Marvin Thesis 061824

i
CEBU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY – ARGAO CAMPUS
Bachelor of Science in Agriculture – Major in Horticulture
MARVIN G. OBIEDO
EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT PRUNING TECHNIQUES ON THE

GROWTH AND YIELD OF OKRA (Abelmochus esculentus L.)
Jannu Geuseppe C. Clemeña

Adviser
JUNE 2024
ii
EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT PRUNING TECHNIQUES ON THE

GROWTH AND YIELD OF OKRA (Abelmoschus esculentus L.)
MARVIN G. OBIEDO
SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE

THE AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT
IN PARTIAL FULLFILLMENT OF THE
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
DEGREE OF
BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

Major: Horticulture
JUNE 2024
iii
UNDERGRADUATE THESIS APPROVAL SHEET
Name of Students: MARVIN G. OBIEDO

Major: HORTICULTURE
EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT PRUNING
Thesis Title: TECHNIQES ON THE GROWTH AND YIELD OF
OKRA (Abelmoschus esculentus L.).
APPROVED FOR THESIS DEFENSE:
Official Capacity Name Signature Date
Adviser JANNU GEUSEPPE C. CLEMEÑA
Reader 1 RAYNILDA R. BAOY
Reader 2 RITCHE U. NUEVO
Date, time and venue of thesis defense: 05/23/24; 1:00PM – DISCUSSION ROOM 1,
CTU-LEARNING RESOURCE CENTER
APPROVED FOR FINAL MANUSCRIPT PRINTING AND BINDING:
Official Capacity Name Signature Date
Adviser JANNU GEUSEPPE C. CLEMEÑA
Reader 1 RAYNILDA R. BAOY
Reader 2 RITCHE U. NUEVO
Department Chair RITCHE U. NUEVO

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Through every page turned and every lesson learned, I humbly thanks God's
guiding hand illuminating my path. In moments of challenge, His wisdom provided
clarity, and in moments of doubt, His grace granted strength.
I am profoundly grateful to my parents for their unwavering support, both
financially and emotionally, throughout the study. Their love and belief in me have been
a guiding light, enabling me to finish the study.
To Mr. Jannu Geuseppe C. Clemeña, I extend heartfelt appreciation to his
boundless patience and invaluable guidance throughout my thesis. His willingness to
share his expertise and insights has been instrumental in shaping the direction of my
thesis.
To my fomer reader and advisers, Mr. Daniel B. Tangpos, Mr. Julius D.
Caritan, who has a valuable contribution to my thesis study. Their insightful feedback,
criticism, and unwavering support has helped in refining my research
To my Scholarship, Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund-ACEF,
which has helped me financially during the conduct of my study, it also helped me to
acquire essential materials needed in interpreting and analyzing the data of my thesis.
Lastly to the faculty and staff of Agriculture Department, especially to my
readers, Mr. Ritche U. Nuevo, and Mrs. Raynilda R. Baoy, who graciously accepted
my invitation to participate in my defense. And for sharing their thought and knowledge,
and reminders about my thesis.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Contents Page No.
Cover Page i
Title Page ii
Approval Sheet iii
Acknowledgment iv
Table of Contents v
List of Figures vii
List of Appendices viii
List of Plates xix
Abstract xx
Introduction 1
Nature and importance of the study 1
Objectives of the study 3
Review of Literature 4
Okra production 4
Current status of Okra Production in the Philippines 4
Common problems encountered in okra production 4
Pruning 5
Importance of Pruning to Crops 5
Effect of Pinching Treatments on Growth Flowering and Yield 7
of Okra
Materials and Methods 8
Research locale 8
Experimental design layout 9
Seed Preparation 10
Application of Treatments 10
Cultural Management 10
Land preparation 10
Weeding and cultivation 11
Fertility management 11
Pest management 11
Harvesting 11
Data Gathered 12
Growth Characteristics 12
Yield and Yield Components 13
Return of Investment 14
Statistical Analysis 15
Result and Discussion 16
General Observation 16
Growth performance 16
Yield performance 20
vi
Conclusion and Recommendation 30

Conclusion 30
Recommendation 31
Literature Cited 32
Appendix A 35
Appendix B 37
Appendix C 56
Appendix D 72
Appendix E 88
Plates 102
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Descriptions Page No.
1 Map of Nalhub, Dalaguete showing the barangay

administrative borders 8
2 Experimental layout 9
3 Leaf length 12
4 Leaf width 13
5 Plant height of okra as affected by different pruning

techniques 17
6 Leaf length as affected by different pruning techniques 18
7 Leaf width as affected by different pruning techniques 19
8 No. of fruits per plant as affected by different pruning

techniques 21
9 Fruit length per plant as affected by different pruning

techniques 22
10 Average weight of marketable fruits as affected by

different pruning techniques 24
11 No. of fruits per treatment plot as affected by different

pruning techniques 25
12 Fruit weight per treatment plot as affected by different

pruning techniques 27
13 Total yield as affected by different pruning techniques

28
14 Return on investment as affected by different pruning
29
techniques
viii
LIST OF APPENDICES
Table No. Description Page No.
A1 Operational definition of terms 36
B1 Plant height (cm) of okra at 37 days after sowing 38
B6 Leaf length (cm) of okra at 37 days after sowing 39
B11 Leaf width of (okra) at 37 days after sowing 41
B13 Leaf width at 51 days after sowing 42
B14 Leaf width at 58 days after sowing 42
B16 No. of fruits per plant (okra) at 51 days after sowing

43
B17 No. of fruits per plant (okra) at 58 days after sowing 43

ix
B21 Fruits length (okra) at 51 days after sowing 44
B26 Average weight of marketable fruit at 51 days after sowing 46
B27 Average weight of marketable fruit at days 58 after sowing 46
B28 Average weight of marketable fruit at 65 days after sowing

47
B29 Average weight of marketable fruit at 72 days after sowing 47
B30 Average weight of marketable fruits 79 days after sowing

47
B31 No. of fruits per treatment plot at 51 days after sowing 48
B32 No. of fruits per treatment plot at 53 days after sowing

48

49

49

50

51
B41 Fruit’s weight per treatment plot (okra) at 51 days after 51
x
sowing
B42 Fruit’s weight per treatment plot (okra) at 53 days after

sowing 51

sowing 52

sowing 52

sowing 52

sowing 53

sowing 53

sowing 53

sowing 54

sowing 54
B51 Total yield (kg/ha) 54
B52 Return on investment (%) 55
C1 Analysis of variance on plant height of okra at 37 days after

sowing 57

sowing 57
xi

sowing 57
C4 Analysis of variance on plant height(cm) of okra at 58 days
after sowing 57

sowing 58
C6 Analysis of variance on leaf length of okra at 37 days after

sowing 58

sowing 58

58
sowing
59
sowing 59
C11 Analysis of variance on leaf width of okra at 37 days after

sowing 59

sowing 59

60
sowing
sowing 60

sowing 60
C16 Analysis of variance on fruits per plant of okra at 51 days

after sowing 60

after sowing 61
xii
C18 Analysis of variance on fruits per plant of okra at 65 days 61

after sowing

after sowing 61

after sowing 61
C21 Analysis of variance on fruits length at 51 days after sowing 62
C26 Analysis of variance on average weight of marketable fruit at

51 days after sowing 63




C31 Analysis of variance on no. of fruits per treatment plot at 51

days after sowing 64


xiii







C41 Analysis of variance on fruit’s weight per treatment plot at 51







xiv
C48 Analysis of variance on fruit’s weight per treatment plot at 74 70

days after sowing

days after sowing
70
C51 Analysis of variance on total yield of okra (kg/ha) 71
C52 Analysis of variance of return on investment 71
D1 Least significant difference test of plant height at 37 days after

sowing 73

sowing 73

sowing 73

sowing 74

sowing 74
D6 Least significant difference test of leaf length at 44 days after

sowing 74
D7 Least significant difference test of leaf width at 37 days after

sowing 75

sowing 75

sowing 75
D10 Least significant difference test of no. of fruits of okra per

plant at 51 days after sowing 76
xv




D15 Least significant difference test of fruit’s length at 58 days

after sowing 77




after sowing 79

after sowing 79

after sowing 79

after sowing 80
D23 Least significant difference test of no. of fruits per treatment

plot at 51 days after sowing 80

xvi








D33 Least significant difference test of fruit’s weight per treatment






xvii


plot at 79 days after sowing
86
D42 Least significant difference test of total yield per hectare 86
D43 Least significant difference test on return on investment 87
E1 Return on investment of T1R1 (control) 89
E4 Return on investment of T2R1 (apical bud pinching + four

leaves only) 92

leaves only) 93

leaves only) 94
E7 Return on investment of T3R1 (four leaves only) 95

leaves only) 98

leaves only) 99
xviii

leaves only) 100
E13 Gantt chart calendar of weekly activities 101

xix
LIST OF PLATES
1 Land preparation 103
2 Okra seed sowing 103
3 Application of treatments 104
4 Data collection 104
5 Weeding 105
6 Harvesting 105
7 Measuring 106
8 Measuring 106
9 Weighing of fruits 107
10 Fertilizer recommendation 107

xx
ABSTRACT
Okra is a key export crop of the Philippines, but many farmers avoid it due to
productivity issues during the rainy season such as the growth of excess leaves rather
than fruit production. Enhancing okra production can be achieved through different
pruning techniques, which redirect plant energy to fruit production, it can also improve
air circulation and light penetration. This study aimed to determine the effectiveness of
different pruning techniques on the yield and growth of okra. The experiment followed a
Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with four treatments: T1 - Control, T2 -
Apical Bud Pinching, T3 - Four Leaves Only, and T4 - Apical Bud Pinching + Four
Leaves Only. The results show that the pruning technique of T3 significantly improved
okra height, with an average mean height of 56.33cm. However, all treatments had
minimal effect on the length and width of okra leaves. Treatment 3 displayed higher
performance in increasing the number of fruits per plant but showed lower weight of
marketable fruits compared to T2 which is the highest with a mean of 12g. On the other
hand, application of T2 and T4 enhanced the fruit length of okra but resulted in the lower
number of fruits per treatment compared to T1 and T3, despite yielding higher in average
weight of marketable fruits. Nonetheless, T3 still had the highest overall fruit weight per
plot, averaging 3513g. It also significantly outperformed all other treatments in total yield
per hectare and had the highest Return on Investment. In conclusion, the application of
T3 (Four leaves only) showed best effect in enhancing the growth and yield of okra.
Further studies focusing on the growth and yield of lateral buds in apical bud-pinched
okra are recommended.

