Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of the study
Organic farming is a different sort of farming practice which is different from
the conventional farming. Organic farming is carrying out in order to produce
organic food that is better and healthy for consumptions (Mudhar undated).
In organic farming everything is done naturally, natural fertilizer such as
manure or compost to feed the soil and plants. To control pest and diseases
only beneficial insects and birds, mating disruption or traps is used. But for
conventional farming, chemical fertilizer is applying to promote plant growth.
Insecticides and herbicides are used to control pest, diseases and to
manage weeds (Mayor Clinic Staff 2008).
Conventional farming mostly used chemical to growth plants, that the
reasons why organic foods are more safety to human health and
environmental friendly compare to the non organic food that can cause
illness and harmful to the human being, animals and also to the
environmental. Organic farming was not only found to work, but the products
arising from it are now considered as quality products. Farmers can obtain
higher prices for what they grow, and it is one of the few agricultural markets
where supply is never enough. It’s consumption in Europe show steadily and
rapidly increasing during the last 15 years (Calleja undated)
1
Demand for organic foods in Malaysia is increasing but the problem is, to
produce organic foods more costly and the production or yields are less
compare to the non organic foods. Externalized environmental, health and
social costs make conventional agriculture products cheaper than organic
agriculture production. Production of organic fertilizer is not fully
commercialized yet and production rate is still low. Organic fertilizer meanly
came from animal waste such as cow dung, chicken dung and others. Many
studies have been conducted on the use of vermicompost for plant growth
(Atiyeh et al., 2000; Uma 2009; Edwards 2004). Thus the obvious problems
that call for research is how to devise an effective and alternative method to
cultivated plant in order to increase yield and give a better growth
performances but still safety to human health and also environmental
friendly. The vermicompost as one example of biofertilizer can be used to
solve this problem. In this study different level of vermicompost will be
applied as biofertilizer on chilies plant. The rates are 0g (served as a control)
350g, 400g, 450g, 500g and 550g per plants.
1.2 Objectives of the study
To investigate what is the best rate of vermicompost that give better yield
and growth performance of Chinese kale (Brassica alboglabra)
2
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
The method of preparing compost with the help of earthworm as natural bioreactor
is known as vermicomposting. Vermicomposting is the breakdown of organic matter
by certain species of earthworms. The common worms used in vermicomposting are
called redworms (Eisenia foetida), also known as red wigglers, manure worms, red
hybrid or tiger worms. (Soni undated) Earthworm compost or vermicompost can be
produced from almost any kind of organic wastes with suitable processing and
controlled vermicomposting conditions. Vermicompost grown plant extremely well
and they can be used as structural additives or amendments for poorer soils to
provide nutrients and minimize soil erosion. (Edwards 2004)
There are several advantages of using vermicompost, it can improve the physical,
chemical and biological properties of the soil and better crop productivity.
Earthworms effectively harness the beneficial soil micro flora, destroy soil pathogen
and convert organic wastes in to vitamins, enzymes, antibiotics, protein rich
products and others organic compounds. Vermicompost is becoming important
alternative to conventional compost and sources for organic farming. It also controls
soil as well as environmental pollution and maintain the soil health (Shahi undated).
The result study by Atiyeh et al. (2000) on the effect of vermicompost and compost
on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil show that, there was a
tendency for the vermicompost to have slightly lower pH, lower concentrations of
ammonium nitrogen and higher concentrations of nitrate nitrogen than many of the
compost when the chemical properties of vermicomposts and composts
3
were.compared. The study by McGinnis (2007) on vermicompost amended pine
bark showed improves on substrates physical properties, water use efficiency and
growth of Genovese Basil. Vermicompost amended pine bark provides liming effects
and pH buffering, improved physical properties, improved water use efficiency and
increased plant growth of all tissues.
There are a lot of studies that show the advantages using vermicompost as a soil
amendment available and can give more nutrients available for the plants uptake in
order to improve the growth performances of plants and give better yields. The most
important using vermicompost as a biofertilizer can produce organic foods that are
goods for human health. Other study that show the benefit or advantages using
vermicompost as a fertilizer was carry out by Azarmi et al. (2008) on the influence of
vermicompost on soil chemical and physical properties on tomato field. The results
showed, soil treated with vermicomposts had significantly more EC in comparison to
unamended plots and physical properties such as bulk density and total porosity in
soil amended with vermicompost were improved. The result of experiment revealed
that addition of vermicompost had significant positive effects on the soil chemical
and physical properties.
Vermicompost quality depending on many factors including worm species, raw
material used or types of feeding, and age of the compost. Vermicomposts are
generally of finer structure, contain more nutrients, and have higher microbial activity
than other types of composts. This makes vermicomposts particularly valuable as
plant growth promoters (Radovich 2009). The study, influence of vermicompost on
plant growth characteristic of cucumber seedlings under saline conditions by Sallaku
4
et al. (2009) found that a significantly higher relative growth rate was found for
young seedlings grown in vermicompost compared to commercial peat compost.
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture stated that Vermicompost is rich in
organic carbon, which plays a key role in soil fertility, and contains all essential plant
nutrients in appropriate proportions. Thus it is a complete and balanced plant food.
Use vermicompost can enhances colour, smell, taste, flavor and keeping quality of
flowers, fruits, vegetables and food grains and farmer also can sell their product at a
higher price in the market. Based on the Rockfall Foundation and the State of
Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection, vermicompost is more nutrient rich
than other composting methods. It also contains worm mucus, which prevents
nutrients from washing away, and holds moisture better than plain soil.
