Thesis (Diaz, Baladjay, Tadle)

9,350 views

Published on

Published in: Education
5 Comments
5 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • can i also have a copy of your research? It will be a great help to my study because they are somewhat related. I will be thankful if you send me a copy to my email christian.sthephen@gmail.com. Thank you in advance!
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • can i have a copy of your research madam? We need this study of yours in our thesis with regards of the Fruit Juice Fertilizer. The authors will be cited. my email is albert.aromin@gmail.com
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • when was this thesis was published?
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • when was this thesis published?
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • nice site especially for me... its gonna be a great help for me cox currently i am conducting my research which will possibly leads to my thesis
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
9,350
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
153
Comments
5
Likes
5
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Thesis (Diaz, Baladjay, Tadle)

  1. 1. THE GROWTH AND YIELD RESPONSE OF BELL PEPPER ( Capsicum annuum L .) TO FISH FERTILIZER AND FERMENTED FRUIT JUICE AS ORGANIC FERTILIZER Francis Austin S. Diaz Marianne Joy S. Baladjay Frauline C. Tadle
  2. 2. <ul><li>ABSTRACT </li></ul><ul><li>The study entitled “GROWTH AND YIELD RESPONSE OF BELL PEPPER ( Capsicum annuum L ) TO FISH FERTILIZER AND FERMENTED FRUIT JUICE AS AN ORGANIC FERTILIZER” conducted by Francis Austin S. Diaz, Marianne Joy S. Baladjay and Frauline C. Tadle, aimed to determine the difference in growth and yield response of bell pepper in terms of height, number of leaves and mass of yield among the four treatments, namely, fish fertilizer, fermented fruit juice fertilizer, commercial fertilizer and no fertilizer applied at all. Results do not represent the general population due to several factors which are to be considered. </li></ul><ul><li>The study utilized the scientific or experimental method of research. The organic fertilizers are prepared through fermentation and dilution. In fermenting the fish gills emulsion, fish wastes were mashed and then one kilo of sugar was added and stored for two weeks in a tight container in a dark room. The same process was done in the fermented fruit juice fertilizer, squash, banana and papaya were mashed before adding one kilo of sugar; it was then stored for two weeks in a tight container in a dark room. The individual height, number of leaves and mass of yield for each plant was measured and counted accordingly. Data was then tabulated and analyzed using statistics. </li></ul>
  3. 3. <ul><li>Statistics revealed that fish fertilizer produced the best plants in terms of height and number of leaves against the other experimental treatment, fermented fruit juice fertilizer. It also found out that the fish fertilizer produced almost the same result in terms of mass of yield than that of commercial fertilizer; therefore, it may be a substitute to commercial fertilizer. </li></ul><ul><li>The researchers therefore conclude that the fish gills emulsion fertilizer may be a substitute to commercial fertilizer and may be one of the best fertilizers to be utilized for growing bell pepper in the City of Dasmariñas, specifically within the vicinity of Dasmariñas National High School, the locale of the study. </li></ul><ul><li>The researchers recommend the use of fish fertilizer in growing bell pepper. The researchers also recommend the use of more experimental units, use of other varieties of bell pepper, to expand researches done regarding this topic and for future researchers to validate or negate findings and claims in this study. </li></ul>
  4. 4. CHAPTER 1 Chapter 2 Chapter 3 Appendices
  5. 7. <ul><li>CHAPTER 1 </li></ul><ul><li>INTRODUCTION </li></ul><ul><li>Background of the Study </li></ul><ul><li>Climate change is now one of the main global issues present not just in our country but in the whole world as well. Several government agencies and non-government organizations have started information campaigns and other activities to boost environmental awareness and thus promote environmental protection and preservation. As an effect of this phenomenon, agriculture became one of the widely-affected sectors in the country. A decrease in the number of yield is caused by excessive heat and drying of lands during the dry season and too much rainfall during the wet season. Consequently, farmers aimed to use inorganic fertilizers to boost plant resistance and to provide yield faster than the normal or natural time cycle. Though proven to be helpful enough, recent studies have stated also those inorganic fertilizers can affect the safety of drinking water. According to a study conducted (DEP- Florida, 2008), Nitrate used in fertilizer and was found in sewage and wastes from human and/or farm animals and generally gets into drinking water from those activities. Excessive levels of nitrate in drinking water have caused serious illness and sometimes death in infants less than six months of age. </li></ul>