1
INTRODUCTION
Nature and Importance of the Study
Okra is a heat-tolerant vegetable crop with a high economic and nutritional
importance in parts of Asia (Schafleitner, 2021). In the Philippines, okra is produced to
be exported to some Asian countries. The Department of Agriculture recently announced
that the Philippines has started to ship okra to Japan (Morato, 2020). Okra is important
vegetable because it contains nutrients. It is also used in many dishes and also exported
by the government. But as the demand grows the production is being slowed by some
environmental problem that causes abnormal leaf growth rather than fruit production.
According to Schafleitner et al. (2021) Water stress significantly impact the
growth and development of okra plants, often resulting in a higher number of leaves
compared to fruits. This phenomenon occurs because water stress conditions lead the
plant to allocate more resources towards vegetative growth (leaves) rather than
reproductive growth (fruits). Under such conditions, okra plants prioritize survival
mechanisms like increasing leaf production to enhance photosynthesis and maintain
energy levels, which inadvertently reduces fruit production. Although abnormal number
of leaves occurs during rainy season, there are still some ways to control its development
and to maximize fruit production. One such method is by pruning the leaves of okra.
Cutting back some of the larger branches allows the plant to redirect its energy from leaf
production to flower and fruit development. This can lead to a more abundant harvest of
okra pods (Olasantan & Salau, 2010).

2
Pruning on vegetables involves the selective removal of certain parts of the plant
to promote healthier growth and increase yield. By trimming away dead or diseased
leaves, stems, or branches, the plant's energy can be redirected towards producing more
robust and productive foliage and fruits. Proper pruning techniques can also help improve
air circulation and light penetration. According to Nickelson (2015), It Increases crop
production. Pruning tells a plant to focus its energy on production rather than new
growth. There are various pruning techniques that are commonly used in vegetable
gardening these are mainly due to some specific problems that farmers or gardeners
encounter during plants vegetative and productive stage. There Are Different types of
pruning it includes; Heading (cutting off flower buds) which encourages the growth of a
vegetable plant by removing flower buds. Heading can also be used to encourage
branching by removing the tip of a branch or stem, which is called “crown pruning.” This
technique will promote more lateral branching and yield a fuller plant. Another technique
is Pinching (removal of growing tips) There are various reasons why farmers might want
to pinch off the growing tips. Pinching encourages your vegetable plants to grow bushier
and more compact, ultimately producing more vegetables. The Thinning out congested
areas thinned out by reducing the number of overcrowded leaves and helping them dry
out between waterings. Many plants also produce more fruits, flowers, and foliage when
thinned out (Lenhof, 2021). Thus, this study was conducted to determine the effect of
different pruning technique for the improvement of its growth and yield.
3
Objectives of the Study
This study specifically aimed to:
1. determine the effect of pruning on horticultural characteristics of okra in
terms of:
1.2 plant height;
1.3 length of leaves;
1.4 width of leaves;
2. determine the effect of pruning on the yield components of okra in terms of:
2.1 number of fruits per plant;
2.2 number of fruits per treatment plot;
2.3 average weight of marketable fruits;
2.4 weight of fruits per treatment plot;
2.5 length of fruits;
2.6 total yield;
3. determine the Return on Investment (ROI) through cost and return analysis.
4
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Okra production
Current status of Okra Production in the Philippines
The Philippines has been ranked 16th among the group of countries that has an
interest in okra production. It is primarily grown for exportation. According to
HelgiLibrary (2022) Okra production in the Philippines reached an all-time high of
31,708 tons in 2019 and all time low of 22,992 tons in 2003. In Southeast Asia,
Philippines is the top country by the area of the okra among 3 countries. As of 2020, the
area of the okra in Philippines was 4,080 ha that accounts for 49.79% of total the area of
the okra. The top 3 countries (others are Malaysia, and Brunei Darussalam) account for
100.00% of it. The total the area of the okra was estimated at 8,194 ha in 2020 (Knoema,
2020).
Common Problems Encountered in Okra production
Okra, a vital crop in many regions, demonstrates a notable sensitivity to seasonal
changes, significantly influencing its yield. Analysis reveals a stark contrast in okra
production in rainy season. During the rainy season, okra yields are considerably lower,
with a production of only 5-10 tons per hectare but produces higher leaf yield. The
decline in productivity during the rainy season is primarily due to excessive moisture
stress. While okra plants thrive on sufficient water, an overabundance of moisture can be
detrimental. The rainy season's persistent high humidity and frequent rainfall create
conditions that are less than ideal for okra fruit development. This moisture stress
hampers the formation and maturation of okra pods, leading to a noticeable decrease in
5
yield. Interestingly, while the rainy season adversely impacts fruit yield, it encourages
robust vegetative growth. The abundance of water promotes the growth of leaves and
stems, yet this vegetative vigor does not translate to higher fruit production. Instead, it
underscores the plant's struggle to convert vegetative energy into reproductive success
under conditions of excessive moisture (Olasantan, 2010).
Pruning
Importance of Pruning to Crops
Pruning involves the selective removal of plant components in order to enhance
their aesthetic appeal, shape, and growth patterns, while also managing their flowering or
fruiting processes. Pruning enables the canopy to open up, allowing more sunlight to
enter and stimulate the flower bud formation. By cutting unproductive plant parts such as
excess leaves and branches, the plants' resources and energy will focus more on fruit
development (Tababa, 2023). Farmers experience higher yields during harvesting when
pruning is implemented. According to All that Grows blog (2023) Pruning unwanted
parts of the plant increases its ability to grow more vegetables and increases the yield.
Pruning in okra is a method that will increase yield and will initiate larger growth in okra
by removing specific parts or leaves. Another way to maintain growing okra plants in
their advanced stages is by pruning them regularly. To do this, cut off any extra leaves
and leave only four (4) to six (6) healthy leaves at the top part of the plant (Taculao,
2021).
A study was conducted by Wenyonu et.al (2011), with a treatment comprised
pruning at 35 days after germination (DAG), pruning at 40 DAG, pruning at 45 DAG and
6
no pruning(control). The result suggests that in all, pruning at 35 DAG enhanced better
vegetative growth compared to the control and the subsequent with pruning.
A study was also conducted by El-Rahman et. al (2016) shows that ABP at the
4th node increased the number of leaves per plant, dry weight of leaves, and total dry
weight per plant, and ABP at the 8th node increased the number of branches per plant.
However, apical bud pinching at the 6th node (30 days after seed sowing) increased the
number of green fruits yield per plant, green fruit yield per plant, and total green fruit
yield. Moreover, the interaction between a plant spacing of 30 cm and ABP at the 6th
node increased the number of leaves per plant, while the interaction between a plant
spacing of 50 cm and ABP at the 6th node increased the number of branches per plant,
dry weight of leaves, total dry weight per plant, number of green fruits per plant, and
green fruit yield per plant in both seasons. Narrow plant spacing (20 cm) combined with
ABP at the 6th node resulted in increased total green fruit yield per.
According to Aliyu et al. (2008), the objective was to compare the yield of
okra plants subjected to pruning versus those left unpruned. The experiment included two
groups: one with pruning and the other without. Results showed that pruned okra plants
exhibited superior growth and yielded more fresh fruit compared to their unpruned
counterparts. Pruning significantly impacted the growth and yield of okra. Despite
causing a delay in flowering, pruning was found to enhance the overall yield of okra.
Consequently, based on these findings, pruning is recommended as a beneficial practice
for boosting okra productivity in the study area.

7
Effect of Pinching Treatments on Growth Flowering and Yield of Okra
A study conducted by Sahu and Biswal (2017), the effects of 4 pinching
treatments i.e. terminal bud pinching; Terminal bud along with one leaf pinching;
terminal bud along with two leaf pinching and no pinch on growth and flowering
characters of okra. The results obtained in the present investigation indicated that, the
growth parameters in terms of height of plant was recorded maximum in un pinched
plant, whereas, the maximum number of leaves and number of branches were recorded
with terminal bud pinching. As regards to yield parameters, the same pinching treatment
recorded significant higher values for number of fruits per plant; fruit weight per plant;
fruit girth; no. of seeds per fruit and ultimately yield per plot compared to plant pinched
with one terminal bud along with two leaf and un pinched plant.
8
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Research locale
The study was conducted on a 300 sqm area at upper Lamac, Nalhub, Dalaguete,
Cebu (Fig. 1). It is approximately 1hr 26 min (43.8 km) from Argao, Cebu. It estimated
at 9.7652 degrees north latitude, 123.4552 degrees east longitude and 688.5 meters or
2,258.8 feet above mean sea level with an average temperature of 22-degree Celcius with
precipitation of 10%. And has a Type 3 Climate, Dry during December to May and wet
in the rest of the year.
Legend: Cebu Province
Figure 1. Map of Nalhub, Dalaguete showing the barangay administrative borders

9
Experimental Design and Lay-out
The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD)
with four treatments and three replications, utilizing an area of 300 m2. Each replication
was divided into 12 plots, each measuring 20 sqm, with a total of 80 hills per plot planted
at a distance of 50cm x 50cm. Alleyways of 1m each between treatment and replication
plots were provided to facilitate farm operation and management, as well as data
gathering, treatments are as follows:
T1- Control (No Pruning)
T2- Apical Bud pinching only
T3 - Four Leaves only
T4 - Apical bud pinching+ Four Leaves only
R1 R2 R3
T2 T4 T3
T1 T2 T1
T4 T3 T2
T3 T1 T4
Figure 2. Experimental layout of the study

10
Seed Preparation
The okra seeds were soaked in lukewarm water for 8-10 hours to increase the
germination chances of the seeds. The seeds were directly sown in the field, with one
seed planted per hill at intervals of 50 cm x 50 cm. Each seed was sown at a depth of one
inch.
Application of Treatments
Okra leaf was pruned at 30 days after sowing leaving few leaves. 2-3 leaves
removal was according to Sahu et. al, 2017 at 30 days after sowing. While removing
the apical bud was done also at 30 days after sowing. Okra plants were pinched
manually by removing the apical shoots at 30 days after seed sowing (El-
Rahman,2016) (Plate 3).
Cultural Management
To ensure the study was conducted properly and concisely, the following cultural
management practices were implemented:
1. Land Preparation
Plowing was initially performed, followed by tilling to prepare the area after it
was cleaned. After plowing, the researchers created twelve plots for each replication.
Alleyways were established to serve as pathways for easier management and data
gathering (Plate 1).