Table 2.1 Nutrient value of vermicompost
Nutrient Content
Organic carbon 20-25%
Nitrogen 1.5-2.0%
Phosphorus 0.5-1.5%
Potassium 0.5-1.0%
Calcium 0.4-0.8%
Magnesium 0.3-0.6%
Sulphur 100-500 ppm*
Iron 6.7-9.3 ppm
Copper 2.0-9.5 ppm
Zinc 5.7-11.5 ppm
*ppm - parts per million
(Source: Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture Santoshnagar,
Hyderabad)
5
The standard rate of using vermicompost for vegetables are for raising seedlings to
be transplanted, vermicompost at 1 tan ha-1 is applied in the nursery bed. This
results in healthy and vigorous seedlings. But for transplants, vermicompost at the
rate of 400–500 g per plant is applied initially at the time of planting and 45 days
after planting (before irrigation). For vegetable and flower crops vermicompost is
applied around the base of the plant. It is then covered with soil and watered
regularly. (Nagavallemma et al., 2004).
Humic materials and other plant growth influencing substances, such as plant
growth hormones, produced by microorganism during vermicomposting, and
produced after increased microbial biomass and activity in soils, may have been
responsible for the increased growth and yields (Uma 2009).
Based on the study by Atiyeh et al. (2000) about the effects of vermicompost and
compost on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil stated that, when
chemical properties of vermicompost and compost were compared, they found that
there was tendency for the vermicompost to have a slightly lower pH, lower
concentrations of ammonium nitrogen and higher concentrations of nitrate nitrogen
than many of the compost.
6
CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL AND METHODS
3.1 Soil Preparation
The experiment is conducted using top soil as growth medium that was
taken from UiTM Jengka. The soil was packed into the polybag measuring
15’ x 18’ two weeks before transplanting and applied with different rate of
vermicompost.
3.2 Plants
The variety of Chinese kale that was used in this study is No.11 that was
taken from Jabatan Pertanian Malaysia Daerah Klang. The Chinese kale
seed is germinated in the germination tray two weeks before transplanting.
3.3 Vermicompost
Vermicomposts that were used in this study was taken from Nas Agro Farm,
Sepang, Selangor. Vermicompost with the different rate 0 (served as a
control), 350g, 400g, 450g, 500g and 550g is used in this study.
Vermicompost with different rate is applied to the soil two weeks before
transplanting the Chinese kale seedlings.
7
3.4 Growth Measurement
Data was collected and recorded in terms of height of plants, number of
leaves, fresh weight, and weight leaf and root ratio. For the height of plant
measurement that is used is raffia rope and ruler. The number of leaves and
plant height were measured at four days interval. For the fresh, dry and leaf
and root ratio was taken at the end of the experiment. Data on bulk density,
soil porosity, soil particle and pH of the soil were also observed. All of this is
carry out in the lab and the data were counted 2 times, before the
transplanting and after harvesting. The plant was watered two times a day
with the same amount of water or when appropriate for each Chinese kale
plant. Weeding was done manually to avoid injury to the plants.
3.5 Hypothesis
Response of plant growth to the 6 different levels of vermicomposts:
H0: 0=1=2=3=4 =5
HI: Some i Some j
H0: There is no significant difference between the plant growths that
treated with different level of vermicompost.
HI: There is significant difference between the plant growths that treated
with different level of vermicompost.
8
Response of plant yield to the 6 different levels of vermicomposts:
H0: 0=1=2=3=4=5
HI: Some i Some j
H0: There is no significance different between the plant yields that treated
with different level of vermicompost.
HI: There is significant difference between the plant yields that treated
with different level of vermicompost.
3.6 Treatments
Vermicompost with the different rate 0g, 350g, 400g, 450g, 500g and 550g
was used. Twenty four Chinese kale plants are planted in the polybag with
six different treatments of vermicompost. There are four replications.
Vermicompost was applied to the soil about two weeks before transplanting.
3.7 Experimental design
The design that was used in this study is a simple experiment using
completely randomized design (CRD).
9
Experimental Layout (CRD)
V1R1 V5R1 V3R1 V1R2
V2R1 V1R3 V1R4 V4R1
V2R2 V0R1 V3R2 V5R2
V0R2 V3R3 V4R2 V0R3
V3R4 V2R3 V4R3 V4R4
V5R3 V0R4 V5R4 V2R4
V0: 0 gram Vermicompost
V1: 350 gram Vermicompost
V2: 400 gram Vermicompost
V3: 450 gram Vermicompost
V4: 500 gram Vermicompost
V5: 550 gram Vermicompost
3.8 Data Collections
Data was collected and recorded in terms of height of plants, number of
leaves, fresh weight, and weight leaf and root ratio. The data collected was
calculated by average of four replications.
10
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS
4.1 Growth parameters
The data were analyzed based on growth performance and soil properties.
Growth performance parameters are number of leaf, height and fresh weight.
Bulk density, soil particle, soil porosity and pH of the soil were analyzed for
soil properties. The end result of this study is summarized and analyzed
according to the each parameter as below.
4.1.1 Number of Leaf
The data was collected during this study is nine times for the four replication
of each treatment and average for each treatment was summarized using
the diagram in order to see is there any significant different in the number of
leaf for each treatment.
11
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
2
4
6
8
10
12
Number of Leaf
Treatment V0Treatment V1Treatment V2Treatment V3Treatment V4Treatment V5
Data Taken
No
of Le
af
Figure 4.1 The number of leaf for each treatment
Based on the histogram above, it shows the different in the number of leaf for each
treatment. The treatment V2 with 400 gram of vermicompost and treatment V1 with
350 gram of vermicompost show the highest number of leaf. The number of leaf for
treatment V4 with 500 gram of vermicompost and V5 with 550 gram of
vermicompost show the same number, exactly 10 leafs. For the treatment V3 with
450 gram of vermicompost stated the lowest number of leafs which is 9 leaf in
average for the last data taken, compared to the other treatment that applied with
the vermicompost. V0 that served as a control, show the lowest number of leaf and
the number of leaf for V0 was stunted started from 4 times data taken and maintain
at the same number of leaf until the last data taken.
