THE EFFECTIVENESS OF CHICKEN BONE MEAL AND FISH BONE MEAL AS A

FERTILIZER OF TOMATO (SOLANUM LYCOPERSICUM)

An experimental study presented to the Faculty of

Panitan National High School

Pob.Ilawod,Panitan,Capiz

In Partial Fulfillment of the

Requirements for

Research 10

Presented by:

WILMAR T. BARROA

VETTINA MAE L. DOMOPOY

JOVIC ANGELO D. DONADO

JERICHO D. DURO

GENERICA CLYNDE D. ELEBARE

JEAN ANN A.MAYO

THESSALIE JUNE D.TAWAGIN

 APPROVAL SHEET

This experimental study, entitled The Effectiveness of Chicken

Bone Meal and Fish Bone Meal as a Fertilizer of Tomato (Solanum

lycopersicum, prepared by Wilmar T. Barroa, Vettina Mae L.

Domopoy, Jovic Angelo D. Donado, Jericho D. Duro, Generica Clynde

D. Elebare, Jean Ann A. Mayo, Thessalie June D. Tawagin, in

Partial fulfillment of the requirements for Research 10 is hereby

recommended for acceptance and approval for oral examination.

Angel D. Bodegas, MAT

Adviser

Approved by the Research Committee in Oral Examination on

April 01, 2023.

CLINT ROVIE D. DEQUINA, MAT

Chairperson

JEN-JEN D. DELA TORRE, MAT

Member

___________________
External Panel

Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the subject Research 10.

______________ ROMPY A. INSULAR, MAT

Date Head Teacher 1
 Acknowledgement

With heartfelt gratitude, the researchers would like to

acknowledge the contribution of these people who had a great part

in making this study possible.

First of all, the Almighty God, for the strength, guidance,

good health, and wisdom during the entire course of completing

the experimentation;

Ms. Angel D. Bodegas, research adviser, for her constructive

criticisms, patience, constant reminders, and pieces of advice,

for extending her precious time in enlightening the researcher’s

mind which made them better understand the study and for the

encouragement;

Mr. Clint Rovie D. Dequina, Class adviser, for his help,

support, encouragement to the researchers in the conduct of the

study;

Mr. Ronaldo D. Billones, the researcher’s statistician, for

the brilliant appraisal, constructive criticisms, and expertise

in solving the data statistically;

The researcher’s classmates and friends, John Vincent C.

Datiles, Nicole D. Detablan, Princess Bel D. Billones, and Sean

Carlos Tulali for their help, valuable insights, and

inspirational motivation to pursue this study.

 Their parents, for the emotional, moral, physical, and

financial support in the pursuit of the study;

All those who extended their help for the success of this

study, the researcher’s sincerely dedicate this fruitful work.

 Table of contents

Chapter Page

1 INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY

Background of the Study 1

Conceptual Framework

Objectives of the Study

Statement of the Problem

Hypothesis

Significance of the Study

Definition of Terms

Scope and Limitations of the Study

2 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Fertilizer

Chicken Bone Meal

Fish Bone Meal

Growth in terms of Height

Circumference of Trunks

Number of Leaves of Tomatoes

(Solanum lycopersicum)

Synthesis

3 RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

 Method of Research

Method of Collecting Data, Materials, and

Procedures

Data Collection Instrument

Data Gathering Procedures

Sampling Design

Procedural Design

Statistical Data Analysis Procedure

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Descriptive Analysis

Growth of Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum)

In terms of: Height, Circumference of
Trunks and Number of Leaves

Inferential Data Analysis

5. SUMMATY, CONCLUSION, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of the Problems,

Methods and Findings

Conclusions

Recommendations

REFERENCES

APPENDIX
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Fertilizers are generally defined as “any material, organic

or inorganic, natural or synthetic, which supplies one or more of

the chemical elements required for the plant growth.” Most

fertilizers that are commonly used in agriculture contain the

three basic plant nutrients: nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium.

Some fertilizer also contains certain “micronutrients”, such as

zinc and other metals that are necessary for plant growth

(University U. S., 2019). Fertilizer is important in agriculture

to ensure that the soil and crops are healthy.

Organic fertilizers are less concentrated than synthetic

fertilizers and thus much safer to use. Organic fertilizers are

ecological, environmentally friendly, and non-toxic in nature,

making them the best fertilizers for plants and crops in

greenhouse farming. While synthetic fertilizers can be harmful to

the environment because it has higher nitrogen and phosphorus

levels.

Bone meal is made from defatted, dried animal bones that are

ground to a fine powder. It is a mineral supplement. It is high

in calcium and phosphorus. Bone meal is used for fertilizer and

animal feed (Rochester, 2022). Fish bone meal is a natural

product of the processing of this catch and is made by

dehydrating and grinding the bones into a meal. It is excellent

natural source of phosphorus, calcium, nitrogen, essential

minerals, and trace elements. Chicken bone meal is good for the

soil and make good fertilizer for your garden. It is a process

that can take some time, but the entire process is healthy for

the soil. Chicken bone fertilizer is full of essential

phosphorous, potassium, nitrogen, and calcium.

This along with fact that Chicken bone meal and fish bone

meal have the nutrients that needed to make a well-founded

fertilizer that agriculturist and organic home gardeners can use,

pushed the researchers to conduct a study about it and ended up

with a title: “The Effectiveness of chicken bone meal and fish

bone meal as a fertilizer”. Hence, this study will be conducted

to find out the comparison and significant difference of the

Chicken bone meal and the fish bone meal is best to use as a

fertilizer.

Conceptual Framework
 INDEPENDENT VARIABLE DEPENDENT VARIABLE

Treatment A:

700g soil, 300g of Chicken

Bone Meal, 1500 ml water Growth in terms of Height

Treatment B: Circumference of Trunks

700g soil, 300g of Fish Number of leaves of

Bone Meal, 1500 ml water Tomatoes (Solanum

lycopersicum)
Treatment C:

700g soil, 300g Vermicast

Fertilizer, 1500ml water

Figure 1. Independent and Dependent Variables.

Objectives of the Study

Generally, this study aims to determine and find out the

significant difference of Chicken Bone and Fish Bone as

Fertilizer of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum).

Specifically, this study would like to determine the

following:
 1) Determine the chicken and fish bone meal as fertilizer in

terms of growth in height, circumference of trunks, and

number of leaves of tomatoes.

