Nitrogen That Came From The Soil's Organic Matter or From Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation. ("Garden Myth," 2009)

NEUTRALIZING SOIL ACIDITY USING PULVERIZED WHITE-FEATHERED CHICKEN
EGG SHELLS, DRIED MANGO TREE LEAVES, WOOD ASHES AND THEIR
COMBINATION AS ORGANIC MULCHES
Introduction
Global climate change has been experienced by almost all of the people around the globe.
It has spread widely in just a span of time. Temperatures continue to rise up, glaciers have
shrunk and melted, and droughts become more intense, these are some of the effects of climate
change that people are experiencing today. To be further specific, these have caused our soils to
become acidic. Farmers even put fertilizers just to ameliorate the acidity of the soil. And
sometimes, the use of too much fertilizers particularly nitrogen can give soil surface
acidification. Some fertilizers are not used through the nitrogen that came from the soil’s
organic matter or from symbiotic nitrogen fixation. (“Garden Myth,” 2009).
Soil acidification is a natural process accelerated by agriculture. The main cause of soil
acidification is inefficient use of nitrogen, followed by the export of alkalinity in produce.
Ammonium based fertilizers are major contributors to soil acidification. Ammonium nitrogen is
readily converted to nitrate and hydrogen ions in the soil. Nitrate is always present in the soil
solution and will move with the soil water. Not because it is form of protein that can be a
sustaining nutrients to the soil but it has purely calcium and potassium averts from acidic soil.
(“Rural Solutions,” 2001).
There are different types of soil that can be classified according their texture, how it holds
water and how it’s managed, among other things. According to Larabie (2009), sandy soil is
made up of larger and gritty particles that don’t stick well together. It’s much easier to dig than
clay soil and it warms up more quickly because it has better aeration or air flow. It is looser
because it lets moisture and nutrients flow through it too easily which means that the sandy soil
can easily acidify unlike the other types of soil.

1
Andres (2016) mentioned that most of the tree leaves ends up getting recycled or burned
up for energy but it can be useful for a handful of ways. One of the ways is to improve the soil. It
can prevent from causing the soil to have a low alkalinity. The mango leaves are reddish or
purplish when tender and new, and grow into dark green color and have pale underside. These
leaves are rich in vitamins A, B, and C. They are also rich in variety of nutrients which can be
helpful to improve the soil. Moreover, putting a blanket of dried leaves over the soil could retain
the moisture of the soil, improve soil texture and deter some pests. Fallen leaves are natural and
self-sustaining fertilizers.
Egg shells can provide beneficial calcium to plants without hurting the pH like liming
does. It can provide aeration as well. It is a semi permeable membrane, which means that air and
moisture can pass through its pores. With the use of egg shells, it can maintain the pH level of
the soil and prevent it from becoming highly acidic which could result from the struggle of
absorbing certain nutrients that could be bad for the soil. (Barbara, 2013).
Wood ashes are the residues left from the combustion of wood. It often has a high pH
category level (7 and above) and a relatively high content of calcium and phosphorus it was
shown that it can be used to raise PH in soils. Wood ash can be used as an organic fertilizer used
to enrich agricultural soil nutrition. In this role, wood ash serves as a source of potassium and
calcium carbonate, the latter acting as a liming agent to neutralize acidic soils.
Wood ash from the fireplace or wood stove may be used to supply both calcium and
potassium to soil. The pH level of the soil is measured on a scale of 0 to 14, with category 7.0
being neutral. Target pH for growing a garden is in category 6.5 which is slightly acidic. Wood
2
ash works best if the soil’s pH level is acidic which is below 6.5. Wood ash is high in calcium
content which would cause the pH level of the soil to rise. When wood ash is used at pH levels
above 6.5, interference with plant growth may occur as the alkalinity level of the soil increases.
However, since the three (3) organic mulches such as Pulverized White-feathered chicken
Eggshells, Wood Ashes & Mango Dried Leaves were already proven that they can be used as
neutralizing agents for treating the soil’s acidity. The combination of the three (3) organic
mulches could be more helpful and useful considering it has more nutrients that could prevent
the soil from getting a high risk of being acidic and has more calcium & potassium that can help
to exclude the acidity and causes the pH level of the soil increases.
3
Statement of the Problem

