APPLICATION OF EMPTY FRUIT BUNCH COMPOST WITH THE

COMBINATION OF CHICKEN MANURE ON THE GROWTH AND

PRODUCTION OF CALABASH GOURD (LAGENARIA SICERARIA)

MOHAMMAD HAZIQ BIN AMDAN

Final Year Project Report Submitted in

Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the
Degree of Bachelor of Science (Hons.) Plantation Management and Technology
in the Faculty of Plantation and Agrotechnology
Universiti Teknologi MARA

October 2023
DECLARATION

This Final Year Project is a partial fulfilment of the requirements for a degree of
Bachelor of Science (Hons.) Plantation Technology and Management, Faculty of
Plantation and Agrotechnology, Universiti Teknologi MARA.

It is entirely my own work and has not been submitted to any other University or higher
education institution, or for any other academic award in this University. Where use has
been made of the work of other people, it has been fully acknowledged and fully
referenced.

I hereby assign all and every right in the copyright to this Work to the Universiti
Teknologi MARA (UiTM), which henceforth shall be the owner of copyright in this
Work and that any reproduction or use in any form or by any means whatsoever is
prohibited without a written consent of UiTM.

Candidate’s signature: ............................................. Date: ..............................

Name: .......................................................................

I hereby declare that I have checked this project, and in my opinion, this project is
adequate in terms of scope and quality for the award of the degree of Bachelor of
Science (Hons.) Plantation

Technology and Management, Faculty of Plantation and Agrotechnology, Universiti

Teknologi MARA.

Signature: …………………………….....................

Name of Supervisor: ................................................

Position: ...................................................................

Date: .........................................................................

2
 ABSTRACT

This research proposal aims to investigate the effects of applying empty fruit bunch
(EFB) compost, in combination with chicken manure, on the growth and production of
calabash gourd (Lagenaria siceraria). The utilization of agricultural waste materials
such as EFB compost and chicken manure has gained considerable attention due to their
potential as organic fertilizers and their ability to enhance soil fertility, promote
sustainable agriculture, and reduce environmental pollution. The objectives of this study
are: (1) to determine the effect of the combination of EFB compost and chicken manure
on the growth performance and yield of calabash and (2) to determine the formulation
of combination of EFB compost and chicken manure for calabash cultivation. The study
was conducted with a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) in the field with 4
treatments replicated 4 times: T1 (EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil), T2 (EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil), T3 (100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil ), and T4 (150g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil ). Data collection include the growth parameters
pertaining to length of vine, number, size leaves and yield parameters consisting of
number, length, girth and weight of gourds. The data analysis will be conducted using
IBM SPSS version 27 to generate descriptive and inferential statistics. T4 150g of
Chicken Manure + EFB Compost in a 1:2 ratio with topsoil) proves to be the best soil
media significant growth and yield response. Through meticulous observations, it is
noteworthy that T3 surpasses T4 in terms of weight and size. However, despite these
differences, Treatment 4 yields a greater quantity of fruit compared to the other
treatments. Therefore, we can confidently conclude that Treatment 4 holds significant
importance in the context of this experiment.

3
 TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER 1 ............................................................................................................................. 6
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 6
1.0 Background of Study .............................................................................................. 6
1.1 Problem Statement ................................................................................................... 8
1.2 Objectives.................................................................................................................. 8
1.3 Significant of study................................................................................................... 8
1.4 Scope of study ........................................................................................................... 9
1.5 Limitation of study ................................................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 2 ........................................................................................................................... 10
LITERATURE REVIEW...................................................................................................... 10
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................ 10
2.1 Calabash gourd ...................................................................................................... 11
2.2 Chemical fertilizer.................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Organic vegetables ................................................................................................. 13
2.4 Biowaste of Oil palm plantation and EFB Compost ........................................... 14
2.5 Chicken Manure..................................................................................................... 15
CHAPTER 3 ........................................................................................................................... 16
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................ 16
3.1 Experimental site.................................................................................................... 16
3.2 Treatment ............................................................................................................... 16
3.3 Experimental Design .............................................................................................. 16
3.4 Research material and set up experiments. ......................................................... 17
3.5 Parameter of research ........................................................................................... 17
3.6 Data Analysis .......................................................................................................... 18
3.7 Research flow chart. .............................................................................................. 19
3.8 Gantt chart ................................................................................................................... 20
CHAPTER 4 ........................................................................................................................... 21
RESULT AND DISCUSSION............................................................................................... 21
4.1 Mean Length of Vine ................................................................................................... 21
4.2 Mean Number of Leaves.............................................................................................. 24
4.3 Mean Leaf Length ........................................................................................................ 27
4.4 Mean Leaf Width ......................................................................................................... 29

4
 4.5 Number of Fruits.......................................................................................................... 31
4.6 Fruit weight .................................................................................................................. 33
4.7 Fruit length ................................................................................................................... 35
4.8 Fruit width .................................................................................................................... 37
4.9 Overall result ................................................................................................................ 39
DISCUSSION ..................................................................................................................... 40
CHAPTER 5 ........................................................................................................................... 43
CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 43
REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 44

5
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

1.0 Background of Study

Calabash gourd, known scientifically as Lagenaria siceraria, is a fascinating and

versatile plant that has captivated human civilization for centuries. It belongs to the
gourd family, Cucurbitaceae, and is renowned for its distinctive fruit, which is both
functional and aesthetically pleasing. The calabash plant is native to various regions
across the globe, including Africa, Asia, and the Americas, and has played an integral
role in the cultural, culinary, and practical aspects of many societies.

