1

THE EFFECT OF FERMENTED GUSO (Eucheuma cottonii) AS ORGANIC

LIQUID FERTILIZER ON THE GROWTH OF GREEN ICE LOOSE
LEAF LETTUCE (Lactuca sativa)

LHE BRIAN ZANDER C. CORONEL

JOSHUA S. MORTEL
JELERRICK A. PARENAS

A research study submitted to the Faculty of the Science High School, College of
Education, Cavite State University, Indang, Cavite, in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for Research III. Prepared under the supervision of Prof. Guillermo P.
Desenganio.

INTRODUCTION

A fertilizer is a natural or synthetic, chemical-based substance used to enhance

plant growth and fertility. Simply, fertilizers are plant nutrients applied to supplement

required elements found in soil (DeJoia, 2015). According to Brain (2013), the role of

fertilizer is to make plants grow faster by supplying elements that plants need in readily

available form.

It may enhance water retention and filter excess liquid (MaximumYield, 2017).

When nutrients from the soil are missing, the plants suffer from nutrient deficiency and

stop growing. Farmers then turn to fertilizers because the substances contain plant

nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium (Matter, 2011). There are two

kinds of fertilizers that are being used: chemical fertilizers and organic fertilizers.

Chemical fertilizer, also known as inorganic fertilizer, is defined as any inorganic

material origin that is added to the soil for plant growth. Many of this kind of fertilizer
 2

contain acids, such as sulphuric acid and hydrochloric acid, which increases the acidity of

the soil which will then interfere with plant growth (EcoChem, 2014). Inorganic

fertilizers are taken from mineral deposits or created from synthetic compounds (Steph,

2012). On the other hand, organic fertilizers are any fertilizers which originated from an

organic source (Pavlis, 2013). It is comprised of a variety of plant-derived materials that

range from fresh or dried plant material to animal manures and litters to agricultural by-

products (Das and Jana, 2003). In nature, decomposition of organic matter creates a

natural fertilizer. Adding organic material to the soil increases the ability to hold water,

improve quality and texture of the soil, reduce erosion from water and wind, decrease

compaction and crusting of the soil, and raises soil pH (Affeld, 2017).

Meanwhile, natural fertilizers are slow to break down into nutrients. Many natural

fertilizers are smelly, and the gatherings of natural materials are time consuming.

Moreover nutrient content varies and the rate of breaking down is different for each

material, and if applied incorrectly, it can contribute to contamination (Affeld, 2017). The

biggest advantage, arguably, of the chemical fertilizer is that it costs less than the organic

fertilizer (McCloseky, 2017). There are recent concerns in environmental effects of using

synthetic fertilizers. On the production side, synthetic fertilizers use more fossil fuel

which creates more greenhouse gases than doing organic fertilizers, some of the synthetic

compound will allow negative effects on the environment when allowed to run off to

water sources, there is also evidence of plants treated with chemical fertilizers do not

yield as productive results as those treated with organic fertilizers (McCloseky, 2017).

Seaweed is a term used to describe plants and algae that grow in waterways such

as the ocean, and rivers, lakes and streams (Kennedy, 2017). Seaweeds are used as source
 3

of food and industrial application such as fertilizers (Seaweed, 2000). There are about 10

000 kinds of seaweeds in the world. They fall into three main groups: green, brown, and

red (Canadian Museum of Nature, 2009). The benefits of using seaweeds in the garden

are: it saves water, it eliminates the need to weed, it repels slugs and other pests, enriches

the soil, boost lethargic plants, helps lighten soil, and does not contain weed seeds

(Seaman, 2010).

In this study, the researchers produced a homemade, organic, liquid fertilizer from

Eucheuma cottonii also known as guso, since the extract of this seaweed can provide

needed nutrients to the plant. The researchers aimed to utilize this seaweed in coming up

of a practical agriculture use aside from being eaten as food. The researchers used green

ice lettuce as the test plant for determining the effect of liquid fertilizer on the growth of

the plants.

