Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 55

GROWTH AND YIELD OF RADISH (RAPHANUS SATIVUS L.

)
INFLUENCED BY DIFFERENT ORGANIC CONCOCTIONS

ALMER JAMES V. LAGLIVA


(BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE)

A Thesis in Agri 451 with course description thesis outline in partial


fulfillment for the course subject

MAKILALA INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY


(AGRICULTURE DEPARTMENT)

MAY 2022
GROWTH AND YIELD OF RADISH (RAPHANUS SATIVUS L.)
INFLUENCED BY DIFFERENT ORGANIC CONCOCTIONS

ALMER JAMES V. LAGLIVA

A Student Thesis Outline Submitted to the Agriculture Department


of Makilala Institute of Science and Technology Makilala,
North Cotabato in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN AGRICULTURE

MAY 2022

ii
ACCEPTANCE

The student thesis entitled “GROWTH AND YIELD OF RADISH

(RAPHANUS SATIVUS L.) INFLUENCED BY DIFFERENT ORGANIC

CONCOCTIONS) prepared and submitted by ALMER JAMES V. LAGLIVA in

partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Science in

Agriculture, is hereby accepted.

SANDER O. DOMINGO, LA
Adviser

_____________________

Date

This is accepted as a partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree

of Bachelor of Science in Agriculture.

RIGOR K. ALVARADO, RN, MAN


Research coordinator

______________________

Date

iii
BIOGRAPHICAL DATA

The author, ALMER JAMES VILOAN LAGLIVA, was born on February 7,

1986, in Bgry., Agriculture, Midsayap, North Cotabato to Mr. Eduardo Abenojar

Lagliva and Mrs. Rosalie Viloan Lagliva. He is presently residing at Brgy.

Saguing, municipality of Makilala.

He attended Agriculture Primary School for his elementary education and

Agriculture High School for his senior education. The researcher earned a

Bachelor of Science in Agriculture from Makilala Institute of Science and

Technology in Makilala, North Cotabato.

ALMER JAMES V. LAGLIVA


Researcher

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The researcher received a great lot of assistance and support while

preparing this thesis. He wishes to express his deep gratitude to their advisor

teacher, Sander O. Domingo, who generously donated his time and counsel in

order for them to continue this thesis; your insightful input pushed him to refine

his thoughts and enhance his work.

The author wishes to thank everyone who helped him with this and other

similar projects. He gave me substantial personal supervision and taught the

author a great deal till he was able to complete this thesis.

He wanted to express his gratitude to his colleagues for their remarkable

contributions to the success of this thesis, and he wanted to underline the trust

and hard effort that they put in every day that they worked on this dissertation.

He wishes to express his gratitude to his parents for their financial aid as

well as their love and knowledge. Furthermore, his parents are valued for their

continuous support and trust, as well as their wise counsel and sympathetic ear.

No one has been more essential to him in the pursuit of this aim than his family.

Finally, he could not have finished this thesis without the help of his pals,

who offered stimulating chats via online chatting and phone calls owing to the

epidemic. He may not have gotten your personal support, but he sensed your

care, and he thanks you all for offering such wonderful distractions from his

thesis.

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PRELIMINARY PAGES PAGE

Title page ii
Acceptance iii
Biographical sketch iv
Acknowledgment v
Table of contents vi
List of tables vii
List of figures ix
Abstract xi

CHAPTER I – INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study 1


Objectives of the Study 2
Significance of the Study 3
Time, Place, and Duration of the Study 3

CHAPTER II – REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE 4

CHAPTER III – METHODOLOGY

Materials 7
Experimental Design and Layout 7
Data to be Gathered 10

CHAPTER IV – RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 12

CHAPTER V – SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary 35
Conclusion 36
Recommendation 37

vi
LITERATURE CITED 38

APPENDICES 40
LIST OF TABLES

No. Description Page


1 Experimental Design and Layout 8
2 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant 13
Height of Radish in cm at 14 Days After Planting (DAP)
with Four Replications in RCBD
3 Analysis of Variance (Influence of Different Concoctions 13
on the Average Plant Height of Radish in cm at 14 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
4 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant 14
Height of Radish in cm at 21 Days After Planting (DAP)
with Four Replications in RCBD
5 Analysis of Variance (Influence of Different Concoctions 14
on the Average Plant Height of Radish in cm at 21 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
6 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant 16
Height of Radish in cm at 28 Days After Planting (DAP)
with Four Replications in RCBD
7 Analysis of Variance (Influence of Different Concoctions 16
on the Average Plant Height of Radish in cm at 28 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
8 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant 17
Height of Radish in cm at 35 Days After Planting (DAP)
with Four Replications in RCBD
9 Analysis of Variance (Influence of Different Concoctions 17
on the Average Plant Height of Radish in cm at 35 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
10 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant 19
Height of Radish in cm at 42 Days After Planting (DAP)
with Four Replications in RCBD
11 Analysis of Variance (Influence of Different Concoctions 19
on the Average Plant Height of Radish in cm at 42 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
12 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average 22
Number of Leaves of Radish at 14 Days After Planting
(DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
13 (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions 22
on the Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 14 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
14 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average 23
Number of Leaves of Radish at 21 Days After Planting

vii
(DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
15 (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions 23
on the Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 21 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
16 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average 24
Number of Leaves of Radish at 28 Days After Planting
(DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
17 (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions 24
on the Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 28 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
18 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average 25
Number of Leaves of Radish at 35 Days After Planting
(DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
19 (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions 25
on the Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 35 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
20 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average 26
Number of Leaves of Radish at 42 Days After Planting
(DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
21 (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions 26
on the Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 42 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
22 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Length of the 27
Tubers (Radish) in cm at 45 Days After Planting (DAP)
with Four Replications in RCBD
23 (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions 27
on the Length of the Tubers (Radish) in cm at 45 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
24 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average 29
Weight of the Tubers (Radish) in (g) at 45 Days After
Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
25 (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions 29
on the Average Weight of the Tubers (Radish) in (g) at
45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in
RCBD
26 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average 31
Diameter of the Tubers (Radish) in (cm) at 45 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
27 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average 31
Number of Marketable of Tubers (Radish) in at 45 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
28 (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions 31
on the Average Number of Marketable of Tubers
(Radish) in at 45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD

viii
LIST OF FIGURES

No. Description Page


1 The layout of the experimental area for the study 9
“Influence of Different Concoctions to the Growth and
Yield of Radish” with five treatments was replicated four
times.

