SCHOOL BASED ASSESSMENT

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE

NAME: ………………………………………………

CANIDATE NUMBER: …………………………...

CENTRE: ST. JOSEPH HIGH

TERRITORY: GUYANA

YEAR: ……………………………………………...
Contents

ACKNOWLEDGMENT...........................................................................................................................4

INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................................5

LITERATURE REVIEW.....................................................................................................................6

PROBLEM STATEMENT...................................................................................................................8

AIMS......................................................................................................................................................9

METHODOLOGY..................................................................................................................................10

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN..............................................................................................................11

MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT USED.........................................................................................12

DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITES......................................................................................................13

Land Preparation............................................................................................................................13

Application of:.................................................................................................................................13

Planting............................................................................................................................................14

Watering/ Irrigation........................................................................................................................14

Harvesting........................................................................................................................................14

Packaging and Marketing...............................................................................................................14

PICTURES DEPICTING VARIOUS ACTIVITIES........................................................................15

DATA COLLECTION............................................................................................................................20

PRESENTATION OF DATA.................................................................................................................22

DISSCUSSION........................................................................................................................................24
 FINDINGS...........................................................................................................................................25

DISSCUSSION OF FINDINGS..........................................................................................................26

CONCLUSION........................................................................................................................................28

LIMITATIONS.......................................................................................................................................29

RECCOMENDATIONS.........................................................................................................................30

REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................31

COST ANALYSIS...................................................................................................................................32

PROJECTED BUDGET.....................................................................................................................33

ACTUAL BUDGET............................................................................................................................34

COMPARISON OF PROJECTED AND ACTUAL BUDGET...........................................................36

GRAPHS..............................................................................................................................................37

APPENDIX..............................................................................................................................................39
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The researcher would like to express their gratitude to everyone that assisted throughout this

School Based Assessment (SBA). First of all, they would like to thank God for all the strength

wisdom and patience to get through this. Secondly, they would like to thank their friends,

classmates and family member for all their support. And last of all not forgetting their teacher,

who provided guidance when necessary.

INTRODUCTION
 LITERATURE REVIEW
Poi/Poi Callaloo/ Malabar spinach (Basella Alba) is an edible perennial vine that belongs to the

family Basellacea. It is native to the tropics of Asia and Africa where it is widely used and eaten

as a leaf vegetable.  is a fast-growing, soft-stemmed vine, reaching 10 metres or even longer. Poi

callaloo is an excellent source of antioxidants, Vitamin A and C, Iron, Calcium and Manganese,

Zinc and Phosphorous. The young leaves can be eaten raw mixed in a green salad, and steamed

or boiled to be used like cooked spinach. (Wikipedia) Because of the mucilagenous nature, it can

also be used to thicken soups and stews. Poi grows well under full sunlight in hot, humid

climates and in areas lower than 500 metres above sea level. When in cold temperatures, growth

is extremely slowly and results in low yields. It grows best in sandy loam soils rich in organic

matter. Poi is used as a thickening agent in many soups and broths in China. In countries like Sri

Lanka and India iit is used to make different kinds of curries; specifically dhal.

As the investigation is being carried out to see the affects the two different manures have on the

Poi, it has been observed that chicken manure granted a number of benefits to the soil, thus

improving the productivity and mercenary outcome in the vegetable production. However, the

same cannot be said about the beds that were ‘treated’ with the cow manure.

Blogger, Donald Olomola, conducted a similar experiment. He used three different manures, two

of them being chicken and cow manure. He stated that the plants grown with the chicken manure

were longer, had bigger and better-looking leaves and had the best quality. However, Plants

grown under the cow manure grew slower and were shorter.
With the cow manure, an experiment conducted by Palada, M.C; Davis, A.M, Crossman S.M.A.

results indicated significant response to levels of cow manure in terms of all measured

parameters. According to an article written by Jagdish Reddy, B. alba is best grown in fertilizers

and organic manures with a ph. level of 6.5-7.0. It requires a good amount of Nitrogen. In this

case, Chicken manure. But, a blogger on UGAOO states that cow manure would be best,

depending on how much is applied.

 PROBLEM STATEMENT

To increase yields and help farmers throughout the years that were having difficulties with the

use of manure to enhance yields, researchers have decided to investigate the growth rate of poi

callaloo under the influence of both poultry and cow manure.

 AIMS

 To determine which group of plants grown with the two manures is more profitable.

