income
ROI = ------------------------------ X 100
Cost of Investment
55
56
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
General Observations
The total weekly rainfall (mm), average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures (0C) and relative humidity (%) throughout the duration of the study are
presented in Figure 1 and Appendix Table 4. Data showed that the rainfall fall on the
average of 116.9 mm. This result substantially sufficient for the growth and
development of sweetcorn because it conformed to the optimum requirement of the
crop at more or less 60 mm per week from planting to harvesting (Department of
Agriculture and Fisheries, 2010). The rainfall was increased in week 6 at 441.0 mm due
to typhoon Paolo that brought heavy rainfall. The minimum and maximum temperature
ranges from 22.3 to 30.1 0C respectively which gave favor to sweetcorn for normal
growth and development. The Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (1980) reported
Rainfall (%) Minimum Temperature

Maximum Temperature Relative Humidity (%)
500
400
300
200
100
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Figure 1. Total weekly rainfall (mm), average daily minimum and maximum
temperatures (0C) and relative humidity (%) from planting to harvesting of
sweetcorn.
56
57
that the optimum temperature requirement for normal growth and development of corn
stands is 24 to 28 0C. Likewise, Jacobson (2016) also reported that sweetcorn needs
temperature of 20 to 30 0C for germination. The relative humidity of 81-89 % was also
favorable for growth and development of sweetcorn.
Missing hills were replanted using seedlings grown in seedling trays sown
synchronously during planting. Plants without basal application of organic manure (T0,
T1 and T7) emerged late, hence, their vegetative and reproductive stages were also late.
Sweetcorn plants applied with different organic manures were almost uniform two
weeks after emergence. Normally, plants without fertilizers showed yellowing of leaves
and stunted growth. On the other hand, fertilized plants regardless of fertilizer sources
were green and grew normally. However, greener and taller plants were observed in
plants applied with combined poultry manure and inorganic fertilizers (T3) during
vegetative and reproductive stages.
Incidence of corn borer, seedling maggot, earworm and white flies, and stalk rot
disease were observed in the experimental area (Appendix Table 32-34). However, it
was controlled by spraying botanical pesticide derived from tobacco and mild liquid
soap. Diseased plants were uprooted and disposed away from the experimental area.
Weed species such as purple nutsedge (Cyperus rotundos Linn), barnyard grass
(Echinocloa crusgalli Linn), jungle rice (Echinocloa colona Linn), crowfoot grass
(Eleusine indica Linn), itchgrass (Rottbolloea cochinchinensis Linn), carabao grass
(Paspalum conjugatum Linn), etc. were prevalent in the experimental area. However,
it was controlled by handweeding during the early stage.
57
58
Soil Chemical Properties
Soil test results are presented in Table 3. Initial results revealed that the
experimental area had a slightly acidic soil (6.51) with adequate organic matter content
(5.478 %) and potassium (330.000 mgkg-1) content, low total nitrogen (0.206 %) and
phosphorous (6.955 mgkg-1) based on the indices on soil nutrient availability by Landon
(1991).
After harvesting the crop, results of the soil analyses indicated that soil nutrients
were not affected by the treatments except pH and available P (mgkg-1). Highest pH
value (6.27) was recorded in plots applied with combined poultry manure and inorganic
fertilizers (T3) comparable to plots not applied with any fertilizers (T0), combined cow
dung and inorganic fertilizers (T4), combined goat manure and inorganic fertilizers (T5),
combined with fermented golden snail and inorganic fertilizers (T7). This result could
be contributed to the higher pH value of these organic manures applied (Table 4). On
the other hand, lowest pH value (5.56) was recorded from plots applied with pure
inorganic fertilizers (T1). This could be attributed to the high pH from urea hydrolysis
and ammonium content of inorganic fertilizer. Jenkins (2015) mentioned that fertilizer
containing ammonium acidifies the soil. He added that inorganic fertilizer can be easy
to be leached its nitrate and sulfate which loss some base cations causing acidification.
The relative increase in P after harvest could be attributed to the mineralization
of organic fertilizers. Nutrient analyses of different manures (Table 4) revealed that
poultry manure had the highest P content (2.226 %), thus plots applied with poultry
manure and inorganic fertilizers (T3) obtained the highest P content after harvest
relative to the plots applied with pure inorganic fertilizers (T1) comparable to those with
58
59
vermicompost (T2), cow dung (T4) and mudpress (T6) combined with inorganic
fertilizers.
Table 3. Soil analysis before planting and after harvesting applied with different organic
materials combined with inorganic fertilizers
Treatment pH OM Total N Available P Exchangeable

(1:2.5) (%) (%) (mg kg-1) K (mg kg-1)
A. Initial (before planting)
6.51 5.478 0.206 6.955 330.000
B. Final (after harvest)
T0 6.08ab 1.510 0.111 8.113b 338.333

T1 5.57c 1.364 0.119 33.565a 292.917
T2 5.80bc 1.233 0.119 15.817ab 230.000
T3 6.27a 1.273 0.128 31.057a 376.250
T4 5.98ab 1.346 0.115 13.587ab 271.250
T5 6.01ab 1.551 0.129 9.304b 382.708
T6 5.84bc 1.278 0.105 16.637ab 237.500
T7 6.01ab 1.482 0.104 7.254b 266.667
Mean 5.94 1.380 0.116 16.920 299.450

CV (%) 2.04 18.69 15.78 43.30 22.49
Treatments with the same and without letter designations are not significantly
different at 0.05 (HSD) and ANOVA, respectively.
Legend:
T0 = Control (without fertilizer applied)

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T2 = 5 t ha-1 vermicompost + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T3 = 5 t ha-1 poultry manure + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T4 = 5 t ha-1 cow dung + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T5 = 5 t ha-1 goat manure + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T6 = 5 t ha-1 mudpress + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T7 = Fermented golden snail (foliar spray) + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
59
60
Organic Fertilizers Chemical Properties
The chemical properties of organic fertilizers are presented in Table 4. Different
organic fertilizers contained adequate amount of nutrients. These contributed the
significant number, bigger, longer and marketable ears of sweetcorn than those not
applied with any of these organic fertilizers. Thus, resulted the crop obtained significant
growth and yield.
Table 4. Chemical properties of different organic fertilizers

Moisture
pH OM Total (%) Content
(1:2.5) (%) N P K (%)
Vermicompost 6.20 4.691 1.890 0.546 0.175 2.041

Poultry dung 8.73 4.342 3.049 2.226 3.513 2.041
Cow dung 8.49 5.090 2.018 0.446 1.363 4.167
Goat manure 8.61 5.586 2.448 0.304 2.200 7.527
Mudpress 6.66 5.844 2.276 0.967 0.225 3.093
FGS 6.50 nd 0.258 trace 0.130 nd
Agronomic Characteristics of Sweetcorn
The number of days from planting to emergence, tasseling, silking and boiling
stages, stover yield (t ha-1) and plant height (cm) of sweetcorn applied with different
organic materials combined with inorganic fertilizers are presented in Tables 5, 6 and
Appendix Tables 12 to 21. Statistical analyses revealed that all agronomic
characteristics of sweetcorn except the stover yield were significantly affected by the
treatments.
All plants applied with organic and inorganic fertilizers regardless of nutrient
sources (T1, T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 and T7) reached the boiling stage earlier compared to those
plants not applied with any fertilizers (T0). This could be attributed to the early tasseling
60
61
and silking of fertilized plants. Joyo (2007) found that unfertilized corn developed
slower compared to fertilized plants. This result confirmed the findings of Catingan
(1982) that corn in less fertile soil delays boiling stage and maturity. Chen (2006) also
Table 5. Number of days from planting to emergence, tasseling, silking and boiling
stages of hybrid sweetcorn applied with different organic materials combined
with inorganic fertilizers
Number of days from planting to

Treatment Emergence Tasseling Silking Boiling stage
T0 5.00 50.67a 57.66a 69.00a
T1 5.00 48.67abc 55.00ab 67.00ab
T2 3.00 48.00abc 53.66bcd 67.00ab
T3 3.00 46.00c 51.33d 66.00b
T4 3.00 48.00abc 53.33bcd 66.67b
T5 4.00 47.33bc 52.66cd 66.67b
T6 4.00 49.00ab 54.66abc 67.33ab
T7 5.00 49.33ab 54.66abc 67.67ab
C.V. (%) 0.00* 2.13 1.67 1.20

Treatment means with the same and without letter designations are not
significantly different at 0.05 HSD and ANOVA, respectively.
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
61
62
reported that application of combined organic manure and inorganic fertilizers
enhances the growth and development of corn, thus the crop matured earlier.
Table 6. Plant height (cm) and stover yield (t ha-1) of hybrid sweetcorn applied with
different organic materials combined with inorganic fertilizers
Treatment Plant Height (cm) DAP Stover

14 28 42 56 At Yield
harvest (t ha-1)
T0 30.72b 79.72b 124.85b 184.20b 189.03b 12.42
T1 31.00b 100.25ab 187.57a 245.35a 248.37a 19.81
T2 31.57b 100.40ab 182.28a 245.47a 250.12a 21.95
T3 36.61a 113.18a 193.93a 246.02a 248.30a 20.69
T4 30.27b 100.72a 185.35a 245.15a 247.43a 19.93
T5 33.53ab 102.10a 184.31a 242.63a 251.30a 21.76
T6 31.65b 99.22ab 177.42a 245.88a 247.90a 20.27
T7 30.07b 93.43ab 175.07a 237.45a 240.27a 22.51
C.V. (%) 5.34 7.29 6.31 4.40 4.52 17.36

Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
62
63
Plants applied with combined poultry manure and inorganic fertilizers (T3) and
combined goat manure and inorganic fertilizers (T5) were similarly taller than other
treatments (T0, T1, T2, T4, T6 and T7) at 14 DAP. This might be due to the high nutrient
content of these organic fertilizers (Table 4). However, at 28 DAP up to harvest, plants
applied with combined organic and inorganic fertilizers regardless of nutrient sources
(T2, T3, T4, T5, T6 and T7) were statistically similar to plants applied with pure inorganic
fertilizers (T1) and were taller than plants not applied with any fertilizers (T0). This
result suggests that nutrients were already released and absorbed by the plants, thus,
increasing plant height. This conforms to the findings of Elisan (2015) that application
of combined organic and inorganic fertilizers significantly increased the height of
glutinous corn during the early vegetative up to the reproductive stage. This result can
be attributed to the adequate amount of nutrients from the fertilizers applied, thus
elongates the internode of sweetcorn. As the internodes elongate, the stalks increased
its length.
Yield and Yield Components of Sweetcorn
The yield and yield characteristics of sweetcorn applied with different organic
materials combined with inorganic fertilizers are presented in Tables 7, 8 and Appendix
Tables 22 to 30. Results indicated that plants applied with combined poultry manure
and inorganic fertilizers (T3) had significantly more number of ears comparable to those
with combined cow dung and inorganic fertilizers (T4). As expected, unfertilized plants
obtained the least ear due to insufficient nutrients for ear development. Different
applications of various organic materials combined with inorganic fertilizers on hybrid
sweetcorn had significantly longer and larger ears (cm), had more marketable ears,
63
64
heavier marketable ears (kgha-1) and total ear yield (t ha-1) than the untreated control.
The significantly longer and bigger ears contributed to the significant weight of
marketable ears of fertilized plants regardless of nutrient sources. Thus, the fertilized
Table 7. Number of ears, ear length and diameter and number of marketable and non-
marketable ears of hybrid sweetcorn applied with different organic materials
combined with inorganic fertilizers
Ear (cm) No. of Ears (plot-1)

Treatments No. of Length Diameter Marketable Non-
Ears plant-1 Marketable
T0 1.00c 7.88b 4.06b 0.57b 42.28
T1 1.20b 16.82a 4.98a 24.99ab 28.61
T2 1.27b 16.80a 4.79a 24.40ab 32.42
T3 1.47a 17.78a 4.86a 18.48ab 42.72
T4 1.33ab 16.76a 4.78a 25.82ab 32.74
T5 1.27b 16.07a 4.85a 30.00a 28.37
T6 1.23b 16.60a 4.79a 24.24ab 30.36
T7 1.27b 17.07a 4.80a 31.35a 32.78
C.V. (%) 4.48 7.15 4.14 42.97 25.35

Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
64
65
plants significantly obtained the higher total ear yield compared to the untreated control
(T0). This could be attributed to the adequate amount of nutrients from different organic
fertilizers (Table 4) + inorganic fertilizers applied. Burr (1979) reported that
sweetcorn required the minimum rate of 90-60-60 kg N, P2O5, K2O. Sweetcorn without
fertilizer applied had the lowest yield.
Table 8. Ear yield and harvest index of hybrid sweetcorn
Ear Yield (t ha-1) Harvest

