2. INTRODUCTION
Organic farming is a holistic management system
which promotes and enhances:
Agro-ecosystem health
Biodiversity
Soil biological cycles
Soil biological activity
Its management practices focus on creating as much
as possible a close cycle .
Where possible external inputs are excluded and
synthetic inputs are totally excluded or minimized.
It provides economic, social, and environmental
benefits.
3. RESEARCH TRIALS
Organic Cabbage Production
Nano-Gro Lettuce Field Trial
Nano-Gro Squash Nursery Trial
Nano-Gro Okra Nursery Trial
5. BACKGROUND
Fertility management remains one of the most crucial aspects
of organic production systems and has been identified as a
priority for research. The choice of organic amendment has
implications on soil structure and subsequent weed, pest, and
disease problems as well as on the soil nutrient dynamics.
Locally available amendments will be assessed in this trial.
Objectives
To determine the significance of various organic amendments
for cabbage production as it relates to the provision of
nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium.
To generate scientific information alternative organic sources
of nutrients in the Barbados.
6. BRIEF METHODOLOGY
Treatments & Experimental Design:
The experiment was set up in a completely randomized design
with two factors. The factors were soil amendment and quantity
of soil amendment. The crop type selected was cabbage.
Experimental Material:
Fertilizers: Sheep manure , Chicken manure, and Conventional
Fertilizer
Crop: Cabbage
Fabric Mulch
Organic pest control methods
Land area: ¼ acre
Drip irrigation lines
7. MAIN RESULTS
The results showed clearly that chicken manure
produces significantly higher yield in cabbage than
conventional fertilizer and sheep manure.
On average 6638 lbs/acre more than conventional
fertilizer and 7696 lbs/acre more than sheep manure.
CABBAGE YIELD PERFOMANCE
0
5000
10000
15000
20000
25000
30000
35000
155 207
FERTILZER QUANTITY
YIELDlbs/acre
CON
CHIC
SHE
8. MAIN RESULTS
There is no significant difference in the yield produced by
conventional fertilizer and sheep manure.
For an application rate of 155 lbs/acre and 207 lbs/acre the
interaction between fertilizer and fertilizer quantity is
insignificant.
The main effect of application rate is also insignificant.
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Variable: YIELD
Source
Type III Sum of
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Partial Eta
Squared
Corrected
Model 2.58E+08 5 5.16E+07 4.169 0.02 0.635
Intercept 1.16E+10 1 1.16E+10 939.32 0 0.987
FERTQ 8985325 1 8985325 0.726 0.411 0.057
FERTT 2.09E+08 2 1.04E+08 8.441 0.005 0.585
FERTQ *
FERTT 4.00E+07 2 2.00E+07 1.618 0.239 0.212
Error 1.48E+08 12 1.24E+07
Total 1.20E+10 18
Corrected Total
4.06E+08 17
9. CONCLUSION
&
RECOMENDATIONS
Chicken manure is a very feasible fertilizer substitute
for conventional fertilizer and can be utilized by both
organic farmers and conventional farmers.
The major cost incurred in the use of chicken manure
are transportation and application cost.
11. BACKGROUND
Nano-Gro™ is regarded as a plant growth
regulator and immunity enhancer. Employing
chemical concentrations in the order of one part
per billion.
Nano-Gro™ does not contain hormones and
does not, in any way, change the genetic
structure of a plant
12. BREIF METHODOLOGY
Treatment method: Dissolved 1 pellet of Nano-
Gro™ per 1L of water, then poured water into a
catch basin for 20 seconds in order to fully soak
the seedlings.
Planting Method: The seedlings were planted
four rows per bed.
Fertilizer: Organic Fertilizer 155 lbs N per acre.
Pest Control: Neem
13. MAIN RESULTS
The first week of growth Nano-Gro produced significantly
more leaves (1) than the untreated lettuce.
However, in the remaining weeks there was no significant
difference in growth rates.
1
CON-LEN1
NANO-LEN1
CON-LEN2
NANO-LEN2
CON-LEN3
NANO-LEN3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
No. of Leaves
Treament
LETTUCE LEAF DEVELOPMENT
14. MAIN RESULTS
Lettuce leaf Development in relation to leaf length
show significant difference between treatment and
control.
1
NANO-LEN
CON-LEN
NANO-LEN2
CON-LEN2
NANO-LEN3
CON-LEN3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
LENGTH (CM)
TREAMENT
LETTUCE LEAF DEVELOPMENT
15. CONCLUSION
&
RECOMENDATIONS
Preplanting application of Nano-Grow can lead to
faster leaf growth within the first week.
To maintain the advantage of increase initial growth
field application of the Nano-Gro must be assessed.
It is recommended that further research is
undertaken on the use of Nano-Gro in lettuce
Since this growth regulator has the potential to
shorten the growing period of lettuce by accelerating
growth.
17. BACKGROUND
Nano-Gro™ is regarded as a plant growth
regulator and immunity enhancer.
Employing chemical concentrations in the
order of one part per billion.
Nano-Gro™ boast of having the ability to
increase germination rates and increase
seedling growth & development.
18. BREIF METHODOLOGY
Treatment method: Dissolved 1 pellet of Nano-
Gro™ per 1L of water, then poured water into a
catch basin for 20 seconds in order to fully soak
the seeds. The seeds were then dried.
Planting Method: The seeds were arranged into
8 plots/tray. Composed of 1 treatment and a
control, each replicate 3 times.
19. MAIN RESULTS
Nano-Gro did not make a significant difference
in germination rate of Okra or Squash seeds.
On average 2.5 more plants per tray
germinated for Okra and 0.5 more for Squash.
20. MAIN RESULTS
There was no significant difference in the time
taken to reach the 2 leaf stage of seedling.
In Okra a significance difference was evident.
There was a 8% increase in Okra seedlings that
reach the 2 leaf stage.
Nano-Gro made no significant difference in the
growth and development of Okra or Squash in
relation to height.
21. CONCLUSION
&
RECOMENDATIONS
Nano-Gro does not appear to increase
germination rates and growth & development
in Okra and Squash.
However, in Okra it appears to increase rate at
which seedlings reach the 2 leaf stage.
It is clear that further research must done on
Nano-Gro before it is recommended for use by
the MA to farmers.
