EFFECT OF COW DUNG ON THE YEILD AND GROWTH OF PEPPER

BY

JIMOH AZEEZ BUKOLA

ND/22/ABE/PT/055

A SEMINAR SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF

AGRICULTURAL AND BIO-ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING

TECHNOLOGY, INSTITUTION OF TECHNOLOGY KWARA STATE

POLYTECHNIC, ILORIN

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE AWARD OF NATIONAL

DIPLOMA (ND) IN AGRICULTURAL AND

BIO-ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY

SUBMITTED TO:

ENGR. ABDULSALAM
 CHAPTER ONE

0.1 Introduction
0.2 Background study

Pepper belongs to the genus Capsicum in the family Solanaceae (Amara .t.b. 22).It
is cultivated and consumed worldwide, particularly in the African and Asian
countries. It is rich in vitamins, especially A, B and E. They are also good sources
of essential minerals such as magnesium, zinc, iron, phosphorous and potassium
(Nelson (1982)). They have been used for thousands of years as spices in food to
enhance the flavor, colour and aroma of food. Long pepper fruits are added at a
substantial quantity to produce a characteristic taste of cuisine in Nigeria and other
parts of the world. In addition to boosting flavor, they are also known for their
preservative and medicinal value (amanda .t.b. 22). Most farm inputs especially
fertilizer's have become very expensive for local farmers to purchase and also
there have been concerns of residual effects of the chemical or synthetic fertilizers
which have resulted in farmers shifting back to using cattle manure which is an
organic fertilizer and is readily available.The international market standards have
changed because consumers now prefer organically manure for vegetables. ( miller
h.d. 2022).

Pepper or Green pepper belongs to family Solanaceae and is native to Mexico with
secondary center of origin at Guatemala and Bulgaria (Safford WE (1926)). Sweet
peppers differ from common hot peppers in size and shape of the fruits, capsaicin
content and usage. The fruits are non-pungent and have been widely used in
immature or green stage as vegetable for stuffing or for salads. Considered as high
cash crop, it has occupied an important rank in world agriculture due to its high
profit and nutritional values for human health. Sweet pepper fruits are a rich
source of vitamin C, polyphenols, chlorophylls, carotenoids, sugars (Flores. P
(2009)), magnesium, calcium, potassium, phosphorus and iron (Bhattarai DR
(2010)). The environmental conditions in the mid hills of Nepal are very
conducive for producing excellent quality fruits of bell pepper (Euras A (2009)).

Application of chemical fertilizers alone can supply only one or two nutrient
elements to the crop. On the other hand, supplying only organic inputs can
improve soil physical and biological environment but suffers from drawback of
low content of plant nutrients. However, in the modern days, when agriculture is
motivated not only for production, but also accounts for the sustainability of all the
resources including soil for the generations to come. The use of chemical
fertilizers has been many-a-times reported for degrading soil and water resources.
Moreover, organic farming is both a philosophy and a system of agriculture [5],
which avoids or largely excludes the use of synthetically produced fertilizers,
pesticides and to the maximum extent possible relies upon crop rotations, crop
residues, animal manures, legumes,

green manures, off farm organic wastes, mineral bearing rocks and bio-fertilizers
to maintain soil productivity and to supply plant nutrients and biological means to
control insects, weeds and other pests. Thus, this experiment was carried out in
order to study the effect of various sources of plant nutrients on growth,
development and yield of sweet pepper and to compare the nutrient value of
various sources of organic manure used in production of sweet pepper.

Problem statement
Organic fertiliser application rate is one of the difficult decisions to be taken by
farmers in communities, especially the small scale farmers in rural areas. Farmers
are always willing to increase their yield but at the same time, they want to use
relatively cheaper and environmentally friendly fertilisers. Hence, this study
attempted to determine the appropriate application rate of cattle manure which
produces the highest yield in pepper.
Justification
The use of in organic fertilizer is not costly but it also have negative effect on
human after consumption, this bring about the use of organic manure to aid the
growth and development of crops thereby curbing the negative effect of fertilizer
Aims
The aims of this research is to investigate on Effect of cow dungs on the growth
and yield of pepper .
Objective
1/..Toevaluatecomparativeeffectofsource(Cowdung)onthe 2/:: to determine the
appropriate rate of cattle manure which produce the highest rate.

Scope of study
Limitation to investigate of cow dungs on the growth and yield of pepper
 CHAPTER TWO
1.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 History of Pepper

Pepper, specifically black pepper, is a climbing vine plant scientifically known

as _Piper nigrum_. It is native to the Malabar Coast of India and has played a
significant role in history, particularly in trade, for thousands of years.

Origin and Early Use:

Pepper has been used since ancient times. Historical records suggest that
pepper was used as early as 2000 BCE. In India, it was used not only as a spice
but also in traditional medicine, particularly in Ayurvedic practices. The
flavorful spice quickly became favored for both its taste and as a preservative.

Trade and Spread:

As maritime trade developed, pepper began to be exported to other parts of the
world. It was a highly prized trade good—often referred to as "black gold"—
and was one of the major reasons for the spice trade routes that linked the East
to the West. The demand for pepper served as an economic engine, spurring
explorations and trade on an unprecedented scale.