Treatment Marketable Non- Total Index
Marketable (HI)
T0 0.05b 2.35 2.40b 0.20
T1 5.07a 3.87 8.94a 0.32
T2 3.33a 4.97 8.30a 0.20
T3 4.03a 4.90 8.93a 0.27
T4 5.55a 3.09 8.64a 0.32
T5 5.93a 3.33 9.26a 0.27
T6 3.38a 3.71 7.09a 0.23
T7 4.95a 3.63 8.58a 0.26
CV (%) 26.89 27.16 25.04 31.76

significantly different at 0.05, HSD and ANOVA, respectively.
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
65
66
The result implies the benefits of the combination of organic and inorganic
fertilizers plus the favourable atmospheric condition on the significant increase yield in
green cob of sweetcorn. Ojeniyi (2002) also reported that the combination of organic
and inorganic fertilizers can improve yield of corn crop significantly. With inorganic
fertilizer applied though half of the recommended rate could have provided a readily
available plant nutrients which improved corn yield and productivity. Likewise,
Motavilli et al. (1994) found that combination of organic fertilizers to soil improve corn
yield and its quality.
Production Cost and Return Analysis
Profitability of sweetcorn production ha-1 applied with different organic
materials combined with inorganic fertilizers is presented in Table 9 and Appendix
Table 31. All fertilized plants obtained higher gross income, net income and return on
investment (ROI) compared to plants without fertilizer applied. Results show that the
higher marketable ear yield greatly contributed to the increase in gross income. It also
depicts that the higher the production cost, the lower is the net income.
Highest net income of PhP 62,086.00 ha-1 was obtained from plants applied with
combined goat manure and inorganic fertilizers (T5) followed by plants applied with
combined cow dung and inorganic fertilizers (T4) (PhP 52,786.00 ha-1) and plants
applied with pure inorganic fertilizer (T1) (PhP 47,594.00 ha-1) due to their high
marketable ear yield obtained and slightly lower production cost (Appendix Table 31).
ROI is a profitability ratio that calculates the profits of an investment as a
percentage of the original cost. For example, the plants applied with combined goat
66
67
manure and inorganic fertilizers (T5) got the highest ROI of 72 %; it means that in every
1 peso invested, there is a gain of PhP 0.7206.
Table 9. Cost and return analysis of hybrid sweetcorn production applied with different
organic materials combined with inorganic fertilizers
Marketable Gross Production Net ROI

Treatment Ear Yield Income* Cost Income (%)
(t ha-1) (PhP ha-1) (PhP ha-1) (PhP ha-1)
T0 0.05b 1,250.00 51,620.00 -50,370.00 -97.56
T1 5.07a 126,750.00 79,156.00 47, 594.00 60.13
T2 3.33a 83,250.00 117,304.00 -34,054.00 -25.03
T3 4.03a 100,750.00 87,484.00 13,266.00 15.16
T4 5.55a 138,750.50 85,964.00 52,786.00 61.40
T5 5.93a 148,250.00 86,164.00 62,086.00 72.06
T6 3.38ab 84,500.00 84,724.00 -224.00 -0.26
T7 123,750.00 86,134.00 37,616.00 43.67

4.95a
Gross income was computed based on the current wholesale/farmgate price of sweetcorn at PhP
25.00 kl-1 in the locality.
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
67
68
Sweetcorn plants applied with different organic materials in combination with
inorganic fertilizers were profitable except T2 and T6. This might be due to the higher
amount nutrients of these organic fertilizers applied that contributed to the marketable
ear yield
but low production cost.
The cost of organic materials differs among treatments. Highest cost was
incurred from the combination of vermicompost and inorganic fertilizers (T2) because
of the high price of vermicompost (Appendix Table 31) but since it has low amount of
nutrients (Table 4) relative to mudpress (T6), thus the returns were negative. The
combination of goat manure and inorganic fertilizers (T5) was more profitable and
advantageous because of the low price of goat manure (Appendix table 31) yet with
high amount of nutrient (Table 4) thus, high yield. The combination of poultry manure
and inorganic fertilizers (T3) got the lowest net income because of its relatively higher
price.
68
69
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Conclusion
Sweetcorn applied with organic and inorganic fertilizers regardless of sources
gave favorable growth and yield performance. Application of combined goat manure
and inorganic fertilizers (T5) was greatly profitable for it gained higher net income and
ROI of PhP 62,086.00 ha-1 and 72.06 %, respectively. While, application of combined
inorganic fertilizers with either vermicompost (T2) or mudpress (T6) got a negative net
income.
Recommendation
The combined application of organic and inorganic fertilizers is recommended
for sweetcorn production. This is especially true if cheaper organic fertilizers with high
nutrient content such as goat manure or cow dung are available. A similar study may
be conducted to evaluate further the growth and yield response of sweetcorn under
different agroclimatic conditions.
69
70
LITERATURE CITED
AKHTAR, M., A. NAEEM, J. AKHTER, S. A. BOKHARI and W. ISHAQUE. 2011.

Improvement in nutrient uptake and yield of wheat by combined use of urea
and compost. Soil & Environment, 30: 45-49.
BURR, J., N. S. MANSOUR, E. H. GARDNER, H. J. MACK and T. L. JACKSON

.1979. Sweet corn: eastern Oregon, east of Cascades. Retrieved from
http://oregonstate.edu/dept/hermiston/sites/default/files/sweet_corn_fg62-
e2.pdf
CATINGAN, B. D. 1982. Growth, yield and yield components of flint corn as

influenced by varying nitrogen levels and tow spacing. Unpublished
Undergraduate Thesis. Visayas State College of Agriculture, Bayay City,
Leyte. 69 pp.
CHEN, J. H. 2006. The combined use of chemical and organic fertilizers and/or
biofertilizer for crop growth and soil fertility. In International workshop on
sustained management of the soil-rhizosphere system for efficient crop
production and fertilizer use (Vol. 16, p. 20). Land Development Department
Bangkok, Thailand.
CRUZ, F. C. S., J. M TAÑADA, P. R. V ELVIRA, L. M DOLORES, P. M.

MAGDALITA, D. M. HAUTEA and R. A. HAUTEA. 2009. Detection of
mixed virus infection with papaya ringspot virus (PRSV) in papaya (Carica
papaya L.) grown in Luzon, Philippines. Philipp. J. Crop Sci, 34, 62-74.
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries 2010. Weather condition requirements for

sweetcorn. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com.ph/search?dcr=0&ei=UQHTWtfmBoO80ATnp4TYB
g&q=Department+of+agriculture+and+fisheries+weather+requirement+for+s
weetcorn&oq=Department+of+agriculture+and+fisheries+weather+requireme
nt+for+sweetcorn&gs
Department of Agriculture and Fisheries 1980. Weather condition requirements for

sweetcorn. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com.ph/search?dcr=0&ei=UQHTWtfmBoO80ATnp4TYB
g&q=Department+of+agriculture+and+fisheries+weather+requirement+for+s
weetcorn&oq=Department+of+agriculture+and+fisheries+weather+requireme
nt+for+sweetcorn&gs
70
71
ELISAN, B. 2015. Growth and yield of glutinous corn (Zea mays L.) as influenced by
the application of different combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers.
Unpublished undergraduate thesis. Capiz state University, pontevedra, Capiz.
Pp 79.
Encap Innovation n. d. Soil acidity. Retrieved from http://encap.net/why-does-soil-

become-acidic/
FAGERIA, N. K. 2007. Green manuring in crop production. J Plant Nutrition 30: 691-
719.
Guidelines How to Harvest Corn. n. d. Sweetcorn ready to harvest. Retrieved from

http://homeguides.sfgate.com/tell-sweet-corn-ready-harvest-39766.html
ISMAN, M. B. 2006. Botanical insecticides, deterrents, and repellents in modern

agriculture and an increasingly regulated world. Annu. Rev. Entomol., 51, 45-
66.
JACOBSON, G. 2016. Sweetcorn growth and storage temperature requirements.

Retrieved from https://www.theseedcollection.com.au/blog/our-blog/sweet-
corn-growth-storage/
JENKINS, T. 2015. How does chemical fertilizers affect the soil pH in acid, neutral
and slightly alkaline soil? Indian Institute of Soil Science. Retrieved from
www.researchgate.net.
JOYO, J. W. 2007. Growth and yield performance of corn as influenced by different

organic fertilizers. Unpublished undergraduate thesis. Visayas state university,
visca, Baybay City, Leyte. Pp. 29.
LANDON, J.R. 1991. Booker tropical soil manual: A Handbook for Soil Survey and
Agricultural Land Evaluation in the Tropics and Subtropics. Longman Scientific
and Technical, Essex, New York. 474p.
MOTAVALLI, P.P., R. P. SINGH and M. M. ANDERS. 1994. Perception and

management of farmyard manure in the semi-Arid tropics of India.
Agricultural systems. 46: 189-204.
OJENIYI, S. O. 2002. Soil management, national resources and environment. Oke-

Ado: Adeniran press. Pp 24.
PCARR. 1980. Standard Methods of Analysis for Soil, Plant Tissue, Water and
Fertilizer. Los Baños, Laguna. vii, 194 p. : ill. ; 28 cm.
71
72
PhilDRRA, 2004. Philippine Organic Rice and Corn: Industry Orientation Paper. Paper
presented during the National Forum on Organic Rice and Corn Industry,
November 18, 2004, Quezon City. 63 pp.
(http://www.thefieldposition.com/2012/06/the-importance-of-corn/)
SHARMA, A. R. and B. N. MITTRA. Effect of different rates of application of organic

and nitrogen fertilizers in a rice-based cropping system. J. Agr. Sci. (Camb.)
1991; 117: 313-318.
Sweetcorn Variety, 2016. Eastwest seed. Retrieved from

http://www.eastwestseed.com/philippines/en/products/detail.php?SECTION_
ID
72
73
CHAPTER III
PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND SENSORY ATTRIBUTES

OF HYBRID SWEETCORN (Zea mays L.) APPLIED WITH
DIFFERENT ORGANIC MATERIALS COMBINED
WITH INORGANIC FERTILIZERS
73
74
ABSTRACT
Fertilization practices not only influence the growth and yield of sweetcorn
but also its physicochemical and sensory attributes. This study was conducted to
determine the TSS, TA and pH of sweetcorn and evaluate the sensory qualities of
freshly cooked and five 5 - day stored sweetcorn applied with organic and inorganic
fertilizers. The experiment was laid out in RCBD with 3 replications. Treatments were
as follows : T0 = Control (without fertilizer applied), T1 - Inorganic fertilizer at 90-60-
60 kgha-1 (N, P2O5, K2O), T2 = 5 t ha-1 of vermicompost + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5,
K2O, T3 = 5 t ha-1 of poultry manure + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O, T4 = 5 t ha-1 of
cow manure + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O, T5 = 5 t ha-1 of goat manure + 45-30-30
kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O, T6 = 5 t ha-1 of mudpress + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O, T7 =
Foliar spray (Fermented Golden Snail) + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O.
Physicochemical properties of sweetcorn were not affected by the treatments
except pH. The pH in sweetcorn grown in all treatments were slightly alkaline. Highest
pH of 7.87 was detected from plants applied with combined mudpress and inorganic
fertilizers. Lowest pH of 7.17 was detected from plants applied with combined
fermented golden snail and inorganic fertilizers. Sensory qualities of sweetcorn either
freshly cooked or has been stored for 5 days before cooking were perceived to be “liked
moderately” to “like very much”.
Keywords: Organic manures, inorganic fertilizer, physicochemical properties, sensory

qualities, hybrid sweetcorn
74
75
INTRODUCTION
Sweetcorn is one of the types of corn, usually grown in smaller scale, but it is
becoming popular as snack items and sold in the local markets. The sweet kernels can
also be processed into canned products which can be utilized as ingredient for salads,
pastries and other processed food products. The sweet kernels contain higher
proportions of sugar than starch. Thus, it is boiled “green” which commands reasonably
higher price in the local market. It is also the most preferred edible corn because of its
nutritional values and health benefits plus its good flavor, aroma and texture (Macklouf
et al., 1995).
2007). Hence, combination of organic with the inorganic fertilizer is recommended to
75
76
dependence on chemical fertilizers for sustainable high crop production by minimizing
nutrient losses to the environment and optimizing nutrient use efficiency (Akhtar et al.,
2011).
Fertilization practices can influence not only the yield and physical appearance
but also the flavor, texture, color, size, shelf life, nutrient and physicochemical content
of the crops and product such as total solid soluble (TSS), titratable acidity (TA) , pH,
etc. (Hornick, 1992). Applying fertilizer materials according to soil test and crop
nutrient requirements will provide the basic nutrients needed for high yield and better
quality. Nowadays, food quality is influencing the market potential of the commodity
as the consumers patronize what is best in their taste (Hornick, 1992).
This study uses different organic materials combined with inorganic fertilizers
to determine their effects on the total soluble solid (TSS), titratable acidity (TA) and
pH of fresh sweetcorn and evaluate the sensory qualities of fresh and five (5) day stored
sweetcorn as influenced by organic and inorganic fertilizers.
76
77
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The experimental area of 857.5 m2 was prepared to provide good soil condition
for seed germination. It was laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)
replicated three (3) times with 1 m alleyway between replications and between
treatments. There were eight (8) plots measuring 5 m X 4.5 m (Appendix Fig. 2) in each
replication. Thus, totaling 24 plots in the experiment with a six rows of sweetcorn in
each plot. The treatments were designated as follows:
T2 – 5 t ha-1 of vermicompost + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T3 – 5 t ha-1 of poultry manure + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T4 – 5 t ha-1 of cow manure + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T5 – 5 t ha-1 of goat manure + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T6 – 5 t ha-1 of mud press + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Organic manures were applied in the furrows and incorporated into the soil two
(2) weeks before planting at the rate of 5 t ha-1. Application of complete fertilizer (14-
14-14) was done 10 DAP and urea (46-0-0) 30 DAP. Fermented golden snail were
sprayed to plants at 7, 14, 21, 28 and 35 DAP.
Macho F1 hybrid sweetcorn variety was used in the study with 1 seed hill-1.
Replanting was done 7 DAP. Off-baring 15 DAP, hilling-up 30 DAP and handweeding
were employed to control weeds. Botanical pesticide derived from tobacco and mild
77
78
liquid soap was used in controlling insect pests. Diseased plants were uprooted and
disposed away from the experimental area.
Sweetcorn ears were detached from the stover during harvest and submitted to
the Department of Horticulture and Department of Food Science and Technology, VSU,
Visca Baybay City, Leyte for physicochemical analysis and sensory evaluation,
respectively. Unhusked and unpacked samples of sweetcorn ears were stored in an
ambient condition for 5 days before cooking.
Data Gathered
A. Evaluation of Physicochemical Properties of Sweetcorn
Five (5) sample of fresh ears were taken from each treatment plot. These were
submitted to the Department of Horticulture, VSU, Baybay City, Leyte for the analysis
of total soluble solid (TSS), titratable acidity (TA) and pH. Analyses were done using
the following procedure:
1. Take 50 grams of fresh kernels and add with 50-100 ml distilled water and
homogenized in a blender.
2. Filter the homogenate through a small wad of cotton.
3. Measure pH of the filtrate using the digital pH meter.
4. Measure TSS of the filtrate using a hand refractometer.
5. Calculate actual TSS by multiplying the readings with the dilution factor as
follows:
Volume of water added (ml)

