Anda di halaman 1dari 42

KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCE FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE

EFFECTS OF OIL PALM BUNCH ASH AND POULTRY MANURE INDEPENDENTLY ON THE GROWTH AND YIELD OF FRENCH BEANS (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

A DISERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE, FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL RESOURCES OF THE KWAME NKRUMAH UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE DEGREE IN AGRICULTURE

BY FELIX KING MENSAH MAY, 2013

DECLARATION

I declare that this thesis submitted by me for BSc. degree in Agriculture at the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology in Kumasi, Ghana, is my own independent work. References to other peoples work have been duly acknowledged and the work has not been presented elsewhere for any degree.

FELIX KING MENSAH-----------------------------STUDENT Signature

-----------------------------DATE

Dr BEN K. BANFUL --------------------------------SUPERVISOR Signature

-----------------------------DATE

Dr BEN K. BANFUL --------------------------------HEAD OF DEPARTMENT Signature

----------------------------DATE

ii

DEDICATION
This thesis is lovingly dedicated to: The glory of my Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed me beyond anything I could ever have imagined and who has loved me beyond my comprehension. My parents: Mr Bright Mensah and Mrs Mary Mensah. Their effort throughout my life has been out of this world.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to my supervisor and Senior Lecturer Dr Ben K. Banful, for his supervision during my research. I express my sincere gratitude to Mr Shalom Ado-Danso of Forest Research Institute in Kumasi for his numerous assistance and help in solving the problems of literature concerning the treatments used for the research. I also wish thank the entire staff of the Department of Horticulture for their motivation and support. I am grateful to my family and friends for their continuous prayers and encouragement during my studies. Finally, many thanks to all those who assisted me during the entire process: from the research to thesis development.

iv

ABSTRACT
A field experiment entitled Effects of oil palm bunch ash and poultry manure independently on the growth and yield of French beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) was carried out during December, 2012 to February, 2013, on the Research fields at the Department of Horticulture of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi. The soil texture of the experimental site was clay and was low in available nitrogen (kg ha-1) and phosphorus (kg ha-1) and high in available potassium (kg ha-1). There were three treatments; oil palm bunch ash, poultry manure and an inorganic fertiliser as control (NPK 15:15:15). The experiment was laid out in a RCBD with three replications. Results of the study showed that the application of Palm bunch ash significantly (P< 0.05) increased soil pH and exchangeable cations but not significant with Poultry manure application. Growth of French beans, except days to 50% anthesis which was significantly(P< 0.05) lower (28 and 29 DAS) with Palm bunch ash impose, did not vary significantly (P>0.05) among treatments. No significant difference was recorded on yield of French beans with respect to treatments imposed and recorded 597.32 kg ha-1with poultry manure, palm bunch ash, 681.62 kg ha-1 and NPK, 477.82 kg ha-1 per treatment. Total nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium and magnesium uptake increased with the crops growth. The study therefore recommends that French beans production as well as other crops can be cultivated using these organic wastes as fertiliser substitutes and soil amendments.

Table of Content
CHAPTER ONE ......................................................................................................................................................1 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................1 CHAPTER TWO .....................................................................................................................................................3 LITERATURE REVIEW ....................................................................................................................................3 2.1 EFFECTS OF FERTILISERS ON THE GROWTH AND YIELD OF FRENCH BEANS..............................3 2.1.1 Effects of NPK on growth parameters ........................................................................................................3 2.1.3 Effects of oil palm bunch ash on growth and yield parameters ..................................................................6 2.1.4 Effects of poultry manure on growth and yield parameters........................................................................7 CHAPTER THREE.......................................................................................................................................................8 MATERIALS AND METHODS ........................................................................................................................8 3.1 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPERIMENTAL SITE ..........................................................................8 3.2 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS ..........................................................................................................................8 3.4 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS .......................................................................................................................9 3.4.1 Experimental design, treatments and analysis of treatments ......................................................................9 3.5 CULTURAL PRACTICES ...........................................................................................................................9 3.5.1 Land preparation .........................................................................................................................................9 3.5.2 Seeds and seed sowing ...............................................................................................................................9 3.5.3 Fertiliser application .................................................................................................................................10 3.5.4 Crop management .....................................................................................................................................10 3.6 COLLECTION OF DATA ..........................................................................................................................10 3.6.1 Growth parameters ...................................................................................................................................10 3.6.1.1 Plant height ............................................................................................................................................10 3.6.1.2 Number of branches per plant ...............................................................................................................11 3.6.1.3 Days to fifty percent flowering ..............................................................................................................11 3.6.2 Yield components .....................................................................................................................................11 3.6.2.1 Number of pods per plant ......................................................................................................................11 3.6.2.2 Pod weight .............................................................................................................................................11 3.6.2.3 Yield per sample area ............................................................................................................................11 3.6.2.4 Total yield per hectare ...........................................................................................................................11 3.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................12 CHAPTER FOUR .................................................................................................................................................13 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS ..........................................................................................................................13 4.1 GROWTH PARAMETERS ........................................................................................................................23 vi

4.1.1 Plant height and number of branches .......................................................................................................13 4.1.2 Days to 50% flowering .............................................................................................................................13 4.2 YIELD COMPONENTS AND YIELD ......................................................................................................14 4.2.1 Number of pods per plant .........................................................................................................................14 4.2.2 Pod weight ................................................................................................................................................14 4.2.3 Total yield per hectare ..............................................................................................................................14 CHAPTER FIVE ...................................................................................................................................................15 DISCUSSION....................................................................................................................................................15 5.1 WEATHER CONDITIONS AND CROP PERFORMANCE .....................................................................15 5.2 DISEASES AND PESTS ............................................................................................................................16 5.3 EFFECT OF PALM BUNCH ASH (PBA) .................................................................................................16 5.4 EFFECT OF POULTRY MANURE (PM) .................................................................................................17 CHAPTER SIX .....................................................................................................................................................18 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................18 RECOMMENDATIONS ..................................................................................................................................19 REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................20 APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................................................26

vii

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Effects of treatment on days to 50 % flowering in French beans14