The Greeks and Romans highly valued pepper for its culinary and medicinal
qualities. By the Middle Ages, it had become a symbol of wealth and status in
Europe. Pepper was so valuable that it was often used as a form of currency,
like money.
European Colonialism:
The control over the spice trade, including black pepper, was a significant
factor in the European colonial expansion. The Portuguese, under Vasco da
Gama, first circumnavigated Africa to reach India in 1498, aiming directly to
take control of the spice trade. This marked the beginning of European
dominance over the spice routes.

Following Portugal, other European powers, including the Dutch and the
British, also fought to establish and control their own trading posts and
colonies in pepper-producing regions. The Dutch, through the Dutch East India
Company, and the British, through the British East India Company, played
pivotal roles in the trade of black pepper and other spices, influencing global
trade patterns and the economy of Europe.

Cultivation:
Today, pepper is grown in various tropical countries. India remains one of the
largest producers, along with Vietnam, Brazil, and Indonesia. The plant grows
as a vine and may reach up to 4 meters in length. It is typically trellised and
grows in hot and humid climates.
Types and Production
Black, white, and green peppers are all produced from the berries of the pepper
plant, harvested at various stages of growth. Black pepper is made from the
unripe berries that are cooked and dried, while white pepper is produced from
ripe berries with the outer skin removed. Green pepper is harvested in the early
stages and can be found dried, frozen, or in brine.
Pepper remains one of the world's most widely traded spices and is a
ubiquitous seasoning found in cuisines globally. Its history is a testament to the
ways in which a simple agricultural product can influence economic patterns,
international relationships, and cultural practices around the world.
 2.2 Ecology and Distribution of Pepper
Productions of pepper remain low compared to increase in inhabitants of most
nations and since for food – especially in soups where it is used for thickening
– is on the increase, it is proper to observe how the production of this all
important commodity can be improved upon. As part of crop improvement, it
is the use of soils that have optimum nutrients that is used for pepper
production. High cost and scarcity of chemical fertilizers to provide the much
needed nutrients (NPK) for plant growth means that alternatives have to be
explored and hence this study to explore composts from different sources. The
study carried out in this work was to meet high demand of pepper throughout
the year using compost treatment and increase the use of cost effective organic
fertilizers e.g. composts or animal droppings.
(a) Area under crop
Pepper is perhaps the most popular vegetable crop grown all over the country.
Both wet and dry season cropping contribute immensely to the national
requirement, but the bulk of production is from the dry season cropping
particularly under irrigation in the Northern States and near perennial river
banks in the Southern States. Total land area covered annually is over one
million hectares with most of the production from the Northern Guinea and
Sudan Savannas.
(b) Nutrient Requirements and Fertilizer Use
Nutrient Deficiency Symptoms
(i) Nitrogen Deficiency: Leaves are light green lower; lower leaves turn
yellow and dry up veins become deep purple; stems are hard and purple, flower
buds turn yellow and drop.
Phosphorus Deficiency: Leaves are olive-green: foliage is sparse; plants are
stunted.
Potassium Deficiency: Lower leaves become yellowish or greyish-green along
margins and at tips, followed by necrosis, dead areas turn brown giving the
 lower part of the plant a bronzed appearance; stalks are slender and may show
necrotic areas, in extreme cases, fruit ripens unevenly and lacks solidity.
(ii) Fertilizer Sources and Rates: Wherever possible, farm yard manure
should be used up to 25 tonnes/ha. The recommended fertilizer programmes
for pepper are as shown in Table 2.47.
(iii) Methods and Time of Application
Nursery The compound fertilizer 15-15-15 or any alternative should be
applied (ground) to the seedbed at the rate of 25kg (one match box full) per
square. The fertilizer should be worked into the soil and seed bed gently
consolidated. The surface should be raked to leave a fine tilth. If poor growth
of seedlings is observed, there may be need for addition of nitrogen fertilizer.
A dose of 6.3g of nitrogen should then be applied per square meter. For
example, this may be supplied from 24g of CAN per square meter of 30g of
sulphate of ammonia in 10 liters of water at 5 liters per square meter
thoroughly worked into the soil.

Field: The recommendations are summarized in the Table 1. Application of

combination of farm yard manure and inorganic fertilizers is recommended
during land preparation.