2 Graph showing the influence of Different Concoctions on 13


the Average Plant Height of Radish in cm at 14 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
3 Graph showing the influence of Different Concoctions on 15
the Average Plant Height of Radish in cm at 21 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
4 Graph showing the influence of Different Concoctions on 16
the Average Plant Height of Radish in cm at 28 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
5 Graph showing the influence of Different Concoctions on 18
the Average Plant Height of Radish in cm at 35 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD

6 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant 20


Height of Radish in cm at 42 Days After Planting (DAP)
with Four Replications in RCBD
7 Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions 22
on the Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 14 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
8 Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions 23
on the Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 21 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
9 Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions 24
on the Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 28 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
10 Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions 25
on the Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 35 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
11 Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions 26
on the Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 42 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
12 Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions 28
on the Length of the Tubers (Radish) in cm at 45 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
13 Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions 30
on the Average Weight of the Tubers (Radish) in (g) at

ix
45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in
RCBD
14 Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions 32
on the Average Diameter of the Tubers (Radish) in (cm)
at 45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications
in RCBD
15 Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average 34
Number of Marketable of Tubers (Radish) in at 45 Days
After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD

x
ABSTRACT

LAGLIVA, ALMER JAMES VILOAN. Growth and Yield of Radish (raphanus


Sativus l.) Influenced by different organic concoctions. Student Thesis. College of
Agriculture, Makilala Institute of Science and Technology, Makilala, Cotabato

Adviser, SANDER O. DOMINGO, LA

Radish (Raphanus Sativus L.) is a common root vegetable that may be


cultivated in a variety of climates, from tropical to temperate. It is produced for
the use of the young fragile tuberous root, which may be cooked or eaten raw in
salads. Organic fertilizer application has long been seen as a noble and
traditional method of preserving soil health and fertility. The usage of organic
fertilizers leads to increased crop growth, yield, and quality. They include
macronutrients, critical micronutrients, many vitamins, growth factors such as IAA
and GA, as well as helpful bacteria (Natarjan,2007; Sreenivasa et al, 2010).
The main goal of this study was to see how different agricultural
concoctions such as Indigenous Microorganisms (IMO), Fermented Plant Juice
(FPJ), Fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ), and (4) Fish Amino Acid affect radish
vegetative growth and yield; and to determine the effect of different concoctions
in terms of plant height, number of leaves per plant, the diameter of tubers,
number of marketable tubers and average weight (grams) of yield per plant.
The different agricultural concoctions such as Indigenous Microorganisms
(IMO), Fermented Plant Juice (FPJ), Fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ), and (4) Fish
Amino Acid will be used in the study. It also utilized a 180 square meter
experimental area to ensure that uniform growth and strong root development
were achieved.
Based on the study's findings, it can be stated that each of the several
concoctions used in this study has a different function in boosting Radish
development. Furthermore, the researcher may conclude from this study that
foliar fertilizer is not intended to be a replacement for soil fertilizer and soil
conditioning, but rather as a supplement that will boost efficiency and improve
plant health, similar to the concept of (FAO, 2004).
Combining organic and chemical fertilizers are both need to improve crop
output in sandy loam soils, such as in radish (Rautaray et al). (2003). To
preserve soil water holding capacity and nutrients, adequate organic
amendments are required for the establishment of tuberous roots (Walker D.J.
et., al. 2004). In short, foliar fertilizers alone in the form of spraying is insufficient
to generate marketable tubers in root crops.

xi
CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Radish (Raphanus Sativus L.) is a common root vegetable that may be

cultivated in a variety of climates, from tropical to temperate. It is produced for

the use of the young fragile tuberous root, which may be cooked or eaten raw in

salads. It is high in vitamin C and minerals like P, Ca, and K. It also has

invigorating and diuretic effects and can be used in homeopathy to treat

neurological problems such as headaches, insomnia, and chronic diarrhea

(Ayub, et al., 2013 Kumar et al., 2014). Inorganic fertilizers are becoming

increasingly expensive, to the point that they are out of reach for small and

marginal farmers. Since pests, illnesses, and weeds develop resistance to

chemical pesticides, environmental pollution, and ecological imbalances may

emerge, the concerns related to the use of hazardous chemicals for crop

protection, weed control, and soil fertility are attracting more attention across the

world.

Organic fertilizer application has long been seen as a noble and traditional

method of preserving soil health and fertility. The usage of organic fertilizers

leads to increased crop growth, yield, and quality. They include macronutrients,

critical micronutrients, many vitamins, growth factors such as IAA and GA, as

well as helpful bacteria (Natarjan,2007; Sreenivasa et al, 2010). Organic


manures can improve soil-water-plant relationships by altering bulk density, total

porosity, and the soil-water relationship, resulting in increased plant growth and

water efficiency (Obi and Ebo, 1995).

According to Nileemas and Sreenivasa (2011), applying liquid organic

manure to the soil stimulates biological activity and increases the availability of

nutrients to the radish crop. As a final aim, adding organic manure to soil

increases microbial activity and increases their capacity to conserve fertigation,

hence enhancing fertility and fertilizer usage efficiency (Nanwai et al, 1998).

Awad and his colleagues (2002). Organic manure, according to the study,

includes high quantities of comparatively accessible nutrients, which are vital for

plant growth. It also plays a significant role in enhancing soil physical qualities.