Dilution factor = 1 +--------------------------------------
Weight of sample (g)
78
79
6. Pipet 10 ml filtrate to an Erlenmeyer flask or beaker and add 2 drops of 1%
phenolphthalein indicator.
7. Titrate with 0.1 N sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to faint pink color. Record the
volume of the NaOH and calculate TA using the formula:
VxNxM
% TA of predominant acid = ------------------------- X 100
W
Where: V – volume of NaOH added, ml
N – concentration of NaOH, normality (N)
M – milliequivalent weight of predominant acid g/meq
W – weight equivalent of aliquot, g
Weight of sample, g
---------------------------------------------------------X vol. of aliquot
Weight of sample, g + vol. of water added, ml
1. Total Soluble Solid (TSS) – the amount of solids dissolved within a substance.
It is commonly used to measure sugar content in drinks, medicines, fruits and
vegetables. Refractometer equipped with a scale, based on the relationship
between refractive indices at 20°Bx and the percentage by mass of total soluble
solids of a pure aqueous sucrose solution.
2. Titratable Acidity (TA) – the total amount of acid in the solution as determined
by the titration using a standard solution of sodium hydroxide (titrant). TA is
determined by neutralizing the acid present in a known quantity (weight or
volume) of food sample.
79
80
3. pH – measures the levels of acid and alkaline in a substance on a scale from 0
to 14. A high pH value indicates higher alkaline content, and a low pH value
signals higher acidity. The higher the pH, it turns fruits sweeter (Barrette et al.
2010).
4. Statistical Tool Used – means of the physicochemical data gathered were
computed and analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done using the Statistical
Tool for Agricultural Research (STAR). Treatment mean comparison was done
using Tukey’s or Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test.
B. Sensory Analysis
1. Cooking of sweetcorn samples
1.a. Five (5) sample ears were cooked freshly after harvest at 2:1/2 kg to liter of
water for 20 minutes. Sensory evaluation was done 15 minutes after cooking.
1.b. Another 5 samples were stored for 5 days and cooked at 2:1/2 kg to liter of
water for 20 minutes. Sensory testing was done ½ hour after cooking. Sample
ears were submitted to the Department of Food Science and Technology for
sensory evaluation.
2. Sensory Evaluation – sensory evaluation of freshly harvested and 5 day stored
cooked corn were carried out by employing 42 food technology students as
panelist. Each panelist was given 4 samples to be tested. The samples were
arranged randomly in each presentation to equalize sample sequence effect on
preference. The color, aroma, texture and taste were evaluated using a
combination of quality description as perceived by the panelist I combination
with 9-point Hedonic Scale particularly for the acceptability evaluation
80
81
(Appendix B). Samples were served at an ambient temperature in coded plastic
cups. Potable drinking water was provided for rinsing the mouth of the panelists
in between testing of samples. Incomplete Block Design (IBD) set plan by
Cochran and Cox (1957) was used during the sensory evaluation. Since there are
8 treatments tested, the plan of t=8, k=4, r=7, b= 14, ƛ=3, E= 0.86 Type I was
followed. Of these, t stands for treatments, k refers to the number of units per
block or panelist, r refers to the number of replications based on IBD, b refers to
the block, ƛ is the times a block be repeated, and E is the efficiency factor. The
set plan that was used in the evaluation is shown in Appendix Table 3.
3. Statistical Analysis – the sensory scores was subjected to statistical analysis.
One-way analysis of variance was used to test the significant difference between
treatments. Treatment comparison among significant parameters was done
through Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. The analysis of data was ran through
IBM SPSS Statistics 8.0.
81
82
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Physicochemical Properties of Sweetcorn
Physicochemical properties of sweetcorn applied with different organic
materials combined with inorganic fertilizers is presented in Table 1 and Appendix
Tables 35, 36 and 37. Results revealed that only the pH of hybrid sweetcorn ears were
affected by the different combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers. The TSS and
TA were comparable in all treatment combinations.
Highest pH value (7.87) was obtained from plants applied with combined
mudpress and inorganic fertilizers (T6) comparable to other combinations of organic
Table 1. Physicochemical properties of hybrid sweetcorn applied with different organic

Treatment TSS TA pH
0
( Brix) (%)
T0 – Control (without fertilizer applied) 1.90 0.0017 7.47ab
T1 – 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O 1.67 0.0013 7.67ab
T2 – 5 t ha-1 vermicompost + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O 1.87 0.0013 7.57ab
T3 – 5 t ha-1 poultry manure + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O 1.67 0.0010 7.37ab
T4 – 5 t ha-1 cow dung + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O 1.87 0.0023 7.27ab
T5 – 5 t ha-1 goat manure + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O 2.03 0.0010 7.77ab
T6 – 5 t ha-1 mudpress + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O 2.10 0.0020 7.87a
T7 – Fermented golden snail (foliar spray) + 45-30-30 kgha-1 2.10 0.0027 7.17b
N, P2O5, K2O
C.V. (%) 16.65 35.86 3.20

significantly different at 0.05, HSD and ANOVA, respectively.
82
83
manures and inorganic fertilizers (T2, T3, T4 and T5) relative to the controls (T0, T1). On
the other hand, plants applied with combined fermented golden snail and inorganic
fertilizers (T7) got the lowest pH value (7.17). Deocampo (2014) also found that
application of combined fermented golden snail and inorganic fertilizers gave the
lowest pH value on yellow corn compared to other combinations of organic and
inorganic fertilizers. This is because of the extra acidity in muscovado sugar mixed to
golden snail during fermentation thus, resulted in corn ears with low pH value. The
significant increase in pH of sweetcorn applied with combined mudpress and inorganic
fertilizers (T6) contributed to the better taste of sweetcorn (Table 2). Barrette et al.
(2010) mentioned that the higher the pH, the sweeter is the taste.
Sensory Evaluation of Sweetcorn
The sensory attributes of hybrid sweetcorn (freshly cooked and stored for 5 days
before cooking) are presented in Tables 2 and 3. Results revealed that sensory attributes
of sweetcorn either in freshly cooked or after 5 days storage were not affected
significantly by the application of organic materials combined with inorganic
fertilizers. Thus, the color, taste, aroma and texture of cooked sweetcorn as perceived
by the respondents and reflected on the acceptability scores did not differ significantly
among treatments.
Both freshly cooked sweetcorn and 5-day stored before cooking were closely
perceived to be “liked moderately” to “like very much”. This implies that it is
acceptable to the consumers and advantageous for traders who will engage in marketing
boiled sweetcorn.
83
84
Table 2. Sensory attributes of hybrid sweetcorn applied with different organic materials
Treatment Colorns Tastens Aromans Texturens
Freshly cooked sweetcorn
T0 Golden yellow to Slightly sweet to With pleasant Slightly hard
yellow sweet odor
T1 Golden yellow to Slightly sweet With pleasant Slightly hard
yellow odor
T2 Golden yellow Slightly sweet With pleasant Slightly hard
odor
T3 Golden yellow slightly sweet With pleasant Slightly hard
odor
T4 Golden yellow Sweet to slightly With pleasant Slightly hard
sweet odor
T5 Golden yellow Slightly sweet to With pleasant Slightly hard
sweet odor
T6 Golden yellow Sweet With pleasant Slightly hard
odor
odor
5-day stored cooked sweetcorn
odor
T1 Golden yellow Bland to slightly With pleasant Slightly hard
sweet odor
odor
T3 Golden yellow slightly sweet With pleasant Slightly hard
odor
odor
odor
T6 Golden yellow Sweet to slightly With pleasant Slightly hard
sweet odor
odor
Sensory Description:
Color Taste Aroma Texture

1 – slightly yellow 1 – bland 1 – with unpleasant odor 1 – hard
2 – yellow 2 – slightly sweet 2 – with pleasant odor 2 – slightly hard
3 – golden yellow 3 – sweet 3 – with strong pleasant odor 3 – sticky
4 – slightly sticky
5 – soft
Legend:
T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
84
85
Table 3 shows that acceptability ratings in all aspects of sensory of freshly
cooked sweetcorn were relatively the same with the 5-day stored before cooking. It
implies that storing unhusked and unpacked sweetcorn for 5 days in an ambient
condition maintains its color, taste, aroma and taste. However, it is advisable not to
dehusk the sweetcorn during harvest to preserve its marketing potential especially when
it is to be stored. If it is stored longer than 5 days, it may become bland because sugar
will turn into starch especially when it is dehusked (Theuer, 2006).
Table 3. Acceptability ratings from sensory evaluation of sweetcorn applied with

General
Treatment Colorns Tastens Aromans Texturens Acceptabilityns
Freshly 5-day Freshly 5-day Freshly 5-day Freshly 5-day Freshly 5-day
cooked stored cooked stored cooked stored cooked stored cooked stored
cooked cooked cooked cooked cooked
T0 7.77 7.70 7.67 6.60 7.37 7.20 7.50 7.13 7.47 7.20
T1 7.73 7.47 7.60 6.43 7.47 6.80 7.40 6.93 7.30 6.83
T2 8.07 7.90 7.60 7.07 7.60 7.50 7.37 7.37 7.53 7.70
T3 8.00 7.77 7.73 6.70 7.53 6.97 7.50 7.03 7.63 7.33
T4 8.03 7.70 7.60 6.80 7.50 6.97 7.40 6.87 7.63 7.20
T5 7.77 7.77 7.60 7.03 7.60 6.97 7.50 6.80 7.50 7.17
T6 7.97 7.67 7.61 7.17 7.39 7.03 7.29 6.90 7.52 7.17
T7 7.90 7.43 7.72 6.97 7.55 6.93 7.34 7.33 7.41 7.13
Sig. 0.55 0.89 1.00 0.65 1.00 0.77 1.00 0.65 0.89 0.16
Acceptability ratings
1-dislike extremely 4-dislike slightly 7-like moderately
2-dislike very much 5-neither like nor dislike 8-like very much
3-dislike moderately 6-like slightly 9-like extremely
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
85
86
Figure 1 shows the appearance of freshly cooked and 5-day stored sweetcorn
before cooking. It was observed that there is a noticeable difference in color between
freshly cooked and 5-day stored green corn before cooking. Freshly cooked sweetcorn
was slightly lighter than those stored for 5 days. Christensen (2008) reported that the
longer the storage, the darker is the color of sweetcorn.
86
87
T0 T1 T2 T3
T4 T5 T6 T7
5-day
5-daystored
stored cooked
cooked sweetcorn
sweetcorn
T0 T1 T2 T3
T4 T5 T6 T7
7
Figure 1. Appearance of freshly cooked and 5-day stored sweetcorn before cooking
Legend:
T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
87
88
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Conclusion
Application of different organic materials combined with inorganic fertilizers
did not gave significant differences among TSS and TA of sweetcorn. However, pH of
sweetcorn was affected significantly by the combination of organic and inorganic
fertilizers. All plants applied with different combinations of organic manures and
inorganic fertilizers had pH values above neutral but relatively higher than those in T7
(combined fermented golden snail and inorganic fertilizers). However, plants applied
with combined mudpress and inorganic fertilizers (T6) had significantly higher pH than
those applied with combined fermented golden snail and inorganic fertilizers (T7).
Likewise sensory qualities (color, taste, aroma, and texture) of sweetcorn either
freshly cooked or had undergone storage for 5 days before cooking were not affected
by the application of different organic materials combined with inorganic fertilizers.
All cooked sweetcorn were perceived to be “liked moderately” to ‘like very much”.
Recommendation
A similar study may be conducted to verify further the physicochemical
properties and sensory qualities of sweetcorn and to vary the levels of organic and
inorganic fertilizers. Likewise, longer storage period before cooking sweetcorn may be
done for further checking of the physicochemical properties and sensory evaluation.
88
89
LITERATURE CITED
AKHTAR, M., A. NAEEM, J. AKHTER, S. A. BOKHARI and W. ISHAQUE. 2011.

Improvement in nutrient uptake and yield of wheat by combined use of urea
and compost. Soil & Environment, 30: 45-49.
BARRETT, D. M., J. C. BEAULIEU AND R. SHEWFELT. 2010. Color, flavor,

texture, and nutritional quality of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables: desirable
levels, instrumental and sensory measurement, and the effects of
processing. Critical reviews in food science and nutrition, 50(5), 369-389.
CHEN, J. H. 2006. The combined use of chemical and organic fertilizers and/or
biofertilizer for crop growth and soil fertility. In International workshop on
sustained management of the soil-rhizosphere system for efficient crop
production and fertilizer use. Vol. 16, p. 20.
COCHRAN, W. G. and G. M. COX. 1957. Experimental Designs, second edition.