One of the most notable features of the calabash plant is its fruit, which grows in a
variety of shapes and sizes, ranging from small and spherical to elongated and bottle-
like. These fruits have a hard, durable outer shell that matures into a woody consistency,
making them excellent for various practical applications. From ancient times to the
present day, calabash fruits have been utilized by humans for a wide range of purposes,
such as containers, musical instruments, utensils, decorative items, and even as pipes.

In Malaysia, one of the major crops is oil palm (Elaeis Guineensis), which plays a
significant role in the country's exports, particularly to China. Malaysia's oil palm
production constitutes approximately 39% to 40% of the global market. The extensive
cultivation of oil palm covers about 4.49 million hectares, resulting in a substantial
output of 17.73 million tons of palm oil and 2.13 million tons of palm kernel. This
production is expected to increase due to the growing demand for palm oil products
(Ferdous, 2017).

However, the substantial production of oil palm generates a considerable

amount of waste, specifically empty fruit bunches (EFB). EFB poses a detrimental
impact on the environment, leading to pollution, disease, and pest infestation. To
address this issue, EFB compost demonstrates great potential as an organic fertilizer. Its
utilization not only helps restore soil structure and prevent erosion but also provides
essential nutrients for optimal plant growth. Research by Chiew (2002) supports the

6
positive effects of applying EFB in combination with N, P, and K fertilizers on nutrient
absorption rates and overall yield in oil palm cultivation. Therefore, it is recommended
to advocate for the use of EFB alongside appropriate nutrient supplementation to
maximize oil palm nutrition and productivity.

Throughout history, organic manure has been widely acknowledged as a

valuable fertilizer for agricultural production. However, in recent times, the focus has
shifted towards the use of inorganic fertilizers to meet the growing demand for food to
support the ever-expanding global population, particularly in Asia. Despite the
uncertainty regarding its retention in the soil, organic manure positively impacts soil
physical, chemical, and biological properties. The nutrients released from organic
manure contribute to crop growth (Risse et al., 2001). Therefore, incorporating organic
amendments is crucial for enhancing soil productivity and promoting sustainable
agriculture.

Among the various available natural sources of organic materials, poultry or

chicken manure (CM) has long been recognized as one of the most desirable options
due to its high content of nitrogen (N), phosphorus (P), and potassium (K). CM contains
readily available organic-N, ranging from 30% to 50% (Nicholson et al., 1996).
Moreover, manure provides essential micronutrients and acts as soil conditioners. In
intensive cropping systems, achieving the desired agro-economic benefits requires
appropriate application rates, timing, and methods of incorporating CM with integrated
fertilization approaches (Prasad, 1996).

Hence, there is a need to investigate the effect of EFB compost enriched with
chicken manure in improving the yield and quality of calabash plants. The main
purposes of this study were to determine the effect of EFB compost enriched with
chicken manure enhancing the growth, yield and quality of the plants.

7
 1.1 Problem Statement

Planting calabash needs a sufficient nutrient supply during its growing season.
Proper maintenance needs to be done to make sure calabash will be able to grow
efficiently and to prevent it from being attacked by pests and disease. Although
calabash can be grown on almost any type of soil, the trend is organic production of
food crops. There is very little information on calabash being able to produce
economic yield under EFB compost. In addition, Literature review has also
indicated that EFB compost being a slow releasing organic fertilizer may not
provide sufficient nutrients to sustain economic yield and usually animal manure is
added to enhance the fertility status. The appropriate soil pH for calabash is around
6.5-7.0, in acidic soil can be amended by adding EFB compost.

1.2 Objectives

The objectives of this study are:

I. To determine the effect of the combination of EFB compost and chicken manure
on the growth performance and yield of calabash.
II. To determine the formulation of a combination of EFB compost and chicken
manure for calabash cultivation

1.3 Significant of study

This study helps to determine the effectiveness of EFB compost combined with
chicken manure, where it can enhance the production of calabash. The method of using
the EFB will give more nutrients and shading for the soil so it can keep the humidity of
the soil. Meanwhile for the chicken manure, it can provide additional nutrients for the
plant.

8
 1.4 Scope of study

The scope of this study is to investigate the effect of different application rates of
chicken manure and EFB compost on calabash gourd production. The finding of this
study also helps in understanding the combination of EFB compost and chicken manure
compost at the right ratio in enhancing the growth and production of calabash gourd.

1.5 Limitation of study

The limitation of the study lies in the lack of sufficient information to determine
whether the EFB is suitable for the plant under investigation. Furthermore, regarding
the specific plant species being studied, namely the calabash plant, it is crucial to note
that it is highly susceptible to adverse effects when deprived of proper watering and
essential nutrients. In the absence of adequate hydration and nourishment, the calabash
plant's condition will deteriorate significantly, causing it to wither, shrink, and
eventually fall off. Thus, ensuring appropriate levels of watering and nutrient supply is
of paramount importance to maintaining the health and vitality of the calabash plant
during the study.

9
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

2.0 Introduction

The calabash gourd, scientifically known as Lagenaria siceraria and also

known as bottle gourd or calabaza holds economic importance in Malaysia due to
its versatile uses and cultural significance. There are many important things that
brings many benefits to our country. The first one is cultural and traditional uses. The
calabash gourd has a long history of being used in Malaysian culture for various
purposes. It is commonly used as a traditional musical instrument called the
"gamelan" or "angklung." The gourd's unique shape and sound make it an essential
component of traditional music and dance performances.

Next, the calabash gourd is also used extensively in Malaysian handicrafts and
artwork. Skilled artisans carve intricate designs on the gourd's surface to create
decorative items, such as bowls, containers, and ornaments. These handicrafts are
popular among locals and tourists, contributing to the country's arts and crafts
industry.

In addition, while not as prominent as other gourd varieties, the calabash gourd
is sometimes used in Malaysian cuisine. It can be cooked and consumed in various
dishes, including soups, stews, and curries. However, its culinary use is not as
widespread compared to other fruits and vegetables.