Statement of the Problem

Generally, this study aimed to determine the effect of guso as an organic liquid

fertilizer in growing of green ice loose leaf lettuce.

This study aimed to answer the following questions:

1. What is the growth characteristics of the lettuce treated with the guso fertilizer in terms

of:

a. height

b. weight
 4

2. What is the significant difference with the growth of lettuce treated with guso fertilizer

and commercial fertilizers in terms of:

a. height

b. weight

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The result of the study provided information about the ability of Eucheuma

cottonii as an organic liquid fertilizer for green ice loose leaf lettuce. Seaweed provides

several benefits to plants. For years, farmers and gardeners who live near the coast have

considered using seaweed to their plants. Agriculture is important here in the Philippines

and its industries. There are several benefits to the plant when seaweed is used, like anti-

slug and anti-fungal. Some farmers use inorganic fertilizers to increase crop yield but

cause negative effects such as soil acidity. Using organic fertilizer, the soil pH is

improved. This study would also contribute to the studies relating to guso and it can help

to other researchers in the university and the government. More importantly, fisherfolks

can have an alternative use of guso aside from selling them as food. Fisher-folks and

coastal communities can engaged in commercial production of guso fertilizer, thereby,

providing them with additional source of income.

SCOPE AND LIMITATION OF THE STUDY

This study aimed to determine the effect of an organic liquid fertilizer from guso

extract when applied to green ice loose leaf lettuce compared to the crop applied with

inorganic fertilizer. In this study, two treatments were used. The first treatment used the
 5

inorganic fertilizer (Urea fertilizer), and the second used the fermented guso liquid

fertilizer. This study was replicated three times. Six(6) kilos of guso seaweeds were used

as source of extract and 300 pieces of green ice lettuce as experimental plants. The study

focused on the effects of the guso fertilizer to the plant used in the study. Other factors,

bed position, watering of plants, climate, pests, and soil type, on the growth of the plant

were not included in the study.

TIME AND PLACE OF THE STUDY

This study was conducted at Zackys’ Farm in Pangil, Amadeo, Cavite from

January to March 2018.

 6

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

In this chapter, literatures relating to the title will be discussed as follows:

fertilizer, inorganic fertilizer, organic fertilizer, animal based fertilizer, plant-based

fertilizer, compost, seaweed, guso, lettuce, and green ice lettuce.

Fertilizer

Balter (2013) stated that, fertilizers provide plants of nutrients that they need to

grow strong and healthy; this includes, most importantly, nitrogen, phosphorus, and

potassium.

Natural and organic fertilizers are different from chemicals in that they feed plants

while building the soil. Soils with lots of organic material remain loose and airy, hold

more moisture and nutrients, foster growth of soil organisms, and promote healthier plant

root development (Planet Natural, 2004).

Inorganic Fertilizer

Synthetic fertilizer is also called inorganic fertilizer or commercial fertilizer. This

fertilizer is either mined from the ground or synthesized by man. It is made of granular

material and comes in bags (Pavlis, 2013).

Soluble chemical fertilizers contain mineral salt that plant roots absorb quickly.

The salt do not provide a food source for microorganisms and earthworms; they will repel

earthworms because it acidifies the soil. Over time, soils given only with synthetic

chemical fertilizers lose organic matter and the all-important living organisms that help

build a quality soil. As soil structure declines and water-holding capacity diminishes,
 7

more and more of the chemical fertilizer applied will leach through the soil. In turn, it

will take ever-increasing amounts of chemicals to stimulate plant growth (ROL staff,

2017). According to Masley (2009), if you build organic soil amendments into the soil at

planting time, no subsequent fertilizing is necessary for growing lettuce.

Organic Fertilizer

Organic fertilizers are the products of natural decomposition and are easy for

plants to absorb. Made from natural sources, organic fertilizers provide garden plants

with slow-release, consistent nourishment (Pennington, 2016).

They are usually sold as “soil conditioners” rather than as fertilizer, because the

nutrient ratios are difficult to guarantee. Organic fertilizers may be processed in a factory,

or, in the case of manure and compost, at a farm (Day, 2017).

