Average Height of the Plant (cm)

Table 2 shows the average height of hot pepper. Among the treatments, Treatment 4 got
the highest plant height which was applied with mixture of vermi tea and guano tea having a
mean of 18.23 cm, followed by Treatment 3 with the mean of 17.42 cm, Treatment 2 with a
mean of 15.49cm, and Treatment 1 was the shortest with a mean of 14.1 cm.
Addition of bat guano tea to the organic fertilizer from vermicompost tea significantly
increased the stimulating effect of vermicompost tea on plant growth and development of both
model crops - winter rye and potato. This effect can be partially related to the increased
amounts of plant-available mineral nutrients from guano tea (Karlsons et al., 2015).

Table 2. Average Height of the Plant (cm)

Factor Replication Total Mean

I II III

T1 14.28 12.78 15.24 42.3 14.1

T2 16.14 15.89 14.44 46.47 15.49
T3 18.49 16.17 17.59 52.25 17.42
T4 17.54 18.10 19.06 54.7 18.23
Replication Total
Grand Total 195.72
Grand Mean 16.31

Analysis of Variance shows that the computed F value is 9.662 which is greater than the
Tabular F at 5% and 1%. This result implies that there is a highly significant difference among
the four treatments on the average height of the plant.

Table 2a. Analysis of Variance on the average height (cm) of the plant

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 31.441 10.480 9.662 4.07 7.59

Error 8 8.678 1.085
 Total 11 40.119

** = highly significant at 5% and 1 % level

cv = 6.39 %

Pair comparison using DMRT shows that there is a highly significant difference among
the four treatments. Treatment 1 and Treatment 2 were not significant to treatment 3 while
Treatment 4 is significant.

Table 2b. Comparison among means on the average plant height (cm)

DMRTa

Treatment Treatment Mean

T1 (Controlled) 14.1 a
T2 (Vermi Tea) 15.49 ab
T3 (Guano Tea) 17.42 bc
T4 (Mixture of Vermi Tea
and Guano Tea) 18.23 c

a
= Any two means having 1g a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level of
significance
Average Number of Branches
Table 3 shows the number of branches per plant. The result shows that Treatment 3 had
the greatest number of branches with a mean of 8, followed by Treatment 2 and Treatment 4
with the same mean of 7 and the lesser number of branches is Treatment 1 with a mean of 6.

Table 3. Average number of branches of the plant (cm)

Factor Replication Total Mean

I II III

T1 6 5 7 18 6
T2 8 7 6 21 7
T3 8 8 7 23 8
T4 8 6 6 20 7
Replication Total
Grand Total 82
Grand Mean 7

Analysis of Variance (Table 3a) shows that the computed F value is 1.576 which is
lesser than the Tabular F at 5% and 1%. This result implies that there is no significant difference
among the four treatments on the average number of branches.

Table 3a. Analysis of Variance on number of branches per plant

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 4.333 1.444 1.576 4.07 7.59

Error 8 7.333 0.917
Total 11 11.667

ns = not significant

cv = 14.01 %

Average Branches Diameter (dm)

 Table 4 shows the branches diameter per plant. The result shows that Treatment 3 had
the greatest branches diameter with a mean of 3.08dm, followed by Treatment 4 with a mean of
2.8 and Treatment 2 with a mean of 2.51dm and the smallest branches diameter is Treatment 1
with a mean of 2.42dm.

Table 4a. Average branches diameter (dm)

Factor Replication Total Mean

I II III

T1 2.91 1.98 2.38 7.27 2.42

T2 2.54 2.58 2.41 7.53 2.51
T3 3.21 3.06 2.98 9.25 3.08
T4 2.84 3.15 2.41 8.4 2.8
Replication Total
Grand Total 32.45
Grand Mean 2.70

Analysis of Variance (Table 4a) shows that the computed F value is 0.270 which is
lesser than the Tabular F at 5% and 1%. This result implies that there is no significant difference
among the four treatments on the average number of branches.

Table 4a. Analysis of Variance on the branches diameter of plant

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 0.809 0.270 2.858 4.07 7.59

Error 8 0.755 0.094
Total 11 1.563

ns = not significant

cv = 11.36 %

Average Number of Days to First Flower

 The data presented in Table 5 shows the average number of days to first flower. It
shows that Treatment 2, Treatment 3 and Treatment 4 was the earliest to bear flowers with a
mean of 32 days and Treatment 1 were the latest to bear flowers with a mean of 33 days.

Table 5. Average number of days to first flower

Factor Replication Total Mean

I II III

T1 34 32 33 99 33
T2 32 32 32 96 32
T3 32 32 33 97 32
T4 33 32 32 97 32
Replication Total
Grand Total 389
Grand Mean 32

Analysis of Variance (Table 5a) shows that the computed F value is 1.267 which is
lesser than the Tabular F at 5% and 1%. This result implies that there is no significant difference
among the four treatments on the average number of days to first flower.

Table 5a. Analysis of Variance on the average number of days to first flower

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 1.583 0.528 1.267 4.07 7.59

Error 8 3.333 0.417
Total 11 4.917

ns = not significant

cv = 1.99%

Average Number of Fruits per Plant

Table 5 shows the average number of fruits per plant. Result shows that Treatment 3
had the highest number of fruits per plant with a mean of 50 pieces, followed by Treatment 4
with a mean of 43 pieces, Treatment 2 with a mean of 36 pieces and Treatment 1 had the
lowest number of fruits with a mean of 33 pieces.