Overall, the economic importance of the calabash gourd in Malaysia stems from
its cultural significance, utilization in traditional crafts, and to a lesser extent, its
culinary uses. While it may not be a major agricultural commodity, it plays a role in
the country's cultural heritage and small-scale economic activities.

10
2.1 Calabash gourd

The calabash gourd is a plant characterized by its distinctive botanical features.

It belongs to the Cucurbitaceae family and displays a vigorous climbing vine with
large, lobed leaves that provide ample shade for the developing fruit. The gourd
itself has a unique shape, typically elongated and curving at the neck, resembling a
bottle or a flask. The gourd's outer skin is hard and woody when mature, while the
inner flesh is fibrous and pale in color. In terms of growth and maturity, the calabash
gourd typically takes approximately 80 to 120 days from sowing to reach the stage
of readiness for harvesting. During this period, the plant undergoes various growth
phases, including germination, vine development, flowering, and fruit maturation,
ultimately resulting in a fully matured calabash gourd that can be harvested for
various practical and decorative purposes (Evergreenseeds, 2023).

The calabash gourd thrives in a variety of soil conditions but has specific
requirements when it comes to moisture. It prefers well-draining soil that retains
moisture without becoming waterlogged. Adequate moisture is crucial during the
germination and early growth stages, so regular watering is necessary until the
plants establish strong root systems. However, excessive water can lead to root rot
and other fungal diseases, so it is important to avoid overwatering. Mulching around
the plants helps retain soil moisture and reduces weed competition. Additionally, it
is recommended to water the plants deeply and infrequently rather than frequent
shallow watering to encourage deep root growth and drought tolerance. Regular
monitoring of soil moisture levels and adjusting watering accordingly will ensure
optimal growth and yield of calabash gourds. (Wolters, 2023)

11
2.2 Chemical fertilizer

A fertilizer is a natural or synthetic, chemical-based substance containing one or

more nutrients essential for enhancement of plant growth and soil fertility. Most of
the chemical fertilizers used are NPK fertilizers which are rich in nitrogen (N),
phosphorous (K), and potassium (K) (More, 2019). By supplying these nutrients in
easily accessible forms, chemical fertilizers promote faster plant growth, increased
fruit yield, and improved overall plant health (Haifa Group, 2022).

However, the use of chemical fertilizers on calabash gourd also carries certain
disadvantages. One major drawback is their potential negative impact on the
environment. Excessive or improper application of chemical fertilizers can lead to
water pollution, as the excess nutrients can leach into nearby water bodies, causing
eutrophication and harming aquatic ecosystems.

Moreover, prolonged, and indiscriminate use of chemical fertilizers can lead to

soil degradation. These fertilizers often contain salts that accumulate in the soil over
time, causing soil salinization. This can result in reduced soil fertility, impaired
nutrient absorption by plants, and decreased overall productivity. Additionally,
reliance on chemical fertilizers can disrupt the natural soil ecosystem, leading to a
decline in beneficial microorganisms and earthworm populations. (Haifa Group,
2022).

12
2.3 Organic vegetables

Organic food, fresh or processed food produced by organic farming methods.

Organic food is grown without the use of synthetic chemicals, such as human-made
pesticides and fertilizers, and does not contain genetically modified organisms
(GMOs). Organic foods include fresh produce, meats, and dairy products as well as
processed foods such as crackers, drinks, and frozen meals (Duram L.A, 2019).
Organic vegetables refer to crops that are grown using organic farming methods.
Organic farming is an agricultural practice that emphasizes the use of natural inputs
and techniques while avoiding synthetic chemicals, genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), and irradiation. The cultivation of organic vegetables aims to promote
environmental sustainability, enhance soil fertility, and minimize the negative
impact on ecosystems. Organic vegetables are produced without the use of synthetic
pesticides, herbicides, or fertilizers.

Organic fertilizer is a type of fertilizer derived from natural sources, such as

plant and animal materials, that provides essential nutrients to plants. Organic
fertilizers are produced through processes like composting, animal manure
decomposition, and the use of cover crops. They are rich in organic matter, including
nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium, as well as micronutrients and beneficial
microorganisms. Unlike synthetic fertilizers, organic fertilizers release nutrients
slowly, allowing plants to absorb them more gradually and reducing the risk of
nutrient runoff and pollution. Organic fertilizers also contribute to the improvement
of soil structure, water retention, and overall soil health (Britannica,2019).

13
2.4 Biowaste of Oil palm plantation and EFB Compost

According to Abdul Khalil et al. (2008), EFB contains cellulose (50.9%),

hemicellulose (29.6%), and lignin (17.84%). Lignin is the component of the cell
membrane that gives plants their strength and resistance to microbial degradation
(Shibata et al. 2008). Cellulose and hemicellulose are both potential sources of
energy that can be utilized by the body (Tuomela et al. 2000).

Research is being conducted on inorganic fertilizer to mitigate any potentially

detrimental effects on the environment (Trenkel, 2010). Because the plants do not
completely absorb all the fertilizer that is released into the environment, this
scenario has the potential to cause severe environmental pollution as well as
significant economic and resource losses (Wu and Liu, 2008). In addition, Several
studies have reported on the use of EFB, applied raw (organic mulch), pyrolyzed,
or composted before application to soils (Fig. 1) (Anyaoha et al. 2018). As a mulch,
EFBs primarily enhance soil water retention.

When applied in the composted form or as biochar, EFBs improved soil water
and nutrient content (Ahmad Dani 2018), possibly due to the losses of C from the
anaerobic respiration involved in composting or the pyrolysis involved in biochar
preparation (Fig. 1). EFBs may be a cheap organic fertilizer (Lim et al. 2015)
because they can improve soil organic carbon (SOC) and other soil chemical
properties such as pH and exchangeable K (Zaharah and Lim, 2000; Bakar et
al. 2011).

