Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
achieved by vermicomposting.
2012).
2016).
Effect of Different 2
General Objective
Specific Objectives
substrates.
substrates.
substrates.
Effect of Different 3
Hypotheses
Theoretical Framework
Treatment A
400g Rice Straw + 600g
Carabao Manure + 400g Sab-a
peelings + 600g Plant
manure 1. %Nitrogen
Content
Treatment B
400g Coco Peat + 600g 2. %Phosphorus
Carabao Manure + 400g Sab-a Content
peelings + 600g Plant
manure 3. %Potassium
Content
Treatment C
400g Fish Bones + 600g
Carabao Manure + 400g Sab-a
peelings + 600g Plant
manure
soil conditions.
disposal.
level of significance.
Effect of Different 7
Definition of Terms
mix of a grey and purple color and grow to over twice the
study.
study.
and measured.
per treatment.
Vermicomposting, (2) NPK, (3) Rice Straw, (4) Coco Peat, (5)
Vermicomposting
Effect of Different 10
bioreactors playing an
conventional composting
Figure 2. Vermicomposting
because the organic material Photo taken by the Researcher
International, 2016).
Rice Straw
rice straw into the soil is not necessary and can be a major
Coco Peat
2017).
Fish Bones
enriches and strengthens soil life. Using fish bone can also
2017).
Synthesis
earthworms.
Materials
Tools
cement, 5 bamboos, 7x3.5m sack and 6x3m net which were used
Experimental Design
replications.
Treatment A:
400g rice straw
+ 600g carabao
manure + 600g
plant manure +
400g sab-a
peelings
Treatment B:
400g coco peat
+ 600g carabao
manure + 600g
plant manure +
400g sab-a
peelings
Treatment C:
400g fish bones
+ 600g carabao
manure + 600g
plant manure +
400g sab-a
peelings
Procedural Design
General Procedure
Site Selection
infestation.
Figure 8. Vermicomposting Area
Photo taken by the Researcher
60% nitrogen ratio. Rice straw, coco peat, fish bones, and
The materials needed for the worm bed were gathered and
300g kudzu leaves, and 600g sab-a peelings were mixed. Each
amount daily.
Figure 9. Materials
Sprinkling of Tap Water
Photo to Vermicompost
taken Heap Weekly
by the Researcher
The vermicompost heap was regularly sprinkled (at least
Crawlers
were air-dried for 3 days and then was passed through a 2-mm
sieve. Materials that did not pass through the sieve were
cycle.
Results
Mean +SD
Treatments Replicates
R1 R2 R3
A 0.83 0.77 0.72 0.77 +0.55
Discussions
Effect of Different 28
Conclusion
and rice straws and coco peat are the most effective
Recommendations
of vermicasts in vermicomposting.
Effect of Different 29
vermicasts in vermicomposting.
growth.
study.
References
Dobermann,A.,Fairhurst,T.H.(2002).Better Crops
International.Vol.16, Special Supplement
Appendices
Effect of Different 31
Appendix A
Statistical Tool
Effect of Different 32
Null Hypothesis
Alternative Hypothesis
Decision
Analysis of Variance
Completely Randomized Design
=============================================
ANALYSIS FOR RESPONSE VARIABLE: Raw.Data
=============================================
Summary Information
--------------------------------------
FACTOR NO. OF LEVELS LEVELS
--------------------------------------
Treatments 3 a, b, c
--------------------------------------
Number of Observations Read and Used: 9
ANOVA TABLE
Response Variable: Raw.Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Treatments 2 0.0198 0.0099 1.43 0.3102
Error 6 0.0415 0.0069
Total 8 0.0614
-------------------------------------------------------------
Summary Statistics
Effect of Different 34
-----------------------
CV(%) Raw.Data Mean
-----------------------
11.52 0.7222
-----------------------
Standard Errors
---------------------
Effects StdErr
---------------------
Treatments 0.0679
---------------------
Table of Means
-----------------------------
Treatments Raw.Data Means
-----------------------------
a 0.7733
b 0.7333
c 0.6600
-----------------------------
Null Hypothesis
Alternative Hypothesis
Decision
Analysis of Variance
Completely Randomized Design
=============================================
ANALYSIS FOR RESPONSE VARIABLE: Raw.Data
=============================================
Summary Information
--------------------------------------
FACTOR NO. OF LEVELS LEVELS
--------------------------------------
Treatments 3 a, b, c
--------------------------------------
Number of Observations Read and Used: 9
ANOVA TABLE
Response Variable: Raw.Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Treatments 2 0.0393 0.0196 2.41 0.1708
Effect of Different 36
Summary Statistics
-----------------------
CV(%) Raw.Data Mean
-----------------------
21.17 0.4267
-----------------------
Standard Errors
---------------------
Effects StdErr
---------------------
Treatments 0.0737
---------------------
Table of Means
-----------------------------
Treatments Raw.Data Means
-----------------------------
a 0.3767
b 0.3833
c 0.5200
-----------------------------
Null Hypothesis
Alternative Hypothesis
Decision
Analysis of Variance
Completely Randomized Design
=============================================
ANALYSIS FOR RESPONSE VARIABLE: Raw.Data
=============================================
Summary Information
--------------------------------------
FACTOR NO. OF LEVELS LEVELS
--------------------------------------
Treatments 3 a, b, c
--------------------------------------
Number of Observations Read and Used: 9
ANOVA TABLE
Response Variable: Raw.Data
-------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Treatments 2 0.5043 0.2521 7.10 0.0262
Effect of Different 38
Summary Statistics
-----------------------
CV(%) Raw.Data Mean
-----------------------
34.06 0.5533
-----------------------
Standard Errors
---------------------
Effects StdErr
---------------------
Treatments 0.1539
---------------------
Alpha 0.05
Error Degrees of Freedom 6
Error Mean Square 0.0355
Critical Value 2.4469
Test Statistics 0.3766
Appendix B
Raw Data
Effect of Different 41
Effect of Different 42
Effect of Different 43
Appendix C
Letters
Effect of Different 44
Effect of Different 45