CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of the study

Organic farming is a different sort of farming practice which is different from

the conventional farming. Organic farming is carrying out in order to produce

organic food that is better and healthy for consumptions (Mudhar undated).

In organic farming everything is done naturally, natural fertilizer such as

manure or compost to feed the soil and plants. To control pest and diseases

only beneficial insects and birds, mating disruption or traps is used. But for

conventional farming, chemical fertilizer is applying to promote plant growth.

Insecticides and herbicides are used to control pest, diseases and to

manage weeds (Mayor Clinic Staff 2008).

Conventional farming mostly used chemical to growth plants, that the

reasons why organic foods are more safety to human health and

environmental friendly compare to the non organic food that can cause

illness and harmful to the human being, animals and also to the

environmental. Organic farming was not only found to work, but the products

arising from it are now considered as quality products. Farmers can obtain

higher prices for what they grow, and it is one of the few agricultural markets

where supply is never enough. It’s consumption in Europe show steadily and

rapidly increasing during the last 15 years (Calleja undated)

1
 Demand for organic foods in Malaysia is increasing but the problem is, to

produce organic foods more costly and the production or yields are less

compare to the non organic foods. Externalized environmental, health and

social costs make conventional agriculture products cheaper than organic

agriculture production. Production of organic fertilizer is not fully

commercialized yet and production rate is still low. Organic fertilizer meanly

came from animal waste such as cow dung, chicken dung and others. Many

studies have been conducted on the use of vermicompost for plant growth

(Atiyeh et al., 2000; Uma 2009; Edwards 2004). Thus the obvious problems

that call for research is how to devise an effective and alternative method to

cultivated plant in order to increase yield and give a better growth

performances but still safety to human health and also environmental

friendly. The vermicompost as one example of biofertilizer can be used to

solve this problem. In this study different level of vermicompost will be

applied as biofertilizer on chilies plant. The rates are 0g (served as a control)

350g, 400g, 450g, 500g and 550g per plants.

1.2 Objectives of the study

To investigate what is the best rate of vermicompost that give better yield

and growth performance of Chinese kale (Brassica alboglabra)

2
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

The method of preparing compost with the help of earthworm as natural bioreactor

is known as vermicomposting. Vermicomposting is the breakdown of organic matter

by certain species of earthworms. The common worms used in vermicomposting are

called redworms (Eisenia foetida), also known as red wigglers, manure worms, red

hybrid or tiger worms. (Soni undated) Earthworm compost or vermicompost can be

produced from almost any kind of organic wastes with suitable processing and

controlled vermicomposting conditions. Vermicompost grown plant extremely well

and they can be used as structural additives or amendments for poorer soils to

provide nutrients and minimize soil erosion. (Edwards 2004)

There are several advantages of using vermicompost, it can improve the physical,

chemical and biological properties of the soil and better crop productivity.

Earthworms effectively harness the beneficial soil micro flora, destroy soil pathogen

and convert organic wastes in to vitamins, enzymes, antibiotics, protein rich

products and others organic compounds. Vermicompost is becoming important

alternative to conventional compost and sources for organic farming. It also controls

soil as well as environmental pollution and maintain the soil health (Shahi undated).

The result study by Atiyeh et al. (2000) on the effect of vermicompost and compost

on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil show that, there was a

tendency for the vermicompost to have slightly lower pH, lower concentrations of

ammonium nitrogen and higher concentrations of nitrate nitrogen than many of the

compost when the chemical properties of vermicomposts and composts

were.compared. The study by McGinnis (2007) on vermicompost amended pine

bark showed improves on substrates physical properties, water use efficiency and

growth of Genovese Basil. Vermicompost amended pine bark provides liming effects

3
and pH buffering, improved physical properties, improved water use efficiency and

increased plant growth of all tissues.

There are a lot of studies that show the advantages using vermicompost as a soil

amendment available and can give more nutrients available for the plants uptake in

order to improve the growth performances of plants and give better yields. The most

important using vermicompost as a biofertilizer can produce organic foods that are

goods for human health. Other study that show the benefit or advantages using

vermicompost as a fertilizer was carry out by Azarmi et al. (2008) on the influence of

vermicompost on soil chemical and physical properties on tomato field. The results

showed, soil treated with vermicomposts had significantly more EC in comparison to

unamended plots and physical properties such as bulk density and total porosity in

soil amended with vermicompost were improved. The result of experiment revealed

that addition of vermicompost had significant positive effects on the soil chemical

and physical properties.

Vermicompost quality depending on many factors including worm species, raw

material used or types of feeding, and age of the compost. Vermicomposts are

generally of finer structure, contain more nutrients, and have higher microbial activity

than other types of composts. This makes vermicomposts particularly valuable as

plant growth promoters (Radovich 2009). The study, influence of vermicompost on

plant growth characteristic of cucumber seedlings under saline conditions by Sallaku

et al. (2009) found that a significantly higher relative growth rate was found for

young seedlings grown in vermicompost compared to commercial peat compost.

Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture stated that Vermicompost is rich in

organic carbon, which plays a key role in soil fertility, and contains all essential plant

4
nutrients in appropriate proportions. Thus it is a complete and balanced plant food.

Use vermicompost can enhances colour, smell, taste, flavor and keeping quality of

flowers, fruits, vegetables and food grains and farmer also can sell their product at a

higher price in the market. Based on the Rockfall Foundation and the State of

Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection, vermicompost is more nutrient rich

than other composting methods. It also contains worm mucus, which prevents

nutrients from washing away, and holds moisture better than plain soil.