12
Table 4.1 Analysis of Variance for Number of leaf, using Adjusted SS for TestsSource DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P
Vermicompost 5 77.375 77.375 15.475 27.18 0.000
Error 18 10.250 10.250 0.569
Total 23 87.625
S = 0.754615 R-Sq = 88.30% R-Sq(adj) = 85.05%
Based on the ANOVA table for the complete randomized design (CRD) above, it
show the value of P is 0.000 and that means, there is significant different in the
number of leaf for each treatment so H0 can be rejected. The different between the
various treatment totals is caused by differences in the treatment effect as well as
differences among the random error effects.
Figure 4.2 The chart of mean for number of leaf
13
d
bbc
aa
4.1.2 Height of plant
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 90
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Plant Height
Treatment V0Treatment V1Treatment V2Treatment V3Treatment V4Treatment V5
Data Taken
cm
Figure 4.3 Height of the Chinese kale.
The diagram show the height of Chinese kale with the different treatment, and
treatment V4 show the highest increasing growth performance compare to the
others treatment. It can be seen started from the third data taken and gradually
increasing until the last data taken, 19.25 cm. For the treatment V0 it show the
lowest growth of Chinese kale, at the beginning of the experiment it growth normally
like other treatment but at the end of experiment that which in the 8 and 9 data taken
it become stunted without any increasing in the height. Treatment V3 also showed
gradual increasing about 19 cm for the last data taken followed by the treatment V5
with 18 cm, and treatment V2 show the lowest growing in terms of height compare
to the others treatment that applied with the vermicompost and that only 16.85 cm
growing for the last data.
14
Table 4.2 Analysis of Variance for Plant Height (cm), using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P
Vermicompost 5 431.59 431.59 86.32 6.40 0.001
Error 18 242.6663 242.63 13.48
Total 23 674.22
S = 3.67140 R-Sq = 64.01% R-Sq(adj) = 54.02%
The ANOVA table show the P value 0.001 and this value is less than 0.05 which it
means there is a significant different between the each treatment in the plant height
and so hypothesis H0 can be rejected. The F ratio also show the lower value
compare to the F ratio for the number of the leaf that is much greater and this
happen because of the difference between the treatment effect is greater and then
the value of F ratio also will be greater.
Figure 4.4 The chart of mean for plant height
15
d
b c aa
b
4.1.3 Fresh Weight
V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V50
10
20
30
40
50
60
Fresh Weight
Weight (gram)
Treatment
Wei
ght (
gram
)
Figure 4.5 Fresh weight of Chinese kale
The graph shows the fresh weight of each treatment and based on the graph above
treatment V4 show the highest fresh weight which is 55.85 gram and this fresh
weight related to the yield performance of Chinese kale which means that treatment
V4 can produce a better yield of Chinese kale compared to the other treatment that
were supplied with vermicompost, it followed by the treatment V5 with 53.98 gram of
yield produced and for the treatment V3 was 48.23 gram of yield. Treatment V1
show the lowest yield compare to the other Chinese kale that applied with the
vermicompost and it stated 43.03 gram fresh weight of Chinese kale. Treatment V0
show the lowest yield produce compare to the Chinese kale that apply with
vermicompost and it only has 2.18 gram in average for the four replication.
Treatment V0 no vermicompost not only shows the lowest in terms of growth but
also in the yield performance. Treatment V1, V2, V3, V4 and V5 supplied with
vermicompost growth better and give a better yield.
16
Table 4.3 Analysis of Variance for Fresh Weight (gram), using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P
Vermicompost 5 7914.2 7914.2 1582.8 18.59 0.000
Error 18 1532.2 1532.2 85.1
Total 23 9446.4
S = 9.22617 R-Sq = 83.78% R-Sq(adj) = 79.27%
The analysis of variance table shows the value of P is 0.000 less than 0.05 so the
hypothesis H0 is rejected. The conclusion that can be make according to this table,
there is significant difference between the treatments V0, V1, V2, V3, V4 and V5.
The F ratio can be calculated by dividing the MS treatment (MSt) with MS error
(MSe), 1582.8 was divided with 85.1 to get 18.59 for the F ratio.
Figure 4.6 The chart of mean for fresh weight
17
d
c b b a a
4.1.4 Fresh Weight of Shoot and Root
V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V50.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
Fresh weight of Shoot
Shoot
Treatment
Wei
ght o
f sho
ot (g
ram
)
Figure 4.7 Fresh weight of shoot
The graph above show the fresh weight for the shoot of Chinese kale, for this
parameter the shoot part and root is cut off and each part was weight differently in
order to get the weight of each part. For the fresh weight of the shoot it was the
same like the total fresh weight that already measured and explains earlier,
treatment V4 stated the highest value, followed by V5 as a second highest and V3
as the third highest with value each is 52.48 gram, 50.88 gram and 46.10 gram. The
treatment V1 show the lowest weight compare to the other treatment that applied
with vermicompost and estimated 41.15 gram. Treatment V2 is highest than V1 and
it stated 44.25 gram in fresh weight of shoot. For the treatment V0 show the lowest
value compare to all treatment that applied with vermicompost.