Table 1 Fertilizer recommendations for Pepper

NUTRIE MATERIAL RECOMMENDATIONS

NT ha-1 ha-1

20-10-10 20-10-10 50kg Existing recommendation for nursery bed in

i.e. 20kg (1 bag) plus the savanna areas at 50kg of compound 20-
N 10kg 40kg CAN (app.
P205, 10kg 1 bag of CAN) 10-10 plus 40kg of CAN
K20

20-10-10 20-10-10 50kg Existing recommendation for nursery bed in

i.e. 20kg (1 bag) plus the savanna areas at 50kg of compound 20-
N 10kg 40kg CAN (app. 10-10 plus 40kg of CAN
P205, 10kg 1 bag of CAN)
K20

FYM FYM, 25 tonnes Existing recommendation for field in the

20-10-10 20-10-10 50kg savanna areas = FYM at 25 tonnes/ha or
plus 40kg CAN 70kg compound plus 300kg Can as top
(i.e. 1½ bags 15- dressing split applied at 2 weeks after
15-15 and 1 bag transplanting and 3 weeks after first set of
of CAN fruits

125kg N, 20-10-10 312kg Suggested practices under irrigation in the

50kg = 6¼ bags plus savanna areas = 125kg N/ha + 50kg P205, +
P205, 10kg 290kg CAN (6 50kg K20 ha-1. Apply the N in three splits
K20 bags) or 160kg at 0.3 and 6 weeks after transplanting P and
Urea (3 bags) K are broadcast in furrow bottoms before
splitting ridges

15kg N, 20-10-10 75kg at Existing practice in south - western Nigeria

15kg P205, 1½ bags = 20-10-10 at 25kg/ha split applied at 0 and
15kg K20 6 weeks after planting

60kg N, 20-10-10 at Suggested practice in the savanna zone of

45kg P205, 250kg, 5 bags at south western Nigeria = 60kg N ha-1 + 50kg
33kg K20 300kg (6 bags) P205 + 33kg N20 ha-1 + B as Borax as may
plus 57kg (1 be necessary
bag) CAN or
33kg (¾ bag)
urea

30kg N, Urea at 65kg (1 Suggested practice in the forest zone of

90kg P205, bag) Can at southern Nigeria = 30kg ha-1 N + 90kg P205
67kg K20 115kg (2 bags) + 67kg K20 + 30kg MgO
plus SSP at
500kg (10 bags)
plus MgS04.7
H20 at 310kg (6
bags) MOP
(112kg or 2
bags)

60kg N, 20-10-10 400kg Existing practice in south-eastern Nigeria =

60kg P205, (8 bags) or 12- 300 kg/ha of compound 20-10-10 or 500kg
60kg K20 12-17-2 500kg ha-1 10 bags of compound
(10 bags) 12-12-17-2
 CHAPTER THREE

3.0 METHODOLOGY

Methodology: - Selection of pepper plants: Healthy and uniform pepper

seedlings will be selected for the experiment. - Experimental design: The
experiment will be set up in a randomized complete block design with multiple
treatments (different concentrations of cow dung) and control groups.

- Application of treatments: Cow dung will be applied to the soil around the
pepper plants at specific concentrations.

- Data collection: Growth parameters (plant height, leaf area, stem diameter),
yield parameters (fruit weight, fruit number), and nutrient content analysis will
be recorded at regular intervals.

- Statistical analysis: Data will be analyzed using appropriate statistical

methods to determine the significance of the results.

3.1 Expected Outcome

Expected Outcomes of the Study on the Effect of Cow Dung on Pepper Plants:
1. Growth Promotion: - It is anticipated that the application of cow dung as an
organic fertilizer will promote the growth of pepper plants by providing
essential nutrients and organic matter to the soil. Increased plant height, leaf
area, and stem diameter are expected in plants treated with cow dung compared
to untreated plants.

2. Yield Enhancement: - The study aims to demonstrate that cow dung

application can enhance the yield of pepper plants by improving fruit size,
weight, and number. Increased fruit production and higher fruit quality are
expected in plants treated with cow dung, indicating the positive impact of
organic fertilization on crop yield.

3. Nutrient Uptake: - Analysis of plant tissues and soil nutrient content is

expected to reveal higher levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium in
pepper plants treated with cow dung. This outcome would suggest that cow
dung effectively supplies essential nutrients to plants, leading to improved
nutrient uptake and utilization for growth and development.

4. Sustainable Agriculture Practices: - The study is expected to highlight the

benefits of using cow dung as an organic fertilizer in sustainable agriculture
practices. By demonstrating the positive effects of organic fertilization on plant
growth, yield, and nutrient content, the study aims to promote environmentally
friendly farming methods that reduce reliance on synthetic chemicals and
enhance soil health.

5. Practical Implications: - The findings from this study are expected to have
practical implications for farmers and agricultural practitioners seeking
alternative fertilization strategies. The results may encourage the adoption of
organic fertilizers like cow dung to improve crop productivity, reduce
environmental impact, and promote sustainable farming practices.
Overall, the study on the effect of cow dung on pepper plants is expected to
provide valuable insights into the potential benefits of using organic fertilizers
for crop cultivation. By investigating the growth, yield, and nutrient content of
pepper plants treated with cow dung, the study aims to contribute to the
advancement of sustainable agricultural practices and support the adoption of
environmentally friendly farming methods for improved crop production and
soil health.

3.2 Effect of Poultry Droppings on growth and yield of Tomato.

3.2.1 Site Description

experiment was carried out in the nursery garden of the Department of

Agricultural Technology, Institute of Applied Science, Kwara State
Polytechnic Ilorin, Ilorin, Nigeria. Ilorin is in the Southern Guinea Savanna
agro ecological zone of Nigeria.