Environmentally friendly strategies based on biological and non-chemical

technologies are used to achieve sustainability in agroecosystems (Bonato and

Ridray, 2007).

Objectives of the Study

This research assessed the different agricultural concoctions such as

Indigenous Microorganisms (IMO), Fermented Plant Juice (FPJ), Fermented

Fruit Juice (FFJ), and (4) Fish Amino Acid affect radish vegetative growth and

yield, particularly, it determined the effect of different concoctions in terms of

plant height, number of leaves per plant, the diameter of tubers, number of

consumable tubers and average weight (grams) of yield per plant.

2
Significance of the Study

This study may give the readers the information about the influence of

different organic concoctions on the growth and yield of the Radish.

The information gathered may benefit the following:

Farmers. The study's findings may help farmers gain information when they

adapt organic fertilizer, particularly when utilizing various concoctions

in their radish plants. Organic fertilizers will minimize the amount of

chemical fertilizers required in farming, resulting in less environmental

contamination.

Community. This study can make the people aware that many mixtures are

beneficial to the Philippine economy.

Future researchers. This study might serve as an extra source of reference

information for future academics who are interested in performing

more research on this issue.

Time, Place, and Duration of the Study

The study was conducted at Purok 2, Brgy. Kisante, Makilala, North

Cotabato and the duration is from April 05, 2022 to May 20, 2022.

3
CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Background of Radish (Raphanus Sativus L.)

Radish is one of Nepal's most popular root vegetables, which can be

produced all year in the Terai and all year in the Himalayas. Radish cultivation's

popularity may be owing to its vast adaptability, inexpensive cost of production,

short crop length, and ability to thrive in practically any type of soil without much

care. In comparison to other vegetable crops, radish has fewer diseases and

insect concerns (Shrestha and Shakya, 2004). Because radish is a short-lived

and fast-growing crop, root growth and development should be unhindered.

Organic, inorganic, and bio-fertilizer sources should be used to offer the best

nutrition possible.

The radish (Raphanus sativus), often known as labanos in Tagalog, is one

of the most underappreciated vegetables on the table. The vegetable is typically

harvested or cooked with the popular Filipino dish "sinigang" and is sometimes

discarded after the meal since it is not as appetizing as other vegetables in the

dish. In the market, the radish (Raphanus sativus) is a well-known vegetable. It

has a strong taste and is crisp when eaten fresh. When cooked, it becomes soft

and sweet, with a peppery flavor. In the Philippines, there are just a few ways to

prepare radish, which limits its capacity to be extensively consumed when

compared to other vegetables.


Types and Uses/Benefits of Concoctions and Extracts

Fermented Plant Juice (FPJ)

Axillary buds and young fruits, fast-growing plants, and young

leaves of plants and grasses are used to make Fermented Plant Juice

(FPJ). The juice is extracted and fermented after being mixed with crude

sugar or molasses and stored for a length of time. To boost microbial

activity, the liquid is sprayed to plant leaves and growth points, the soil

around the plant, compost heaps, and animal beddings (Alam, Md. Amirul.

(2017).

Fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ)

Fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ) is created from delicious, ripe fruits,

fruits vegetables, and root crops that have been fermented. The fermented

extract is thoroughly combined with crude sugar or molasses and kept for

a brief time before being sprayed to the plants to encourage blooming and

fruit setting (Zamora, O.B.; Calub, B.M).

Fish Amino Acid (FAA)

Kuhol / Fish Amino Acid (KAA/FAA) is created from rotten fish and

fish waste, such as bones, heads, internal organs, and skin, combined

with unrefined sugar; the fish juice is removed and fermented after 30

5
days of storage. Is a fish waste-based liquid. Because it includes a variety

of minerals and amino acids, FAA is extremely beneficial to plants and

microbes in their growth. Seedling growth (Murray and Anderson 2004),

fruiting (Aung and Flick 1980), and microbial activity in the soil have all

been shown to benefit from fish emulsions (El-Tarabily et al. 2003). Fresh

fish by-products (bones, head, skin, and other tankage pieces) are

fermented with brown sugar to create a type of emulsion called fish amino

acid (FAA).

Indigenous Microorganism (IMO)

Indigenous Microorganism (IMO) is gaining popularity among

farmers in natural farming. Government agriculturists, university

researchers, non-profit groups, and farmers have all attempted and

succeeded with this Indigenous microorganism (IMO). They discovered

that IMO is effective in removing undesirable smells from animal manure,

hastening composting, and improving crop health in general.

6
7
CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

Procurement of Different Concoctions

The first step done by the researcher was the acquisition of various

mixtures or the procurement of different concoctions including Indigenous

Microorganisms (IMO), Fermented Plant Juice, Fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ) and

Fish Amino Acid. These concoctions are available for purchase at the LAO

Integrated Farm in Bansalan, Davao Del Sur.

Land Preparation

Afterwards, it is vital to prepare the land to ensure that it is fit for planting.

A well-prepared field aids in weed control, recycles plant nutrients, and provides

a healthy soil surface for direct sowing. Plowing is often used to "till," or dig up,

mix, and overturn the soil; harrowing is used to break up soil clods and integrate

plant debris, and leveling is used to level the field.

Direct Seeding

Following the preparation of the land, it is followed by the direct seeding to

achieve germination and establishment of the plant, it is about 1 inch deep and it

was covered loosely with soil. Space in rows are 15 centimeters apart and it

follows maintaining good moisture by watering the seeds thoroughly, down to 6

inches deep.
Materials

The different agricultural concoctions such as Indigenous Microorganisms

(IMO), Fermented Plant Juice (FPJ), Fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ), and (4) Fish

Amino Acid will be used in the study. It also utilized a 180 square meter

experimental area to ensure that uniform growth and strong root development

were achieved. Each plowing was followed by harrowing to level and pulverize

the soil for effective weed control.