  6. 8. <ul><li> It is well known that components of inorganic fertilizers boost the nutrient content of the soil for the plant to gather more nutrients from the soil which will be used for its growth. Inorganic fertilizers cause the erosion of the original soil as characterized by low pH level as well as deficiency of some important nutrients (Zhong and Cai, 2007). With this decrease in the pH level, organisms tend to stay away from the soil. </li></ul><ul><li>Without the help of these organisms, plants will obtain less water and nutrients and become increasingly dependent on continuous high levels of synthetic nutrients and water that is applied artificially (by use, for instance, of a water- hose). In the end we will be left with plants that cannot tolerate water stress and low nutrient levels. Until now, researchers keep on discovering alternative fertilizers to inorganic ones. They’ve started to discover more native and organic plants in the surroundings to have the potential of becoming an effective organic fertilizer. </li></ul><ul><li> Organic fertilizers are fertilizers that are mainly composed of organic or natural fertilizers such as manure and potash. Organic fertilizers are composed of anything biodegradable that is found in nature, which releases nutrients as it decays. (van Haute, 2007). </li></ul>
  7. 9. <ul><li>One known organic fertilizer is the fermented fruit juice composed of banana, papaya and squash. Banana, squash and papaya have certain properties that can make our plants stronger and healthier; they are rich in vitamin C. The bananas are packed with potassium, which encourages fruiting; the papayas and squash, as their color indicates, are rich in beta-carotene, which are important crystalline hydrocarbon pigments that occur in the chromoplasts of our plants. Together, these fruits, when fermented boost the flowering and fruiting of our veggies. (van Haute, 2007) </li></ul><ul><li>Another known organic fertilizer is the fish gills emulsion. Fish gills emulsion is a sticky concentrate made from a blend of saltwater fish. It contains about 5% Nitrogen. And it has a small but significant amount of trace elements and plenty of fish oil. (van Haute, 2007). Data showing fish emulsion with a solid addition of micro nutrients. These additives are generally in the form of liquefied kelp and/or seaweed. It is a good idea to look for a brand of fish fertilizer that includes either, or both of these additives. Age Old carries an organic Fish/Seaweed Blend Fertilizer (3-3-2) that is a blend of processed fish hydro slates and North Atlantic sea kelp, loaded with macronutrients and bio-stimulants, it is an effective plant stress reducer and root stimulant that is rich in carbohydrates (Kline, 2007). Also, an entrepreneur, Jim Brackins,( http://www.linkedin.com) who have experimented and used fish gills as a component for his organic fish fertilizer for twelve years and his yield and success proved that organic fish fertilizer (which has the component fish gills ) is a very effective and cheaper organic fertilizer. </li></ul>
  8. 10. <ul><li>Urea is one of the most common inorganic fertilizer used especially in frowing vegetables. Urea is sold as a 46-0-0 dry fertilizer (Burt, C., 1998). </li></ul><ul><li>In order to determine the growth and yield response of bell pepper to the said fertilizers, the researcher obtained the plant height, number of leaves and mass of yield. Plant height must also be taken into consideration when determining the optimum harvest of maturity (D.W. Meyer). Getting plant height is by measuring the plant height of the main plant from the border of the container to the top of the main plant stem (www. Sciencebuddies.com). According to an article entitled “Yield Potential: Its Definition, Measurement and Significance posted on (www. Higbeam.com), crop yield refers to the mass of product at final harvest, for which dry matter content should be specified. While, the number of leaves indicates a plant’s physiological age and can be measured by counting every visible leaf on the plant, including the tips of new leaves just beginning to emerge (www.sciencebuddies.com). </li></ul><ul><li>This thesis aims to determine the difference in growth and yield response of bell pepper in terms of height, number of leaves and mass of yield among the four treatments namely: fish fertilizer, fermented fruit juice (banana-squash-papaya) fertilizer, commercial fertilizer and no fertilizer at all. </li></ul>
  9. 11. <ul><li>B. Statement of the problem </li></ul><ul><li>a.Main Problem </li></ul><ul><li>Generally, this study aimed to determine if there is a difference in the growth and yield response of bell pepper to fermented fruit juice fertilizer, fish gills emulsion, commercial fertilizer and no fertilizer at all. </li></ul><ul><li>b.Specific Problem </li></ul><ul><li>1.Which of the four treatments is most effective in growing of bell pepper in terms of: </li></ul><ul><li>a. plant height; </li></ul><ul><li>b. number of leaves; </li></ul><ul><li>c. mass of the yield? </li></ul><ul><li>2. Is there a significant difference in the results among the four treatments in terms of: </li></ul><ul><li>a. plant height; </li></ul><ul><li>b. number of leaves? </li></ul>
  10. 12. <ul><li>Hypotheses </li></ul><ul><li>1. The plant with the commercial fertilizer is the most effective fertilizer of the four. </li></ul><ul><li>2. There is no significant difference among the treatments in terms of: </li></ul><ul><li>a. plant height </li></ul><ul><li>b. number of leaves. </li></ul><ul><li>D. Significance of the Study </li></ul><ul><li> If the results will be of positive significance, the researchers hope that the study will help the farmers to endure the pain of increasing costs of commercial fertilizers as well as lessening the bad effects of the commercial fertilizers to the soil and environment and to lessen harmful chemicals that has been absorbed by the fruits, which are very dangerous for human intake. The researchers also hope to contribute to the knowledge in the agricultural field of study in the Philippines regarding the use of different organic fertilizers. The researchers also hope that the study will open some researches that will deepen this study and to open up new concepts for discovering other potential organic fertilizers that may be useless at the first sight. </li></ul>