11
2. Weeding and Cultivation
Weeding and cultivation were meticulously carried out to ensure the area
remained free of undesirable weeds. This maintenance activity was performed once a
week, diligently removing any expanding weeds that appeared in all the plots. This was
to prevent the weeds from competing with the okra plants for essential nutrients, water,
and sunlight (Plate 5).
3. Fertility Management
Fertilization of okra was conducted twice: first during the growth stage and
again during the reproductive stage. The fertilizer was applied using the side dressing
method, with the application rates determined based on the recommended results of soil
analysis (Plate 10).
4. Pest Management
Visible insect and pest in the area was manually remove by hand picking.
5. Harvesting
The okra was harvested every after 2 days and when the fruit is 2 to 4 inches
long; these appear about 2 months after planting. The harvesting was terminated after the
10th harvest (Plate 6).

12
Data Gathered
Data was taken from ten (10) sample plants from each treatment plot. The main
parameters of the study which are as follows:
Growth Characteristics
1. Plant Height. Plant height was assessed using a meter stick. This measurement
process began 37 days after sowing (DAS) and continued on a weekly basis. Each week,
the height of the okra plants was recorded to monitor their growth progression
systematically.
2. Length of Leaves. was measured to determine if pruning had an effect on leaf growth.
This was done using a meter stick. The gathering was done by measuring one leaf only
and was replaced by another leaf after one week. It was measured from the tip of the
lamina to the base of petiole (Fig. 3).
©Gemini.ai
Figure 3. Leaf length

13
3. Width of Leaves. The measurement was done in one leaf only and was replaced by
another leaf after a week. It was done by laying down the meter stick horizontally
measuring the end to end of okra leaves (Fig. 4).
WIDTH
©Gemini.ai
Figure 4. Leaf width
Yield and Yield Components
1. Number of fruits per Plant. It was determined after 51 days after sowing
(DAS) and was done by counting off the number of fruits in a plant in every sample each
treatment replications.
2. Number of fruits per Treatment plot. This was done by counting the total
harvested fruits each treatment manually.

14
3. Weight of fruits per treatment plot. This was done by gathering all the
harvested fruits per treatment plot. A digital scale was used for precise measurements,
ensuring the reliability of the data collected.
4. Average weight of marketable fruits. This was done by collecting the
weight of all okra fruit per plant sample.
5. Length of fruits. The measurement of okra fruits was conducted using a ruler.
6. Total Yield. The total yield was determined by summing all the collected
weight of marketable fruits in each treatment replications.
Return of Investment
This was ascertained by keeping track of every expense incurred during the
course of the study, from the preparation of the land to harvesting. The fruit yield of each
plot was multiplied by the current okra price to determine the gross return. While return
on investments is calculated by dividing net revenue by the calculated total investments
and multiplying the result by 100, net profit is calculated by deducting the total expenses
in each plot from the gross income.

15
Statistical Analysis
The statistical method that was employed in this study to examine the variations
in group means in the sample plants was the analysis of variance (ANOVA). The Least
Significance Difference (LSD) was used to assess the significant differences between the
treatment means if the ANOVA computation yields findings that are significant at 5%
probability.
16
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
General Observations
The application of pruning has influenced the growth and yield of okra. The study
showed that the different treatments applied has significantly enhance the plant height in
terms of growth, though the treatments had a minimal effect to the leaf width and length.
While in yield, pruning surpasses the control group in terms of number of fruits per plant
and number of fruits per treatment. Pruning also shows notable increase in terms of fruits
weight. Overall, the study had showed that application of pruning can increase the
performance of Okra.
In this chapter, the data gathered was organized and compiled into tables, and
conducted statistical analysis to create conclusions scientifically.
Growth Performance
The graph below shows the effect of different pruning techniques on the height of
Okra. In the 37 days after sowing (DAS), an intriguing pattern emerged in the growth of
various treatments. Notably, both the control group (referred to as treatment 1) and
treatment 3 (Four Leaves Only) exhibited the most robust growth, boasting an average
height of 20cm. This height surpassed the average heights recorded for treatments 2
(Apical Bud Pinching) and 4 (Apical Bud Pinching+ Four Leaves Only), which stood at a
more modest 18cm. As the observation period progressed to day 44, treatment 3
continued to stand out, reaching an impressive average height of 28cm. In contrast,
treatment 1 experienced a slightly slower growth trajectory, achieving an average height

17
of 24cm, while treatment 2 lagged behind with a mean height of only 20cm. Subsequent
observations at 51 and 58 days after sowing consistently revealed treatment 3
maintaining its lead in average height, closely followed by treatment 1. However, the
most striking divergence in growth trajectories occurred by day 65. Treatment 3 surged
ahead with a remarkable average height of 56cm, significantly surpassing all other
treatments. Meanwhile, treatments 4 and 2 trailed behind with notably lower average
heights, both registering at a mere 27cm. The consistent upward trajectory observed in
treatment 3's growth over time, suggesting a robust response to the experimental
conditions. According to Rajappa et al. (2020), Pruning the leaves of the okra plant
(Abelmoschus esculentus L.) revealed that the maximum plant height was observed in the
Okra variety Akola Bahar. Treatment 1 also displayed a consistent although slightly
slower growth pattern, while treatments 2 and 4 exhibited more stagnant growth trends.
Apical debudding, as a practice, effectively reduces the height of the plant, resulting in
the stunting of okra growth (Rajappa et al., 2020).
Figure 5. Plant height of Okra as affected by different pruning techniques

18
Figure 4 shows the effect of the different treatment to the leaf length of okra.
Initially, in week 1, no significant differences were observed among treatments,
suggesting that the initial growth stage was relatively uniform across all experimental
conditions. However, as the experiment progressed, distinct patterns emerged. In week 2,
however, significant differences were shown among treatments, with apical bud pinching
(T2) and apical bud pinching + four leaves only(T4) showing the highest mean leaf
length (20cm). While in week 3 to week5, T1 and T3 maintains its higher mean length
compared to the control (T1) and four leaves only(T3). Overall, though T2 and T4 shows
higher mean length compared to T1 and T3, the effect of treatments has a less
pronounced differences which may have been affected by different factors such as the
wrong data gathering and treatment application, the data gathering should have been
done in all leaves acquiring all the leaf length and then divide it to gain the average.
According to Darren et al. (2020) the proper way of collecting data should be applied to
avoid lapses in the data.
Figure 6. Leaf length as affected by different pruning techniques

19
The graph below shows the effect of different pruning techniques on the leaf
width of okra. In 37 DAS, T3 and T2 shows wider leaf width with a mean of 21cm
showing that there is significant difference compared to T4 and T1. In 44 DAS, all
treatments had the same leaf width mean of 24 cm. But during 51 DAS, T2 and T4 has
the highest mean in leaf width and the it continues to 58 DAS which still had the same
leaf width mean of 30cm (T2, T4) and 29cm (T1, T3). On the other hand, all treatments
don’t have any significant difference during 65 DAS, the data showed that all treatment
had the same leaf width mean. The trend shows that overtime T4 gradually increase the
leaf width of okra. However, there are practices that may have been affected the data
specially in data gathering. The wrong practice of data gathering by the researcher causes
a biased result. The data gathering should have been done in all leaves determining all the
leaves width and then divide it to gain the average width. The researcher only uses one
leaves in every sample which is not the proper way of acquiring data.
Figure 7. Leaf Width as affected by different pruning techniques

20
Yield Performance
The graph depicts the trend of number of fruits per plant across different
treatments at various days after sowing (DAS), providing insights into the impact of
different experimental conditions on fruit production over time. Notably, Treatment 3,
where only four leaves only, consistently demonstrated the highest number of fruits per
plant across all observation periods. This consistent trend suggests that reducing the
number of leaves on the plant significantly enhances fruit production. Conversely, the
control group (Treatment 1) consistently exhibited the lowest number of fruits per plant,
indicating that without any experimental manipulation, fruit production remained
relatively low. Moreover, Treatment 2, involving apical bud pinching, generally showed
a moderate effect on fruit production compared to the control group. While it did not
consistently outperform the control, it demonstrated some improvement in fruit yield,
especially in the later observation periods. This suggests that apical bud pinching might
have a delayed but notable impact on fruit production, possibly influencing plant
development in ways that become more apparent as the plants mature. Treatment 4,
which combined apical bud pinching with leaf reduction, exhibited mixed results. While
it did not consistently outperform Treatment 1 or Treatment 3, it occasionally displayed
higher fruit yields, particularly in the later observation periods. However, the graph
shows that Treatment 3 shows significant difference among all treatments and had the
highest no. of fruits mean (4.17) during 79 DAS. According to Olasantan etal. (2007),
Pruning significantly increased the number of fruits/plant by 10–40% and fruit yield by
9–36% more than the control plants which had neither apical bud removal nor pruning.
21
Figure 8. No. of Fruits per Plant as affected by different pruning techniques
The data on fruit length per plant across various treatments and days after sowing
(DAS) reveals significant differences in the effects of each treatment over time. Initially,
at 51 DAS, Treatment 3 (Four Leaves Only) showed the highest average fruit length at 11
cm, while the other treatments exhibited shorter fruit lengths ranging from 9 to 10 cm. By
58 DAS, the trend shifts dramatically, with Treatments 2 (Apical Bud Pinching), 3 (Four
Leaves Only), and 4 (Apical Bud Pinching + Four Leaves Only) all achieving the same
highest average fruit length of 16 cm, significantly outperforming the control group (15
cm). This convergence suggests that apical bud pinching and its combination with leaf
retention can significantly enhance fruit growth in the mid-growth stages. Moving to 65
DAS, Treatment 2 continues to lead with an average fruit length of 17 cm, maintaining a
statistically significant advantage over other treatments. Treatment 4 follows with 16 cm,
while Treatment 3 sees a decline to 15 cm, and the control remains stable at 16 cm. These
results indicate that apical bud pinching alone (Treatment 2) consistently promotes
22
superior fruit length compared to other treatments, highlighting its effectiveness during
this critical growth phase. At 72 DAS, the trend of Treatment 2's dominance persists with
an average fruit length of 16 cm, equaled only by the control group. Treatments 3 and 4
both average 15 cm, suggesting a plateau or slight reduction in effectiveness for these
methods over time. Treatment 3's earlier advantage in fruit length does not persist into
later stages, indicating that its benefits might be short-term. By the final observation at 79
DAS, Treatment 4 (Apical Bud Pinching + Four Leaves Only) reaches the highest
average fruit length of 17 cm, demonstrating a significant recovery and surpassing the
control and other treatments. Treatment 2 and the control both average 16 cm, while
Treatment 3 falls to 15 cm. This trend indicates that while single methods may show
early promise, combining techniques can yield the most substantial long-term benefits in
fruit development. According to Ayub et al. (2023) fruit length was also exaggerated by
pruning; a maximum fruit length was noted in terminal bud pruning, whereas the
minimum was observed in no pruning.
Figure 9. Fruit Length per Plant as affected by different pruning techniques