There are several kinds of organic fertilizer such as:

a) Animal-based fertilizer. Many organic fertilizers come from animal

sources, either as slaughter and by-products or livestock manures. Blood, feather

and fish meals serve as sources of nitrogen. Blood meal provides the highest

nitrogen levels at 12 percent, although such high nitrogen levels can also burn and

damage plant roots. Feather and fish meals provide between seven and 10 percent

nitrogen. Bone meal contains 12 percent phosphorus, providing a reliable source

of this mineral in organic gardens (OrganicLife, 2017).

b) Plant-based fertilizer. Alfalfa and soybean meals contain three percent

and seven percent nitrogen, respectively. Cottonseed meal also contains about

seven percent nitrogen; however, overuse of chemical pesticides on cotton crops

generally makes cottonseed meal unfit for use in organic production. Wood ash
 8

provides low amounts of nitrogen and contains about six percent potassium

(Thumma, 2017).

c) Compost. Many organic gardeners use compost, hoping to reduce or

eliminate the need for fertilizers in their home garden. Unless one is composting

high-nutrient materials such as manures, compost alone might not feed plants

adequately depending on the soil's composition and the needs of the specific

plants. Organic growers typically use compost to improve the structure, aeration,

water and nutrient-holding capacities of the soil (Thumma, 2017).

Seaweed

Seaweed has been used all over the world for thousands of years, its most notably

been a prominent part of Asian diets for the longest period of time, particularly in Japan,

Korea and China. There are thought to be over 10,000 species of seaweed, reflecting its

immense diversity, both in flavour and nutritional properties. Seaweeds are beneficial to

health, and are thought to help the body fight illness and disease (Lewin, 2017).

Industrial utilization of seaweed is mostly centered on the extraction of

phycocolloids. Seaweeds are being used in cosmetics, and as organic fertilizers. They

have the potential to be much more widely used as a source of long- and short-chained

biochemicals with medicinal and industrial uses (Seaweed, 2017).

The vernacular “seaweed” is a bona-fide misnomer, because “weed” is a plant

that spreads so much that it can harm the habitat where it takes hold. Not only are the

fixed and free-floating “weeds” of the sea utterly essential to innumerable marine

creatures, both as food and as habitat, they also provide many benefits to land-dwellers,
 9

notably those of the human food variety. Some seaweed is microscopic, like

phytoplankton. Some are enormous, like the giant kelp. Most are medium-sized, come in

colors of red, green, brown, and black, and randomly wash up on beaches and shorelines

just about everywhere (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2017).

Guso

Guso is a Bisaya expression for a specific kind of nearby ocean growth, one of

around 500 edible species found in the Philippines, where local kelp(a type of brown

seaweed) are normally devoured. Guso is one of the significant produce of the waters in

the zone of Barobo in the region of Surigao del Sur. Ocean growth are cultivated by

choosing a zone in which the coveted species are endemic and with a water profundity of

about a large portion of a meter at low tide and no less than two meters at high tide, so

kelp would not be overexposed to daylight and air amid low tide and will be presented to

enough daylight infiltration amid high tide. Seawater temperature ought to be in the

vicinity of 27° and 30°C. Two types of guso are refined via ocean growth cultivators in

the zone: Eucheuma spinosum and Eucheuma cottonii. Both are rich in iodine, calcium, a

cancer prevention agent, vitamins and a characteristic fiber called alginate. Eucheum

cottonii, or red guso or giant guso, is the most commonly cultured guso, and grows much

faster than green guso. It can be harvested by pruning all of its branches or by harvesting

the entire plant and replacing it with fresh cuttings, which is more often performed before

the plant reaches one kg in weight (which takes 45-60 days) (Slow Food Foundation).

Eucheuma seaweed or Eucheuma cottonii, sometimes called sea birds nest, is

wonderful seaweed that is full of natural nutrients. This seaweed is great for healing
 10

inflammation, arthritis, lowering cholesterol, and preventing and healing DNA damage

plus it may be a possible low cost food source for feeding all the hungry people in the

world (Haider, 2015).