This study mainly focuses on neutralizing acidic soil with the use of different organic
mulches. It aims to answer the following questions:
1. How may the effectiveness of the different organic mulches be described in terms of
soil pH levels before and after period of observation for:
a. 1 weeks
b. 2 weeks
c. 3 weeks
2. Is there a significant difference in the effectiveness of the different organic mulches
in terms of pH level for:
a. 1 weeks
b. 2 weeks
c. 3 weeks
3. Is there a significant difference in the pH level of the soil treated with organic
mulches in terms of the soil’s depths of:
a. 5 cm
b. 10 cm
c. 15 cm
4
Hypothesis
The research study entitled “Neutralizing Soil Acidity with the Pulverized White-
Feathered Chicken Egg Shells, Dried Mango Leaves, Wood Ashes, And Their Combination as
Organic Mulches” is subjected to hypothesis testing to determine whether the claims regarding a
population are likely to be true. The researchers have formulated the following hypotheses:
1. There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of the different organic mulches
2. There is no significant difference in the pH level of the soil treated with organic
mulches in terms of the soil’s depths:
a. 5 cm
b. 10 cm
c. 15 cm
Significance of the Study
The research study entitled “Neutralizing Soil Acidity using Pulverized White-Feathered
Chicken Egg Shells, Dried Mango Tree Leaves, Wood Ashes and their Combination as Organic
Mulches” will be conducted to benefit the following:
To the department of agriculture. This study aims to help the Philippine
Agriculture to grow by finding ways to obtain optimum support for neutralizing soil
acidity. It helps the Filipino people to grow plants in better soil quality and aims to utilize
the full potential of the study. It aims to inform the public that the study conducted was
eco-friendly and low-cost efficient as well.
5
To the community. This study aims to support the public by the low-cost
efficiency of it. It also helps to grow and cultivate healthy plants with the use of proper
soil coverings and be efficient in neutralizing soil acidity.
To the farmers. This study aims to give better insight and knowledge on
neutralizing the soil that will make the crops to grow fully and healthily. It will enable the
farmers to understand why the soil becomes acidic and will give a further explanation as
to how it can be neutralized. The results of the study could be implied to their farms and
fields as well.
To the future researchers. This study aims to serve as a guide and reference for
the researchers undertaking similar studies.
Definition of Terms
To be more familiarize and thoroughly understand the terms of this study, the following
conceptual are given:
Soil pH. It is the measurement of the alkalinity or acidity of soil. It also defined
as the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration (Iannoti, 2018).
Mulch. It is defined as any material that is spread or laid over the surface of the
soil as a covering.
Aeration. Involves perforating the soil with small holes to allow air, water and
nutrients to penetrate the grass roots.
6
Soil quality. It covers all factors that influence plant growth, including nutrient
availability, soil structure, pH and biological factors like the presence if plant pest (Kok,
1993).
Liming. A traditional procedure in preparing soil for planting. It is the application
of calcium- and magnesium-rich materials to soil.
Nitrogenous fertilizer. It is a inorganic production that can be transported to the
soil to enrich it more or less instantaneously. It was a common fertilizer for plants only
and it contains ammonium sulfate and calcium.
Scope and Limitations
This study entitled “Neutralizing Soil Acidity using Pulverized White-Feathered Chicken
Egg Shells, Dried Mango Tree Leaves, Wood Ashes and their Combination as Organic
Mulches,” was conducted at Villanueva’s Residence, Brgy. Camp Tinio, Cabanatuan City. It
consisted of soil, pulverized white-feathered chicken egg shells, dried mango leaves, wood ashes,
a combination of the three (3) organic mulches, twelve (12) soil containers, and a soil pH meter.
This study only focuses on neutralizing the acidity of the soil by determining its pH level after
utilizing the combination of the different organic mulch blankets as treatment. This study was
conducted for three (3) weeks. The determination of the soils’ pH levels were monitored at the
end of each week. It aims to be low-cost efficient since the materials needed are locally available
in markets and stores. The materials utilized in the experiment were cheap and can be bought at a
reasonable price.
7
Review of Related Literatures
Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs (OMAFRA) mentioned in their
website that soil covers can reduce soil moisture loss. In contrast, some growers use cover crops
such as rye as a way to reduce soil moisture in early spring. The crop takes up the soil moisture
and uses it within the plant. The water is incorporated in the plant tissues or is transpired. In both
cases, the water is removed from the soil. This use of cover crops requires very good
management and understanding of plant growth habits. Under warm wet conditions some cover
crops can become very difficult to control either with tillage or chemically. Also, under dry
spring conditions the cover crop should be controlled earlier to prevent excessive moisture loss,
which may interfere with crop establishment and growth. (2011).
As a result of soil cover, agricultural production subsequently improves because soil
covering or mulch blankets both promotes and maintains optimum soil conditions for plant
growth when it comes to nutrient availability and water infiltration. Soil cover protects the
surface of the soil from rain, wind, and sun. It reduces soil erosion and protects the fertile topsoil,
thus preventing the silting of rivers and lakes. It suppresses weeds by smothering their growth
and reducing the number of weed seeds as well. Consequently, this reduces the amount of work
needed for weeding. It also helps to increase the soil’s fertility and the soil’s organic matter
content. (Hunker, 2003).
Pennsylvania Land Trust Association (PLTA) states that sandy soil has the largest
particles among the different soil types. It’s dry and gritty to the touch, and because the particles
have huge spaces between them, it can’t hold on to water. Water drains rapidly, straight through
to places where the roots, particularly those of seedlings, cannot reach. Plants don’t have a
chance of using the nutrients in sandy soil more efficiently as they’re swiftly carried away by the
8
runoff. The upside to sandy soil is that it’s light to work with and warms much more quickly in
the spring. Testing what type of soil you’re working with involves moistening the soil and rolling
it into a ball to check the predominating soil particle. When you roll the slightly wet sandy soil in
your palms, no ball should be formed and it crumbles through your fingers easily. (2013).
A study from the North Carolina was conducted to use the eggshells to reduce the
acidity of the soil. The acidic soil has resulted from an inorganic fertilizer application series.
Then, farmers and gardeners treat lime in their fields and gardens to re-live and neutralize the
soil. Calcium carbonate, which is important in neutralizing the soil, is made of lime. Calcium
carbonate found in the eggshell can be used as a substitute for lime. Researchers prepared six
different set-ups with different eggs and soil. The effect of eggs in acidic soil is observed over
ten days, showing changes in the pH range of the soil. There is also a change in the growth of
plants, especially the height of seedlings, the number of leaves and sprouting duration. Eggs can
be definitely a substitute for lime. The use of eggs can help farmers and gardeners increase crop
production. (Awa, 2002).
Land acidity limits the soil microbial work and biodiversity as well as crop yields. The
Forest Industry of Basque Country generates a large amount of wood ash which is considered a
useless waste. In this context, a field assay was established to study the effect of using the
wood’s acidity, fertility, biological soil quality (i.e. soil enzymes, potentially mineralized
nitrogen, respiration, abundance of earthworms, and microbial metabolic profile of the
community) when subjected to a common acidic soil of this region. This effect is also compared
with that of lime (CaO), applied at the same rate of Ca. In March 2005, three contiguous areas of
Lolium multiflorum Lam. received the following treatments, respectively: (1) ash (15.5 t ha-1 of
wood ash and N), (2) lime (1.1 t ha-1 CaO and N-P-K fertilizer with equal doses of nutrients)
9
and (3) no addition. A diverse native plant is also studied to act as the control group (treatment
4). Lupa and Herbage samplings were made in May 2005. The results of the study showed that
ash wood can be a useful alternative in correcting the soil’s acidity, and a useful way of using
waste materials.[ CITATION Run91 \l 1033 ].
The absence of acid soils is a major limitation to crop production in highly weathered
and leached soils around the world. The main properties of soils are their low pH, low organic
matter, Ca, Mg, P, or Mo deficiency, Al or Mn toxicity, or both, and very low mineralization and
nitrification rate. Lime is generally recommended to correct soil acidity, but lime is not
equivalent to resource-poor tropical agriculturists. Many alternatives are suggested, and among
them are the products from organic waste. Composts have proven to be a great alternative to lime
use. Wood ash is a potential source of trace elements, nutrients, and lime. Wood ash is used as an
additive to manure, and wood ash admixture in organic wastes before composting is known to
improve compost quality and may reduce the amount of compost required to increase the pH at
the appropriate levels. The wood ash compost as a liming agent will potentially help in
remediating acidity and base deficiency of the soil as well as strengthening the ground microbial
pools in tropical agricultural soils.[ CITATION Mae02 \l 1033 ].
Excess soil acidification caused by fertilizers is a major factor in world‐wide soil
deterioration. Fertilizers, particularly nitrogen, acidify soil mostly when used inefficiently (in
excess of crop needs). Acidity is otherwise caused by differential cation‐anion uptake by plants
which vary with species. A crop can acidify the soil whether or not commercial fertilizers are
used, like if the nitrogen came from the soil organic matter or from symbiotic nitrogen fixation.
When the exact amount of nitrogen that is needed is applied to land, little acidification results
unless non-tillage is practiced to give soil surface acidification. In that case the acidification can
10
equal the theoretical. For ammonium‐N, the theoretical is twice the value given in fertilizer
handbooks and if there are no plant roots in the soil surface, the full acidification effect is
expressed. (Wallace, 2008).
Wood ash is composed of many major and minor elements needed by the tree for plant
growth. Since most of these elements are extracted from the soil and atmosphere during the
tree’s growth cycle, they are elements that are common in our environment and are also essential
elements in the production of crops and forages. Calcium is the most abundant element in wood
ash and gives the ash properties that are similar to agricultural lime. Ash is also a good source of
potassium, phosphorus, magnesium and aluminum. In terms of commercial fertilizer, average
wood ash would probably be about 0-1-3 (N-P-K). In addition to these macronutrients, wood ash
is a good source of many micronutrients that are needed in trace amounts for adequate plant
growth. Wood ash contains few elements that pose environmental problems. Heavy metal
concentrations are typically low and not in a highly extractable or available form. (Hudson,
2011).
Mango leaves are full of healing and medicinal properties. Benefits of mango leaves are
so varied and extensive that they are given immense importance in eastern medicine too. They
are reddish or purplish when tender and new, and grow into a dark green color and have a pale
underside. These leaves are fleshy and shiny with a sharp tip containing with vitamin A,B, and
C. (Agarwal, 2018).
Soil pH is a measure of the acidity and alkalinity in soils pH levels range from 0 to 14,
with 7 being neutral, below 7 acidic and above 7 alkaline. The optimal pH range for most plants
is between 5.5 and 7.0; however, many plants have adapted to thrive at pH values outside this
11
range. Because pH levels control many chemical processes that take place in the soil –
specifically, plant nutrient availability – it is vital to maintain proper levels for your plants to
reach their full yield potential. (“The Mosaic Company,” 2019).
12
Methodology
This chapter elaborated the methods to be followed in conducting the study. The content
of this chapter was designed to contribute to the existing knowledge and to connect and address
the gap in knowledge. This chapter encompasses the methods of research used, data collection
procedure, materials, research design, sampling technique, data gathering technique, and
statistical treatment of data used in this research study.
Research Method
The method of research used in this study is Experimental Research Random Block
Design in which the data to be gathered is directly obtained from the experiments.
Research Paradigm
The conceptual framework presents the goals to be achieved by this research study. This
provides the outline of how the researchers will conduct the experiments.
Duration of the
Different Soil Covers Experiment
Independent Variable Independent Variable
Soil Acidity /
Soil pH Level
Dependent Variable
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework
The researchers had measured the soil’s pH level to determine its acidity or alkalinity
before applying the treatment. The duration of the experiment was conducted for three (3) weeks
since it could possibly affect the outcome. And with that, the researchers are able to determine
13
and interpret the numerical data needed to identify the neutralization of soil’s acidity. The soil
pH level/soil acidity had been affected by the covering and duration of the treatment.
Materials
Table 1. Materials used in the Experiment.
MATERIALS QUANTITY
Wood Ashes 240 g
Dried Mango Leaves 240 g
Pulverized White-Feathered Chicken Egg Shells 240 g
Sandy Soil 20 Kg
Truncated Cone Plant Pots 12 pieces
Soil pH meter 1 piece
The materials utilized in the experiment are 240 grams of Wood Ashes, another 240
grams of Dried Mango Leaves, and 240 grams of Pulverized White-Feathered Chicken Egg
Shells are used as treatments. For preparation of the soil, twenty (20) kilograms of Sandy Soil,
twelve (12) pieces of Truncated Cone Plant Pots, and a piece of Soil pH Meter are needed. The
researchers obtained 20 kilograms of sandy soil subjected into treatment. The researchers
acquired a soil pH meter to measure the soil pH levels in determining its acidity and alkalinity.
The containers used were Truncated Cone Plant Pots.
14
General Procedures
This part of the methodology presents how the researchers will gather the data which
consists of series of procedures to be followed.
Phase 1. Phase 2.
Gathering of materials and measuring the Lay the four (4) different mulches on top of
initial pH level of the soil. Divide the soil the soil in separate containers respectively.
into twelve (12) equal parts.
Phase 4. Phase 3.
Determining and Interpreting the numerical Measuring the pH levels of the soil
data acquired after the experiment. subjected into different treatments.
Figure 2: General Procedures
The figure above shows the research paradigm of the general procedures. It involves
phases or steps that were used for the completion of the experiment. For the first phase, the
needed materials for the experiment, such as soil, soil pH meter, fallen dried mango leaves,
chicken crushed white egg shells, wood ashes, and lastly combined organic mulch. The pH level
of the soil was measured and divided into twelve (12) equal parts. Second, the different covers
such as wood ash, fallen dried mango leaves, pulverized white-feathered chicken egg shells,
combined organic mulch were laid on top of the soil in twelve (12) containers separately. The
different coverings with 3 replicates were distributed in their containers respectively. Third, the
pH levels of the soils subjected in various treatments were measured and after leaving it for
different periods of time, the pH levels of the soils were measured to determine whether there is
a change in pH level. Fourth and last, the numerical data acquired after the experiment were
determined and interpreted.
15
Egg Shell Preparation:
1. Gather and wash the egg shells laid by white-feathered chickens.