Table 2.1 Nutrient value of vermicompost

Nutrient Content

Organic carbon 20-25%

Nitrogen 1.5-2.0%

Phosphorus 0.5-1.5%

Potassium 0.5-1.0%

Calcium 0.4-0.8%

Magnesium 0.3-0.6%

Sulphur 100-500 ppm*

Iron 6.7-9.3 ppm

Copper 2.0-9.5 ppm

Zinc 5.7-11.5 ppm

*ppm - parts per million

(Source: Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture Santoshnagar,

Hyderabad)

The standard rate of using vermicompost for vegetables are for raising seedlings to

be transplanted, vermicompost at 1 tan ha-1 is applied in the nursery bed. This

results in healthy and vigorous seedlings. But for transplants, vermicompost at the

5
rate of 400–500 g per plant is applied initially at the time of planting and 45 days

after planting (before irrigation). For vegetable and flower crops vermicompost is

applied around the base of the plant. It is then covered with soil and watered

regularly. (Nagavallemma et al., 2004).

Humic materials and other plant growth influencing substances, such as plant

growth hormones, produced by microorganism during vermicomposting, and

produced after increased microbial biomass and activity in soils, may have been

responsible for the increased growth and yields (Uma 2009).

Based on the study by Atiyeh et al. (2000) about the effects of vermicompost and

compost on plant growth in horticultural container media and soil stated that, when

chemical properties of vermicompost and compost were compared, they found that

there was tendency for the vermicompost to have a slightly lower pH, lower

concentrations of ammonium nitrogen and higher concentrations of nitrate nitrogen

than many of the compost.

CHAPTER 3

MATERIAL AND METHODS

6
3.1 Soil Preparation

The experiment is conducted using top soil as growth medium that was

taken from UiTM Jengka. The soil was packed into the polybag measuring

15’ x 18’ two weeks before transplanting and applied with different rate of

vermicompost.

3.2 Plants

The variety of Chinese kale that was used in this study is No.11 that was

taken from Jabatan Pertanian Malaysia Daerah Klang. The Chinese kale

seed is germinated in the germination tray two weeks before transplanting.

3.3 Vermicompost

Vermicomposts that were used in this study was taken from Nas Agro Farm,

Sepang, Selangor. Vermicompost with the different rate 0 (served as a

control), 350g, 400g, 450g, 500g and 550g is used in this study.

Vermicompost with different rate is applied to the soil two weeks before

transplanting the Chinese kale seedlings.

3.4 Growth Measurement

7
 Data was collected and recorded in terms of height of plants, number of

leaves, fresh weight, and weight leaf and root ratio. For the height of plant

measurement that is used is raffia rope and ruler. The number of leaves and

plant height were measured at four days interval. For the fresh, dry and leaf

and root ratio was taken at the end of the experiment. Data on bulk density,

soil porosity, soil particle and pH of the soil were also observed. All of this is

carry out in the lab and the data were counted 2 times, before the

transplanting and after harvesting. The plant was watered two times a day

with the same amount of water or when appropriate for each Chinese kale

plant. Weeding was done manually to avoid injury to the plants.

3.5 Hypothesis

Response of plant growth to the 6 different levels of vermicomposts:

H0: µ 0=µ 1=µ 2=µ 3=µ 4 =µ 5

HI: Some i ≠ Some µ j

H0: There is no significant difference between the plant growths that

treated with different level of vermicompost.

HI: There is significant difference between the plant growths that treated

with different level of vermicompost.

Response of plant yield to the 6 different levels of vermicomposts:

H0: µ 0=µ 1=µ 2=µ 3=µ 4=µ 5

HI: Some µ i ≠ Some µ j

8
 H0: There is no significance different between the plant yields that treated

with different level of vermicompost.

HI: There is significant difference between the plant yields that treated

with different level of vermicompost.

3.6 Treatments

Vermicompost with the different rate 0g, 350g, 400g, 450g, 500g and 550g

was used. Twenty four Chinese kale plants are planted in the polybag with

six different treatments of vermicompost. There are four replications.

Vermicompost was applied to the soil about two weeks before transplanting.

3.7 Experimental design

The design that was used in this study is a simple experiment using

completely randomized design (CRD).

Experimental Layout (CRD)

V1R1 V5R1 V3R1 V1R2

V2R1 V1R3 V1R4 V4R1

V2R2 V0R1 V3R2 V5R2

V0R2 V3R3 V4R2 V0R3

9
 V3R4 V2R3 V4R3 V4R4

V5R3 V0R4 V5R4 V2R4

V0: 0 gram Vermicompost

V1: 350 gram Vermicompost

V2: 400 gram Vermicompost

V3: 450 gram Vermicompost

V4: 500 gram Vermicompost

V5: 550 gram Vermicompost

3.8 Data Collections

Data was collected and recorded in terms of height of plants, number of

leaves, fresh weight, and weight leaf and root ratio. The data collected was

calculated by average of four replications.

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

10
4.1 Growth parameters

The data were analyzed based on growth performance and soil properties.

Growth performance parameters are number of leaf, height and fresh weight.

Bulk density, soil particle, soil porosity and pH of the soil were analyzed for

soil properties. The end result of this study is summarized and analyzed

according to the each parameter as below.

4.1.1 Number of Leaf

The data was collected during this study is nine times for the four replication

of each treatment and average for each treatment was summarized using

the diagram in order to see is there any significant different in the number of

leaf for each treatment.

Figure 4.1 The number of leaf for each treatment

Based on the histogram above, it shows the different in the number of leaf for each

treatment. The treatment V2 with 400 gram of vermicompost and treatment V1 with

350 gram of vermicompost show the highest number of leaf. The number of leaf for

11
treatment V4 with 500 gram of vermicompost and V5 with 550 gram of

vermicompost show the same number, exactly 10 leafs. For the treatment V3 with

450 gram of vermicompost stated the lowest number of leafs which is 9 leaf in

average for the last data taken, compared to the other treatment that applied with

the vermicompost. V0 that served as a control, show the lowest number of leaf and

the number of leaf for V0 was stunted started from 4 times data taken and maintain

at the same number of leaf until the last data taken.

