CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the Study

In agriculture, the use of inorganic fertilizers does not necessarily lead to better

farming. Studies show that the continuous application of only inorganic fertilizers and

chemicals for plant protection, degrades soil quality which makes it unfit for plant cultivation

and production. These fertilizers have destroyed stable traditional ecosystem of the soil

(Palaniappan and Annadurai, 1999). Furthermore, intensive cropping and imbalanced use of

essential plant nutrients have also rendered the alluvial soils of sub-tropics to be poor in

organic carbon content and deterioration in physical properties (Speir et al., 2004) which lead

to restricted growth and development of the crop.

In order to combat this issue, several comparisons of multiple organic and inorganic

sources have been practiced for nutrient management options which improves crop yield.

Increasing nutrient management options are particularly important during increasing fertilizer

prices. Like micronutrients, the use of farm yard manure (FYM) was also considered as an

important source of macro and micronutrients that increase crop yield and production. Due to

higher prices of inorganic fertilizers, farmers could easily manage to prepare FYM in their

farms and to apply in fields (Nawab et al., 2011).

Several researchers have demonstrated the beneficial effect of combined use of

chemical and organic fertilizers to mitigate the deficiency of many secondary and

micronutrients in fields that continuously received only Nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P) and

Potassium (K) fertilizers, without the addition of any micronutrient or organic source. Dutta

et al., (2003), reported that the use of organic fertilizers together with chemical fertilizers,

compared to the addition of organic fertilizers alone, had a higher positive effect on microbial
1
biomass and hence soil health. However application of organic manure in combination with

chemical fertilizer has been reported to increase absorption of N, P and K in sugarcane leaf

tissue in the plant and ratoon crop, compared to chemical fertilizer alone (Bokhtiar & Sakurai

2005). Integrated application of either of the organics with inorganic exhibited better impact

on the growth and yield characters and the 50:50 integration proved superior over others,

closely followed by 33:67% ratio (Srivastava et al., 2005).

Incidentally, the popularity of the use of mud press has been increasing through the

years. This organic fertilizer has been found to be used traditionally by sugarcane farmers of

Barangay San Fernando Pilar, Capiz, Philippines. Sugarcane mud press is the solid residue

produced after filtration of sugarcane juice. The purification process separates the juice into a

clear liquid solution that rises to the top and goes for manufacture of sugar, and a mud is

collected at the bottom (Bokhtiar et al. 2001; Sharma et al. 2002). The mud is then filtered to

separate the suspended matter, which includes insoluble salts and fine bagasse (Jamil et al.

2008). The yield of filter cake or mud press is changeable from 1 to 7 kg (wet basis) per 100

kg of sugarcane (Singh et al. 2005). With a conventional yield of 2 % and a total manufacture

of 1700 million tons in 2009, the world production of fresh filter mud press can be estimated

to be about 30 million tons (Yaduvanshi & Swarup 2005). For sustainable crop production,

integrated use of chemical and organic fertilizer has proved to be highly beneficial.

Sugar plantation is one of the sources of livelihood in Capiz. Sugarcane planters use

commercial fertilizer or mud press as organic fertilizer and sometimes both for better crop

production. Thus, with the increasing demand for sugarcane and a traditional practice for the

use of organic and commercial fertilizer, this study aimed to assess and compare the yield

generated by the use of both commercial and organic fertilizers. Apart from that, this study

2
also wants to compare the effect of both fertilizers use at different concentrations in terms of

cytological and physiological parameter through Allium cepa test.

1.2 Objective of the Study

This study aims to assess the use of commercial and organic fertilizer in sugarcane

plantation of Barangay San Fernando, Pilar, Capiz through descriptive survey and Allium

cepa test.

Specifically, this study aims to:

1. determine and compare the yield produce by sugarcane farmers using organic and

commercial fertilizers at Barangay San Fernando, Pilar, Capiz at different

concentrations;

2. determine the physiological effects of different fertilizer concentrations using the

Allium cepa test; and

3. determine the chlorophyll a, b and c content of the different fertilizer concentrations

in the growth and bulb of Allium cepa.

1.3 Significance of the Study

The assessment for the use of commercial and inorganic fertilizers and the

determination of the optimal fertilizer concentration will prove beneficial for the emerging

sugarcane and agriculture industry. Considering the many industrial applications of mud

press, optimization of the fertilizer concentration for industrial applications will reduce the

cost of fertilizer application and increase crop yield. In addition, though the use of organic

fertilizers is well documented, the screening and production of sugarcane by mud press by are

not widely studied.

3
 1.4. Scope and Limitation

The analysis of this study was limited to experiments related to determination and

assessment of the use of commercial and organic fertilizer in sugarcane plantation at

Barangay San Fernando Pilar, Capiz. The economic analysis was determined through survey

and the physiological and chlorophyll analysis were determined through Allium cepa test and

spectrophotometric assay.

4
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

2.1 History of Sugarcane Industry in Philippines

The sugar industry in the Philippines is synonymous with the sugar cane industry.

This is because sugar cane is one of the country’s major crops and the main source of

centrifugal or refined sugar. This sugar is also more affordable than sugar extracts from

coconut, corn, or beets. Globally, the main sources of sugar are sugar cane and beets. Both

contain large quantities of sucrose. Sugar was grown as a subsistence crop long before it

became an export commodity. Sugar cane production expanded in the 18th century with the

onset of the sugar plantations in the West Indies and the Americas. Previous to this, people

used honey to sweeten their food (Zabaleta, 1997). The earliest recorded sugarcane

cultivation and plantation can be traced to India in the 5th century. Merchant Arab Persian

vessels from the Celebes brought sugar cane cuttings to Mindanao thousands of years before

the Spanish colonization. Eventually, sugarcane cultivation by the native inhabitants spread

further north to the Visayan Islands and Central Luzon. The Spanish colonizers introduced

the encomienda which granted big tracts of land to the Filipino elite who became big sugar

plantation owners or hacienderos, millers, and traders and exporters in Iloilo and Negros. By

the 1570s, sugarcane was planted in large numbers in Bulacan, Cebu, Pampanga, Laguna, and

Pangasinan. The hacienda system which evolved, particularly in Negros, was built on

sharecropping and debt relations. It was founded on a paternalistic relationship between the

rich sugar families, all with Spanish roots, and the tenant farmers (Elauria et al., 2012).

The Spanish monopoly of the galleon trade restricted the entry of Asian ships

bringing in Asian goods to the Port of Manila. A shift in the world market in 1815 resulted in

the abandonment of the Manila-Acapulco galleon trade. Shortly after, direct and tariff-free

5
trade between the islands and Spain started and cash crops were cultivated for trade with

Europe and Latin America (Elauria et al, 2012). Sugar became a lucrative cash crop and the

Spanish colonizers started the large-scale cultivation of sugarcane in the hacienda and

introduced the hacienderos to foreign commerce. By the 1860s, Negros Occidental was the

colony’s “sugar bowl” and the Ilonggo planters, the wealthiest among the regional elite. The

sugar trade between the Philippines and the United States started when the SS Astrea of

Salem docked in Manila upon the lifting of restrictions at the Port of Manila by a Spanish

Royal Decree in 1796. Since then, the U.S. has become the country’s principal export market.

With its excellent harbor, Manila became an open port for Asian, European, and North

American traders in 1834 (Zabaleta, 1997).

2.2 Sugarcane Industry in Philippines Today

The sugar planting time in the Philippines is from October to May. There are

four crop growth phases of sugarcane with their respective growth periods over a 12-month

crop season: germination, tillering, grand growth phase and maturity, and ripening. The initial

cost of production for a one-hectare sugar farm is PHP 58,640. The cost covers various

activities from land preparation, to planting and maintenance. This excludes harvesting which

is an important activity comprising 30-35% of total cost (SRA Agricultural Extension

Monitoring Reports, 2015). Sugarcane growing areas cover 30 Mill Districts (MDs) – 7 MDs

in Luzon (includes Isabela Mill District), 3 MDs in Mindanao, 4 MDs in Panay, 3 MDs in

Eastern / Central Visayas, 2 MDs in Negros Oriental and 11 MDs in Negros Occidental. SRA

created the Mill District Development Committees (MDDCs) in the mill districts to oversee

and implement programs and projects for the development of the sugarcane industry. It is

composed of representatives from the mills, planters associations, PHILSURIN and SRA as

Secretariat. The MDDCs were transformed into SEC-registered foundations or Mill District

6
Development Council Foundation, Inc. (MDDCFIs) in order to avail of the Sugar ACEF

grant in 2001. Hectarage of sugarcane harvested per mill district from crop year 2009-2010 to

2013-2014 are given in Table 1. Generally, within the five-crop-year period examined,

sugarcane areas harvested were on the uptrend from 385,662 hectares in crop year 2009-2010

to 424,132 hectares in crop year 2012-2013. Figure 2 shows the distribution of sugarcane

plantations by island in crop year 2013-2014. Negros Island shares 53% of the sugarcane

production areas, followed by Mindanao with 22% share, Luzon with 14% share, Panay with

7% share and Eastern/Central Visayas with a share of 4%. Figure 3 illustrates the trend of

sugarcane hectares for the ten-crop year period from a low of 377,182 hectares in crop year

2005-2006 to a high of 42,132 hectares in 2012-2013(SRA Agricultural Extension

Monitoring Reports). Table 2 gives the farm profiles of sugarcane farms on the national and

island-wide distribution in crop year 2013-2014. It can be observed that in CY 2013-2014,

the number of small farmers with less than 5 hectares of farmlands rose to 81.46% which

corresponds to a total plantation area of 120,364 hectares equivalent to 26.61% of the total

sugarcane farmlands in the country.

