Four abaca-based cropping patterns in an area eradicated with bunchy-top and mosaic diseases were evaluated. These were abaca+okra-papaya (Treatment 2), abaca+tomato-green onion-ubi (T3), abaca+peanut-eggplant-gabi (T4) and abaca+mongo-hot-pepper-ginger (T5).

The different cropping patterns hadno adverse effects on the main crop, abaca. The number of stalks harvested, length of stalks and fiber recovery of abaca plants grown under intercropping were comparable to abaca plants grown under monocropping. Furthermore, the incidence of abaca diseases was not associated with the cropping patterns. Among the four, abaca+mongo-hot pepper-ginger (T5) was the most suitable cropping pattern. It had the highest fiber yield (514.16 kg/ha/harvest) and net return per peso invested (P1.25).

With the increasing awareness on the importance of disease management, abaca farmers are eradicating abaca plants infected with bunchy-top and mosaic. This is follwed by either replanting or total rehabilitation of the plantation.

In a totally rehabilitated plantation, thefirst 18 months is a period of juvenility. At this stage, the abaca canopies are not yet fully developed, which permits sunlight to penetrate into the vacant spaces between abaca hills.

Intercropping maximizes theuse of these spaces and light. It also minimizes weed problem. More importantly, it provides quick cash return.

Rabe (1984) has found that by using the usual planting distance of abaca, which is 2.5x2.5 m, intercropping could bu done up to 1.5 years only.

• General: To evaluate different abaca-based cropping patterns in an area               eradicated with mosaic and bunchy-top disease.
• Specific:
  1. To determine the effects of different cropping patterns on the agronomic     characteristics and yield of abaca;
  2. To determine the disease incidence on abaca associated with the     different cropping patterns;
  3. To determine the cost and return on investment of each abaca-based     cropping pattern; and
  4. To determine the most suitable abaca-based cropping pattern.

The study was conducted from April 1997 to April 2002 at Tabiguian, Tabaco City in a farmer's field that had been eradicated with bunchy-top and mosaic. There were five (5) treatments, namely: T1-Control (abaca alone); T2-abaca+okra-papaya; T3-abaca+tomato-green onion- ubi; T4-abaca+peanut-eggplant-gabi; and T5-abaca+mongo-hot pepper-ginger. The experiment was laid out in RCBD with 3 replications. Data on agronomic characteristics of abaca, abaca disease incidence, yield of abaca and intercrops, and production cost and income were gathered. The estimated fiber yield and return on investment were computed. The ANOVA for RCBD and Scheffe's S test for comparison of treatment means were used in data analysis.

Effects of different cropping patterns on the agronomic characteristics and yield of abaca

The number of stalks harvested per hill, length of stalk and fiber recovery were not significantly affected by the different cropping patterns (Table 1a). This result agrees with the findings of Rabe (1984) that intercropping commercial cash crops with abaca did not significantly affect suckering ability of the main crop.

The base diameter and weight of stalks varied significantly. The abaca stalk base of T1 was comparable to all cropping patterns but T2 was significantly wider than T3 and T4. Stalk of T1 was heavier than T3 and T4 but stalks of T2 and T5 were the heaviest. The estimated fiber yield of T1 was comparable to all the cropping patterns but yield of T5 was significantly higher than T3 and T4 (Table 1b). The difference was due to the differences in the base diameterand weight of stalks.

Disease incidence on abaca associated with the different cropping patterns

At 57 months after planting abaca, disease incidence of bunchy-top, mosaic and bract mosaic did not vary significantly (Tables 2-4). This showed that disease incidence was not associated with the cropping patterns.

Return on Investment (ROI)

Intercropping substantially increased the return on investment in abaca farming. Compared to P0.02 in abaca monocropping, ROI in the abaca-based cropping pattern was more than tenfold, from P0.31 in T4 to P1.25 in T5 (Table 5).

Most suitable cropping pattern

The most suitable cropping pattern was T5 (abaca+mongo-hot pepper-ginger). It had the highest estimated fiber yield per hectare per harvest (574.16 kg) and net return per peso invested (P1.25).

Recommended Technology

In adopting the abaca+mongo-hot pepper-ginger cropping pattern, the following technologies are being recommended:

Crop	Planting Date	Planting Distance
Abaca	Year 1: April	2.5 x 2.5 m
Mongo	Year 1: May	0.83 x 0.30 m 0.83 m from abaca
Hot Pepper	Year 1: October	0.62 x 0.62 m 0.62 m from abaca
Ginger	Year 2: May	0.5 x 0.5 m 0.5 m from abaca

Figure 1 shows the recommended growing schedule of the intercrops.

• Generally, the agronomic characteristics of abaca relatedto fiber yield were not adversely affected by the different cropping patterns.
• The disease insidence was not associated with the different cropping patterns.
• Compared to P0.02 in abaca monocropping, the abaca-based cropping patterns had more than tenfold ROIs, ranging from P0.31 to P1.25.
• Abaca+mongo-hot pepper-ginger was the most suitable cropping pattern which provided the highest net return.

Table 1a. Agronomic fiber characteristics and fiber recovery of Musa tex 50 as affected by the different cropping patterns.
Treatment	Average number of stalks harvested	Average base diameter (cm)	Average stalk length (t/ha)	Average stalk weight (t/ha)	Fiber recovery (%)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5	1.8 1.6 1.4 1.6 2.0	36.0ab 37.3ab 34.6b 34.3b 35.8ab	155 166 155 158 167	7.7b 8.3a 7.3c 7.3c 8.2a	2.0 2.2 2.2 1.9 2.3
Mean C.V.	1.7ns 14.20%	35.6* 2.53%	160ns 4.94%	7.8* 4.82%	2.1ns 8.13%

Means followed by a common letter a significantly different from each other at 5% level of significance by Scheffes's S test.

Table 1a. Agronomic characteristics and fiber recovery of Musa tex 50 as affected by the different cropping patterns.

Treatment	Bunchy-top infection (%)
	Months after planting
	With intercrops			No More Intercrops
	1st	2nd	3rd
	6	12	19	57
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5	0 0 0 0 0	0 3.33 0 0 0	3.33ab 5.00a 3.33ab 0.00b 0.00b	15.00 13.33 13.33 10.00 11.67
Mean	0	0.67	2.33*	12.67ns

Table 3. Incidence of mosaic infection on abaca associated with the different cropping patterns.

Treatment	Mosaic infection (%)
	Months after planting
	With intercrops			No More Intercrops
	1st	2nd	3rd
	6	12	19	57
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5	0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0	1.66 0 0 1.66 0	1.66 0 0 1.66 0
Mean	0	0	0.66	0.66

Table 4. Incidence of bract mosaic infection on abaca associated with the different cropping patterns.

Treatment	Bract mosaic infection (%)
	Months after planting
	With intercrops			No More Intercrops
	1st	2nd	3rd
	6	12	19	57
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5	0 0 0 0 0	0 0 0 0 0	1.66 0 0 0 0	15.00ab 16.67ab 20.00a 10.00ab 8.33b
Mean	0	0	0.33	15.33**

Table 5. Production cost and return on investment of the different cropping patterns at 60 months after planting.

Treatment	Combined production cost of abaca & intercrops (P)	Combined value of the produce (P)	Net return (P)	Net return per peso invested (P)
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5	82,285.00 124,720.00 156,215.00 124,384.00 224,972.00	83,948.00 203,160.00 249,832.00 163,554.00 506,587.00	1,663.00 78,440.00 93,617.00 39,170.00 281,615.00	0.02 0.63 0.60 0.31 1.25