viii

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix I: Soil samples analysed from the experimental site before the experiment.26 Appendix II: Treatment samples analysed.26 Appendix III: Soil samples analysed from the experimental site treatment-wise after harvest.27 Appendix IV: Monthly meteorological data for the experimental period (December, 2012 to February, 2013)..................27 Appendix V: ANOVA tables....27

ix

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION
French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) is a short duration nontraditional grain legume gaining utilisation in many homes in Ghana. French beans are known by various names viz., haricot bean, field bean, kidney bean, snap bean, pole bean etc. It is an important vegetable grown both for tender pods which has a rich source of crude protein (21.25%), fat (1.7%) and carbohydrates (70%). Besides, it contains 0.16 mg iron, 1.76 mg calcium and 3.43 mg zinc per 100 g of edible part (Jasvinder Kaur and Mehta, 1994). French beans being native to South and Central America probably Mexico, is being widely cultivated in tropical, sub-tropical and temperate regions. Its cultivation in Ghana, however, is scattered across the regions.It is a major export vegetable crop in Kenya and a potential income earner to small scale farmers (out growers). Unlike other pulses, French beans is inefficient in symbiotic nitrogen fixation (Ali and Lal, 1992) as it lacks nodulation due to the absence of NOD gene regulator (Kushwaha, 1994) even with native Rhizobia and commercially produced cultures. Hence, the nitrogen requirement of the crop must be met through the application of nitrogen fertilisers if its yield potential has to be exploited. Empty fruit bunch (EFB) is one of the major waste products generated from processing fresh fruit bunch (FFB) in palm fruit processing mills. About 22% of FFB processed into oil end up as EFB (Lim and Zaharah, 2000). Currently, Ghana produces about 120,000 metric tons of FFB annually (FAO, 2011) which, when processed into oil, generate a good amount of EFB annually. In the large industrial estates, EFB is incinerated in the mills as a means of providing energy for the boilers in FFB sterilization. However, the small-scale mills which process about 60% of the total FFB produced in the country (Opoku and Asante, 2008) burn the EFB as a means of disposing of them, resulting in heaps of ash dotted around small-scale mills in the major oil palm producing areas in

Ghana. There is currently no large-scale use for palm bunch ash in Ghana, although it could be used for the manufacture of local soap due to its high potassium content. The palm bunch ash (PBA) produced by burning EFB, which constitutes about 6.5% by weight of the EFB, contains 30 40% K2O (Lim and Zaharah, 2000) and could thus be used as source of potassium fertilizer. Moreover, the rising cost of inorganic fertilizers coupled with their inability to condition the soil has directed attention to organic manures in recent times. Poultry manure, an organic manure, abounds in major areas in Ghana. The disposal of the manure has become a big problem. However, some farmers are aware of the beneficial effects of poultry manure and its release of nutrients for a good response in plant growth. This notwithstanding, there seems to be little use of poultry manure nationwide, due mainly to the little knowledge available on the effects of the manure on crops.

The present study was therefore undertaken to determine the independent effects of poultry manure and oil palm bunch ash on growth and yield of French beans.

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW 2.1 EFFECTS OF FERTILISERS ON THE GROWTH AND YIELD OF FRENCH BEANS

The average yield potential of French bean under both rain-fed and irrigated condition is high. One of the agronomic approaches is the efficient use of fertilizer, particularly N, P and K, which plays an important role in enhancing the production and productivity of the crop by increasing cell division and multiplication. Nitrogen nutrition is also required for improvement of growth parameters through efficient metabolic activity and increased rate of photosynthesis. Phosphorus is a constituent of nucleoprotein and it helps for increased cell division and expansion of cells resulting into higher dry matter accumulation in reproductive parts. It also stimulates early root growth and development, encourages fruiting, seed setting and hastens maturity of plants. Potassium plays a significant role in increasing the crop yield and extra balancing effect on both nitrogen and phosphorus. It is essential for cell organization and structure of cell walls. It enhances plants ability to resist diseases, cold and other adverse conditions.

2.1.1 Effects of NPK on growth parameters


Studies by Singh and Singh (2000) showed an increase in plant height of French bean due to increase in Nitrogen fertilization from zero to 120 kg N/ha. Patil (2003) also acknowledged increase in plant height (92.2 cm) at a fertilizer application of 25:112:60 kg NPK per hectare over control (no NPK) (84.7 cm and 4.3, respectively) in cluster bean.

Kumar et al. (2004) noticed significant increase in plant height (21.68 cm) with fertilizer level of 120:60:45 kg NPK per hectare which was followed by 80:40:30 kg NPK per hectare and it was significantly less (17.00 cm and 5.9, respectively) in control (no fertilizer) in the French bean crop. A field investigation conducted by Rana et al. (2003) revealed that application of K2O up to 30 kg ha1

significantly increased plant height of French bean. Veeresh (2003) also reported significant increase

in plant height (37.77 cm) and number of branches of French bean during up to 75 kg P2O5ha-1 application. Delayed flowering in French beans (flowering after 29, 32 and 33 days, respectively) was observed due to increased N application (40, 80 and 120 kg ha-1) (Veeresh, 2003). Phosphorus supplement to crop at 0, 20, 40 and 60 kg P2O5 ha-1 recorded 71.0, 70.66, 70.44 and 70.18 days, respectively to first flowering (Tewari and Singh, 2000) whilst increased P fertilization (25, 50 and 75 kg ha-1) significantly reduced number of days to 50 per cent flowering (34, 31 and 29 days, respectively) of French bean (Veeresh, 2003).

2.1.2 Effects of NPK on yield parameters


Nitrogen fertilization up to 120 kg ha-1in French bean increased number of fruits per plant (Tewari and Singh, 2000; Singh and Singh, 2000). However, the difference between 120 kg and 80 kg N ha-1was not significant (Singh and Singh, 2000). In addition, Singh and Singh (2000) and Tewari and Singh (2000) reported significant increase in number of pods per plant due to increased P fertilization between 60 and 120 kg P2O5ha-1. Furthermore, Veeresh (2003) observed significantly higher number of fruits per plant (11) of French bean with 75 kg P2O5ha-1 application.