Supply. Commercial farms of guso are located mainly in the Philippines,

Indonesia, Tanzania, Mozambique, Zanzibar, and a few Pacific Islands. The success of

these farms started the introduction of Eucheuma and Kappaphycus to more than 25

countries. Based on the interview with the market vendors in Indang, Cavite, the current

price of guso is Php 200.00 per kilo.

Loose Leaf Lettuce

Looseleaf lettuces are colorful, easy, and fast-growing lettuce varieties. The plants

form open heads that harvest can be made a few leaves at a time, or whole plants as

needed. Looseleaf lettuces go from seed to salads in 5 weeks, seed to salad in 7-8 weeks

(Malsey, 2009).

Nutrients needed for growth. According to White & Brown (2010), plants need

at least 14 mineral elements for their nutrition. These include the macronutrients nitrogen

(N), phosphorus (P), potassium (K), calcium (Ca), magnesium (Mg) and sulphur (S) and

the micronutrients chlorine (Cl), boron (B), iron (Fe), manganese (Mn), copper (Cu), zinc

(Zn), nickel (Ni) and molybdenum (Mo).

 11

Table 1. Percent composition of elements to be present in 1 g of dry leaves of lettuce for

healthy growth(Purdue.edu, 2017)
N P K Ca Mg S Fe Zn Mn B Cu

4.5 0.5 5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0015 0.0005 0.0005 0.0003 0.0002

Time of maturity. Most varieties of lettuce mature in 45 to 55 days; looseleaf

and butterhead leaves can be harvested at any time in their development. Heading

varieties take longer to mature; Romaine takes 75 to 85 days and crisphead 70 to 100

days (Burpee, 2017).

Greenleaf variety. Green loose-leaf lettuce varieties range from light to deep

green in color. Varieties include oak leaf, a suitable selection for hot weather, with supple

leaves that resemble the shape of oak leaves, and a clean taste; black-seeded Simpson, an

early-harvest variety with light-green, ruffled leaves that are sweet and crisp; salad bowl,

a tender, mildly sweet lettuce that maintains its flavor even in hot weather; and Grand

Rapids, a heat-resistant, medium-to-large plant with hefty, thick leaves that are sweet in

taste (Malone, n.d.).

Redleaf variety. The leaves of some varieties of red loose-leaf lettuce are fully

colored deep red, while other varieties have leaves only tinged with red at the tips.

Merlot is a variety characterized by its dark-red to almost purple color and loose, very

crisp, ruffled leaves that are non-bitter in flavor. Red fire lettuce is green at the stem and

light red at the tips, is crisp and fresh in texture and flavor, and is resistant to disease. Red

sail lettuce is mild-tasting with crumpled, soft, bronze-red leaves. Ruby lettuce has
 12

delicate, deep-red leaves with bright-green stems, sweet and juicy in flavor, is also

resistant to disease (Malone, n.d.).

Green Ice Lettuce

Green Ice is one of the crispiest, most fulfilling loose-leaf lettuces that can be

produce. The leaves are gleaming, dim green, giving them additional crunchy surface

(Jackson & Perkins, 2018).It is a gourmet lettuce that is rich in vitamins. It is a semi-

heading loose leaf that reaches up to 12 inches tall (Everwilde, 2017).

 13

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the materials and equipment that were used in the study, the

research design, the procedures followed in extracting the seaweed, how the data were

interpreted, and the statistical analysis used in the study.

Materials Tools and Equipment

Water Cultivator

6 kilograms of Guso seaweeds Spade

Urea Fertilizer (46-0-0) Modified watering can

Container Seedling tray

Cheesecloth Water container

3 kilograms of molasses Measuring Tape

2 packs of Green Ice Lettuce Seed Weighting Scale

Ruler

Research Design
 14

The study used the Two-Group Design. Two (2) treatments and three (3)

replications each were used in the study. The first treatment (T 0) or the control group

used the commercial fertilizer; the other treatment (T 1) used the fermented Guso liquid

fertilizer.