Fig. 2. Distribution of Sugarcane Farms by Island, Crop Year 2013-2014

7
 s

Fig. 3. Sugarcane Areas (In Hectares) Harvested for the Past 10 Crop Years, 2004-05 to 2013-14
(Source: SRA Agricultural Extension Monitoring Reports, 2017)

8
Table 1. Areas of Sugarcane Harvested (Hectares) from Crop Yea .
MILL DISTRICTS 2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010- 11 2009-10

Region II
Carsumco – 4,060 5,100 5,383 6,055 6,051
Cagayan
Region III
Tarlac 15,106 16,235 15,700 12,700 13,400
Pampanga 7,132 8,023 8,342 8,342 9,497
Region IV-A
Balayan, - Batangas 16,273 16,273 16,273 16,246 16,246
Don Pedro – 14,186 14,186 14,177 13,617 13,617
Batangas
Region V
Pensumil – 4,500 4,473 4,825 4,700 4,481
Camarines Sur
Region VI
A. Negros Occidental
La Carlota 18,592 18,592 18,592 16,335 16,335
Ma-ao 10,098 10,098 10,075 10,063 10,045
First Farmers/Bac- 20,894 20,894 20,894 20,694 20,659
Murcia
Hawaiian-Silay 11,700 11,700 11,724 11,500 11,524
Lopez 13,010 13,010 12,355 12,268 12,268
Victorias 31,518 31,312 27,000 24,821 24,821
San Carlos 10,274 6,572 10,152 10,152 6,928
Sagay 16,000 16,000 16,000 15,190 15,190
Daconcogon 10,300 10,300 10,300 9,800 9,800
Sonedco 12,160 12,160 12,160 10,057 10,057
Binalbagan 28,500 28,500 28,000 25,484 25,412
B. Panay
Passi 12,430 12,430 12,431 10,432 10,682
Santos Lopez 5,600 5,600 5,431 5,620 5,655
Monomer 3,313 3,313 3,263 2,755 2,832
Capiz 8,992 8.992 9,163 7,500 7,076
Region VII
Bais-Ursumco 26,600 26,600 26,635 24,270 24,755
Tolong 8,805 8,805 8,740 8,310 9,332
Durano 7,900 8,061 1,583 1,640 1,640
Bogo-Medellin 5,848 6,562 6,562
Region VIII
Ormoc-Kananga 8,587 8,700 8,559 9,190 9,300
Region X
Bukidnon 70,355 70,355 74,126 70,400 60,674
Region XI
Davao 11,978 12,536 11,803 11,020 10,581
Region XII
Cotabato 12,600 12,600 12,851 9,769 10,243
PHILIPPINES 423,333 424,132 422,384 395,492 385,662
Source: SRA Agricultural Extension Monitoring Reports, 2016

9
Table 2. Profile of All Farms, Farmers and Areas Planted in CY 2013-2014.
PROFILE OF VISAYAS SUGARCANE FARMS

FARM SIZE NO. OF PERCENT NO. OF PERCENT AREA Percent

FARMERS FARMS (HAS)
No. of Farmers No. of Farms Area
Below 5.00 38,306 82.43% 39,560 81.88% 71,820 26.61%
Has.
5.01 - 10.00 4,192 9.02% 4,502 9.32% 32,128 11.90%
10.01 -25.00 2,004 4.31% 2,214 4.58% 36,633 13.57%
25.01 - 50.00 1,023 2.20% 1,083 2.24% 42,251 15.66%
50.01 - 635 1.37% 590 1.22% 38,311 14.20%
100.00
100.01 & 310 0.67% 367 0.76% 48,736 18.06%
Above
TOTAL 46,470 100.00% 48,316 100.00% 269,879.70 100.00%

2.3. Capiz Mill District - Panay, Region VI

Capiz mill district covers the municipalities of Ma-ayon, Pilar, Pontevedra, Balasan,

Carles, Estancia, Panit-an, Panay and President Roxas. In crop year 2013-14, the mill district

had a total sugarcane area of 9,000 hectares with a total sugar production of 36,522 tons

which constituted 1.50% of the national production. Sugar sharing scheme of the mill district

is 63% planters’ share and 37% miller’s share. Its cane yield was 47.96 TC/Ha, a sugar yield

of 81.16 LKg/Ha and 1.69 LKg/TC. In crop year 2011-2012, it recorded a total of 1,543

farmers of which 82% are small farmers. It is the second biggest mill district in Panay Island

(SRA Agricultural Extension Reports, 2015). CY 2013-2014 farm profile data of Capiz mill

district as gathered by SRA Agricultural Extension unit shows that the mill district is

composed of 1,804 farmers where 76.94% are farming less than 5 hectares which constitutes

38.58% of the total sugarcane plantations of the mill district. One block farm was organized

under the DAR-DA-SRA convergence initiative located in President Roxas City, which is

already operational. Most of the ARBs in the mill district lack the necessary support from

10
government which resulted to low sugar production in the district. SRA record in CY 2010-

2011 showed that the mill district had 64 units of tractors and 568 units of trucks.

The mill district has one sugar mill, Capiz Sugar Central. The mill had a capacity

utilization of 46.28 % of its rated capacity of 4,500 tons cane per day (TCD) and a reduced

overall sugar recovery of 88.66% against the standard overall recovery of 80.23% based on

data taken from the CY 2013-2014 SRA Annual Synopsis of Raw Sugar Factories. More

sugarcane is needed to maximize the mill’s capacity. The mill district was one of those

hardest hit by typhoon Yolanda and the area needed more focus in order to revive the district

from the devastation. The district needed more assistance in terms of infrastructure support

like farm-to-mill roads, farm mechanization equipment, HYV nurseries, soils laboratory,

automated weather stations and financial support for the production of organic fertilizer and

other livelihood options for the farmers (SRA Agricultural Extension Reports, 2015). Planters

in the mill district may deliver their canes to Capiz Sugar Central or to any of the two sugar

mills in Iloilo. Sharing system will depend on where the canes were delivered for milling.

Sugar sharing scheme of Capiz is 63% for the farmers and 37% for the miller while in Iloilo

sugar mills, sugar sharing is 65% for the farmers and 35% for the millers. Its cane yield in

CY 2013-2014 was 50.55 TC/Ha, a sugar yield of 87.77 L Kg/Ha and 1.74 L Kg/TC. In crop

year 2011-12, it recorded a total of 643 farmers of which 90% are small farmers.

11
Table 3. Performance of Capiz Mill District, CY 2009-10 to 2013-14

CROP AREA, TONS TONS TC/HA LKG/HA LKG/TC

YEAR HECTAR CANE RAW
ES (HA.) (TC) SUGAR
(TS)
2013-14 9,000 431,601 36,522 47.96 81.16 1.69
2012-13 8,992 465,603 40,638 51.78 90.39 1.75
2011-12 9,163 435,699 36,317 47.55 79.27 1.67
2010-11 7,500 472,500 38,991 63.00 103.98 1.65
2009-10 7,076 317,005 29,323 44.80 82.88 1.85
Source: SRA Agricultural Extension Reports, CY 2009-2010 to 2013-2014.

Table 4. Profile of Sugarcane Farms and Farmers, CY 2013-2014.

CAPIZ/PILAR MILL DISTRICT

Farm Size No. of Percent No. of Percent Area (has) Percent

Farmers Farms
No. of Farmers No. of Farms Area
Below 5.00 1388 76.94% 1388 76.94% 3,472.00 38.58%
Has.
5.01 - 289 16.02% 289 16.02% 2,024.00 22.49%
10.00
10.01 - 86 4.77% 86 4.77% 1,554.00 17.27%
25.00
25.01 - 31 1.72% 31 1.72% 952.00 10.58%
50.00
50.01 - 8 0.44% 8 0.44% 628.00 6.98%
100.00
100.01 & 2 0.11% 2 0.11% 370.00 4.11%
Above
TOTAL 1,804 100.00% 1,804 100.00% 9,000.00 100.00%
Source: SRA Agricultural Extension Report, CY 2013-2014.