Higher number of pods per plant was recorded in the treatment receiving 120 kg N ha-1(Prajapatiet al. (2003). Similar results were obtained by Veeresh (2003) and Behura et al. (2006) while pod number
4

per plant in French bean increased significantly up to the highest level of nitrogen ( thus 180 kg ha-1) (Rajesh Singh et al., 2006). Rana et al. (2003) also stated that the number of fruits per plant increased significantly up to 30 kg K2Oha-1 application. Number of seeds per pod increased significantly up to 120 kg N ha-1(Dhanjal et al., 2001). Similar results were obtained by Prajapati et al. (2003), Veeresh (2003) and Behura et al. (2006) while Rajesh Singh et al. (2006) reported that application of 180 kg N ha-1resulted in higher number of seeds per pod which significantly increased the pod length. According to Veeresh (2003), higher number of grains per pod (5.12) of French bean was observed due to increased rate of P application up to 75 kg P2O5ha-1thereby increasing the length of the bean pod. Considering pod weight, linear increase in grain weight per plant from 11.2 to 19.2g (during 19911992) and 12.1 to 20.0g (during 1992-93) was observed from zero to 120 kg N ha-1(Rana and Singh, 1998 and Tewari and Singh, 2000). For total yield per hectare, Nitrogen application increased the grain yield of French bean. Grain yield was increased due to increasing levels of N up to 100 kg ha-1. According to Rana and Singh (1998) mean increases in seed yield with 120 kg N ha-1over zero to 40 and 80 kg N ha-1which was 66.6, 21.7 and 7.0 per cent, respectively. An observation by Singh and Singh (2000) observed improvement in yield and yield components with increasing Nitrogen rate from zero to 120 kg ha-1.Dhanjalet al. (2001) also reported improvement in grain yield with increasing N rate; the yields with zero, 60 and 120 kg ha-1 were 6.52, 8.30 and 9.49 q ha-1, respectively. Veeresh (2003) recorded significantly higher grain yield (1917 kg ha-1) of French bean with 80 kg N application.

Rajesh Singh et al. (2001) recorded linear significant increase in grain yield up to 240 kg N ha-1(2091 kg ha-1) over 80 and 160 kg ha-1while Rajesh Singh et al. (2006) reported that nitrogen application increased grain yield (2651 kg ha-1) up to 180 kg N ha-1. Tewari and Singh (2000) reported significant increase in grain weight per plant with 60 kg P2O5ha-1. Veeresh (2003) observed significant increase in grain weight per plant (8.65 g) due to increased P application up to 75 kg ha-1. Dwivedi et al. (2002), in their fertilizer application found that increased level of nutrition 40:60:40 kg NPK per ha significantly increased the yield parameters like pod weight per plant, number of pods per plant and seed yield per ha as against control (0 kg NPK). Singh and Singh (2000) and Tewari and Singh (2000) also revealed significantly increased seed yield due to incremental P application from75 to 100 kg P2O5ha-1. Tomar (2001) recorded that application of phosphorus influenced the seed yield significantly up to 60 kg P2O5ha-1. Also, higher grain yield (2006 kg ha-1) of French bean was observed due to increased rate of P application up to 75 kg P2O5ha-1 (Veeresh, 2003).

2.1.3 Effects of oil palm bunch ash on growth and yield parameters
Though the utilization of oil palm bunch ash in crop production has little exploitation, few experiments have been performed using it as a soil amendment material or applying it alongside inorganic fertiliser. The highest increase in maize grain yield in both seasons was obtained at the application rate of 2 tons ha1 PBA. This increase in maize grain yield as well as root yield of cassava has been reported by several workers (Mbahet al, 2010; Awodunet al, 2007; Adekayode and Olojugba, 2010; Ojeniyi et al, 2010; Offor et al ,2010; Ezekiel et al ,2009).

It was also found to increase nutrient supply to cassava and its yield significantly (Ezekiel et al, 2009a, 2009b,). Ojeniyi et al (2006) also found that oil palm bunch ash supplied organic matter, N, P, Ca and Mg to soil which caused an increased maize yield by 26% at an application rate of 4 t/ha.

2.1.4 Effects of poultry manure on growth and yield parameters


Mullens et al. (2002) revealed that poultry litter contains a considerable amount of organic matter due to the manure and the bedding material. Litter can also have an impact on soil pH and liming due to varying amounts of calcium carbonate in poultry feed. Poultry manure improved soil physical properties significantly by reducing soil bulk density and temperature and increasing total porosity and moisture content in Nigeria (Agbede et al., 2008). An experiment conducted by Amanullah et al. (2007b) indicated that application of organic manure yielded higher uptake of NPK than the control. The study also revealed that uptake of nutrient was higher with Composted Poultry Manure. The added organic manure not only acted as a source of nutrient but might have also influenced their availability. In an experiment conducted by Zamil et al.(2004) the highest mustard seed yield (8.68 g pot-1) was obtained in cage system poultry manure at 20 t ha-1 which was statistically similar to chemical fertilizer (8.49 g pot-1). The lowest seed yield was obtained from the control. Cage system poultry manure showed better performance in producing seed yield. Ibeawuchi et al. (2006) reported that in a degraded soil of Nigeria, poultry manure application increased the residual soil N, K, Ca, Mg and organic matter. The high organic matter with increase in other soil chemical components is an indication that poultry manure has high potential of gradual nutrient release to the soil that can help to improve the fertility of a degraded soil thereby sustaining yield in a continuous cropping system.

CHAPTER THREE

MATERIALS AND METHODS


A field experiment entitled Effects of oil palm bunch ash and poultry manure independently on the growth and yield of French beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) was carried out during December to February, 2012, on the Research field sat the Department of Horticulture of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi.

3.1 SOIL CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPERIMENTAL SITE


Soil of the experimental site was a black, well drained loamy soil. Random soil samples from four different locations of the experimental site before the initiation of the experiment were collected from a depth of 0-20cm and composite soil sample was analyzed for the chemical characteristics of Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg) and soil pH. The soil analysis was carried out at the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST).The soil analysis was repeated after harvest. The same nutrients were analysed.