Experimental Design and Layout

Five treatments and four replications were used in a randomized complete

block design (RCBD). There will be ten sample plants in each replication. The

therapies were as follows:

Treatment Dosage Time of


ML of Application
Different (DAP)
Concoctions/
L of Water
T1 = (Indigenous Microorganisms (IMO) 30 14, 21, 28, 35

T2 = (Fermented Plant Juice (FPJ) 30 14, 21, 28, 35

T3 = (Fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ) 30 14, 21, 28, 35

T4 = (Fish Amino Acid) 30 14, 21, 28, 35

T5 = control (water – non-treated plant)

Table 1. Experimental Design and Layout

8
Block 1 Block 2 Block 3 Block 4

1 meter 1 meter

T2R1 T5R2 T1R3 T3R4

T5R1 T3R2 T4R3 T2R4

T1R1 T2R2 T3R3 T4R4

T4R1 T4R2 T2R3 T5R4

T3R1 T1R2 T5R3 T1R4

Figure 1. The layout of the experimental area for the study “Influence of Different
Concoctions to the Growth and Yield of Radish” with five treatments replicated
four times.

Data to be Gathered

9
Plant height (cm)

From 14 days after planting to the completion of the research, the

plant height was measured using ruler from the base of the plant to the tip

of the highest leaves and done it weekly up to the termination of the

plants.

Number of leaves per plant

14 days after planting, the number of leaves was counted until the

plant has reached the blooming stage and the appropriate size, and

continued monitoring of the number of leaves was done weekly after 14

days.

Average weight (grams) of tubers per treatment

This was gathered by weighing the total tubers harvested from

each treatment divided by the number of sample plants.

The diameter of Tubers

This data was gathered by measuring the circumference of the

tubers using a tape measure.

10
Length of Tubers

The length of tubers was measured after harvesting, it is done by

measuring every tuber from its base to its apex.

Number of Marketable Tubers

This information was acquired based on the local farmer's

standards, as long as it does not get pithy and is free of any crop diseases

the researcher considered it marketable.

11
CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

PLANT HEIGHT

The heights of the plants were measured from the base of the plant to the tip

of the main stem 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42 days after planting. As shown in Tables

2a - 2e, analysis of variance demonstrates interaction and effect, and there is a

significant variation in the influence on the plant owing to the application of

different concoctions. The results revealed a significant variance in the reactions

of various concoctions to the Radish in terms of plant height.

Average Plant Height 14 days After Planting

Table 2 demonstrates how the height of Radish fluctuates 14 days after

sowing in response to various concoctions. The plant height was measured in

centimeters (cm), and the data was collected on April 19, 2022.

The highest plant height 10.48cm occurred in T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter,

followed by T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water had 10.44cm, 10.20cm in T1=

IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water and T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water has

10.05cm, T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water has 10.44cm and the shortest plant

height 6.76cm was found in T5= Control (water-non-treated plant).

Table 2 shows that the analysis of variance findings are not significantly

different in 5% of the cases. This suggests that any variations detected between
treatment means may not be attributable solely to the impact of the therapy, but

may also be due to unknown causes. The unknown element identified by the

researcher is that the plants have not yet been treated by the various

concoctions because the researcher's first application is likewise on the 14th day.

Table 2. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant Height of


Radish in cm at 14 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 12.23 14.14 9.23 5.21 40.81 10.2025
T2=FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 4.48 13.89 11.18 10.67 40.22 10.055
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 8.8 12.4 11.11 9.45 41.76 10.44
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 12.67 12.21 12.26 4.8 41.94 10.485
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 4.46 5.59 12.06 4.94 27.05 6.7625
TOTAL 42.64 58.23 55.84 35.07 191.78 9.589

Table 3. Analysis of Variance (Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average


Plant Height of Radish in cm at 14 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 72.4042 24.1347 2.64 0.0973
TREATMENT 4 40.4386 10.1097 1.11 0.3983
Error 12 109.7542 9.1462
Total 19 222.5970
------------------------------------------------------------------
CV = 31.54%

12

10

4
Figure 2. Graph showing 2
the influence of Different
0
Concoctions on the MEAN
Average Plant Height of
Radish in cm at 14 Days T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
After Planting (DAP) with T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water
Four Replications in RCBD T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)

13
Average Plant Height 21 days After Planting

Table 4 demonstrates how radish height responds to various formulations

21 days after planting. The measurements were obtained on April 26, 2022, with

the plant height recorded in centimeters (cm).

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water treated plants had the highest plant

height of 14.12cm, T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water treated plants had

14.01cm, T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water had 13.90cm, T2=30ml FPJ per 1

Liter of water had 13.29cm, and T5= Control had the shortest plant height of

11.55cm (water-non-treated plant).

Table 4. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant Height of


Radish in cm at 21 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 15.28 17.15 13.95 10.13 56.51 14.127
5
T2=FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 8.22 17.1 13.88 13.97 53.17 13.292
5
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 10.49 14.91 15.53 14.7 55.63 13.907
5
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 14.31 15.47 15.79 10.49 56.06 14.015
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 7.54 12.49 15.57 10.62 46.22 11.555
TOTAL 55.84 77.12 74.72 59.91 267.59 13.3795

Table 5. Analysis of Variance (Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average


Plant Height of Radish in cm at 21 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 67.3569 22.4523 3.97 0.0353
TREATMENT 4 18.3141 4.5785 0.81 0.5426
Error 12 67.8639 5.6553
Total 19 153.5349
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CV = 17.77%

14
Figure 3. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant Height of
Radish in cm at 21 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
16

14

12

10

0
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)

Average Plant Height 28 days After Planting

Table 6 demonstrates how radish height responds to various formulations 28

days after planting. The measurements were made on May 3, 2022, with the

plant height recorded in centimeters (cm).

The maximum plant height was 17.10cm in T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of

water, 17.61cm in T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water treated plants, 17.51cm in

T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water, 17.41cm in T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water,

and 15.23cm in T5= Control (water-non-treated plant).