  11. 13. <ul><li>E. Scope and Limitations </li></ul><ul><li> The study only focused on finding the difference in growth and yield response of bell pepper to fish fertilizer and fruit juice in comparison to each other and to positive and negative controlled set-ups, one with commercial and one without. There is only a total population of 76 plants that was observed within 18 weeks. The kind of fertilizer applied was the only variable controlled in this study. Extraneous variables such as environmental factors, biological interference and soil acidity and composition were the limitations of the study. </li></ul>
  12. 14. <ul><li>F. Definition of Terms </li></ul><ul><li> The following unusual terms were used in the study. Below are written these </li></ul><ul><li>words with their respective definitions as this study used them. </li></ul><ul><li>Bell Pepper. A variety of pepper commonly used for cooking; the plant used for </li></ul><ul><li>observation in this study. </li></ul><ul><li>Commercial Fertilizer. Fertilizer commercially sold used for yield increase and better </li></ul><ul><li>crop resistance; fertilizer applied in treatment in treatment 3 as a controlled positive </li></ul><ul><li>treatment. </li></ul><ul><li>Dilution. The act of mixing a substance with water; 1 tablespoon of concentrated fish </li></ul><ul><li>gills emulsion and concentrated fermented fruit juice were separately diluted or added </li></ul><ul><li>to water before application. </li></ul><ul><li>Fermentation. The act of fermenting a substance through a medium; sugar was used as </li></ul><ul><li>the fermenting medium and mixed with concentrated fish gills emulsion and </li></ul><ul><li>concentrated fermented fruit juice were fermented before storage for two weeks. </li></ul>
  13. 15. <ul><li>Fermented Fruit Juice Fertilizer. A mixture of banana, squash and papaya fermented </li></ul><ul><li>for two weeks before dilution and application; used as an experimental variable in this </li></ul><ul><li>study. </li></ul><ul><li>Fertilizer. A substance used for better plant product production; the substance being </li></ul><ul><li>developed in this study. </li></ul><ul><li>Fish Gills Emulsion Fertilizer. A colloidal mixture of fish gills and other parts of the </li></ul><ul><li>fish not used for human consumption, fermented for two weeks before dilution and </li></ul><ul><li>application; used as an experimental variable in this study. </li></ul><ul><li>Height. It is a measurement of the vertical distance. It is one of the variable measured </li></ul><ul><li>in the study. </li></ul><ul><li>Yield. It refers to the mass of the final harvest. One of the variables measured. </li></ul><ul><li>Leaves. It determines the physiological age of the plant. A variable measured in the </li></ul><ul><li>study. </li></ul>
  14. 16. <ul><li>G. Methodological Framework </li></ul><ul><li>Figure 1 </li></ul><ul><li>The Paradigm of the Study </li></ul><ul><li>The paradigm of the study shows banana, papaya, squash and fish gills underwent processes of extraction, fermentation, storage and application. It then produced fermented fruit juice and fish fertilizer. Two spoonfuls of these fertilizers were diluted in one gallon of water and was applied to the bell pepper. </li></ul>Banana, papaya and squash Fish Gills INPUT <ul><ul><li>Extraction </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Fermentation </li></ul><ul><li>Storage </li></ul><ul><li>Application </li></ul>PROCESS Fermented Fruit Juice Fish fertilizer OUTPUT
  15. 19. <ul><li>Chapter 2 </li></ul><ul><li>METHODOLOGY </li></ul><ul><li>A. Methods of Research Used </li></ul><ul><li>The experimental method of research was used by the researchers to determine which of the two experimental set-ups and the control set-ups gathered the best results. Alfonso et. al. 2000 said that Today, in the field of science, the experimental method has become one of the best ways to conduct research in a most productive matter. It is the most scientific and the most powerful method since it allows control over relevant variables. </li></ul><ul><li>B. Materials and Equipment </li></ul><ul><li>The following materials were used throughout the research; 76 red bell pepper seedlings, 1 kilo of papaya, squash and banana, 1 kilo of fish gills, garden soil, 2 kilos of sugar and water. </li></ul><ul><li>The following equipment were used throughout the research; 2 sprayers, a pair of working gloves, medium-sized strainer and 2 6-gallon containers (to be used for fermentation) </li></ul>
  16. 20. <ul><li>Procedure </li></ul><ul><li>Land Preparation </li></ul><ul><li>The garden lot measured 6 meters length x 3 meters width was prepared by tilling the soil and weeding it out. After this, it was watered regularly to maintain its moisture. </li></ul><ul><li>Planting </li></ul><ul><li>Once seedlings have already 5 or more true leaves, it is now ready for transplanting. A one inch deep hole was dug into the ground and refilled with soil enriched with compost. A trowel was used to give space for the pepper. The plant was set 1 inch below the surface and was covered with soil and watered. Plants were planted 18 inches apart and 24 inches apart in row from each other. </li></ul>