23
The graph on the average weight of marketable fruits per plant across different
treatments and days after sowing (DAS) reveals significant differences and trends over
time. Initially, at 51 DAS, Treatment 2 (Apical Bud Pinching) shows the highest average
fruit weight at 13g, significantly outperforming the other treatments. The control group
(Treatment 1) and Treatment 4 (Apical Bud Pinching + Four Leaves Only) both have an
average weight of 11g, while Treatment 3 (Four Leaves Only) lags behind with only 7g.
By 58 DAS, the trend changes with Treatments 1, 2, and 4 all achieving the same highest
average fruit weight of 15g, significantly outperforming Treatment 3, which has an
average weight of 13g. The treatments increase in average weight of fruits may have
been due to the application of fertilizer which was applied during 55 DAS. According to
University of Minnesota Extension (2021) The effect of urea in plants can occur in two to
four days and happens more quickly on high pH soils. In 65 DAS, all treatments show
similar average fruit weights of 12cm for Treatments 1, 2, and 4, and 11cm for Treatment
3. By 72 DAS, Treatments 1, 2, and 4 maintain their lead with average weights of 11
units, while Treatment 3 remains lower at 8.33g. Finally, at 79 DAS, Treatments 1 and 2
continue to lead with average fruit weights of 12g, while Treatment 4 has a slight drop to
11g, and Treatment 3 remains the lowest at 9g. This consistent trend underscores the
effectiveness of apical bud pinching, either alone or combined with leaf reduction, in
promoting higher fruit weights. The lower performance of Treatment 3 highlights that
reducing the number of leaves alone is less effective in enhancing fruit weight, possibly
due to reduced physiological changes. This convergence in fruit weights indicates that
the initial advantages of specific treatments may diminish over time, possibly due to the
24
plants fruit reaching a phase where genetic and environmental factors dominated growth
(Singh et al. 2020}.
Figure 10. Average Weight of Marketable Fruits as affected by different pruning
techniques
The data on the number of fruits per treatment plot across various days after
sowing (DAS) provides significant insights into the effects of different treatments over
time. Initially, at 51 DAS, Treatment 3 (Four Leaves Only) shows the highest number of
fruits per plot at 0.15, significantly higher than the other treatments. Treatments 1
(Control), 2 (Apical Bud Pinching), and 4 (Apical Bud Pinching + Four Leaves Only) all
have similar and lower fruit counts of 0.12. By 53 DAS, Treatments 2 and 3 both exhibit
the highest number of fruits per plot, with values of 0.15 and 0.16, respectively,
indicating a significant increase in fruit count for these treatments compared to the
control and Treatment 4, both at 0.13. At 58 DAS, Treatment 3 maintains its lead with
the highest fruit count of 0.23, while the other treatments show lower counts with
25
Treatment 2 at 0.20 and Treatments 1 and 4 both at 0.19 and 0.20 respectively. By 72
DAS, the trends are consistent, with Treatment 3 continuing to outperform all other
treatments with a fruit count of 1.14, followed by the control and Treatment 4 at around
1.05 each. Finally, at 79 and 81 DAS, Treatment 3 continues to show the highest fruit
counts, with 1.67 and 1.68 respectively, far surpassing the other treatments. The control
group follows with counts of 1.31 and 1.41, while Treatments 2 and 4 show the lowest
counts, with Treatment 2 decreasing to 1.01 by 81 DAS. The overall trend demonstrates
that four leaves only consistently result in higher fruit counts, emphasizing its
effectiveness over both the control and other treatments. The combination of apical bud
pinching and four leaf only(Treatment 4) shows mixed results, suggesting that while each
method may have individual benefits, their combined application does not synergize as
effectively for fruit count. Trimming the leaves of okra plants has the potential to
enhance fruit yield by redirecting nutrients towards fruit development (Kyun et al. 2011).
Figure 11. No. of Fruits per Treatment Plot as affected by different pruning techniques
26
The data on the weight of fruits per treatment plot across various days after
sowing (DAS) reveals significant differences and trends among the four treatments.
Initially, at 51 DAS, Treatment 2 (Four Leaves Only) shows the highest fruit weight of
176g, significantly outperforming the other treatments. Treatment 1 (Apical Bud
Pinching) and Treatment 4 (Apical Bud Pinching + Four Leaves Only) follow with
weights of 149g and 151g, respectively, while the control group (Treatment 0) lags
behind at 108g. This early observation suggests that retaining only four leaves is
particularly effective in enhancing fruit weight in the initial stages. By 53 DAS,
Treatment 2 continues to lead with a fruit weight of 186 units, while Treatments 1 and 4
have weights of 152g and 155g, respectively. The control group remains the lowest at
110g. This reinforces the initial trend that the strategy of four leaves only has a
substantial impact on increasing fruit weight early in the growth period, with apical bud
pinching alone or in combination with leaf retention also contributing positively but to a
lesser extent. At 58 DAS, the pattern remains consistent, with Treatment 2 showing the
highest fruit weight of 335g. The control group shows a significant increase to 324g,
narrowing the gap with the other treatments. By 72 DAS, Treatment 2 continues to
dominate with a fruit weight of 1428g, significantly higher than the other treatments. The
control group and Treatment 4 have weights of 1352g and 1339g, respectively, with
Treatment 1 slightly behind at 1313g. Finally, at 79 and 81 DAS, Treatment 2 shows a
substantial lead with weights of 3475g and 3513g, respectively. The control group
follows with 2730g and 2938g, while Treatments 1 and 4 show the lowest weights, with
Treatment 1 decreasing to 2108g by 81 DAS. This trend underscores the long-term
effectiveness of the four leaves only treatment in maximizing fruit weight, this may be
27
also because of the increase of fruits per treatment plot though T3 has a less average
weight per fruits but it has higher yield in terms of no. of fruits. According to Wenyonu
et al. (2012), scientific research has shown that pruning the leaves of okra (Abelmoschus
esculentus L.) can enhance the total yield per hectare. This practice has been observed to
promote better fruit development and overall plant health, potentially increasing the
productivity of okra cultivation. According to Oyewole (2019), Pruning away some of
this green tissue, plants can send more energy to the production of the fruiting portions of
plants. As more energy is sent in the flowers, fruits, and buds, their growth increases.
This process is known as pruning for bigger yields. Another benefit of pruning is
increased plant health. The increase of fruits per treatment and plant height may also
have been associated by the application of fertilizer which was done during the early
stage of flowering and fruiting.
Figure 12. Fruit Weight per Treatment Plot as affected by different pruning techniques
28
The table below shows the total yield of okra per hectare. The data shows that
there is significant difference among treatments. T3 with application of four leaves only
has the highest total yield per hectare with a mean of 361.70, which was higher than other
treatments. While T2 (Apical bud pinching) and T4 (Apical bud pinching + four leaves
only) shows lower yield compared to T1 (Control). Overall, the data suggest that T3(Four
leaves only) significantly improve the yield of okra.
Figure 13. Total Yield as affected by different pruning techniques
The table below shows the return on investment per treatment. The table shows
significant difference specially in T3. The treatment with the application of Four leaves
only(T3) had the highest return on investment mean . While the other treatment had a
lower ROI compared to T1 which is the control. This means that the application of Four
leaves only pruning will improve the return on investment.

29
Figure 14. Return on Investment as affected by different pruning techniques

30
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Conclusion
In conclusion, the study on the effect of pruning techniques on Okra growth and
yield revealed the following findings;
1. The treatment involving the application of apical bud pinching (T2) resulted in a
significant increase in fruit length. The study shows the effectiveness of apical
bud pinching in positively influencing the elongation of fruits.
2. While the treatment application of four leaves only (T3) has been shown to enhance
the Height of okra and also both the number and weight of fruits per treatment.
3. The treatment of four leaves only + apical bud pinching (T4) has been found to
improve the weight of Fruits per plant. This observation highlights the
effectiveness of both techniques in enhancing fruit weight, suggesting its potential
for optimizing okra cultivation practices.
4. The study also indicates that all treatments do not have a significant effect on the
length and width of leaves. This finding suggests that while the treatments
evaluated may influence other aspects of okra growth and yield, they do not
appear to impact leaf dimensions significantly.

31
Recommendation
Based on the research findings, the researchers recommend the following;
1. Okra should be pruned leaving four leaves only to achieve better yield in terms
weight and number of fruits.
2. The researchers also recommend the application of apical bud pinching (T1) and
apical bud pinching + four leaves only (T4) for enhancing fruit length. This
technique has been identified as particularly effective in promoting longer fruits,
thereby contributing to the overall quality and marketability of the okra produce.
3. Further studies focusing on the growth and yield of lateral buds in apical bud-
pinched okra are recommended.