3.2 CLIMATIC CONDITIONS


There was no rainfall received during the crop growth period. The maximum temperatures from December 7th 2012 to February 5th 2013 are 33C, 36C and 36C respectively and the minimum recorded temperatures are 27C, 32C and 34C for the experimentation period respectively.

3.4 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS 3.4.1 Experimental design, treatments and analysis of treatments
The experiment comprised of three treatments namely poultry manure, palm bunch ash and NPK (15:15:15) as a control replicated three times. The treatment details were: Treatment 1: Poultry manure at 9kg/plot Treatment 2: Palm bunch ash at 2kg/plot Treatment 3 (Absolute control): NPK (15:15:15) at 0.5kg/plot The treatment samples wereanalysed for the chemical characteristics of Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), Potassium (K), Calcium (Ca), Magnesium (Mg) and soil pH and are presented in Appendix II. The treatment analysis was carried out at the Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST).

3.5 CULTURAL PRACTICES 3.5.1 Land preparation


One deep ploughing and one harrowing were carried out to bring the soil to fine tilth. Before taking up sowing, the field was leveled and the plots were laid out according to the experimental plan. The plot size was 9m2at plant spacing of 0.60m X 0.60m.

3.5.2 Seeds and seed sowing


French bean (Contender) seeds was obtained from the AgriSeed Co. Ltd. were used for sowing. Seeds were placed in a depth of 5 cm at a row spacing of 60 cm and plant to plant spacing of 60 cm. The sowing was done on 7th December, 2012 at the rate of two seeds per hill. To maintain the desired plant population gap filling was done within first fortnight of sowing.

3.5.3 Fertiliser application


Poultry manure, palm bunch ash and NPK were applied as per the treatments. Fertilizers were applied in a ring at 5 cm away from the plant.

3.5.4Crop management
Hoe weeding at fortnight intervals after sowing was done in order to keep the weeds under check. To control the damage of piercing and sucking pests and as well as all insects a spray of Aceta Star 45 EC was taken up at the rate of 2 ml per liter of water from 30 DAS and fortnightly. Shavit F71.5WP, a broad spectrum fungicide, was also sprayed at 45 DAS to prevent fungal diseases. The crop was harvested from 21st January to 5th February, 2013 thus from 45 days after sowing to 60 days after sowing. Six plants from each plot area were harvested as sample plants.

3.6 COLLECTION OF DATA


A sample consisting of six plants selected randomly were tagged from the plot area of each treatment for recording various observations. The mean of the six plants was considered for further analysis. The observations on various growth parameters were recorded at 18, 30, 45, 52 and 60 DAS. Yield parameters were recorded at harvest.

3.6.1 Growth parameters 3.6.1.1 Plant height


The plant height was measured from the base of the plant to the base of the fully opened youngest trifoliate leaf and expressed in centimeters (cm).

10

3.6.1.2 Number of branches per plant


The number of branches on the tagged plants was counted and mean was recorded as number of branches per plant.

3.6.1.3 Days to fifty percent flowering


The number of days taken from sowing to days of 50 per cent anthesis of the plants sampled.

3.6.2 Yield components 3.6.2.1 Number of pods per plant


Pods from the tagged plants were counted and average was recorded as number of pods per plant.

3.6.2.2 Pod weight


The pod weight of six plants was recorded and average was taken as pod weight per plant and expressed in grams (g).

3.6.2.3 Yield per sample area


The pods harvested from the six tagged plants were carefully weighed on a balance and their average was calculated and expressed as pod yield in grams (g) per sample area.

3.6.2.4 Total yield per hectare


The pods obtained from plots of all treatments replication-wise, thus, yield of the six tagged plants harvested separately was used in calculating the total pod yield per hectare. The average pod yield was computed and expressed in kilograms per hectare.

11

3.7 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS


Data collected were analysed using GenStat statistical package to generate analysis of variance (ANOVA) and means separated by LSD at 5%.

12

CHAPTER FOUR

EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
The field experiment was conducted to know the effects of oil palm bunch ash and poultry manure independently on the growth and yield of French beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Cv. Contender. The results obtained from the above experiment are presented in this chapter.

4.1 GROWTH PARAMETERS 4.1.1 Plant height and number of branches


Plant height of French beans was not significantly influenced by the application of Palm Bunch Ash and Poultry Manure at the various stages of the crop. Similarly, French beans number of branches were not significantly influenced by the application of Palm Bunch Ash and Poultry Manure treatments.

4.1.2 Days to 50% flowering


Application of Palm Bunch Ash significantly influenced the number of days to 50 % flowering in French beans (28, 29 and 30 days) against the control. However no significant difference was recorded between Poultry Manure and NPK (30 and 31 days).

13

Table 1: Effects of treatment on days to 50 % flowering in French beans


TREATMENT Fertiliser NPK Palm Bunch Ash Poultry Manure Lsd. (%) CV (%) Values with the same letter are not significantly different Days to 50 % flowering 30a 29b 30a 0.027 0.80

4.2 YIELD COMPONENTS AND YIELD 4.2.1 Number of pods per plant
Palm Bunch Ash and Poultry Manure did not significantly influence the number of pods per plant.

4.2.2 Pod weight


Pod weight (means) did not differ significantly with respect to Palm Bunch Ash and Poultry Manure.

4.2.3 Total yield per hectare


Palm Bunch Ash and Poultry Manure did not influence significantly the total yield of French beans as compared to the control. Poultry Manure recorded 597.32 kg ha-1, Palm Bunch Ash, 681.62 kg ha-1 and NPK, 477.82 kg ha-1.