18
V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Fresh weight of Root
Root
Treatment
Wei
ght o
f roo
t (gr
am)
Figure 4.8 Fresh weight of root
The graph for the fresh weight of root has a different result compared to the total
fresh weight and fresh weight of shoot because from the graph the treatment V3
show the lowest value compare to the treatment VI and V2. The treatment V3
become the lowest treatment that gets less value compare to other treatments that
applied with vermicompost. Treatment V4 still show the highest weight with 3.38
gram compare to others treatment. Followed by the treatment V5 as a second
highest with 3.31 gram of root weight. For the treatment V0 no vermicompost
indicated the lowest weight of root and the value only 0.33 gram.
19
Table 4.4 Analysis of Variance for Fresh Weight of Shoot (gram), using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P
Vermicompos
t
5 7136.4 7136.4 1427.3 19.17 0.000
Error 18 1339.9 1339.9 74.4
Total 23 8476.3
S = 8.62775 R-Sq = 84.19% R-Sq(adj) = 79.80%
The analysis of variance table above show the P value less than 0.05 and it was the
same like the total fresh weight. So the H0 must be rejected and there is significant
difference in the fresh weight of the shoot and from here the pairwise comparison
must be making in order to now the different between the treatments.
Figure 4.9 The chart of mean for fresh weight of shoot
20
c
b b b a a
Table 4.5 Analysis of Variance for Fresh Weight of Root (gram), using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P
Vermicompost 5 23.2783 23.2783 4.6557 7.82 0.000
Error 18 10.7200 10.7200 0.5956
Total 23 33.9983
S = 0.771722 R-Sq = 68.47% R-Sq(adj) = 59.71%
The ANOVA table above show the value of P is less than 0.05 and this value is the
same like the total fresh weight and fresh weight for the shoot. So, the H0 hypothesis
can be rejected and there is significant difference in the value of fresh weight of root.
Figure 4.10 The chart of mean for fresh weight of root
21
d
c cc
a b
4.1.5 Bulk density
V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V50
0.20.40.60.8
11.21.41.6
Bulk Density
Bulk Density (gcm3) BeforeBulk Density (gcm3) After
Treatments
gcm
3
Figure 4.11 Bulk density of the soil
The bulk density was taken two times before transplanting and after harvesting and
the result is shown in the figure 4.11. From the figure, overall of the bulk density
value is decreasing for the each treatment but the treatment V0 show increased in
bulk density.
Table 4.6 Analysis of Variance for Bulk density (gcm3), using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P
Vermicompos
t
5 0.203789 0.203789 0.040758 12.36 0.000
Error 18 0.0595353 0.0595353 0.003297
Total 23 0.263143
S = 0.0574230 R-Sq = 77.44% R-Sq(adj) = 71.18%
22
The analysis of variance or ANOVA table 4.6 show the probability value 0.000 and
this is less than 0.05, thus H0 hypothesis must be rejected and H1 hypothesis must
be accepted, so there is significant difference in the value of bulk density for each of
the treatment in this study. This ANOVA table based on the result of the bulk density
that was taken after the harvesting process.
Figure 4.12 The chart of mean for bulk density (gcm3)
23
a b b b b b
4.1.6 Soil porosity
V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V505
1015202530354045
Soil Porosity
Soil Porosity (%) BeforeSoil Porosity (%) After
Treatments
Perc
enta
ge (%
)
Figure 4.13 Soil porosity of the soil
The figure 4.13 shows the result of soil porosity before applying vermicompost and
after harvesting. Soil porosity for the treatment V5, V4 and V3 show the highest
which is 41% each and followed by the treatment V1 and V2 with 40% each after
harvesting. The treatment V1 and V2 showed no changes occur before applied with
vermicompost and after harvesting. Treatment V0 shows result before transplanting
much higher than the result after harvesting.
24
Table 4.7 Analysis of Variance for Soil Porosity, using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P
Vermicompost 5 392.10 392.10 78.42 0.99 0.453
Error 18 1432.14 1432.14 79.56
Total 23 1824.24
S = 8.91983 R-Sq = 21.49% R-Sq(adj) = 0.00%
As shown by the ANOVA table above, the result after the harvesting, the value of P
is more than the 0.05. H0 hypothesis is fail to rejected, so there is no significant
difference in the percentages of the soil porosity for the treatment V0, V1, V2, V3,
V4 and V5.
25
4.1.7 pH
V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V53.6
3.8
4
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
Soil pH
BeforeAfter
Treatments
Ph
Figure 4.14 pH of the soil for each treatment
As the figure above show, the overall pH of the soil before transplanting was less
than after harvesting. pH of soil show increases in pH value related to the increasing
in the amount of the vermicompost applied at the end of the study period, except for
the treatment V5. Treatment V4 show the highest pH which is 4.84 and the
treatment V0 show the lowest pH with 3.91, for the result at the end of the study.
26
Table 4.8 Analysis of Variance for pH, using Adjusted SS for Tests
Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P
Vermicompost 5 2.62858 2.62858 0.52572 10.01 0.000
Error 18 0.94580 0.94580 0.05254
Total 23 3.57438
S = 0.229226 R-Sq = 73.54% R-Sq (adj) = 66.19%
The analysis of variance above show the pH result after the harvesting. Based on
the table, value of the P is 0.000 and this value is less than 0.05, therefore the H0 is
rejected and there is a significant difference in the number of pH for the each
treatment that is carried out in this study.
Figure 4.15 The chart of mean for pH
27
c a a aa a
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSIONS
Organic farming systems with the aid of various nutrients of biological origin such as
vermicompost will be the answer for the food security and farm security in the future.
Among them compost that made by the earthworm or we called it as a
vermicompost is proving to be highly nutritive organic fertilizer, rich in micronutrients,
beneficial soil microbes and also contain plant growth hormone and enzyme.