32
LITERATURE CITED
Abd El-Rahm M. Abd El-Hameed, Dalia A.S. Nawar, A.A. Gad and A. Bardisi P.
(2016). Growth And Green Pods Yield of Okra Plants as Influenced by Plant
Spacing And Apical Bud Pinching. Zagazig Journal of Horticultural Science.
Zagazig J. Agric. Res., Vol. 43 No. (6A) 2016
Aguda, D.C., Adora J.C., Aguado K., C., Abaja, N.C. (2019). Music Stimulation to
The Growth And Quality Of Okra.Journal Of Multidisciplinary Research. Vol.
3 No. 2.
Aliyu, U.; Sukuni, M. And Abubakar, L. (2015). effect of pruning on growth and fresh
fruit yield of okra (abdmoschus esculentus (l./moench) in sokoto, nigeria. journal
of global biosciences issn 2320-1355,volume 4, number 7, 2015, pp. 2636-2640
All That Grows Blog. (2023). the ultimate guide to pruning vegetables and herbs in
india. by allthatgrowsblog. Retrieved from
https://www.allthatgrows.in/blogs/posts/pruning-vegetable-garden
Darren, G., Sivachandiran, S., Asharp, G. (2020). Effect of plant density and leaf
pruning on growth and yield performance of okra (Abelmochus
esculentus(L.)Moench) varieties. University of Ruhuna
Firoz, Z.A., Rashid, M.H., Huda, M.S. (2011). effect of alley size and hedgerow pruning
interval on phenology and yield of okra [abelmoschus esculentus (l.) moench] in
hill slope. bangladesh journal of agricultural research, 2011, vol.36, no. 1, 143-
150 ref.9
Gemede, F.H., Retta, N., Haki, G.D., Woldegiorgis, A.Z. (2015). Nutritional quality and
health benefits of “okra”(Abelmoschus esculentus): A review. International
journal of nutrition and food sciences 25(1):16-25
Firoz, Z.A., Nasiruddin, K.M., Mondal, M.F., Farooq, A.M. (2010). Growth and yield of
okra as influenced by hill elevation and plant detopping in hill slope condition.
Bangladesh journal of Agricultural Research,2010,vol.35, no.2, 355-358
Helgilibrary. (2022). Okra Production in Philippines. Retrieved from

https://www.helgilibrary.com/indicators/okra-
production/philippines/#:~:text=Okra%20production%20reached%2032%2C747
%20tonnes,of%2022%2C992%20tonnes%20in%202003.
Knoema. (2020). Southeast Asia - Area - Okra, by Knoema. Retrieved from

https://knoema.com/data/southeast-asia+agriculture-indicators-area+okra
33
Lenhof, R. (2021). Pruning Vegetables: What Plants to Prune and Which Ones Not To.
By House fur. Retrieved from https://housefur.com/pruning-vegetables-what-
plants-to-prune-and-which-ones-not-to/
Libby, G. (2019). PresyoMerkado: Okra, the superfood, by Cebudailynews. Retrieved

from https://cebudailynews.inquirer.net/265214/presyomerkado-okra-the-
superfood
Morato, P.R. (2020). Let’s talk about okra, by Philstar Global. Retrieved from
https://www.philstar.com/opinion/2020/10/02/2046544/lets-talk-about-okra
Nickelson, L. (2015). Prune Your Plants for Bigger Yields. By Tower Garden.
Retrieved from https://www.globalgarden.co/knowledge/pruning-for-bigger-
yields/
Olasantan, F.O. (2010). Effect of seasonal variation in rainfall and temperature on okra
response to sowing date in monoculture and mixture with cassava in south-
western Nigeria. (145). (2010). Tropical Agriculture, 87(4).
Olasantan, F.O., Salau, A.W. (2010). Effect on pruning on growth, leaf yield and pod
yields of okra (Abelmuschos esculentus (L) Moench). Cambridge university
press. pp. 93-102
Oyewole, C.L. (2019). Varying level and stage of leaf harvest implication for okra
(Abelmoschus esculentus L.). International journal of Agriculture and
Biosciences. P-ISSN:2305-6622
Priyanka, S., And Monalisha, B. (2017). Effect of Pinching Treatments on Growth

Flowering and Yield of Okra cv. Pusa A. Trends in Biosciences 10(17), Print :
ISSN 0974-8431, 3089-3092, 2017
Rajappa, M.R., Padma, M., Saidanaik, D. (2020). Effect Of Growth regulators and
Pruning on Growth and Flowering of Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.
Moench). International Journal Of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences,
vol.9,pg.330-343
Rosales, R., And Mamaril, H. J. (2018). Productivity of Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus

L. cv. Smooth Green) Using Application Frequency of Vermicompost Tea.
Journal of Research in Agricultural Sciences, Volume 5, Issue2.
Sahu,P., Biswal, M. (2017). Effect of pinching treatments on growth flowering and yield
of Okra cv. Pusa4. Orrisa University of Agriculture & Technology.10(17), ISSN
0974-8431,3089-3092
34
Schafleitner, R., Lin, C.-Y., Lin, Y.-P., Wu, T.-H., Hung, C.-H.,Phooi, C.-L., Chu, S.-
H.,Jhong, Y.-C., Hsioa, Y.-Y (2021). The World Vegetable Center Okra
(Abelmoschus Esculentus) Core Collection As A Source For Flooding Stress
Tolerance Traits For Breeding. Agriculture 2021, 11, 165
Seow, S. (2022). What Are Nightshade Vegetables—and Why Do They Get Such a Bad
Rap? by REALSIMPLE. Retrieved from
https://www.realsimple.com/health/nutrition-diet/what-are-nightshade-vegetables
Singh, K.H., Singh, K.M., Meraj, M.D. (2018). Growth and yield of okra [ abelmoschus
esculentus L. Moench]. Varieties on Farmer’s Field. International journal of
current microbiology and applied sciences. ISSN: 2319-7706 special issue-7
pp.1411-1417
Singh, N., Singh, D.K., Sati., U.C., Rawat, M., Pandey, P. (2020). Genetic Analysis
Studies in Okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench]. International Journal of
Pure and Applied Bioscience. 5 (4): 361-367 (2020)
Tababa, J. (2023). Four reasons you need to prune your plants. By Agriculture Special.
Retrieved from https://mb.com.ph/2023/4/6/four-reasons-you-need-to-prune-
your-plants
Tucalao, P. B. (2021) How to care for okra plants. By Agriculture Magazine. Retrieved
from http://www.geacindia.gov.in/resource-documents/biosafety-
regulations/resource-documents/Biology_of_Okra.pdf
University of Minnesota Extension. (2021). Fertilizer urea. Retrieved from,

https://extension.umn.edu/nitrogen/fertilizer-
urea#:~:text=If%20the%20soil%20is%20totally,quickly%20on%20high%20pH
%20soils.
Wenyonu, D.K., Norman, J.C, Amissah, N. (2012). Yield and yield components of okra
(Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench) as influenced by heading back and intra-
row spacing. Ghana Journal of Horticulture, 2012, Vol. 10, 13-26 ref. 13
35
APPENDIX A
36
Appendix A1. Operational definition of terms
Term Definition
Apical Bud The apical bud, also known as the terminal
bud, is the primary bud located at the tip of
a plant's stem or branch. It was the part been
removed or retained in the study.
Apical Bud Pinching Apical bud pinching involves the removal
or manual pinching off of the apical bud of
the plant.
Pruning The selective removal of plant parts,
including branches, buds, leaves, blooms,
and roots.
Okra Okra ( Abelmoschus esculentus L.) is a plant
belong to the mallows family. It is a green,
tubelike fruit with a mild, grassy flavor.

37
APPENDIX B
38
Appendix B1. Plant height (cm) of okra at 37 days after sowing
TREATMENT REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 20 20 20 60 20
T2= Apical Bud Pinching 18 18 18 54 18
T3= Four Leaves Only 20 20 20 60 20
T4= Apical Bud Pinching + 18 18 18 54 18
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 228
Grand Mean 19

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 25 25 24 73 24
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 284
Grand Mean 2

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 32 32 32 96 32
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 360
Grand Mean 30
39

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 43 42 43 128 43
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 431
Grand Mean 36

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 49 49 50 149 50
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 480
Grand Mean 40
Appendix B6. Leaf length (cm) of okra at 37 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 15 15 15 44 15
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 183
Grand Mean 15
40

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 19 19 19 57 19
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 234
Grand Mean 20

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 23 23 23 69 23
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 279
Grand Mean 23

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 23 24 24 71 24
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 288
Grand Mean 24
41

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 25 25 25 75 25
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 296
Grand Mean 25
Appendix B11. Leaf width of (okra) at 37 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 20 20 20 60 20
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 249
Grand Mean 21

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 24 24 24 72 24
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 287.4
Grand Mean 24
42
Appendix B13. Leaf width at 51 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 29 29 29 87 29
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 355
Grand Mean 30
Appendix B14. Leaf width at 58 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 29 29 29 87 29
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 357.7
Grand Mean 30

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 30 30 30 90 30
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 363
Grand Mean 30
43
Appendix B16. No. fruits per plant (okra) at 51 days after planting

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 0.9 1 0.8 2.7 0.9
T2= Apical Bud Pinching 0.7 0.7 0.8 2.2 0.73
T3= Four Leaves Only 2 1.9 2 5.9 1.96
T4= Apical Bud Pinching + 1 0.9 1 2.9 0.96
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 13.7
Grand Mean 1.13
Appendix B17. No. fruits per plant (okra) at 58 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 1.1 1.1 1.2 3.4 1.13
T3= Four Leaves Only 2 1.9 2.1 6 2
T4= Apical Bud Pinching + 1.7 1.6 1.7 5 1.66
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 19
Grand Mean 1.58
R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 2 2.2 1.9 6.1 2.03
T2= Apical Bud Pinching 2.1 1.9 2 6 2
T3= Four Leaves Only 2.5 2.4 2.5 7.4 2.46
T4= Apical Bud Pinching + 2.1 2.2 2 6.3 2.1
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 25.8
Grand Mean 2.14
44
R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 3 3.1 3.2 9.3 3.1
T2= Apical Bud Pinching 3 2.9 3 8.9 2.96
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 40.8
Grand Mean 3.39
R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 3.6 3.7 3.6 10.9 3.63
T2= Apical Bud Pinching 3 2.9 3.1 9 3
T3= Four Leaves Only 4 4.2 4.3 12.5 4.16
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 42.4
Grand Mean 3.53
Appendix B21. Fruit’s length (okra) at 51 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 9.7 9.6 8.4 27.7 9.23
T4= Apical Bud Pinching + 9.7 11.4 9.8 30.9 10.3
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 118.4
Grand Mean 9.86
45
Appendix B22. No. Fruit’s Length (Okra) at 58 Days After Sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 15 15.2 15.5 45.7 15.23
T3= Four Leaves Only 16.6 16.1 16.3 49 16.33
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 192.9
Grand Mean