3.2.2 Preparation of Planting Materials

The seeds were obtained from a reputable source at the department of

Agronomy Faculty of Agriculture University of Ilorin, Ilorin. These seeds were
subjecte to germination test, before planted.

3.2.3 Experimental Design and Plot layout

The potted experiment was laid out in completely randomized design (C R D)

with three treatments replicated five times. These treatments include: 0, 5, 10g
total of 15 experimental units were involved.

3.2.4 Planting

Planting shall be carried out in June, 2021 during the later part of early rainy
season. Seeds were sown at the rate of one seed per hole at 2cm deep; a total
of three seeds per polythene bags were planted to give three stands. Three litres
polythene bags capacity were used, properly perforated to allow drainage.
They were filled with 2kg soil.

3.2.5 Agronomic practices

Weeding was done manually by hand pulling weed, plants were irrigated using
watering can once in a day for the first week and later followed by every two
(2) days interval to avoid water logging.

3.3 Data Collection

Plant height was measured from the ground level to the growing point and the
observation was recorded at the end of the growing period for each treatment
and was expressed in centimeters. Similarly, effective leaves were counted and
the mean was calculated. The number of days to 50% flowering was counted
for all treatments. The average was then calculated and recorded. The total
number of fruit clusters was counted for each treatment and then the mean was
calculated and recorded. The observations on fruit weight for each treatment
were recorded at the time of harvest. After each harvest, the individual fruits
were weighed and the data on fruit weight was summed up and expressed in
gram. The observations on yield were recorded at the time of harvesting. After
harvesting, the tomato fruits were weighed from each treatment plots.

i. Mean Plant height: This was taken on the plants from each polythene bag
at four weeks after planting using a meter tape. The measurement was taken on
each of the plant from the base to the upper most shoot/leaves.

ii. Number of leaves per plant: This was done by counting the leaves on each
plant

iii. Stem Girth: This was determined by vernier caliper. OR, stem diameter
was measured five centimeters above ground level using micrometer screw
gauge and converted to girth using the following formula:
where, G is the stem girth, D is the stem diameter and π is a constant (π =
22/7).

3.4 Data Analysis

All data collected were subjected to Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). The

analysis was done

according to the completely randomized block design using SPSS analytical

Software. OR

Where there was significant F-test, treatment means were separated using the
Least Significant Difference (LSD) test at 5% probability level.
 CHAPTER FOUR

PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA

This chapter presents the presentation of data, analysis as well as the interpretation
of data gathered whose main objective was to determine or find out the differences
of different treatment applied using inorganic fertilizer in propagating Capsicum.

1.1. Height

Table 1.1

Weekly Mean

Weekly Mean Cow Dung Inorganic Fertilizer No Fertilizer

W1 12.5 13.8 13.4

W2 20.9 21.1 20.8

W3 26.6 27.3 25.1

W4 35.3 37.1 36.8

W5 40.8 43.8 42.8

W6 52.3 59.9 55

W7 56.1 63.7 62.8

total 244.3 266.7 256.7

mean 34.9 38.1 36.67

Table 1.1 presents the differences of different treatment applied in propagating
Capsicum in terms of height. It is also presented the yield performance, mean and

Weekly Mean
70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 w6 w7

Organic Inorganic No Fertilizer

the total subject or sample of Capsicum in each plan in different applied treatment.
It also presented the overall and computed mean of height weekly. The researchers
find out that inorganic fertilizer has the highest mean with an average score of 38.1
among the different applied treatment, while no fertilizer has the second highest
mean with an average score of 36.67 and the organic fertilizer has the lowest mean
with an average score of 34.9.

Figure 2. Weekly Mean of Height of Capsicum

Figure 2 shows the different effect of organic fertilizer, inorganic fertilizer and no
fertilizer to the height of Capsicum. Initially, there are no significant differences
observe among the different treatment in the height centimeter (cm) of Capsicum.
In the first week, analysis revealed that cow dung, inorganic fertilizer and no
fertilizer remarkably affected the height centimeter of Capsicum. It should be
pointed out that there is an increase in height if inorganic fertilizer will be applied.
It shows that in week 1 (w1) inorganic fertilizer has the highest mean while the no
fertilizer has the second highest mean and lastly organic has the lowest mean. In
week 2 it also shows that cow dung has the highest mean while the no fertilizer
has the second highest mean and lastly organic has the lowest mean. In week 3
inorganic fertilizer has the highest mean while the no fertilizer has the second
highest mean and lastly organic has the lowest mean. In week 4 inorganic fertilizer
has the highest mean while the no fertilizer has the second highest mean and lastly
organic has the lowest mean. In week 5 Cow Dung has the highest mean while the
no fertilizer has the second highest mean and lastly organic has the lowest mean.
In week 6 inorganic fertilizer has the highest mean while the no fertilizer has the
second highest mean and lastly organic has the lowest mean. In week 7 inorganic
fertilizer has the highest mean while the no fertilizer has the second highest mean
and lastly organic has the lowest mean.

See the additional results of the mean, total population, and also standard deviation
to the yield performance of Abelmoschus esculentus in Appendix 3, it is computed
using SPSS ver. 15.