ISBN: 978-0-471-54567-5. 640 pp.
CHRISTENSEN, E. 2008. Food science: When sweetcorn is not sweet. Retrieved from
http://www.thekitchn.com/food-science-when-sweet-corn-i-60006.
DEOCAMPO, J. B. 2014. Physicochemical properties of yellow corn (Zea mays L.) as

influenced by the application of different organic materials combined with
inorganic fertilizers. Unpublished undergraduate thesis. Capiz State
University. Pp 107.
FAGERIA, N. K. 2007. Green manuring in crop production. J Plant Nutrition 30: 691-
719.
HORNICK, S. B. (1992). Factors affecting the nutritional quality of crops. American

Journal of Alternative Agriculture, 7(1-2), 63-68.
MAKHLOUF, J., J. ZEE, N. TREMBLAY, A. BÉLANGER, M. H. MICHAUD and

A. GOSSELIN. 1995. Some nutritional characteristics of beans, sweet corn and peas
(raw, canned and frozen) produced in the province of Quebec. Food research
international, 28(3), 253-259.
Retrieved from http://www.thefieldposition.com/2012/06/the-importance-of-
corn/
89
90
THEUER, R. C. 2006. Do organic fruits and vegetables taste better than conventional
fruits and vegetables? State of Science Review, The Organic Center. 50.
90
91
CHAPTER IV
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
91
92
SUMMARY
This study was conducted at the experimental area of the Department of
Agronomy, CAFS, VSU, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte from August 10 to November 15,
2017 with the following objectives: (1) to evaluate the effects of organic and inorganic
fertilizers on the growth and yield performance of sweetcorn; (2) to determine the
physicochemical properties (TSS, TA and pH) of sweetcorn as influenced by organic
and inorganic fertilizers; (3) to evaluate the sensory qualities of fresh and 5-day stored
sweetcorn as influenced by organic and inorganic fertilizers; and (4) to assess the
profitability of combined organic and inorganic fertilizers application on sweetcorn
production.
The experimental area of 857.5 m2 was thoroughly prepared and laid out in
Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with three replications. Each replication
was divided into eight (8) plots measuring 5 m X 4.5 m (Fig. 1). Each plot had a six
rows. An alleyway of 1 m was constructed between replications and between treatment
plots to facilitate farm operations and data gathering. The treatments was designated as
follows:
T2 – 5 tonsha-1 of vermicompost + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T3 – 5 tonsha-1 of poultry manure + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T4 – 5 tonsha-1 of cow manure + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T5 – 5 tonsha-1 of goat manure + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
T6 – 5 tonsha-1 of mudpress + 45-30-30 kg ha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
92
93
Composite soil samples were randomly collected before land preparation from
the field and were analyzed with the following results: pH=6.51, OM=5.478 %, total
N=0.206 %, Available P=6.955 mg kg-1, and exchangeable K=330.000 mg kg-1. The
initial soil analysis indicates that the soil was slightly acidic with adequate OM content
and exchangeable K, and low amount of N and available P based on the indices on soil
nutrient availability by Landon (1991).
Another soil samples were randomly collected from each plot after harvest and
analyzed with the following average mean results: pH=5.94, OM=1.380 %, total
N=0.116 %, available P=16.920 mg/kg, and exchangeable K=299.450 mg kg-1. The
chemical contents of soil after harvest were obviously decreased in pH but increased in
available P.
Macho F1 variety of sweetcorn was used in the experiment. Planting was done
at a distance of 0.75 m between rows and 0.25 m between hills obtaining 53,333 plants
per hectare. Sweetcorn plants were harvested as green at 67 days after planting. Ears of
sweetcorn were collected, dehusked, classified as marketable and non-marketable, and
weighed.
Results revealed that all sweetcorn plants applied with organic and inorganic
fertilizers regardless of sources gave a significant growth and yield performance
compared to those without fertilizer applied (T0). Lowest yield (2.40 t ha-1) obtained
from plants not applied with any fertilizers (T0).
The highest net income and ROI were obtained from plants applied with
combined goat manure and inorganic fertilizers (T5) at PhP 62,086.00 ha-1 and 72.06 %
followed by plants applied with combined cow dung and inorganic fertilizers (T4) at
93
94
PhP 52,786.00 ha-1 and 61.04 % and those applied with pure inorganic fertilizers (T1)
at PhP 47,594.00 ha-1 and 60.13 %, repsectively. Plants not applied with any fertilizers
(T0) and plants applied with combined vermicompost and inorganic fertilizers (T1) and
combined mudpress and inorganic fertilizers (T6) were not profitable.
Physicochemical properties of sweetcorn were not affected by the treatments
except pH. The pH in sweetcorn shows slightly alkaline in all treatments. Highest pH
of 7.87 was detected from plants applied with combined mudpress and inorganic
fertilizers (T6) which was comparable to other treatments (T0, T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5).
Lowest pH of 7.17 was detected from plants applied with combined fermented golden
snail and inorganic fertilizers (T7) .
Sensory qualities (color, aroma, taste and texture) of sweetcorn either freshly
or 5-day stored cooked were perceived to be “liked moderately” to “like very much”.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions can be drawn:
1. All sweetcorn plants applied with organic and inorganic fertilizers regardless of
sources gave significant growth and yield performance.
2. Application of different combinations of organic and inorganic fertilizers
promote better taste of sweetcorn.
3. Sensory qualities (color, taste, aroma, and texture) of sweetcorn either freshly
cooked or stored for 5 days before cooking were perceived to be “liked
moderately” to ‘like very much” indicating acceptability to consumers.
94
95
4. Application of combined goat manure and inorganic fertilizers (T5) gained
higher net income and ROI of PhP. 62,086.00 ha-1 and 72.06 %, respectively.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the results, the following are recommended:
1. Application of inorganic fertilizers in combination with goat manure is
recommended for higher net income and low production cost per hectare;
2. The application of organic manures is recommended to minimize acidity of
sweetcorn that contribute to better taste preferred by consumers;
3. A similar study may be conducted to evaluate performance of sweetcorn in
various levels of organic and inorganic fertilizers.
4. Longer storage period before cooking of sweetcorn may be done to verify
further physicochemical and sensory evaluation.
5. A further study may also be conducted to evaluate the physicochemical
properties and sensory attributes of sweetcorn under the same agroclimatic
condition.
95
96
APPENDICES
96
97
Appendix A. Instructions for Use and Care of Hand Refractometerp Postharvest

Instrument.
a. Hold the instrument in a horizontal position and swing the cover plate up to
expose both the measuring prism and the bottom surface of the cover plate.
b. Be sure that the exposed surfaces are clean. If not, use a soft cloth or soft tissue
paper moistened with distilled water for wiping the prism and the bottom
surface of the cover plate. Then, dry the surfaces with a soft cloth or tissue paper.
c. Calibrate the instrument by taking a reading on distilled water. If reading departs

from zero, make the necessary adjustment as prescribed. Otherwise, record the
magnitude of departure from zero and used this as a correction factor.
d. Before using the instrument for the samples, wipe dry the prism and bottom
surface of the cover plate with soft cloth or tissue paper. Presence of water on
dilutes the samples and give an erroneous reading.
e. Place 1-2 drops of the sample on the prism using the provided dipstick or a
common plastic stirring rod. Avoid using glass or metal applicators to prevent
the scratching the prism. Wood applicators are not suitable since they may
absorb some of the water of the sample and give an incorrect reading.
f. Close the cover plate over the prism without delay to minimize evaporation.
g. To hold the instrument for reading, place finger(s) on cover plate and press the
plastic cover gently but firmly to spread the sample in a thin, even layer over
the prism.
h. Point the instrument toward a light source until best results are obtained.
i. Take the reading at the point where the dividing line between the light and dark
field cross the scale. If the dividing line is not sharp, lift the cover plate very
slightly and push it down again. Repeat two or three times. (Substances
containing oil or fats in suspension do not give sharp dividing lines).
j. Before using the instrument for the other samples, clean the prism and the
bottom surface of the cover plate as described above. If the surfaces are not
cleaned, an erroneous or fuzzy reading may result.
97
98
Appendix B. Sensory Evaluation Sheet for Cooked Corn (Freshly harvest, 5 day Stored)
Name:___________________________________________ Date:________________
Judge No.:__________________ Rep No.:______________ Age:________________
Instruction: Kindly evaluate the samples using the scale provided below. Please rinse
your mouth before evaluating the next sample.
SAMPLE CODE
012 123 213 314
COLOR DESCRIPTION ____ ____ ____ ____

Color acceptability ____ ____ ____ ____
TASTE DESCRIPTION ____ ____ ____ ____

Taste acceptability ____ ____ ____ ____
AROMA DESCRIPTION ____ ____ ____ ____

Aroma acceptability ____ ____ ____ ____
TEXTURE DESCRIPTION ____ ____ ____ ____

Texture acceptability ____ ____ ____ ____
GENERAL ACCEPTABILITY ____ ____ ____ ____
COLOR TASTE AROMA TEXTURE

1-slightly yellow 1-bland 1-with unpleasant 1-hard
2-yellow 2-slightly sweet odor 2-slightly hard
3-golden yellow 3-sweet 2-with pleasant 3-sticky
odor 4-slightly sticky
3-with strong 5-soft
pleasant odor
GENERAL ACCEPTABILITY
1-dislike extremely 4-dislike slightly 7-like moderately
2-dislike very much 5-neither like nor dislike 8-like very much
3-dislike moderately 6-like slightly 9-like extremely
98
xcix
Appendix Table 1. Amount of fertilizer applied per treatment (kgplot-1)

Treatments Amount of fertilizers (kgplot-1)
T0 – Control (No fertilizer 0
applied)
T1 – Inorganic fertilizer at 0.96 kg of complete fertilizer [sidedressed 8-12 days
90-60-60 kg/ha N, after planting (DAP)] + 0.29 kg of Urea (was
P2O5, K2O sidedressed 25-30 DAP)
T2 – 5 tons/ha of 11.47 kilograms of vermicompost was applied [2
vermicompost + 45-30- weeks before planting (WBP)] + 0.48 kg of complete
30 kg/ha N, P2O5, K2O fertilizer (8-12 DAP) + 0.073 kg of Urea (was
sidedressed 25 – 30 DAP)
T3 – 5 tons/ha of poultry 11.47 kilograms of chicken manure was applied (2
manure + 45-30-30 WBP) + 0.48 kg of complete fertilizer (8-12 DAP) +
kg/ha N, P2O5, K2O 0.073 kg of Urea (was sidedressed 25 – 30 DAP)
T4 – 5 tons/ha of cow 11.71 kilograms of cow manure was applied (2 WBP)
manure + 45-30-30 + 0.48 kg of complete fertilizer (8-12 DAP) + 0.073
kg/ha N, P2O5, K2O kg of Urea (was sidedressed 25 – 30 DAP)
T5 – 5 tons/ha of goat 12.23 kilograms of goat manure was applied (2 WBP)
manure + 45-30-30 + 0.48 kg of complete fertilizer (8-12 DAP) + 0.073
kg/ha N, P2O5, K2O kg of Urea (was sidedressed 25 – 30 DAP)
T6 – 5 tons/ha of mud press 11.60 kilograms of mud press was applied (2 WBP) +
+ 45-30-30 kg/ha N, 0.48 kg of complete fertilizer (8-12 DAP) + 0.073 kg
P2O5, K2O of Urea (was sidedressed 25 – 30 DAP)
T7 – Fermented Golden 3 tablespoon to 1 liter of water was sprayed to the
snail + 45-30-30 kg/ha plant. 7 DAP=1 liter/plot; 14 DAP=1.5 liters/plot; 21
N, P2O5, K2O DAP=2 liters/plot; 28 DAP=2.5 liters/plot; 35
DAP=3 liters/plot + 0.48 kg of (8-12 DAP) complete
fertilizer + 0.073 kg of Urea (was sidedressed 25 – 30
DAP)
Appendix C. Fertilizer Computation
Treatment 1: 90 – 60 – 60 kg/ha N, P2O5, K2O
60 kg
Amount of Complete fertilizer (14 -14 -14) = -------------- X 100 = 428.57 kg/ha
14
428.57 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

------------------------------------ = 0.96 kg/plot
10,000 m2
xcix
c
90 – 60 – 60
-60 – 60 – 60
----------------
60 – 0 – 0
60 kg
Amount of Urea (46-0-0) = -----------X 100 = 130.43 kg/ha
46
130.43 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

---------------------------------- = 0.29 kg/plot
10,000 m2
Treatment 2: 5 tons of vermicompost plus 45-30-30 kg/ha N, P2O5, K2O
RR 5000 kg
Amount of vermicompost = -------------------- =-------------------- = 5102.04 kg
1 – % MC/100 1 – 2.041/100
5102.04 kg X 22.5 m2
---------------------------- = 11.47 kg
10, 000 m2
30 kg
Amount of Complete fertilizer (14-14-14) = ---------- X 100 = 214.29 kg/ha
14
214.29 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

-------------------------------- = 0.48 kg/plot
10,000 m2
45 – 30 – 30
-30 – 30 – 30
--------------------------------
15 – 0 – 0
c
ci
15 kg
Amount of Urea (46 – 0 – 0) = ------------- X 100 = 32.61 kg/ha
46
32.61 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