 To identify which organic manure shows more results in growth than the other.

 To determine whether poultry or cow manure is better to grow crops/

 To identify the growth rate of the two manure on the plants.

METHODOLOGY
 EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Land preparation was done on 8 beds and then divided into two groups

 Poi was cultivated on the first 3 bed with the use of cow manure; Treatment 1.

 Poi was cultivated on the remaining 5 beds with the use of chicken manure; Treatment 2.
 MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT USED

MATERIALS USES
Phones/ Cameras Used to take pictures of activities during crop

production
Cutlass The Cutlasses were used to assist in manually

clearing unwanted weeds/ vegetation, to

loosen soil particles, chipping and mixing soil

particles/
Watering Can Watering cans were used to water the beds

and irrigate the soil

Plastic Bags Were used to transport and hold the poi after

harvesting and washing.

Garden Fork Was used to complete ploughing, levelling of

soil and to properly integrate the chicken

manure into the soil.

Hand Fork/Spade The hand fork was used along with the spade

to chip and loosen large lumps of soil and to

upturn the top soil during maintenance of crop

Hand Trowel This was used in upturning the soil and

applying the potting soil and chicken manure.

It was also used to make small holes in the

bed for seedlings to be planted

 DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITES

Land Preparation

 Choosing Bed- This was the first step since the bed that was chosen would be the ones

where the planting would be carried out.

 Land Clearing- After choosing the bed, weeds and other unwanted twigs and foreign

materials were removed in order to prepare the beds for the cultivations of crops. This

was done mainly by the use of cutlasses and pitchforks in order to raise the soil, and

gathering the weeds into a heap to avoid any more from growing.

 Chipping- This was done to break up the large lumps of soil into to smaller ones

resulting in the soil being more aerated.

 Digging Drains- The beds were constructed along with the drains so as to remove excess

water from the soil and sub-surfaces.

 Squaring/ Raising and Levelling of Bed- This was done so as to properly raise the bed,

making the soil more friable and to make it easier to plant, water and pull weeds without

walking on the bed. The soil was then levelled so as to raise it and even it out so that all

plants get equal nutrients and sunlight.

Application of:

 Potting Soil- The potting soil was added to hold moisture and nutrients for the plant

around the roots, to provide enough air in the soil and to lower the risk of the plants

contracting diseases. It was applied by hand and then mixed in with a hand trowel

 Chicken Manure- Chicken manure was applied to the soil soon after and was mixed in

using a hand trowel and rake.

Planting

 With the help of a cutlass, the beds were divided into 15 rows and three columns (45

squares) so as to mark off where the seedlings were to be planted. A hand trowel was

used to make small holes of little depth. The seedlings were then planted on the beds.

Watering/ Irrigation

 The entire point of watering plants is to assist in growing and maintaining crops, and

revegetating dried soil during dry seasons. Irrigation was done through the use of

watering cans. The plants were watered twice a day, weekly.

Harvesting

 After 6 weeks the poi was harvested. Harvesting was done when the plant leaves were big

and green. The big, healthy leaves were picked by hand and placed into parcels. The

smaller leaves were left to grow out to be harvested the following weeks. The plans were

placed into bags and then washed off at the pipe.

Packaging and Marketing

 The leaves of the poi were washed thoroughly and any bad/yellow ones were gotten rid

of. They were placed in parcels of 50-65 leaves and placed into plastic bags. Each parcel

was sold for $200 to parents and teachers of the school.

 PICTURES DEPICTING VARIOUS ACTIVITIES

Choosing Bed

Chopping and Removal of Weeds and unwanted objects

Chipping Digging Drains

Squaring and Levelling Bed

Application of Potting Soil

Applying Chicken manure

Planting

Watering Beds
Harvesting

Packaging and Marketing

 DATA COLLECTION

Data was collected using suitable tables and diagrams. Data was collected once a week due to the
Covid-19 pandemic and rules which only permitted workers to collectively be on the field once a
week. There was a total number of 8 beds. 3 under treatment 1 and 5 under treatment 2.
The following Data was collected:
 Height/ Development

 Total Produce from each group of poi

 Total income obtained from each group

TABLE SHOWING POI GROWTH

WEEK TREATEMENT 1 (cm) TREATMENT 2 (cm)