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 16.7 16 15.9 48.6 16.2
T2= Apical Bud Pinching 17 16.8 17 50.8 16.93
T4= Apical Bud Pinching + 16 16.1 16 48.1 16.03
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 193.7
Grand Mean 16.14

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 15.2 15.3 15 45.5 15.16
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 183.1
Grand Mean 15.25
46
TREATMEN REPLICATION TOTAL MEAN

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 16.2 16 16 48.2 16.06
T3= Four Leaves Only 15.1 15 15.2 45.3 15.1
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 190.3
Grand Mean 15.85
Appendix B26. Average weight of marketable fruit at 51 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 12 10 10 28.5 9.5
T2= Apical Bud Pinching 13 13 12 27.8 9.26
T3= Four Leaves Only 7 7 6 38 12.66
T4= Apical Bud Pinching + 12 12 10 33.4 11.13
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 127.7
Grand Mean 10.63
Appendix B27. Average weight of marketable fruit at days 58 after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 15 15 14 44 15
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 170
Grand Mean 15
47

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 13 11 13 37 12
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 145
Grand Mean 12

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 11 11 10 32 11
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 120
Grand Mean 10
Appendix B30. Average weight of marketable fruits 79 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 10 11 10 31 10
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 124
Grand Mean 10
48
Appendix B31. No. of fruits per treatment plot at 51 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.35 0.12
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 1.5
Grand Mean 0.13

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 0.13 0.13 0.14 0.4 0.13
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 1.8
Grand Mean 0.14

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 0.2 0.18 0.2 0.58 0.19
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 2.47
Grand Mean 0.20
49

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 0.22 0.21 0.22 0.65 0.21
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 2.69
Grand Mean 0.22

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 0.52 0.5 0.48 1.5 0.5
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 6.06
Grand Mean 0.50

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 0.53 0.53 0.52 1.58 0.52
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 6.39
Grand Mean 0.52
50

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 1.06 1.03 1.07 3.16 1.05
T2= Apical Bud Pinching 1 1.03 1.02 3.05 1.01
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 12.74
Grand Mean 1.05

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 1.07 1.06 1.08 3.21 1.07
T2= Apical Bud Pinching 1 1.02 1 3.02 1
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 12.88
Grand Mean 1.07

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 1.27 1.3 1.36 3.93 1.31
T3= Four Leaves Only 1.65 1.68 1.67 5 1.66
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 15
Grand Mean 1.25
51

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 1.36 1.42 1.45 4.23 1.41
T4= Apical Bud Pinching + 0.98 1.02 1.01 3.01 1
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 15.32
Grand Mean 1.3
Appendix B41. Fruit’s weight per treatment plot (okra) at 51 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 110 109 105 324 108
T2= Apical Bud Pinching 150 151 148 449 149.66
T4= Apical Bud Pinching + 152 153 149 454 151.33
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 1755
Grand Mean 146.24

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 114 112 105 331 110.33
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 1813
Grand Mean 151.08
52
Appendix B43. Fruit’s weight of per treatment plot (okra) at 58 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 327 321 325 973 324.33
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 3949
Grand Mean 329.08

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 335 329 332 996 332
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 4041
Grand Mean 336.75
Appendix B45.Fruit’s weight per treatment plot (okra) at 65 days after sowing

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 519 510 508 1537 512.33
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 6255
Grand Mean 521.25
53

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 546 542 541 1629 543
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 6501
Grand Mean 541.75

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 1360 1328 1369 4057 1352.33
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 16299
Grand Mean 1358.25
R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 1376 1360 1392 4128 1376
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 16470
Grand Mean 1372.5
54

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 2652 2704 2834 8190 2730
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 31296
Grand Mean 2608

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 2834 2964 3016 8814 2938
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 31969
Grand Mean 2664
Appendix B51. Total Yield (kg/ha)

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 305.1 308.1 315.6 928.8 309.6
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 3606.9
Grand Mean 300.57
55
Appendix B52. Return on investment (%)

R1 R2 R3
T1= Control 38.11` 40 42.8 121 40.3
T2= Apical Bud Pinching 18.15 21 20.19 59.34 19.78
T4= Apical Bud Pinching + 19 23.5 20.2 63 20.90
Four Leaves Only
Grand Total 434.57
Grand Mean 36.18
56
APPENDIX C
57
Appendix C1. Analysis of variance on plant height of okra at 37 days after sowing
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr (> F)
replication 2 0.0717 0.0358 1.98 0.2180
treatment 3 13.3967 4.4656 247.32 ** 0.0000
Error 6 0.1083 0.0181
Total 11 13.5767
Grand Mean= 19, CV= 0.71%
** = Highly Significant
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
replication 2 0.1350 0.0675 1.09 0.3947
**
treatment 3 104.7933 34.9311 563.91 0.0000
Error 6 0.3717 0.0619
Total 11 105.3000
Grand Mean = 24, CV= 1.05%
**= Highly Significant
replication 2 0.0800 0.0400 1.12 0.3847
treatment 3 345.5267 115.1756 3239.31** 0.0000
Error 6 0.2133 0.0356
Total 11 345.8200
** =Highly Significant
replication 2 0.6817 0.3408 3.62 0.0931
treatment 3 1094.8700 364.9567 3875.65** 0.0000
Error 6 0.5650 0.0942
Total 11 1096.1167
58
replication 2 0.6717 0.3358 2.60 0.1537
**
treatment 3 2095.6425 698.5475 5408.11 0.0000
Error 6 0.7750 0.1292
Total 11 2097.0892
Appendix C6. Analysis of variance on leaf length of okra at 37 days after sowing
replication 2 1.5200 0.7600 1.05 0.4067
treatment 3 5.3133 1.7711 2.44ns 0.1619
Error 6 4.3467 0.7244
Total 11 11.1800
** = Not Significant
replication 2 0.0817 0.0408 3.77 0.0870
**
treatment 3 0.3425 0.1142 10.54 0.0083
Error 6 0.0650 0.0108
Total 11 0.4892
replication 2 0.3467 0.1733 1.64 0.2699
ns
treatment 3 0.6467 0.2156 2.04 0.2096
Error 6 0.6333 0.1056
Total 11 1.6267
Grand Mean = 23 CV= 1.40%
** =Not Significant
59
replication 2 0.0200 0.0100 0.09 0.9175
ns
treatment 3 1.1533 0.3844 3.36 0.0964
Error 6 0.6867 0.1144
Total 11 1.8600
**= Not Significant
replication 2 0.2150 0.1075 0.69 0.5385
ns
treatment 3 1.8067 0.6022 3.85 0.0753
Error 6 0.9383 0.1564
Total 11 2.9600
**= Not Significant
Appendix C11. Analysis of variance on leaf width of okra at 37 days after sowing
replication 2 0.1250 0.0625 2.92 0.1300
treatment 3 1.6092 0.5364 25.08** 0.0009
Error 6 0.1283 0.0214
Total 11 1.8625
Grand Mean= 21, CV= 0.70%
replication 2 0.2067 0.1033 1.37 0.3241
treatment 3 0.7092 0.2364 3.13ns 0.1090
Error 6 0.4533 0.0756
Total 11 1.3692
60
replication 2 0.0800 0.0400 0.17 0.8451
treatment 3 3.9133 1.3044 5.64* 0.0351
Error 6 1.3867 0.2311
Total 11 5.3800
*= Significant
replication 2 0.2017 0.1008 0.46 0.6498
treatment 3 3.8025 1.2675 5.83* 0.0328
Error 6 1.3050 0.2175
Total 11 5.3092
Grand Mean = 30, CV=1.56%
*= Significant
replication 2 0.4317 0.2158 0.62 0.5691
treatment 3 3.1292 1.0431 3.00ns 0.1172
Error 6 2.0883 0.3481
Total 11 5.6492
**=Not Significant
Appendix C16. Analysis of variance on fruits per plant of okra at 51 days after
sowing
replication 2 0.0017 0.0008 0.13 0.8801
treatment 3 2.8092 0.9364 146.57** 0.0000
Error 6 0.0383 0.0064
Total 11 2.8492
Grand Mean = 1.14, CV= 7.00%
61
sowing
replication 2 0.0117 0.0058 1.24 0.3554
treatment 3 1.1567 0.3856 81.65** 0.0000
Error 6 0.0283 0.0047
Total 11 1.1967
Grand Mean = 1.58, CV= 4.34%
** = Highly significant
sowing
replication 2 0.0150 0.0075 0.57 0.5912
treatment 3 0.4167 0.1389 10.64** 0.0081
Error 6 0.0783 0.0131
Total 11 0.5100
Grand Mean = 2.15, CV= 5.31%
sowing
replication 2 0.0450 0.0225 3.86 0.0837
**
treatment 3 1.7000 0.5667 97.14 0.0000
Error 6 0.0350 0.0058
Total 11 1.7800
Grand Mean = 3.40, CV= 2.25%
**=Highly Significant
sowing
replication 2 0.0017 0.0008 0.04 0.9589
**
treatment 3 2.2067 0.7356 37.30 0.0003
Error 6 0.1183 0.0197
Total 11 2.3267
Grand Mean = 3.53, CV= 3.97%
62
Appendix C21. Analysis of variance on fruit’s length at 51 days after sowing

replication 2 2.9867 1.4933 3.84 0.0844
treatment 3 3.9867 1.3289 3.42ns 0.0935
Error 6 2.3333 0.3889
Total 11 9.3067
Grand Mean = 9.87, CV = 6.32%

replication 2 0.0150 0.0075 0.14 0.8734
treatment 3 2.8625 0.9542 17.62** 0.0022
Error 6 0.3250 0.0542
Total 11 3.2025
Grand Mean = 16.07, CV= 1.45%

replication 2 0.0217 0.0108 0.12 0.8871
treatment 3 3.5758 1.1919 13.45** 0.0045
Error 6 0.5317 0.0886
Total 11 4.1292
Grand Mean = 16.14, CV= 1.84%