Anonymous (2009) reported that vermicompost also significantly proven as a
miracle growth promoter and plant protector from pest and diseases.
These experiments, together with other reported in the literature, demonstrate that
vermicompost have considerable potential for improving plant growth significantly,
when used as fertilizer or used as a soil amendments. In this study 6 treatments with
different rate of vermicompost was prepared in order to know the best rate of
vermicompost that can promote plant growth and yield performance. The standard
that was used in this study based on the Negavallemma et al. (2004) that stated the
range of vermicompost that was applied as a fertilizer for the vegetables is between
400 - 500 gram per plant. Based on the result at the end of the study, treatment V4
with 500 gram of vermicompost show the better growth and yield performance in the
number of leaf, plant height, fresh weight, and also for the fresh weight of shoot and
root compare to the other treatments that show the fluctuation in the result for each
of the parameter that has been study.
28
Treatment V1 and V2 show the highest number of leaf compared to the other
treatment but even treatment V1 and V2 has the highest number of leaf it not the
best rate than can promote the plant growth and yield because treatment V1 and V2
show the lowest number of plant height compared to the others treatment that
applied with vermicompost. The both treatment also has less fresh weight which
means it produce less yield. Based on my observation to the treatment V1 and V2,
even it has the highest number of leaf , the diameter of each leaf is more smaller
compared to the treatment V4 and V5 that make the both treatment less in fresh
weight.
Treatment V0 with no vermicompost added showed the lowest number of leaf and
also in terms of plant height. The yield produced also less and the growth of
Chinese kale for this treatment was stunted. This is because of the nutrient content
in the soil is not enough for the plant in treatment V0 to grow and in terms of bulk
density for V1 is also high. The pH value for treatment V1 also less than the other
treatment that applied with vermicompost and the optimum pH for the Chinese kale
to growth well is 5.4 and this will result in the lack growth performance.
Negavallemma et al. (2004) reported that greenhouse studies at Ohio State
University Columbus have indicated that vermicompost can enhance the transplant
growth rate of vegetables.
Although this study focuses more on the effects of vermicompost on plant growth
and yield performance rather than on the causes leading to these effects, my result
showed distinct differences for each treatment, high amount of vermicompost is not
100% influences the plants growth and this is proven by the treatment V3 that show
29
the lowest in terms of number of leaf compared to the treatment V1 and V2 that has
less of amount of vermicompost. These things happen, not because of the
vermicompost itself but also the soil properties and the activity of microbial in the
soil. Even though the expected outcome for this study, is more vermicompost
applied will give better result in terms of plant growth and yield performances.
However in this study shows that growth performance improved until treatment V3
and start to decline when more vermicompost added as an V4 and V5. This result is
an accordance with founding by Aracon et al. (2003) where higher rate of
vermicompostmay result in decline in plant growth. This was obvious in Arancon et
al. (2003) experiment showing that yield of pepper from plant grown in pots with
60% and 80% vermicompost decreased significantly which could have been due to
either high soluble salt concentration, poor aeration, heavy metal toxicity, and plant
phytotoxicity in the undiluted vermicompost.
Cited from the Atiyeh et al., ; Goh and Haynes (1977) reported that plant growth is
generally optimized when the pH is between 5 and 6.5. From my result the pH
before the transplanting and after the harvesting show lowest than that, only
treatment V4 and V3 show the nearest pH optimized of plant growth, that why we
can see the plant height for the V4 and V3 is the highest compare to the other
treatment that has the lowest pH. This is due to pH improvementin treatment V3
and V4as shown in figure 4.14.
In conclusion, vermicompost have the potential for improving the plant growth and
yield performance when applied as a fertilizer. The optimum rate that gives a better
yield and plant growth in my study, which was conducted only over a short period of
time, was treatment V4 with 500 gram vermicompost
30
.
CITED REFERENCES
Anonymous (2008). Mayor clinic staff, Mayor Foundation for Medical Education and Research (MFMER). Nutrition and healthy eating organic foods: Are they safer? More Nutritious? Retrieved on February 20, 2010, from www.mayorclinic.com.
Arancon N. Q, Edward C.A, Atiyeh R and Metzger J.D (2003). Effect of vermicomposts produced from food waste on the growth and yields of greenhouse peppers. Soil Ecology Laboratory and Horticulture and Crop Sciences Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.
Atiyeh R.M, Subler S., Edwards C.A., Bachman G., Metzger J. D. and Shuster W. (2000), Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil. Pedo biologia, 44, 579–590. Dept. of Horticulture and Crop Sciences, The Ohio State University.
Azarmi R., Mousa T.G. and Rahim D.R. (2008). Influence of vermicompost on soil chemical and physical properties in tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum) field. African Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 7 (14), pp. 2397-2401. Department of plants production, Moghan Jounior College of Agriculture, University of Ardabili, Ardabil Iran.
Calleja E, (undated) Organic Farming. Scientific Officer Organic Farming Unit Agricultural Services and Rural Development Division Ministry for Rural Affairs and the Environment.
Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad. Vermicompost from wastes.
Edwards C.A,(2004).Earthworm Ecology Second Edition. CRC Press, 355.
McGinnis M.S (2007), Vermicompost Amended Pine Bark Substrate Improves Nursery Crop Production. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Horticultural Science Raleigh, North Carolina.
Mudhar M (Undated). Benefit of organic farming. Retrieved on February 20, 2010, from www.selfgrowth.com/articles/mudhar2.html
Nagavallemma K.P., Wani S.P., Stephane L., Padmaja V.V. , Vineela C. , Babu M.R. and Sahrawat K.L. (2004). Vermicomposting: Recycling wastes into valuable organic fertilizer. An Open Access Journal published by ICRISAT, Vol 2, issues 1.