  17. 21. <ul><li>Fertilizer Formulation </li></ul><ul><li> The fertilizer was then formulated. For the fish gills emulsion fertilizer, one kilo of fish gills was weighed and juiced. One kilo of brown sugar was then added to the juice and mixed thoroughly. Once the slimy texture has been obtained, it was then put into a piece of cloth enough to enclose it. The mixture was stored into a 6-gallon container with heavy object on top of it to squeeze out the juices. It was then enclosed with Manila Paper as a lid to allow the mixture to breathe and was then kept in a room undisturbed for two weeks. </li></ul><ul><li>During the same day, the fermented fruit juice was formulated by chopping and mashed 500 grams of papaya, 500 grams of banana and 500 grams of squash. It was then mixed and 500 grams from the mashed mixture was then removed. One kilo of brown sugar was then added to the juice and mixed thoroughly. Once the slimy texture has been obtained, it was then put into a piece of cloth enough to enclose it. The mixture was stored into a 6-gallon container with heavy object on top of it to squeeze out the juices. It was then enclosed with Manila Paper as a lid to allow the mixture to breathe and was then kept in a room undisturbed for two weeks. </li></ul>
  18. 22. <ul><li>Application of Treatment </li></ul><ul><li>After two weeks of fermentation, the fertilizers are now ready for application. Two spoonfuls of fish fertilizer was diluted to one gallon of water and was applied to Treatment 1. Another two spoonfuls of fermented fruit juice was diluted to one gallon of water and was applied to Treatment 2. </li></ul><ul><li>Collection of Data </li></ul><ul><li>Data regarding the plant height and number of leaves was collected Monday every week for two months. This was done for every plant under every treatment. The data regarding the mass of yield was obtained exactly during the end of the two months observation period. The data gathered was then tabulated and interpreted. </li></ul><ul><li>Interpretation of Data and Statistics to be used </li></ul><ul><li> Once gathered, data were then interpreted and tabulated. Mean was used as the statistical test for the mass of yield obtained. Analysis of Variance (AnoVa) was used as a statistical test since it provides a test of whether or not the means of several groups/treatments are all equal. The T-test of significant difference was also employed to determine if there is a significant difference between two treatments in terms of height and number of leaves. </li></ul>
  19. 23. <ul><li>D. Research Design </li></ul><ul><li>Number of Replications: 4 treatments x 19 replications each = 76 replications </li></ul><ul><li>Dependent Variable : growth and yield response of bell pepper </li></ul><ul><li>Extraneous Variables : environmental factors, soil type, composition and acidity, biological interference. </li></ul><ul><li>There were 76 experimental units used in this study. The dependent variable are growth and yield of bell pepper while the independent variables were Fish Fertilizer, Fermented Fruit Juice, Commercial fertilizer and water. The extraneous variables were environmental factors, soil type, composition and acidity and biological interference. </li></ul>Kind of Fertilizer Treatment 1 ( Fish Fertlizer Treatment 2 ( Fermented Fruit Juice) Treatment 3 ( commercial fertilizer-Urea) Treatment 4 (no fertilizer) Number of Samples 19 19 19 19
  20. 24. <ul><li>E. Experimental Lay-out </li></ul>Treatment 1 Treatment 2 Treatment 3 Treatment 4 T1R10 T2R10 T3R10 T1R10 T1R9 T1R19 T2R9 T2R19 T3R9 T3R19 T4R9 T4R19 T1R8 T1R18 T2R8 T2R18 T3R8 T3R18 T4R8 T4R18 T1R7 T1R17 T2R7 T2R17 T3R7 T3R17 T4R7 T4R17 T1R6 T1R16 T2R6 T2R16 T3R6 T3R16 T4R6 T4R16 T1R5 T1R15 T2R5 T2R15 T3R5 T3R15 T4R5 T4R15 T1R4 T1R14 T2R4 T2R14 T3R4 T3R14 T4R4 T4R14 T1R3 T1R13 T2R3 T2R13 T3R3 T3R13 T4R3 T4R13 T1R2 T1R12 T2R2 T2R12 T3R2 T3R12 T4R2 T4R12 T1R1 T1R11 T2R1 T2R11 T3R1 T3R11 T4R1 T4R11
  21. 25. <ul><li>Figure 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Experimental Layout of the Study </li></ul><ul><li>This shows the actual set-up of treatments wherein voltage of varying amounts is applied in each treatment the same in its 4 application. </li></ul>
  22. 26. <ul><li>F. Statistical Tools used </li></ul><ul><li>The following statistical tools were used to analyze the data gathered: </li></ul><ul><li>1. Mean. It was used to obtain the central measure of the mass of yield. The mean was compared to the treatment total in terms of mass. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Analysis of Variance (AnoVa). It was used to know if there is a significant difference among the treatments in terms of height and number of leaves. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Coefficient of Variation. It a measure of dispersion to determine how far each gathered data from the mean and from each other. </li></ul><ul><li>4. T-Test of Significant Difference. It is used to determine which between the two given treatments is better. </li></ul>
  23. 27. <ul><li>Chapter 3 </li></ul><ul><li>RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS </li></ul><ul><li>Summary </li></ul><ul><li> The study aimed to determine the difference in growth and yield response of bell pepper to fish gills emulsion, fermented fruit juice, commercial fertilizer and plants applied without any fertilizer, in terms of leaves, height and mass of yield. </li></ul><ul><li> There were four treatments which were prepared: (1) fish gills emulsion fertilizer, (2) fermented fruit juice fertilizer, (3) commercial fertilizer and (4) no fertilizer applied at all. Each treatment had 19 replications each; the fertilizers were also given weekly. Some variables, known as the extraneous variables, were not controlled in the study, and only the type of fertilizer applied was controlled in this study. </li></ul><ul><li> This study is conducted at Dasmariñas National High School Burol I City of Dasmariñas during the school year 2010-2011. The study does not represent the general population. </li></ul><ul><li> Mean, standard deviation, analysis of variance and t-test of significant difference were used to interpret data. </li></ul>