-------------------------------- = 0.073 kg/plot
10,000 m2
Treatment 3: 5 tons of poultry manure plus 45-30-30 kg/ha N, P2O5, K2O
RR 5000 kg
Amount of poultry manure = -------------------- = ---------------------- = 5102.04 kg
1 – % MC/100 1 – 2.041/100
5102.04 kg X 22.5 m2
---------------------------- = 11.47 kg
10, 000 m2
15 kg
46
32.61 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

-------------------------------- = 0.073 kg/plot
10,000 m2
30 kg
14
214.29 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

------------------------------ = 0.48 kg/plot
10,000 m2
ci
cii
Treatment 4: 5 tons of cow manure plus 45-30-30 kg/ha N, P2O5, K2O
RR 5000 kg
Amount of cow manure = --------------------- = --------------------- = 5208.33 kg
1 – % MC/100 1 – 4.167/100
5208.33 kg X 22.5 m2
---------------------------- = 11.71 kg
10, 000 m2
30 kg
14
214.29 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

--------------------------------- = 0.48 kg/plot
10,000 m2
15 kg
46
32.61 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

-------------------------------- = 0.073 kg/plot
10,000 m2
Treatment 5: 5 tons of goat manure plus 45-30-30 kg/ha N, P2O5, K2O
RR 5000 kg
Amount of goat manure = --------------------- = ------------------- = 5434.78 kg
1 – % MC/100 1 – 7.527/100
5434.78 kg X 22.5 m2
---------------------------- = 12.23 kg
10, 000 m2
cii
ciii
30 kg
14
214.29 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

------------------------------ = 0.48 kg/plot
10,000 m2
15 kg
46
32.61 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

-------------------------------- = 0.073 kg/plot
10,000 m2
Treatment 6: 5 tons of mudpress plus 45-30-30 kg/ha N, P2O5, K2O
RR 5000 kg
Amount of goat manure = -------------------- = -------------------- = 5154.64 kg
1 – % MC/100 1 – 3.093/100
5154.64 kg X 22.5 m2
---------------------------- = 11.60 kg
10, 000 m2
30 kg
14
214.29 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

------------------------------ = 0.48 kg/plot
10,000 m2
ciii
civ
15 kg
46
32.61 kg X 22.5 m2/plot

-------------------------------- = 0.073 kg/plot
10,000 m2
civ
cv
Appendix Table 2. Sensory Evaluation Master Sheet
Block I II III IV
1 935 657 302 271

2 659 662 457 221
3 443 134 710 743
4 310 880 677 149
5 228 247 159 254
6 155 908 369 273
7 245 542 252 186
8 817 626 404 911
9 229 904 113 601
10 826 457 394 532
11 792 776 394 511
12 331 424 451 302
13 227 832 211 415
14 983 307 118 380
15 902 662 711 254
16 740 127 637 710
17 971 880 297 532
18 814 957 202 453
19 677 803 393 804
20 544 170 152 353
21 674 551 670 554
22 201 155 307 944
23 864 381 813 564
24 444 242 553 832
25 342 801 359 259
26 843 882 547 170
27 721 374 452 512
28 491 828 708 240
29 211 493 712 214
30 215 333 463 263
31 170 319 498 767
32 878 695 639 253
33 400 670 667 991
34 641 137 434 613
35 373 714 496 952
36 412 909 594 412
37 118 921 441 512
38 619 525 576 786
39 529 320 985 329
40 798 913 983 376
41 688 523 126 159
42 990 776 326 568
t=8, k=4, r=7, b=14, ƛ=3, E=0.86, Type I
cv
cvi
Appendix Table 3. Set Plan of Incomplete Block Design used for sensory evaluation
BLOCK REPLICATION
I II III IV
1 1 2 3 4
2 5 6 7 8
3 1 2 7 8
4 3 4 5 6
5 1 3 6 8
6 2 4 5 7
7 1 4 6 7
8 2 3 5 8
9 1 2 5 6
10 3 4 7 8
11 1 3 5 7
12 2 4 6 8
13 2 4 5 8
14 2 3 6 7
t=8, k=4, r=7, b=14, ƛ=3, E=0.86, Type I
Appendix Table 4. Total weekly rainfall (mm), average daily minimum and maximum
temperature (0C) and relative humidity (%) from September 10 to
November 17, 2017 obtained from Philippine Atmospheric,
Geographical and Astronomical Administration (PAGASA) Station,
VSU, Visca, Baybay City, Leyte
Weekly Inclusive Total Temperature (0C) Relative

Period Dates Rainfall Minimum Maximum Humidity
(mm) (%)
1 Sept. 10-16 117.2 23.4 29.8 82

2 Sept. 17-23 28.0 23.3 29.6 82
3 Sept. 24-30 85.0 22.8 28.7 84
4 Oct. 1-7 52.2 23.9 30.0 81
5 Oct. 8-14 143.3 24.1 30.1 84
6 Oct. 15-21 441.3 22.3 28.4 89
7 Oct. 22-28 38.4 22.8 28.7 84
8 Oct. 29- 87
Nov. 4 62.1 22.9 28.9 85
9 Nov. 5-11 110.0 22.8 29.2 86
10 Nov. 12-17 91.6 22.7 28.8
TOTAL 1169.1 231.0 292.2 844

MEAN 116.9 23.1 29.2 84
cvi
cvii
Appendix Table 5. Indices for soil pH, organic matter, total N, available phosphorous
and exchangeable K (Landon, 1991)
Soil pH (Water)
<4.5 Extremely acidic
4.5-5.0 Very strongly acidic
5.1-5.5 Strongly acidic
5.6-6.0 Moderately acidic
6.1-6.5 Slightly acidic
6.6-7.3 Neutral
7.4-7.8 Mildly alkaline
7.8-8.4 Strongly alkaline
>9.0 Very strongly alkaline
Organic carbon (%), Walkley Black Method
<2.0 Very low
2-4 Low
4-10 Medium
10-20 High
>20 Very high
Total N (%), Kjeidal method
<0.10 Very low
0.10-0.20 Low
0.20-0.50 Medium
0.50-1.0 High
>1.0 Very high
Available P (mg/kg), (BrayP 2)
<5 Very low
5-9 Low
10-50 Medium
>50 High
Exchangeable K (mg/kg) (Flame AAS)
<150 Very low
150-120 Low
120-150 Medium
>150 High
Appendix Table 6. Initial characteristics of soil

pH OM Total N Available P Exchangeable
(1:2.5) (%) (%) (mg/kg) K (mg/kg)
Initial soil 6.51 5.478 0.206 6.955 330.000

Forest soil 4.99 1.692 0.096 1.530 15.000
cvii
cviii
Appendix Table 7. pH content (1:2.5) of soil after harvest applied with different organic
TREATMENTS REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN

I II III
T0 6.07 6.09 6.08 18.24 6.08

T1 5.59 5.38 5.70 16.72 5.57
T2 5.75 5.60 6.05 17.40 5.80
T3 6.36 6.23 5.22 17.81 5.93
T4 5.97 6.00 5.98 17.95 5.98
T5 5.96 6.07 6.00 18.03 6.01
T6 5.82 5.92 5.78 17.52 5.84
T7 5.87 6.13 6.02 18.02 6.00
Block Total 47.39 47.22 46.83

Grand Total 141.44
Grand Mean 5.94
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 7a. Analysis of variance on the pH content (1:2.5) of soil after harvest
applied with different organic materials combined with inorganic
fertilizers
Source of df Sum of Mean F – Value Pr (> F)
Variation Square Square
Replication 2 0.0151 0.0076 0.51 0.6097
Treatment 7 0.9485 0.1355 9.20** 0.0003
Error 14 0.2063 0.0147
Total 23 1.1699
C.V. = 2.04 % ** - Highly significant
cviii
cix
Appendix Table 8. OM content (%) of soil after harvest applied with different organic

I II III
T0 1.610 1.374 1.563 4.547 1.510

T1 1.539 1.342 1.211 4.092 1.364
T2 1.219 1.398 1.083 3.700 1.233
T3 1.350 1.243 1.227 3.820 1.273
T4 1.483 1.318 1.238 4.039 1.346
T5 1.203 1.792 1.657 4.652 1.551
T6 1.244 1.193 1.396 3.833 1.278
T7 2.141 1.197 1.107 4.445 1.482
Block Total 11.789 10.857 10.482

Grand Total 33.128
Grand Mean 1.380
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 8a. Analysis of variance on the OM content (%) of soil after harvest
fertilizers
Replication 2 0.1123 0.0566 0.85 0.4480
Treatment 7 0.3079 0.0440 0.66ns 0.7011
Error 14 0.9314 0.0665
Total 23 1.3525
ns
C.V. = 18.69 % - Not significant
cix
cx
Appendix Table 9. Total N content (%) of soil after harvest applied with different

I II III
T0 0.143 0.114 0.077 0.334 0.111

T1 0.131 0.100 0.126 0.357 0.119
T2 0.114 0.129 0.114 0.357 0.119
T3 0.157 0.114 0.114 0.385 0.128
T4 0.131 0.111 0.103 0.345 0.115
T5 0.111 0.129 0.148 0.388 0.129
T6 0.100 0.106 0.109 0.315 0.105
T7 0.100 0.103 0.109 0.312 0.104
Block Total 0.987 0.906 0.900

Grand Total 2.793
Grand Mean 0.116
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 9a. Analysis of variance on the total N content (%) after harvest applied
with different organic materials combined with inorganic fertilizers
Replication 2 0.0006 0.0003 0.88 0.4383
Treatment 7 0.0019 0.0003 0.81ns 0.5958
Error 14 0.0047 0.0003
Total 23 0.0072
ns
cx
cxi
Appendix Table 10. Available P content (mg/kg) of soil after harvest applied with

I II III
T0 8.709 8.225 7.404 24.338 8.113

T1 17.026 26.465 7.586 51.077 17.026
T2 8.502 31.595 7.355 47.452 15.817
T3 33.258 25.412 34.500 93.170 31.057
T4 10.822 21.510 8.429 40.761 13.587
T5 8.302 9.994 9.615 27.911 9.304
T6 21.763 16.661 11.488 49.912 16.637
T7 7.116 6.871 7.776 21.763 7.254
Block Total 115.493 146.733 94.153

Grand Total 356.384
Grand Mean 14.850
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 10a. Analysis of variance on the total available P content (%) of soil
after harvest applied with different organic materials combined
Replication 2 174.8288 87.4144 2.11 0.1576
Treatment 7 1220.8880 174.4126 4.22* 0.0106
Error 14 578.7024 41.3359
Total 23 1974.4192
*
C.V. = 43.30 % - Significant
cxi
cxii
Appendix Table 11. Exchangeable K content (mg/kg) of soil after harvest applied with

I II III
T0 286.250 498.750 230.000 1015.000 338.333

T1 343.750 251.250 283.750 878.750 292.917
T2 280.000 287.500 122.500 690.000 230.000
T3 427.500 320.000 381.250 1128.750 376.250
T4 258.750 298.750 256.250 813.750 271.250
T5 362.500 363.125 422.500 1148.125 382.708
T6 248.750 257.500 206.250 712.500 237.500
T7 317.500 271.250 211.250 800.000 266.667
Block Total 2525.000 2648.125 2113.750

Grand Total 7286.875
Grand Mean 299.450
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 11a. Analysis of variance on the total exchangeable K content (mg/kg)
of soil after harvest depth applied with different organic materials
Replication 2 14930.9570 7465.4785 1.65 0.2282
Treatment 7 74747.6400 10678.2343 2.35ns 0.0819
Error 14 63525.5534 4537.5395
Total 23 153204.1504
ns
cxii
cxiii
Appendix Table 12. Number of days from planting to emergence of sweetcorn applied
fertilizers

I II III
T0 5 5 5 15 5
T1 5 5 5 15 5
T2 3 3 3 9 3
T3 3 3 3 9 3
T4 3 3 3 9 3
T5 4 4 4 12 4
T6 4 4 4 12 4
T7 5 5 5 15 5
Block Total 32 32 32
Grand Total 96
Grand Mean 4
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 12a. Analysis of variance on the number of days from planting to
emergence of sweetcorn applied with different organic materials
Replication 2 <0.0001 <0.0001 NaN NaN
Treatment 7 18.0000 2.5714 NaN NaN
Error 14 <0.0001 <0.0001
Total 23 18.0000
Note: Data are constant.
cxiii
cxiv
Appendix Table 13. Number of days from planting to tasseling of sweetcorn applied
fertilizers

I II III
T0 51 51 50 152 50.67
T1 49 50 47 146 48.67
T2 49 48 47 144 48.00
T3 46 46 46 138 46.00
T4 46 49 49 147 48.00
T5 47 47 48 142 47.33
T6 48 50 49 147 49.00
T7 50 49 49 148 49.33

Grand Total 1161
Grand Mean 48.38
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
tasseling of sweetcorn applied with different organic materials
Replication 2 1.7500 0.8750 0.82 0.4600
Treatment 7 40.9583 5.8512 5.49** 0.0034
Error 14 14.9167 1.0655
Total 23 57.6250
cxiv
cxv
Appendix Table 14. Number of days from planting to silking of sweetcorn applied with

I II III
T0 58 57 58 172 57.66
T1 54 55 56 165 55.00
T2 54 53 54 161 53.66
T3 51 51 52 154 51.33
T4 51 54 55 160 53.33
T5 53 53 52 158 52.66
T6 53 55 56 164 54.66
T7 50 49 50 164 54.66