2.4 Domestic Consumption of Sugarcane Products

2.4.1Sugar

The major product derived from sugarcane is sugar and the domestic demand

of raw sugar in CY 2013-2014 was 2,461,808 metric tons while refined sugar demand was

1,115,935 metric tons. Refined sugar is derived from raw sugar and domestic consumption is

12
measured in terms of raw sugar withdrawals from mill warehouses as monitored by SRA.

Table 5 showed the monthly domestic withdrawals (consumption) of raw sugar and Table

2.70 on refined sugar for crop years 2009-10 to 2013-14.

A sudden drop in domestic consumption was observed in crop year 2008-2009 in

comparison with the 2007-2008 domestic consumption figures. However, a spike in domestic

demand was noted in crop year 2009-2010 which prompted the government to allow the

subsidized importation of 250,000 metric tons refined sugar (equivalent to 270,000 MT raw

sugars). The upward trend in domestic demand was attributed to the onslaught of El Niño or

hot season during the first half of 2010 and the election fever which induced more spending

and consumption of beverages and sugar-based products.

Around 170,000 metric tons (in terms of refined sugar equivalent) arrived in crop year 2009-

2010 which were directly released to the domestic market. The remaining 80,000 metric tons

(in terms of refined sugar equivalent) arrived in crop year 2010-2011 which were also

released directly to the domestic market (Sugar Production Bulletin, 2012). The decline in

domestic consumption was further recorded in crop year 2010-2011 which was lower than

the 2008-2009 level. The decline was attributed to the accumulation in the market of

imported sugar during the previous and current crop year, importation of sugar premixes and

the possible entry of illegal or smuggled sugar (Ramashala, 2012). Domestic consumption

spiked to 2,029,866 metric tons in crop year 2011-2012 and a sustained increase in 2012-

2013 at the level of 2,184,512 metric tons due to stable domestic prices and increase in

demand of sugar-based products due to the May 2013 national election (Sugar Production

Bulletin, 2012).

13
 Table 5. Monthly Domestic Withdrawals (Consumption) of Raw Sugar in Metric Tons,
CY 2009-10 to 2013-14
MONTHS CROP CROP CROP CROP CROP
YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR YEAR
2013-14 2012-13 2011-12 2010-11 2009-10
September 103,637 103,750 61,458 35,608 80,328
October 126,110 127,423 111,533 69,881 121,813
November 132,064 167,935 125,636 86,266 194,540
December 214,155 229,174 159,643 124,984 178,355
January 213,554 185,514 217,870 167,546 263,482
February 216,768 215,486 214,197 205,651 180,819
March 310,016 250,657 204,341 210,924 205,329
April 223,747 273,794 243,650 202,628 210,948
May 233,190 201,383 159,065 178,174 222,822
June 201,574 195,825 190,185 178,397 123,106
July 137,004 109,941 172,863 144,750 86,414
August 90,624 123,630 169,425 111,696 75,487
Total 2,202,443 2,184,512 2,029,866 1,716,505 1,943,443
Withdrawals
Source: Sugar Production Bulletin

2.4.2. Industrial Products Produced from Sugarcane

2.4.2.1. Bioethanol

Bioethanol turned out to be the second major product from sugarcane when RA 9367

otherwise known as the Biofuels Act of 2006 was enacted. The biofuels law was

implemented in 2007; however, the minimum bioethanol mandate of 5% was implemented in

2009 and 10% bioethanol mandate in 2011 with exemptions on certain gasoline grades. The

main feed stocks used for bioethanol are all sugarcane-based materials such as sugarcane

juice and molasses (Nigam, 2000). In 2007, purely imported bioethanol supplied the

mandated requirement of bioethanol in the country. In 2008, 0.42 million liters was produced

by Leyte Agri Corporation (LAC) which was the lone domestic producer of bioethanol in the

country by then and it increased to 23.11 million liters in 2009 when San Carlos Bioenergy

became operational. Leyte Agri Corporation used molasses as feedstock while San Carlos

Bioenergy Inc. (SCBI) used molasses and sugarcane. However, in 2010 when sugar prices

14
skyrocketed to a very high level because of world deficit in sugar supply, the price of

sugarcane to bioethanol became prohibitive which lead to losses in bioethanol production

coming from sugarcane. Importation of bioethanol was allowed in order to fill-up the

mandated requirement which keep the investment climate for bioethanol remain attractive to

investors. Demand situation of bioethanol from 2007-2014 is shown in Table 6. In 2013, four

bioethanol distilleries were operating with a total production of 71.5 million liters out of the

total production capacity of 133 million liters annually while in 2014, production reached

114.9 million liters from a production capacity of 222 million liters. Six bioethanol

distilleries were operational in 2014. Table 7 shows the DOE accredited bioethanol

distilleries in 2014 National Biofuels Program, 2014-2030 and DOE Bioethanol Committee

Report). With the passage of a DOE circular mandating the utilization of locally-produced

prior to importation, investors started to come in and potable alcohol producers shifted to

bioethanol fuel production. The major challenge that remains to be addressed by the

government is intensifying the production of feed stocks and the tapping of idle areas for

biofuel crops production (National Biofuels Program, 2014-2030 and DOE Bioethanol

Committee Report).

Table 6. Bioethanol Consumption, Years 2007-2014

YEAR BIOETHANO SALES FROM IMPORTATIO ACTUAL

L BLENDS DOMESTIC N CONSUMPTIO
PRODUCTIO MILLION N
N, MILLION LITERS MILLION
LITERS LITERS
2007 - - 3.18 3.18
2008 - 0.42 12.56 12.98
2009 5% 23.11 64.24 87.35
2010 5% 9.17 140.40 149.57
2011 10% 2.87 218.78 197.36
2012 10% 38.9 248.0 306.49
2013 10% 63.2 318.79 436.50
2014 10% 118.9 339.06 441.51

15
Source:s: National Biofuels Program, 2014-2030 and DOE Bioethanol
Committee Report

Table 7. Bioethanol Distilleries with DOE Accreditation as of December 2014

BIOETHANOL PROJECT REGIS- FEED- DATE REMARKS

PRODUCERS LOCATION TERED STOCK AWARDED
CAPACIT
Y
(Million
Liters)
San Carlos San Carlos 40 Sugarcane July 13, Operational
Bioenergy, Inc. City, Negros Molasses 2009
Occ.
Leyte Agri Ormoc City, 9 Molasses Oct 23, 2009 Operational
Corporation Leyte
Roxol Bioenergy La Carlota, 30 Molasses Dec. 3, 2013 Operational
Corporation Negros Occ.
Green Future San Mariano, 54 Sugarcane , Aug 13, Operational
Innovations, Inc. Isabela Sugar 2012
Molasses
Balayan Distillery, Calaca, 30 Molasses April 25, Operational
Inc. Batangas 2014 July
10, 2014
Far East Alcohol Pampanga 15 Molasses Dec. 1, 2014 Operational
Corp.
Kooll Company Negros 14.12 Molasses Dec 11, Operational
Occidental 2014
Universal Robina Negros 30 Molasses Dec 22, Operational
Corp. Oriental 2014
222.12
Total Production Capacity
Source: DOE-REMB Report of Accredited Bioethanol Producers

2.4.2.2. Muscovado

Muscovado is also a product from sugarcane which is widely produced in Antique,

Sultan Kudarat, Ilocos region, Bicol region, Tarlac and Negros Occidental. SRA does not

regulate the muscovado industry, thus, marketing and financial assistance were provided by

the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and some technical assistance on best farming

practices and HYV planting materials by SRA. SRA does not maintain a regular database on

16
muscovado consumption except those muscovado produced by Option MPC of Sagay,

Negros Occidental which is registered with SRA as a muscovado producer. In crop year

2013-14, it was recorded that the domestic withdrawals of muscovado by Option-MPC was

1,748 metric tons (National Biofuels Program, 2014-2030 and DOE Bioethanol Committee

Report).

2.4.2.3. Molasses

Molasses is the major by-product obtained from the manufacture of sugar from

sugarcane. In CY 2013-14, total domestic withdrawals were 877,236 metric tons. It is used as

raw material in the manufacture of potable alcohol and bioethanol, and as supplement for

animal feeds. Competition between the uses of molasses might put a pressure on its price

especially that the biofuels law requires that biofuels components shall be locally-sourced;

therefore, imported molasses cannot be used for bioethanol fuel production (Olbrich, 2006).

No data were collected by SRA as to the individual consumption of the molasses markets.

2.4.2.4. Bagasse

Bagasse is the cellulosic material from sugarcane which is left after extracting the

juice from the sugarcane stalk. It is mainly used for power cogeneration of the sugar mills,

sugar refineries, and bioethanol distilleries. When the Renewable Energy Law of 2008 was

passed which offered fiscal and non-fiscal incentives for developers, excess power derived

from bagasse became the main biomass material used for power generation to the grid. Table

9 and 10 listed the sugar mills registered with DOE as of December 2014 (Department of

Energy – REMB, 2014).