14

CHAPTER FIVE

DISCUSSION
The results obtained from the investigations on the Effects of oil palm bunch ash and poultry manure independently on the growth and yield of French beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)are discussed in this chapter under the following headings: 5.1 Weather conditions and crop performance 5.2Diseases and pests 5.3 Effect of Palm Bunch Ash (PBA) 5.4 Effect of Poultry Manure (PM)

5.1 WEATHER CONDITIONS AND CROP PERFORMANCE


Crop growth is the net result of the interplay of diverse metabolic activities taking place in different parts of a plant during its growth and development. The synthesis, accumulation and translocation of metabolites to the economic part are often influenced by environmental conditions thereby influencing the yield potential of the crop. The total rainfall received during the experimental period (2012, December to 2013 February) was 0.00 mm. The mean monthly maximum air temperature ranged from 36 C (February) to 33 C (December) while the minimum temperature ranged from 24 C (February) to 21 C (December) during the experimentation. The mean relative humidity was highest during December (82%) and the lowest in February (75%). The crop might have experienced some amount of moisture stress during the cropping season, temperature effects and other climatic factors that growth and yields were affected.

15

5.2 DISEASES AND PESTS


French bean, a crop leguminous crop, is highly preferred of livestock and insects as well. It is well attacked by piercing and sucking insects usually of the Pyrrhocoridae (cotton stainer) family whiteflies and aphids. They pierce the fleshy and usually growing vegetative parts of the crop and such out the fluid from them. This results in wilting of the crop and stunted growth to some extent of survival. This experiment was affected by the attack of these insects though they were controlled; their damage was severe resulting in the insignificance of the growth parameters treatment-wise. Viral diseases that affect French beans are many. These are known to have no cure but can be controlled and are transmitted by insects and pests. Golden mosaic virus, spread by the whitefly insect vector (Bemisia tabaci) was found on the experimental field though insect control was undertaken. Curly top, a viral disease, transmitted by a leafhopper (Circulifer tenellus) also was identified on the field. These fatally affected the growth and yield of the crop by destroying photosynthetic organs like the leaves, hence stunting growth and metabolic processes from the early stages of the crop growth.

5.3 EFFECT OF PALM BUNCH ASH (PBA)


Palm Bunch Ash constitute about 30-40% K2O (Nsiah-Adjei, 2012). Potassium stimulates nitrogenase activity and greater partitioning of above ground nitrogen to seeds and thereby increases seed yield (Thomas and Hungaria, 1998). In the present investigation no significant difference was observed with the application of PBA with respect to growth parameters. The non-significant effect of PBA might be due to its low Nitrogen as well as Phosphorus contents.

16

Days to 50% flowering was significantly affected by the application of PBA in that earlier flowering was recorded. Potassium plays a major role in protein synthesis, improves water regime and increases tolerance to drought. Phosphorus, which was of a good amount in PBA, affected the number of days to flowering confirming the findings of Veeresh in 2003. No significant differences were recorded with respect to yield parameters though PBA contained a good amount of N, P, K, Mg and Ca as observed by Mbah et al, 2010; Awodun et al, 2007; Adekayode and Olojugba, 2010; Ojeniyi et al, 2010; Offor et al ,2010; Ezekiel et al ,2009;Ojeniyiet al, 2006. This may be due to moisture stress, environmental factors such as high temperatures and the pest and viral diseases which affected the crop from 30 DAS. The viral disease affected the leaves of the crop hindering photosynthesis.

5.4 EFFECT OF POULTRY MANURE (PM)


Nitrogen plays an important role in the growth and yield of crops and is vital for the vegetative phase and is important for the uptake of other nutrients. PM has good percentage of it. Therefore the application of PM becomes ideal for exploiting the yield potential of French beans (Sushant et al., 1999). Poultry manure was slightly acidic (6.02) and it altered the pH of the soil which was moderately acidic. PM did not affect the number of days to flowering significantly as it did according to the findings of Veeresh, 2003.However significant differences were recorded on number of pods per plant at 45 DAS. The no significant differences recorded with the application of poultry manure on the crop may as a result be because of its gradual release of nutrients in the soil as recorded by Ibeawuchi et al., 2006. Poultry manure recorded no significant difference in yield as against the control, NPK as confirmed by Amanullah et al., in 2007b. This may be due to environmental conditions like high temperature, low soil moisture and the viral attack on the crop curtailing most of the crops vital processes for growth and reproduction.

17

CHAPTER SIX

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS


The field experiment results obtained from the investigations on the Effects of oil palm bunch ash and poultry manure independently on the growth and yield of French beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) with NPK 15:15:15 as control carried out on theResearch fields of the Department of Horticulture, Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology, Kumasi during December, 2012 to February 2013. The experiment was laid out in the randomised complete block design with three treatments and three replications. The salient results of the investigations are summarised below: 1. The plant height, number of branches per plant, days to 50 % flowering, number of pods per plant, pod weight, yield per sample area and total yield per hectare were studied. 2. The treatments studied were Palm Bunch Ash and Poultry Manure with NPK as control. 3. The treatments imposed on the crop did not significantly affect the various parameters studied of the crop to the majority due to certain factors that affected the crop during the experiment as discussed. 4. Palm Bunch Ash and Poultry Manure are organics that releases their nutrients gradually and hence final soil analysis treatment-wise reveals an improvement in the soil characteristics with respect to pH and Ca contents but a reduction due to the crops massive uptake of the other nutrients, major and minor, the other nutrients. 5. The objective for this experiment was achieved but with no significant difference among results due to the effects of environmental and pests and diseases factors that affected the crop. Good fertiliser substitutes and fertiliser supplements as well as soil amendment materials were identified for crop production.

18

RECOMMENDATIONS
There is scope for study the effects of the combination of Palm bunch ash and Poultry manure on the growth and yield of French beans. Any study or work conducted on French beans should tackle insect control from early crop stages and irrigation should be a very important practise especially if during the dry periods of the year. There is scope for studies on French beans with different organic wastes such as cattle dung manure.