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Vermicompost 5 77.375 77.375 15.475 27.18 0.000

Error 18 10.250 10.250 0.569

Total 23 87.625

Table 4.1 Analysis of Variance for Number of leaf, using Adjusted SS for Tests

S = 0.754615 R-Sq = 88.30% R-Sq(adj) = 85.05%

Based on the ANOVA table for the complete randomized design (CRD) above, it

show the value of P is 0.000 and that means, there is significant different in the

number of leaf for each treatment so H0 can be rejected. The different between the

various treatment totals is caused by differences in the treatment effect as well as

differences among the random error effects.

12
 Chart of Mean( Number of Leaf )
8

Mean of Number of Leaf 7

5 a a
4 c b b
3

2
d
1

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vermicompost

Figure 4.2 The chart of mean for number of leaf

4.1.2 Height of plant

Figure 4.3 Height of the Chinese kale.

The diagram show the height of Chinese kale with the different treatment, and

treatment V4 show the highest increasing growth performance compare to the

others treatment. It can be seen started from the third data taken and gradually

increasing until the last data taken, 19.25 cm. For the treatment V0 it show the

lowest growth of Chinese kale, at the beginning of the experiment it growth normally

like other treatment but at the end of experiment that which in the 8 and 9 data taken

it become stunted without any increasing in the height. Treatment V3 also showed

gradual increasing about 19 cm for the last data taken followed by the treatment V5

with 18 cm, and treatment V2 show the lowest growing in terms of height compare

13
to the others treatment that applied with the vermicompost and that only 16.85 cm

growing for the last data.

Table 4.2 Analysis of Variance for Plant Height (cm), using Adjusted SS for
Tests

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Vermicompost 5 431.59 431.59 86.32 6.40 0.001

Error 18 242.6663 242.63 13.48

Total 23 674.22

S = 3.67140 R-Sq = 64.01% R-Sq(adj) = 54.02%

The ANOVA table show the P value 0.001 and this value is less than 0.05 which it

means there is a significant different between the each treatment in the plant height

and so hypothesis H0 can be rejected. The F ratio also show the lower value

compare to the F ratio for the number of the leaf that is much greater and this

happen because of the difference between the treatment effect is greater and then

the value of F ratio also will be greater.

Chart of Mean( Plant Height (cm) )

20
Mean of Plant Height (cm)

15

b
10
a
b c a

5
d

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vermicompost (V)

Figure 4.4 The chart of mean for plant height

14
4.1.3 Fresh Weight

Figure 4.5 Fresh weight of Chinese kale

The graph shows the fresh weight of each treatment and based on the graph above

treatment V4 show the highest fresh weight which is 55.85 gram and this fresh

weight related to the yield performance of Chinese kale which means that treatment

V4 can produce a better yield of Chinese kale compared to the other treatment that

were supplied with vermicompost, it followed by the treatment V5 with 53.98 gram of

yield produced and for the treatment V3 was 48.23 gram of yield. Treatment V1

show the lowest yield compare to the other Chinese kale that applied with the

vermicompost and it stated 43.03 gram fresh weight of Chinese kale. Treatment V0

show the lowest yield produce compare to the Chinese kale that apply with

vermicompost and it only has 2.18 gram in average for the four replication.

Treatment V0 no vermicompost not only shows the lowest in terms of growth but

also in the yield performance. Treatment V1, V2, V3, V4 and V5 supplied with

vermicompost growth better and give a better yield.

Table 4.3 Analysis of Variance for Fresh Weight (gram), using Adjusted SS for
Tests

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Vermicompos 5 7914.2 7914.2 1582.8 18.59 0.000

Error 18 1532.2 1532.2 85.1

Total 23 9446.4

15
S = 9.22617 R-Sq = 83.78% R-Sq(adj) = 79.27%

The analysis of variance table shows the value of P is 0.000 less than 0.05 so the

hypothesis H0 is rejected. The conclusion that can be make according to this table,

there is significant difference between the treatments V0, V1, V2, V3, V4 and V5.

The F ratio can be calculated by dividing the MS treatment (MSt) with MS error

(MSe), 1582.8 was divided with 85.1 to get 18.59 for the F ratio.

Chart of Mean( Fresh Weight (gram) )

60

50
Mean of Fresh Weight (gram)

40

30
b a a
c b
20

10 d

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vermicompost (V)

Figure 4.6 The chart of mean for fresh weight

4.1.4 Fresh Weight of Shoot and Root

Figure 4.7 Fresh weight of shoot

16
The graph above show the fresh weight for the shoot of Chinese kale, for this

parameter the shoot part and root is cut off and each part was weight differently in

order to get the weight of each part. For the fresh weight of the shoot it was the

same like the total fresh weight that already measured and explains earlier,

treatment V4 stated the highest value, followed by V5 as a second highest and V3

as the third highest with value each is 52.48 gram, 50.88 gram and 46.10 gram. The

treatment V1 show the lowest weight compare to the other treatment that applied

with vermicompost and estimated 41.15 gram. Treatment V2 is highest than V1 and

it stated 44.25 gram in fresh weight of shoot. For the treatment V0 show the lowest

value compare to all treatment that applied with vermicompost.