17
Table 8. Sugarcane-Based Biomass Projects in the Visayas Registered with the
Department of Energy (DOE) as of December 2014

NAME OF PROPONENTS NATURE OF PROJECT INSTALLED

BUSINESS TYPE CAPACITY, MW
VISAYAS PROJECTS:
Central Azucarera de San Sugar Mill Commercial 15.0
Antonio
First Farmers Holdings Corp. Sugar Mill Commercial 21.0
Hawaiian Philippines Co. Sugar Mill Commercial 8.0
Victorias Milling Co. Sugar Mill Commercial 18.0
URC-Sonedco Sugar Mill Commercial 46.0
Capiz Sugar Central Sugar Mill Own Use 5.8
Binalbagan-Isabela Sugar Sugar Mill Own Use 19.5
Milling Co.
Lopez Sugar Corp. Sugar Mill Own Use 10.0
Sagay Central Inc. Sugar Mill Own Use 4.2
URC - Bais Sugar Mill Own Use 9.4
HIDECO Sugar Milling Co. Sugar Mill Own Use 11.0
Central Azucarera de la Carlota Sugar Mill Own Use 10.0
Universal Robina Corporation Distillery Own Use 2.75
San Carlos Bioenergy Distillery Commercial 8.0
Roxol Bioenergy Corp. Distillery Own Use 4.0
Subtotal - Visayas 192.65

Source: Department of Energy – REMB

Table 9. Sugarcane-Based Biomass Projects in Luzon & Mindanao Registered with the
Department of Energy (DOE) as of December 2014

NAME OF NATURE OF PROJECT TYPE INSTALLED

PROPONENTS BUSINESS CAPACITY, MW
MINDANAO PROJECTS:
Busco Sugar Sugar Mill Own Use 24.4
Milling Co.
Crystal Sugar Sugar Mill Commercial 21.0
Company
Subtotal - Mindanao 45.5
LUZON PROJECTS:
Sweet Crystals Sugar Mill Commercial 2.5 & 2.8
Integrated Sugar
Mill
Central Azucarera Sugar Mill Commercial 9.5
de Tarlac
Central Azucarera Sugar Mill Commercial 25.52
Don Pedro Inc.
18
Green Future Distillery Commercial 19.0
Innovations, Inc.
(Incldg Biogas)
Subtotal – Luzon Projects 59.32
GRAND TOTAL - PHILIPPINES 297.47
Source: Department of Energy – REMB

2.4.6 Bio-organic Fertilizer

Most of the bio-organic fertilizers used by the sugarcane farmers are derived from

bagasse, cane trashes from the fields and mud press. Several bio-organic fertilizer production

technologies were already practiced by sugarcane farmers’ cooperatives and associations to

supplement the organic material needs of the soil. SRA has no database on the producers,

production and demand of bio-organic fertilizer (Department of Energy – REMB).

2.4.7 Mud press or Filter Cake

Mud press or filter cake are the solid materials left after expressing and filtering the

sugarcane juice used for sugar or bioethanol manufacture. Mud press is used directly as

organic fertilizer in the sugarcane fields by spreading them in the fields prior to land

preparation. It helps in keeping the right quantity of organic matter and right acidity of the

soil aside from the soil nutrients that it contains. Most farmers especially in Batangas and

Negros used mud press as organic fertilizer. No data is available with SRA as to the

consumption of mud press (Department of Energy – REMB, 2014).

2.4.8 Mill Ash or Boiler Ash

Mill ash is the carbonaceous residue left from the bagasse that is used in firing the

boilers for power cogeneration purposes. Mill ash is rich in potassium and phosphorus which

is why most farmers especially in Negros and Batangas used it as fertilizer supplement. SRA

19
does not gather the data of mill ash consumption by the farmers (National Biofuels Program,

2014-2030 and DOE Bioethanol Committee Report).

2.5 Conceptual Framework

Independent Variable Dependent Variable

USE OF FERTILIZER

(a) ORGANIC (MUD YIELD

PRESS)
(b) INORGANIC
(COMMERCIAL)
(c) BOTH

Fig. 1. The relationship between the independent and dependent variables

2.6 Definition of Terms

To provide a clearer understanding of the study the following terms are defined

conceptually and operationally:

Organic fertilizer: are by-products of everyday life, such as manure. They provide a

slow-release form of nutrients that stay in the soil longer. Typically, the nitrogen component

is a complex organic form that is not readily soluble in water. You can create your own

source of organic fertilizer from compost (Forsyth County Office of Environmental

Assistance and Protection). .

20
 In this study the words Organic fertilizer is one of the independent variables that

affects the production of Sugarcane.

Commercial fertilizer: are manufactured from diverse sources and are usually much

more concentrated than organic fertilizers. The available nutrients are typically very soluble,

and if not applied properly, can leach rapidly from the soil (Forsyth County Office of

Environmental Assistance and Protection).

In this study the words Commercial fertilizer is one of the independent variables that

affects the production of Sugarcane.

San Fernando Pilar, Capiz: San Fernando is one of the barangays in Pilar which is a

third-class municipality in the province of Capiz, Philippines. According to the 2015 census,

Pilar has a population of 45,287 people.

In this study the words San Fernando Pilar, Capiz refer to the place where the

sampling area located.

21
 CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This chapter covered the research design and methodology, including sampling, data

collection, and data analysis.

3.1 Area of Study

The study was conducted in Barangay San Fernando, Pilar, Capiz. It is one of the

barangays in Pilar which is a third class municipality in the province of Capiz, which has a

population of 45,287 people (Pilar Census, 2015). It belonged to district 1 of Capiz with the

total area of 77.99 km2 (30.11 sq mi) and it is 51 kilometres (32 mi) from Roxas City. It has

tropical climate and has an income classification of third class. Development in basic

infrastructure has been stagnant during the last decades. Annual income is low and poverty

rates are said to be high, although the town has also seen greater years. The rural municipality

is said to be rich in natural resources such as aquatic and mineral wealth. It used to be a

strong seafood producer in the province and once even possessed its own sugar and mining

industry. Major agricultural produce of the town include fish, prawn, crab, rice, sugar, cattle

and poultry. Other notable industries include shell craft and wood furniture.

A.

B.

Fig.4. General view of map of the study area, b) specific view of map of the study area.
Source: Google Maps (2012)
22
3.2. Research Design

This study focused towards the economic and comparative analysis of the use of

commercial and organic fertilizer in sugarcane plantation at Barangay San Fernando, Pilar,

Capiz through descriptive survey and Allium cepa test. The research approach used was

experimental, quantitative, and exploratory-descriptive in nature. Quantitative methods was

emphasize through objective measurements while the statistical, mathematical, or numerical

analysis of data collected through manipulating pre-existing statistical data were analyzed

using computational techniques.

The study manipulated one variable while the rest was set to be controlled/

randomized. During the experimental analysis, the subjects were randomly assigned between

groups and convenience sampling was used.

comparative
analysis

Experimental
Analysis Descriptive
Analysis

Chlorophyll Fresh and dry

Root elongation Survey
Ananlysis matter

Statistical Statistical statitical statistical

analysis analysis analysis analysis

Fig. 5. Experimental Design

*Data were subjected to statistical analysis

23
3.3 Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study were the people of Barangay San Fernando Pilar, Capiz

who owned sugarcane plantations or have experience in sugarcane plantation business. The

respondents were then selected through the criteria which follow: (1) The respondent was a

resident of San Fernando Pilar, Capiz and (2) Required experience in sugarcane plantation

business and had experienced to use mud press or commercial fertilizer

3.4 Research Instrument

For descriptive analysis, survey method wherein frequency and percentage

distribution of the respondents were used. In experimental analysis, the Allium cepa test for

the physiological and chlorophyll analysis were utilized based on the method of () with slight

modifications.

3.4.1 Content Validity Test and Yield

When all panelists say that the tested knowledge or skill is "essential," or when none

say that it is "essential," we can have confidence that the knowledge or skill is or is not truly

essential, as the case might be. It is when the strength of the consensus moves away from

unity and approaches fifty-fifty that problems arise. One can infer from the equation that the

CVR takes on values between -1.00 to +1.00, where a CVR = 0.00 means that 50% of the

SMEs in the panel size of N believe that the portfolio task is essential thereby valid. With

these assumptions in mind, the following formula for the content validity ratio (CVR) was

devised, in which the «e is the number of panelists indicating "essential" and A' is the total

number of panelists. While the CVR is a direct linear transformation from the percentage

saying "essential," its utility derives from its characteristics (Johnston & Wilkinson, 2009):

The formula for CVR is shown below

24
 CVR = (ne –N/2)/ (N/2)

When:
 ne = number of panelists indicating “essential”
 N = total number of panelists

For yield determination, the following formula was followed (Masuda and Goldsmith,
2009)

Yield= Production (Tons)

Area (hectares)
3.4.2 Physiological Determination

Onion root elongation (RE) was obtained by measuring 5 randomly selected roots at

the end of the seven days of cultivation using ruler. Subsequently, these plants were weighed

on a precision analytical balance to determine the fresh matter (FM), and placed in a

circulating-air incubator at 45 °C until reaching constant weight, for the determination of dry

matter (DM) (Moraes et. al. 2015). The formula for water content is shown below:

Water Content = Fresh Weight – Dry Weight

3.5 Data Gathering Procedure

The analysis of the study was divided into two parts. The first part was composed of a

descriptive analysis wherein the researcher used survey method in order to gather information

towards sugarcane plantation and business. This research undertook an approach that

considers the relative importance of itemized components listed upon a questionnaire. The

second part was an experimental analysis wherein the physiological analysis and chlorophyll

content were analyzed spectrophotometrically and the Allium cepa test, respectively.