Grand Total 1298
Grand Mean 56.95
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
silking of sweetcorn applied with different organic materials
Replication 2 9.3333 4.6667 7.00 0.0078
Treatment 7 53.1667 7.5952 11.39** 0.0001
Error 14 9.3333 0.6667
Total 23 71.8333
cxv
cxvi
Appendix Table 15. Number of days from planting to boiling stage of sweetcorn applied
fertilizers

I II III
T0 68 69 70 207 69.00
T1 66 67 68 201 67.00
T2 66 67 68 201 67.00
T3 65 67 66 198 66.00
T4 67 67 66 200 66.67
T5 67 66 67 200 66.67
T6 68 67 67 202 67.33
T7 68 67 68 203 67.67

Grand Total 1612
Grand Mean 67.17
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
boiling stage of sweetcorn applied with different organic
Replication 2 1.5833 0.7917 1.22 0.3247
Treatment 7 16.6667 2.3810 3.67* 0.0184
Error 14 9.0833 0.6488
Total 23 27.3333
C.V. = 1.20 % * - Significant
cxvi
cxvii
Appendix Table 16. Plant height (cm) of sweetcorn at 14 DAP applied with different

I II III
T0 30.03 32.05 30.11 92.19 30.72

T1 30.40 30.81 31.80 93.01 31.00
T2 32.46 29.98 32.28 94.72 31.57
T3 34.53 36.64 38.67 109.84 36.61
T4 32.78 28.42 29.60 90.80 30.27
T5 32.67 34.51 33.40 100.58 33.53
T6 30.19 34.21 30.55 94.95 31.65
T7 28.00 31.23 30.98 90.21 30.07
Block Total 251.06 257.85 257.39

Grand Total 766.30
Grand Mean 31.93
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 16a. Analysis of variance on the height (cm) of sweetcorn at 14 DAP
fertilizers
Replication 2 3.6213 1.8106 0.62 0.5506
Treatment 7 99.6887 14.2412 4.90** 0.0056
Error 14 40.6971 2.9069
Total 23 144.0071
cxvii
cxviii

I II III
T0 68.60 85.80 84.75 239.15 79.72

T1 105.45 90.45 104.85 300.75 100.25
T2 96.95 95.25 109.00 301.20 100.40
T3 114.25 114.40 110.90 339.55 113.18
T4 106.70 96.55 98.90 302.15 100.72
T5 106.50 100.50 99.30 306.30 102.10
T6 96.95 107.10 93.60 297.65 99.22
T7 92.35 100.60 87.35 280.30 93.43
Block Total 787.75 790.65 788.65

Grand Total 2367.05
Grand Mean 98.63
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
fertilizers
Replication 2 0.5508 0.2754 0.01 0.9947
Treatment 7 1857.0466 265.2924 5.13** 0.0046
Error 14 724.4225 51.7445
Total 23 2582.0199
cxviii
cxix

I II III
T0 104.20 131.75 138.60 374.55 124.85

T1 196.15 173.40 193.15 562.70 187.57
T2 174.35 183.00 189.50 546.85 182.28
T3 200.90 198.15 182.75 581.80 193.93
T4 191.75 192.85 181.45 566.05 185.35
T5 193.22 180.10 179.62 552.25 184.31
T6 177.10 186.60 168.55 532.25 177.42
T7 172.05 184.30 168.85 525.20 175.07
Block Total 1409.72 1430.15 1402.47

Grand Total 4242.34 176.35
Grand Mean
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
fertilizers
Replication 2 19.7471 9.8735 0.08 0.9238
Treatment 7 9808.9231 1401.2747 11.32** 0.0001
Error 14 1733.3845 123.8132
Total 23 11562.0547
cxix
cxx

I II III
T0 166.50 189.60 196.50 552.60 184.20

T1 255.30 240.55 240.20 736.05 245.35
T2 240.15 251.60 244.65 736.40 245.47
T3 250.15 247.75 240.15 738.05 246.02
T4 250.25 240.70 234.50 735.45 245.15
T5 255.28 248.80 236.80 727.88 242.63
T6 252.15 241.60 243.90 737.65 245.88
T7 221.60 251.20 239.55 712.35 237.45
Block Total 1891.38 1911.80 1876.25

Grand Total 5676.43
Grand Mean 236.52
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
fertilizers
Replication 2 66.3282 33.1641 0.31 0.7408
Treatment 7 9557.6579 1365.3797 12.62** <0.0001
Error 14 1514.8771 108.2055
Total 23 11138.8632
cxx
cxxi
Appendix Table 20. Plant height (cm) of sweetcorn at harvest applied with different

I II III
T0 170.30 198.10 198.70 567.10 189.03

T1 257.70 243.40 244.00 745.10 248.37
T2 244.40 255.90 250.07 750.37 250.12
T3 251.80 249.40 243.70 744.90 248.30
T4 258.40 247.00 236.90 745.90 247.43
T5 253.50 243.70 256.70 753.90 251.30
T6 253.80 243.60 246.30 743.70 247.90
T7 222.10 254.80 243.90 720.80 240.27
Block Total 1912.00 1935.90 1920.27

Grand Total 5768.17
Grand Mean 240.34
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 20a. Analysis of variance on the height (cm) of sweetcorn at harvest
fertilizers
Replication 2 36.8292 18.4146 0.16 0.8572
Treatment 7 9250.4178 1321.4883 11.18** 0.0001
Error 14 1654.8268 118.2019
Total 23 10942.0737
cxxi
cxxii
Appendix Table 21. Fresh stover yield (t ha-1) of sweetcorn applied with different organic

I II III
T0 12.59 9.84 14.84 37.27 12.42

T1 22.83 18.21 18.38 59.42 19.81
T2 17.19 26.66 22.01 65.86 21.95
T3 16.74 23.20 22.13 62.07 20.69
T4 13.91 22.18 23.70 59.79 19.93
T5 23.94 17.98 23.35 65.27 21.76
T6 19.61 18.54 22.65 60.80 20.27
T7 23.81 19.33 24.38 67.52 22.51
Block Total 150.62 155.94 171.44

Grand Total 478.00
Grand Mean 19.92
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 21a. Analysis of variance on the fresh stover yield (t ha-1) of sweetcorn
fertilizers
Replication 2 29.2510 14.6255 1.22 0.3237
Treatment 7 213.3737 30.4820 2.55ns 0.0644
Error 14 167.3142 11.9510
Total 23 409.9389
ns
cxxii
cxxiii
Appendix Table 22. Number of sweetcorn ears applied with different organic materials

I II III
T0 1.00 1.00 1.00 3.00 1.00

T1 1.20 1.10 1.30 3.60 1.20
T2 1.20 1.30 1.30 3.80 1.27
T3 1.50 1.40 1.50 4.40 1.47
T4 1.30 1.30 1.40 4.00 1.33
T5 1.20 1.30 1.30 3.80 1.27
T6 1.20 1.30 1.20 3.70 1.23
T7 1.20 1.30 1.30 3.80 1.27
Block Total 9.80 9.70 10.30

Grand Total 29.80
Grand Mean 1.25
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 22a. Analysis of variance on the number of sweetcorn ears applied
fertilizers
Replication 2 0.0158 0.0079 2.51 0.1171
Treatment 7 0.3596 0.0514 16.28** <0.0001
Error 14 0.0442 0.0032
Total 23 0.4196
cxxiii
cxxiv
Appendix Table 23. Ear length (cm) of sweetcorn applied with different organic

I II III
T0 6.00 11.13 6.50 23.63 7.88

T1 16.15 16.90 17.40 50.45 16.82
T2 16.80 17.10 16.50 50.40 16.80
T3 16.45 18.80 18.10 53.35 17.78
T4 16.60 16.80 16.89 5029 16.76
T5 15.75 15.90 16.55 48.20 16.07
T6 15.65 17.15 17.00 49.80 16.60
T7 17.80 16.35 17.05 51.20 17.07
Block Total 121.20 130.13 125.99

Grand Total 377.32
Grand Mean 15.72
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 23a. Analysis of variance on the ear length (cm) of sweetcorn applied
fertilizers
Replication 2 4.9929 2.4964 1.97 0.1758
Treatment 7 215.8227 30.8318 24.37** <0.0001
Error 14 17.7141 1.2653
Total 23 238.5297
cxxiv
cxxv
Appendix Table 24. Ear diameter (cm) of sweetcorn applied with different organic

I II III
T0 3.86 4.28 4.03 12.17 4.06

T1 4.86 4.96 5.13 14.95 4.98
T2 5.11 4.61 4.64 14.36 4.79
T3 4.92 4.80 4.86 14.58 4.86
T4 4.97 4.69 4.68 14.34 4.78
T5 4.54 4.86 5.15 14.55 4.85
T6 4.80 4.79 4.78 14.37 4.79
T7 4.85 4.83 4.72 14.40 4.80
Block Total 37.91 37.82 37.99

Grand Total 113.72
Grand Mean 4.74
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 24a. Analysis of variance on the ear diameter of sweetcorn applied
fertilizers
Replication 2 0.0018 0.0009 0.02 0.9769
Treatment 7 1.6875 0.2411 6.25** 0.0018
Error 14 0.5396 0.0385
Total 23 2.2289
cxxv
cxxvi
Appendix Table 25. Number of marketable ears applied with different organic materials

I II III
T0 0.00 1.71 0.00 1.71 0.57

T1 34.50 23.09 17.38 74.97 24.99
T2 14.69 45.00 13.50 73.19 24.40
T3 14.40 18.00 23.04 55.44 18.48
T4 26.82 22.63 28.00 77.45 25.82
T5 31.81 21.45 36.73 89.99 30.00
T6 15.53 25.60 31.58 72.71 24.24
T7 26.34 23.14 44.57 94.05 31.35
Block Total 164.09 180.62 194.80

Grand Total 539.51
Grand Mean 22.48
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 25a. Analysis of variance on the number of marketable ears applied
fertilizers
Replication 2 59.0591 29.5295 0.32 0.7338
Treatment 7 1966.2546 280.8935 3.01* 0.0377
Error 14 1306.4388 93.3171
Total 23 3331.7525
cxxvi
cxxvii
Appendix Table 26. Number of non-marketable ears applied with different organic

I II III
T0 45.21 42.86 38.77 126.84 42.28

T1 28.50 31.25 26.07 85.82 28.61
T2 39.67 30.60 27.00 97.27 32.42
T3 37.80 48.60 41.76 128.16 42.72
T4 25.41 28.80 44.00 98.21 32.74
T5 26.79 24.51 33.80 85.10 28.37
T6 45.18 32.00 13.89 91.07 30.36
T7 26.34 30.86 41.14 98.34 32.78
Block Total 274.90 269.48 266.43

Grand Total 810.81
Grand Mean 33.78
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 26a. Analysis of variance on the number of non-marketable ears

inorganic fertilizers
Replication 2 4.6008 2.3004 0.03 0.9692
Treatment 7 671.6680 95.9526 1.31ns 0.3157
Error 14 1026.5809 73.3272
Total 23 1702.8498
ns
cxxvii
cxxviii
Appendix Table 27. Weight (t ha-1) of marketable ears applied with different organic

I II III
T0 0.00 0.16 0.00 0.16 0.05

T1 7.67 4.10 3.45 15.22 5.07
T2 3.10 4.67 2.22 9.99 3.33
T3 4.23 3.24 4.62 12.89 4.03
T4 5.49 5.61 5.56 16.65 5.55
T5 6.00 4.80 7.00 17.79 5.93
T6 3.35 4.00 2.78 10.13 3.38
T7 5.73 4.44 4.67 14.84 4.95
Block Total 35.56 31.00 30.30

Grand Total 96.87
Grand Mean 4.04
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 27a. Analysis of variance on the weight (t ha-1) of marketable ears
fertilizers
Replication 2 3.7029 1.8515 0.86 0.4434
Treatment 7 134.4801 19.2114 8.95** 0.0003
Error 14 30.0576 2.1470
Total 23 168.2407
cxxviii
cxxix
Appendix Table 28. Weight (t ha-1) of non-marketable ears applied with different

I II III
T0 1.67 2.83 2.53 7.04 2.35

T1 5.44 3.45 2.71 11.61 3.87
T2 3.97 5.93 5.00 14.91 4.97
T3 3.50 4.56 6.64 14.70 4.90
T4 2.71 3.08 3.48 9.28 3.09
T5 3.31 2.52 4.16 9.99 3.33
T6 4.03 3.06 4.05 11.14 3.71
T7 2.67 3.17 5.04 10.88 3.63
Block Total 27.32 28.61 33.61

Grand Total 89.54
Grand Mean 3.73
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 28a. Analysis of variance on the weight (t ha-1) of non-marketable ears
fertilizers
Replication 2 5.0406 2.5203 1.35 0.2918
Treatment 7 29.6160 4.2309 2.26ns 0.0919
Error 14 26.1969 1.8712
Total 23 60.8535
ns
cxxix
cxxx
Appendix Table 29. Total ear yield (t ha-1) of sweetcorn applied with different organic

I II II
T0 1.67 2.99 2.53 7.19 2.40

T1 13.11 7.55 6.16 98.94 8.94
T2 7.07 10.60 7.22 24.89 8.30
T3 7.73 7.80 11.26 26.79 8.93
T4 8.21 8.69 9.04 25.94 8.65
T5 9.30 7.32 11.16 27.78 9.26
T6 7.38 7.06 6.83 21.27 7.09
T7 8.39 7.61 9.72 25.72 8.57
Block Total 62.86 59.62 63.92