15
Table 6. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant Height of
Radish in cm at 28 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 19.32 20.06 16.26 12.79 68.43 17.107
5
T2=FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 13.3 20.34 18.7 17.32 69.66 17.415
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 14.91 18.34 19.29 17.93 70.47 17.617
5
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 18.77 18.44 19.27 13.58 70.06 17.515
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 11.49 16.83 18.83 13.77 60.92 15.23
TOTAL 77.79 94.01 92.35 75.39 339.54 16.977

Table 7. Analysis of Variance (Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average


Plant Height of Radish in cm at 28 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 55.8972 18.6324 3.31 0.0574
TREATMENT 4 15.8423 3.9606 0.70 0.6048
Error 12 67.6050 5.6337
Total 19 139.3444
-------------------------------------------------------------------

CV = 13.98%

Figure 4. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant Height of


Radish in cm at 28 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD

18

17.5

17

16.5

16

15.5

15

14.5

14
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)

16
Average Plant Height 35 days After Planting

Table 8 reveals how the height of the radish responds to various mixtures 35

days after planting. The measurements were made on May 10, 2022, with the

plant height recorded in centimeters (cm).

T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water treated plants had the highest plant height

of 20.66cm, T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water treated plants had 20.24cm, T4=

FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water had 20.17cm, T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water

had 19.56cm, and T5= Control had the shortest plant height of 18.46cm (water-

non-treated plant).

Table 8. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant Height of


Radish in cm at 35 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 20.61 23.05 18.97 15.64 78.27 19.5675
T2= FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 15.31 23.57 21.83 20.26 80.97 20.2425
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 17.31 22.54 22.08 20.73 82.66 20.665
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 20.83 21.59 22.06 16.21 80.69 20.1725
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 14.74 18.94 23.82 16.35 73.85 18.4625
TOTAL 88.8 109.69 108.76 89.19 396.44 19.822

Table 9. Analysis of Variance (Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average


Plant Height of Radish in cm at 35 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 81.9523 27.3174 4.64 0.0225
TREATMENT 4 11.6933 2.9233 0.50 0.7391
Error 12 70.7011 5.8918
Total 19 164.3467
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CV= 12.25%

17
Figure 5. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant Height of
Radish in cm at 35 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD

21

20.5

20

19.5

19

18.5

18

17.5

17
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)

Average Plant Height 42 days After Planting

Table 10 shows Radish height growth in response to several concoctions,

particularly FPJ, FFJ, FAA, and IMO, with water-treated plants 60 days after

sowing. The measurements were taken on May 17, 2022, and the plant height

was measured in centimeters (cm). As seen in the same table, the various

concoctions have a considerable impact on plant height development. Treatment

3, which comprises 30ml of FFJ per 1 Liter of water, significantly improves radish

height, as seen by the grand mean of each treatment, which demonstrates that

T3 has the highest mean of all treatments.

T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water treated plants had the maximum plant

height of 21.52cm, followed by T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water with 21.29cm,

18
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) with 20.76cm, T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of

water with 20.71cm, and T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water with 20.42cm.

According to some beliefs, when Fermented Fruit Juice is sprayed as foliar

feeding, it has an almost immediate effect on the plants. The nutrients delivered

are already in the form that the plant need. After absorption, all that remains for

the plant to do is utilize these nutrients, and it plays a direct role in plant growth

as a source of all required macro and micronutrients. D.R. Berglund, 2002.

Table 10. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant Height of


Radish in cm at 42 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
PLANT HEIGHT 42 DAYS
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 18.46 23.25 20.33 20.81 82.85 20.7125
T2= FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 19.53 20.99 23.44 21.23 85.19 21.2975
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 20.74 19.58 23 22.78 86.1 21.525
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 20.24 18.84 21.93 20.69 81.7 20.425
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 18.05 22.57 20.99 21.45 83.06 20.765
TOTAL 97.02 105.23 109.6 106.96 418.9 20.945
9

Table 11. Analysis of Variance (Influence of Different Concoctions on the


Average Plant Height of Radish in cm at 42 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 17.8537 5.9512 2.77 0.0876
TREATMENT 4 3.2701 0.8175 0.38 0.8186
Error 12 25.8090 2.1507
Total 19 46.9327
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CV= 7.00%

19
Figure 6. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Plant Height of
Radish in cm at 42 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD

21.8

21.6

21.4

21.2

21

20.8

20.6

20.4

20.2

20

19.8
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)

20
NUMBER OF LEAVES

The number of leaves per plant was counted at 14 days, 21, 28, 35, and 42

days following seeding (DAS). Significant diversity in leaf output per plant was

discovered as a result of the influence of various concoctions, as seen in the

tables and figures below.

T4 (Fish Amino Acid 30ml per 1 Liter of water) generated the greatest

average number of leaves (4.55) at 14 DAS. The control treatment produces the

fewest leaves per plant (4.27), yielding substantially different outcomes than the

other treatments. At 21 DAS, T4 (Fish Amino Acid 30ml per 1 Liter of Water) had

the highest average number of leaves per plant (7.57) and T1 (Control) had the

lowest (6.67). (water-non-treated plant).

To recapitulate, T4 (Fish Amino Acid 30ml per 1 Liter of water) still had the

greatest average number of leaves after 42 DAS. Shahota (1983) observed an

increase in the number of radish leaves with increasing amounts of Fish Amino

Acid, which is consistent with the current experimental results. Another study

found that Fish Amino Acids fertilizer may be used as a soil drench to promote

quick microbial and earthworm activity, particularly in areas where chemical use

had previously reduced soil biological activity. Following application,

carbohydrates held in the roots are released as energy for growth and fruit/tuber

development.