25
 3.5.1. Sample Collection and Preparation

Healthy onion bulbs were obtained from La Paz market, Iloilo Philippines last

November 2017. The loose outer scales and old roots of the onion were scraped and the root

of primordia was suspended in a modified container. Mud press extracts were then prepared

according to Katnoria (2012) by suspending it in distilled water in ratio of 1:2 (w/v) on

shaker for 12 h. The solution was then filtered, stored and labeled. On the other hand,

commercial fertilizer preparation was done based on the method of Chaudhari (2013).

Commercial fertilizer was dissolved in 1 litter distilled water. Both crude extract of mud

press and commercial fertilizers were considered as 100% concentrated. A separate set up

was also prepared to test the effectiveness of mixed concentration of commercial and organic

fertilizer the concentrations set into 25% organic+ 75% commercial fertilizer then, 50%

organic +50% commercial fertilizer, and 75% organic+25% commercial fertilizer. The

negative control used in this study was distilled water. The denuded onion bulbs were placed

on modified jars made from plastic bottles and were cultivated for seven days. All treatments

were done in triplicates.

3.5.2 Chlorophyll Content Determination

Chlorophyll a, b, c and total content of onions were determined we using

Trichromatic method of Speranza et al., (2007) with slight modifications. Onions were

chopped into small pieces so that pigment can easily extracted during treatment with 80%

acetone. The extracted pigment concentration was measured spectrophotometrically at

different wave (665, 645, 630 nm) along water as blank. All assays were carried out in

triplicate.

26
3.6 Data Analysis

3.6.1. ANOVA

All statistical analyses were performed using the SPSS statistical

package for IBM personal computer, by means of two-way analysis of variance

(ANOVA). When ANOVA was significant (P < 0.05), a posteriori least significant

difference test (LSD) for comparison of means (P = 0.05) was performed (Graham,

2000).

3.6.2 Frequency

For population distribution, frequency determination was used. A frequency is

the number of times a data value occurs. Frequency was represented by the letter f.

A frequency chart was then made by arranging data values in ascending order of

magnitude along with their frequencies (Graham, 2000).

3.6.3 Percentage

To show the population distribution of the farmers and the sugarcane

plantation and business, percentage determination was used. One of the most frequent

ways to represent statistics is by percentage. Percent simply means "per hundred" and

the symbol used to express percentage is %. One percent (or 1%) is one hundredth of

the total or whole and was therefore calculated by dividing the total or whole number

by 100 (Graham, 2000).

27
 CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Soil Type and Fertilizer Preference of the Sugarcane Farmer Respondents

Table 8 shows the differences in preference of sugarcane farmers in terms of soil and

fertilizer type. The result of the study showed that 11 farmers prefer to use sandy soil, 15 with

loamy, and 4 in clay. The respondents were also categorized according to their farmer’s type

of fertilizer used. The result showed that in sandy soil, 4 farmers preferred using the

commercial fertilizer, 5 farmers used both mud press and commercial fertilizer while only 2

farmers preferred mud press alone. In loamy soil, 6 farmers were using commercial, 7 using

mud press and commercial fertilizers and only 2 farmers preferred using mud press alone. In

clay soil, 1 farmer using commercial, 2 farmers were using both fertilizers and only 1 farmer

using mud press.

Table 10. Soil type preference of the sugarcane farmer respondents from Pilar, Capiz,
Philippines.
Type of fertilizer No. of farmers Total farmers
Sandy Loamy Clay
Commercial 4 6 1 11
Mud press 2 2 1 5
Both 5 7 2 14
Total farmers 11 15 4 30
.

The number of farming experience also showed a linear relationship with their

fertilizer preference (Table 9). Data showed that 11 farmers recorded with 1-5 years of

experience. Out of these there were 3 farmers who used commercial, 3 for both commercial

and mud press and 5 for mud press fertilizer alone. In respondents having 6-10 years of

experience of farming experience, 16 farmers were noted. Out of 16, the result showed that 7

farmers prefer to use commercial fertilizer, 9 farmers for both mud press and commercial and
28
none uses the mud press. Meanwhile, 3 farmers with 10 years were noted. Out of these, only

1 farmer uses the commercial fertilizer and 2 farmers using both fertilizers organic and

commercial.

Table 11. Years of planting experience of sugarcane farmer respondents from Pilar, Capiz,
Philippines.
No. of years No. of farmers Type of fertilizers

1-5 years 3 Commercial

5 Mud press
3 Both
Total 11
6-10 years 7 Commercial
9 Both
Total 16
More than 10 1 Commercial
2 Both
Total 3

It is known that mud press has contains good proportion of nitrogen. One of the

common advantage of using mud press as an organic fertilizer was that it’s by product

commonly known as the sludge can be used in combination with other raw materials to

increase efficiency. This may also explain the reason why at any rate of years of experience

farmers prefer to use mix or both organic and commercial fertilizers.

Studies also showed that using mud press would result to a more pollution free

sugarcane production as well as reduced waste, flexible use of biogas etc. (Agrawal et al..,

2012). In 2005, Memon reported that mud press contains macro and micro nutrients

necessary for sugarcane. The analytical data showed that the values ranged from 1.38-2.29%,

1.29-1.90%, and 0.62-1.98% for total N, P and K respectively and reported that the nutrient

contents of press mud were not only variable from one mill to the other, but also when the

29
treatments were taken at different times from the same mill. Similar results were also noted

by Bokhtair et al., 2001.

4.2. Sugarcane Production Yield

Figure 6 shows the production of sugarcane using both loamy and sandy soil. As

shown in the figure, the highest sugarcane production yield was 51.10 ± 0.94 ton/ha in loamy

soil using both organic and commercial fertilizer while the lowest was recorded at 20.8 ±

0.28 ton/ha in the sandy soil using mud press fertilizer, respectively. It was also noted that

most of the farmers preferred to use both organic and commercial fertilizers which generated

highest production compared to the used of one fertilizer alone either commercial or mud

press.

52 a
45 a
40 51

35 50 b
30 b
Yield (ton/hec)

49
Yield (ton/hec)

25
c 48 c
20
47
15

10 46

5 45

0
44
Commercial Commercial Mud press
Commercial Commercial Mud press
(100%) (50%) + (100%)
(100%) (50%) + (100%)
Mudpress
Mudpress
(50%)
(50%)
Type of soil Type of soil
Yield (ton/hec)
Yield (ton/hec)

(a) Soil Type: Loamy (b) Soil Type: Sandy

Fig 6. The average sugarcane yield produced by farmers in sandy soil

30
 Sugarcane growth and yield is known to be affected by soil physical properties

because of the availability of nutrients. Based on the data, a significant difference on the

average yield/ production of sugar cane was observed in the use of both organic and

commercial fertilizers rather than using the organic/commercial alone. This result is in

coherence with the study of Teshome & Hagos (2014), which shows that incorporating mud

press into the soil had increased the sugar yield and cane juice quality. It might be assumed

that the application of mud press had increased the organic content concentrations in soil

along with improving the soil conditions. The same study also showed that the interaction

effect between nitrogen and compost was significant on stalk girth, stalk weight, cane yield,

and sugar yield. Highest cane and sugar yields were obtained when 46 Kg N/ha applied with

15ton of compost/ha. Net benefit to cost ratio was also found to be the highest, 1.12, for this

combination. Recommendations were forwarded on the same literature that on clay soils, 15

ton of compost/ha should be applied with 46Kg nitrogen/ha. Compost should be applied

before furrowing while nitrogen fertilizer should be applied at 2.0-2.5 of after planting

(Teshome & Hagos, 2014).

In order to avoid biases, production was categorized with the type of soil the sandy,

loamy and clay. The study results showed that there was significant difference in the average

yield of sugarcane generated in the sand type soil with the use of both organic and

commercial fertilizer. The generated yield with the used of commercial fertilizer urea alone

resulted to 28.30 ± 1.59 ton/ha while 42.92 ± 1.27 ton/ha was found for mixed mud press

and urea, and 20.80 ± 0.28 ton/ha for concentrated mud press. The same data were also noted

in loamy. The generated yield with the used of urea as fertilizer 46.71 ± 2.01 ton/ha, 51.11

± 0.94 ton/ha mixed mud press and urea, and 35.02 ± 0.84 ton/ha mud press only. On the

other hand, clay soil type was not tested due to the limited number of respondents. However,

31
literature suggests that nutrients carried by fertilizers cannot be readily absorbed by the clay

soil because of water (Teshome & Hagos, 2002). Thus, it is recommended to avoid

application of compost on heavy clay soils and fields which prone to water logging.