Global Theme on Agrecosystems Report no. 8. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 20 pp.
31
Ong Khun Wai (undated), Humus Consultancy, Penang, Malaysia. National Study: Malaysia, The Role of Agriculture and Rural Development in Malaysia.
Pejabat Pertanian Daerah Manjung, Kompleks Pentadbiran Daerah Manjung, 32040 Seri Manjung, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia (2010). Panduan Penanaman Cili. Retrieved on March 18, 2010, from http://pertanianmjg.perak.gov.m y
Rockfall Foundation and the State of Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection (2002).Vermicomposting, A guide to worn composting. City of Middletown. [email protected]
Radovich T. (2009), Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences University of Hawaii at Manoa 3190 Maile Way, St. John 102 Honolulu, Hawaii 96822 . Vermicompost Research under sustainable and organic Agriculture program. http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/radovicht
Sallaku G., Ismet Babaj, Skender Kaciu and Astrit Balliu (2009).The influence of vermicompost on plant growth characteristics of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) seedlings under saline conditions. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.7 (3&4) : 8 6 9 - 8 7 2 . Agriculture University of Tirana, Albania and University of Pristina, Pristina, Kosovo.
Samuel L., Tisdale and Werner (1975). Soil Fertility and Fertilizers (Third Editions). Macmillan Publishing Co.Inc, 27 and 44.
Shahi D.K. (undated) Practical on Vermicompost,. Scientist, Deptt. of Soil science & Agril. Chemistry Birsa Agricultural University Ranchi-834 006 (Jharkhand)
Soni Cochron, (undated) Extension Associate (undated).Institute of Agriculture and Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln http://lancaster.unl.edu
Uma B and Malathi M (2009). Vermicompost as a soil supplement to improve growth and yield of Amaranthus species. Department of Zoology, Bharathi Womens College, Chennai, India. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences, Vol 3; 365 – 389. INSInet Publications.
32
APPENDIX A
Table A1 Data Collection for Number of Leaf
DateTreatment Replication
Average
1 2 3 4
29-Jul-10 V0 3 3 3 3 3
V1 3 3 3 3 3 v2 4 3 3 3 3 v3 3 3 3 3 3 v4 3 3 3 3 3 v5 3 3 3 3 32-Aug-10 V0 4 4 4 4 4
V1 4 4 4 4 4 v2 4 4 4 4 4 v3 4 4 4 4 4 v4 3 4 4 4 4 v5 4 4 4 4 46-Aug-10 V0 5 5 5 4 5 V1 5 5 5 5 5 v2 6 5 5 5 5 v3 4 4 4 4 4 v4 4 5 5 5 5 v5 5 4 5 5 510-Aug10 V0 5 6 6 5 6 V1 6 6 6 6 6 v2 6 6 6 6 6 v3 4 5 5 5 5 v4 5 6 6 6 6 v5 6 5 6 6 6
14-Aug10 V0 5 6 6 5 6
V1 7 8 7 7 7 v2 7 7 7 7 7 v3 5 6 6 6 6 v4 6 7 7 7 7 v5 7 6 7 7 7
18-Aug10 V0 5 6 6 5 6
V1 8 9 8 8 8 v2 9 7 8 9 8 v3 7 7 8 7 7 v4 7 8 8 8 8
33
v5 8 7 8 8 8
22-Aug-10 V0 5 6 6 5 6
V1 8 9 9 9 9 v2 10 7 8 10 9 v3 8 8 8 7 8 v4 7 9 9 9 9 v5 9 9 8 8 926-Aug-
10 V0 5 6 6 5 6 V1 9 10 9 9 9 v2 10 8 9 10 9 v3 8 9 8 7 8 v4 7 9 9 9 9 v5 9 9 8 8 930-Aug-
10 V0 5 6 6 5 6 V1 9 11 11 11 11 v2 12 11 10 11 11 v3 10 9 9 9 9 v4 9 11 11 10 10 v5 10 9 10 11 10
Table A2 Average for 9 data collections
NoTreatment Treatment Treatment Treatment
Treatment Treatment
V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V51 3 3 3 3 3 32 4 4 4 4 4 43 5 5 5 4 5 54 6 6 6 5 6 65 6 7 7 6 7 76 6 9 9 7 9 97 6 9 9 8 9 98 6 9 9 8 8 8
9 6 11 11 9 10 10
34
APPENDIX B
Table B1 Data Collection of Plant Height
Date Treatment Replication (cm) Means
1 2 3 4
29-Jul-10 V0 1.5 0.8 1.5 1 1.20