21
Average Number of Leaves 14 days After Planting

Table 12. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Number of Leaves


of Radish at 14 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 3.8 5 4.6 4.1 17.5 4.375
T2= FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 3.3 4.6 5.5 4.3 17.7 4.425
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 3.7 4.8 5.1 4.5 18.1 4.525
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 3.8 5.2 4.8 4.4 18.2 4.55
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 3.9 4 4.6 4.6 17.1 4.275
TOTAL 18.5 23.6 24.6 21.9 88.6 4.43

Table 13. (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions on the


Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 14 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 4.2980 1.4327 10.73 0.0010
TREATMENT 4 0.2020 0.0505 0.38 0.8199
Error 12 1.6020 0.1335
Total 19 6.1020
-------------------------------------------------------------------

CV= 8.25%
Figure 7. Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average
Number of Leaves of Radish at 14 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD

22
4.6

4.55

4.5

4.45

4.4

4.35

4.3

4.25

4.2

4.15

4.1
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)
Average Number of Leaves 21 days After Planting

Table 14. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Number of Leaves


of Radish at 21 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 6.2 6.7 6.9 6.9 26.7 6.675
T2= FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 5.9 7.3 6.7 7.1 27 6.75
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 5.4 6.9 7.6 6.9 26.8 6.7
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 8.5 7 7.3 7.5 30.3 7.575
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 5.5 7.3 7.5 8.4 28.7 7.175
TOTAL 31.5 35.2 36 36.8 139.5 6.975

Table 15. (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions on the


Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 21 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 3.2935 1.0978 2.04 0.1621
TREATMENT 4 2.4650 0.6162 1.14 0.3820
Error 12 6.4590 0.5382
Total 19 12.2175
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CV= 10.52%

Figure 8. Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average


Number of Leaves of Radish at 21 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD

23
7.8

7.6

7.4

7.2

6.8

6.6

6.4

6.2
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)

Average Number of Leaves 28 days After Planting

Table 16. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Number of Leaves


of Radish at 28 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 7.5 7.3 6.1 6.9 27.8 6.95
T2= FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 7.7 7.2 7.6 6.6 29.1 7.275
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 7.8 7.1 7.6 6.8 29.3 7.325
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 9.1 7.4 7.1 6.9 30.5 7.625
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 7.2 7.1 6.8 8.7 29.8 7.45
TOTAL 39.3 36.1 35.2 35.9 146.5 7.325

Table 17. (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions on the


Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 28 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 1.9975 0.6658 1.40 0.2918
TREATMENT 4 0.9950 0.2487 0.52 0.7220
Error 12 5.7250 0.4771
Total 19 8.7175
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CV= 9.43%

24
Figure 9. Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average
Number of Leaves of Radish at 28 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD

7.8

7.6

7.4

7.2

6.8

6.6
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)
Average Number of Leaves 35 days After Planting

Table 18. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Number of Leaves


of Radish at 35 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 7.7 8.4 7.7 8.7 32.5 8.125
T2= FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 7.8 8.6 8 7.3 31.7 7.925
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 8 7.8 8.9 7.2 31.9 7.975
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 9.1 9 8.6 7.5 34.2 8.55
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 7.5 8 7.3 8.8 31.6 7.9
TOTAL 40.1 41.8 40.5 39.5 161.9 8.095

Table 19. (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions on the


Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 35 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 0.5695 0.1898 0.41 0.7461
TREATMENT 4 1.1570 0.2892 0.63 0.6500
Error 12 5.5030 0.4586
Total 19 7.2295
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CV = 8.37%

25
Figure 10. Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average
Number of Leaves of Radish at 35 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
8.8

8.6

8.4

8.2

7.8

7.6

7.4
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)

Average Number of Leaves 42 days After Planting

Table 20. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Number of Leaves


of Radish at 42 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
Number of Leaves in 42 DAYS
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 9.4 10.3 8.8 10.3 38.8 9.7
T2= FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 8.9 9.7 11 9.2 38.8 9.7
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 11 9.7 10.5 9.6 40.8 10.2
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 12.2 10.5 10.6 9.3 42.6 10.65
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 9.7 10.1 9.6 11 40.4 10.1
TOTAL 51.2 50.3 50.5 49.4 201.4 10.07

Table 21. (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions on the


Average Number of Leaves of Radish at 42 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
-------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 0.3300 0.1100 0.12 0.9444
TREATMENT 4 2.5120 0.6280 0.71 0.6032
Error 12 10.6800 0.8900
Total 19 13.5220
-------------------------------------------------------------------

26
CV= 9.37%

Figure 11. Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average
Number of Leaves of Radish at 42 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD

10.8

10.6

10.4

10.2

10

9.8

9.6

9.4

9.2
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)
Average Length of the Tubers 45 days after Planting

There was no significant difference in radish tuber length across

treatments in the current study (Table 23). T1 or the plants treated with IMO 30ml

per 1 Liter of water measured 7.75cm, followed by T2 = 30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of

water (6.95cm), T3 = FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water (6.89cm), T4 = FAA 30ml per

1 Liter of water (6.74cm), and T5 = Control (water-non-treated plant) that

measured an average of (5.50cm).

The study's findings reflect on the result of the study of Muyang et al.

(2014), who stated also that both IMO and EM fertilizers had a positive influence

on radish output, with IMO generating the highest yields in terms of quantity and

weight of tubers.

27
Table 22. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Length of the Tubers
(Radish) in cm at 45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 8.5 9.3 5.85 7.35 31 7.75
T2= FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 4.55 8.08 8.8 6.4 27.83 6.9575
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 5.05 5.56 8.7 8.25 27.56 6.89
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 6.63 7.14 8.05 5.15 26.97 6.7425
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 4.55 3.53 7.15 6.78 22.01 5.5025
TOTAL 29.28 33.61 38.55 33.93 135.37 6.7685

Table 23. (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions on the Length


of the Tubers (Radish) in cm at 45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 8.6077 2.8692 1.05 0.4053
TREATMENT 4 10.4690 2.6173 0.96 0.4642
Error 12 32.7297 2.7275
Total 19 51.8065
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CV= 24.40%

Figure 12. Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions on the Length
of the Tubers (Radish) in cm at 45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD

9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)

28
Average Weight of Tubers 45 days after Planting

The study's findings demonstrate how the weight of the tubers changed over

time when different mixtures were applied (Table 23). At 42 DAP, T1= IMO 30ml

per 1 Liter of water yielded the highest root weight (0.3085g), whereas T5=

Control yielded the lowest root weight (0.187). (water-non-treated plant). This

might be because IMO contains a lot of nitrogen and potassium, which boost

photosynthesis, cell division, and cell enlargement as compared to water-based

treatments on plants.