It appears that the intake of guano tea significantly influenced the number of fruits per
tomato plant (P <0.0001). The increased in number of fruits could be attributed to the ability of
guano tea to promote vigorous growth, increase meristematic and physiological activities in the
plants due to supply of plant nutrient and improvement in the soil properties, thereby, resulting
in the synthesis of more photo assimilates which is used in producing fruits (Ali et. Al., 2019).

Table 5. Average number of fruits per plant

Factor Replication Total Mean

I II III

T1 34 32 32 98 33
T2 37 35 36 108 36
T3 51 49 51 151 50
T4 43 42 43 128 43
Replication Total
Grand Total 485
Grand Mean 41

Analysis of Variance (Table 5a) shows the computed F value is 182.972 which is greater
than the Tabular F at 5% and 1%. This result implies that there is a highly significant difference
among the four treatments on the average number of fruit.

Table 5a. Average Number of Fruits per Plant

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%
 Treatment 3 548.917 182.972 182.972 4.07 7.59
Error 8 8.000 1.000
Total 11 556.917

hs = highly significant at 5% and 1% level

cv = 2.47 %

Pair comparison using DMRT shows that there is a highly significant difference among
the four treatments. Treatment 1 and 2 were not significant to Treatment 4 while Treatment 3 is
significant.

Table No.5b. DMRT Table on Treatments of Table x (Number of Fruits per Plant)

DMRTa

Treatment Treatment Mean

T1 (Controlled) 33 a
T2 (Vermi tea) 36 b
T3 (Guano tea) 50 d
T4 (Mixture of Vermi tea
and Guano tea) 43 c
a
= Any two means having 1g a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level of
significance

Average Number of Days to First Harvest

Table 6 shows the average number of days to first harvest. The result shows that
Treatment 3 had the shortest days to first harvest with a mean of 89 days, followed by
Treatment 2 and Treatment 4 with a mean of 90 days and the longest days to first harvest was
Treatment 1 with a mean of 91 days.

Table 6. Average number of days to first harvest

Factor Replication Total Mean
I II III

T1 89 90 93 272 91
T2 89 92 89 270 90
T3 89 89 88 266 90
T4 92 88 90 272 90
Replication Total
Grand Total 1080
Grand Mean 90

Analysis of Variance (Table 6a) shows that the computed F value is 0.724 which is
lesser than the Tabular F at 5 % and 1 %. This result implies that there is no significant
difference among the four treatments on the average number of days to first harvest.

Table 6a. Analysis of Variance on the average number of days to first harvest

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 6.333 2.111 0.724 4.07 7.59

Error 8 23.333 2.917
Total 11 29.667

ns = not significant

cv = 1.90 %

Average Length of Fruits

Table 7 shows the length of fruit per plant. The result shows that Treatment 4 had the
longest length of fruit with a mean of 5.68 cm, followed by Treatment 2 with a mean of 5.66 cm,
Treatment 2 with a mean of 5.27 cm and the shortest length of fruit was Treatment 1 with a
mean of 4.94 cm.

Table 7. Average length of fruits (cm)

Factor Replication Total Mean

 I II III

T1 5.72 4.47 4.57 14.76 4.92

T2 5.82 4.74 5.26 15.82 5.27
T3 5.57 5.38 6.02 16.97 5.66
T4 5.61 5.96 5.48 17.05 5.68
Replication Total
Grand Total 64.6
Grand Mean 5.38

Analysis of Variance (Table 7a) shows that the computed F value is 1.576 which is
lesser than the Tabular F at 5 % and 1 %. This result implies that there is no significant
difference among the four treatments on the average length of fruit.

Table 7a. Analysis of Variance on the length of fruit

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 4.333 1.444 1.576 4.07 7.59

Error 8 7.333 0.917
Total 11 11.667

ns = not significant

cv = 14.01 %

Average Weight (g) of Yield per Treatment

Table 8 shows the average weight of fruit per treatment. The result shows that
Treatment 3 got the highest weight gain in grams with a mean of 121.43 grams, followed by
Treatment 4 with a mean of 90 grams, Treatment 2 with a mean of 70.48 grams and lastly,
Treatment 1 with a mean average of 32.45 grams.
A study conducted in Turkey during 2014-2015 revealed that application of bat guano
tea has significantly increased the total yield of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) (Aydin Can, Unal &
Onur Can., 2019).
Table 8. Average weight (g) of yield per treatment
Factor Replication Total Mean
I II III

T1 86.3 61.43 55.71 203.57 65.86

T2 82.86 65.71 62.71 211.43 70.48
T3 135.71 114.29 114.29 364.29 121.43
T4 81.43 107.14 81.43 270 90
Replication Total
Grand Total 1,049.29
Grand Mean 86.94

Analysis of Variance (Table 8a) shows that the computed F value is 9.718 which a
greater than the Tabular F at 5 % and 1%. This result implies that there is a highly significant
difference among the four treatments on the average weight of fruit.

Source of Degree of Sum of Mean Computed Tabular F

Variation Freedom Square Square F
5% 1%

Treatment 3 5509.594 1836.531 9.718 4.07 7.59

Error 8 1511.923 188.990
Total 11 7021.517

hs = highly significant at 5 % and 1 % level

cv = 15.73 %

Pair comparison using DMRT shows that there is a highly significant difference among
the four treatments. Treatment 1, Treatment 2 and Treatment 4 were not significant while
Treatment 3 is significant.

Table No.8b. DMRT Table on Treatments of Table x (Number of Fruits per Plant)

DMRTa

Treatment Treatment Mean

 T1 (Controlled) 67.81 a
T2 (Vermi tea) 70.43 a
T3 (Guano tea) 121.43 b
T4 (Mixture of vermi tea and
guano tea) 90.00 a

a
= Any two means having 1g a common letter are not significantly different at 5% level of
significance