1.2 Number of leaves

Table 1.2

Weekly Mean of Capsicum in Number of Leaves

Weekly Mean Cow Dung Inorganic Fertilizer No Fertilizer

W1 7.6 10 7.5

W2 10 10.6 10.3

W3 10 12.8 10.8

W4 16.6 20.4 18.3

W5 19 20.8 16.5

W6 20.4 21.7 21.5

W7 22.7 23.7 23.5

Total 106.3 120 108.4

Mean 15.19 17.14 15.49

Table 1.2 shows the differences of different applied treatment for

propagating Capsicum in terms of number of leaves. It also presented the
computed mean height and the total population of Capsicum in each plot from
different applied treatment. The researchers find out that inorganic fertilizer has
the highest mean in which it has 17.14 average among the different applied
treatment and no fertilizer has the second highest mean which has 15.491 average
while the organic fertilizer has the lowest mean with an average score of 15.19.

Weekly Mean
25

20

15

10

0
w1 w2 w3 w4 w5 w6 w7

Organic Inorganic No Fertilizer

Figure 2. Weekly Mean of number of leaves of Capsicum

Figure 3 shows that in week 1 (W1) inorganic fertilizer has the highest mean while
and lastly no fertilizer has the lowest mean. In week 2 (W2) it also shows that
inorganic fertilizer has the highest mean while the no fertilizer has the second
highest mean and lastly organic has the lowest mean. In week 3 (W3) inorganic
fertilizer has the highest mean while the no fertilizer has the second highest mean
and lastly organic has the lowest mean. In week 4 (W4) inorganic fertilizer has the
highest mean while the organic fertilizer has the second highest mean and lastly no
fertilizer has the lowest mean. In week 5 (W5) inorganic fertilizer has the highest
mean while the organic fertilizer has the second highest mean and lastly no
fertilizer has the lowest mean. In week 6 (W6) inorganic fertilizer has the highest
mean while the no fertilizer has the second highest mean and lastly organic has the
lowest mean. In week 7 (W7) inorganic fertilizer has the highest mean while the
no fertilizer has the second highest mean and lastly organic has the lowest mean.

2. Significant Difference using different treatment in Abemoschus esculentus

Data were analyzed using the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and significant
difference between different treatment means were determined by Tukey using
(Statistical Package of Social Science) SSPS ver. 15. This study used Michelin
guide scale because it has significant difference between different applied
treatments means.

1.1. Height

df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 1.81 .183 NS A

W1
Plant 2 1.53 .234 NS A
Total 29

df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 .03 .962 NS A

W2
Plant 2 .04 .957 NS A

Total 29

df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 .96 .397 NS A

W3
Plant 2 1.53 .236 NS A

Total 29

df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 .75 .483 NS A

W4
Plant 2 1.07 .358 NS A

Total 29

df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 .39 .676 NS A

W5
Plant 2 2.46 .104 NS A

Total 29

df F Sig. VI D

W6 Plant 1 2.33 .117 NS A

 Plant 2 4.64 .019 S R

Total 29

df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 4.69 .021 S R

W7
Plant 2 3.98 .030 S R

Total 29

Note: df=Degrees of Freedom; F=F-Value; P=P-Value; VI=Verbal Interpretation;

D=Decision; NS=Not Significant; S=Significant; A=Accept Ho; R=Reject Ho

First week (W1) shows the result of performance in height of the plant 1 and plant
2, there was no significance difference as a result from Michelin guide scale
because plant 1 has significant difference value of 0.183 and plant 2 has
significant difference value of 0.234 which means that is greater than 0.05 alpha
level mean do not have the enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Otherwise, second week (W2) shows the result of performance in height of plant 1
and plant 2, there was no significance difference as a result from Michelin guide
scale because plant 1 has significant difference value of 0.962 and plant 2 has
significant difference value of 0.957 which means that is greater than 0.05 alpha
level mean do not have the enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Otherwise, third week (W3) shows the result of performance in height of plant 1
and plant 2, there was no significance difference as a result from Michelin guide
scale because plant 1 has significant difference value of 0.397 and plant 2 has
significant difference value of 0.236 which means that is greater than 0.05 alpha
level mean do not have the enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
Otherwise, fourth week (W4) shows the result of performance in height of plant 1
and plant 2, there was no significance difference as a result from Michelin guide
scale because plant 1 has significant difference value of 0.483 and plant 2 has
significant difference value of 0.358 which means that is greater than 0.05 alpha
level mean do not have the enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Otherwise, fifth week (W5) shows the result of performance in height of plant 1
and plant 2, there was no significance difference as a result from Michelin guide
scale because plant 1 has significant difference value of 0.676 and plant 2 has
significant difference value of 0.104 which means that is greater than 0.05 alpha
level mean do not have the enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.

Sixth week (w6) shows the result of performance in height of plant 1, there was no
significance difference as a result from Michelin guide scale because it has
significant difference value of 0.119 which means that is greater than 0.05 alpha
level mean do not have the enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis.
Meanwhile, week 6 (w6) shows the result of performance in height of plant 2,
there was significance difference as a result from Michelin guide scale because it
has significant difference value of 0.019 which means that is less than 0.05 alpha
level means the null hypothesis was rejected.