4.3. Photosynthetic Pigment of Allium cepa

Chlorophyll a, b and c content were analyzed spectrophotometrically under there

different wavelengths (665, 645 630 nm). As shown in Figure 7, the highest chlorophyll a

was recorded in 50:50 ratio of mixed urea and mud press (1.07± 0.16) while the lowest was

recorded in samples containing 25% organic+ 75 commercial (0.46 ± 0.014). The same

results were also noted for chlorophyll b having an absorbance of 1.33 ± 0.21 and 0.55 ±

0.17, respectively. For chlorophyll c, the highest chlorophyll content was also recorded in

samples containing 50:50 ratio of mixed urea and mud press (1.07± 0.16) and lowest in (25

organic+ 75 commercial) concentration resulting to 1.66 ± 0.53 absorbance. Total chlorophyll

content determination showed highest in samples containing 50:50 ration of urea and mud

press (6.55 ± 0.94) while in samples containing 25% organic+ 75 commercial (2.67 ±0.83).

32
 1.6 a
1.4
1.4
a
1.2
1.2

Absorbance (600 nm)

1
Absorbance (600 nm)

1 b
b
0.8
0.8
c
0.6 c c c
0.6

0.4 0.4

0.2 0.2

0 0
25% organic 50% organic 75% organic water 25% organic50% organic75% organic water
+ 75% + 50% + 25% + 75% + 50% + 25%
commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial commercial
Chlorophyll Chlorophyll

Chlorophyll- a Chlorophyll- b

5
4.5 a
4
Absorbance (600 nm)

3.5
3 b

2.5
2 c
c
1.5
1
0.5
0
25% organic + 75% 50% organic + 50% 75% organic + 25% water
commercial commercial commercial
Chlorophyll

Chlorophyll- c

Fig. 7. The average total chlorophyll content under different types of fertilizers (a) chlorophyll a, (b) chlorophyll b
and (c) chlorophyll c.

The result of this experiment indicates that there is a gradual increase in chlorophyll

‘a’, chlorophyll ‘b’, chlorophyll ‘c’ (Figure 7) and total chlorophyll (Figure 8) using organic

33
and commercial fertilizer at 50:50 ratio. This decrease indicates that the chlorophyll synthesis

system and chlorophyllase activity were affected by the exposure organic and commercial

fertilizers (Mondal et al. 2013).

8
a
7
6
Absorbace (600 nm)

5 b
4
c c
3
2
1
0
25% organic + 75% 50% organic + 50% 75% organic + 25% water
commercial commercial commercial
Chlorophyll

Total chlorophyll

Fig. 8. The average total chlorophyll content under different types of fertilizers.

Studies shown that the amount of chlorophyll content in a given sample is directly

related to the amount of nitrogen present. In 2001, Argenta et al. tested some plant

parameters (N content and accumulation, chlorophyll content assessed with a portable

chlorophyll meter, dry matter and leaf area) as indicators of maize N content. Nitrogen is

known to be available to plants as nitrate (NO3 –), and ammonium (NH4 +) ions. It was

biologically combined with C, H, O, and S to create amino acids, which were the building

blocks of proteins. Amino acids were used in forming protoplasm, the site for cell division

and thus for plant growth and development. Since all plant enzymes were made of proteins, N

was needed for all of the enzymatic reactions in a plant. Nitrogen was a major part of the

chlorophyll molecule and was therefore necessary for photosynthesis. Nitrogen was a

34
necessary component of several vitamins. It improves the quality and quantity of dry matter

in leafy vegetables and protein in grain crops. It agree also in the study of Bokhtiar et al.,

(2005) which showed in their results that application of organic manure along with

chemical fertilizer increased leaf area index (LAI), total dry matter (TDM), chlorophyll

contents and N, P, K and S concentrations in leaf tissues as compared with inorganic

fertilizer alone.

4.4. Effect of Fertilizer on Root Growth and Elongation

The result of the study showed no significant difference in the root elongation of

Allium cepa submerged in different fertilizer concentrations. Average roots were found to be

higher in samples containing 50:50 ratios of urea and mud press (9.10 ± 0.14) while shortest

samples containing 25% commercial + 75% organic (8.60 ±0.28) but the difference does

significantly matter in the length of roots. The results might affected by the bulbs that

decayed because we only get the minimum concentrations and not the optimum level that

cause for it to be toxic already.

10 a
a a
9
8
Number of roots

7
6
5
4 b
3
2
1
0
25% organic + 50% organic + 75% organic + water
75% commercial 50% commercial 25% commercial

Treatments
Number of roots

Fig. 9. The average root length of Allium cepa under different types of fertilizers.

35
 As the roots of plants are directly attached with soil, therefore, it is obvious that

fertilizers greatly influenced on their growth. Present finding demonstrate that root length

gradually increase using organic and commercial fertilizer at 50:50 concentration. It was

observed that the application of organic and inorganic fertilizers solely or combined had a

great influence on the vegetative growth of any crop. Studies have shown that flowering and

fruiting crop were positively influenced by sources of nutrients applied (Kabir et al., 2008).

The results were such that although the application of only organic manures maintained the

good health of soil, they were slow to release adequate nutrients timely. So the combined

application of manures and fertilizers may supply the nutrients timely and also maintain the

suitable condition for flowering, fruiting and their growth (Turk & Tawaha 2002). Castro et

al. (2007) suggested that the reduction of root growth may be due to root surface damage,

causing leakage of cell content and collapse of root hairs and of epidermal cells. Finally, it

may be suggested that the suppression in root growth may be due to inhibition of root cell

division or elongation, or to the extension of the cell cycle (Ryan et al., 1997).

4.5. Biomass Production

The water content of samples containing 50: 50 ratios was found to be significantly

higher (21.02 ±0.23) and lower in samples with 25% commercial + 75% organic fertilizers

(15.836 ±0.84). The water content is an important factor that influences the growth and

product yield during crop cultivation.

Fruit dry weight growth can be described in terms of the realization of potential: i.e.,

the maximum growth possible given a non-limiting supply of resources (Wareing & Patrick,

1975). Fruit growing at its potential rate is limited by its capacity for sink activity and, thus,

36
is sink limited. When dry weight accumulation is limited by insufficient carbohydrates,

growth is said to be source limited.

25

a
20
b
c
Water Content (%)

15
c

10

0
25% organic + 75% 50% organic + 50% 75% organic + 25% water
commercial commercial commercial
Treatment
Water Content

Fig. 10. The average root length of Allium cepa under different types of fertilizers.

37
 CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Farmers with long experience in farming preferred to use both commercial and

organic fertilizer (47%), only (36%) of the farmers used commercial fertilizer and only (17%)

of the farmers used the mud press alone. In significance analysis of yield produced using

different fertilizers showed that the used of both fertilizers significantly differed in yield

generated compared with the used of mud press and commercial only. The survey results

showed that there was significant difference in the use of mixed fertilizer (p<0.05) in both

sandy and loamy type of soil. In loamy the highest yield generated (42.92 ± 1.27) ton/ha

mixed mud press and urea. On the other hand, the clay soil did not significantly differ in the

yield produced. It means that any of the three types of fertilizer will generated with almost

the same yield. It was maybe because the nutrients from fertilizers cannot be absorbed by the

soil because of logging of water. In experiment part, it showed that the 50:50 ratio

significantly differed from other concentrations in all parameters tested (chlorophyll, and

water content) except for the root elongation since the experiment shown that there was no

difference at all in any concentrations although the 50:50 concentrations got the longest

length development of roots. Which means 50:50 ratios was recommended in onion crops but

the ratio may vary upon crop. In addition, this study should undergone further study and

apply the fertilizer in the soil itself to check the direct effects to the growth of plant. And for

the accuracy of experiment it was recommended to conduct toxicity test for the

concentrations.

38
 REFERENCES

Bokhtiar S.M., Paul G.C., Rashid M.A and Rahman A.B.M. (2005). Effect of press mud and
organic nitrogen on soil fertility and yield of sugarcane grown in high Ganges
river flood plain soils of Bangladesh. Indian Sugar L1:235–240.

Castro R.O., Trujillo M.M, Bucio J.L., Cervantes, J.C. and Dubrovsky, J. (2007). Effects of
dichromate on growth and root system architecture of Arabidopsis thaliana seedlings,
Plant Science. 172: 684-691

Chaudhari S.V. (2013) Effect of Pesticides and Fertilizers on Development of Root of

Onion Allium Cepa (Linn.). Annual Review of Plant Physiology, 29: 511-566.