V1 1 1 1 1 1.00 v2 1 2 1.3 1 1.33 v3 1.5 1.5 1 0.8 1.20 v4 1.5 0.7 1.4 1.3 1.23 v5 1 1 1.2 1 1.052-Aug-10 V0 3.5 2.5 3.5 3 3.13
V1 1.6 1.3 2.8 2 1.93 v2 2.4 3.6 2.3 3.2 2.88 v3 1.7 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.30 v4 1.7 2.2 2.5 3.5 2.48 v5 1.3 1.5 2 2.7 1.886-Aug-10 V0 5.1 3.8 5.1 4.6 4.65
V1 4 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.20 v2 2.7 6 3.6 5.5 4.45 v3 3.8 4.2 4 4.2 4.05 v4 4.3 4.5 4 6.2 4.75 v5 4.2 3.5 4 5 4.1810-Aug-10 V0 5.6 4.6 5.8 5.5 5.38 V1 5.2 6 4.2 6 5.35 v2 3.3 6 4.2 7 5.13 v3 4.6 6 5.6 5.2 5.35 v4 6.5 6.2 5 7.6 6.33 v5 5.8 4.5 4.5 6.2 5.25
14-Aug-10 V0 5.7 4.5 6.5 6.5 5.80 V1 6.2 9 7.2 8.5 7.73 v2 4.5 9.7 5.6 9.7 7.38 v3 7 7.3 7.7 7.6 7.40 v4 8.2 8.2 7 12 8.85 v5 8 8 6.5 10.6 8.2818-Aug-10 V0 6 5 6.5 6.5 6.00 V1 7.7 12 8.7 11.5 9.98 v2 5.4 11.7 7 12.2 9.08 v3 8.5 10.5 9.7 9.5 9.55 v4 10.2 11.2 8.7 15.4 11.38 v5 10 7.6 7.5 13 9.53
35
22-Aug-10 V0 6 5 6.5 7 6.13 V1 10 13 11.5 13.5 12.00 v2 6.3 16.5 9 15 11.70 v3 11 12 13.5 13 12.38 v4 12 13.5 12 20.5 14.50 v5 12.5 10 10 17 12.3826-Aug-10 V0 7.5 5.5 7 8 7.00 V1 13 15 14 17 14.75 v2 8.5 20.5 11 18 14.50 v3 14 14.5 15.5 16.2 15.05 v4 14.2 16.1 13.7 22.2 16.55 v5 15 11.5 12.2 21 14.9330-Aug-10 V0 7.5 5.5 7 8 7.00 V1 15 18 17.5 19.5 17.50 v2 10.5 23.4 13 20.5 16.85 v3 16.5 18.5 19.5 21.5 19.00 v4 15.5 19 17 25.5 19.25 v5 18.5 15.5 14.5 23.5 18.00
Table B2 Average for 9 data collections
NoTreatment Treatment Treatment
Treatment Treatment Treatment
V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V51 1.2 1 1.33 1.2 1.23 1.052 3.13 1.93 2.88 2.3 2.48 1.883 4.65 4.2 4.45 4.05 4.75 4.184 5.38 5.35 5.13 5.35 6.33 5.255 5.8 7.73 7.38 7.4 8.85 8.286 6 9.98 9.08 9.55 11.38 9.537 6.13 12 11.7 12.38 14.5 12.388 7 14.75 14.5 15.5 16.55 14.93
9 7 17.5 16.85 19 19.25 18
36
APPENDIX C
Table C1 Data Collection of Fresh Weight
Treatment
Rate/Polybag
Replication (gram) Means
Vermicompost (gram) 1 2 3 4
V0 0 1 3.7 1.5 2.5 2.18V1 350 25.5 54.6 46.7 45.3 43.03v2 400 38.8 44.1 54.2 48.1 46.30v3 450 51.8 49.5 45.2 46.4 48.23v4 500 39.5 62 59.5 62.4 55.85v5 550 44.5 53.6 44.5 73.3 53.98
Table C2 Data Collection of Shoot and Root Ratio
Treatment Replication Means Replication Means
Shoot Root
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
V0 0.7 3.3 1.1 2.3 1.85 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.33
V124.
6 52 44.4 43.6 41.15 0.9 2.6 2.3 1.7 1.88
V237.
2 42 51.6 46.2 44.25 1.6 2.1 2.6 1.9 2.05
V3 49 47.1 43.3 45 46.10 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.4 2.13
V4 37 58.2 57.1 57.6 52.48 2.5 3.8 2.4 4.8 3.38
V542.
2 49.9 42.4 69 50.88 2.3 3.7 2.1 4.3 3.10
37
APPENDIX D
Table D1 Data Collection for pH (5gram + 25ml distilled water):
Treatment Before Means After Means
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 V0 3.4 3.45 3.8 3.64 3.57 4.37 3.96 3.58 3.74 3.91V1 3.94 3.88 3.8 4.25 3.97 4.28 4.15 4.22 4.5 4.29V2 4.15 4.2 4.24 4.48 4.27 4.62 4.38 4.75 4.27 4.51V3 4.36 4 4.35 4.8 4.38 4.46 4.74 4.99 5 4.80V4 4.5 5.12 4.62 4.31 4.64 5.1 5 4.6 4.67 4.84
V5 4.4 4.6 4.64 4.61 4.56 4.76 4.8 4.75 4.69 4.75
38
APPENDIX E
Data Collection of Bulk Density:
Bulk Density: Soil Dry weight (gram)
Soil volume (cm3)
Soil Volume: πr2h
π (2.75)2 (7)
= 166.31 cm3
Table E1 Before the translanting
39
TreatmentSoil Dry weight
(g)Bulk Density
(gcm3) Means
V0R1 198.5 1.19 1.14
V0R2 176.7 1.06
V0R3 186.5 1.12
V0R4 194.51 1.17
V1R1 180.78 1.09 1.09
V1R2 188.6 1.13
V1R3 179.2 1.08