Week seven (w7) shows the last week result of performance in height of plant 1
and plan 2, there was significance difference as a result from Michelin guide scale
because plant 1 has significant difference value of 0.021 and plant 2 has
significant difference value of 0.030 which means that is less than 0.05 alpha level
means the null hypothesis was rejected.

1.2. Number of Leaves

df F Sig. VI D
 Plant 1 .49 .617 NS A
W1
Plant 2 .09 .916 NS A

Total 29

df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 .23 .793 NS A

W2
Plant 2 1.06 .359 NS A

Total 29

df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 .58 .565 NS A

W3
Plant 2 .68 .512 NS A

Total 29

df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 1.79 .186 NS A

W4
Plant 2 .35 0.709 NS A

Total 29

df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 .04 .960 NS A

W5
Plant 2 3.44 .046 S R

Total 29
 df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 .05 .953 NS A

W6
Plant 2 3.94 .031 S R

Total 29

df F Sig. VI D

Plant 1 15.63 .000 S R

W7
Plant 2 9.50 .001 S R

Note: df=Degrees of Freedom; F=F-Value; P=P-Value; VI=Verbal Interpretation;

D=Decision; NS=Not Significant; S=Significant; A=Accept Ho; R=Reject Ho
 CHAPTER FIVE

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter contained the summary of findings, conclusion as well as the

recommendation of the study.

Summary of Findings

Based from the previous chapter, the following findings are presented:

1. The researchers find out that inorganic fertilizer has the highest mean with an
average score of 38.1 among the different applied treatment, and no fertilizer has
the second highest mean with an average score of 36.67.

2. The researchers find out that inorganic fertilizer which is the cow dung has the
highest mean in which it has 17.14 average among the different applied treatment
and no fertilizer has the second highest mean which has 15.48.

3. The researchers find out in terms of height in plant 1, it stated that the first week
of measurement shows that there was no significance difference as a result from
Michelin guide scale because it has significant difference value of 0.183 which
means that is greater than 0.05 alpha level means do not have the enough evidence
to reject the null hypothesis. The same in the first week of measuring, second
measurement, third measurement fourth measurement, fifth measurement and
sixth also shows that there was no significance difference as a result from
Michelin guide scale because it has significant difference value of 0.962, 0.397,
0.528, 0.710, 0.096 which means that is greater than 0.05 alpha level means do not
have the enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. But in the seventh
measurement shows that there was significance difference as a result from
Michelin guide scale because it has significant difference value of 0.018 which
means that is less than 0.05 alpha level means the null hypothesis was rejected.
3. According to the result observation with regards to the number of leaves of the
Abelmoschus esculentus, in the first week of measurement shows that there was
no significance difference as a result from Michelin guide scale because it has
significant difference value of 0.234 which means that is greater than 0.05 alpha
level means do not have the enough evidence to reject the null hypothesis. The
same in the first week of measuring, second measurement, third measurement
fourth measurement, and fifth measurement also shows that there was no
significance difference as a result from Michelin guide scale because it has
significant difference value of 0.913, 0.292, 0.385, 0.096, which means that is
greater than 0.05 alpha level means do not have the enough evidence to reject the
null hypothesis. But in the sixth and seventh measurement shows that there was
significance difference as a result from Michelin guide scale because it has
significant difference value of 0.019 and 0.030 which means that is less than 0.05
alpha level means the null hypothesis was rejected.

Conclusion

1. Based from the above result, it can be concluded that the Inorganic fertilizer
provided the better performance of Abelmoschus esculentus (Capsicum) in
terms of height.

2. According to the result presented, it can be concluded that the Inorganic

fertilizer also has the highest total number of leaves of Abelmoschus
esculentus.

3. Stated in above result with regards to measurement of the height of

Abelmoschus esculentus in several weeks, it can be concluded that in first
to fifth week it shows that there was no significant difference while in the
sixth to seventh weeks shows that there is significant differences between
the different applied treatment on the Abelmoschus esculentus plant.
However, with regards to the number of leaves it can be concluded that first
 week to sixth week has no significant difference but in week 7 it shows that
there is significant difference in the different applied treatment.

Recommendation

1. Inorganic fertilizer is recommended since it influenced the height of

Abelmoschus esculentus.

2. Inorganic is recommended since it influenced the number of leaves of

Abelmoschus esculentus

3. The application of Inorganic fertilizer in Abelmoschus esculentus is

recommended since it influence the growth performance of the plant
(Height and Number of Leaves). That is why Agriculturalist promotes
Synthetic Fertilizer and it is also called Inorganic fertilizer to the farmers
and cuultivators.

4. And as the researcher’s observation if you are talking about the profit
Inorganic Fertilizer is recommended because inorganic fertilizer easily
reacts to the soil so that it is quickly absorbed by the plant and most of them
farmers tested it.

5. But if you want to a healthy soil use cow dung. When you apply cow dung
this year it can be effective next year but in the long run it is better to use
because it has no negative effects that will destroy the nutrients of the soil
unlike the cow dung.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

UNPUBLISHED THESIS

James N. (2016). Capsicum Capsicum as a Valuable Vegetable Of The world: Retrieved

from (2019) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272904429

Britannica (2019). Cultivation and Different types of Cultivation: Retrieved from (2019)
https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=11739

Asheesh Kummar (2017). Cultivation and Different types of Cultivation: Retrieved from
(2019) https://ejournals.ph/article.php?id=11739

Farmers,Almanac (2017). Effect of different rates of inorganic fertilizer on physiology

growth and yield of Capsicum cultivated on BRIS soil of Terengganu Malaysia:
Retrieved from (2019) https://www.almanac.com/plant/Capsicum

Sharma and Prasad (2019)Effect of different rates of inorganic fertilizer on physiology

growth and yield ofCapsicumAbelmoschus esculentus cultivated on BRIS soil of
Terengganu Malaysia: Retrieved from (2019) https://www.academia.edu/34272867

Noorizzatie Binti (2015). Effect of different rates of inorganic fertilizer on physiology

growth and yield of Capsicum Abelmoschus esculentus cultivated on BRIS soil of
Terengganu Malaysia: Retrieved from (2019) https://www.academia.edu/34272867

Chemial Safety Facts (2019). Fertilizer in crops and helps Garden Grow: Retrieved from
(2019). https://byjus.com/biology/fertilizers.

Byju’s (2017). Fertilizer in crops and helps Garden Grow: Retrieved from (2019).
https://byjus.com/biology/fertilizers.

Gandhi A, (2012) Effect of Vermicompost Prepared from Aquatic Weeds on Growth and
Yield of CapsicumJ Biofertil Biopestici retrieved from (2019).
Allana (2014). "Differences between organic and inorganic fertilizers."
DifferenceBetween.net: retrived from (2019)
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/differences-between-organic-and-
inorganic-fertilizers/ >.

Shukla and Naik (2003). Retrieved from (2019)

Kumar et al. (2004). Response of Capsicum to combined organic and inorganic foliar
fertilizers: Retrieved from (2019)

Rajdeep (2014). Effects of Vermicompost in the Growth and Yield of Retrieved from
(2019)

Salman Zafar (2014). Effects of Vermicompost in the Growth and Yield of Retrieved
from (2019)

Akande et al. (2010). "Differences between organic and inorganic fertilizers."

DifferenceBetween.net: retrived from (2019)
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/differences-between-organic-and-
inorganic-fertilizers/ >.

Canatoy, R. (2018). Effects of Vermicompost in the Growth and Yield in Bukidnon,

Philippines: Retrieved from (2019) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325694174

Orozco et al. (1996). Effects of Vermicompost in the Growth and Yield of Retrieved
from (2019)

Landfills Zafar (2019). Effects of Vermicompost in the Growth and Yield of Retrieved
from (2019)

Afrane Okes (2017). "Differences between organic and inorganic fertilizers."

DifferenceBetween.net: retrived from (2019)
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/differences-between-organic-and-
inorganic-fertilizers/ >.
Zenia and Halina (2008). Effects of Vermicompost in the Growth and Yield of Retrieved
from (2019)

Edwards et al. (2011). Effects of Vermicompost in the Growth and Yield of Retrieved
from (2019)

Sateesh A. (2011). "Differences between organic and inorganic fertilizers."

DifferenceBetween.net: retrived from (2019)
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/differences-between-organic-and-
inorganic-fertilizers/ >.

Leslie Rose (2018). "Differences between organic and inorganic fertilizers."

DifferenceBetween.net: retrived from (2019)
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/differences-between-organic-and-
inorganic-fertilizers/ >.

Attarde S. et al. (2012). Effect of Organic and Inorganic fertilizer on the Growth and
Nutrient Content of Abelmoschus esculentus: Retrieved from (2019)

Sylvester (2014). "Effect of Organic and Inorganic fertilizers on CapsicumRetrived from

(2019) http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/differences-between-organic-
and-inorganic-fertilizers/ >.

Chindo and Khan (1986). "Effect of Organic and Inorganic fertilizers on

Capsicum(Abelmoschus esculentus: Retrived from (2019)
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/differences-between-organic-and-
inorganic-fertilizers.

Omami (2011). Retrieved from (2019)

Ullah et al. (2008). Differences between organic and inorganic fertilizers | Difference
Between: Retrieved from (2019)

Mani and Ramanathan. (2008). Combination of Five levels: Retrieved from (2019)
Abusaleha and Shanmugavelu (1998). Response of Capsicum to combined organic and
inorganic foliar fertilizers: Retrieved from (2019) Majanbu (1985). Growth of Capsicum
andCapsicumits response in nutrients: Retrieved from (2019)

Zanin and Kimoto (1980). Application of fertilizer to pepper: Retrieved from (2019)
https://article.com.application/437437

Sharestha (1983). Application of different fertilizer to pepper and its response to the
Capsicum: Retrieved from (2019) https://article.com.application/437344/fyDGf