Figure 4.8 Fresh weight of root

The graph for the fresh weight of root has a different result compared to the total

fresh weight and fresh weight of shoot because from the graph the treatment V3

show the lowest value compare to the treatment VI and V2. The treatment V3

become the lowest treatment that gets less value compare to other treatments that

applied with vermicompost. Treatment V4 still show the highest weight with 3.38

gram compare to others treatment. Followed by the treatment V5 as a second

highest with 3.31 gram of root weight. For the treatment V0 no vermicompost

indicated the lowest weight of root and the value only 0.33 gram.

17
Table 4.4 Analysis of Variance for Fresh Weight of Shoot (gram), using
Adjusted SS for Tests

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Vermicompos 5 7136.4 7136.4 1427.3 19.17 0.000

Error 18 1339.9 1339.9 74.4

Total 23 8476.3

S = 8.62775 R-Sq = 84.19% R-Sq(adj) = 79.80%

The analysis of variance table above show the P value less than 0.05 and it was the

same like the total fresh weight. So the H0 must be rejected and there is significant

difference in the fresh weight of the shoot and from here the pairwise comparison

must be making in order to now the different between the treatments.

18
 Chart of Mean( Fresh weight of shoot (gram) )
60

Mean of Fresh weight of shoot (gram)

50

40

30
a a
b b
20 b

10 c

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vermicompost (V)

Figure 4.9 The chart of mean for fresh weight of shoot

Table 4.5 Analysis of Variance for Fresh Weight of Root (gram), using Adjusted
SS for Tests

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Vermicompos 5 23.2783 23.2783 4.6557 7.82 0.000

Error 18 10.7200 10.7200 0.5956

Total 23 33.9983

S = 0.771722 R-Sq = 68.47% R-Sq(adj) = 59.71%

The ANOVA table above show the value of P is less than 0.05 and this value is the

same like the total fresh weight and fresh weight for the shoot. So, the H0 hypothesis

can be rejected and there is significant difference in the value of fresh weight of root.

19
 Chart of Mean( Fresh weight of Root (gram) )
3.5

Mean of Fresh weight of Root (gram)

3.0

2.5

2.0
a b
1.5

c c
1.0 c
d
0.5

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vermicompost (V)

Figure 4.10 The chart of mean for fresh weight of root

4.1.5 Bulk density

Figure 4.11 Bulk density of the soil

The bulk density was taken two times before transplanting and after harvesting and

the result is shown in the figure 4.11. From the figure, overall of the bulk density

value is decreasing for the each treatment but the treatment V0 show increased in

bulk density.

Table 4.6 Analysis of Variance for Bulk density (gcm3), using Adjusted SS for
Tests

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Vermicompos 5 0.203789 0.203789 0.040758 12.36 0.000

20
 t

Error 18 0.0595353 0.0595353 0.003297

Total 23 0.263143

S = 0.0574230 R-Sq = 77.44% R-Sq(adj) = 71.18%

The analysis of variance or ANOVA table 4.6 show the probability value 0.000 and

this is less than 0.05, thus H0 hypothesis must be rejected and H1 hypothesis must

be accepted, so there is significant difference in the value of bulk density for each of

the treatment in this study. This ANOVA table based on the result of the bulk density

that was taken after the harvesting process.

Chart of Mean( Bulk density (gcm3) )

1.4

1.2
Mean of Bulk density (gcm3)

1.0

0.8

0.6
a b b b b b

0.4

0.2

0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vermicompost (V)

Figure 4.12 The chart of mean for bulk density (gcm3)

21
4.1.6 Soil porosity

Figure 4.13 Soil porosity of the soil

The figure 4.13 shows the result of soil porosity before applying vermicompost and

after harvesting. Soil porosity for the treatment V5, V4 and V3 show the highest

which is 41% each and followed by the treatment V1 and V2 with 40% each after

harvesting. The treatment V1 and V2 showed no changes occur before applied with

vermicompost and after harvesting. Treatment V0 shows result before transplanting

much higher than the result after harvesting.

Table 4.7 Analysis of Variance for Soil Porosity, using Adjusted SS for Tests

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

22
Vermicompos 5 392.10 392.10 78.42 0.99 0.453

Error 18 1432.14 1432.14 79.56

Total 23 1824.24

S = 8.91983 R-Sq = 21.49% R-Sq(adj) = 0.00%

As shown by the ANOVA table above, the result after the harvesting, the value of P

is more than the 0.05. H0 hypothesis is fail to rejected, so there is no significant

difference in the percentages of the soil porosity for the treatment V0, V1, V2, V3,

V4 and V5.

4.1.7 pH

23
Figure 4.14 pH of the soil for each treatment

As the figure above show, the overall pH of the soil before transplanting was less

than after harvesting. pH of soil show increases in pH value related to the increasing

in the amount of the vermicompost applied at the end of the study period, except for

the treatment V5. Treatment V4 show the highest pH which is 4.84 and the

treatment V0 show the lowest pH with 3.91, for the result at the end of the study.

Table 4.8 Analysis of Variance for pH, using Adjusted SS for Tests

Source DF Seq SS Adj SS Adj MS F P

Vermicompos 5 2.62858 2.62858 0.52572 10.01 0.000

Error 18 0.94580 0.94580 0.05254

Total 23 3.57438

S = 0.229226 R-Sq = 73.54% R-Sq (adj) = 66.19%

The analysis of variance above show the pH result after the harvesting. Based on

the table, value of the P is 0.000 and this value is less than 0.05, therefore the H0 is

24
rejected and there is a significant difference in the number of pH for the each

treatment that is carried out in this study.

Chart of Mean( pH )
5

4
Mean of pH

a a
2
c a a a

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Vermicompost (V)

Figure 4.15 The chart of mean for pH

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSIONS

Organic farming systems with the aid of various nutrients of biological origin such as

vermicompost will be the answer for the food security and farm security in the future.