2) Find out the significant difference between chicken bone

meal and fish bone meal as fertilizer in terms of growth in

height, circumference of trunks, and number of leaves of

tomatoes.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine and the effectiveness of

chicken bone and fish bone as fertilizer and to answer the

following questions:

1) Which is the better fertilizer, chicken bone meal or

fish bone meal?

2) Is there significant difference between the chicken

bone meal and the fish bone meal as fertilizer in terms

growth in height, circumference of trunks, and number of

leaves of tomatoes?

Hypothesis

Based on the problem, the following hypothesis will be

assumed:
 1) There is no significant difference between the chicken and

the fish bone meal as fertilizer in terms growth in height,

circumference of trunks, and number of leaves of tomatoes.

Significance of the Study

This study aims to benefit the following:

Farmers. This research will help the farmers to learn on how

effective the Chicken Bone Meal and Fish Bone Meal as a

fertilizer.

Community. This study will provide information to the

community in using Chicken Bone Meal and Fish Bone Meal as

fertilizer. This will help the community to save their money for

the product that can be bought in cheaper price.

Future Researchers. This research will supply knowledge and

understanding for researchers to conduct a study on various bones

as fertilizer for plants.

Definition of Terms

These following terms were defined to provide a clearer

understanding to the ideas presented in the study:

Circumference of Trunk is commonly used to evaluate tree

secondary growth, with basic assumption that secondary growth is

the main factor leading to variation in circumference (Clèment

Stahl et al.,).

In this study, circumference of the trunk indicates the

thickness of stem of tomato.

Chicken Bone Meal it is a highly nutritious animal waste

product. It is made from finely ground or powdered chicken bones

and has a great potential to obtain high-quality organic

fertilizers (Nan Wu et al., 2022)

In this study, chicken bone meal refers to a product that

will be used as a fertilzer.

Fertilizer it is a natural or chemical substance that is

spread on the land or given to plants, to make plants grow well

(University C., Cambridge University Press, 2022)

In this study, it is the product that we are going to use to

make the soil fertile. It is usually organic and made from

chicken and fish bone meal.

Fish Bone Meal it is made from ground bones of fresh fish

waste bones. This is also a fresh meal process wherein it

increases the nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium concentration

of the plant (P. T. Bhaskoro et al., 2020).

In this study, fish bone meal indicates a natural fish bone

fertilizer that is made of grinding and dehydrating the fish

bone. A product that will be used as fertilizer

 Growth it is a characteristic of a living organism. It is a

permanent change which increases the size of the plant. Just like

other living organisms, plants also show growth. Growth is an

essential property of plants which helps them gain nutrients from

places which are far from their position. Growth helps plants

compete and protect their important organs. (BYJUS, 2022)

In this study, growth refers to the irreversible increase of

tomato.

Number of Leaves of Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) it is

the effects of several environmental factors and plant growth

regulators on the number of leaves preceding the first

inflorescence of tomato (J.A Dilieman, E. Heuvelink , 2015).

In this study number of leaves of tomatoes refers to the

increase of the volume of leaves of tomato.

Scope and Limitations of the Study

This study was conducted to determine and find the

significant difference of chicken bone meal and fish bone meal as

fertilizer of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). This study was

conducted from February 25 to April 1, 2023 at Cogon, Panitan,

Capiz.
 This study will be done through experimenting the product

that will be made by the researchers through three treatments:

treatment A - 700g soil, 300g of chicken bone meal, 1500 ml

water, treatment B - 700g soil, 300g of chicken bone meal, 1500

ml water, and treatment C 700g soil, 300g of Vermicast Compost

Fertilizer, 1500 ml water. Every treatment will have three (3)

Replications. With the use of the control, the researchers will

be able to determine the comparison of chicken bone meal and fish

bone meal as fertilizer by comparing it with the Vermicast

Fertilizer.

Water application was done whenever necessary. Regular

monitoring of the experimentation was also done until the data

where gathered and when the experiment terminated. The experiment

lasted for six weeks after planting the tomato per treatment.
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter includes literature relevant to the problem ans

is made to accomplish the objectives of the present study. The

data and ideas in books, magazines, and journals as well as

studies posted from the internet are used. These guided the

researchers on the research method employed, particularly in the

construction of the needed instruments and choosing the

appropriate statistical tool to the study.

Chapter 2 is divided into (7) parts, namely: (1) Fertilizer,

(2) Chicken Bone Meal, (3) Fish Bone Meal, (4) Growth in terms of

Height, (5) Circumference of Trunks, (6) Number of Leaves of

Tomatoes, and (7) Synthesis.

The first part, Fertilizer

The second part, Chicken Bone Meal

The third part, Fish Bone Meal

 The fourth part, Growth in terms of Height

The fifth part, Circumference of Trunks

The sixth part, Number of Leaves of Tomatoes (Solanum

lycopersicum)

The last part, Synthesis, sums up the literature review in

this study.

Fertilizer

Accoring to G. Ddamulira et al., (2019) fertilizer is

natural or artificial substance that contains chemical elements

(such as nitrogen (N), Phosphorus (P), and Potassium (K) that

help plants grow and produce more. Some synonyms include

“enrichment” and “plant nutrient.” Studied the effect of nitrogen

(N) and potassium (K) fertilizer rates on cherry tomato growth

and yield.

J. Sultana, et al., (2015) studied that, in maintaining the

soil quality and attainable crop yield, it is required to add

proper number of fertilizers and minimize the misuse of soil

resources which is possible by knowing actual situation of soil

physical, chemical, and biological condition through observation,

investigation, and soil testing. The uses of fertilizers, which

bring nutrients to the plants, affect plant growth in organisms.

The use of fertilizer is determined by the crop to be grown and

the soils nutrient deficiencies.

Agreeing to M. Hasnain et al., (2020) compost is cosidered

to be superior fertilizer for soil quality and productivity, and

is commonly used with chemical fertlizer. The soil properties,

plant traits, and tomato yield with all compost-mixed fertilizers

outperformed the control treatment.

Chicken Bone Meal

Majee S. et al., (2022), Premeditated that Chicken meat-bone

meal (CMBM) is abundantly available locally, had used as P, K,

and Ca sources. The goal of the current project is to produce NPK

(Nitrogen, Phosphorus, and Potassium) bio-organic fertilizer and

to use it as efficiently as possible.