REPLICATION
TREATMENTS
1 2 3

T0 T0R1 T0R2 T0R3

T1 T1R1 T1R2 T1R3

Figure 1. Two-Group Design

Treatments

The study used two (2) treatments and replicated three (3) times. The treatments

followed:

T0 – commercial fertilizer (Urea fertilizer)

T1 –fermented Guso liquid fertilizer

Procedures

Gathering of materials. The seedling tray, lettuce seeds, and chemical fertilizer

were bought on an agricultural supply store in Trece Martires City, Cavite. The Guso was

bought in the wet market also from Trece Martires City, Cavite. The pot, wire mesh

strainer, spade, cheesecloth, container, and zipper-sealed bag were from the researchers

homes. The modified watering can was made out of a recycled plastic bottle. After the
 15

materials were gathered, it was brought to the farm in Pangil, Amadeo where the study

was conducted.

Land Preparation. The area was cleaned from weeds and debris before making

the beds for the lettuce. After the land was prepared, the researchers used a rented

cultivator to prepare the soil and to form the bed structure for planting. The beds measure

one meter x four meters and the space between the beds measures 40 centimeters. This

study used a total of six beds. After the beds were formed, the researchers watered the

beds to make the soil soft and moist.

Fertilizer Making.The researchers prepared the guso by chopping it into small

pieces about 1 centimeter in length, the molasses, and the drum were readied before

making the fertilizer. With the ratio of 1:2 (weight), three kilos of molasses and six kilos

of guso, the ingredient were placed inside the drum and the lid was covered to ferment.

After one week of fermentation, it was filtered. Then, the filtrate was obtained it was

placed inside a clean container and diluted to one liter of water per one tablespoon

(0.0147868 L) of fermented guso and preserved for future use.

Seedling and Nursery. The researchers filled the seedling tray with soil media,

and watered it. After watering the seedling tray, the researchers spread the seeds on the

top, and covered it using soil media. It was pricked to nursery trays at two-leaf stages

after two weeks. then watered regularly or as needed. The seedling was provided with

partial shade during hot weather and rain shelter if there is heavy rain. The seedling was

hardened one week before the transplanting by decreasing the frequency of watering and

exposing fully to sunlight to minimize transplant shock.

 16

Transplanting. Three weeks after pricking, the researchers transplanted the

seedling to the bed. The researchers watered the holes thoroughly and transplanted one

seedling per hill. The researchers transplanted the seedling in the afternoon to minimize

transplant shock. The researchers utilized 300 Green Ice Loose Leaf Lettuce.

Watering the plants. The lettuces were watered every day in the morning and in

the afternoon or as needed.

Application of the Fertilizer. The researchers applied the guso liquid fertilizer

and the urea liquid fertilizer, at the rate of one tin can (approximately 150 mL) per bed on

the day of transplanting and repeated weekly in spray form. The researchers used urea as

inorganic fertilizer, where it was dissolved in water with the ratio of one liter of water per

one tablespoon (14.3 grams) of urea fertilizer, and drenched in the soil after transplanting.

The researchers applied the fertilizer once a week on every afternoon of Wednesday

(4:00p.m. – onwards) after the transplanting, but for the last 15 days of the lettuces before

harvesting, the researchers did not apply the fertilizer since it did not have any effect at

all. So in total the researchers applied the fertilizers three times in the whole study.

Harvesting. The green ice loose leaf lettuce was harvested in the day 21 after

transplanting and was weighed one by one.

Data Gathering

The planted green ice loose leaf lettuce was observed within 50 days in order to

gather the data needed for the study. The plants were observed and measured by the

researchers every week, but measurements were done starting on the second week after

the nursery where growth of true leaves could be measured.

 17

Weight of the Lettuce. It was measured through the use of a weighing scale. It

was measured after it was harvested and only the marketable part of the lettuce was

weighted, the roots and the dead and unhealthy leaves of the lettuce were not included.

Height of the Lettuce. It was observed by choosing the longest leaf in the plant

and measuring it by millimeter. The data needed was gathered every other day.