14
2.5 Chicken Manure

There are different amounts of water, mineral nutrients, and organic matter in
organic waste (Edwards and Daniel, 1992; Brady and Weil, 1996). Although organic
wastes have been used as manure for centuries, it is still important to study the
potential effects of chicken manure on the chemical properties of the soil and crop
yield, as well as determine the appropriate application levels. Additionally, chicken
manure is more desirable and widely used compared to other animal manures such
as pig manure and kraal manure due to its higher levels of N, P, and K (Warman,
1986; Schjegel, 1992).

Due to the rise in fuel prices, the prices of inorganic fertilizers have gone up,
which has led to the use of chicken manure (Place et al., 2003; Duncan, 2005).
Composted chicken manure provides a slow-release source of macro- and
micronutrients and acts as a soil amendment. Addition of organic matter to soils
increases a soil’s water-holding capacity, improves aeration and drainage, reduces
erosion, reduces fertilizer leaching and improves a soil’s structure. Additionally,
organic matter provides a food source for soil microbes, which increases soil
biological diversity, accelerating the breakdown of organic nutrients into forms
more readily available to plants. All these factors can improve plant health (Rosen,
2005).

One source of organic fertilizer that is widely available to farmers is chicken

manure. Fertilizer from caged chickens has great potential due to the large number
of breeding chickens that can be used as fertilizer. According to Hasibuan, whole
chicken manure contains 55% H2O, 1.00% N, 0.80% P2O5, and 0.04% K2O. The
research results show that chicken manure from cages has a very positive effect on
soil fertility and plant growth, and can even improve production outcomes (Pradana
et al., 2012). The research findings recommend applying a dose of 5 tons/ha or 10
tons/ha of chicken manure to enhance the vegetative and generative development of
plants.

15
 CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

3.1 Experimental site

The experimental site was held at Blok N, Unit Ladang UiTM Samarahan 1
Campus.

3.2 Treatment

There were 4 treatments in this study which were:

T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil
T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil
T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil
T4: 150g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

3.3 Experimental Design

A Random Complete Block Design (RCBD) used as a design for this study with
four replications as shown in Figure 3.1.

BLOCK 1 BLOCK 2 BLOCK 3 BLOCK 4

T1R1 T4R2 T2R3 T3R4
T4R1 T3R2 T1R3 T2R4
T3R1 T2R2 T4R3 T1R4
T2R1 T1R2 T3R3 T4R4

Figure 3.1: Layout of the experiment using Random Complete Block Design with 4
treatments replicated 4 times.

16
3.4 Research material and set up experiments.

The research material that used in these experiments were polybag,

calabash gourd seeds, germination tray, EFB Compost and chicken manure. The seeds
of calabash gourd germinated in a germination tray for 2 weeks. After 2 weeks the
uniformed seedlings selected and transplanted into a polybag (15cm x 20cm) with a
potting mixture of the four treatments. Watering and weeding had been carried out
accordingly to maintain an adequate moisture level in the growth medium and prevent
competition from weeds.

3.5 Parameter of research

In this research, several parameters had been observed which were:

I. Length of vine (Measured with a measuring tape in unit measurement of cm)

II. Number of leaves
III. Size of leaf (length and width) (Measured with a measuring tape in unit
measurement of cm)
IV. Number of Gourds
V. Length and Width Gourds (Measured with a measuring tape in unit
measurement of cm)
Weight of Gourd (Measured with a digital weighing machine in unit measurement
of g)

17
3.6 Data Analysis

The data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS version 27 to generate descriptive
and inferential statistics. Analysis of Variances (ANOVA) determined the significant
differences of treatments and Duncan Multiple Range Test determined the significant
differences between treatments.

18
3.7 Research flow chart.

The research flow chart is shown in Figure 3.2.

Setting up the Experiment with Randomised

Complete Block Design with four treatments
replicated four times

Soil Preparation and Experimental setting up and

application of Treatments

Pre-germinating of Seeds and Transplanting of

Seedlings
General Maintenance of plants

Data Collection

Length of Vines Number of Leaves, Size of Leaves Fruits

at weekly at weekly intervals
intervals

Length of Weight of Number of

Fruits Fruits Fruits

Data Analysis

Thesis Writing

Figure 3.2: Research flowchart

19
 3.8 Gantt chart

The Gantt chart is shown in Figure 3.3

Item
Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

Literature review / / / / /

Proposal preparation / / / / /

Proposal submission /

Preparing polybag /

Seedlings /
germination

Transplant seedlings / /
into polybag

Applying treatment /

Parameter / / / /
measuring.

Data Collection / / / /

Data Analysis / / / / / /

Thesis Writing / / / / /

Thesis Submission /

Figure 3.3: Gantt chart

20
 CHAPTER 4

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

The effect of the combination of EFB compost and chicken manure on the growth
performance and yield of calabash gourd is presented.

4.1 Mean Length of Vine

The mean vine lengths from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7 weeks is
shown in Figure 4.1. At Week 2, the effect of treatments has exhibited rapid growth in
Treatment 3 as compared to the other 3 treatments. At Week 3, the mean plant vine was
observed to be much longer in T3 and T4 when compared to T2 and T1. Starting from
Week 4, the growth in Treatment 4 accelerated, maintaining a consistent upward trend
until the final week. The pattern of the growth in mean vine length was similar in all
treatments with T4 observed to have the longest length followed by T3, T2 and lastly
T1.

Figure 4.1: Mean vine length of Calabash gourd from 4 treatments over a growth period
of 7 weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio
of 1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2
to topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

21
There are very significant differences between the treatments as shown in Table 4.1
where ANOVA obtained a p value of < 0.001.