Tunza Eco Generation (2014), stated that Chicken bones,

although considered as waste, has high mineral content that can

be well suitable as a natural source of calcium and phosphorus

which are an essential nutrient for plant growth. Chicken bone

fertilizer is full of essential phosphorous, potassium, nitrogen

and calcium, and plant foods like vegetables do very well in said

fertilizer. The ground-up bones can be used as fertilizer

directly on the soil or added to compost, where they will swiftly

decompose.
 Jukka K. et, al., (2015) study that Adding extra fertilizer

during growth or separating fertilization applications had no

effect on root yield or quality. MBM performed in these cases

mainly as an organic N fertilizer. The N supply from MBM is not

sufficient for achieving same yields as with mineral fertilizers.

The relative N efficiency of total N of MBM was 83% that of

mineral fertilizers. MBM should be targeted on soils with low P

status. As a recycled fertilizer, MBM is a competitively priced

substitute for mineral fertilizers and a solid choice for organic

farming.

Fish Bone Meal

According to Bhaskorol et al., (2020) one ingredient that

can increase phosphorus and potassium content is fish bone. The

use of the local resources and the reduction of environmental

impacts are two critical components of sustainable agriculture.

Fish bone meal is an excellent natural source of phosphorus,

Calcium, nitrogen, essential minerals, and traced elements when

used as fertilizer.

Cristina (2022) stated that tomatoes are heavy feeders and

requires a lot of nutrients. Bone meal is one of the easiest ways

to give an extra boost to your tomato’s health and growth. Tomato

plants benefit from fish bone meal. It has a high calcium

content, which aids in fruit production. It contains calcium

during fruiting stage as well as nitrogen and phosphorus needed

plants to create hlorophyll during the growth stage.

Ali’s Organic and Garden Supply (2013), indicate that  fish

bone meal breaks down slightly faster in the soil, making it more

readily available for plants to take up. The NPK for fish bone

meal is 3-16-0, and it naturally has a fishy smell. Fish bone

meal can be used on a variety of fruits, vegetables, flowers,

trees, perennials, bulbs, tomatoes, peppers, eggplants, and even

compost piles.

Growth in terms of Height

White et al, (2015) define that Growth is a major component

of fitness in all organisms, an important mediator of competitive

interactions in plant communities, and a central determinant of

yield in crops. Plant evolution, ecology, and crop science all

have a stake in understanding the mechanisms that restrict plant

development, but each field takes a different approach to the

problem. It is abundantly obvious that future improvements and in

agricultural productivity will be critically dependent on a

quantitative understanding of how sources and sinks affect growth

and how this evolves over time. A holistic perspective of growth

at the whole-plant scale that incorporates mechanistic

connections between physiology, resource allocation, and plant

development is necessary to detect bottlenecks limiting growth

and output.

Vassilev (2018), studied that Plant height is the shortest

distance between the upper boundary of the main photosynthetic

tissues (excluding inflorescences) on a plant and the ground

level, expressed in meters. Plant height, or

maximum height (Hmax), is the maximum stature a typical mature

individual of a species attains in each habitat. A plant or organ

is said to grow when its size, such as its length, width,

diameter, area, volume, or mass, increases in an irreversible

manner over time. A sigmoidal curve with three sequential phases

an early accelerating period with exponential growth, a linear

phase, and a plateau can be used to describe the cumulative

increment of a dimension over time that frequently characterizes

plant growth patterns. Vegetables need a balanced diet for

healthy growth and development. To get satisfactory yield, the

fertilizer application criteria must be optimized.

Circumference of Trunks

According to Ryczkowski (2021), measuring standing trees

allows us to estimate tree age, determine fertilizer

requirements and calculate the approximate value of the tree’s

wood without cutting or boring into the tree. The circumference

of a tree, or the distance encircling its trunk, is the most

fundamental measurement. The diameter of the tree can also be

determined using the circumference. The circumference of a tree

is measured in a certain way to ensure uniformity and accuracy.

Department of Conservation and Recreation (2023), specified

that tree circumference is measured at 4.5 ft. height on the

trunk. It is easiest to measure with a flexible tape measure, but

a string can be used to mark the circumference and then measured

with a ruler or rigid measuring tape. Wrap the tape measure

around the girth of the tree, trying to keep the tape 90 degrees

to the natural lean of the tree.

Number of Leaves of Tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum)

J. A. Dieleman & E. Heuvelink (2015), specified that Review

of the impact of various environmental conditions and plant

growth regulators on the tomato’s number of leaves prior to the

first inflorescence (NLPI). Different rates of leaf initiation

and different times for the first inflorescence to begin both

affect how many leaves there are before this inflorescence.

Conferring to Abduli M.A. et al., (2013), the results showed

a significant rise in growth of tomato plant’s by increasing

ratio of vermicompost combined with soil. Obviously, the plant

was mostly appeared in the main stem of the plant and there was

no significant enhancement in the number of leaves.

 Won Jun Jo & Jong Hwa Shin, (2020), itemized that

photosynthesis in plants depends on various vegetative growth

factors, such as leaf age, leaf area, and leaf number.

Dobrescu et al., (2017) indicate that the number of leaves a

plant has is one of the visual key traits (phenotype) describing

its development and growth. For example, estimating the number of

leaves in a field can be used to predict the growth of tomato. It

facilitates growth rate estimation and is connected to the

plant’s health and yield potential.

Synthesis

Fertilizer brings nutrients in plants that help grow the

plants. Fertilizer is use for soil quality and productivity, and

is commonly known with chemical fertlizer. Chicken and fish

bone is commonly known fertilizer with full of essential

phosphorous, potassium, nitrogen and calcium, and plant foods

like vegetables do very well in said fertilizers.

Growth is a stage in the process of growing of a plant. A

holistic perspective of growth at the whole-plant scale that

composite mechanistic relationship between physiology, resource

allocation, and plant development is necessary to detect

bottlenecks limiting growth and output.

 Plant height is the shortest distance between the upper

boundaries of the main photosynthetic tissues. A plant or organ

is said to grow when its size, such as its length, width,

diameter, area, volume, or mass, increases in an unrecoverable

manner over time. The simplest basic measurement is the

circumference of a tree, or the distance around its trunk. To

maintain uniformity and precision, a tree’s circumference

measured in a particular way. Without cutting tree, measuring

standing trees enables us to calculate the approximate worth of

the tree’s wood, estimate the age of the tree, and evaluate the

need for fertilizer.