Among them compost that made by the earthworm or we called it as a

vermicompost is proving to be highly nutritive organic fertilizer, rich in micronutrients,

25
beneficial soil microbes and also contain plant growth hormone and enzyme.

Anonymous (2009) reported that vermicompost also significantly proven as a

miracle growth promoter and plant protector from pest and diseases.

These experiments, together with other reported in the literature, demonstrate that

vermicompost have considerable potential for improving plant growth significantly,

when used as fertilizer or used as a soil amendments. In this study 6 treatments with

different rate of vermicompost was prepared in order to know the best rate of

vermicompost that can promote plant growth and yield performance. The standard

that was used in this study based on the Negavallemma et al. (2004) that stated the

range of vermicompost that was applied as a fertilizer for the vegetables is between

400 - 500 gram per plant. Based on the result at the end of the study, treatment V4

with 500 gram of vermicompost show the better growth and yield performance in the

number of leaf, plant height, fresh weight, and also for the fresh weight of shoot and

root compare to the other treatments that show the fluctuation in the result for each

of the parameter that has been study.

Treatment V1 and V2 show the highest number of leaf compared to the other

treatment but even treatment V1 and V2 has the highest number of leaf it not the

best rate than can promote the plant growth and yield because treatment V1 and V2

show the lowest number of plant height compared to the others treatment that

applied with vermicompost. The both treatment also has less fresh weight which

means it produce less yield. Based on my observation to the treatment V1 and V2,

even it has the highest number of leaf , the diameter of each leaf is more smaller

26
compared to the treatment V4 and V5 that make the both treatment less in fresh

weight.

Treatment V0 with no vermicompost added showed the lowest number of leaf and

also in terms of plant height. The yield produced also less and the growth of

Chinese kale for this treatment was stunted. This is because of the nutrient content

in the soil is not enough for the plant in treatment V0 to grow and in terms of bulk

density for V1 is also high. The pH value for treatment V1 also less than the other

treatment that applied with vermicompost and the optimum pH for the Chinese kale

to growth well is 5.4 and this will result in the lack growth performance.

Negavallemma et al. (2004) reported that greenhouse studies at Ohio State

University Columbus have indicated that vermicompost can enhance the transplant

growth rate of vegetables.

Although this study focuses more on the effects of vermicompost on plant growth

and yield performance rather than on the causes leading to these effects, my result

showed distinct differences for each treatment, high amount of vermicompost is not

100% influences the plants growth and this is proven by the treatment V3 that show

the lowest in terms of number of leaf compared to the treatment V1 and V2 that has

less of amount of vermicompost. These things happen, not because of the

vermicompost itself but also the soil properties and the activity of microbial in the

soil. Even though the expected outcome for this study, is more vermicompost

applied will give better result in terms of plant growth and yield performances.

However in this study shows that growth performance improved until treatment V3

and start to decline when more vermicompost added as an V4 and V5. This result is

an accordance with founding by Aracon et al. (2003) where higher rate of

vermicompostmay result in decline in plant growth. This was obvious in Arancon et

27
al. (2003) experiment showing that yield of pepper from plant grown in pots with

60% and 80% vermicompost decreased significantly which could have been due to

either high soluble salt concentration, poor aeration, heavy metal toxicity, and plant

phytotoxicity in the undiluted vermicompost.

Cited from the Atiyeh et al., ; Goh and Haynes (1977) reported that plant growth is

generally optimized when the pH is between 5 and 6.5. From my result the pH

before the transplanting and after the harvesting show lowest than that, only

treatment V4 and V3 show the nearest pH optimized of plant growth, that why we

can see the plant height for the V4 and V3 is the highest compare to the other

treatment that has the lowest pH. This is due to pH improvementin treatment V3

and V4as shown in figure 4.14.

In conclusion, vermicompost have the potential for improving the plant growth and

yield performance when applied as a fertilizer. The optimum rate that gives a better

yield and plant growth in my study, which was conducted only over a short period of

time, was treatment V4 with 500 gram vermicompost

CITED REFERENCES

Anonymous (2008). Mayor clinic staff, Mayor Foundation for Medical Education and
Research (MFMER). Nutrition and healthy eating organic foods: Are they safer?
More Nutritious? Retrieved on February 20, 2010, from www.mayorclinic.com.

Arancon N. Q, Edward C.A, Atiyeh R and Metzger J.D (2003). Effect of

vermicomposts produced from food waste on the growth and yields of greenhouse
peppers. Soil Ecology Laboratory and Horticulture and Crop Sciences Department,
The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA.

28
Atiyeh R.M, Subler S., Edwards C.A., Bachman G., Metzger J. D. and Shuster W.
(2000), Effects of vermicomposts and composts on plant growth in horticultural
container media and soil. Pedo biologia, 44, 579–590. Dept. of Horticulture and Crop
Sciences, The Ohio State University.

Azarmi R., Mousa T.G. and Rahim D.R. (2008). Influence of vermicompost on soil
chemical and physical properties in tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum) field. African
Journal of Biotechnology Vol. 7 (14), pp. 2397-2401. Department of plants
production, Moghan Jounior College of Agriculture, University of Ardabili, Ardabil
Iran.

Calleja E, (undated) Organic Farming. Scientific Officer Organic Farming Unit

Agricultural Services and Rural Development Division Ministry for Rural Affairs and
the Environment.

Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Santoshnagar, Hyderabad.

Vermicompost from wastes.

Edwards C.A,(2004).Earthworm Ecology Second Edition. CRC Press, 355.