replication 2 0.3817 0.1908 25.44 0.0012
treatment 3 0.4200 0.1400 18.67** 0.0019
Error 6 0.0450 0.0075
Total 11 0.8467
Grand Mean = 15.27, CV = 0.5673%
63

replication 2 0.0867 0.0433 4.87 0.0553
treatment 3 3.8092 1.2697 142.84** 0.0000
Error 6 0.0533 0.0089
Total 11 3.9492
Grand mean = 15.86, CV= 0.5945%
Appendix C26. Analysis of variance on average weight of marketable fruit at 51
days after sowing
replication 2 4.6667 2.3333 7.00 0.0270
treatment 3 60.0000 20.0000 60.00** 0.0001
Error 6 2.0000 0.3333
Total 11 66.6667
Grand mean = 10.33, CV= 5.59%

days after sowing
replication 2 0.1667 0.0833 0.20 0.8240
treatment 3 9.0000 3.0000 7.20* 0.0206
Error 6 2.5000 0.4167
Total 11 11.6667
Grand mean = 15, CV= 2.56%
*= Significant
days after sowing
replication 2 1.1667 0.5833 1.24 0.3554
treatment 3 4.9167 1.6389 3.47ns 0.0910
Error 6 2.8333 0.4722
Total 11 8.9167
**= Not Significant
64

days after sowing
replication 2 0.5000 0.2500 0.53 0.6141
treatment 3 12.6667 4.2222 8.94* 0.0124
Error 6 2.8333 0.4722
Total 11 16.0000
*= Significant

days after sowing
replication 2 2.1667 1.0833 2.05 0.2093
treatment 3 16.3333 5.4444 10.32** 0.0088
Error 6 3.1667 0.5278
Total 11 21.6667
Appendix C31. Analysis of variance on no. of fruits per treatment plot at 51 days
after sowing
replication 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.00 1.0000
treatment 3 0.0019 0.0006 19.00** 0.0018
Error 6 0.0002 0.0000
Total 11 0.0021
Grand mean = 0.1250, CV=4.62%
65
after sowing
replication 2 0.0000 0.0000 0.27 0.7703
treatment 3 0.0013 0.0004 13.82** 0.0042
Error 6 0.0002 0.0000
Total 11 0.0015
Grand mean = 0.1433, CV= 3.86%
after sowing
replication 2 0.0003 0.0001 1.50 0.2963
treatment 3 0.0025 0.0008 9.34* 0.0112
Error 6 0.0005 0.0001
Total 11 0.0033
Grand mean = 0.2058, CV= 4.58%
*= Significant
after sowing
replication 2 0.0008 0.0004 1.24 0.3554
treatment 3 0.0053 0.0018 5.34* 0.0395
Error 6 0.0020 0.0003
Total 11 0.0081
Grand mean = 0.2242, CV= 8.11%
*= Significant
66
after sowing
replication 2 0.0011 0.0005 2.91 0.1310
treatment 3 0.0046 0.0015 8.43* 0.0143
Error 6 0.0011 0.0002
Total 11 0.0067
Grand mean = 0.5050, CV= 2.66%
*= Significant
after sowing
replication 2 0.0006 0.0003 0.66 0.5502
*
treatment 3 0.0084 0.0028 5.71 0.0342
Error 6 0.0029 0.0005
Total 11 0.0120
Grand mean = 0.5325, CV= 4.16%
*= Significant
after sowing
replication 2 0.0018 0.0009 0.74 0.5169
treatment 3 0.0246 0.0082 6.65* 0.0245
Error 6 0.0074 0.0012
Total 11 0.0338
Grand mean = 1.06, CV= 3.30%
*= Significant
67
after sowing
replication 2 0.0010 0.0005 0.60 0.5806
treatment 3 0.0435 0.0145 17.02** 0.0024
Error 6 0.0051 0.0009
Total 11 0.0497
Grand mean = 1.07, CV= 2.72%
after sowing
replication 2 0.0056 0.0028 9.34 0.0144
treatment 3 0.8753 0.2918 981.61** 0.0000
Error 6 0.0018 0.0003
Total 11 0.8826
Grand mean = 1.25, CV= 1.38%
after sowing
replication 2 0.0043 0.0021 5.65 0.0418
treatment 3 0.9869 0.3290 870.82** 0.0000
Error 6 0.0023 0.0004
Total 11 0.9935
Grand mean = 1.28, CV= 1.52%
68
Appendix C41. Analysis of variance on fruit’s weight per treatment plot at 51 days
after sowing
replication 2 24.5000 12.2500 1.25 0.3519
treatment 3 7156.9167 2385.6389 243.29* 0.0000
Error 6 58.8333 9.8056
Total 11 7240.2500
Grand mean = 146.25, CV= 2.14%
*= Significant
Appendix C42. Analysis of variance on fruit’s weight per treatment at 53 days

after sowing
replication 2 54.1667 27.0833 1.62 0.2744
treatment 3 8826.2500 2942.0833 175.65** 0.0000
Error 6 100.5000 16.7500
Total 11 8980.9167
Grand mean = 151.08, CV= 2.71%
after sowing
replication 2 44.6667 22.3333 6.09 0.0359
treatment 3 204.2500 68.0833 18.57** 0.0019
Error 6 22.0000 3.6667
Total 11 270.9167
Grand mean = 329.08, CV= 0.5819%
69
after sowing
replication 2 38.0000 19.0000 1.74 0.2527
treatment 3 982.9167 327.6389 30.09** 0.0005
Error 6 65.3333 10.8889
Total 11 1086.2500
Grand mean = 336.75, CV= 0.9799%
after sowing
replication 2 138.5000 69.2500 0.63 0.5648
treatment 3 2531.5833 843.8611 7.67* 0.0178
Error 6 660.1667 110.0278
Total 11 3330.2500
Grand mean = 521.25, CV= 2.01%
*= Significant
after sowing
replication 2 18.0000 9.0000 0.42 0.6739
treatment 3 494.2500 164.7500 7.72* 0.0175
Error 6 128.0000 21.3333
Total 11 640.2500
Grand mean = 541.75, CV= 0.8526%
*= Significant
70
after sowing
replication 2 2701.5000 1350.7500 0.75 0.5124
treatment 3 22056.2500 7352.0833 4.08ns 0.0676
Error 6 10820.5000 1803.4167
Total 11 35578.2500
Grand mean = 1358.25, CV= 3.13%
**= Not Significant
after sowing
replication 2 4802.0000 2401.0000 1.30 0.3405
treatment 3 81981.6667 27327.2222 14.75** 0.0036
Error 6 11115.3333 1852.5556
Total 11 97899.0000
Grand mean = 1372.50, CV= 3.14%
after sowing
replication 2 24986.0000 12493.0000 9.91 0.0126
treatment 3 3777400.0000 1259133.3333 998.52 ** 0.0000
Error 6 7566.0000 1261.0000
Total 11 3809952.0000
Grand mean = 2607, CV= 1.36%
71
after sowing
replication 2 19905.1667 9952.5833 7.65 0.0223
treatment 3 4278372.2500 1426124.0833 1096.81** 0.0000
Error 6 7801.5000 1300.2500
Total 11 4306078.9167
Grand mean = 2664.08, CV= 1.35%
Appendix C51. Analysis of variance on total yield of okra (kg/ha)

replication 2 80.6550 40.3275 3.86 0.0836
treatment 3 18843.3225 6281.1075 601.21** 0.0000
Error 6 62.6850 10.4475
Total 11 18986.6625
Grand mean = 300.57, CV= 1.08%
Appendix C52. Analysis of variance on return on investment

replication 2 17.0735 8.5368 4.74 0.0582
treatment 3 3837.5328 1279.1776 710.18** 0.0000
Error 6 10.8072 1.8012
Total 11 3865.4136
Grand mean = 36.18, CV= 3.71%
72
APPENDIX D
73
Appendix D1. Least significant difference test of plant height at 37 days after
sowing
Treatment means N Group

1-Control (no pruning) 19.73 3 a
2- Apical bud pinching 17.87 3 b
3- Four leaves only 20.00 3 a
4- Apical bud pinching + four leaves only 17.67 3 B
Alpha: 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom: 6
Error Mean Square: 0.0181
Critical Value: 2.4469
Test Statistics: 0.2685
sowing
Treatment Means N Group

1-Control (no pruning) 24.27 3 b
2- Apical bud pinching 19.53 3 d
4- Apical bud pinching + four leaves only 23.03 3 c
Alpha: 0.5
sowing

Alpha: 0.05
74
sowing

Alpha: 0.05
sowing

Alpha: 0.05
Appendix D6. Least significant difference test of leaf length at 44 days after
sowing

2- Apical bud pinching 19.97 3 a
3- Four leaves only 19.73 3 b
4- Apical bud pinching + four leaves only 19.97 3 a
Alpha: 0.05
75
Appendix D7. Least significant difference test of leaf width at 37 days after sowing

1-Control (no pruning) 20.47 3 c
Alpha: 0.05

4- Apical bud pinching + four leaves only 29.73 3 ab
Alpha: 0.05

Alpha: 0.05
76
Appendix D10. Least significant difference test of no. of fruits of okra per plant at
51 days after sowing

2- Apical bud pinching 0.73 3 c
4- Apical bud pinching + four leaves only 0.97 3 b
Alpha: 0.05

Alpha: 0.05

Alpha: 0.05
77

Alpha: 0.05

Alpha: 0.05
Appendix D15. Least significant difference test of fruit’s length at 58 days after
sowing

Alpha: 0.05
78
sowing

3- Four leaves only 15.40 3 c
Alpha: 0.05
sowing

1-Control (no pruning) 15.17 3 bc
Alpha: 0.05
sowing

3- Four leaves only 15.10 3 d
Alpha: 0.05
79
Appendix D19. Least significant difference test of average weight of marketable

fruits at 51 days after sowing

Alpha: 0.05


Alpha: 0.05


Alpha: 0.05
80


Alpha: 0.05
Appendix D23. Least significant difference test of no. of fruits per treatment plot at

Alpha: 0.05

Alpha: 0.05
81

Alpha: 0.05

Alpha: 0.05
eatment means N Group
Alpha: 0.05
82

Alpha: 0.05

Alpha: 0.05

4- Apical bud pinching + four leaves only 1.05 3 bc
Alpha: 0.05
83

4- Apical bud pinching + four leaves only 0.99 3 d
Alpha: 0.05

Alpha: 0.05
Appendix D33. Least significant difference test of fruit’s weight per treatment plot
at 51 days after sowing