Chapter 3
 Research Design and Methodology

Chapter 3 is made up of three part, namely: (1) Method of

Research, (2) Method of Collecting Data Materials and Procedures,

and (3) Data Analyses and Procedures.

First Part, Method of Research, introduces the purpose of

the Research, the Research Design, and the variables.

Second Part, Method of Collecting Data, Materials &

Procedure, includes the experimental procedures and Data

Collection and Gathering methods as well as the Sampling Design.

Third Part, Statistical Data Analyses Procedures, discusses

and enumerates the statistical tools used in the analysis data.

Methods of Research

This study will be conducted to determine and find out the

significant difference between Chicken Bone Meal and Fish Bone

Meal as Fertilizer in Tomato in terms growth in height,

circumference of trunks, and number of leaves of tomato (Solanum

lycopersicum).

This study uses experimental research. Experimental methods

are used to determine the difference between Chicken Bone Meal

and Fish Bone Meal as Fertilizer of Tomato (Solanum

lycopersicum).
 The research design used is appropriate for this study

because this study to be conducted involves comparing chicken

bone and fish bone meal as fertilizer of tomato.

The independent variable is Chicken bone and Fish bone meal

as fertilizer of tomato and the three varying treatments. The

dependent variable is the Growth in terms of height,

Circumference of trunks, and Number of leaves of tomato (Solanum

lycopersicum).

Methods of Collecting Data, Materials & Procedures

Experimetal Procedures

1. Collection and preparation of materials

The main ingredients that were used include Chicken bone and

Fish bone meal, soil, flower pot and water. 900g of chicken bone

meal and 900g of fish bone meal was used in this investigation.

12 flower pots was used in this study. Other needed materials are

oven, blender, mortar and pestle, knife, stock pot, pressure

cooker, and basin. Digital Caliper, ruler, and Digital Weighing

scale was used to measure.

2. Preparing of Chicken bone and Fish bone meal

The researchers collect their Chicken Bones and Fish Bones

from their kitchen, leftover food and buy some on local and
seaside market. Then, they clean the Chicken Bones and Fish Bones

very well to avoid excess fats. And to ensure cleaning, the

researchers place the bones in a pressure cooker for an hour. The

researchers preheat their oven to 150oc and they arrange the

bones in baking pan and bake them in the oven 1 hour and 30

minutes. Then they use mortar and pestle to break the bones.

After breaking the bones, the researchers then use blender to

powder the bones.

3. Preparation of the Treatments

Treatments Soil Water

A 300g Chicken

bone meal 700 g 1500 ml

B 300g Fish bone

meal 700g 1500 ml

C Vermicast

Fertilizer 700g 1500 mLl

Table 1. The treatments to be tested in the Research study.

4. Planting the Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum)

The tomatoes were then planted in the soil mix with Chicken

bone and Fish bone meal in a flower pot. Every treatment has 3

replications, so a total of 12 tomatoes were planted.

Data Collection Instruments

The data in this study will be gathered by the researchers

using a Researchers-made Data Sheet, were, they will right the

measurements of height, circumference of trunks, and number of

leaves that they will gather every week.

To describe the mean, the scale below will be used:

Scale Verbal Interpretation

5.04- 5.54 Very Tall
4.53- 5.03 Tall
3.02- 4.52 Average
2.51- 3.01 Very Short
2.00- 2.50 Short
Table 2. The scoring variable for growth (height)
Scale Verbal Interpretation
1.04- 1.29 Very Big
0.78- 1.03 Big
0.54- 0.79 Average
0.28- 0.53 Very Small
0.02- 0.27 Small
Table 3. The scoring variable for growth in terms of
Circumference of Trunks
Scale Verbal Interpretation
7.04- 8.54 Most Leafy
6.53- 7.03 Leafy
6.02- 6.52 Adequate
5.51- 6.01 Few
5.00- 5.50 Very Few
Table 4. The scoring variable for growth in terms of Number of
Leaves

Data Gathering Procedures

 After the Researchers completed the evaluation, all data

will be encoded and processed using Statistical Package for

Social Science (SPSS) software.

Sampling Design

The researchers will be the evaluators of this study to

determine the Effectiveness of Chicken Bone and Fish Bone as a

fertilizer of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) in terms of its

growth in height, circumference of trunks, and number of leaves.

Statistical Data Analysis Procedure

The following descriptive and inferential statistics were

used in the analysis of data being collected:

Mean. This will utilized to determine which of the chicken

bone and fish bone meal is the better fertilizer for tomato

(Solanum Lycopersicum).

Standard Deviation. This was utilized to determine the

homogeneity and heterogeneity of data collected.

One-way Analysis of Variation. This will be used to

determine if there is a significant difference between the

Chicken bone and fish bone meal as fertilizer of Tomato (Solamun

Lycopersicum).

Procedural Design
 Methods of collecting data and materials

Collection and preparation of materials

Preparing of Chicken bone and Fish bone meal

Preparation of the Treatments

Treatment A: Treatment B: Treatment c:

700g soil, 300g of 700g soil, 300g of 700g soil, 300g of

Chicken Bone Meal, Fish Bone Meal, Vermicast

1500 ml water 1500 ml water Fertilizer , 1500

ml water

Planting the Tomato (Solanum

CHAPTER 4 Lycopersicum)

Statistical Analysis
Chapterr 4

Results and Discussion

 Chapter 4 presents the results and discussion of this

investigation. This is made up of two parts: (1) Descriptive Data

Analysis, and (2) Inferential Data Analysis.

Part One, Descriptive Data Analysis, presents the

descriptive data and their respective analysis and

interpretation.

Part Two, Inferential Data Analysis, presents the

inferential data on the difference between chicken bone meal and

fish bone meal in terms of growth (height), circumference of

trunks and number of leaves.

Descriptive Analysis

The tables below present the means for each parameter in

determining the growth of Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum) treated

in varying ratios and proportion of Chicken bone meal, fish bone

meal and vermicast to which Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum) were

planted.

Table 3 presents the result of mean score on the growth of

height (cm) of Tomato Plant subjected to different treatments.

The data gathered 1 week after the Tomato seeds germinated. The

area where the treatments located received same amount of

sunlight in the morning until noon and were shaded in the

afternoon. There was no intervening factor that affects the data

collection process such as rain. Treatment C (300 g vermicast,

700 g soil, 1500 ml water) controlled variable achieved a mean

score of 5.12 (cm) verbally interpreted as “very tall”. Among

treatments utilized in this study, Tomato seedlings (Solanum

Lycopersicum) planted applying this treatment got the highest

average height. It was followed by Treament B (300 g chicken

bone meal, 700 g soil, 1500 ml water) achieved a mean score of

4.62 (cm) verbally interpreted as “ tall”. Simil arly, Treatment

B (300 g of fish bone meal, 700 g of soil, 1500 ml water) gained

an average height of 4.52 (cm) were verbally interpreted as

“average”.

Table 5.

Height (cm) of Tomato (Solanum Lycopersicum)

(The Data gathered two weeks after the seeds germinated)
Treatment Mean (cm) Verbal

Height Interpretation
A (Chicken bone meal) 4.62 Tall

B (Fish bone meal) Average

4.52

C (vermicast) Very Tall

5.12
Scale:
Very Tall 5.04- 5.54
Tall 4.53- 5.03
Average 3.02- 4.52
Short 2.51- 3.01
Very Short 1.50- 2.50
 The result clearly indicates that Treatment A with 700g

soil, 300g of Chicken Bone Meal, 1500 ml water has found great

contribution to the growth of tomato plants in terms of height,

compare to Treatment B with 700g soil, 300g of Fish Bone Meal,

1500 ml water. This could be attributed to the nutrient available

in the Chicken bone meal such phosphorus, potassium, and calcium

which significantly influence the growth of Tomato in terms of

its height. This explains why Treatment A with 700g soil, 300g of

Chicken Bone Meal, 1500 ml water obtained the highest score for

the height (cm) since this treatment contained chicken bone meal.

The result of this study agrees to the study conducted

by Tunza Eco Generation (2014),who found out that chicken bone

meal has a high mineral content, making it an excellent natural

supply of calcium and phosphorus, two nutrients necessary for

plant growth.

Similarly, Table 4 reveals the mean score in determining the

circumference of trunk among treatments. The data were collected

onw week after germination. The treatments received same amount

of sunlight in the morning until noon and were shaded in the

afternoon. There was no intervening event, such as rain, that

would have affected the data collection procedure. Therefore,

Treatment C (300 g vermicast, 700 g soil, 1500 ml water) )

controlled variable achieved a mean score of 1.08 (mm) verbally

interpreted as “very big”. Among treatments utilized in this

study, Tomato seedlings (Solanum Lycopersicum) planted applying

this treatment got the highest average circumference of trunks.

It was followed by Treament B (300 g chicken bone meal, 700 g

soil, 1500 ml water) achieved a mean score of 1.07 (mm) verbally

interpreted as “ very big”. Similarly, Treatment B (300 g of fish

bone meal, 700 g of soil, 1500 ml water) gained an average height

of 1.02 (mm) were verbally interpreted as “big”.

Table 6.

Circumference of trunk of tomato Solanum Lycopersicum)

(The Data gathered two weeks after the seeds germinated)
Treatment Circumference Verbal

Of trunks (mm) Interpretation

A (Chicken bone meal) 1.07 Very Big

B (Fish bone meal) Big

1.02

C (vermicast) Very Big

1.08
Scale:
Very Big 1.04- 1.29
Big 0.78- 1.03
Average 0.54- 0.79
Small 0.28- 0.53
Very Small 0.02- 0.27

The result indicates that Treatment A with 700g soil, 300g

of Chicken Bone Meal, 1500 ml water has found great contribution

to the growth of tomato plants in terms of circumference of

trunks, compare to Treatment B with 700g soil, 300g of Fish Bone

Meal, 1500 ml water. This might be attributed to the

concentrations that the chicken bone meal have such as

phosphorus, which aids in healthy trunks.

Table 5 shows the mean score in determining the number of

leaves among treatments. The data were collected one week after

germination period of Tomato and ended until its 6 th week. No rain

occurred during observation. The treatments received equal

amounts of sunlight in the morning and became shaded during noon

time until afternoon.

Treatment C (300 g vermicast, 700 g soil, 1500 ml water) )

controlled variable achieved a mean score of 7.39 and was

verbally interpreted as “Very Leafy”. Among treatments utilized

in this study, Tomato seedlings (Solanum Lycopersicum) planted

applying this treatment got the highest average number of leaves.

It was followed by Treament B (300 g chicken bone meal, 700 g

soil, 1500 ml water) achieved a mean score of 6.78 and verbally

interpreted as “Leafy”. Similarly, Treatment B (300 g of fish

bone meal, 700 g of soil, 1500 ml water) gained an average height

of 6.17 and were verbally interpreted as “Adequate”.

Table 7.

Number of Leaves of tomato Solanum Lycopersicum)

(The Data gathered two weeks after the seeds germinated)
Treatment Number of Verbal

Leaves Interpretation
A (Chicken bone meal) 6.78 Leafy

B (Fish bone meal) Adequate

6.17

C (vermicast) Most Leafy

7.39
Scale:
Most Leafy 7.04- 8.54
Leafy 6.53- 7.03
Adequate 6.02- 6.52
Few 5.51- 6.01
Very Few 5.00- 5.50

The result in terms of the number of leaves clearly presents

that Treatment A (300 g chicken bone meal, 700 g soil, 1500 ml

water) produced the bight number of leaves as compared with

Treatment B (300 g fish bone meal, 700 g soil, 1500 ml water).

This might be attributed to the availability of nutrients such as

phosphorus and nitrogen in chicken bone meal which greatly

influence its number of leaves.

According to Jamie (2023), Bone meal is exceptionally high

in calcium and phosphorus and even enhances the soil with trace

amounts of nitrogen which greatly influence its number of leaves.

According to Farjon et al., (2021), Leaf counting in potted

plants is an important building block for estimating their health

status and growth rate. One of the primary visual characteristics

(phenotypes) describing a plant's growth and development is the

number of leaves it has.

 Furthermore, the Treatment A sets an excellent result

in comparison to the Treatment B 700g soil, 300g of Fish bone

meal, 1500 ml water and Treatment C with 700g soil, 300g of

Vermicast Fertilizer, 1500 ml water as controlled variable. The

data also showed that the said treatment can probably compete to

the conventional. Therefore, the chicken bone meal is better

fertilizer as perceived to be a potential one.