2. Separate the egg shells from its plastic-like membrane.
3. Crushed the egg shells into smaller pieces.
4. Pulverized the crushed egg shells using a roller until you accumulate a 240-gram of
pulverized white-feathered chicken egg shells.
Dried Mango Leaves Preparation:
1. Gather dried mango leaves in your neighborhood.

2. Cut it into pieces until you get 240-gram of dried mango leaves.
Wood Ashes Preparation:
1. Gather wood ashes in your rural community.

2. Accumulate 240 grams of wood ash.
Experiment’s Preparation
1. Get a 10-kg sandy soil from your local hardware store

2. Purchase twelve (12) truncated cone plant pots with a depth of 15cm, a 19 cm diameter
across the top, and a 13 cm diameter across the bottom.
3. Put 3.05 Liters of soil on each of plant pots.
4. Utilize the mulches made which weighs 40 grams each with three (3) replicates and lay it
on top of the soil.
5. Combine the three (3) organic mulches –each weighs 40 grams and lay it on top of the
soil.
16
Measuring the soil’s acidity using soil pH meter:
1. The tip of the pH meter has to be clean before plugging through the soil.
2. After corking the pH meter into the soil, patiently wait for the outcomes to be shown.
3. The result of the pH meter in the soil determines the acidity or alkalinity of the soils and
can be represented as a pH level.
Sampling Technique
The sampling technique to be used in this study is Purposive Sampling – a type of Non-
Probability Sampling.
Data Collection Technique
First, determine the acidity of the soil by measuring the soil’s pH level before the
overlaying of the different soil covers. Monitor the soil pH level every one (1) week until the
observation has finished. Measure the soil’s pH level after the overlaying of the four (4) different
soil covers wood ashes, dried mango leaves, pulverized white-feathered chicken egg shells, and
the combination of the three organic mulches. After the observation period of 3 weeks, analyze
and interpret the data gathered.
17
Research Design
The researchers used True Experimental Research Design in this study where in the
participants were selected randomly and the researchers had complete control over the variables.
Table 2. Research Design for the pH level of the acidic soil treated with various organic
mulches.
T1 T2 T3
Control Group Soil covered Soil covered Soil T4
pH level of the with Pulverized with covered Combined
soil before Chicken White Fallen Dried with Wood Organic
treatment Egg Shells Mango Leaves Ashes Mulch
R1
R2
R3
Table 2 shows the experimental research design for the pH level of the acidic soil treated
with various organic mulches. It determined the pH level of the soil which was treated within
three (3) week time. The four (4) treatments will all have three (3) replicates to ensure the
reliability of the results in order for the researchers to draw conclusions. The researchers added a
control group to serve as a pre-test; it was used as a baseline to compare and assess the effect of
the different treatments.
Statistical Treatment of Data
The Statistical tool used in this study was ANOVA (Analysis of Variance) for testing
effectiveness of the different treatments and T-test Two Means Assuming Equal Variances for
testing the significant difference between the control groups and treatments in neutralizing the
soil’s pH level.
18
Results and Discussions
The researchers put the soil in a large container and measure its pH level before they
were divided into twelve (12) containers with the same variant and size, the containers can hold a
volume of 186 in3 before. The different treatments applied to cover the top of the soil were
distributed equally to achieve the best outcome.
Table 3. Initial Measurement of the soil’s pH level.
T1
T2 T3
Soil covered with T4
Control Group Soil covered Soil
Pulverized Combination
pH level of the with covered
White-Feathered Dried Mango of the three
soil before with Wood
Chicken Egg Leaves Organic
treatment Ashes
Shells Mulches
R1 5 5 5 5 5
R2 5 5 5 5 5
R3 5 5 5 5 5
Table 3 shows the initial measurement of the soil’s pH level in which they all possessed
the same pH level before they were subjected into four (4) different treatments in a span of three
(3) weeks.
Table 4. Measure of the soil’s pH level with a depth of five (5) cm after one (1) week.
T1
Soil covered T2 T3
T4
Control Group with Pulverized Soil covered Soil
Combination
pH level of the White- with covered
of the three
soil before Feathered Dried Mango with Wood
Organic
treatment Chicken Egg Leaves Ashes
Mulches
Shells
R1 5 7 7.5 7.5 4
R2 5 7 7.5 7.5 4
R3 5 7 7.5 7.5 4
19
Table 4 indicates the pH level of the soil subjected into four (4) different treatments after
monitoring for one (1) week. Within one (1) week span, the soils were measured in a five (5) cm
depth from the top of the soil. The soil pH meter clearly shows that the soils covered with Mango
Tree’s Dried Leaves and the soil covered with Wood Ashes spiked a difference of 2.5 pH
category level that resulted a pH category level of 7.5 (neutral) while the soil covered with
pulverized chicken’s white egg shells spiked a different of 2 pH category level that resulted a pH
category level of 7 (neutral) compared to their initial measurement of 5 pH level which is
considered as acidic. The combination of the three (3) different organic mulches lowered to a pH
category level of 4, it is indicated to be acidic.
Table 4.1 Measure of the soil’s pH level with a depth of ten (10) cm after one (1) week.
T1
T2 T3
White-Feathered of the three
soil before Dried Mango with Wood
Chicken Egg Organic
treatment Leaves Ashes
Shells Mulches
R1 5 7.5 6 6.5 4
R2 5 7 8 7.5 5
R3 5 7.5 8 6.5 4
Table 4.1 shows the pH level of the soil subjected into four (4) different treatments after
monitoring for one (1) week. The soils were measured in a ten (10) cm depth starting from the
top of the soil. The soil pH meter showed a partial spreading of the soils’ pH levels. The pH level
of Treatment 1 indicated an average of 7.5, the pH level of treatment 2 showed an average of
7.33, the pH level of treatment 3 resulted an average of 6.83, and lastly, the pH level of treatment
4 has an average of 4.33 which is considered as acidic.
20
Table 4.2.Measure of the soil’s pH level with a depth of fifteen (15) cm after one (1) week.
T1
T2 T3
White-Feathered Dried Mango of the three
treatment Ashes
Shells Mulches
R1 5 7 8 7 5.5
R2 5 8 7.5 7.5 4
R3 5 7.5 8 7.5 6
Table 4.2 reveals the pH level of the soil subjected into four (4) different treatments after
monitoring for one (1) week. The soils were measured in a fifteen (15) cm depth starting from
the top of the soil. The soil pH meter showed a partial spreading of the soils’ pH levels. The pH
level of Treatment 1 indicated an average of 7.5, the pH level of treatment 2 showed an average
of 7.83, the pH level of treatment 3 resulted an average of 7.33, and lastly, the pH level of
treatment 4 was slowly rising as the soil pH meter gets deeper; from a calculated average of 4.33
to 5.17 which showed an evident change considering that the treatment was very acidic.
Table 5. Measure of the soil’s pH level with a depth of five (5) cm after two (2) weeks.
T1
T2 T3
Pulverized White- Combination
Feathered of the three
Chicken Egg Organic
Shells Mulches
R1 5 7 5.5 6.5 5.5
R2 5 7.5 6 7 5.5
R3 5 7 5.5 6 6
Table 5 reveals the pH level of the soil subjected into four (4) different treatments after
monitoring for two (2) weeks. The soils were measured in a five (5) cm depth starting from the
21
top of the soil. The pH level of Treatment 1 indicated an average of 7.17, the pH level of
treatment 2 showed an average of 5.67 which has dropped continuously as the treatment applied
stayed for a longer time frame, the pH level of treatment 3 has a resulting average of 6.5, and
lastly, the pH level of treatment 4 depicts an average of 5.67. As time passes by, the pH level of
treatment 4 clearly showed notable changes from the first (1st) week of administering the