  24. 28. <ul><li>B. Presentation and Analysis of Data </li></ul><ul><li>Problem 1.a.: Which of the four treatments is most effective in growing bell pepper </li></ul><ul><li>in terms of plant height? </li></ul><ul><li>Table 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Average Height of each treatment </li></ul>T1 T2 T3 T4 Σ x 7153.5 6858 5734 6321.5 Ave. 376.5 360.95 301.79 332.71
  25. 29. <ul><li>This table shows that the average number of height of each treatment. As seen, the mean of treatment 1 was the greatest in terms of the average height. This can be supported by the statement of Kline, 2007 who stated that, it [fish fertilizer] is an effective plant stress reducer and root stimulant that is rich in carbohydrates. With the known data that usually, fish gills emulsion fertilizer contain 3 for phosphorous, it is then said by http://www.ipni.net/ that with a deficiency in phosphorous [which fish fertilizer does not have] shoot growth is more affected than root growth. It can then be said that since plants under this treatment had great shoot growth or height, it is rich in phosphorous. </li></ul>
  26. 30. <ul><li>Table 3 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test table for height of Treatment 1 vs Treatment 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Between treatment 1 and treatment 2, the t-computed value is 0.73 which is less than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is accepted which states that there is no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of height. </li></ul>T1 T2 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 376.50 360.95 0.73 2.43 Accept H 0 SD 68.70 59.15
  27. 31. <ul><li>Table 4 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test for height of Treatment 1 vs Treatment 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Between treatment 1 and treatment 3, the t-computed value is 3.13 which is greater than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted which states that there is a significant difference between the two treatments in terms of height. </li></ul>T1 T3 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 376.5 301.79 3.13 2.43 Reject H 0 SD 68.70 74.60
  28. 32. <ul><li>Table 5 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test table for height of Treatment 1 vs Treatment 4 </li></ul><ul><li>Between treatment 1 and treatment 4, the t-computed value is 2.05 which is less than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is accepted which states that there is no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of height. </li></ul>T1 T4 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 376.5 332.71 2.05 2.43 Accept H 0 SD 68.70 59.05
  29. 33. <ul><li>Table 6 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test table for height of Treatment 2 vs Treatment 3 </li></ul><ul><li> Between treatment 2 and treatment 3, the t-computed value is 2.64 which is greater than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted which states that there is a significant difference between the two treatments in terms of height. </li></ul>T2 T3 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 360.95 301.79 2.64 2.43 Reject H 0 SD 59.15 74.60
  30. 34. <ul><li>Table 7 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test table for height of Treatment 2 vs Treatment 4 </li></ul><ul><li>Between treatment 2 and treatment 4, the t-computed value is 1.43 which is less than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is accepted which states that there is no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of height. </li></ul>T2 T4 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 360.95 332.71 1.43 2.43 Accept H 0 SD 59.15 59.05
  31. 35. <ul><li>Table 8 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test table for height of Treatment 3 vs Treatment 4 </li></ul><ul><li>Between treatment 3 and treatment 4, the t-computed value is 1.38 which is less than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is accepted which states that there is no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of height. </li></ul>T3 T4 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 301.79 332.71 1.38 2.43 Accept H 0 SD 74.60 59.05
  32. 36. <ul><li>From the given t-test of significant differences, it can be noted that there is a significant difference between treatment 1 and treatment 3 in favour of treatment 1, the treatment with greater mean and treatment 2 and treatment 3 in favour of treatment 2, the treatment with the greater mean. This significant difference may be caused by the small mean obtained from treatment 3. Urea is sold as a 46-0-0 dry fertilizer (Burt, 1998). This height deficiency may be caused by the lack of phosphorous content in urea. </li></ul>
  33. 37. <ul><li>Figure 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Graphical representation of height in each treatment </li></ul><ul><li> In this figure, it shows that Treatment 1 has the highest measure of height obtained than that of Treatment 2. This may show that fish fertilizer is better than fermented fruit juice in terms of height measure. </li></ul>
  34. 38. <ul><li>Problem 1.b.: Which of the four treatments is most effective in growing bell pepper in </li></ul><ul><li>terms of number of leaves? </li></ul><ul><li>Table 9 </li></ul><ul><li>Average Number of Leaves of each treatment </li></ul><ul><li>This table shows that the mean or average of all added number of leaves of all treatments. Of all treatments, the first treatment or the treatment applied with the fish gills emulsion is considerably greater than those of other treatments. As stated by van Haute, 2007, fish gills emulsion contain about 5% nitrogen content. A deficiency in nitrogen content as stated by Jovanovic, 2004, results in reduced cell division and cell elongation, thus, results in decreased leaf length and prolonged time for leaf development. This is clearly shown in the difference in the mean of each treatment. As the table shows, there is a difference of 18.68 leaves in treatment 1 and treatment 3, the two treatments with the highest number of leaves, in favour of treatment 1. </li></ul>T1 T2 T3 T4 Σ x 10040 8568 9685 7802 Ave. 528.42 450.95 509.74 410.63