Inferential Data Analysis

Table 8.
Difference between chicken bone & fish bone meal treatments in
terms of growth (height), circumference of trunk and number of
leaves
Variable F Value Significance Interpretation
Tested

Height 1.152 0.324 Not Significant

Circumference 0.274 0.761 Not Significant

of Trunk

Number of 0.555 0.578 Not Significant

Leaves

The result in Table 6 shows that chicken bone and fish bone

meal has no significant difference in terms of its growth

(height), circumference of trunks and number of leaves as

revealed by their significant value in Height with 0.324,

circumference of trunks with 0.761, and number of leaves with

0.578.
 On the results, it can be realized that each treatment

brings positive impact to the growth of plants. In which, any of

the said treatments is firmly good to apply on the tomato plants.

Thus, the null hypothesis which states that there is no

significant difference between the chicken bone meal and the fish

bone meal as fertilizer in terms growth in height, circumference

of trunks, and number of leaves of tomatoes is hereby accepted.

Chapter 5

Chapter 5 is consists of three parts, namely: (1) Summary of

the Problems, Methods, and Findings; (2) Conclusions; (3)

Recommendations.

First part, summary of the problems, methods, and finding;

presents the summary of the study, including the problems,

questions, procedures, and result obtained.

 Second Part, Conclusion, present the generalization gathered

from the study.

Third Part, Recommendations, shows the possible areas that

future researchers need to focus and develop for better

applications and findings.

Summary of the Problems, Methods, and Findings

This study was conducted to determine which of the chicken

bone meal and Fish bone meal is the better fertilizer of tomato

(Solanum Lycopersicum) in terms of its growth in height,

circumference of trunks, and number of leaves. Specifically, the

study sought answer to the following questions:

1. Which is the better fertilizer, chicken bone meal or fish bone

meal?

2. Is there significant difference between the chicken bone meal

and the fish bone meal as fertilizer in terms growth in height,

circumference of trunks, and number of leaves of tomatoes?

The researchers are the evaluators of this study. The

information needed in this study were collected using the

researchers-made data sheet, were, they will right the

measurements of height, circumference of trunks, and number of

leaves that they will gather every week. The instrument was
modified with the suggestions and recommendations of the panels

and statistician. Once the instrument was checked and evaluated,

the actual gathering of data started. The result of the

evaluation was analyze using Statistical Package for Social

Science (SPSS) software.

The independent variable in this study was Chicken bone meal

and Fish bone meal, while the dependent variable of this study

was the growth of tomato in terms of its height, circumference of

trunks, and number of leaves.

The major of finding of this study are the following:

1. The chicken bone meal is better fertilizer as

perceived to be a potential one.

2. There is no significant difference existed between

Chicken bone meal and Fish bone meal as fertilizer of tomato

(Solanum Lycopersicu) in terms of height, circumference of

trunks, and number of leaves with.

Conclusions

In view of the following finding, the following Conclusion

was known:

1. Given the Chicken bone meal is a better fertilizer than fish

bone meal; it means that the treatment can probably compete to

the conventional.
2. Since there is no significant difference existed between the

chicken bone meal and fish bone meal, it may indicate that any of

the said treatments is firmly good to apply on the tomato plants.

Recommendations

Based on the obtained results and findings, the following

recommendations are suggested:

1. Community. They may be aware of the potential of the

chicken bone meal and fish bone meal as fertilizer of tomato

(Solanum Lycopersicum) that can be naturally produced and can

help to the environment especially in waste management. It is

better to use natural product than product with chemicals which

sometimes can affect our environment. It is important to help

sustain a safe and convenient environment and products.

2. Students. They maybe more open to organic alternatives to

commercialize products. They can study about insights about

alternatives of chemical or commercial fertilizers by organic

substitute in order to learn how important our nature.

3. Household. Member of household, especially those fathers

who are farmers may start using organic fertilizer. It cannot

only help in our environment but it can also help us in terms of

financial because it is cheaper than chemical or commercialize

products. Through this, they can encourage their family member to

use naturally-made and environmental friendly fertilizer.

 4. Future Researchers. Study about organic Fertilizers may

also conducted by future researchers using different types of

organic alternatives to find out what would be the result. For

Future researchers, this could be deepen their understanding and

provide more knowledge about organic fertilizer industry.

5. Promoting the findings of this research to the government

and nongovernmental agencies and groups that promotes organic

fertilizer.

Reference

ABDULI M.A. AMIRI L. MADADIAN E. GITIPOUR S. SEDIGHIAN S. (2013).

scholar.google.com. Retrieved January 16, 2023, from

www.google.com:

https://www.sid.ir/en/Journal/ViewPaper.aspx?ID=368880

Angela C. White, Alistair Rogers, Mark Rees, Colin P. Osborne.

(2015, October 14). Journal of Experimental Bbotany.

 Retrieved from www.google.com:

https://academic.oup.com/jxb/article/67/1/31/2885073

B Ncube, JF Finnie, J Van Staden. (2012, November 20).

sciencedirect.com. Retrieved from www.google.com:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?

hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=quality=of=plants&btnG=#dgs_qabs&t=1666

068234533&u=%23p%3DLwQu1PGtHV4J

BYJUS. (2022). BYJUS. Retrieved from www.google.com:

https://byjus.com/biology/plant-growth-and-its-development/

Clèment Stahl, Benoit Burban, Fèlix Bompy, Zachari B. Jolin,

Juliette Sermage, Damien Bonal. (n.d.). Journal of Tropical

Ecology.

Dictionary, C. (2022). Cambridge Dictionary Press. Retrieved from

www.google.com:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/quali

ty

Dobrescu, A., Giuffrida, M. V., and Tsaftaris, S. A. (2017).

scholar.google.com. Retrieved January 16, 2023, from

www.google.com:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.57575

1/full#B9
Francesca Carella, Momy Seck, Lorenzo Degli Esposti, Hamet

Diadiou, Anita Maienza, Silvia BAronti, Patrizio Vignaroli,

Francesco Primo Vaccari, Michele Lafisco, Alessio Adamiano.

(2021). Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering.

Retrieved from www.google.com:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?

start=10&q=fish+bonemeal=fertilizer

G Ddamulira, R. I. (2019). pdfs.semanticscholar.org. Retrieved

from www.google.com: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?

hl=en&as_std=0%2C5&q=fertilizers=in=cherry=tomato&btnG=#d=gs

_qads&t=1666054350531&u=%23t%3Dz3nPSBMEYMYJ

Heuvelink, E. (2018). books.google.com. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?

hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=importance+of+tomatoes+production&oq+#g

s_qabs&t=166936406884&u=%23p%3dqppPbCZVSbej

J Atherton, Jehoshua Rudich. (2012). www.googlescholar.com.