mulches to its second (2nd) week; as an indication of the rising pH level of treatment 4, it can be
distinguished as slightly acidic.
Table 5.1 Measure of the soil’s pH level with a depth of ten (10) cm after two (2) weeks.
T1
T2 T3
White-Feathered of the three
Chicken Egg Organic
Shells Mulches
R1 5 7 4.5 6.5 6.5
R2 5 7 6 7 5.5
R3 5 7.5 5 6.5 5
monitoring for two (2) weeks. The soils were measured in a ten (10) cm depth starting from the
top of the soil. The pH level of Treatment 1 indicated an average of 7.17, the pH level of
Treatment 2 showed an average of 5.17, the pH level of Treatment 3 has a resulting average of
6.67, and lastly, the pH level of Treatment 4 depicts an average of 5.67. It can be seen from the
aforementioned table above that Treatments 1 and 4 has a fixed pH level all throughout the
bottom part of the soil which means that these treatments are effective at neutralizing the soil’s
22
acidity while Treatments 2 and 3 seemingly dropped their pH levels and cannot be as effective as
the Treatments 1 and 4 in neutralizing the soil’s acidity
Table 5.2 Measure of the soil’s pH level with a depth of fifteen (15) cm after two (2) weeks.
T1
T2 T3
Feathered of the three
Chicken Egg Organic
Shells Mulches
R1 5 7 5 6.5 6
R2 5 7 5 7 6.5
R3 5 7.5 6 7 6
Table 5.2 shows the pH level of the soil subjected into four (4) different treatments after
monitoring for two (2) weeks. The soils were measured in a fifteen (15) cm depth starting from
the top of the soil. The pH level of Treatment 1 indicated an average of 7.17 (neutral) which has
maintained its pH level throughout the soil on the base of the plant pot. the pH level of
Treatment 2 showed an average of 5.33 (acidic), the pH level of Treatment 3 has a resulting
average of 6.83 (slightly acidic), and lastly, the pH level of Treatment 4 depicts an average of
6.17 (slightly acidic).
Table 6. Measure of the soil’s pH level with a depth of five (5) cm after three (3) weeks.
T1
T2 T3
Soil covered
Control Group Soil covered Soil T4
with Pulverized
pH level of the with covered Combined
White-Feathered
soil before Fallen Dried with Wood Organic
Chicken Egg
treatment Mango Leaves Ashes Mulch
Shells
R1 5 7 6 6 6.5
R2 5 7 5 6.5 6.5
R3 5 7 6 7 6
23
Table 6 reveals the pH level of the soil subjected into four (4) different treatments after
monitoring for three (3) weeks. The soils were measured in a five (5) cm depth starting from the
top of the soil. The pH level of Treatment 1 indicated an average of 7 (neutral), the pH level of
Treatment 2 showed an average of 5.67 (acidic), the pH level of Treatment 3 has a resulting
average of 6.5 (slightly acidic), and lastly, the pH level of Treatment 4 depicts an average of 6.33
(slightly acidic).
Table 6.1 Measure of the soil’s pH level with a depth of ten (10) cm after three (3) weeks.
T1 T2 T3
Control Group Soil covered with Soil covered Soil T4
pH level of the Pulverized White- with covered Combination
soil before Feathered Chicken Dried with Wood of the three
treatment Egg Shells Mango Ashes Organic
Leaves Mulches
R1 5 8 6 6.5 6.5
R2 5 7 5 6.5 7
R3 5 7 5 7 7
monitoring for three (3) weeks. The soils were measured in a ten (10) cm depth starting from the
top of the soil. The pH level of Treatment 1 indicated an average of 7.33 (neutral), the pH level
of Treatment 2 showed an average of 5.33 (very acidic), the pH level of Treatment 3 has a
resulting average of 6.67 (slightly neutral), and lastly, the pH level of Treatment 4 depicts an
average of 6.83 (slightly acidic).
24
Table 6.2 Measure of the soil’s pH level with a depth of fifteen (15) cm after three (3) weeks.
T1
T2 T3
Feathered Dried Mango of the three
treatment Ashes
Shells Mulches
R1 5 8 6 6.5 6.5
R2 5 7.5 4 6 7
R3 5 7.5 5 7 7
Table 6.2 indicates the pH level of the soil subjected into four (4) different treatments
after monitoring for three (3) weeks. The soils were measured in a fifteen (15) cm depth starting
from the top of the soil. The pH level of Treatment 1 indicated an average of 7.67 (slightly
alkaline), the pH level of Treatment 2 showed an average of 5 (acidic), the pH level of Treatment
3 has a resulting average of 6.5 (slightly acidic), and lastly, the pH level of Treatment 4 depicts
an average of 6.33 (slightly acidic). The pH levels of the soils subjected into treatments were
determined at the end of the three (3) weeks of experiment. Thus, the pH level of the soil after
administering the treatments has clearly indicated that the treatments differ in effectiveness of
neutralizing the soil’s acidity.
25
Table 7. ANOVA Single Factor for the pH level after one (1) week with a depth of five (5) cm.
Anova: Single Factor
SUMMARY
Groups Coun Sum Averag Varianc
t e e
Control Group 3 15 5 0
Treatment 1 3 21 7 0
Treatment 2 3 22.5 7.5 0
Treatment 3 3 22.5 7.5 0
ANOVA
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit
Variation
Between Groups 30.9 4 7.725 65535 #DIV/0! 3.47805
Within Groups 0 10 0
Total 30.9 14
Table 7 discusses the complete results of the ANOVA Single Factor for the pH levels of
the soils subjected into four (4) different treatments measured in a depth of five (5) cm after one
(1) week of monitoring. However, there is no variation among the groups; the F-value and F-crit
were considered as reference numbers to fully analyze the results. The null hypothesis is rejected
since the F-value of 65535 is greater than the F-crit of 3.47805, which means that there is a
significant difference among the treatments that were administered.
26
Table 7.1 ANOVA Single Factor for the pH level after one (1) week with a depth of ten (10) cm.
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Treatment 1 3 22 7.333333 0.083333
Treatment 2 3 22 7.333333 1.333333
Treatment 3 3 20.5 6.833333 0.333333
Treatment 4 3 13 4.333333 0.333333
ANOVA
Variation
Between Groups 23.66667 4 5.916667 14.2 0.000395 3.47805
Within Groups 4.166667 10 0.416667
Total 27.83333 14
Table 7.1 reveals the results of the variances of the different treatments administered such
as pulverized white-feathered chicken egg shells, mango tree’s dried leaves, wood ashes, and a
combination of the three (3) organic mulches. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) Single Factor was
conducted to compare the varying pH levels of the four (4) treatments. It was shown that
Combination Treatment (Treatment 4) yielded the lowest numerical value of 4.33 in comparison
to the three (3) other Treatments which depicts that Treatment 4 was the slowest to affect and
change the soil’s acidity level in a span of one (1) week through a depth of five (5) cm. The
computed p-value of 0.000395 is less than the significant level of 5%, therefore the null
hypothesis is rejected which means that there is a significant difference among the treatments
that were administered.
27
Table 7.2 ANOVA Single Factor for the pH level after one (1) week with a depth of fifteen (15)
cm.
SUMMARY
Treatment 1 3 22.5 7.5 0.25
Treatment 2 3 23.5 7.833333 0.083333
TTreatment
a 3 b l 3e 6
22 7.333333 . 0.083333
2 s h o w c
Treatment 4 3 15.5 5.166667 1.083333
of the soils
ANOVA
Variation
Between 22.43333 4 5.608333 18.69444 0.000124 3.47805
Groups
Within Groups 3 10 0.3
Total 25.43333 14
subjected into four (4) different treatments measured in a depth of fifteen (15) cm after one (1)
week of monitoring. The p-value of 0.000124 is less than the significance level of 5% therefore,
the null hypothesis is rejected. It can be evaluated that there is a significant difference in the
effectiveness of the treatments.
28
Table 8. ANOVA Single Factor for the pH level after two (2) weeks with a depth of five (5) cm.
SUMMARY
Groups Coun Sum Average Variance
t
Treatment 1 3 21.5 7.16666 0.08333
7 3
Treatment 2 3 17 5.66666 0.08333
7 3
Treatment 3 3 19.5 6.5 0.25
Treatment 4 3 17 5.66666 0.08333
7 3
ANOVA
Variation
Between Groups 8.5 4 2.125 21.25 7.07E-05 3.4780
5
Within Groups 1 10 0.1
Total 9.5 14