Elauria, M.M. and Elauria, J.C. (2012) .Value Addition and Prospects of Bioethanol
Production from Sugarcane in the Philippines. Manual of the Japan Institute of
Energy, 91: 56-60.

Graham H. (2000). Research Methods I Handouts. COGS - Version 1.0, Page 1.

Jamil M., Qasim M., Zia M.S. (2008) Utilization of Press Mud as Organic Amendment to
Improve Physico-chemical Characteristics of Calcareous Soil under two Legume
Crops. Journal of Chemical Society Pakistan 3:145–150

Johnston, P. and Wilkinson. (2009). Enhancing Validity of Critical Tasks Selected for
College and University Program Portfolios Tampa. Fl. National Forum of Teacher
Education, 19.

Kabir M., Iqbal Z.M., Shafiq Z.M. and Farooqi Z.R. (2008). Reduction in germination and
seedling growth of thespesia populnea l., caused by lead and cadmium treatments.
Pakistan Journal of Botany 40: 2419-2426.

Mondal N.K., Das C. Roy S., Datta J.K. and Banerjee A. (2013). Effect of varying cadmium
Stress on chickpea (cicer Arietinum l) seedlings: an Ultrastructural study. Annual
Environmental Science 7: 59-70.

Nawab K., Amanullah P., Shah-Abdur-Rab M., Arif, Khan, Mateen A. and Munsif F. (2011).
Impact of Integrated Nutrient Management on Growth and Grain Yield of Wheat
under Irrigated Cropping System. Pakistan Journal of Botany 43: 1943-1947.

39
Nigam J.N. (2000). Continuous Ethanol Production from Pineapple Cannery Waste Using
Immobilized Yeast Cell. Journal of Biotechnology, 80: 189.

Olbrich H. (2006). The Molasses. Biotechnologie-Kempe GmbH. Berlin, Germany.

Palaniappan, S.P. andAnnadurai K. (1999). Organic Farming Theory and Practice. Jodhpur
India, Scientific Publishers. pp. 53-73.

Ramashala T. (2012). Sugar Cane. Department of Agriculture. Indian Science, 40: 678-680.

Ryan P.R, Reod R.J. and Smith F.A. (1997). Direct evaluation of the Ca2þ –displacement
hypothesis for Al toxicity. Plant Physiology, 113: 1351-1357.

Sharma B.L., Singh S., Sharma S., Prakash V. and Singh R.R. (2002). Integrated response of
press mud cake and urea on sugarcane in calcareous soil. Cooperative Sugar
33:1001–1004.

Singh H., Singh Y., Vashist K.K. (2005). Evaluation of press mud cake as source of
phosphorus for rice-wheat rotation. Journal of Sustainable Agriculture 26:5–21.

Speranza A., Ferri P., Battistelli M, Falcieri E., Crinelli R and Scoceianti R. (2007). Both
trivalent and hexavalent chromium strongly alter in vitro germination and
ultrastructure of kiwifruit pollen. Chemosphere, 66; 1165-1174.

Yaduvanshi N.P.S and Swarup A. (2005). Effect of Continuous use of Sodic Irrigation Water
with and Without Gypsum, Farmyard Manure, Press Mud and Fertilizer on Soil
Properties and Yields of Rice and Wheat in a Long Term Experiment. Nutrient
Cycle Agroecosystem 73:111–118.

40
 APPENDICES

Appendix A: Tabular data

Chlorophyll analysis results

Wavelength Chlorophyll

Replicate E665 E645 E630 Chlorophyll Chlorophyll Chlorophyll total

a b c chlorophyll

1a 0.0332 0.0327 0.0334 0.337607 0.385174 1.149942 0.624241

1b 0.0448 0.0453 0.0465 0.453827 0.537748 1.611238 0.8676043

33

1c 0.0585 0.0608 0.0632 0.590104 0.725326 2.21352 1.1763166

67

Average 0.0455 0.04626 0.0477 0.4605126 0.549416 1.6582333 0.8893873

7 67 33 33

Standard 0.01266 0.01407 0.01493 0.1263811 0.1703759 0.5333441 0.2766816

Dev 5 5 6 99 15 3 94

Std. Error 0.00731 0.00812 0.00862 0.0729662 0.0983665 0.3079263 0.1597422

2 6 3 19 8 77 5

2a 0.0953 0.0997 0.1057 0.960075 1.182994 3.746198 1.963089

2b 0.0521 0.0532 0.0563 0.526786 0.62628 1.987596

2c 0.1174 0.1237 0.1294 1.181677 1.479126 4.555954 2.4055856

67

Average 0.10635 0.1117 0.11755 1.070876 1.33106 4.151076 2.1843373

33

Standard 0.01562 0.01697 0.01675 0.1566962 0.2093969 0.5725839 0.3128923

Dev 7 1 8 77 45 59 94

Std. Error 0.01105 0.012 0.01185 0.110801 0.148066 0.404878 0.2212483

33

3a 0.0703 0.0771 0.0833 0.702817 0.922682 2.998578 1.541359

3b 0.0946 0.0991 0.1033 0.953077 1.18422 3.627226

3c 0.066 0.0687 0.0746 0.665159 0.805918 2.67695 1.3826756

67

41
 Average 0.06815 0.0729 0.07895 0.683988 0.8643 2.837764 1.4620173
33

Standard 0.00304 0.00594 0.00615 0.0266282 0.0825646 0.2274253 0.1122060

Dev 1 2 27 16 4 61

Std. Error 0.00215 0.0042 0.00435 0.018829 0.058382 0.160814 0.0793416

67

C1 0.0381 0.037 0.0374 0.388254 0.435238 1.277116 0.7002026

67

C2 0.0492 0.0505 0.0575 0.496515 0.577672 2.111062 1.0617496

67

C3 0.0571 0.0587 0.0603 0.577021 0.70075 2.094746 1.1241723

33

Average 0.04813 0.04873 0.05173 0.4872633 0.57122 1.8276413 0.9620415

3 3 3 33 33 56

Standard 0.00954 0.01095 0.01249 0.0947229 0.1328735 0.4768387 0.2288970

Dev 5 7 2 65 37 15 3

Std. Error 0.00551 0.00632 0.00721 0.0546883 0.0767145 0.2753029 0.1321537

1 6 2 29 72 6 62

blank 0.0319 0.0314 0.0321 0.324412 0.369652 1.105664

Yield produced categorized by types of fertilizers

Type of fertilizer Area (hec) Production (ton) Yield (ton/hec)

Muddy

Commercial 1 30.5 30.5

Commercial 0.5 13.53 27.06

Commercial 0.4 10.62 26.55

Commercial 1 29.1 29.1

Average 0.725 20.9375 28.3025

STDEV 0.277263413 8.935738288 1.587456692

42
 ERROR 0.138631706 4.467869144 0.793728346

Both 1 42.95 42.95

Both 0.5 21.5 43

Both 2 83.9 41.95

Both 0.75 30.21 40.28

Both 0.5 23.21 46.42

Average 1.0625 44.64 42.045

STDEV 0.65748891 27.61574551 1.272176612

ERROR 0.328744455 13.80787275 0.636088306

Sandy

Mud press 0.5 10.5 21

Mud press 0.5 10.3 20.6

Average 0.5 10.4 20.8

STDEV 0 0.141421356 0.282842712

ERROR 0 0.1 0.2

Commercial 1 49.3 49.3

Commercial 1 48.2 48.2

Commercial 0.5 20.31 40.62

Commercial 1 45.1 45.1

Commercial 0.5 22.3 44.6

Commercial 1 46.33 46.33

Average 0.9 42.246 46.706

STDEV 0.223606798 11.26805573 2.007281744

ERROR 0.1 5.039227719 0.897683686

Both 1 51.01 51.01

Both 1 52.2 52.2

43
 Both 0.4 20 50

Both 1 50.3 50.3

Both 0.5 25.18 50.36

Both 0.5 26.16 52.32

Both 2 103.13 51.57

Average 0.914285714 46.85428571 51.10857143

STDEV 0.54902511 28.41319051 0.942026691

ERROR 0.207511986 10.73917658 0.356052622

Clay

Mud press 1 35.61 35.61

Mud press 1 34.42 34.42

Average 1 35.015 35.015

STDEV 0 0.84145707 0.84145707

ERROR 0 0.595 0.595

Commercial 0.5 18.1 36.2

Both 0.5 20.1 40.2

Both 1 39.13 39.13

Mud press 1 25 25

Results of Root elongation analysis

No. of Sample 1(mm) Sample 2 (mm) Sample 3 (mm) Control (mm)

roots
a b c a b c a b c a b c

1 8 7 5 10 6 10 10 9 9 11 3 2

2 9 10 6 9 6 11 8 9 8 9 3 3

3 10 10 5 10 4 9 4 9 8 5 3 4

4 10 8 4 10 4 9 6 9 9 4 3 3

44
 5 7 8 5 6 5 7 4 8 8 3 2 3

Average 8.8 8.6 5 9 5 9.2 6.4 8.8 8.4 6.4 2.8 3

Results of Water content Analysis

Replicate Fresh Matter Dry Matter Water Content

1a 40.13 22.24 17.89

1b 37.61 19.51 18.10

1c 39.08 21.58 17.50

Average 38.94 21.11 17.83

STDEV 1.265819892 1.424394608 0.304466747

ERROR 0.730821456 0.822374611 0.175783958

2a 40.91 20.1 20.81

2b 40.77 19.79 20.98

2c 46.52 25.25 21.27

Average 42.73333333 21.71333333 21.02

STDEV 3.280096543 3.06676268 0.232594067

ERROR 1.893764622 1.770596259 0.134288247

3a 34.71 19.24 15.47

3b 41.16 25.92 15.24

3c 45.09 28.29 16.80

Average 40.32 24.48333333 15.83666667

STDEV 5.240734681 4.692934405 0.842159921

ERROR 3.025739579 2.709466942 0.486221257

C1 43.64 30.92 12.72

C2 41.41 30.36 11.05

45
 C3 43.31 31 12.31

Average 42.78666667 30.76 12.02666667

STDEV 1.203591847 0.348711915 0.870306459

ERROR 0.694894077 0.201328918 0.502471669

46
 Appendix B: Survey form

Instruction: Fill in the following data by writing your answer in the provided space.Write
check mark √ if applicable.