19

REFERENCES
Adekayode, F. O. and Olojugba, M. R., The utilization of wood ash as manure to reduce the use of mineral fertilizer for improved performance of maize (Zea mays L.)as measured in the chlorophyll content and grain yield, Journal of Soil Science and Environmental Management, vol. 1, pp. 4045, 2010. Agbede, T.M., S.O. Ojeniyi and A.J. Adeyemo, 2008.Effect of poultry manure on soil physical and chemical properties, growth and grain yield of sorghum in Southwest, Nigeria. Am. Eur. J. Sustainable Agric., 2: 72-77. Ahlawat, I.P.S. and Sharma, R.P., 1989, Response of French bean genotypes to soil moisture regimes and phosphate fertilization. Indian J. Argon.34: 70-74. Ali, M. and Lal, S., 1992, Technology for rajmash cultivation in the plains. Indian Fmg. 42: 25-26. Amanullah, M.M., Somasundaram E., Vaiyapuri, K. and Sathyamoorthi K., 2007.Poultry manure to crops: A review. Agric. Rev., 28: 216-222. Arya, P.S., Sagar, V. and Singh, S.R., 1999, Effect of N, P and K on seed yield of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) var. Contender.Scient. Hort., 6: 137-139. Awodun M. A., Ojeniyi S. O., Adeboye A., and Odedina A. S., Effect of oil palm bunch refuse ash on soil and plant nutrient composition and yield of maize, Eurasian Journal of Sustainable Agriculture, vol. 1, pp. 5054, 2007. Ayeni, L. S. Ayeni, O. M. Oso, O. P. and Ojeniyi, S. O., Effect of sawdust and wood ash applications in improving soil chemical properties and growth of cocoa (Theobroma cacao) seedlings in the nurseries, Medwel Agricultural Journal, vol. 3, pp. 323326, 2008. Baboo, R., Rana, N.S. and Pantola, P., 1998, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to nitrogen and phosphorus.Annals Agric. Res., 19: 81-82.

20

Behura, A.K., Mahapatra, P.K. and Swain, D., 2006, Effect of irrigation and nitrogen on physiological growth parameters, yield and yield attributes of rajmash (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Res. on crops, 7: 9295. Chatterjee, R. and Som, M.G., 1991, Response of French bean to different rates phosphorus, potassium and plant spacing.Crop Res., 4:214-217. Deshpande, S.B., Jadhav, N.S. and Deokar, A.B., 1995, Effect of phosphorus and intra row spacing on the yield of French bean. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ., 20: 423-425. Dhanjal, R., Om Prakash and Ahlawat, I.P.S., 2001, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) varieties to plant density and nitrogen application.Indian J. Agron., 46: 277-281. Dwivedi, D.K., Singh, H., Singh, K.M., Shahi, B. and Rai, J.N., 1994, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to population density and nitrogen levels under mid upland situation in north-east alluvial plains of Bihar.Indian J. Agron., 39: 581- 583. Dwivedi, Y.C., Sharma, R.S. and Sengupata, S.K., 1995, Effect of phosphorus and potassium fertilization on grain yield of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.).Veg. Sci., 22: 36- 38. Dwivedi, Y. C., Kushwah, S. S. and Sengupta, S. K., 2002, Studies on nitrogen, phosphorus and potash requirement of dolichos bean. JNKVV Res. J., 36(1-2): 47-50. Edje, O.T., Mughaga, L.K. and Ayonoadu, U.M.U., 1975, Response of dry beans (Phaseolus vulgaris) to varying nitrogen levels.Agron. J., 67:251-254. Ezekiel, P. O., Ojeniyi, S. O., Asawalam, D. O. and Awo, A. O., Root growth, dry root yield and NPK content of cassava as influenced by oil palm bunch ash on ultisols of southeast Nigeria, Nigerian Journal of Soil Science, vol. 19, pp. 610, 2009. FAO Statistical Databases, 2011,http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx. Hegde, D.M. and Srinivas, K., 1989, Effect of irrigation and nitrogen on growth, yield and water use of French bean. Indian J. Agron., 34: 180-184

21

Ibeawuchi, I.I., Onweremadu, E.U. and Oti, N.N., 2006. Effects of poultry manure on green (Amaranthuscruentus) and waterleaf (Talinumtriangulare) on degraded ultisols of OwerriSoutheastern Nigeria. J. Anim. Vet. Adv., 5: 53-56. Jasrotia, R.S. and Sharma, C.M., 1998, A note on phosphorus and farm yard manure application on French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under mid hill condition. Veg. Sci., 25: 197-198. JasvinderKaur, K.S. and Mehta, U., 1994, Nutritional evaluation of new varieties of kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris). Legume Res. 17: 17-21. Kannan, P., A. Saravan, S. Krishnakumar and S. K. Natrajan, 2005.Biological properties of soil as influenced by different organic manure. Res. J. Agric. Biol. Sci., 1:181-183. Kanaujia, S.P., Rajnarayan and Sumathinarayan, 1999, Effect of phosphorus and potassium on growth, yield and quality of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) cv. Contender. Veg. Sci., 26: 91-92. Koli, B.D. and Akashe, V.B., 1994, Response and economics of nitrogen application to French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under irrigated condition. Madras Agric. J. 81: 459-468. Khalid, H., Zin, Z. and Anderson, T. M., Nutrient cycling in an oil palm plantation.The effects of residue management practices during replanting on dry matter and nutrient uptake of young palms, Journal of Oil Palm Research, vol. 12, pp. 2937, 2000. Kumar, M., Sinha, K.K. and Roy Sharma, R.P., 2004, Effect of organic manure , NPK and boron application on the productivity of French bean in sandy loam soil of north Bihar. Indian J. Pulses Res., 17: 42-44. Kushwaha, B.L., 1994, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to nitrogen application in north Indian plains. Indian J. Agron., 39: 34-37. Lim, K. H. and Zaharah, A. R., Decomposition and N and K release by oil palm empty fruit bunches applied under mature palms, Journal of Oil Palm Research, vol. 12, pp. 5562, 2000. Lopez-Real J. M.(1995). Organic wastes and peri-urban horticulture. Report to Natural Resources Institute. A visit to Kumasi, Ghana.