McGinnis M.S (2007), Vermicompost Amended Pine Bark Substrate Improves

Nursery Crop Production. A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of North
Carolina State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of
Doctor of Philosophy Horticultural Science Raleigh, North Carolina.

Mudhar M (Undated). Benefit of organic farming. Retrieved on February 20, 2010,

from www.selfgrowth.com/articles/mudhar2.html

Nagavallemma K.P., Wani S.P., Stephane L., Padmaja V.V. , Vineela C. , Babu
M.R. and Sahrawat K.L. (2004). Vermicomposting: Recycling wastes into valuable
organic fertilizer. An Open Access Journal published by ICRISAT, Vol 2, issues 1.
Global Theme on Agrecosystems Report no. 8. Patancheru 502 324, Andhra
Pradesh, India: International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics. 20
pp.

Ong Khun Wai (undated), Humus Consultancy, Penang, Malaysia. National Study:
Malaysia, The Role of Agriculture and Rural Development in Malaysia.

Pejabat Pertanian Daerah Manjung, Kompleks Pentadbiran Daerah Manjung, 32040

Seri Manjung, Perak Darul Ridzuan, Malaysia (2010). Panduan Penanaman Cili.
Retrieved on March 18, 2010, from http://pertanianmjg.perak.gov.my

Rockfall Foundation and the State of Connecticut Dept. of Environmental Protection

(2002).Vermicomposting, A guide to worn composting. City of Middletown.
Kim.orourke@cityofmiddletown.com

Radovich T. (2009), Department of Tropical Plant and Soil Sciences

University of Hawaii at Manoa 3190 Maile Way, St. John 102 Honolulu,
Hawaii 96822 . Vermicompost Research under sustainable and organic
Agriculture program. http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/radovicht

Sallaku G., Ismet Babaj, Skender Kaciu and Astrit Balliu (2009).The influence of
vermicompost on plant growth characteristics of cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.)
seedlings under saline conditions. Journal of Food, Agriculture & Environment Vol.7

29
(3&4) : 8 6 9 - 8 7 2 . Agriculture University of Tirana, Albania and University of
Pristina, Pristina, Kosovo.

Samuel L., Tisdale and Werner (1975). Soil Fertility and Fertilizers (Third Editions).
Macmillan Publishing Co.Inc, 27 and 44.

Shahi D.K. (undated) Practical on Vermicompost,. Scientist, Deptt. of Soil science &
Agril. Chemistry Birsa Agricultural University Ranchi-834 006 (Jharkhand)

Soni Cochron, (undated) Extension Associate (undated).Institute of Agriculture and

Natural Resources at the University of Nebraska–Lincoln http://lancaster.unl.edu

Uma B and Malathi M (2009). Vermicompost as a soil supplement to improve growth

and yield of Amaranthus species. Department of Zoology, Bharathi Womens
College, Chennai, India. Research Journal of Agriculture and Biological Sciences,
Vol 3; 365 – 389. INSInet Publications.

APPENDIX A

Table A1 Data Collection for Number of Leaf

30
 Treatmen Averag
Date t Replication e
1 2 3 4
29-Jul-10 V0 3 3 3 3 3
V1 3 3 3 3 3
v2 4 3 3 3 3
v3 3 3 3 3 3
v4 3 3 3 3 3
v5 3 3 3 3 3
2-Aug-10 V0 4 4 4 4 4
V1 4 4 4 4 4
v2 4 4 4 4 4
v3 4 4 4 4 4
v4 3 4 4 4 4
v5 4 4 4 4 4
6-Aug-10 V0 5 5 5 4 5
V1 5 5 5 5 5
v2 6 5 5 5 5
v3 4 4 4 4 4
v4 4 5 5 5 5
v5 5 4 5 5 5
10-
Aug10 V0 5 6 6 5 6
V1 6 6 6 6 6
v2 6 6 6 6 6
v3 4 5 5 5 5
v4 5 6 6 6 6
v5 6 5 6 6 6
14-
Aug10 V0 5 6 6 5 6
V1 7 8 7 7 7
v2 7 7 7 7 7
v3 5 6 6 6 6
v4 6 7 7 7 7
v5 7 6 7 7 7
18-
Aug10 V0 5 6 6 5 6
V1 8 9 8 8 8
v2 9 7 8 9 8
v3 7 7 8 7 7
v4 7 8 8 8 8
v5 8 7 8 8 8

22-Aug-
10 V0 5 6 6 5 6
V1 8 9 9 9 9
v2 10 7 8 10 9
v3 8 8 8 7 8
v4 7 9 9 9 9
31
Table A2 Average for 9 data collections

Treatmen Treatmen Treatmen

No t Treatment t Treatment t Treatment
V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
1 3 3 3 3 3 3
2 4 4 4 4 4 4
3 5 5 5 4 5 5
4 6 6 6 5 6 6
5 6 7 7 6 7 7
6 6 9 9 7 9 9
7 6 9 9 8 9 9
8 6 9 9 8 8 8
9 6 11 11 9 10 10

APPENDIX B

Table B1 Data Collection of Plant Height

32
 Date Treatment Replication (cm) Means
1 2 3 4
29-Jul-10 V0 1.5 0.8 1.5 1 1.20
V1 1 1 1 1 1.00
v2 1 2 1.3 1 1.33
v3 1.5 1.5 1 0.8 1.20
v4 1.5 0.7 1.4 1.3 1.23
v5 1 1 1.2 1 1.05
2-Aug-10 V0 3.5 2.5 3.5 3 3.13
V1 1.6 1.3 2.8 2 1.93
v2 2.4 3.6 2.3 3.2 2.88
v3 1.7 2.5 2.8 2.2 2.30
v4 1.7 2.2 2.5 3.5 2.48
v5 1.3 1.5 2 2.7 1.88
6-Aug-10 V0 5.1 3.8 5.1 4.6 4.65
V1 4 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.20
v2 2.7 6 3.6 5.5 4.45
v3 3.8 4.2 4 4.2 4.05
v4 4.3 4.5 4 6.2 4.75
v5 4.2 3.5 4 5 4.18
10-Aug-10 V0 5.6 4.6 5.8 5.5 5.38
V1 5.2 6 4.2 6 5.35
v2 3.3 6 4.2 7 5.13
v3 4.6 6 5.6 5.2 5.35
v4 6.5 6.2 5 7.6 6.33
v5 5.8 4.5 4.5 6.2 5.25