Retrieved from books.google.com:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?

start=10&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&t=166935630756&u=%23p

%3Dm6cd0mLuUPoJ

J Sultana, MNA Siddique, MR Abdullah. (2015). journalbinet.com.

Retrieved from www.google.com:

 htttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=J.

+sultana+fertilizers&oq=J.

+Sultana+fertilizer#d=gs_qabs&t=1666066775316&u=%23p

%3DUjjBcM8fgJ

Jukka Kivelä, Lin Chen, Susanna Muurinen, Pirjo Kivijärvi, Veikko

Hintikainen, Juha Helenius. (2015, June 27). Agricultural

and Food Science (AFSci). Retrieved from

www.googleschoalr.com:

https://journal.fi/afs/article/view/8587

J. A. Dieleman & E. Heuvelink. (2015, November 27). Informa UK

Limited . Retrieved from www.googlescholar.com:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221589.1992.11

516214

J.A Dilieman, E. Heuvelink . (2015). Factors affecting the number

of leaves preceding the first inflorescence in the tomato.

Retrieved from https://scholar.google.com:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00221589.1992.11

516214

Jeffry Bryant Jones, Thomas Andrew Zitter, Timur M Momol, Sally A

Miller . (2014). www.googlescholar.com. Retrieved from

American Phytopathological Society:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
 start=30&q=tomato&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5#d=gs_qabs&t=1669357540442

&u=%23p%DVHBrW4jSMQsJ

Lijan Leng, Jiaqi Zhang, Siyu Xu, Qin XIong, Xinwei Xu, Jianan

LI, Huajun Huang. (2019). sciencedirect.com. Retrieved from

www.google.com: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?

hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&qLeng

%2C+2019+bone+meal&btnG=#gs_qabs&t=1666067330602&u=%23p

%3DhlxnKSwuAGEJ

Majee, Subhasish; Sarkar, Kalyan Kumar; Sarkhel, Rwiddhi; Halder,

Gopinath; Mandal, Tamal. (2022, January 1).

worldwidescience.com. Retrieved from www.google.com:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36270128

Malihe Masoudi, Viktória Vona, Márton Vona. (2021, December).

Journal of Landscape Ecology. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358906347_ASSESSMEN

T_OF_THE_RELATIONSHIP_BETWEEN_SOIL_PROPERTIES_IN_AN_OLD_TREE

LINE_AND_ITS_RELATION_TO_TREE_DENSITY_AND_TREE_TRUNK_CIRCUMF

ERENCE

Moller, K. (2015). orgprints.org. Retrieved from www.google.com:

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?
 hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=bone+meal+as+fertilizer*&oq=bone+m#d=gs

_qads&t=1666053029393&u=%23t%3D_MXxFmbmaGEJ

Muhammad Hasnain, Jiawei Chen, Nazeer Ahmed, Shumaila Memon, Lei

Wang, Yimei wang, Pnig wang. (2020). scholar.google.com.

Retrieved January 16, 2023, from www.google.com:

https://www.mdpi.com/876260

Nan Wu, Xiaobo Wang, Zhiyue Mao, Jiaqi Liang, Xinyuan Liu,

Xiaoyan Xu. (2022). ttps://scholar.google.com. Retrieved

from google.com:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030147972

2001529

Nogalska, A. (2016). agriculturejournals.cz. Retrieved from

www.google.com: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?

hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=bone+meal+as+fertilizer*&oq=bone+m#d=gs

_qads&t=1666053029393&u=%23t%3D_MXxFmbmaGEJ

P T Bhaskoro1, W Tjahjaningsih2 and A S Mubarak2. (2020). OP

Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science.

Retrieved from www.googlescholar.com:

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1755-

1315/441/1/012144/meta

Puisis, E. (2022, May 12). The Spruce. Retrieved from

www.google.com: htttps://www.thespruce.com/bone-meal-
 fertilizer-pros-and-cons-5093936

Rahnemoonfar, M., and Sheppard, C. . (2017). scholar.google.com.

Retrieved January 16, 2023, from www.google.com:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.57575

1/full#B30

Recreation, D. o. (2023, March 28). https://www.mass.gov/.

Retrieved from www.google.com:

https://www.mass.gov/how-to/how-to-measure-

trees#:~:text=Measure%20Circumference&text=It%20is%20easiest

%20to%20measure,natural%20lean%20of%20the%20tree.

Rochester, U. o. (2022). University of Rochester Medical Center

Rochester, N.Y. Retrieved from www.google.com:

https://www.urmc.rochester.edu/encyclopedia/content.aspx?

contenttypeid=19&contentid=BoneMeal

Ryczkowski, A. (2021). homeguides.sfgate.com. Retrieved from

www.google.com: https://homeguides.sfgate.com/figure-out-

circumference-tree-35761.html

Sons, W. C. (n.d.). https://www.dictionary.com. Retrieved from

DICTIONARY.com.

Stahl, C. (n.d.). Journal of Tropical Ecology.

Supply, A. O. (2013, 28 December). alisorganics. Retrieved from

www.google.com:

https://www.alisorganics.com/blogs/news/11135845-bone-meal-

vs-fish-bone-meal

University, C. (2022). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from

www.google.com:

htttps://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/effe

ctiveness

University, C. (2022). Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from

www.google.com:

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/ferti

lizer

University, U. S. (2019). Utah State University Extension .