The aforementioned table above shows the complete results of the ANOVA Single Factor
for the pH levels of the soils subjected into four (4) different treatments measured in a depth of
five (5) cm after being monitored for two (2) weeks. Considering that the p-value is 7.07 x 10 5,
the significance level of 5% is greater than the p-value, thus resulting to the rejection of the null
hypothesis which means that there is a significant difference in the effectiveness of the different
treatments that were administered.
29
Table 8.1 ANOVA Single Factor for the pH level after two (2) weeks with a depth of ten (10) cm.
SUMMARY
Treatment 1 3 21.5 7.166667 0.083333
Treatment 2 3 15.5 5.166667 0.583333
Treatment 3 3 20 6.666667 0.083333
Treatment 4 3 17 5.666667 0.583333
ANOVA
Variation
Between 10.76667 4 2.691667 10.09375 0.001544 3.47805
Groups
Within Groups 2.666667 10 0.266667
Total 13.43333 14
T a b l e 8 . 1 d i s c u s
soils subjected into four (4) different treatments measured in a depth of ten (10) cm after being
monitored for two (2) weeks. It appears that the p-value of 0.001544 is less than the significance
level of 5% which indicates that the null hypothesis is rejected.
30
Table 8.2 ANOVA Single Factor for the pH level after two (2) weeks with a depth of fifteen
(15)cm.
SUMMARY
Treatment 1 3 21.5 7.166667 0.083333
Treatment 2 3 16 5.333333 0.333333
Treatment 3 3 20.5 6.833333 0.083333
Treatment 4 3 18.5 6.166667 0.083333
ANOVA
Variation
Between Groups 10.43333 4 2.608333 22.35714 5.66E- 3.47805
05
Within Groups 1.166667 10 0.116667
Total 11.6 14
Table 8.2 depicts the complete results of the ANOVA Single Factor for the pH levels of
the soils subjected into four (4) different treatments measured in a depth of fifteen (15) cm after
being monitored for two (2) weeks. The resulting p-value of 5.66 x 10 5 is less than the
significance level of 5%, thus, the null hypothesis is subjected to rejection.
31
Table 9. ANOVA Single Factor for the pH level after three (3) weeks with a depth of five (5) cm.
SUMMARY
Treatment 2 3 17 5.666667 0.333333
Treatment 3 3 19.5 6.5 0.25
Treatment 4 3 19 6.333333 0.083333
ANOVA
Variation
Between 7.266667 4 1.816667 13.625 0.000468 3.47805
Groups
Within Groups 1.333333 10 0.133333
Total 8.6 14
T a b l e 9 d i s c u s s e
subjected into four (4) different treatments measured in a depth of five (5) cm after monitoring it
for three (3) weeks. The p-value has a numerical value of 0.000468 is lower than the significance
level of 5% which means that the null hypothesis is rejected.
32
Table 9.1 ANOVA Single Factor for the pH level after three (3) weeks with a depth of ten (10)
cm.
SUMMARY
Treatment 1 3 22 7.333333 0.333333
Treatment 2 3 16 5.333333 0.333333
Treatment 3 3 20 6.666667 0.083333
Treatment 4 3 20.5 6.833333 0.083333
ANOVA
Variation
Between 12.26667 4 3.066667 18.4 0.000132 3.47805
Groups
Within Groups 1.666667 10 0.166667
Total 13.93333 14
Table 9.1 discusses the complete results of the ANOVA Single Factor for the pH levels
of the soils subjected into four (4) different treatments measured in a depth of ten (10) cm after
monitoring it for three (3) weeks. Based on the outcomes, the p-value of 0.000132 is lower than
the significance level of 5%. Therefore, the null hypothesis is rejected.
33
Table 9.2 ANOVA Single Factor for the pH level after three (3) weeks with a depth of fifteen (15)
cm.
SUMMARY
Treatment 1 3 23 7.666667 0.083333
Treatment 3 3 19.5 6.5 0.25
Treatment 4 3 20.5 6.833333 0.083333
ANOVA
Variation
Between Groups 16.56667 4 4.141667 14.61765 0.00035 3.47805
Within Groups 2.833333 10 0.283333
Total 19.4 14
Table 9.2 discusses the complete results of the ANOVA Single Factor for the pH levels
of the soils subjected into four (4) different treatments measured in a depth of fifteen (15) cm
after monitoring it for three (3) weeks. The mean pH level of Treatment 4 which was covered
with the combination of the three (3) organic mulches is 6.83, it is similar to its pH level on a
depth of ten (10) cm. This basically means that Treatment 4 is consistent at neutralizing the soil’s
acidity considering that it slightly neutralized the pH level on the bottom. The resulting p-value
34
of 0.00035 is less than the significance level of 5% indicated that the null hypothesis is rejected
and that there is a significant difference on the effectiveness of the varying treatments.
Table 10. T-test results for week 1: Control Group vs. Treatment 1.
CG T1
Mean 5 7.5
Variance 0 0.25
Observations 3 3
Pooled Variance 0.125
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -8.66025
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000489
t Critical one-tail 2.131847
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.000978
t Critical two-tail 2.776445
Table 10 shows the results of
the Control Group vs. Treatment 1: Pulverized Egg Shells as an organic mulch. T-test Two
Sample Assuming Equal Variances were used to determine the significant difference between the
Control Group (M=5 ; V=0) which serves as a Pre-Test and the Treatment 1 (M=7.5 ; V=0.25)
for week 1; p=0.00098. Thus, there is a significant difference between the pH level of the
35
Table 10.1. T-test Results for week 1: Control Group vs. Treatment 2.
CG T2
Mean 5 7.833333
Variance 0 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -17
P(T<=t) one-tail 3.51E-05
P(T<=t) two-tail 7.02E-05
Table 10.1 indicates the results of the Control Group vs. Treatment 2: Dried
Mango Leaves as a soil covering. T-test Two Sample Assuming Equal Variances were used to
determine the significant difference between the Control Group (M=5 ; V=0) which serves as a
Pre-Test and the Treatment 2 (M=7.83 ; V=0.83) for week 1; p=7.02x10 5. Thus, there is a
significant difference between the pH level of the Pre-Test: Control Group and the Treatment 2.
Table 10.2 T-test Results for week 1: Control Group vs. Treatment 3.
CG T3
Mean 5 7.333333
Variance 0 0.083333
36
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -14
Table 10.2 indicates the results of the Control Group vs. Treatment 3: Wood Ashes as a
soil covering. T-test Two Sample Assuming Equal Variances were used to determine the
significant difference between the Control Group (M=5 ; V=0) which serves as a Pre-Test and
the Treatment 2 (M=7.33 ; V=0.83) for week 1; p=0.00015. The variance of Treatment 3 is
similar to the variance of Treatment 2 which means that there is similarity between the
distribution or spread of the data gathered. Therefore, there is a significant difference between
the pH level of the Pre-Test: Control Group and the Treatment 3.
Table 10.3 T-test Results for week 1: Control Group vs. Treatment 4.
CG T4
Mean 5 5.166667
Variance 0 1.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -0.27735
37
The aforementioned table above discusses the results of the Control Group vs. Treatment
4: Combination as a soil covering. T-test Two Sample Assuming Equal Variances were used to
determine the significant difference between the Control Group (M=5 ; V=0) which serves as a
Pre-Test and the Treatment 2 (M=5.17 ; V=1.083) for week 1; p=0.796. Therefore, there is no
significant difference between the pH level of the Pre-Test: Control Group and the Treatment 4.
Table 10.4 T-test Results for week 1: Treatment 1 vs. Treatment 2.
T1 T2
Mean 7.5 7.833333
Variance 0.25 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -1
Table 10.4 shows the T-test results of Treatment 1 and Treatment 2. The soil subjected in
Treatment 1 yielded a result of M=7.5 and V=0.25 while the soil subjected in Treatment 2
yielded a result of M=7.83 and V=0.83. the significant level of 5%=0.05 is less than the p-value
of 0.374, thus, there is no significant difference between the pH level of Treatment 1 and
Treatment 2.
38
T1 T3
Mean 7.5 7.333333
Variance 0.25 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat 0.5
Table 10.5 indicates the T-test results comparing the Treatment 1 and Treatment 3. The