Eric Randy R. (2016). “Effects of Artificial Defoliations on the Growth and Yield of
Capsicum( Capsicum(l.) (Moench) CV Smooth Cayene Under MidElevation Condition”:
Retrieved from (2019) https://defoliation/on/the/growth.com/article/10.fGr578

Clemencia Sumagaysay (1985). “Enhancing the productivity of Capsicum”: Retrieved

from (2019) https://defoliation/on/the/growth.com/article/10.10755407/57555

Benjamin Sorapong (2012Capsicum a Valuable Vegetable Of The world: Retrieved from

(2019) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272904429

Christine A. (2017). Effect of different rates of inorganic fertilizer on physiology growth

and yield of Capsicum cultivated on BRIS soil of Terengganu Malaysia: Retrieved from
(2019) https://www.academia.edu/34272867

National Research. (2006). Effect of Organic and Inorganic fertilizer on the Growth and
Nutrient Content of Capsicum: Retrieved from (2019)

FAO (2006). Effect of Organic and Inorganic fertilizer on the Growth and Nutrient
Content of Capsicum: Retrieved from (2019)

Realbuzz (2006). Effect of Organic and Inorganic fertilizer on the Growth and Nutrient
Content of Capsicum: Retrieved from (2019)
Reference

Nelson, D.W. and Sommers, L.E. (1982). Total Carbon, Organic Carbon and Organic
Ogundare, S.K. (2011). Influence of Influence of Organic Manure Types on Soil.
Physicochemical Properties and Yield of pepper in Ejiba, Nigeria PhD thesis submitted to
the department of crop, soil and pest management. Federal University of Akure, Nigeria.

Olatunji, S.O., S.A. Ayuba, B.C. Anjembe and S.O Ojeniyi (2012). Effect of NPK and
Poultry manure on Tomatto and Soil nutrient composition. In Nigerian Journal Journal of
Science Vol 22 (1), PP 108-113.

Olatunji O and V.U. Oboh (2012) Growth and yield of Capsicumas affected by Pig dung
and other manure issue for Economic Consideration in Benue state. In: Nigerian Journal
of Soil Science Vol 22 (1), PP 103-107

2nd Ed. Agronomy Monograph No. 9. ASA and SSSA, Madison, WI. pp. 539-579.

Alam, M.N. 2006. Effect of vermicompost and some chemical fertilizers on yield and
yield components of selective vegetable crops. Ph.D. Thesis, Faculty of Agriculture,
University of Rajshahi, Bangladesh, pp: 122-176.

Palm, C. A., Myers, R. J. K., & Nandwa, S. M. (1997). Combined use of organic and
inorganic nutrient sources for soil fertility maintenance and replenishment. In R. J.
Buresh, P. A. Sanchez, & F. G. Calhoun (Eds.), Replenishing soil fertility in Africa
(pp.193-218). Madison, WI, USA: Soil Science Society of America (SSSA).

Paul, G.C, Mannan, M.A. (2006). Integrated nutrient management in sugarcane to

Sanchez P.A., Shepherd K.D., Soule M.J., Place F.M., Buresh R.J., Izac A.-M.N.,
Mokwunye A.U., Kwesiga F.R., Ndiritu C.G., Woomer P.L. (1997). Soil fertility
replenishment in Africa. An investment in natural resource capital, in: Buresh R.J.,

Steel, R.G.D and Torrie, J.H. (1987). Principles and procedures of statistic. McGram-Hall
Book co. of int. New York.276pp The Agricultural link (2007)

24. Tonfack, L. B., Bernadac, A., Youmbi, E., Mbouapouognigni, V. P., Ngueguim, M.,
& Akoa, A. (2009). Impact of organic and inorganic fertilizers on tomato vigor, yield and
fruit composition under tropical andosol soil conditions. Fruits, 64(3), 167-177. 28p.

Antonio I., Nigro F., and Schenna, L. (2004). Control of Post harvest diseases of fresh
Vegetable by application of Antagonistic micro-organism. Crop management and
postharvest handling of horticultural products (Eds) RandaneDris, RainaNiskanen and
Shri Mohan Jai. Pp 1-30.

Asadu L.A and B.O. Unagwu (2012). Effect of Combined Poultry manure, and Inorganic
fertilizer on maize performance in an Ultisol of Southeastern Nigeria. In: Nigerian
Journal of Soil sciences. Vol 22(2) Pp 79-87.

Azad, A.K. 2000. Effects of plant spacing, source of nutrients and mulching on growth
and yield of cabbage. M. Sc. Thesis. Department of Horticulture, Bangladesh Agriculture
University Mymensingh, pp. 15-40.

Babalola T.S (2010). Land evaluation studies of two wetland soil in Nigeria. An MSc
thesis submitted to the department of crop, soil and environmental sciences, University of
Ado-Ekiti. Pp 141.

Bationo A., Hartemink A., Lungu O., Naimi M., Okoth P., Smaling E., Thiombiano L.
( 2006). African soils: their productivity and profitability of fertilizer use, Background
papers prepared for the African fertilizer summit, Abuja, Nigeria, 25 p.