Table 4.1 : ANOVA mean vine length from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7
weeks T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1
to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil;
Significance is at ɑ = 0.05

Source Type III Sum df Mean F Sig.

of Squares Square
TREATMENT 314580.436 3 104860.145 19.360 <.001
WEEK 2986823.257 6 497803.876 91.907 <.001
BLOCK 164114.968 3 54704.989 10.100 <.001
Error 536222.436 99 5416.388
Total 4001741.097 111
a. R Squared = .866 (Adjusted R Squared = .850)

Figure 4.2 Overall mean vine length of Calabash gourd from 4 treatments over a growth
period of 7 weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in
a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio
of 1:2 to topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil

22
Table 4.2: Duncan Multiple Range Test of mean vine length from 4 treatments over a
growth period of 7 weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in
a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance is at ɑ = 0.05

Subset
TREATMENT N 1 2 3
T1 28 200.8393
T2 28 244.6679
T3 28 307.7607
T4 28 336.3893
Sig. 1.000 1.000 .149
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 5416.388.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 28.000.
b. Alpha = 0.05.

23
4.2 Mean Number of Leaves

Figure 4.3 shows the mean number of leaves observed over a 7 weeks of growth period.
The mean number of leaf patterns are very similar throughout the growth period after
Week 5. The meanest number of leaves is observed from T4 followed by T3 and T2.
The least mean number of leaves is observed from T1.

Figure 4.3: mean number of leaves from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7
weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of
1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

There are very significant differences between treatments as ANOVA obtained a p

value of <0.001 as shown in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: ANOVA of mean number of leaves from 4 treatments over a growth period
of 7 weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio
of 1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2
to topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil;
Significance is at ɑ = 0.05

Type III Sum of Mean

Source Squares df Square F Sig.
WEEK 43518.875 6 7253.146 70.512 <.001
BLOCK 2028.179 3 676.060 6.572 <.001
TREATMEN 2129.607 3 709.869 6.901 <.001
T
Error 10183.589 99 102.865
Total 57860.250 111

24
The overall mean number of leaves is shown in Figure 4.4. Based on Duncan Multiple
Range Test (Table 4.4), T4 is not significantly different from T3 but is significantly
different from all the other treatments. While T3 is also not significantly different from
T2, it is significantly different from T1. T1 and T2 are not significantly different from
each other.

Figure 4.4: Overall mean number of leaves from 4 treatments over a growth period of
7 weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of
1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

Table 4.4: Duncan Multiple Range Test of mean vine length from 4 treatments over a
growth period of 7 weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in
a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance is at ɑ = 0.05

TREATMENT N 1 2 3
T1 28 24.07
T2 28 27.25 27.25
T3 28 31.57 31.57
T4 28 35.61
Sig. 0.244 0.114 0.140
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 102.865.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 28.000.

25
b. Alpha = 0.05.

There is a significant difference between treatment 4 and treatment 3. Same with

treatment 3 and treatment 2. Meanwhile, treatment 2 and treatment 1 also have a
significant difference. From the table, we can conclude that treatment 4: 150g of
Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil is suitable and gives a positive
result on leaf length.

26
4.3 Mean Leaf Length

Figure 4.5 show treatment 1 was the lowest length of leaf. For the other treatment,
treatment 3 is the highest length of leaf meanwhile treatment 4 is the second highest for
the length of leaf.

Figure 4.5: mean number of leaves from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7
weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of
1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

There are very significant differences between treatments as ANOVA obtained a p

value of <0.001 as shown in Table 4.5.

Type III Sum Mean

ource of Squares df Square F Sig.
WEEK 43518.875 6 7253.146 70.512 <.001
BLOCK 2028.179 3 676.060 6.572 <.001
TREATMENT 2129.607 3 709.869 6.901 <.001
Error 10183.589 99 102.865
Total 57860.250 111

27
The overall mean leaf length is shown in Figure 4.5. Based on Duncan Multiple Range
Test (Table 4.5), T4 is not significantly different from T3 but is significantly different
from all the other treatments. While T3 is also not significantly different from T2, it is
significantly different from T1. T1 and T2 are not significantly different from each other.

Figure 4.5: Overall mean leaf length from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7
weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of
1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

Table 4.5: Duncan Multiple Range Test of mean leaf length from 4 treatments over a
growth period of 7 weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in
a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance is at ɑ = 0.05

Subset
TREATMENT N 1 2 3
T1 28 18.9036
T2 28 20.0321
T4 28 22.9607
T3 28 23.7000
Sig. 1.000 1.000 .087
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 2.557.
a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 28.000.

28
4.4 Mean Leaf Width

Figure 4.6 shows that from week 1, there are no big differences in leaf width but start
from week 3, the mean of width leaf started to increase. Treatment 4 shows the highest
growth of width leaf other than other treatment.

Figure 4.6: Mean leaf width of Calabash gourd from 4 treatments over a growth period
of 7 weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio
of 1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2
to topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

There are very significant differences between the treatments as shown in Table 4.6
where ANOVA obtained a p value of < 0.001.

Table 4.6 : ANOVA of mean leaf width between other treatment from 4 treatments over
a growth period of 7 weeks: 4 growth are higher than other treatment T1: EFB Compost
in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of
Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil and T4: 150g of
Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance is at ɑ = 0.05

Type III Sum of Mean

Source Squares df Square F Sig.
WEEK 1823.967 6 303.994 118.885 <.001
BLOCK 23.224 3 7.741 3.027 .033
TREATMENT 443.212 3 147.737 57.777 <.001
Error 253.147 99 2.557
Corrected 2543.550 111
Total

29
The accumulative mean leaf width is indicated in Figure 4.6. The significance is shown
in Table 4.6

Figure 4.7: Overall mean leaf width from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7
weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of
1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

Table 4.7: Duncan comparison of mean leaf width between other treatment from 4
treatments over a growth period of 7 weeks: 4 growth are higher than other treatment
T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to
topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil
and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance
is at ɑ = 0.05

Subset
TREATMENT N 1 2 3
T1 28 22.1500
T2 28 24.4321
T3 28 28.4321
T4 28 28.6571
Sig. 1.000 1.000 .702
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 4.810.

