CHAPTER V

SUMMARY, FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This chapter presents the summary, findings, conclusion, and recommendations of

the experimental research attempted to investigate the knowledge and perceived

efficiency of poo (faeces) from cow (bus tauros) as an alternative paper bag.

SUMMARY

This study the knowledge and perceived efficiency of poo (faeces) from cow (bus tauros)

as an alternative paper bag.

It further sought to:

1. Determine what treatment is the best in making poo paper in terms of

Durability, Texture, and Usability:

2. Determine the significant difference between the post experiment and the

commercial paper bag in terms of: Durability, Texture, and Usability:

3. determine if the is Poo (Faeces) of Cow (Bos Taurus) feasible in making an

alternative paper bag?

Different Data Analysis Methods were used in order to analyse the gathered data

by the researchers. The following methods were used.

1. The mean was used to determine which among the treatment groups will

produce the highest results in terms of Durability, Texture, and usability

2. The mean was used to determine which treatment group is the best for making

an alternative paper bag

 3. ANOVA was used to determine if there is a significant difference

between the treatment groups of jackfruit and sweet potato leaves paper in terms

of germination.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

PROBLEM 1: what treatment is the best in making poo paper in terms of Durability,

Texture, and Usability:

Durability,

Treatment 3 had the highest result in terms of durability of the plantable paper with an

average of .3.5

a) Texture,

Treatment 3 had the highest result in terms of texture of the plantable paper with an

average of .

b) Usability,

Treatment 3 has the highest result in terms of usability.

PROBLEM 2: What is the significant difference between the post experiment and the

commercial paper bag in terms of:

A. Durability

In

B. Texture

C. Usability
PROBLEM 3: Is Poo (Faeces) of Cow (Bos Taurus) feasible in making an alternative paper bag?

Based from the gathered data, we will reject the alternative hypothesis (Ho) and accept the

Null hypothesis Ha, we therefore conclude that poo (faeces) is not feasible in making an

alternative paper bag.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the findings, the following conclusion were drawn:

Problem 1:

a) Durability: Based from the gathered data, treatment 3 had the highest result in terms

of durability with an average of 3.17 for treatment 2 it had an average of 1.67, and for

treatment 1 it had an average of 1.5.

b) Texture: Based from the gathered data, treatment 3 had the highest result in terms of

texture with an average of 2.67, for treatment 2 it had an average of 1.5, and for

treatment 1 it had an average of 0.5.

c) Usability: Based from the gathered data, treatment 3 had the highest result in terms of

texture with an average of 2.67, for treatment 2 it had an average of 1.83, and for

treatment 1 it had an average of 1.33.

d) We therefore conclude that the treatment 3 produced the highest results and in addition.

We therefore conclude that treatment 3 produced the highest results in terms of

durability, texture, and usability compared to the other treatments.

Problem 2 What is the significant difference between the post experiment and the commercial

paper bag in terms of:

A. Durability- in terms of durability, the commercial paper bag is more durable.

B. Texture-in terms of texture, the post experiment is rough

C. Usability – the commercial paper bag is more usable than the post experiment.

Problem 3: Based from the gathered data it shows that we have to reject the alternative

hypothesis Ha, and therefore we conclude to accept the null hypothesis H o. therefore poo (faeces)

from cow (bus tauros) is not feasible in making alternative paper bag.
Recommendation: