Dean Harvey Napoleon M. Casas, Francesca Mikaella P. Cator, Howard Hendricks S.
Lauchengco,
Ma. Jamila Fionna P. Macasaet, Hanie Shaine F. Mislos
Abstract
This research focused on comparing the effectiveness of
organic (vermicast) and Inorganic fertilizers (osmocot).
The reason that these kinds of fertilizers is used because first
vermicast is a lot eco-friendlier than any other organic
fertilizers and osmocot is already a complete fertilizer with an
affordable prize. This research aims to solve whether what
kind of fertilizer is a better option for farmers to use
considering the main factors of choosing the kind of fertilizer
(quality, quantity, cost). This quantitative method research was
conducted in using Solanum Lycopersicum or also well known
as Tomatoes. After considerable amounts of trial and error,
overall, with the two being compared they might have same
outcomes when they are growing but a big difference is seen if
you compare it's fruit for when using organic fertilizer makes
the fruit heavier that means it is healthier than the fruit bared
by the one where inorganic fertilizer is used on. With that
being said it can be concluded that using organic fertilizer is a
better option to use especially considering the factors (quality,
quantity, and cost) plus it is also environmentally friendly.
Kananga National High School
Kananga, Leyte
Introduction
According to organic fertilizers contain only plant or animal-based
materials that are either by a product or end product of naturally
occurring processes, such as manures, leaves, and
copost. (Grappelli et Al. 2015) organic fertilizers are fertilizers that
are naturally produced. Fertilizers can be added to soil or plants, to
provide nutrients and sustain growth inorganic fertilizer is also
referred to as synthetic fertilizer, is manufactured artificially and
contains minerals or synthetic chemicals (Tomati et Al. 2015).It is
widely known that cow manure is an extraordinary fertilizer,
however, it seems that only a few has heard about "vermicast" or
earth worm manure. Both have the same effectiveness in the
contents and outcomes of the increase of the yield plants. But
compared to cows which releases high amounts of methane that
contributes to greenhouse effect, vermicast is entirely environment
friendly and much more manageable to make in numbers (Kashem
et al. 2015). Also, instead of using different types of inorganic
fertilizer we used osmocot which is already a (14-14-14) complete
fertilizer. This fertilizer is typically used with trees, vegetables, fruit
plants, shrubs, and lawns. It’s an all-purpose fertilizer with an equal
ratio of Nitrogen, phosphorus, and Potassium, so your plants and
lawn will receive an equal value of nutrients. (Chakrabort et Al.
2011)
Plant A’s data is listed in Table 1 and Plant B’s data in Table 2
and Table 3 shows the comparison of the collected data from the
two plants. It can be seen that the inorganic fertilizer (osmocot)
almost affects the growth of Plant B similar to the effect of the
organic fertilizer on Plant A. However in terms of measurements
such as No. of Leaves, Length of Leaves, Width of Leaves, Length
of stem, Width of stem, No. of flowers, No. of fruits and Weight of
fruits; Plant A has the final measurement that reaches up to 15.5cm
for the length of the leaves, no. of leaves is up to 53 leaves weekly,
width of leaves is up to 5.8cm. length of stem is up to 21 cm, width
of stem is up to 0.5cm, no. Of flowers are up to 11, number of fruits
is up to 9 and weight of fruit is up to 20 grams. Whereas Plant B
Only reaches up to 15 cm length of the leaves, no. of leaves is up
to 41 leaves weekly, length of stem is up to 21cm, width of stem is
up to 0.5cm, no. of flowers is up to 11, number of fruits are up to 9
and weight of fruit is up to 17 grams. There for it can be concluded
that the organic fertilizer is the better option to be used by farmers
for it is, a long-term fertilizer it is also environmental and lastly it is the
most fitting choice considering the main factors of choosing the kind of
fertilizer (quality, quantity, cost).
ALAM, M.N., JAHAN, M.S., ALI, M.K., ISLAM, M.S., AND KHANDAKER, S.M.A.T. (2007). EFFECT OF VERMICOMPOST AND NPKS FERTILIZERS ON GROWTH, YIELD AND YIELD COMPO-
NENTS OF RED AMARANTH. AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF BASIC AND APPLIED SCIENCES, 1, 706-716. DOI: 10.4236/OJSS.2015.52006
CHANDA, G.K., BHUNIA, G. AND CHAKRABORTY, S.K. (2011). THE EFFECT OF VERMICOMPOST AND OTHER FERTILIZERS ON CULTIVATION OF TOMATO PLANTS. JOURNAL OF HORTICUL-
TURE AND FORESTRY, 3, 42-45. DOI: 10.4236/OJSS.2015.52006
GRAPPELLI, A., TOMATI, U. AND GALLI, E. (1985). EARTHWORM CASTING IN PLANT PROPAGATION. NPK FERTILIZER - SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PUBLISHING HORTICULTURAL SCIENCE. 20,
874- 876. DOI: 10.4236/OJSS.2015.52006
.K SUGE, M.E. OMUNYIN, E.N OMAMI. (1993). EFFECT OF ORGANIC AND INORGANIC SOURCES OF FERTILIZER ON GROWTH, YIELD, AND FRUIT QUALITY OF EGGPLANT (SOLANUM
Comparative analysis MELONGENA L) JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, 22, 857-863. HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.2134/JEQ1993.00472425002200040032X
KALE, R.D., BANO, K., SREENIVASA, M.N. AND BAGYARAJ, D.J. (1987). INFLUENCE OF WORM CAST (VEE COMP. E.83 UAS) ON THE GROWTH AND MYCORRHIZAL COLONIZATION OF TWO
ORNAMENTAL PLANTS. SOUTH INDIAN HORTICULTURE, 35, 433-437. DOI: 10.4236/OJSS.2015.52006
RATHIER, T.M. AND FRINK. C.R. (1989). NITRATE IN RUNOFF WATER FROM CONTAINER-GROWN JUNIPER AND ALBERTA SPRUCE UNDER DIFFERENT IRRIGATION AND N FERTILIZATION
REGIMES. JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL HORTICULTURE, 7, 32-35. DOI: 10.4236/OJSS.2015.52006
SAJNANATH, K. AND SUSHAMA, P.K. (2004). RECYCLING OF BIO-WASTES THROUGH VERMICOMPOSTING. NPK FERTILIZER - SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH PUBLISHING AGROBIOS NEWSLETTER,
3, 33-34. DOI: 10.4236/OJSS.2015.52006
SHARMA, A.K. (2003) BIOFERTILIZERS FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE. UPDESH PUROHIT FOR AGROBIOS, JODHPUR, 41-46 DOI: 10.4236/OJSS.2015.52006
TOMATI, U., GALLI, E., GRAPPELLI, A. AND DI LENA, G. (1990). EFFECT OF EARTHWORM CASTS ON PROTEIN SYNTHESIS IN RADISH (RAPHANUS SATIVUM) AND LETTUCE (LACTUCA SATI-
VA) SEEDLINGS. BIOLOGY AND FERTILITY OF SOILS, 9, 288-289. HTTP://DX.DOI.ORG/10.1007/BF00634102