22

Marx, E. S., Hart, J. and Stevens, R. G., 1999.Soil test interpretation guide. Mbah C. N., Nwite J.N., Njoku C. and Nweke I. A., Response of maize (Zea mays L.)to different rates of wood-ash application in acid ultisol in Southeast Nigeria, African Journal of Agricultural Research, vol. 5, no. 7, pp. 580583, 2010. Mullens, B.A., C.E. Szijj and N.C. Hinkle, 2002.Oviposition and development of Fannia spp. (Diptera: Muscidae) on poultry manure of low moisture levels. Environ. Entomol., 31: 588-593. Negi, S.C. and Shekhar, J., 1993, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes to nitrogen. Indian J. Agron., 38: 321-322. Offor, U. S., Wilcox, G. I. and Agbagwaa, C. N.Potentials of palm bunch ash on yield of Zea mays, Journal of Agriculture and Social Research, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 132134, 2010. Ojeniyi, S. O., Awanlemhen, B. C. and Adejoro, S. A. Soil plant nutrients and maize performance as influenced by oil palm bunch ash plus NPK fertilizer, Journal of American Science, vol. 6, no. 12, pp. 456460, 2010. Opoku, J. and Asante, F.A., Palm oil production in Ghana, Final report on the status of the oil palm industry in Ghana, German Technical Co-operation (GTZ), Accra, Ghana, 2008. Parmar, D.K., Sharma, J.R., Saini, J.P. and Vinod Sharma, 1999, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to nitrogen and phosphorus in cold desert area of Himachal Pradesh. Indian J. Agron., 44: 787-790. Prajapati, M.P., Patil, L.R. and Patel, B.M., 2003, Effect of integrated weed management and nitrogen levels on weeds and productivity of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under north Gujarat conditions. Legume Res., 26: 77-84. Rana, N.S. and Singh, R., 1998, Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus on growth and yield of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Indian J. Agron., 43: 367-370.

23

Rana, S.S., Sood, P., Singh, Y. and Rameshwar, 2003, Response of rajmash (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes to potassium under dry temperate conditions of Himachal Pradesh.Himachal J. Agric. Res., 29: 16-20. Ravinandan, R. and Prasad, V.K., 1998, Effect of irrigation and nitrogen on growth and seed yield of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Indian J. Agron., 43: 550-554. Sangakkara, V.R., 1996, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to seed rate and ratio of potassium fertilizer application. Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci., 19: 61-67. Sharma, H.M., Singh, R.N.P., Singh, H. and Sharma, R.P.R., 1996, Effect of rates and timings of N application on growth and yield of winter rajmash. Indian J. Pulse Res., 9: 23-25. Singh, A.K. and Singh, S.S., 2000, Effect of planting dates, nitrogen and phosphorus levels on yield contributing characters in French bean. Legume Res., 23: 33-36. Singh, D.N., and Tripathi, P., 1994, Effect of NPK fertilizers and spacing on growth and yield of French bean. Veg. Sci., 21:7-11. Singh, D.P. and Rajput, A.L., 1995, Effect of spacing and nitrogen on yield and economics of French bean. Haryana J. Hort. Sci., 11: 122-127. Singh, D.P., Rajput, A.L. and Singh, S.K., 1996a, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to spacing and nitrogen levels.Indian J. Agron., 41: 608-610. Singh, K., Singh, V.N., Singh, R.N., Bohra, J.S. and Singh, K., 1996b, Fertilizer and irrigation studies on yield, economy and NPK uptake of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Fert. News, 41: 39-42. Singh, R.P. and Abidi, A.B., 1995, Significant response of seed rate, date of sowing and fertility level on quality parameters of rajmash(Phaseolus vulgaris L.). New Agric., 6: 145-150. Sridhar, S. and Suryanarayana, M.A., 1992, French bean varieties with different levels of nitrogen and phosphorus in Port Blair.Curr. Res., 21: 107-108. Srinivas, K. and Naik, L.B., 1988, Response of vegetable French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to nitrogen and phosphorus fertilization. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 58: 707-708.

24

Ssali, H. and Keya, S.O., 1986, The effect of phosphorus and nitrogen fertilizer level on nodulation, growth and dinitrogen fixation of three bean cultivars. Trop. Agric. 63: 105-109. Sushant, R.S., Dixit, B.K. and Singh, G.R., 1999, Effect of irrigation, nitrogen and phosphorus on the seed yield and water use of rajmash(Phaseolus vulgaris). Indian J. Agron., 44: 382-388. Tewari, J.K. and Singh, S.S., 2000, Effect of nitrogen and phosphorus on the growth and seed yield of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Veg. Sci., 27: 172-175. Thakur, R.N., Arya, P.S. and Thakur, S.K., 1999, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) varieties to fertilizer levels, Rhizobium inoculation and their residual effect on onion (Allium cepa) in mid-hills of north-western Himalayas. Indian J. Agric. Sci., 69: 416-418. Thomas, R.J. and Hungaria, M., 1988, Effect of potassium on nitrogen fixation, nitrogen transport and nitrogen harvest index of bean. J. Pl. Nutr. 11: 175-188. Tomar, S.S., 2001, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) to irrigation schedule and phosphorus levels in vertisols. Indian J. Agron.46: 496-499. Veeresh, N.K., 2003, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to fertilizer levels in Northern Transitional Zone of Karnataka. M.Sc.(Agri.)Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci., Dharwad. p. 37-79. Verma, V.S. and Saxena, K.K., 1995, Response of French bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to graded doses of nitrogen , phosphorus and potassium in silty- loam soil of central Uttar Pradesh . Indian J. Agron., 40: 67-71. Vinod Rajput, PinakiAcharya and Ganesh Singh., 1999, Effect of dates of sowing and graded doses of nitrogen on the growth, yield and nutrient uptake of French bean cv. Contender in eastern U.P. The Orissa J. Hort., 27: 39-42. WeatherUnderground Inc., 2012 and 2013.Available online at http://www.wunderground.com/cgibin/findweather/getForecast?query=zmw:00000.1.65442.Accessed 2012 and 2013. Zamil, S.S., Quadir, Q.F., Chowdhury, D.M.A.H. and Al Wahid, A., 2004. Effects of different animal manures on yield quality and nutrient uptake by mustard cv. Agrani. BRAC Univ. J., 1: 59-66.