  35. 39. <ul><li>Table 10 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test table for number of leaves of Treatment 1 vs Treatment 2 </li></ul><ul><li>Between treatment 1 and treatment 2, the t-computed value is 2.41 which is less than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is accepted which states that there is no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of number of leaves. </li></ul>T1 T2 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 528.42 450.95 2.41 2.43 Accept H 0 SD 115.36 72.37
  36. 40. <ul><li>Table 11 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test for number of leaves of Treatment 1 vs Treatment 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Between treatment 1 and treatment 3, the t-computed value is 0.51 which is less than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is accepted which states that there is a significant difference between the two treatments in terms of number of leaves. </li></ul>T1 T3 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 528.42 509.24 0.51 2.43 Accept H 0 SD 115.36 109.09
  37. 41. <ul><li>Table 12 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test table for number of leaves of Treatment 1 vs Treatment 4 </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li>Between treatment 1 and treatment 4, the t-computed value is 3.11 which is greater than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted which states that there is a significant difference between the two treatments in terms of number of leaves. </li></ul>T1 T4 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 528.42 410.63 3.11 2.43 Reject H 0 SD 115.36 111.52
  38. 42. <ul><li>Table 13 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test table for number of leaves of Treatment 2 vs Treatment 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Between treatment 2 and treatment 3, the t-computed value is 2.64 which is greater than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted which states that there is a significant difference between the two treatments in terms of number of leaves. </li></ul>T2 T3 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 450.95 509.24 1.89 2.43 Accept H 0 SD 72.37 109.09
  39. 43. <ul><li>Table 14 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test table for number of leaves of Treatment 2 vs Treatment 4 </li></ul><ul><li>Between treatment 2 and treatment 4, the t-computed value is 1.29 which is less than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is accepted which states that there is no significant difference between the two treatments in terms of number of leaves. </li></ul>T2 T4 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 450.95 410.63 1.29 2.43 Accept H 0 SD 72.37 111.52
  40. 44. <ul><li>Table 15 </li></ul><ul><li>T-test table for number of leaves of Treatment 3 vs Treatment 4 </li></ul><ul><li>Between treatment 3 and treatment 4, the t-computed value is 2.68 which is greater than the t-tabulated value 2.43, therefore the null hypothesis is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted which states that there is a significant difference between the two treatments in terms of number of leaves. </li></ul>T3 T4 T computed T tabulated Decision Ave. 509.24 410.63 2.68 2.43 Reject H 0 SD 109.09 111.52
  41. 45. <ul><li>From the given t-test of significant differences for number of leaves, it can be noted that there is a significant difference between treatment 1 and treatment 4 in favour of treatment 1, the treatment with greater mean and treatment 3 and treatment 4 in favour of treatment 3, the treatment with the greater mean. This may be due to the lack of necessary nutrients for the growth of new leaves on a plant because it does not receive any supplementary nutrients. </li></ul>
  42. 46. <ul><li>Figure 3 </li></ul><ul><li>Graphical representation of number of leaves obtained in each treatment </li></ul><ul><li> This figure shows that Treatment 1 shows the best result regarding the number of leaves obtained among the treatments while Treatment 3 which is the commercial fertilizer gets to the second. This may show that Treatment 1 or fish fertilizer is good in terms of increasing the number of leaves. </li></ul>
  43. 47. <ul><li>Problem 1.c.: Which of the four treatments is most effective in growing bell pepper in terms of mass of yield? </li></ul><ul><li>Table 16 </li></ul><ul><li>Mass of Yield Obtained and Mean </li></ul><ul><li>This table shows the individual mass of yield of each treatment and the mean among all treatments. From this table, it can be seen that treatment 3 obtained 32.66% of the total mass of yield obtained which is the highest among the treatments. This may be due to the N-P-K content of fish gills emulsion 2-3-1 nitrogen, phosphorous and potassium (Bramlage, 2009) and the N-P-K content of Urea 46-0-0 (Burt,C., 1998). From this, both fertilizers have high nitrogen content which boosts yielding. </li></ul>T1 600 g Mean 497.5g 30.15% T2 340 g 17.09% T3 650 g 32.66% T4 400 g 20.10%
  44. 48. <ul><li>Figure 5 </li></ul><ul><li>Graphical representation of mass of yield obtained in each treatment </li></ul><ul><li> This figure shows that Treatment 1 produced heavier yield than Treatment 2 but Treatment 3 which is commercial fertilizer. The results can be caused of the proven effect of chemicals used in commercial fertilizer that is why is showed the best result. </li></ul>