COW MANURE CHICKEN MANURE

Week 2 2.24 cm 1.57 cm
Week 3 4.54 cm 4.69 cm
Week 4 6.07 cm 5.86 cm cm
Week 5 8.01 cm 14.07 cm
Week 7 12.73cm 67.02cm

TABLE SHOWING NUMBER OF POI (Bags) HARVESTED

NUMBER OF POI NUMBER OF POI

TREATMENT 1 TREATMENT 2
130 150

TABLE SHOWING TOTAL INCOME FROM BOTH GROUPS OF POI

TREATMENT 1 TREATMENT 2

INCOME $4540 $9540

 PRESENTATION OF DATA

A COLUMN GRAPH SHOWING THE DIFFERENCE IN GROWTH

BETWEEN THE TWO GROUPS
 Figure 1
showing growth rate comparison

Week 7

Week 5

Week 4

Week 3

Week 2

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Treatment 1 (cm) Treatment 2 (cm)

A BAR GRAPH SHOWING THE NUMERAL COMPARISONS OF POI

HARVESTED BETWEEN THE TWO GROUPS

 Figure 2
COMPARING THE NUMBER OF POI HARVESTED
BETWEEN THE TWO GROUPS

150
145
140 150
135
130 130
125
120
Treatment 1 Treatment 2

PIE CHART SHOWING THE DIFFERENT INCOMES OF THE TWO

GROUPS

Figure 3
showing the difference in income
Treatment 1 Treatment 2

35%

65%
 DISSCUSSION

FINDINGS

From this assessment, the following findings were taken away:

  The plants in treatment 2 (Chicken manure) were better developed than the plants in

treatment 1 (Cow manure)

 The plants in treatment 2 produced more to be harvested.

 The plants in treatment 2 grew faster than those in treatment 1, and by week 5 there was a

very noticeable difference in size and length

 The total number of poi (bags) harvested in treatment 2 was more than the amount in

treatment 1.

DISSCUSSION OF FINDINGS

Poi (Basella alba) is a very popular vegetable crop grown in tropics and subtropic areas. It is also

widely used as an ornamental worldwide, its popularity extending into temperate areas where it
grows as an annual crop. As this was an experimental crop, both chicken and cow manure were

applied to the soil of which this crop was planted. It is a rich source in antioxidants, vitamins, A,

B and C, Calcium, Zinc, Magnesium, Phosphorous and Iron, it also supplies Copper and

Manganese but not as much as the earlier mentioned

Based on the results, the plants under the Chicken manure (treatment 2) were better developed

and produced more than the plants under treatment 1 (cow manure). According to an article

written by Jagdish Reddy, B. alba is best grown in fertilizers and organic manures with a ph.

level of 6.5-7.0. It requires a good amount of Nitrogen. This is why the chicken manure produced

more as it has all the required nutrients for the plant, and as Jagdish mentioned in his article,

“Malabar spinach can be grown on a wide variety of soils. However, it prefers more fertile

soil...” This can be followed up by another article written by a blogger on farmers weekly that

says that, due to its high nitrogen levels, chicken manure is best applicable. Donald Olomola

results from his experiment shows us that the plants grown with chicken manure, had the best

quality of all 4 manures, bigger leaves and longer vines. These results can be proven as the plants

under treatment 2 did indeed produce the better quality and were in fact bigger and longer,

reaching roughly 60 cm+ under 7 weeks.

An article written Palada, M.C; Davis, A.M, Crossman S.M.A, results indicated significant

response to levels of cow manure in terms of all (their) measured parameters. The poi had grown

to be very big and had produced large leaves with an even bigger amount in just a few weeks.

Donald Olomola also tested the cow manure treatment and noted that while they did grow, the

vines and leaves weren’t as big and long as those “treated” with chicken manure. On UAGOO it

states the cow manure would be the best option of organic manure, depending on the amount.
The poi planted under treatment 1’s division results differ. Unlike Palada, M.C; Davis and A.M

Crossman’s’ results the plants grew very slowly. They weren’t very big nor were the vines

exceptionally long. Just like Donald Olomola’s results, even though they were planted at the

same time, for the same number of weeks they still didn’t reach the length of the plants under

treatment 2. These results may have been affected by the insufficient amount of cow manure for

all the beds, as mentioned earlier, the amount added did matter. In the end, the plants under

treatment 1 did end up producing enough to be harvested.

 CONCLUSION

It can be concluded, due to the overall results, that chicken manure is the better of the two

manure. It has and provides all required nutrients to sustain and grow the plants. The plants

under this treatment proved to be more profitable and of better quality.