Data Presentation

The data gathered was tabulated using a design as shown below.

Table 1. Dummy table for height observation of green ice loose leaf lettuce
Day no. :___________
REPLICATION
TREATMENTS
1 2 3

Urea Fertilizer
(T0) T0R1 T0R2 T0R3

Fermented Guso
Liquid Fertilizer T1R1 T1R2 T1R3
(T1)

Table 2. Dummy table for the weight of the harvested green ice loose leaf lettuce
 18

REPLICATIONS
TREATMENTS
1 2 3

Urea Fertilizer
(T0) T0R1 T0R2 T0R3

Fermented Guso
Liquid Fertilizer T1R1 T1R2 T1R3
(T1)

Data Analysis

The data that were gathered and tabulated were analyzed using the one way

Analysis of Variance (ANOVA). One way ANOVA is a statistical technique that

assesses potential differences in a scale-level dependent variable by a nominal-level

variable having 2 or more categories.

 19

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter will discuss the results and analysis of the gathered data on the

growth of the green ice loose leaf lettuce in terms of height and weight.

Height of the Lettuce

Table 1 presents the mean height and the p-value of the lettuces treated with urea

fertilizer and the guso fertilizer in day 1 of observation. The mean of the height of

lettuces treated with guso fertilizer had the value of 111.64mm which is higher than the

lettuces treated with urea fertilizer. The probability value (p-value) of the height of the

lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer had a

similar value of 0.000 which is lower than the 0.05 level of significance. Hence, there is a

significant difference between the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer

and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.

Table 1. Height of green ice loose leaf lettuce in Day 1 of observation (in millimeters)
TYPE OF MEAN P - VALUE REMARKS
FERTILIZER

Urea Fertilizer 67.77 .000 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 111.64 .000 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in height when grouped according to the
type of fertilizer.
 20

Table 2 shows the mean height and the p-value of the lettuces treated with urea

fertilizer and guso fertilizer in day 3 of observation. The mean of the height of lettuces

treated with guso fertilizer had the measurement of 109.682mm which is higher than the

measurement of the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer. The probability value (p-value) of

the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated with

urea fertilizer had the same value of 0.000 that is lower than 0.05, so it tells that there is a

significant difference between the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer

and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.

Table 2. Height of green ice loose leaf lettuce in Day 3 of observation (in millimeters)
TYPE OF MEAN P - VALUE REMARKS
FERTILIZER

Urea Fertilizer 71.73 .000 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 109.82 .000 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in height when grouped according to the
type of fertilizer.

Table 3 shows the mean height and the p-value of the lettuces treated with urea

fertilizer and the guso fertilizer in day 5 of observation. The mean of the height of

lettuces treated with guso fertilizer had the measurement of 114.18mm and it is higher

than the measurement of the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer with 76.48mm. The

probability value (p-value) of the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer

and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer had the same value of 0.000 that is less than

0.05, so it means that there is a significant difference between the height of the lettuces

treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.
 21

Table 3. Height of green ice loose leaf lettuce in Day 5 of observation (in millimeters)
TYPE OF MEAN P - VALUE REMARKS
FERTILIZER

Urea Fertilizer 76.48 .000 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 114.18 .000 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in height when grouped according to the
type of fertilizer.

Table 4 shows the mean height and the p-value of the lettuces treated with urea

fertilizer and the guso fertilizer in day 7. The mean of the height of lettuces treated with

guso fertilizer had the measurement of 117.58mm which is higher than the measurement

of the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer. The probability value (p-value) of the height of

the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer

had the same value of 0.000 that is lower than 0.05, so it indicates that there is a

significant difference between the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer

and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.

Table 4. Height of green ice loose leaf lettuce in Day 7 of observation (in millimeters)
TYPE OF MEAN P - VALUE REMARKS
FERTILIZER

Urea Fertilizer 81.52 .000 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 117.58 .000 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in height when grouped according to the
type of fertilizer.