Grand Total 186.40
Grand Mean 7.77
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 29a. Analysis of variance on the total ear yield (t ha-1) of sweetcorn
fertilizers
Replication 2 1.2546 0.6273 0.17 0.8488
Treatment 7 107.8827 15.4118 4.07* 0.0122
Error 14 52.9592 3.7828
Total 23 162.0965
cxxx
cxxxi
Appendix Table 30. Harvest index (HI) of sweetcorn applied with different organic

I II II
T0 0.04 0.32 0.23 0.59 0.20

T1 0.26 0.26 0.45 0.97 0.32
T2 0.15 0.22 0.23 0.60 0.20
T3 0.29 0.29 0.23 0.81 0.27
T4 0.44 0.27 0.24 0.95 0.32
T5 0.25 0.28 0.29 0.82 0.27
T6 0.19 0.27 0.22 0.68 0.23
T7 0.21 0.33 0.25 0.79 0.26
Block Total 1.83 2.24 2.14

Grand Total 5.38
Grand Mean 0.26
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 30a. Analysis of variance on the HI of sweetcorn applied with different
Replication 2 0.0114 0.0057 0.85 0.4501
Treatment 7 0.0487 0.0070 1.03ns 0.4536
Error 14 0.0946 0.0068
Total 23 0.1547
ns
cxxxi
cxxxii
Appendix Table 31. Production cost (Php) of sweetcorn ha-1 applied with different
A. Farm Operations Man-day Rate man-1 Total

(Labor Cost) (man day-1ha- Day-1 (Php)
1
) (Php)
1. Land preparation
 Plowing and
harrowing (Tractor) 8,000.00
 Furrowing 4 400.00 1,600.00
2. Planting 10 240.00 2,400.00

3. Replanting 2 240.00 480.00
4. Handweeding 15 240.00 3,600.00
5. Off- baring 8 400.00 3,200.00
6. Hilling-up 8 400.00 3,200.00
7. Spraying of botanical
pesticide 3 240.00
X5 3,600.00
8. Harvesting,
dehusking, 5 240.00 1,200.00
and sorting
Subtotal 27,280.00
B. Costs of Materials Qty Unit Price Total

(Php) (Php)
1. Sweetcorn seeds 13 kg ha-1 2,000.00 26,000.00

2. Botanical pesticide 278 L ha-1 30.00 8,340.00
Subtotal 34,340.00
Grand Total 51,620.00
cxxxii
cxxxiii
Cont’d. Appendix Table 31

T1 – 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O

(Labor Cost) (man day- day-1 (Php)
1 -1
ha ) (Php)
1. Land preparation
 Plowing and harrowing (Tractor) 8,000.00
 Furrowing 4 400.00 1,600.00
2. Planting 10 240.00 2,400.00

3. Replanting 2 240.00 480.00
4. Inorganic fertilizer
application
- Complete fertilizer 8 240.00 1,920.00
- Urea 6 240.00 1,440.00
5. Handweeding 15 240.00 3,600.00
6. Off- baring 8 400.00 3,200.00
7. Hilling-up 8 400.00 3,200.00
pesticide 3 240.00
X5 3,600.00
9. Harvesting, dehusking,
and sorting 15 240.00 3,600.00
Subtotal 33,040.00

(Php) (Php)

- Urea (46-0-0) 2.61bag ha-1 900.00 2,349.00
- Complete
(14-14-14) 8.57 bag ha-1 1,100.00 9,427.00
Subtotal 46,116.00
cxxxiii
cxxxiv

T2 – 5 t ha-1 vermicompost + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O

1 -1
ha ) (Php)
1. Land preparation
 Furrowing 4 400.00 1,600.00
2. Planting 10 240.00 2,400.00

3. Replanting 2 240.00 480.00
4. Basal application of
vermicompost 20 240.00 4,800.00
application
- Urea 6 240.00 1,440.00
6. Handweeding 15 240.00 3,600.00
7. Off- baring 8 400.00 3,200.00
8. Hilling-up 8 400.00 3,200.00
pesticide 3 240.00
X5 3,600.00
and sorting 15 240.00 3,600.00
Subtotal 37,840.00

(Php) (Php)

- Urea (46-0-0) 0.65bag ha-1 900.00 585.00
- Complete
(14-14-14) 4.29 bag ha-1 1,100.00 4,719.00
4. Vermicompost 5000 kg ha-1 8.00 40,000.00
Subtotal 79,464.00
cxxxiv
cxxxv

T3 – 5 t ha-1 poultry manure + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O

1 -1
ha ) (Php)
1. Land preparation
 Furrowing 4 400.00 1,600.00
2. Planting 10 240.00 2,400.00

3. Replanting 2 240.00 480.00
poultry manure 20 240.00 4,800.00
application
- Urea 6 240.00 1,440.00
6. Handweeding 15 240.00 3,600.00
7. Off- baring 8 400.00 3,200.00
8. Hilling-up 8 400.00 3,200.00
pesticide 3 240.00
X5 3,600.00
and sorting 15 240.00 3,600.00
Subtotal 37,840.00

(Php) (Php)

- Urea (46-0-0) 0.65bag ha-1 900.00 585.00
- Complete
(14-14-14) 4.29 bag ha-1 1,100.00 4,719.00
4. Poultry manure 5000 kg ha-1 100.00 10,000.00
50 kg-1
Subtotal 49,644.00
cxxxv
cxxxvi

T4 – 5 t ha-1 cow dung + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O

1 -1
ha ) (Php)
1. Land preparation
 Furrowing 4 400.00 1,600.00
2. Planting 10 240.00 2,400.00

3. Replanting 2 240.00 480.00
cow dung 22 240.00 5,280.00
application
- Urea 6 240.00 1,440.00
6. Handweeding 15 240.00 3,600.00
7. Off- baring 8 400.00 3,200.00
8. Hilling-up 8 400.00 3,200.00
pesticide 3 240.00
X5 3,600.00
and sorting 15 240.00 3,600.00
Subtotal 38,320.00

(Php) (Php)

- Urea (46-0-0) 0.65bag ha-1 900.00 585.00
- Complete
(14-14-14) 4.29bag ha-1 1,100.00 4,719.00
4. Cow dung 5000 kg ha-1 80.00 8,000.00
50 kg-1
Subtotal 47,644.00
cxxxvi
cxxxvii

T5 – 5 t ha-1 goat manure + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O

1 -1
ha ) (Php)
1. Land preparation
 Furrowing 4 400.00 1,600.00
2. Planting 10 240.00 2,400.00

3. Replanting 2 240.00 480.00
goat manure 26 240.00 6,240.00
application
- Urea 6 240.00 1,440.00
6. Handweeding 15 240.00 3,600.00
7. Off- baring, 8 400.00 3,200.00
8. Hilling-up 8 400.00 3,200.00
pesticide 3 240.00
X5 3,600.00
and sorting 16 240.00 3,840.00
Subtotal 39,520.00

(Php) (Php)

- Urea (46-0-0) 0.65bag ha-1 900.00 585.00
- Complete
(14-14-14) 4.29bag ha-1 1,100.00 4,719.00
4. Goat manure 5000 kg ha-1 70.00 7,000.00
50 kg-1
Subtotal 46,644.00
cxxxvii
cxxxviii

T6 – 5 t ha-1 mudpress + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O

1 -1
ha ) (Php)
1. Land preparation
 Furrowing 4 400.00 1,600.00
2. Planting 10 240.00 2,400.00

3. Replanting 2 240.00 480.00
mudpress 21 240.00 5,040.00
application
- Urea 6 240.00 1,440.00
6. Handweeding 15 240.00 3,600.00
7. Off- baring, 8 400.00 3,200.00
8. Hilling-up 8 400.00 3,200.00
pesticide (5 times) 3 240.00
X5 3,600.00
and sorting 15 240.00 3,600.00
Subtotal 38,080.00

(Php) (Php)

2. Botanical pesticide 278 L ha 30.00 8,340.00
- Urea (46-0-0) 0.65bag ha-1 900.00 585.00
- Complete
(14-14-14) 4.29bag ha-1 1,100.00 4,719.00
4. Mudpress 5000 kg ha-1 70.00 7,000.00
50 kg-1
Subtotal 46,644.00
cxxxviii
cxxxix

T7 – Fermented golden snail + 45-30-30 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O

1 -1
ha ) (Php)
1. Land preparation
 Furrowing 4 400.00 1,600.00
2. Planting 10 240.00 2,400.00

3. Replanting 2 240.00 480.00
4. Foliar spraying of FGS 3 X5 3,600.00
application
- Urea 6 240.00 1,440.00
6. Handweeding 15 240.00 3,600.00
7. Off- baring, 8 400.00 3,200.00
8. Hilling-up 8 400.00 3,200.00
pesticide 3 240.00
X5 3,600.00
and sorting 15 240.00 3,600.00
Subtotal 36,640.00

(Php) (Php)

- Urea (46-0-0) 0.65bag ha-1 900.00 585.00
- Complete
(14-14-14) 4.29bag ha-1 1,100.00 4,719.00
4. Fermented golden snail 197 L ha-1 50.00 9,850.00
Subtotal 49,494.00
cxxxix
cxl
Appendix Table 32. Pest and disease monitoring at vegetative (30 to 35 DAP) stage of
sweetcorn applied with different organic materials combined with
inorganic fertilizers.
Treat Replica Insect Pests Diseases Weeds Others (e.g. Rodents,
ment tion Birds, etc.)
No. No. Obser *Degree of Obser *Degree of Observe *Degree of Obser *Degree of
ved Damage/Infe ved Damage/Infe d Damage/Infe ved Damage/Infe
station station station station
T0 R1 None 1 Stalk 2 Grasses 1 None 1
rot
R2 None 1 Stalk 2 Sedges 1 None 1
rot
R3 None 1 None 1 Grasses 1 None 1
T1 R1 Corn 3 Stalk 2 broadle 1 None 1
borer rot aves
R2 Corn 3 Stalk 2 Grasses 1 None 1
borer rot
R3 Corn 3 None 1 Grasses 1 None 1
borer
T2 R1 Corn 2 None 1 Sedges 1 None 1
borer
R2 Corn 2 Stalk 2 Broadle 1 None 1
borer rot aves
R3 Corn 2 None 1 Sedges 1 None 1
borer
T3 R1 Corn 3 Stalk 3 Grasses 1 None 1
borer rot
borer
R3 Corn 2 None 1 Broadle 1 None 1
borer aves
T4 R1 Corn 2 None 1 Sedges 1 None 1
borer
borer
borer
T5 R1 Corn 2 Stalk 2 Sedges 1 None 1
borer rot
borer rot aves
borer
borer rot
borer
borer
T7 R1 Corn 2 None 1 Broadle 1 None 1
borer aves
borer rot
borer
*Degree of Damage/Infestation
1 = No damage/infestation
2 = Light damage/Infestation
3 = Moderately light damage/Infestation
4 = Moderately heavy damage/Infestation
5 = Heavy damage/Infestation
6 = Severe damage/Infestation
124
cxl
cxli
Appendix Table 33. Pest and disease monitoring at reproductive stage of sweetcorn
fertilizers
T0 R1 White 2 Stalk 3 Grasses 1 None 1
flies rot
borer
borer
T1 R1 Corn 2 None 1 broadle 1 None 1
borer aves
R2 White 2 Stalk 2 Grasses 1 None 1
flies rot
borer rot
borer rot
borer rot aves
R3 White 2 None 1 Sedges 1 None 1
flies
borer rot
R2 Corn 2 Stalk 2 Sedges 1 None 1
borer rot
R3 White 2 Stalk 2 Broadle 1 None 1
flies rot aves
borer rot
flies rot
borer rot
borer rot
borer rot aves
R3 White 2 None 1 Sedges 1 None 1
flies
borer rot
flies rot
R3 Corn 2 Stalk 2 Sedges 1 None 1
borer rot
T7 R1 White 2 Stalk 2 Broadle 1 None 1
flies rot aves
borer
borer
125
cxli
cxlii
Appendix Table 34. Pest and disease monitoring at harvest of sweetcorn applied with
rot
rot
R3 None 1 None 1 Grasses 1 None 1
T1 R1 Earw 2 Stalk 3 broadle 1 None 1
orm rot aves
R2 None 1 Stalk 1 Grasses 1 None 1
rot
rot
T2 R1 None 1 Stalk 3 Sedges 1 None 1
rot
R2 Earw 2 Stalk 3 Broadle 1 None 1
orm rot aves
rot
rot
R2 Earw 2 Stalk 4 Sedges 1 None 1
orm rot
orm rot aves
T4 R1 Earw 2 Stalk 3 Sedges 1 None 1
orm rot
rot
rot
T5 R1 None 1 Stalk 2 Sedges 1 None 1
rot
orm rot aves
rot
rot
R2 Earw 2 Stalk 3 Grasses 1 None 1
orm rot
rot
T7 R1 None 1 Stalk 3 Broadle 1 None 1
rot aves
rot
R3 Earw 2 None 3 Sedges 1 None 1
orm
126
cxlii
127
Appendix Table 35. Total soluble solid (0Brix) of sweetcorn applied with different

I II III
T0 2.3 1.9 1.5 5.7 1.9

T1 1.8 1.9 1.3 5.0 1.7
T2 2.0 2.0 1.6 5.6 1.9
T3 1.0 2.1 1.9 5.0 1.7
T4 2.1 2.0 1.5 5.6 1.9
T5 1.8 2.1 2.2 6.1 2.0
T6 2.4 2.1 1.8 6.3 2.1
T7 2.1 2.3 1.9 6.3 2.1
Block Total 15.5 16.4 13.7