25

APPENDICES

Appendix I: Soil samples analysed from the experimental site before the experiment

PARAMETER
pH (1:2.5 Soil: Water suspension) Total N (%) Available P (mg/kg) Exchangeable cat ion (cmol/kg) Ca Mg K

SAMPLE 1
5.53 0.12 212.28

SAMPLE 2
5.39 0.14 273.92

7.20 0.80 0.71

7.00 0.80 0.99

Appendix II: Treatment samples analysed PARAMETER pH (1:2.5 Soil: Water suspension) Total N (%) Available P (%) Exchangeable cat ion (cmol/kg) Ca Mg K PALM BUNCH ASH 7.90 0.43 0.70 POULTRY MANURE 6.02 1.89 1.09

3.12 3.46 3.77

2.35 1.77 4.71

26

Appendix III: Soil samples analysed from the experimental site treatment-wise after harvest

PARAMETER pH (1:2.5 Soil: Water suspension) Total N (%) Available P (mg/kg) Exchangeable cat ion (cmol/kg) Ca Mg K

PALM BUNCH ASH 5.73 0.21 122.36

POULTRY MANURE 5.72 0.15 152.22

NPK 5.15 0.11 169.47

4.40 3.60 0.37

5.40 2.40 0.42

6.00 2.60 0.32

Appendix IV: Monthly meteorological data for the experimental period (December, 2012 to February, 2013) MONTHS RAINFALL NUMBER OF (mm) RAINY DAYS ------TEMPERATURE (C)
Max. 33 36 36 Min. 21 22 24

December 2012 January 2013 February 2013

RELATIVE HUMIDITY (%) 82 78 75

Appendix V: ANOVA tables ANOVA for Plant Height at 18 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total 8 9.960

d.f. 2

s.s. 4.365

m.s. 2.183

v.r. 1.60

F pr.

2 4

0.130 5.465

0.065 1.366

0.05

0.954

Grand mean: 17.89

CV: 6.5
27

ANOVA for Plant Height at 30 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 30.0

d.f. 2

s.s. 60.99

m.s. 30.50

v.r. 2.05

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 12.8

29.02 59.40 149.41

14.51 14.85

0.98

0.451

ANOVA for Plant Height at 45 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 37.6

d.f. 2

s.s. 40.651

m.s. 20.326

v.r. 2.06

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 8.4

8.097 39.410 88.158

4.048 9.852

0.41

0.688

ANOVA for Plant Height at 52 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean 38.0

d.f. 2

s.s. 52.334

m.s. 26.167

v.r. 2.74

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 8.1

17.041 38.198 107.574

8.521 9.549

0.89

0.478

28

ANOVA for Plant Height at 60 DAS


Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 37.6 d.f. 2 s.s. 50.87 m.s. 25.44 v.r. 1.84 F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 9.9

47.00 55.20 153.07

23.50 13.80

1.70

0.292

ANOVA for Number of branches at 18 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 0.73

d.f. 2

s.s. 0.013924

m.s. 0.006962

v.r. 2.75

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 6.8

0.001026 0.010138 0.025088

0.000513 0.002534

0.20

0.825

ANOVA for Number of branches at 30 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 1.05

d.f. 2

s.s. 0.011151

m.s. 0.005576

v.r. 1.08

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 6.8

0.003300 0.020590 0.035041

0.001650 0.005148

0.32

0.743

29

ANOVA for Number of branches at 45 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total

d.f. 2

s.s. 0.002284

m.s. 0.001142

v.r. 0.98

F pr.

2 4 8

0.000119 0.004667 0.007071

0.000060 0.001167

0.05

0.951

Grand mean: 1.17

CV: 2.9

ANOVA for Number of branches at 52 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 1.17

d.f. 2

s.s. 0.004403

m.s. 0.002202

v.r. 2.04

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 2.8

0.000639 0.004310 0.009353

0.000320 0.001078

0.30

0.758

ANOVA for Number of branches at 60 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 1.17

d.f. 2

s.s. 0.004403

m.s. 0.002202

v.r. 2.04

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 2.8

0.000639 0.004310 0.009353

0.000320 0.001078

0.30

0.758

30

ANOVA for Number of days to 50 % flowering

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 1.47

d.f. 2

s.s. 0.0001496

m.s. 0.0000748

v.r. 0.53

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 0.8

0.0010032 0.0005697 0.0017225

0.0005016 0.0001424

3.52

0.131

ANOVA for Number of pods per plant at 45 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 1.48

d.f. 2

s.s. 0.7864

m.s. 0.3932

v.r. 1.73

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 32.2

2.0254 0.9073 3.7191

1.0127 0.2268

4.46

0.096

ANOVA for Number of pods per plant at 52 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 4.17

d.f. 2

s.s. 1.3778

m.s. 0.6889

v.r. 0.74

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 23.1

1.9026 3.7130 6.9934

0.9513 0.9283

1.02

0.437

31

ANOVA for Number of pods per plant at 60 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 2.61

d.f. 2

s.s. 0.459

m.s. 0.230

v.r. 0.17

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 21.2

0.667 5.387 6.513

0.333 1.347

0.25

0.792

ANOVA for Pod weight at 45 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 7.0

d.f. 2

s.s. 17.07

m.s. 8.54

v.r. 0.56

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 24.30

25.00 61.50 103.57

12.50 15.37

0.81

0.505

ANOVA for Pod weight at 52 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 20.9

d.f. 2

s.s. 35.55

m.s. 17.78

v.r. 1.01

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 11.70

134.97 70.53 241.05

67.48 17.63

3.83

0.118

32

ANOVA for Pod weight at 60 DAS

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 14.3

d.f. 2

s.s. 34.06

m.s. 17.03

v.r. 0.43

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 16.60

16.79 158.26 209.11

8.40 39.57

0.21

0.817

ANOVA for Total yield per hectare

Source of variation REP stratum REP.*Units* stratum TREATMENT Residual Total Grand mean: 195.0

d.f. 2

s.s. 3338.

m.s. 1669.

v.r. 0.56

F pr.

2 4 8 CV: 28.0

6991. 11917. 22246.

3496. 2979.

1.17

0.397

33