V1R4 174.73 1.05
V2R1 173.12 1.04 1.07
V2R2 180.63 1.09
V2R3 178.41 1.07
V2R4 182.1 1.09
V3R1 174.08 1.05 1.05
V3R2 175.6 1.06
V3R3 170.53 1.03
V3R4 180.3 1.08
V4R1 170.68 1.03 1.05
V4R2 174.24 1.05
V4R3 172.53 1.04
V4R4 177.8 1.07
V5R1 165.7 1.00 1.03
V5R2 171.8 1.03
V5R3 176.2 1.06
V5R4 174.6 1.05
Table E2 After the harvesting
TreatmentSoil Dry weight
(g)Bulk Density
(gcm3) Means
V0R1 232.16 1.40 1.34
V0R2 198.36 1.19
V0R3 246.05 1.48
V0R4 216.4 1.30
V1R1 189.98 1.14 1.14
V1R2 196.22 1.18
V1R3 188.43 1.13
V1R4 182.42 1.10
V2R1 184.15 1.11 1.12
V2R2 183.51 1.10
V2R3 184.75 1.11
V2R4 190.98 1.15
V3R1 175.59 1.06 1.10
V3R2 181.41 1.09
V3R3 182.62 1.10
V3R4 189.55 1.14
V4R1 179.04 1.08 1.09
V4R2 185.29 1.11
V4R3 183.77 1.10
V4R4 179.8 1.08
V5R1 168.83 1.02 1.07
V5R2 176.5 1.06
V5R3 183.26 1.10
V5R4 180.42 1.08
40
APPENDIX F
Data Collection for the Particle Density:
Particle Density: w2 - w1
(w4-w1)-(w3-w2)
Table F1 Before the transplanting
Treatment W1 W2 W3 W4Particle density Means
V0R1 18.4 35.5 82.1 74.1 1.88 1.89V0R2 21.3 33 76.4 69.5 2.44 V0R3 17.16 36.7 79.9 73.2 1.52
V0R4 20.1 35.9 80.3 73.7 1.72 V1R1 24.66 32.3 82.4 78.7 1.94 1.87V1R2 23.5 32.8 79.1 74.6 1.94 V1R3 25.6 41.4 82 75.7 1.66
V1R4 27.08 38.7 78.6 73 1.93 V2R1 24.2 34.4 78.1 73.6 1.79 1.82V2R2 14.94 24.7 74.4 70.5 1.67 V2R3 25.96 36.6 80.8 76.3 1.73
V2R4 13.15 25.3 72.3 66 2.08 V3R1 26.28 39 76.9 75.5 1.12 1.83V3R2 15.56 22 67.6 64 2.27 V3R3 14.84 22.8 70.1 66.1 2.01
V3R4 24.48 36.1 79.8 74.3 1.90 V4R1 17.36 30 77 70.8 1.96 1.81V4R2 23.81 32 76 72.8 1.64 V4R3 24.77 33.3 81.4 77.9 1.70
V4R4 22.86 42.3 81.4 72 1.94 V5R1 14.35 19.5 65 62.2 2.19 1.78V5R2 15.48 24.8 71.3 67.7 1.63 V5R3 17.43 23.3 69 66 2.05
V5R4 14.23 18.9 65 64 1.27
41
Table F2 After the harvesting
Treatment
W1 W2 W3 W4 Particle density
Means
V0R1 21.33 30.66 51.6 46.14 2.41 1.97V0R2 19.8 29.48 51.45 46.58 2.01 V0R3 20.6 34.58 53.93 46.71 2.07
V0R4 21.7 32.23 52.45 49.51 1.39 V1R1 19.4 29.94 51.2 46.28 1.88 1.90V1R2 19.78 30.8 51.6 46.19 1.96 V1R3 18.62 29.25 51 46.39 1.77
V1R4 20.5 29.7 51.01 46.39 2.01 V2R1 18.78 28.52 50.7 46.51 1.75 1.86V2R2 19.17 28.34 50.83 46.6 1.86 V2R3 18.91 28.87 50.5 45.9 1.86
V2R4 20.4 29.46 51.54 47.06 1.98 V3R1 19.35 26.07 48.6 46.33 1.51 1.87V3R2 18.59 26.05 49.7 45.51 2.28 V3R3 19.66 25.78 49.11 46.34 1.83
V3R4 19.71 27.61 50.04 46.41 1.85 V4R1 20.6 27.3 51.99 49.69 1.52 1.84V4R2 19.07 23.66 48.11 45.96 1.88 V4R3 20.45 28.99 50.99 46.91 1.91
V4R4 19.47 26.03 49.52 46.19 2.03 V5R1 18.4 28.14 50.47 46.13 1.80 1.82V5R2 17.05 24.73 48.7 45.99 1.55 V5R3 19.32 24.93 48.83 46.14 1.92
V5R4 20 25.15 49.29 46.68 2.03
42
APPENDIX G
Table G1 Data Collection for Soil Porosity
% Porosity: 100 - ((Bulk density/particle density) x100%)
TreatmentBulk Density
(gcm3) Particle densitysoil
Porosity
V0R1 1.40 2.41 42
V0R2 1.19 2.01 41
V0R3 1.48 2.07 29
V0R4 1.30 1.39 6
V1R1 1.14 1.88 39
V1R2 1.18 1.96 40
V1R3 1.13 1.77 36
V1R4 1.10 2.01 45
V2R1 1.11 1.75 37
V2R2 1.10 1.86 41
V2R3 1.11 1.86 40
V2R4 1.15 1.98 42
V3R1 1.06 1.51 30
V3R2 1.09 2.28 52
V3R3 1.10 1.83 40
V3R4 1.14 1.85 38
V4R1 1.08 1.52 29
V4R2 1.11 1.88 41
V4R3 1.10 1.91 42
V4R4 1.08 2.03 47
V5R1 1.02 1.80 43
V5R2 1.06 1.55 32
V5R3 1.10 1.92 43
V5R4 1.08 2.03 47
Table G2 Average of soil porosity for each treatment for the before the transplanting and after the harvesting
43
Treatment Soil Porosity (%) Soil Porosity (%)
Before AfterV0 40 32V1 40 40V2 40 40V3 40 41V4 40 41
V5 40 41
44