Grand Total 45.6
Grand Mean 1.9
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 35a. Analysis of variance on the total soluble solid (0Brix) of sweetcorn
fertilizers
Replication 2 0.4725 0.2362 2.36 0.1307
Treatment 7 0.6267 0.0895 0.89ns 0.5363
Error 14 1.4008 0.1001
Total 23 2.5000
ns
127
128
Appendix Table 36. Titratable acidity (%) of sweetcorn applied with different organic

I II III
T0 0.003 0.001 0.001 0.005 0.002
T1 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.004 0.001
T2 0.001 0.002 0.001 0.004 0.001
T3 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001
T4 0.003 0.002 0.002 0.007 0.002
T5 0.001 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.001
T6 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.006 0.002
T7 0.002 0.003 0.003 0.008 0.003
Block Total 0.014 0.012 0.016

Grand Total 0.042
Grand Mean 0.002
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 36a. Analysis of variance on the titratable acidity (%) of sweetcorn
fertilizers
Replication 2 <0.0001 <0.0001 0.047 0.6365
Treatment 7 <0.0001 <0.0001 3.20* 0.0304
Error 14 <0.0001 <0.0001
Total 23 <0.0001
128
129
Appendix Table 37. pH of sweetcorn applied with different organic materials combined

I II II
T0 7.3 7.3 7.8 22.4 7.5

T1 7.8 7.2 8.0 23.0 7.7
T2 7.6 7.4 7.7 22.7 7.6
T3 7.4 7.4 7.3 22.1 7.4
T4 7.3 7.2 7.3 21.8 7.3
T5 7.8 7.8 7.7 23.3 7.8
T6 8.3 7.7 7.6 23.6 7.9
T7 7.4 7.2 6.9 21.5 7.2
Block Total 60.9 59.2 60.3

Grand Total 180.4
Grand Mean 7.5
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
Appendix Table 37a. Analysis of variance on the pH of sweetcorn plant-1 applied with
Replication 2 0.1858 0.0929 1.61 0.2346
Treatment 7 1.2600 0.1800 3.12* 0.0332
Error 14 0.8075 0.0577
Total 23 2.2533
129
130
Appendix Table 38. Frequency (%) of color description of sweetcorn applied with
Treatment Slightly yellow Yellow Golden yellow
T0 23.33 36.67 40.00
T1 13.33 43.33 43.33
T2 3.33 13.33 83.33
T3 3.33 26.67 70.00
T4 3.33 20.00 76.67
T5 10.00 33.33 56.67
T6 6.67 30.00 63.33
T7 10.00 30.00 60.00
T0 3.33 36.67 60.00
T1 10.00 33.33 56.67
T2 0.00 16.67 83.33
T3 16.67 26.67 56.67
T4 3.33 40.00 56.67
T5 6.67 23.33 66.67
T6 0.00 33.33 66.67
T7 13.33 3.33 53.33
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
130
131
Appendix Table 39. Frequency (%) of taste description of sweetcorn applied with
Treatment Bland Slightly sweet Sweet
T0 6.67 50.00 43.33
T1 13.33 53.33 33.33
T2 6.67 66.67 26.67
T3 10.00 50.00 36.67
T4 13.33 40.00 46.67
T5 10.00 46.67 43.33
T6 13.33 36.67 46.67
T7 6.67 60.00 33.33
T0 26.67 53.33 20.00
T1 56.67 30.00 10.00
T2 23.33 46.67 30.00
T3 40.00 36.67 23.33
T4 30.00 56.67 13.33
T5 30.00 36.67 33.33
T6 20.00 40.00 40.00
T7 23.33 46.67 30.00
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
131
132
Appendix Table 40. Frequency (%) of aroma description of sweetcorn applied with
Treatment With unpleasant With pleasant odor With strong
odor pleasant odor
T0 16.67 70.00 13.33
T1 13.33 73.33 13.33
T2 13.33 76.67 10.00
T3 16.67 63.33 20.00
T4 13.33 70.00 16.67
T5 10.00 80.00 10.00
T6 20.00 70.00 10.00
T7 13.33 66.67 20.00
T0 10.00 90.00 0.00
T1 13.33 80.00 6.67
T2 10.00 40.00 50.00
T3 23.33 63.33 13.33
T4 20.00 70.00 10.00
T5 16.67 70.00 13.33
T6 16.67 56.67 26.67
T7 13.33 70.00 16.67
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
132
133
Appendix Table 41. Frequency (%) of texture description of sweetcorn applied with
Treatment Hard Slightly Sticky Slightly Soft
hard sticky
T0 6.67 50.00 6.67 6.67 30.00
T1 6.67 36.67 20.00 10.00 26.67
T2 16.67 40.00 6.67 16.67 20.00
T3 16.67 40.00 13.33 6.67 23.33
T4 10.00 60.00 6.67 6.67 16.67
T5 3.33 53.33 10.00 6.67 26.67
T6 6.67 53.33 10.00 13.33 16.67
T7 3.33 53.33 16.67 0.00 26.67
T0 3.33 66.67 3.33 10.00 16.67
T1 13.33 43.33 10.00 10.00 23.33
T2 10.00 40.00 10.00 10.00 30.00
T3 10.00 46.67 40.00 3.33 33.33
T4 23.33 53.33 6.67 3.33 13.33
T5 16.67 70.00 3.33 0.00 10.00
T6 26.67 50.00 3.33 6.67 13.33
T7 6.67 60.00 3.33 10.00 20.00
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
133
134
Appendix Table 42. Analysis of variance on the acceptability of freshly cooked

sweetcorn applied with different organic materials combined
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Color Between 3.705 7 0.529 0.846ns 0.550
Groups
Within 145.091 232 0.625
Groups
Total 148.796 239
Taste Between 0.702 7 0.100 0.105ns 0.998
Groups
Within 222.481 232 0.959
Groups
Total 223.183 239
Aroma Between 1.673 7 0.239 0.187ns 0.988
Groups
Within 296.327 232 1.277
Groups
Total 298.00 239
Texture Between 1.357 7 0.194 0.164ns 0.992
Groups
Within 274.805 232 1.185
Groups
Total 276.163 239
General Between 2.557 7 0.365 0.425ns 0.886
Groups
Within 199.443 232 0.860
Groups
Total 202.000 239
ns
– not significant
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
134
135
Appendix Table 43. Analysis of variance on the acceptability of 5-day stored cooked
sweetcorn applied with different organic materials combined with
inorganic fertilizers
Sum of df Mean F Sig.
Squares Square
Color Between 5.117 7 0.731 0.424ns 0.886
Groups
Within 399.533 232 1.722
Groups
Total 404.650 239
Taste Between 13.663 7 1.952 0.726ns 0.650
Groups
Within 623.633 232 2.688
Groups
Total 637.296 239
Aroma Between 9.663 7 1.380 0.579ns 0.772
Groups
Within 552.833 232 2.383
Groups
Total 562.496 239
Texture Between 9.596 7 1.371 0.721ns 0.654
Groups
Within 440.900 232 1.900
Groups
Total 450.496 239
General Between 12.200 7 1.743 1.540ns 0.155
Groups
Within 262.533 232 1.132
Groups
Total 274.733 239
ns
– not significant
Legend:

T1 = 90-60-60 kgha-1 N, P2O5, K2O
135
136
4.5 m
0 0.25m
3m
Harvestable Area
5m
0.75m
0.75m 4.5 m 13.5 m2 4.5 m
3m
0.25m
Appendix Figure 1. Schematic presentation of harvestable area
Appendix D. Calculations of total plot and harvestable area and their plant population
Plot Size = L X W
= 5 m X 4.5 m
= 22.5 m2
Length: Width:
= 5 m / 0.25 m = 4.5 m / 0.75 m
= 20 hills = 6 rows
136
137
Plant Population Plot-1 with borders = Hills X Rows = 20 X 6 = 120, or

Area 22.5 m2
Plant population plot-1= -------------------------- = ----------------- = 120 hills
Planting distance 0.1875 m2
Harvestable Area per Plot = L X W
= 4.5 m X 3 m
= 13.5 m2
Length: Width:
= 4.5 m / 0.25 m = 3 m / 0.75 m
= 18 hills = 4 rows
Plant Population per Harvestable Area = Hills X Rows = 18 X 4 = 72, or
Area 13.5 m2
-1
Plant population harvestable area = -------------------------- = ----------------- = 72 hills
Planting distance 0.1875 m2
Border Plants per Plot = Excluded (2) end hill per rows + Excluded (2) end rows
= (2 X 6) + (20 – 2) (2)
= 12 + 18 (2)
= 48 plants
Plants for Destructive Sampling = 4 inner rows X 18 hills = 72 plants
137
cxxxviii
17.5m
4.5m
5m R1T1 1m R2T7 R3T5
1m
R1T7 R2T0 R3T1
R1T2 R2T6 R3T4
R1T0 R2T1 R3T7
49m R1T6 R2T5 R3T6
R1T3 R2T2 R3T3
R1T5 R2T4 R3T2
R1T4 R2T3 R3T0
Appendix Figure 2. A field layout of corn in RCBD with three replications.
Total Area of the Field = LW = 49m X 17.5m = 857.5m2

Plot size = 5m X 4.5m = 22.5 m2
Distance between replications and plots = 1m
Distance between treatments = 1m
cxxxviii
cxxxix
cxxxix

Yield Performance, Physicochemical Properties and Sensory Attributes of Sweetcorn (Zea Mays L. Macho F1) Applied With Different Organic Materials Combined With Inorganic Fertilizers

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Исходное описание:

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Yield Performance, Physicochemical Properties and Sensory Attributes of Sweetcorn (Zea Mays L. Macho F1) Applied With Different Organic Materials Combined With Inorganic Fertilizers

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

YIELD PERFORMANCE, PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND

SENSORY ATTRIBUTES OF SWEETCORN (Zea mays L.) APPLIED

ENRIQUE ELISAN BIÑAS JR.

The thesis entitled: YIELD PERFORMANCE, PHYSICOCHEMICAL

BERTA C. RATILLA ANTONIA CECILIA Y. SANDOVAL

Accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER

finished his elementary education at Tuburan Elementary School, Tuburan, Maayon,

Tuburan National High School and graduated with honors in 2008.

He completed his degree of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture (Crop Science)

at Capiz State University, Pontevedra Campus in 2016. While in college, he was

involved in course-related organizations and was elected as Agriculture Society

the Philippines (FLP) President, League of Innovative Students Organization (LISO)

Event Coordinator and Adventist Ministry to College and University Students

(AMICUS) Vice-President for Social (S.Y. 2015-2016).

He was awarded as the Most Outstanding FLP President in Region VI during

After graduation, he served as a Farmers’ Supervisor in the Philippine

of Science in Agronomy at Visayas State University, Main Campus with an Accelerated

Science and Technology Human Resource Development Program (ASTHRDP) –

National Science Consortium (NSC) scholarship granted by the Department of Science

gratitude of the researcher to them all in his humble acknowledgement.

suggestions for the improvement of the study.

Ms. Cynthia V. Godoy of the Central Analytical Services Laboratory,

Philrootcrops Complex, VSU, for analyzing the soil samples. Department of

physicochemical properties and sensory evaluation of the sweetcorn.

Department of Science and Technology (DOST) for granting a PhP 50,000.00

conduct of the study. The VSU-PAGASA-PCAARRD Agrometeorological Station for

providing the meteorological data needed in the study.

the conduct of the study.

CHAPTER I. RESEARCH OVERVIEW 1

Food Quality of Crops applied with Organic Fertilizer 13

CHAPTER II. YIELD PERFORMANCE OF SWEETCORN (Zea

CHAPTER III. PHYSICOCHEMICAL PROPERTIES AND

CHAPTER IV. SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND

Table Title Page

1 Required nutrient rates (kg ha-1) in corn 8

1 Amount of organic and inorganic fertilizers applied 31

2 Amount of botanical pesticide applied (L plot-1) 33

3 Soil analysis before planting and after harvesting applied

4 Chemical properties of organic fertilizers 44

5 Number of days from planting to emergence, tasseling,

6 Plant height (cm) and stover yield yield (t ha-1) of sweetcorn

7 Number of ears, ear length and diameter and number of

8 Ear yield and harvest index of hybrid sweetcorn 49

9 Cost and return analysis of hybrid sweetcorn production

1 Physicochemical properties of hybrid sweetcorn applied

2 Sensory attributes of hybrid sweetcorn applied with

3 Acceptability ratings from sensory evaluation of hybrid

Figure Title Page

1 Total weekly rainfall (mm), average daily minimum and

1 Appearance of freshly and 5-day stored cooked sweetcorn

Appendix Title Page

A Instructions for Use and Care of Hand Refractometer

B Sensory Evaluation Sheet for Cooked Corn (Freshly harvest,

D Calculations of total plot and harvestable area and their plant

Appendix Title Page

1 Amount of fertilizer applied per treatment (kgplot-1) 83

2 Sensory Evaluation Master Sheet 89

3 Set Plan of Incomplete Block Design used for sensory

4 Total weekly rainfall (mm), average daily minimum and

5 Indices for soil pH, organic matter, total N, available

6 Initial characteristics of soil at 20 cm depth 91

7 pH content (1:2.5) of soil after harvest applied with different