T-test showed that there is no significant difference between Treatment 1 (M=7.5 ; V=0.25) and
Treatment 2 (M=7.33 ; V=0.083); p=0.643.
T1 T4
Mean 7.5 5.166667
Variance 0.25 1.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
39
Difference
df 4
t Stat 3.5
Table 10.6 shows the T-test results of the Treatment 1 and Treatment 4 for the data
gathered in week 1. T-test assuming Equal Variances were conducted. The results manifested
that there is a significant difference between the Treatment 1 (M=7.5 ; V=0.25) and Treatment 4
(M=5.17 ; V=1.083); p=0.025.
T2 T3
Mean 7.833333 7.333333
Variance 0.083333 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat 2.12132
Table 10.7 shows the T-test Results of the Treatment 2 and Treatment 3 for the data
gathered in week 1. T-test assuming Equal Variances were conducted. The results manifested
that there is no significant difference between the Treatment 2 (M=7.83 ; V=0.83) and Treatment
40
4 (M=7.33 ; V=0.83). Treatments 2 and 3 have yielded the same variance but differ in their
average pH levels; p=0.101.
T2 T4
Mean 7.833333 5.166667
Variance 0.083333 1.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat 4.27618
Table 10.8 indicates the T-test Results of the Treatment 2 and Treatment 4 for the data
gathered in week 1. T-test assuming Equal Variances were conducted. The interpreted results
stated that there is a significant difference between Treatment 2 (M=7.83 ; V=0.083) and
Treatment 4 (M=5.17 ; V= 1.083); p=0.013.
41
T3 T4
Mean 7.333333 5.166667
Variance 0.083333 1.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat 3.474396
Table 10.9 shows the results of the T-test assuming Equal Variances conducted after
gathering the data on week 1 comparing the Treatment 3 and Treatment 4. The results manifested
that there is a significant difference between Treatment 3 (M=7.33 ; V=0.083) and Treatment 4
(M=5.167 ; V=1.083); p=0.025.
42
Table 11. T-test results for week 2: Control Group vs. Treatment 1.
CG T1
Mean 5 7.166667
Variance 0 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -13
Table 11 shows the results of the Control Group vs. Treatment 1: Pulverized Egg
Shells as soil covering. T-test Two Sample Assuming Equal Variances were used to determine
the significant difference between the Control Group (M=5 ; V=0) which serves as a Pre-Test
and the Treatment 1 (M=7.17 ; V=0.083) for week 1; p=0.0002. Thus, there is a significant
difference between the pH level of the Control Group and the Treatment 1.
43
Table 11.1 T-test results for week 2: Control Group vs. Treatment 2
CG T2
Mean 5 5.333333
Variance 0 0.333333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -1
.
Table 11.1 shows the results of the Control Group vs. Treatment 2: Dried Mango Leaves
as soil covering. T-test Two Sample Assuming Equal Variances were used to determine the
the Treatment 1 (M=5.33; V=0.033) for week 1; p=0.374. Thus, there is no significant difference
between the pH level of the Control Group and the Treatment 2.
44
CG T3
Mean 5 6.833333
Variance 0 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -11
Table 11.2 shows the results of the Control Group vs. Treatment 3: Wood Ashes as soil
covering. T-test Two Sample Assuming Equal Variances were used to determine the significant
difference between the Control Group (M=5 ; V=0) which serves as a Pre-Test and the
45
Treatment 1 (M=6.83; V=0.083) for week 1; p=0.00039. Thus, there is a significant difference
between the pH level of the Control Group and the Treatment 3.
CG T4
Mean 5 6.166667
Variance 0 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -7
Table 11.3 shows the results of the Control Group vs. Treatment 4: Combination as soil
46
Treatment 1 (M=6.17; V=0.083) for week 2; p=0.0022. The variance of Treatment 3 and
Treatment 4 yielded the same result which means that there is similarity on the distribution of the
data gathered. Thus, there is a significant difference between the pH level of the Control Group
and the Treatment 4.
Table 11.4 T-test results for week 2: Treatment 1 vs. Treatment 2
T1 T2
Mean 7.166667 5.333333
Variance 0.083333 0.333333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat 4.91935
Table 11.4 indicates the T-test results comparing the Treatment 1 to Treatment 2 after the
numerical data was gathered after week 2. The T-test assuming Equal Variances was conducted
47
and resulted to a significant difference in pH level of the Treatment 1 (M=7.167 ; V=0.833) and
Treatment 2 (M=5.33 ; V=0.33); p=0.00793.
T1 T3
Mean 7.166667 6.833333
Variance 0.083333 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat 1.414214
Table 11.5 shows the T-test Results of the Treatment 1 and Treatment 3 for the numerical
data gathered in week 2. T-test assuming Equal Variances were conducted. The results
48
manifested that there is no significant difference between the Treatment 1 (M=7.167 ; V=0.083)
and Treatment 3 (M=6.83 ; V=0.083). Treatments 2 and 3 have yielded the same variance but
differ in their average pH levels; p=0.2302.
T1 T4
Mean 7.166667 6.166667
Variance 0.083333 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat 4.242641
49
Table 11.6 discusses the full T-test results Assuming Equal Variances of Treatment 1 and
Treatment 4 after the numerical data was gathered on week 2. The results manifested that there is
a significant difference between Treatment 1 (M=7.167 ; V=0.083) and Treatment 4 (M=6.167 ;
V=0.083); p=0.0132. There is a similarity in the variance of the Treatments 1 and 4.
T2 T3
Mean 5.333333 6.833333
Variance 0.333333 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -4.02492
50
The aforementioned table indicates the full T-test results Assuming Equal Variance of
Treatment 2 and Treatment 3 after numerical data was gathered after week 2. The T-test result
stated that there is a significant difference between Treatment 2 (M=5.33 ; V=0.33) and
Treatment 3 (M=6.83 ; V=0.083); p=0.0158.
T2 T4
Mean 5.333333 6.166667
Variance 0.333333 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -2.23607
51
The table above shows the T-test results Assuming Equal Variance of Treatment 2 and
Treatment 4 after numerical data was gathered after week 2. The T-test result stated that there is
no significant difference between Treatment 2 (M=5.33 ; V=0.33) and Treatment 4 (M=6.17 ;
V=0.083); p=0.089.
T3 T4
Mean 6.833333 6.166667
Variance 0.083333 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat 2.828427
52
Table 11.9 discusses the T-test Results Assuming Equal Variances of Treatment 3 and
Treatment 4 after numerical data was gathered after week 2. The T-test result stated that there is
no significant difference between Treatment 2 (M=6.83 ; V=0.083) and Treatment 4 (M=6.17 ;
V=0.083); p=0.089.
Table 12. T-test Results for week 3: Control Group vs. Treatment 1
CG T1
Mean 5 7.666667
Variance 0 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -16
P(T<=t) two-tail 8.92E-05
53
Table 12 shows the results of the Control Group vs. Treatment 1: Pulverized Egg
Shells as soil covering. T-test Two Sample Assuming Equal Variances were used to determine
the significant difference between the Control Group (M=5 ; V=0) which serves as a Pre-Test
and the Treatment 1 (M=7.67 ; V=0.083) for week 3; p=8.92x10 5. Thus, there is a significant
difference between the pH level of the Control Group and the Treatment 1.
Table 12.1 T-test Results for week 3: Control Group vs. Treatment 2
CG T2
Mean 5 5
Variance 0 1
Observations 3 3
Pooled Variance 0.5
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat 0
P(T<=t) two-tail 1
54
Table 12.1 shows the results of the Control Group vs. Treatment 2: Mango Dried Leaves
as soil covering. T-test Two Sample Assuming Equal Variances were used to determine the
the Treatment 2 (M=5 ; V=1) for week 3; p=1. The null hypothesis is accepted thus, there is no
significant difference between the pH level of the Control Group and the Treatment 2.
CG T3
Mean 5 6.5
Variance 0 0.25
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -5.19615
55