Section 1: General Information

Instruction: Fill in the following data by writing the Check mark(√).
Name: Address:

Section 2: Farm Information

Instruction: Answer the following criteria throughevaluating if you are agree or disagree
on the following criteria that affect on consumer choice by marking check on the box(√).
1. Have experience in Sugarcane plantation Yes (Oo) No (Wala)
business: (Naka agi ka bala negosyo sangTubo)

If yes, please answer the following questions:(Kung Oo, Palihog sabtan ang masunod nga mga
pamangkot)

2. 1-5 years 6-10 years

No. of years of experience in Sugarcane plantation business:
More than 10 years
(Pila kana katuig nga naga negosyo sang tubo )

3. Types of Fertilizer/s used: Mud press (ginabakal) Commercial

(Ano klase sang fertilizer imo
nagamit sa imotubo) Both Others( please Specify)______________

4. If you used commercial fertilizer please specify its name: ______

(Kung ga gamit ka commercial fertilizer palihog sulat kung ano iya pangalan)

47
5. Types of Soil: Sandy Loamy Clay
(Klase sang duta)

Please answer Nos. 6 and 7 based on your recent or the latest harvest.
(Palihog sabti ang Nos. 6 kag 7 basi sa imo pinakaulihi nga patapas)

6. Size of Farm( kalaparon sang imo natubuhan): 7.production( produksyon):

___________________hectares(iktarya) _______Tons(tonelada)

The above information gathered will be used in undergraduate research purposes.

Researcher:

48
 Appendix C: Statistical Analysis

Descriptives
Yield(muddy soil)

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 5 46.7060 2.00728 .89768 44.2136 49.1984 44.60

2 7 51.1086 .94203 .35605 50.2373 51.9798 50.00
3 2 35.0150 .84146 .59500 27.4548 42.5752 34.42
Total 14 47.2371 5.73275 1.53214 43.9272 50.5471 34.42

Descriptives
yield (muddy soil)

Maximum

1 49.30
2 52.32
3 35.61
Total 52.32

ANOVA
yield(muddy soil)

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 405.088 2 202.544 100.590 .000

Within Groups 22.149 11 2.014
Total 427.237 13

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: yield
Scheffe (muddy soil)

(I) (J) Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.

1"Commercial",2"Both",3"Mu 1"Commercial",2"Both",3"Mu (I-J)
d Press" d Press"

2 -4.40257* .83088 .001

1
3 11.69100* 1.18722 .000
1 4.40257* .83088 .001
2
3 16.09357* 1.13773 .000
3 1 -11.69100* 1.18722 .000

49
 2 -16.09357* 1.13773 .000

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: yield
Scheffe (muddy soil)

(I) 1"Commercial",2"Both",3"Mud (J) 1"Commercial",2"Both",3"Mud 95% Confidence Interval

Press" Press" Lower Bound Upper Bound

2 -6.7475* -2.0577
1
3 8.3405* 15.0415
1 2.0577* 6.7475
2
3 12.8827* 19.3044
1 -15.0415* -8.3405
3
2 -19.3044* -12.8827

yield
Scheffe (muddy soil)

1"Commercial",2"Both",3"Mu N Subset for alpha = 0.05

d Press" 1 2 3

3 2 35.0150
1 5 46.7060
2 7 51.1086
Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Descriptives
Yield (Sandy soil)

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Minimum

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 4 28.3025 1.83304 .91652 25.3857 31.2193 26.55

2 4 42.0450 1.27218 .63609 40.0207 44.0693 40.28
3 2 20.8000 .28284 .20000 18.2588 23.3412 20.60
Total 10 32.2990 8.96472 2.83489 25.8860 38.7120 20.60

Descriptives
Yield (Sandy soil)

Maximum

50
1 30.50
2 43.00
3 21.00
Total 43.00

ANOVA
Yield (Sandy soil)

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 708.280 2 354.140 165.096 .000

Within Groups 15.015 7 2.145
Total 723.295 9

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: yield
Scheffe (Sandy soil)

(I) (J) Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.

1"Commercial",2"Both",3"Mu 1"Commercial",2"Both",3"Mu (I-J)
d Press" d Press"

2 -13.74250* 1.03563 .000

1
3 7.50250* 1.26838 .002
1 13.74250* 1.03563 .000
2
3 21.24500* 1.26838 .000
1 -7.50250* 1.26838 .002
3
2 -21.24500* 1.26838 .000

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: yield
Scheffe (Sandy soil)

(I) 1"Commercial",2"Both",3"Mud (J) 1"Commercial",2"Both",3"Mud 95% Confidence Interval

Press" Press" Lower Bound Upper Bound

2 -16.9303* -10.5547
1
3 3.5983* 11.4067
1 10.5547* 16.9303
2
3 17.3408* 25.1492
1 -11.4067* -3.5983
3
2 -25.1492* -17.3408

51
 yield
Scheffe (Sandy soil)

1"Commercial",2"Both",3"Mu N Subset for alpha = 0.05

d Press" 1 2 3

3 2 20.8000
1 4 28.3025
2 4 42.0450
Sig. 1.000 1.000 1.000

Descriptives

Root elongation

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error 95% Confidence Interval for Mean

Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 8.7000000 .14142136 .10000000 7.4293795 9.9706205

2 2 9.1000000 .14142136 .10000000 7.8293795 10.3706205

3 2 8.6000000 .28284271 .20000000 6.0587591 11.1412409

4 2 2.9000000 .14142136 .10000000 1.6293795 4.1706205

Total 8 7.3250000 2.74213160 .96948992 5.0325206 9.6174794

Descriptives
Root elongation

Minimum Maximum

1 8.60000 8.80000
2 9.00000 9.20000
3 8.40000 8.80000
4 2.80000 3.00000
Total 2.80000 9.20000

52
 ANOVA
Root elongation

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 52.495 3 17.498 499.952 .000

Within Groups .140 4 .035
Total 52.635 7

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: root elongation
Scheffe

(I) 1"Sample 1",2"Sample (J) 1"Sample 1",2"Sample Mean Difference Std. Error Sig.
2",3"Sample 3",4"Control" 2",3"Sample 3",4"Control" (I-J)

2 -.40000000 .18708287 .338

1 3 .10000000 .18708287 .959

4 5.80000000* .18708287 .000

1 .40000000 .18708287 .338
2 3 .50000000 .18708287 .210
4 6.20000000* .18708287 .000
1 -.10000000 .18708287 .959
3 2 -.50000000 .18708287 .210
4 5.70000000* .18708287 .000
1 -5.80000000* .18708287 .000

4 2 -6.20000000* .18708287 .000

3 -5.70000000* .18708287 .000

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: root elongation
Scheffe

(I) 1"Sample 1",2"Sample (J) 1"Sample 1",2"Sample 95% Confidence Interval

2",3"Sample 3",4"Control" 2",3"Sample 3",4"Control" Lower Bound Upper
Bound

53
 2 -1.2319225 .4319225

1 3 -.7319225 .9319225

4 4.9680775* 6.6319225
1 -.4319225 1.2319225
2 3 -.3319225 1.3319225
4 5.3680775* 7.0319225
1 -.9319225 .7319225
3 2 -1.3319225 .3319225
4 4.8680775* 6.5319225
1 -6.6319225* -4.9680775

4 2 -7.0319225* -5.3680775

3 -6.5319225* -4.8680775

Root elongation
Scheffe

1"Sample 1",2"Sample N Subset for alpha = 0.05

2",3"Sample 3",4"Control" 1 2

4 2 2.9000000
3 2 8.6000000
1 2 8.7000000
2 2 9.1000000
Sig. 1.000 .210

54