Table 24. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Weight of the


Tubers (Radish) in (g) at 45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications in
RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 0.214 0.49 0.302 0.228 1.234 0.3085
T2= FPJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 0.196 0.324 0.432 0.212 1.164 0.291
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 0.17 0.128 0.404 0.28 0.982 0.2455

29
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 0.176 0.26 0.344 0.296 1.076 0.269
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 0.186 0.062 0.306 0.194 0.748 0.187
TOTAL 0.942 1.264 1.788 1.21 5.204 0.2602

Table 25. (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions on the


Average Weight of the Tubers (Radish) in (g) at 45 Days After Planting (DAP)
with Four Replications in RCBD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 0.0751 0.0250 3.00 0.0728
TREATMENT 4 0.0357 0.0089 1.07 0.4136
Error 12 0.1002 0.0084
Total 19 0.2111
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CV= 35.12%

Figure 13. Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average
Weight of the Tubers (Radish) in (g) at 45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
0.35

0.3

0.25

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)

30
Average Diameters of Tubers 45 days after Planting

At 45 DAP, T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water had the largest root diameter

(7.55cm), whereas T5= Control had the smallest root diameter (6.71cm) (water-

non-treated plant). Deep, loose soil and days are required for optimum growth of

edible roots both across and downwards (Cheesbrough M, 2000). The reasons

for increasing root size (length and diameter) with various concoctions might be

because the physical, chemical, and biological conditions of the soil were

changed, allowing for greater root growth and development.

Table 26. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Diameter of the


Tubers (Radish) in (cm) at 45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four Replications
in RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 7.15 7.61 7.14 7.52 29.42 7.355
T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water 4.5 8.62 9.15 7.44 29.71 7.4275
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 6.25 6.46 9.36 8.16 30.23 7.5575
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 7.02 7.4 8.3 6.4 29.12 7.28

31
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 5.83 5.3 8.63 7.08 26.84 6.71
TOTAL 30.75 35.39 42.58 36.6 145.32 7.266

Table 27. (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions on the


Average Diameter of the Tubers (Radish) in (cm) at 45 Days After Planting
(DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 14.2311 4.7437 4.09 0.0325
TREATMENT 4 1.7132 0.4283 0.37 0.8260
Error 12 13.9176 1.1598
Total 19 29.8619
--------------------------------------------------------------------
CV= 14.82%

Figure 14. Graph showing the Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average
Diameter of the Tubers (Radish) in (cm) at 45 Days After Planting (DAP) with
Four Replications in RCBD
7.8

7.6

7.4

7.2

6.8

6.6

6.4

6.2
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)

32
Average Number of Consumable of Tubers 45 days after Planting

Tables 27 and 28 show statistical data on consumable tuber yield. T1 -

IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water (0.4) had the highest marketable tuber yield,

followed by T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water (0.3), T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of

water (0.275), T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water (0.2), and T5= Control (water-

non-treated plant) had the lowest (0.175).

The researcher's experiment yielded the least marketable tubers as a

consequence of the factors identified after the study. It comprises the following:

first, according to Michigan State University, the best period to harvest a radish is

60-65 days; however, because to time constraints, the research was only

conducted for 45 days.

33
Table 27. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Number of
Marketable of Tubers (Radish) in at 45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD
TREATMENT REP 1 REP 2 REP 3 REP 4 TOTAL MEAN
T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water 0.1 0.9 0.5 0.1 1.6 0.4
T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water 0.1 0.4 0.5 0.1 1.1 0.275
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water 0.1 0 0.4 0.3 0.8 0.2
T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.2 1.2 0.3
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant) 0.2 0 0.4 0.1 0.7 0.175
TOTAL 0.7 1.6 2.3 0.8 5.4 0.27

Table 28. (Analysis of Variance) Influence of Different Concoctions on the


Average Number of Marketable of Tubers (Radish) in at 45 Days After Planting
(DAP) with Four Replications in RCBD
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Source DF Sum of Square Mean Square F Value Pr(> F)
---------------------------------------------------------------------
REPLICATION 3 33.8000 11.2667 2.83 0.0830
TREATMENT 4 12.7000 3.1750 0.80 0.5487
Error 12 47.7000 3.9750
Total 19 94.2000
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CV= 73.84%

Figure 15. Influence of Different Concoctions on the Average Number of


Marketable of Tubers (Radish) in at 45 Days After Planting (DAP) with Four
Replications in RCBD

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
MEAN

T1= IMO 30ml per 1 Liter of water T2=30ml FPJ per 1 Liter of water
T3= FFJ 30ml per 1 Liter of water T4= FAA 30ml per 1 Liter of water
T5= Control (water-non-treated plant)

34
35
CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

The ultimate goal of this study is to see how different agricultural

concoctions such as Indigenous Microorganisms (IMO), Fermented Plant Juice

(FPJ), Fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ), and (4) Fish Amino Acid affect radish

vegetative growth and yield; and to determine the effect of different concoctions

in terms of plant height, number of leaves per plant, the diameter of tubers,

number of marketable tubers and average weight (grams) of yield per plant.

Using the data acquired, the researcher discovered the following:

1. Treatment 3, which incorporates 30ml of Fermented Fruit Juice per 1 Liter

of water, boosts radish height greatly, as seen by the grand mean of each

treatment, which shows that T3 has the greatest mean of all treatments.