  45. 49. <ul><li>Problem 2.a.: Is there a significant difference among the four treatments in terms of plant height? </li></ul><ul><li>Table 17 </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis of Variance Table for Height </li></ul><ul><li>This table shows the Analysis of Variance table which contains the sum of squares, degree of freedom, mean squares and the computed F-value: 4.765 which is greater than the tabulated F-value at a degree of freedom of 75 which is 2.73 at 0.05 significance and 4.07 at 0.01 significance. Since the computed F is greater than the tabulated F at 0.01 level of significance, the null hypothesis is therefore rejected and it is proven that there is a highly significant difference between the treatments in terms of height. The Coefficient of Variation is also computed and obtained 0.25% difference. </li></ul>SS Df MS F comp CV Between 61723.401 3 20574.467 4.765 0.25% Within 310868.55 72 4317.619 Total 372591.951 75
  46. 50. <ul><li>Problem 2.a.: Is there a significant difference among the four treatments in terms of number of leaves? </li></ul><ul><li>Table 18 </li></ul><ul><li>Analysis of Variance Table for Number of Leaves </li></ul><ul><li>This table shows the Analysis of Variance table which contains the sum of squares, degree of freedom, mean squares and the computed F-value: 5.192 which is greater than the tabulated F-value at a degree of freedom of 75 which is 2.73 at 0.05 significance and 4.07 at 0.01 significance. Since the computed F is greater than the tabulated F at 0.01 level of significance, the null hypothesis is therefore rejected and it is proven that there is a highly significant difference between the treatments in terms of number of leaves. The Coefficient of Variation is also computed and obtained 0.29% difference. </li></ul>Sum of Squares Df MS F comp CV Between 116866.48 3 55622.16 5.192 0.29% Within 771888.33 72 10720.67 Total 938754.81 75
  47. 51. <ul><li>C. Findings </li></ul><ul><li>In this study, it was found out that: </li></ul><ul><li>1.Using the statistical test analysis of variance, it was found out that there is a significant difference among the treatments in terms of height and number of leaves. </li></ul><ul><li>a. The coefficient of variation among the treatments in terms of height was 0.29%, thus indicating that there is a 0.29% difference among the treatment means with the general mean. </li></ul><ul><li>b.The coefficient of variation among the treatments in terms of number of leaves was 0.25%, thus indicating that there is a 0.25% difference among the treatment means with the general mean. </li></ul><ul><li>2. Using the statistical test t-test of significant difference, it was found out that: </li></ul><ul><li>a. In terms of height and number of leaves, between treatment 1 and treatment 2, it was found out that the null hypothesis is accepted, therefore, there is no significant difference between the two treatments. </li></ul><ul><li>b.In terms of number of leaves, between treatment 1 and treatment 3, it was found out that the null hypothesis is accepted, therefore, there is no significant difference between the two treatments. In terms of height, it was found out that the null hypothesis is rejected; therefore, there is a significant difference between the two treatments, in favor of treatment 1, the treatment with greater mean obtained. </li></ul>
  48. 52. <ul><li>c. In terms of height, between treatment 1 and treatment 4, it was found out that the null hypothesis is accepted, therefore, there is no significant difference between the two treatments. In terms of number of leaves, it was found out that the null hypothesis is rejected; therefore, there is a significant difference between the two treatments, in favor of treatment 1, the treatment with greater mean obtained. </li></ul><ul><li>d. In terms of number of leaves, between treatment 2 and treatment 3, it was found out that the null hypothesis is accepted, therefore, there is no significant difference between the two treatments. In terms of height, it was found out that the null hypothesis is rejected; therefore, there is a significant difference between the two treatments, in favor of treatment 2, the treatment with greater mean obtained. </li></ul><ul><li>e. In terms of height, number of leaves, between treatment 2 and treatment 4, it was found out that the null hypothesis is accepted, therefore, there is no significant difference between the two treatments. </li></ul>
  49. 53. <ul><li>f. In terms of height, between treatment 3 and treatment 4, it was found out that the null hypothesis is accepted, therefore, there is no significant difference between the two treatments. In terms of number of leaves, it was found out that the null hypothesis is accepted, therefore, there is a significant difference between the treatments, in favor of treatment 3, the treatment with greater mean obtained. </li></ul><ul><li>3. Using the statistical test, mean, it was found out that treatment 1 and treatment 3 weighed above the mean. Therefore, these two treatments are effective fertilizers. </li></ul>
  50. 54. <ul><li>D. Conclusions </li></ul><ul><li> Statistical tests revealed that fish fertilizer and Commercial Fertilizer, the, is not significantly different from each other, thus, indicating that Fish Fertilizer and Commercial Fertilizer have almost the same effects in bell pepper plants. In terms of mass of yield, Fish Fertilizer and Commercial Fertilizer both obtained more than 30% of the total mass of yield. </li></ul><ul><li>Therefore, it can be concluded that fish gills emulsion applied as a fertilizer is as effective as the commercial fertilizer for bell pepper crops. </li></ul>