14-Aug-10 V0 5.7 4.5 6.5 6.5 5.80

V1 6.2 9 7.2 8.5 7.73
v2 4.5 9.7 5.6 9.7 7.38
v3 7 7.3 7.7 7.6 7.40
v4 8.2 8.2 7 12 8.85
v5 8 8 6.5 10.6 8.28
18-Aug-10 V0 6 5 6.5 6.5 6.00
V1 7.7 12 8.7 11.5 9.98
v2 5.4 11.7 7 12.2 9.08
v3 8.5 10.5 9.7 9.5 9.55
v4 10.2 11.2 8.7 15.4 11.38
v5 10 7.6 7.5 13 9.53
22-Aug-10 V0 6 5 6.5 7 6.13
V1 10 13 11.5 13.5 12.00
v2 6.3 16.5 9 15 11.70
v3 11 12 13.5 13 12.38
v4 12 13.5 12 20.5 14.50
v5 12.5 10 10 17 12.38
26-Aug-10 V0 7.5 5.5 7 8 7.00
V1 13 15 14 17 14.75

33
Table B2 Average for 9 data collections

No Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment Treatment

V0 V1 V2 V3 V4 V5
1 1.2 1 1.33 1.2 1.23 1.05
2 3.13 1.93 2.88 2.3 2.48 1.88
3 4.65 4.2 4.45 4.05 4.75 4.18
4 5.38 5.35 5.13 5.35 6.33 5.25
5 5.8 7.73 7.38 7.4 8.85 8.28
6 6 9.98 9.08 9.55 11.38 9.53
7 6.13 12 11.7 12.38 14.5 12.38
8 7 14.75 14.5 15.5 16.55 14.93
9 7 17.5 16.85 19 19.25 18

APPENDIX C

Table C1 Data Collection of Fresh Weight

Replication
Rate/Polybag
Treatment (gram) Means
Vermicompost
(gram) 1 2 3 4
V0 0 1 3.7 1.5 2.5 2.18
V1 350 25.5 54.6 46.7 45.3 43.03
v2 400 38.8 44.1 54.2 48.1 46.30
v3 450 51.8 49.5 45.2 46.4 48.23
v4 500 39.5 62 59.5 62.4 55.85
v5 550 44.5 53.6 44.5 73.3 53.98

Table C2 Data Collection of Shoot and Root Ratio

34
 Treatment Replication Means Replication Means
Shoot Root
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
V0 0.7 3.3 1.1 2.3 1.85 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.33
V1 24.6 52 44.4 43.6 41.15 0.9 2.6 2.3 1.7 1.88
V2 37.2 42 51.6 46.2 44.25 1.6 2.1 2.6 1.9 2.05
V3 49 47.1 43.3 45 46.10 2.8 2.4 1.9 1.4 2.13
V4 37 58.2 57.1 57.6 52.48 2.5 3.8 2.4 4.8 3.38
V5 42.2 49.9 42.4 69 50.88 2.3 3.7 2.1 4.3 3.10

APPENDIX D

Table D1 Data Collection for pH (5gram + 25ml distilled water):

Treatment Before Means After Means

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4
V0 3.4 3.45 3.8 3.64 3.57 4.37 3.96 3.58 3.74 3.91
V1 3.94 3.88 3.8 4.25 3.97 4.28 4.15 4.22 4.5 4.29
V2 4.15 4.2 4.24 4.48 4.27 4.62 4.38 4.75 4.27 4.51
V3 4.36 4 4.35 4.8 4.38 4.46 4.74 4.99 5 4.80
V4 4.5 5.12 4.62 4.31 4.64 5.1 5 4.6 4.67 4.84
V5 4.4 4.6 4.64 4.61 4.56 4.76 4.8 4.75 4.69 4.75

35
 APPENDIX E

Data Collection of Bulk Density:

Bulk
Density: Soil Dry weight (gram)
Soil volume (cm3)

Soil
Volume: πr2h
π (2.75)2
(7)
= 166.31 cm3

Table E1 Before the translanting

36
 Soil Dry weight Bulk Density
Treatment (g) (gcm3) Means
V0R1 198.5 1.19 1.14
V0R2 176.7 1.06
V0R3 186.5 1.12
V0R4 194.51 1.17
V1R1 180.78 1.09 1.09
V1R2 188.6 1.13
V1R3 179.2 1.08
V1R4 174.73 1.05
V2R1 173.12 1.04 1.07
V2R2 180.63 1.09
V2R3 178.41 1.07
V2R4 182.1 1.09
V3R1 174.08 1.05 1.05
V3R2 175.6 1.06
V3R3 170.53 1.03
V3R4 180.3 1.08
V4R1 170.68 1.03 1.05
V4R2 174.24 1.05
V4R3 172.53 1.04
V4R4 177.8 1.07
V5R1 165.7 1.00 1.03
V5R2 171.8 1.03
V5R3 176.2 1.06
V5R4 174.6 1.05