Table 12.2 shows the results of the Control Group vs. Treatment 3: Wood Ashes as soil
Treatment 2 (M=6.5 ; V=0.25) for week 3; p=0.0065. The null hypothesis is rejected thus, there
is a significant difference between the pH level of the Control Group and the Treatment 3.
CG T4
Mean 5 6.833333
Variance 0 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
df 4
t Stat -11
56

Table 12.3 shows the results of the Control Group vs. Treatment 4: Combination as soil
Treatment 2 (M=6.83 ; V=0.083) for week 3; p=0.00039. The null hypothesis is rejected thus,
there is a significant difference between the pH level of the Control Group and the Treatment 4.
Table 12.4 T-test Results for week 3: Treatment 1 vs. Treatment 2
T1 T2
Mean 7.666667 5
Variance 0.083333 1
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
57
df 4
t Stat 4.437602
Table 12.4 shows the T-test Results of the Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 for the numerical
data gathered in week 3. T-test assuming Equal Variances were conducted. The results
manifested that there is a significant difference between the Treatment 1 (M=7.67 ; V=0.083)
and Treatment 2 (M=5; V=0); p=0.01136.
T1 T3
Mean 7.666667 6.5
Variance 0.083333 0.25
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
58
df 4
t Stat 3.5
Table 12.5 indicates the full T-test Results of the Treatment 1 and Treatment 3 after the
numerical data was gathered in week 3. T-test assuming Equal Variances were conducted. The
results manifested that there is a significant difference between the Treatment 1 (M=7.67 ;
V=0.083) and Treatment 3 (M=6.5; V=0.25); p=0.0249.
T1 T4
Mean 7.666667 6.833333
Variance 0.083333 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
59
df 4
t Stat 3.535534
Table 12.6 discusses the full T-test Results of the Treatment 1 and Treatment 4 after the
T2 T3
Mean 5 6.5
Variance 1 0.25
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
60
df 4
t Stat -2.32379
results manifested that there is no significant difference between the Treatment 2 (M=5 ; V=1)
and Treatment 3 (M=6.5; V=0.25); p=0.08.
T2 T4
Mean 5 6.833333
Variance 1 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
61
df 4
t Stat -3.05085
results manifested that there is a significant difference between the Treatment 2 (M=5 ; V=1) and
Treatment 4 (M=6.83; V=0.083); p=0.03.
T3 T4
Mean 6.5 6.833333
Variance 0.25 0.083333
Observations 3 3
Hypothesized Mean 0
Difference
62
df 4
t Stat -1
Conclusions and Recommendations
Conclusions
The researchers conclude that the most efficient and effective soil covering among the
treatments in neutralizing the soil’s pH level based on the conducted experiment and the yielded
63
result is the Combination of the three (3) organic mulches. It has showed that from the soil’s
acidic pH level of 5 it went up into a slightly neutral pH level category of 6.83.
The two treatments –Dried Mango Leaves, and Wood Ashes the treatments fell in the
slightly acidic pH level category of 5 and 6.5. And as for the remaining one treatment–
Pulverized White-feathered Chicken Egg Shells, it fell on the slightly alkaline pH level category
of 7.67. Therefore, they cannot be used as a covering agent or mulch blanket in neutralizing soil
acidity. Though it failed to neutralize the acidity of the soil, it has proven that alkalinity is caused
by the presence of calcium. Egg shells are rich in calcium-carbonate which can be used to
combine with the two treatments; it can balance the slightly acidic pH level brought by the Dried
Mango Leaves and Wood Ashes.
In conclusion based on the accumulated result, the pH level of Treatment 1 covered with
Pulverized Egg Shells were consistent on the different depths of the soil and maintained a neutral
pH level, it is also effective in neutralizing the soil’s acidity considering that the initial pH level
was in category 5 which is acidic. Moreover, as the pulverized egg shells on top of the soil stays
longer, the more it raises the pH level of the soil. The soil treated with Mango Tree’s Dried
Leaves has appeared to spike a difference of 2.5 at the first week of monitoring. Based on the
results of the experiment, the Treatment covered with Dried Mango Leaves was continuously
dropping its pH level as it gets deeper and as the time gets longer. To be more specific,
Treatment 2 was not effective as a neutralizing agent for soil as it only neutralizes the surface
instead of neutralizing the soil at the bottom. Additionally, Treatment 3 which was covered in
Wood Ashes yielded a result that is similar to the result of Treatment 2 which was covered in
Dried Mango Leaves. Surprisingly, the Treatment 4 which was covered with the combination of
64
the three (3) organic mulches has maintained mean pH level in neutral state, yielding a 6.83
which is slightly neutral. Thus, it can balance all the three treatments when combined.
The treatments used in the experiment have yielded a result of slightly alkaline and
neutral state of the soil’s pH level. The optimum pH range for most plants is between 5.5 and 7.
However, many plants have adapted to thrive at pH values outside this range. Thus, it can be
concluded that the treatments that the researchers used can be utilized to raise the pH level of the
acidic soil and reach their optimum potential in yielding crops.
Recommendations
For the future researchers, we, the researchers would like recommend the following to further
develop and explore the study we have conducted:
1. Use different organic matters as treatments so it would be cost-efficient and low-cost.
2. Conduct the experimentation in a longer period of time for more a more validated and
concrete results.
3. Focus on the soil’s pH level and the factors that might affect the study.
4. In-depth exploration is needed to gain more knowledge about soil’s acidity and its
background.
65