Retrieved from Google.com site :

https://extension.usu.edu/waterquality/agriculturewq/fertili

zer

Vassilev, N. (2018, December 31). How to measure tomato plant

height in the pot experiment? Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/How-to-measure-tomato-

plant-height-in-the-pot-experiment/

5c2a212f4921eebe123f43ed/citation/download.
Won Jun Jo & Jong Hwa Shin. (2020). scholar.google.com. Retrieved

January 16, 2023, from www.google.com:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13580-020-00283-1
Appendixes
 Appendix A
Communication Letter
 Appendix B
Reasearch Instrrument
 Panitan Natinal High School
Pob. Ilawod, Panitan, Capiz

Collection of Data
Week 1
(February 25, 2023)
Treatment Plant Height Circumference Number of
of trunks leaves
(cm)
(mm)

A1 3.5 0.6 2

A2 3.5 0.7 2

A3 3.4 0.6 2

B1 3.0 0.7 2

B2 3.3 0.7 2

B3 3.1 0.7 2

Cn1 3.1 0.6 2

Cn2 3.2 0.7 2

Cn3 3.0 0.6 2

Prepared by: Justified by:

Wilmar Barroa Ms. Angel D. Bodegas, MAT

Vettina Mae L. Domopoy Adviser
Jovic Angelo Donado
Jericho D. Duro
Generica Clynde D. Elebare
Jean Ann Mayo
Thessalie June D. Tawagin
Researcher
 Panitan Natinal High School
Pob. Ilawod, Panitan, Capiz

Collection of Data
Week 2
(March 4, 2023)

Treatment Plant Height Circumference Number of

of trunks leaves
(cm)
(mm)

A1 3.9 0.8 3

A2 3.7 0.9 4

A3 3.6 0.8 4

B1 3.9 0.8 4

B2 3.7 0.8 3

B3 3.7 0.8 3

Cn1 4.0 0.8 4

Cn2 4.0 0.9 4

Cn3 4.0 0.9 4

Prepared by: Justified by:

Wilmar Barroa Ms. Angel D. Bodegas, MAT

Vettina Mae L. Domopoy Adviser
Jovic Angelo Donado
Jericho D. Duro
Generica Clynde D. Elebare
Jean Ann Mayo
Thessalie June D. Tawagin
Researchers
 Panitan Natinal High School
Pob. Ilawod, Panitan, Capiz

Collection of Data
Week 3
(March 11, 2023)
Treatment Plant Height Circumference Number of
of trunks leaves
(cm)
(mm)

A1 4.0 1.0 5

A2 4.0 1.0 6

A3 4.1 0.9 6

B1 4.2 1.0 6

B2 4.1 1.0 5

B3 4.0 0.9 5

Cn1 4.5 1.1 7

Cn2 4.6 0.9 6

Cn3 4.4 0.9 7

Prepared by: Justified by:

Wilmar Barroa Ms. Angel D. Bodegas, MAT

Vettina Mae L. Domopoy Adviser
Jovic Angelo Donado
Jericho D. Duro
Generica Clynde D. Elebare
Jean Ann Mayo
Thessalie June D. Tawagin
Researchers
 Panitan Natinal High School
Pob. Ilawod, Panitan, Capiz

Collection of Data
Week 4
(March 18, 2023)
Treatment Plant Height Circumference Number of
of trunks leaves
(cm)
(mm)

A1 4.5 1.2 8

A2 4.4 1.2 8

A3 4.5 1.1 8

B1 4.3 1.1 7

B2 4.2 1.1 6

B3 4.4 1.1 7

Cn1 5.5 1.2 9

Cn2 5.6 1.1 8

Cn3 5.5 1.1 9

Prepared by: Justified by:

Wilmar Barroa Ms. Angel D. Bodegas, MAT

Vettina Mae L. Domopoy Adviser
Jovic Angelo Donado
Jericho D. Duro
Generica Clynde D. Elebare
Jean Ann Mayo
Thessalie June D. Tawagin
Researchers
 Panitan Natinal High School
Pob. Ilawod, Panitan, Capiz

Collection of Data
Week 5
(March 25, 2023)
Treatment Plant Height Circumference Number of
of trunks leaves
(cm)
(mm)

A1 5.4 1.4 9

A2 5.4 1.4 10

A3 5.5 1.3 10

B1 5.3 1.2 9

B2 5.2 1.3 8

B3 5.4 1.2 8

Cn1 6.4 1.4 11

Cn2 6.6 1.4 11

Cn3 6.5 1.4 10

Prepared by: Justified by:

Wilmar Barroa Ms. Angel D. Bodegas, MAT

Vettina Mae L. Domopoy Adviser
Jovic Angelo Donado
Jericho D. Duro
Generica Clynde D. Elebare
Jean Ann Mayo
Thessalie June D. Tawagin
Researchers

Panitan Natinal High School

 Pob. Ilawod, Panitan, Capiz

Collection of Data
Week 6
(April 1, 2023)
Treatment Plant Height Circumference Number of
of trunks leaves
(cm)
(mm)

A1 6.5 1.5 11

A2 6.6 1.4 12

A3 6.6 1.4 12

B1 6.5 1.3 11

B2 6.5 1.3 11

B3 6.5 1.3 12

Cn1 5.1 1.5 13

Cn2 8.1 1.5 12

Cn3 8.1 1.5 12

Prepared by: Justified by:

Wilmar Barroa Ms. Angel D. Bodegas, MAT

Vettina Mae L. Domopoy Adviser
Jovic Angelo Donado
Jericho D. Duro
Generica Clynde D. Elebare
Jean Ann Mayo
Thessalie June D. Tawagin
Researchers
 Appendix C
Statistical Data Analysis

Statistics

CRD Height of Plant Circumference of Number of Leaves

Trunk

Mean 4.6167 1.0667 6.7778

N 18 18 18
Treatment A
Std. Deviation 1.10839 .29704 3.47352

Variance 1.229 .088 12.065

Mean 4.5167 1.0167 6.1667
N 18 18 18
Treatment B
Std. Deviation 1.13410 .22557 3.22217
Variance 1.286 .051 10.382
Mean 5.1222 1.0833 7.3889
N 18 18 18
Treatment C
Std. Deviation 1.55698 .31296 3.72810
ANOVA
Variance 2.424 .098 13.899
Mean 4.7519 1.0556 6.7778

N 54 54 54
Total
Std. Deviation 1.28676 .27723 3.45137

Variance 1.656 .077 11.912

 Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between
3.794 2 1.897 1.152 .324
Groups
Height
Within Groups 83.961 51 1.646

Total 87.755 53
Between
.043 2 .022 .274 .761
Groups
Circumference
Within Groups 4.030 51 .079
Total 4.073 53
Between
13.444 2 6.722 .555 .578
Groups
No. of leaves
Within Groups 617.889 51 12.115

Total 631.333 53

Robust Tests of Equality of Means

Statistica df1 df2 Sig.

Welch .924 2 33.385 .407

Height
Brown-Forsythe 1.152 2 45.870 .325
Welch .317 2 33.219 .730
Circumference
Brown-Forsythe .274 2 47.846 .761
Welch .547 2 33.880 .584
No of leaves
Brown-Forsythe .555 2 50.293 .578

a. Asymptotically F distributed.
 Appendix D
Documentation