  51. 55. <ul><li>E. Recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>For future researchers: </li></ul><ul><li>1. The researchers highly recommend the use of more experimental units to validate or negate claims by this study. </li></ul><ul><li>2. The researchers also recommend the use of other varieties of bell pepper especially those which are commonly sold in markets throughout the country, for the study to be of greater economic value. </li></ul><ul><li>3. The researchers also recommend that future researchers use different varieties of banana, squash and papaya in the fermented fruit juice fertilizer. </li></ul><ul><li>4. The researchers also recommend further researches done regarding the topic for the improvement of the study. </li></ul><ul><li>5. The researchers also recommend future researchers to validate or negate claims in this study. </li></ul>
  52. 57. <ul><li>Appendices </li></ul>
  53. 58. <ul><li>Appendix A </li></ul><ul><li>Gantt Chart </li></ul>
  54. 59. Activities Duration (weeks)   1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-14 15-16 17-18 19-20 21-22 23-24 25-26 27-28 29-30 31-32 33-34 35-36 37-39 39-40 Planning the experiment and Gathering of preliminary data Procurement of supplies and preparation of fertilizer Transplanting of seedlings Application of treatment Care and management Data gathering and recoding Writing of result and Creating the final write-up Editing and submission of the final write-up
  55. 60. <ul><li>This graph shows the time frame of the study from the beginning until the end. Germination of seeds and transplanting takes almost six weeks before the application of treatment as well as gathering data that takes 12 weeks after. Editing and finalization of the write-up was done before submission. </li></ul>
  56. 61. <ul><li>Appendix B </li></ul><ul><li>Tables </li></ul>
  57. 62. <ul><li>Table 1 9 </li></ul><ul><li>Measure of Number Yield for each Treatment </li></ul>T1 T2 T3 T4 1 7 9 10 13 2 3 8 12 10 3 2 13 4 4 4 4 8 6 4 5 8 3 5 13 6 3 2 4 9 7 13 7 15 2 8 6 4 1 2 9 23 5 8 0 10 26 7 3 13 11 6 3 3 5 12 3 7 5 5 13 3 6 3 8 14 7 4 7 6
  58. 63. 15 2 4 3 10 16 2 3 28 4 17 4 7 11 6 18 4 10 7 4 19 12 8 5 3 Σ x 138 118 140 121 Σ x² 1848 878 1716 1055 Ave. 7.26 6.21 7.37 6.37 SD 6.85 2.84 6.17 3.98
  59. 64. Table 20 Measure of Height for each Treatment T1 T2 T3 T4 1 327 383 306 368 2 292 366 185 333.5 3 300 394 289 216 4 337 306.5 301 251 5 337 285.5 300 398 6 280 327 265 396 7 378 282 333 246 8 500 497 128 360 9 557 310 349 257 10 466 379.5 252.5 365 11 362.5 269 300 372 12 372 380 297 380 13 394.5 372.5 310.5 277.5 14 391 435 367 328.5
  60. 65. 15 366 300 264 319 16 370.5 388 473 331 17 369 370 264 430 18 389 387 344 369 19 365 426 406 324 Σ x 7153.5 6858 5734 6321.5 Σ x² 2778255 2538347 1830640 2165975 Ave. 376.5 360.95 301.79 332.71 SD 68.70 59.15 74.60 59.05
  61. 66. Table 21 Measure of Number of Leaves for each Treatment T1 T2 T3 T4 1 393 527 549 585 2 332 489 440 566 3 380 613 468 225 4 528 427 508 288 5 425 468 545 464 6 504 419 387 476 7 529 304 516 317 8 645 470 191 428 9 745 325 633 329 10 707 415 567 558 11 491 361 486 497 12 350 502 497 442 13 602 483 444 261 14 505 497 644 420
  62. 67. 15 604 418 549 291 16 570 461 703 383 17 568 509 455 535 18 541 416 576 440 19 621 464 527 297 Σ x 10040 8568 9685 7802 Σ x² 5544910 3958000 5151015 3427598 Ave. 528.42 450.95 509.74 410.63 SD 115.36 72.37 109.09 111.52
  63. 68. <ul><li>Appendix C </li></ul><ul><li>Plates </li></ul>
  64. 69. <ul><li>Plate 1. Preparation of soil to be used </li></ul>
  65. 70. <ul><li>Plate 2. Materials for basal application </li></ul>
  66. 71. <ul><li>Plate 3. Mixing the soil with the soil-less media </li></ul>
  67. 72. <ul><li>Plate 4. Mixing of soil thoroughly. </li></ul>
  68. 73. <ul><li>Plate 5: Weighing scale used to measure the mass of materials to be used. </li></ul>
  69. 74. <ul><li>Plate 6: Basin used for mixing the materials measured. </li></ul>
  70. 75. <ul><li>Plate 7: Slicing the squash to obtain 500 grams </li></ul>
  71. 76. <ul><li>Plate 8: Slicing the banana to obtain 500 grams. </li></ul>
  72. 77. <ul><li>Plate 9. Mixing the materials for the mixture. </li></ul>
  73. 78. <ul><li>Plate 10. Mashing the mixed fruits. </li></ul>
  74. 79. <ul><li>Plate 11. Adding one kilo of brown sugar to the one kilo mixture of fruits </li></ul>
  75. 80. <ul><li>Plate 12. Pouring of collected fish waste to the basin. </li></ul>
  76. 81. <ul><li>Plate 13. Mashing of fish wastes </li></ul>
  77. 82. <ul><li>Plate 14. Adding of one kilo of brown sugar to the one kilo of fish waste. </li></ul>
  78. 83. <ul><li>Plate 15. Transferring of mixture to cloth </li></ul>
  79. 84. <ul><li>Plate 16. Putting of heavier object to avoid disturbance </li></ul>
  80. 85. <ul><li>Plate 17. Treatment 2 for fermentation set-up </li></ul>
  81. 86. <ul><li>Plate 18. Treatment 1 for fermentation set-up </li></ul>
  82. 87. <ul><li>Plate 19. Preparation of seedlings </li></ul>
  83. 88. <ul><li>Plate 20. Planting of seeds </li></ul>
  84. 89. <ul><li>Plate 21. Pouring two spoonful of Treatment 1 </li></ul>
  85. 90. <ul><li>Plate 22. Pouring two spoonful to one gallon of water </li></ul>
  86. 91. <ul><li>Plate 23. Diluted Treatment 1 </li></ul>
  87. 92. <ul><li>Plate 24. Pouring two spoonful of Treatment 2 </li></ul>
  88. 93. <ul><li>Plate 25. Pouring of two spoonful to one gallon of water </li></ul>
  89. 94. <ul><li>Plate 26. Diluted Treatment 2 </li></ul>
  90. 95. <ul><li>Plate 27. Biological interference met </li></ul>
  91. 96. <ul><li>Plate 28. Pests attacking plants </li></ul>
  92. 97. <ul><li>Plate 29. Weighing of yield of Treatment 1 </li></ul>
  93. 98. <ul><li>Plate 30. Weighing of yield of Treatment 2 </li></ul>
  94. 99. <ul><li>Plate 31. Weighing of yield of Treatment 3 </li></ul>
  95. 100. <ul><li>Plate 32. Weighing of yield of Treatment 4 </li></ul>

×