Nitrogen That Came From The Soil's Organic Matter or From Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation. ("Garden Myth," 2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Nitrogen That Came From The Soil's Organic Matter or From Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation. ("Garden Myth," 2009)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nitrogen That Came From The Soil's Organic Matter or From Symbiotic Nitrogen Fixation. ("Garden Myth," 2009)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NEUTRALIZING SOIL ACIDITY USING PULVERIZED WHITE-FEATHERED CHICKEN

organic matter or from symbiotic nitrogen fixation. (“Garden Myth,” 2009).

acidification is inefficient use of nitrogen, followed by the export of alkalinity in produce.

(“Rural Solutions,” 2001).

can easily acidify unlike the other types of soil.

Statement of the Problem

mulches. It aims to answer the following questions:

soil pH levels before and after period of observation for:

2. Is there a significant difference in the effectiveness of the different organic mulches

in terms of pH level for:

mulches in terms of the soil’s depths of:

1. There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of the different organic mulches

mulches in terms of the soil’s depths:

Significance of the Study

Mulches” will be conducted to benefit the following:

To the department of agriculture. This study aims to help the Philippine

eco-friendly and low-cost efficient as well.

soil coverings and be efficient in neutralizing soil acidity.

the researchers undertaking similar studies.

conceptual are given:

as the negative logarithm of the hydrogen ion concentration (Iannoti, 2018).

nutrients to penetrate the grass roots.

Liming. A traditional procedure in preparing soil for planting. It is the application

of calcium- and magnesium-rich materials to soil.

Nitrogenous fertilizer. It is a inorganic production that can be transported to the

and it contains ammonium sulfate and calcium.

Scope and Limitations

Review of Related Literatures

which may interfere with crop establishment and growth. (2011).

As a result of soil cover, agricultural production subsequently improves because soil

content. (Hunker, 2003).

production. (Awa, 2002).

nitrogen, respiration, abundance of earthworms, and microbial metabolic profile of the

waste materials.[ CITATION Run91 \l 1033 ].

pools in tropical agricultural soils.[ CITATION Mae02 \l 1033 ].

Excess soil acidification caused by fertilizers is a major factor in world‐wide soil

expressed. (Wallace, 2008).

potassium, phosphorus, magnesium and aluminum. In terms of commercial fertilizer, average

reach their full yield potential. (“The Mosaic Company,” 2019).

statistical treatment of data used in this research study.

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework

Table 1. Materials used in the Experiment.

The containers used were Truncated Cone Plant Pots.

consists of series of procedures to be followed.

Figure 2: General Procedures

determined and interpreted.

Egg Shell Preparation:

1. Gather and wash the egg shells laid by white-feathered chickens.

3. Crushed the egg shells into smaller pieces.

pulverized white-feathered chicken egg shells.

Dried Mango Leaves Preparation:

1. Gather dried mango leaves in your neighborhood.

Wood Ashes Preparation:

1. Gather wood ashes in your rural community.

1. Get a 10-kg sandy soil from your local hardware store

across the top, and a 13 cm diameter across the bottom.

3. Put 3.05 Liters of soil on each of plant pots.