2. Treatment 4, which used 30ml of Fish Amino Acid per 1 Liter of water,

produced the most average number of leaves (4.55).

3. Radish treated with 30ml Indigenous Microorganisms per 1 Liter of water

increased its tubers average length.

4. The maximum root weight was obtained with T1= 30ml Indigenous

Microorganisms (IMO) per 1 Liter of water (0.3085g).


5. The highest root diameter was found in Radish treated with T3= 30ml of

Fermented Fruit Juice (FFJ) per 1 Liter of water (7.55cm).

6. T1 - 30ml of IMO per 1 Liter of water (0.4) produced the most marketable

tubers.

Conclusion

Based on the study's findings, it can be stated that each of the several

concoctions used in this study has a different function in boosting Radish

development. Furthermore, the researcher may conclude from this study that

foliar fertilizer is not intended to be a replacement for soil fertilizer and soil

conditioning, but rather as a supplement that will boost efficiency and improve

plant health, similar to the concept of (FAO, 2004).

Combining organic and chemical fertilizers are both need to improve crop

output in sandy loam soils, such as in radish (Rautaray et al). (2003). To

preserve soil water holding capacity and nutrients, adequate organic

amendments are required for the establishment of tuberous roots (Walker D.J.

et., al. 2004).

In short, foliar fertilizers alone in the form of spraying is insufficient to

generate marketable tubers in root crops.

36
Recommendation

The researcher advises the following based on his findings:

1. When applying multiple concoctions to a root crop, especially radish, it is

preferable to drench rather than spray, and the different organic

concoctions must be applied at least two days interval.

2. Before growing radish, soil analysis is recommended to assess the

quantity of nutrients detected in a soil sample if it is applicable for

nurturing Radish. As a result, it can only be as precise as the sample

gathered in a certain field. Farmer must advice that radishes prefer fertile,

well-drained, deep, sandy soils rich in organic matter for best growth.

Aside from the above-mentioned recommendation, it is also

recommended to constantly apply the care and management.

3. When choosing foliar fertilizer, keep the plant's nutritional requirements in

mind. Because no two plants are comparable, a fertilizer designed for one

species may not be suitable for another. Some fertilizers expressly

indicate which plants they are suited for, and all should reveal their

constituents so that gardeners may choose how they should be used. 

4. Other students that are interested in researching concepts and

phenomena connected to various concoctions, particularly foliar fertilizer,

may find this work useful as a reference or starting point. They can also

apply it to different root crops to compare the outcomes.

37
LITERATURE CITED

Alam, Md. Amirul. (2017). Effects of fermented plant juice and fruit juice on
growth oand yield of tomato for sustainable practices. Bangladesh Journal
of Botany. 46. 405-412.

Aung, L.H., and G.J. Flick.1980. The influence of fish solubles on growth and
fruiting of tomato. HortScience 15:32–33.

Awad AM, Tartoura EA, Elfouly HM. Fattah AI. 2002. Response of potato growth,
yield, and quality to farmyard manure sulfur and gypsum levels
application. 2nd Int. Conf. Hort. Sci., 10-12 Sept. Kafr El-Sheikh, Tanta
Univ., Egypt, 24-39.

Bonato O, Ridray G. 2007. Effect of tomato de-leafing on mirids, the natural


predators of whiteflies, Agron. Sustain. Dev. 27, 167–170.

El-Tarabily, K.A., A.H. Nassar, G.E.S.J. Hardy, and K. Sivasit-Hamparam. 2003.


The fish emulsion as a food base for rhizobacteria promotes the growth of
radish (Raphanus sativus L. var. sativus) in sandy soil. Plant Soil
252:397–411.

Murray, R. and R. G. Anderson. 2004. Organic fertilizers and composts for


vegetable transplant production. The University of Kentucky, Greenhouse
use of organic fertilizers and composts – 3 Floriculture Research Report
17-04.

Nanwai RK, Sharma BD, Taneja KD, 1998. Role of organic and inorganic
fertilizers for maximizing wheat (Triticum) aestivum yield in sandy loam
soils. Crop Research, Hisar. 16(2): 159-161.

Natarajan K, 2007. Panchagavya for the plant. Proc. Nation. Conf. Glory
Gomatha, Dec. 1-3, 2007, S. V. Veterinary Univ., Tirupati, pp. 72-75.

Nileemas G, Sreenivasa MN, 2011. Influence of liquid organic manures on


growth, nutrient content, and yield of radish (Lycopersicon esculentum
Mill.) in the sterilized soil. Karantaka, J. Agric. Sci. 24: 153-157.

Zamora, O.B.; Calub, B.M. Organic Agriculture Technologies and Systems


Developed and Adapted by Farmers in the Phillippines; Department of
Agriculture–Bureau of Agricultural Research and University of Philippines:
Quezon City, Phillippines, 2016; p. 70. ISBN 978-971-0347-46-9.

38
Cheesbrough M (2000). District laboratory practice in tropical countries part II.
Cambridge University Press, 434p
Muyang RF, Taffouo VD, Fotso, Nguepnang NE, Mbouobda HD (2014). Impact
of indigenous microorganism manure on soil mineralization and Irish
potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) productivity in Bambili, Cameroon. Int. J.
Dev. Res 4:2188-2193.

FAO. 1988. The Year Book of Production. FAO, Rome, Italy

Rautaray S.K., Ghosh B.C. and Mittra B.N. (2003). Effect of fly ash, organic
wastes and chemical fertilizers on yield, nutrient uptake, heavy metal
content and residual fertility in a rice–mustard cropping sequence under
acid lateritic soils. Bioresour. Technol., 90(3), 275-283.

Walker D.J., Clemente R. and Bernal M.P. (2004). Contrasting effects of manure
and compost on soil pH, heavy metal availability and growth of
Chenopodium album L. in a soil contaminated by pyritic mine waste.
Chemosphere., 57(3), 215-224.

39
APPENDICES

40
DOCUMENTATION

41
42

You might also like