Table E2 After the harvesting

Soil Dry weight Bulk Density

Treatment (g) (gcm3) Means
V0R1 232.16 1.40 1.34
V0R2 198.36 1.19
V0R3 246.05 1.48
V0R4 216.4 1.30
V1R1 189.98 1.14 1.14
V1R2 196.22 1.18
V1R3 188.43 1.13
V1R4 182.42 1.10
V2R1 184.15 1.11 1.12
V2R2 183.51 1.10
V2R3 184.75 1.11
V2R4 190.98 1.15

37
 V3R1 175.59 1.06 1.10
V3R2 181.41 1.09
V3R3 182.62 1.10
V3R4 189.55 1.14
V4R1 179.04 1.08 1.09
V4R2 185.29 1.11
V4R3 183.77 1.10
V4R4 179.8 1.08
V5R1 168.83 1.02 1.07
V5R2 176.5 1.06
V5R3 183.26 1.10
V5R4 180.42 1.08

APPENDIX F

Data Collection for the Particle Density:

Particle Density: w2 - w1

(w4-w1)-(w3-w2)

Table F1 Before the transplanting

Particle
Treatment W1 W2 W3 W4 density Means
V0R1 18.4 35.5 82.1 74.1 1.88 1.89
V0R2 21.3 33 76.4 69.5 2.44
V0R3 17.16 36.7 79.9 73.2 1.52
V0R4 20.1 35.9 80.3 73.7 1.72

38
 V1R1 24.66 32.3 82.4 78.7 1.94 1.87
V1R2 23.5 32.8 79.1 74.6 1.94
V1R3 25.6 41.4 82 75.7 1.66
V1R4 27.08 38.7 78.6 73 1.93
V2R1 24.2 34.4 78.1 73.6 1.79 1.82
V2R2 14.94 24.7 74.4 70.5 1.67
V2R3 25.96 36.6 80.8 76.3 1.73
V2R4 13.15 25.3 72.3 66 2.08
V3R1 26.28 39 76.9 75.5 1.12 1.83
V3R2 15.56 22 67.6 64 2.27
V3R3 14.84 22.8 70.1 66.1 2.01
V3R4 24.48 36.1 79.8 74.3 1.90
V4R1 17.36 30 77 70.8 1.96 1.81
V4R2 23.81 32 76 72.8 1.64
V4R3 24.77 33.3 81.4 77.9 1.70
V4R4 22.86 42.3 81.4 72 1.94
V5R1 14.35 19.5 65 62.2 2.19 1.78
V5R2 15.48 24.8 71.3 67.7 1.63
V5R3 17.43 23.3 69 66 2.05
V5R4 14.23 18.9 65 64 1.27

Table F2 After the harvesting

Particle
Treatment W1 W2 W3 W4 density Means
V0R1 21.33 30.66 51.6 46.14 2.41 1.97
V0R2 19.8 29.48 51.45 46.58 2.01
V0R3 20.6 34.58 53.93 46.71 2.07
V0R4 21.7 32.23 52.45 49.51 1.39
V1R1 19.4 29.94 51.2 46.28 1.88 1.90
V1R2 19.78 30.8 51.6 46.19 1.96
V1R3 18.62 29.25 51 46.39 1.77
V1R4 20.5 29.7 51.01 46.39 2.01
V2R1 18.78 28.52 50.7 46.51 1.75 1.86
V2R2 19.17 28.34 50.83 46.6 1.86
V2R3 18.91 28.87 50.5 45.9 1.86
V2R4 20.4 29.46 51.54 47.06 1.98
V3R1 19.35 26.07 48.6 46.33 1.51 1.87
V3R2 18.59 26.05 49.7 45.51 2.28
V3R3 19.66 25.78 49.11 46.34 1.83
V3R4 19.71 27.61 50.04 46.41 1.85

39
 V4R1 20.6 27.3 51.99 49.69 1.52 1.84
V4R2 19.07 23.66 48.11 45.96 1.88
V4R3 20.45 28.99 50.99 46.91 1.91
V4R4 19.47 26.03 49.52 46.19 2.03
V5R1 18.4 28.14 50.47 46.13 1.80 1.82
V5R2 17.05 24.73 48.7 45.99 1.55
V5R3 19.32 24.93 48.83 46.14 1.92
V5R4 20 25.15 49.29 46.68 2.03

APPENDIX G

Table G1 Data Collection for Soil Porosity

% Porosity: 100 - ((Bulk density/particle density) x100%)

Bulk Density soil

Treatment (gcm3) Particle density Porosity
V0R1 1.40 2.41 42
V0R2 1.19 2.01 41
V0R3 1.48 2.07 29
V0R4 1.30 1.39 6
V1R1 1.14 1.88 39
V1R2 1.18 1.96 40
V1R3 1.13 1.77 36
V1R4 1.10 2.01 45
V2R1 1.11 1.75 37

40
 V2R2 1.10 1.86 41
V2R3 1.11 1.86 40
V2R4 1.15 1.98 42
V3R1 1.06 1.51 30
V3R2 1.09 2.28 52
V3R3 1.10 1.83 40
V3R4 1.14 1.85 38
V4R1 1.08 1.52 29
V4R2 1.11 1.88 41
V4R3 1.10 1.91 42
V4R4 1.08 2.03 47
V5R1 1.02 1.80 43
V5R2 1.06 1.55 32
V5R3 1.10 1.92 43
V5R4 1.08 2.03 47

Table G2 Average of soil porosity for each treatment for the before the
transplanting and after the harvesting

Treatment Soil Porosity (%) Soil Porosity (%)

Before After
V0 40 32
V1 40 40
V2 40 40
V3 40 41
V4 40 41
V5 40 41

41
42