30
4.5 Number of Fruits

Figure 4.8 shows the mean difference between the number of fruits from week 5 until
week 7. Figure 4.8 shows that only treatment 4 consistent on producing the fruits for
period of 3 weeks. For treatment 3, it shows that the mean number that it produces are
1 which is on week 7. Treatment 2 produce a mean number of 2 fruits which was from
week 5 and 6. Treatment 1 only produce aa mean number of 1 fruits which were from
week 7.

Figure 4.8: Mean number of fruits from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7 weeks.
T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to
topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil
and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

There are no significant differences between the treatments as shown in Table 4.8 where
ANOVA did not obtain a p value of < 0.001.

Table 4.8: ANOVA of mean number of fruits between other treatment from 4 treatments
over a growth period of 7 weeks: 4 growth are higher than other treatment T1: EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil; T3:
100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil and T4:
150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance is at ɑ
= 0.05

Type III Sum Mean

Source of Squares df Square F Sig.
WEEK .000 2 .000 . .
BLOCK .000 3 .000 . .
TREATMENT .000 3 .000 . .
Error .000 0 .
Total .000 11

31
Figure 4.9: Overall mean number of fruits from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7
weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of
1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

32
4.6 Fruit weight

Based on figure 4.10, treatment 1 was the lowest number of mean fruit weight.
Treatment 2 shows the highest number of mean fruit weight which. Treatment 3 were
the second lowest from treatment 1 and treatment 4 shows the second highest of mean
fruit weight after treatment 2.

Figure 4.10: Mean fruits weight from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7 weeks. T1:
EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil;
T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil and T4:
150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

There are no significant differences between the treatments as shown in Table 4.10
where ANOVA did not obtain a p value of < 0.001.

Table 4.10: ANOVA of mean fruits weight between other treatment from 4 treatments
over a growth period of 7 weeks: 4 growth are higher than other treatment T1: EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil; T3:
100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil and T4:
150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance is at ɑ
= 0.05

Type III Sum Mean

Source of Squares df Square F Sig.
WEEK 1147042.609 2 573521.305 3.541 .130
TREATMENT 2262762.489 3 754254.163 4.657 .086
BLOCK 1006338.633 3 335446.211 2.071 .247
Error 647809.022 4 161952.255
Total 3515353.692 12

33
Figure 4.10: Overall mean fruits weight from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7
weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of
1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

Table 4.10: Duncan comparison of mean fruits weight between other treatment from 4
treatments over a growth period of 7 weeks: 4 growth are higher than other treatment
T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to
topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil
and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance
is at ɑ = 0.05
TREATMENT N SUBSET
1
T1 3 308.0000
T2 2 994.0000
T3 6 1091.1667
T4 2 1277.5000
Sig. .054
Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 2.557.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 28.000.

34
4.7 Fruit length

Figure 4.11: Mean fruits length from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7 weeks. T1:
EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil;
T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil and T4:
150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

There are no significant differences between the treatments as shown in Table 4.11
where ANOVA did not obtain a p value of < 0.001.

Table 4.11: ANOVA of mean fruits length between other treatment from 4 treatments
over a growth period of 7 weeks: 4 growth are higher than other treatment T1: EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil; T3:
100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil and T4:
150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance is at ɑ
= 0.05

Type III Sum of Mean

Source Squares df Square F Sig.
WEEK 433.308 2 216.654 4.115 .107
BLOCK 592.303 3 197.434 3.750 .117
TREATMEN 938.136 3 312.712 5.940 .059
T
Error 210.586 4 52.647
Total 1579.008 12

35
Figure 4.12: Overall mean fruits length from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7
weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of
1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

Table 4.12: Duncan comparison of mean fruits weight between other treatment from 4
treatments over a growth period of 7 weeks: 4 growth are higher than other treatment
T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to
topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil
and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance
is at ɑ = 0.05

TREATMENT N SUBSET SUBSET

1 2
T1 3 20.1667
T2 2 36.5500 36.5500
T3 6 37.2500 37.3500
T4 2 40.3000
Sig. .056 .587
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 52.647.
Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 2.667.
The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic meaning of the group sizes is used. Type I
error levels are not guaranteed.
Alpha = 0.05.

36
4.8 Fruit width

From figure 4.13, treatment 1 was the lowest mean number of fruit width. The second
lowest mean was treatment 3. Next, the highest mean number of fruit width was from
treatment 4 and the second highest of mean number of fruit width was from treatment
2.

Figure 4.13: Mean fruits width from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7 weeks. T1:
EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil;
T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil and T4:
150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

There are no significant differences between the treatments as shown in Table 4.13
where ANOVA did not obtained a p value of < 0.001.