 LIMITATIONS

 Short periods for work

 Covid-19 pandemic limited working days

 Poor water supply

 Weather

 Pest issues
 RECCOMENDATIONS

It is recommended that organic manures high in nitrogen be used when dealing with leafy
vegetables.
Plants should be water twice a day, every day. Proper and regular attention should be given to
crops and soil beds during and after cultivation. This it to be done as to increase productivity,
thus increasing profit.
Security maintenance should be upgraded so as to stop or at least lessen praedial larceny. This
way, crops will be safe and it will be more profitable since more crops will be available to sell.
 REFERENCES

Palada, M.C; Davis, A.M: Crossman. S. M. A. (1999). GROWTH AND YIELD RESPONSE OF

MALABAR SPINACH TO LEVELS OF DEHYDRATED COW MANURE APPLICATION.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343798177_Growth_Response_of_Basella_alba_L_Ind

ian_spinach_to_Three_Different_Organic_Manure_Application

Wikipedia, 12, April 2021. Basella Alba.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basella_alba

Donald Olomola, October 2019. Growth Response of Basella alba L. (Indian spinach) to Three

Different Organic Manure Application.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343798177_Growth_Response_of_Basella_alba_L_Ind

ian_spinach_to_Three_Different_Organic_Manure_Application

UGAOO. 2021.

https://www.ugaoo.com/knowledge-center/how-to-grow-malabar-spinach-at-home/
COST ANALYSIS
 PROJECTED BUDGET

PROJECTED EXPENDITURE
Name of Crop: Poi
ITEMS QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Seedlings 300 Seedlings $30 $9000
Bags of potting soil 4 bags $800 $4200
Poultry Manure 4 bags $1000 $4000
Cow Manure 4 bags $1000 $4000
Sevendust 4 packs $700 $2800
Plastic Bags 200 $400 $400
Transportation - $2000 $2000
Total Projected Expenditure $25 400

PROJECTED INCOME
Name of Crop: Poi
INCOME QUANTITY UNIT COST TOTAL COST
Sale of Poi 280 200 $56 000
Total Projected Income $56 000

PROJECTED SURPLUS
Total projected income- Total projected expenditure $30 600

ACTUAL BUDGET

INCOME

Income Quantity Unit Cost ($) Total ($)

Sales of Poi 150 $200 $30 000

Total projected Income $30 000

EXPENDITURE

Expenditure Quantity Unit Cost ($) Total

 Seedlings 400 3000/100 $12000

Transportation - $3000 $3000

Plastic Bags - 260 $260

Chicken Manure 1 $2000 $2000

Potted Soil 4 $800 $3200

Total Expenditure $20 460

PROJECTED SURPLUS

Projected Surplus $30000- $20460

Projected Income- Projected Expenditure = $9540
 COMPARISON OF PROJECTED AND ACTUAL BUDGET

At the end of this school-based assessment, the projected income, expenditure and surplus were

significantly higher than the actual Income, expenditure and surplus.

The projected income was totaled to be $56 000, while the actual income was $30 000, the

difference being a whopping $16 000. This means that there was a decrease of income in the

actual budget. This is most likely due to the fact that more poi leaves were projected to be

harvested than what was produced.

The total projected expenditure was $25 400 as compared to the actual expenditure’s $20 460,

difference being $4940; meaning the cost for the items were initially cheaper than that was

projected.

The projected surplus was $30 600 while the actual surplus shows that only $9540 was made.

This means that more than 3 times the profit was lost, maybe due to the fact that so much was

estimated for the income.

 GRAPHS

Figure 1
Showing the difference between the P.I and A.I
$60,000

$50,000

$40,000

$30,000

$20,000

$10,000

$0
Projected Income Actual Income

Figure 1 is a bar graph showing the difference between the projected income and the actual

income
 Figure 2
showing the diff erence in the P.E and A.E

45%

55%

Projected Expenditure Actual Expenditure

Figure 2 is a pie chart showing the difference in the projected expenditure and actual

expenditure.

Figure 3
showing the difference in A.S and P.S

Projected Surplus

Actual Surplus

$0 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000

Figure 2 is a column graph showing the difference between the actual surplus and projected

surplus
 APPENDIX

ACTIVITIES PICTURES
Land Clearing
Watering

Construction of Bed and Drains