Alpha: 0.05
84

Alpha: 0.05

Alpha: 0.05

Alpha: 0.05
85

1-Control (no pruning) 512.33 3 bc
Alpha: 0.06

1-Control (no pruning) 543 3 a
2- Apical bud pinching 532 3 b
3- Four leaves only 550 3 a
4- Apical bud pinching + four leaves only 542 3 a
Alpha: 0.05

1-Control (no pruning) 1376 3 b
2- Apical bud pinching 1269 3 c
Alpha: 0.05
86

4- Apical bud pinching + four leaves only 2077.33 3 d
Alpha: 0.05

2- Apical bud pinching 2108 3 c
3- Four leaves only 3513 3 a
Alpha: 0.05
Appendix D42. Least significant difference test of total yield per hectare

Alpha: 0.05
87
Appendix D43. Least significant difference test on return on investment

Alpha: 0.05
88
APPENDIX E
89
Appendix E1. Return on investment of T1R1 (control)

ITEMS Quantity Unit Unit Total Cost
Price (Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
Labor Cost
1. Land Preparation
Clearing the Area 2 MD 320 640
Plotting and Ditching 2 MD 320 640
Fertilizer Application 2 MD 320 640
2. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
3. Care and Maintenance
Weeding, Pruning, Watering 2 MD 320 640
4. Harvesting 2 MD 320 640
Sub-Total 4,000
A. Material Cost
1. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 720
2. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Tools And Equipment 4000
Sub - Total 4000
B. Miscellaneous
1. Plastic Straw 1 1kg 120 120
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 9,220
Contingency Fund (15% of 1,383
Variable Cost)
Total Cost Of Production 10,603
Gross Income 305.1 48 14,644.8
Net Income 4,041.8
ROI 38.11%
90

Price (Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
A. Labor Cost
1. Land Preparation
2. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
Sub-Total 4,000
B. Material Cost
1. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 720
2. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Tools And Equipment 4,000
Sub - Total 4,000
C. Miscellaneous
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 9,220
Variable Cost)
Gross Income 308.1 48 14,788.8
Net Income 4,185.8
ROI 40%
91

Price (Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
A. Labor Cost
1. Land Preparation
2. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
Sub-Total 4,000
B. Material Cost
1. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 720
2. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Tools And Equipment 4000
Sub - Total 4,000
C. Miscellaneous
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 9,220
Contingency Fund (15% of 1.383
Variable Cost)
Gross Income 315.6 48 15,148.8
Net Income 4,545.8
ROI 42.8%
92
Appendix E4. Return on investment of T2R1 (apical bud pinching)

Price (Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
A. Labor Cost
1. Land Preparation
2. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
Sub-Total 4,000
B. Material Cost
1. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 720
2. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Sub – Total 4,000
C. Miscellaneous
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 9,220
Variable Cost)
Gross Income 261 48 12,528
Net Income 1,925
ROI 18.15%
93

Price (Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
A. Labor Cost
1. Land Preparation
2. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
Sub-Total 4,000
B. Material Cost
1. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 540
2. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Sub - Total 4,000
C. Miscellaneous
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 9,220
Variable Cost)
Gross Income 266.4 48 12,787.2
Net Income 2,184.2
ROI 21%
94

Price (Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
A. Labor Cost
1. Land Preparation
2. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
Sub-Total 3,360
B. Material Cost
1. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 720
2. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Sub - Total 4,000
C. Miscellaneous
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 10,603
Variable Cost)
Gross Income 265.5 48 12,744
Net Income 2,141
ROI 20.19%
95
Appendix E7. Return on investment of T3R1 (four leaves only)

Price (Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
A. Labor Cost
1. Land Preparation
2. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
Sub-Total 3,360
B. Material Cost
1. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 720
2. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Sub - Total 4,000
C. Miscellaneous
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 10,603
Variable Cost)
Gross Income 359.7 48 17,265.6
Net Income 6,662.6
ROI 62.83%
96

Price (Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
D. Labor Cost
2. Land Preparation
5. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
Sub-Total 3,360
E. Material Cost
3. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 720
4. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Sub - Total 4,000
F. Miscellaneous
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 10,603
Variable Cost)
Gross Income 363.6 48 17,452.8
Net Income 6,849.8
ROI 64.6%
97
Unit
Total Cost
ITEMS Quantity Unit Price
(Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
B. Labor Cost
2. Land Preparation
3. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
Sub-Total 3,360
6. Material Cost
7. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 720
8. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Sub - Total 4,000
9. Miscellaneous
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 10,603
Variable Cost)
Gross Income 361.8 48 17,366.4
Net Income 6,763.4
ROI 63.8%
98
Appendix E10. Return on investment of T4R1 (apical bud pinching + four leaves
only)

Price (Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
C. Labor Cost
3. Land Preparation
10. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
Sub-Total 3,360
13. Material Cost
14. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 720
15. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Sub - Total 4,000
16. Miscellaneous
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 10,603
Variable Cost)
Gross Income 261.9 48 12,571.2
Net Income 1,968.2
ROI 19%
99
only)
Unit
Total Cost
ITEMS Quantity Unit Price
(Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
D. Labor Cost
4. Land Preparation
17. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
Sub-Total 3,360
20. Material Cost
21. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 720
22. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Sub - Total 4,000
23. Miscellaneous
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 10,603
Variable Cost)
Gross Income 272.7 48 13,089.6
Net Income 2,486.6
ROI 23.5%
100
only)

Price (Php)
(Php)
Variable Cost
E. Labor Cost
5. Land Preparation
24. Sowing 2 MD 400 800
Sub-Total 3,360
27. Material Cost
28. Seeds 1 Kilo 720 720
29. Fertilizers
Urea (46-0-0) 10 Kilo 38 380
Sub - Total 1,100
Fixed Cost
Sub - Total 4,000
30. Miscellaneous
Sub - Total 120
GRAND TOTAL 10,603
Variable Cost)
Gross Income 265.5 48 12,744
Net Income 2,141
ROI 20.2%
101
Appendix E13. Gantt chart calendar of weekly activities
AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER

ACTIVITIES W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
Land Preparation
Sowing Of Okra
Seeds
First Application of
Treatment
First Application of
Fertilizer
First Data
Gathering
Second Application
Of Treatment
Second Data
Gathering
Second Application
Of Fertilizer
Third application
of treatment
Third Data
Gathering
First Harvest
Fourth Application
Of Treatment
Fourth Data
Gathering
Second Harvest
Fifth Application
of Treatments
Fifth Data
Gathering
Third Harvest
Fourth harvest
Fifth harvest
102
PLATES
103
Plate 1. Land preparation
Plate 2. Okra seed sowing

104
Plate 3. Application of treatments
Plate 4. Data collection

105
Plate 5. Weeding
Plate 6. Harvesting
106
Plate 7. Measuring
Plate 8. Measuring
107
Plate 9. Weighing of fruits
Plate 10. Fertilizer application (Soil analysis)

Marvin Thesis 061824

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marvin Thesis 061824

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Marvin Thesis 061824

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

i

CEBU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY – ARGAO CAMPUS

Bachelor of Science in Agriculture – Major in Horticulture

EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT PRUNING TECHNIQUES ON THE

Jannu Geuseppe C. Clemeña

EFFECTIVENESS OF DIFFERENT PRUNING TECHNIQUES ON THE

SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

UNDERGRADUATE THESIS APPROVAL SHEET

Name of Students: MARVIN G. OBIEDO

APPROVED FOR THESIS DEFENSE:

Official Capacity Name Signature Date

Adviser JANNU GEUSEPPE C. CLEMEÑA

Reader 1 RAYNILDA R. BAOY

Reader 2 RITCHE U. NUEVO

APPROVED FOR FINAL MANUSCRIPT PRINTING AND BINDING:

Official Capacity Name Signature Date

Adviser JANNU GEUSEPPE C. CLEMEÑA

Reader 1 RAYNILDA R. BAOY

Reader 2 RITCHE U. NUEVO

Department Chair RITCHE U. NUEVO

guiding hand illuminating my path. In moments of challenge, His wisdom provided

clarity, and in moments of doubt, His grace granted strength.

I am profoundly grateful to my parents for their unwavering support, both

a guiding light, enabling me to finish the study.

To Mr. Jannu Geuseppe C. Clemeña, I extend heartfelt appreciation to his

boundless patience and invaluable guidance throughout my thesis. His willingness to

To my fomer reader and advisers, Mr. Daniel B. Tangpos, Mr. Julius D.

criticism, and unwavering support has helped in refining my research

To my Scholarship, Agricultural Competitiveness Enhancement Fund-ACEF,

Lastly to the faculty and staff of Agriculture Department, especially to my

and reminders about my thesis.

Contents Page No.

Conclusion and Recommendation 30

Figure No. Descriptions Page No.

1 Map of Nalhub, Dalaguete showing the barangay

5 Plant height of okra as affected by different pruning

6 Leaf length as affected by different pruning techniques 18

7 Leaf width as affected by different pruning techniques 19

8 No. of fruits per plant as affected by different pruning

9 Fruit length per plant as affected by different pruning

10 Average weight of marketable fruits as affected by

11 No. of fruits per treatment plot as affected by different

12 Fruit weight per treatment plot as affected by different

13 Total yield as affected by different pruning techniques

Table No. Description Page No.

A1 Operational definition of terms 36

B1 Plant height (cm) of okra at 37 days after sowing 38

B2 Plant height (cm) of okra at 44 days after sowing 38

B3 Plant height (cm) of okra at 51 days after sowing 38

B4 Plant height (cm) of okra at 58 days after sowing 39

B5 Plant height (cm) of okra at 65 days after sowing 39

B6 Leaf length (cm) of okra at 37 days after sowing 39

B7 Leaf length (cm) of okra at 44 days after sowing 40

B8 Leaf length (cm) of okra at 51 days after sowing 40

B9 Leaf length (cm) of okra at 58 days after sowing 40

B10 Leaf length (cm) of okra at 65 days after sowing 41

B11 Leaf width of (okra) at 37 days after sowing 41

B12 Leaf width of (okra) at 44 days after sowing 41