Table 4.13: ANOVA of mean fruits weight between other treatment from 4 treatments
over a growth period of 7 weeks: 4 growth are higher than other treatment T1: EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to topsoil; T3:
100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil and T4:
150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance is at ɑ
= 0.05

Type III Sum of Mean

Source Squares df Square F Sig.
WEEK 1147042.609 2 573521.305 3.541 .130
BLOCK 1006338.633 3 335446.211 2.071 .247
TREATMEN 2262762.489 3 754254.163 4.657 .086
T
Error 647809.022 4 161952.255
Total 14618138.000 13
37
Corrected 3515353.692 12
Total

Figure 4.14: Overall mean fruits width from 4 treatments over a growth period of 7
weeks: T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of
1:1 to topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil

Table 4.14: : Duncan comparison of mean fruits weight between other treatment from
4 treatments over a growth period of 7 weeks: 4 growth are higher than other treatment
T1: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; T2: EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:1 to
topsoil; T3: 100g of Chicken Manure per kg of EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil
and T4: 150g of Chicken Manure EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil; Significance
is at ɑ = 0.05
TREATMENT N SUBSET 1
T1 3 6.1000
T2 2 8.1500
T3 2 9.0000
T4 6 9.6167
Sig. ,107
Based on observed means.
The error term is Mean Square (Error) = 3.690.
Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 2.667.
The group sizes are unequal. The harmonic mean of the group sizes is used. Type I error
levels are not guaranteed.
Alpha = 0.05.

38
4.9 Overall result

Treatment T1 T2 T3 T4
(EFB Compost (EFB (100g of (150g of
in a ratio of 1:2 Compost in a Chicken Chicken
to topsoil) ratio of 1:1 to Manure per kg Manure per kg
topsoil) of EFB of EFB
Compost in a Compost in a
ratio of 1:2 to ratio of 1:2 to
topsoil) topsoil)

Plant length /

Number of / / / /
fruits

Fruit weight /

Fruit length /

Fruit width /

Number of /
leaves

Leaf length /

Leaf width /

Based on the table above, Treatment 4 have the highest and provide the good result,
while Treatment 1 have the lowest result. The (/) symbols were determining the overall
highest result for all the parameters.

39
 DISCUSSION

This research proposal aims to investigate the effects of applying empty fruit bunch
(EFB) compost, in combination with chicken manure, on the growth and production of
calabash gourd (Lagenaria siceraria). From the line chart below, treatment 4 (150g of
Chicken Manure per EFB Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil) was the most significant
among other treatment. It shows that T4 is the longest plant length among the other
treatment. From week 1 until 2, the growth of plant length is consistent and started to
increase from week 2 until 7. It has been showed that 150g of Chicken Manure per EFB
Compost in a ratio of 1:2 to topsoil show a positive impact and provide a high potassium
and nutrient that improved the soil fertility. When applied in the composted form or as
biochar, EFBs improved soil water and nutrient content (Ahmad Dani 2018). Similar
finding was reported by Chan et al. (2019) in the Choy Sam study. In addition, chicken
manure also improves the growth of the plant. According to Hasibuan, whole chicken
manure contains 55% H2O, 1.00% N, 0.80% P2O5, and 0.04% K2O. The research
results show that chicken manure from cages has a very positive effect on soil fertility
and plant growth, and can even improve production outcomes (Pradana et al., 2012).
This can be conclude that chicken manure is effective on plant growth.

40
From the graph below that the number of fruits is same for each treatment which was
1 for each treatment. However, from the graph below, treatment 4 had the greatest
number of fruits produced which is it has fruits produced for each block. This is
happening because the main issue with bottle gourd is pollination even though it
produces large number of male and female flowers (generally 10:1 ratio). Pollination
depends on bees. In general, if the pollination does not occur, female flower will grow
initially but fall off later. (Dr. Ravishankar Narayana, 2016). In addition, the
environment also plays a big role in the yield. Bottle gourd likes plenty of sunlight and
does not grow well in shady areas. The plant grows well under warm temperatures (25
to 35ºC). Under frost–free, low temperature conditions it will also grow well provided
the plants have attained sufficient vegetative growth before the onset of cool weather.
Optimum germination temperature is between 20 and 25ºC. Temperatures below 15ºC
and above 35ºC reduce the germination rate. We can also conclude that the plant needs
additional nutrients to produce fruits which is treatment 4 had the most nutrient between
other treatment.

41
From the graph below, the highest mean of fruit weight is from treatment 3. This means
that treatment 3 provides enough nutrients needed for the plant. According to Hasibuan,
whole chicken manure contains 55% H2O, 1.00% N, 0.80% P2O5, and 0.04% K2O.
The research results show that chicken manure from cages has a very positive effect on
soil fertility and plant growth, and can even improve production outcomes (Pradana et
al., 2012). Oil palm empty fruit bunches can improve soil improvement quality and
serve as a nutrient source for cultivated plants or crops. EFB contains 0.91 % N, 2.13 %
P and 6.68 % K Siddiquee et al. (2017), The ANOVA finding also indicates that for the
mean of fruit weight, treatment 3 are significant among the other treatment. Even though
it produces a low quantity of fruits, it produces the highest weight of fruits. Higher rate
of chicken manure can be detrimental to the fruit quality. This is observed as T3
produced better quality fruit than T4 in terms of size and shape. The fruits are heavier
with higher mean weight. Higher rate of chicken manure can be detrimental to the fruit
quality. This is also attributed by the larger leaf size which is compensating by lesser
number of leaves as compared to T4.

42
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, T4 (150g of Chicken Manure + EFB Compost in a 1:2 ratio with topsoil)
proves to be the best soil media significant growth and yield response. Through
meticulous observations, it is noteworthy that T3 surpasses T4 in terms of weight and
size. However, despite these differences, Treatment 4 yields a greater quantity of fruit
compared to the other treatments. Therefore, we can confidently conclude that
Treatment 4 holds significant importance in the context of this experiment.

43
REFERENCES

1. Hidayat et al, (2020). Growth and production of mustard green in inceptisol

application with empty fruit bunch. 4-9.

2. Admin. (2017). Growing Bottle gourd. Ugaoo.

https://www.ugaoo.com/blogs/kitchen-gardening/how-to-grow-bottle-gourd-
lauki

3. Adu, M. O., Atia, K., Arthur, E., Asare, P. A., Obour, P. B., Danso, E. O.,
Frimpong, K. A., Sanleri, K. A., Asare-Larbi, S., Adjei, R., Mensah, G. A., &
Andersen, M. N. (2022). The use of oil palm empty fruit bunches as a soil
amendmentto improve growth and yield of crops. A meta-analysis. Agronomy
for Sustainable Development, 42(2). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-022-
00753-z

4. Britannica, T. Editors of Encyclopedia (2019). manure. Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/manure

5. Duram, L. A. (2019). organic food. Encyclopedia Britannica.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/organic-food

6. Dani, U., Budiarti, A. N. S., & Wijaya, A. (2021). Application of Chicken

manure Dosage and Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacetria on the Growth and
Yield of Shallot Plants (Allium ascalonicum L.). IOP Conference Series: Earth
and Environmental Science, 748(1), 012044. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-
1315/748/1/012044

7. Hassani, N. (2022). Using Chicken Manure as Garden Fertilizer. The Spruce.

https://www.thespruce.com/chicken-manure-fertilizer-5189920

8. Hasibuan, BE, 2006. Pupuk dan Pemupukan. USU Press. Field

9. MPOCC, A. (2022). Economic Benefits of Palm Oil — MPOCC. MPOCC.

https://www.mpocc.org.my/mspo-blogs/economic-benefits-of-palm-oil-the-3p-
concept

44
10. Noirot, L. M., Müller-Stöver, D. S., Wahyuningsih, R., Sørensen, H., Sudarno,
N., Simamora, A., Pujianto, N., Suhardi, N., & Caliman, J. (2022). Impacts of
empty fruit bunch applications on soil organic carbon in an industrial oil palm
plantation. Journal of Environmental Management, 317, 115373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2022.115373

11. Rd, M. J. B. P. (2021). What Is Organic Food, and Is It Better Than Non-
Organic Food? Healthline. https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/what-is-
organic-food#more-nutrients

12. Safari_Moe. (2023). The Calabash - a very versatile plant - Tanzania Experts.
Tanzania Experts. https://tanzania-experts.com/the-calabash-a-very-versatile-
plant/

13. Saleem, S., Mushtaq, N., Rasool, A., Shah, W. H., Tahir, I., & Rehman, R. U.
(2023). Plant nutrition and soil fertility. In Elsevier eBooks (pp. 23–49).
https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-443-18675-2.00009-2

14. Seeds, E. (2023). Bottle Gourd (Calabash Gourd) Plant — A Growing & Caring
Guide. Evergreen Seeds. https://www.evergreenseeds.com/bottle-gourd/

15. Using chicken manure safely in home gardens and landscapes | Extension |

University of Nevada, Reno. (n.d.). Extension | University of Nevada, Reno.

https://extension.unr.edu/publication.aspx?PubID=3028#:~:text=Benefits,matt

er%20(Zublena%2C%201993).

16. Zakri, N., & Adam, S. (2021). A review on the potential of empty fruit bunch

(EFB) compost as growing medium for oil palm seedling production. Food

Research, 5(S4), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.26656/fr.2017.5(s4).003

45
17. Narayana, Dr. R. (2016, January 24). Gourd | bottle Gourd fruits not produce.

Plant Village. https://plantvillage.psu.edu/posts/5747-gourd-bottle-gourd-

fruits-not-produce

18. Chan, M.K.Y., Arrifin, T.M. and Rosli, N. (2019). Effect of amended soil with

empty fruit bunch (EFB) compost on the pH and growth of Choy Sam

(Brassica chinensis var parachinensis). Journal of Engineering and Applied

Science 14 (3): 6057 -6091

19. Department: Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries REPUBLIC OF SOUTH

AFRICA. (2016). PRODUCTION GUIDELINE - for Bottle Gourd.

Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries.

20. Damanik M, Hasibuan BE, Fauzi S, Hamidah H. 2011. Soil fertility and

fertilization. USU Press. Medan.

21. Siddiquee S, Shafawati SN, Naher L. 2017. Effective composting of empty

fruit bunches using potential Trichoderma strains. Biotechnol Reports. 13:1–7.

doi: 10.1016/j.btre.2016.11.001.

46
APPENDICES

T1R2

T3R1

47
T4R2

T1R1

48
1. PERSONAL INFORMATION
Full Name : Mohammad Haziq Bin Amdan
I/C Number : 000107-12-0919
Race : Sungai
Date Of Birth : 7 January 2000
Place Of Birth : Hospital Kinabatangan, Sabah
Number of Siblings : 5
Permanent Home : Flat Guru Sk Bukit Garam ii,
Address WDT299, 90200 Kota
Kinabatangan

Telephone (Home) : - (Office) : -

Mobile Phone No : 0178620147 Email : haziqamdan17@gmail.com
Marital Status : Single
Gender : Male

2. EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND

School/College/University Certificate/Diploma/Degree Year

Universiti Teknologi B. Sc. (Hons.) Plantation Technology & 2021
MARA, Kota Samarahan, Management
Sarawak
Universiti Teknonologi Diploma in Planting Industry Management 2018
MARA, Kota Kinabalu,
Sabah
SM Sains Lahad Datu, Sijil Pelajaran Malaysia (SPM) 2017
Sabah
SM Sains Lahad Datu, Pentaksiran Tingkatan Tiga (PT3) 2015
Sabah
SK Bukit Garam ii, Ujian Penilaian Sekolah Rendah (UPSR) 2012
Kinabatangan, Sabah

3. WORKING EXPERIENCE (IF ANY)

1. Malaysian Palm Oil Board (Intern) 2019, 2022

49