Table 5 shows the mean height and the p-value of the lettuces treated with urea

fertilizer and the guso fertilizer in day 9. The mean of the height of lettuces treated with
 22

guso fertilizer had the measurement of 119.12mm which is higher than the measurement

of the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer. The probability value (p-value) of the height of

the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer

had the same value of 0.000 that is less than 0.05, so it means that there is a significant

difference between the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the

lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.

Table 5. Height of green ice loose leaf lettuce in Day 9 of observation (in millimeters)
TYPE OF MEAN P - VALUE REMARKS
FERTILIZER

Urea Fertilizer 81.09 .000 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 119.12 .000 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in height when grouped according to the
type of fertilizer.

Table 6 shows the mean height and the p-value of the lettuces treated with urea

fertilizer and the guso fertilizer in day 11. The mean of the height of lettuces treated with

guso fertilizer had the measurement of 121.74mm which is higher than the measurement

of the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer. The probability value (p-value) of the height of

the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer

had the same value of 0.000 that is less than 0.05, so it tells that there is a significant

difference between the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the

lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.

 23

Table 6. Height of green ice loose leaf lettuce in Day 11 of observation (in millimeters)
TYPE OF MEAN P - VALUE REMARKS
FERTILIZER

Urea Fertilizer 79.84 .000 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 121.74 .000 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in height when grouped according to the
type of fertilizer.

Table 7 shows the mean height and the p-value of the lettuces treated with urea

fertilizer and the guso fertilizer in day 13. The mean of the height of lettuces treated with

guso fertilizer had the measurement of 132.81mm which is higher than the measurement

of the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer with 83.09mm. The probability value (p-value)

of the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated with

urea fertilizer had the same value of 0.000 that is less than 0.05, so it indicates that there

is a significant difference between the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid

fertilizer and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.

Table 7. Height of green ice loose leaf lettuce in Day 13 of observation (in millimeters)
TYPE OF MEAN P - VALUE REMARKS
FERTILIZER

Urea Fertilizer 83.09 .000 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 132.81 .000 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in height when grouped according to the
type of fertilizer.
 24

Table 8 shows the mean height and the p-value of the lettuces treated with urea

fertilizer and the guso fertilizer in day 15. The mean of the height of lettuces treated with

guso fertilizer had the measurement of 148.96mm which is higher than the measurement

of the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer. The probability value (p-value) of the height of

the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer

had the same value of 0.000 that is less than 0.05, so it tells that there is a significant

difference between the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the

lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.

Table 8. Height of green ice loose leaf lettuce in Day 15 of observation (in millimeters)
TYPE OF MEAN P - VALUE REMARKS
FERTILIZER

Urea Fertilizer 88.05 .000 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 148.96 .000 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in height when grouped according to the
type of fertilizer.

Table 9 shows the mean height and the p-value of the lettuces treated with urea

fertilizer and the guso fertilizer in day 17. The mean of the height of lettuces treated with

guso fertilizer had the measurement of 153.46mm which is higher than the measurement

of the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer. The probability value (p-value) of the height of

the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer

had the same value of 0.000 that is less than 0.05, so it means that there is a significant

difference between the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the

lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.

 25

Table 9. Height of green ice loose leaf lettuce in Day 17 of observation (in millimeters)
TYPE OF MEAN P - VALUE REMARKS
FERTILIZER

Urea Fertilizer 90.96 .000 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 153.46 .000 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in height when grouped according to the
type of fertilizer.

Table 10 shows the mean height and the p-value of the lettuces treated with urea

fertilizer and the guso fertilizer in day 19. The mean of the height of lettuces treated with

guso fertilizer had the measurement of 157.31mm which is higher than the measurement

of the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer. The probability value (p-value) of the height of

the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer

had the same value of 0.000 which is less than 0.05, so it indicates that there is a

significant difference between the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer

and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.

Table 10. Height of green ice loose leaf lettuce in Day 19 of observation (in millimeters)
TYPE OF MEAN P - VALUE REMARKS
FERTILIZER

Urea Fertilizer 94.55 .000 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 157.31 .000 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in height when grouped according to the
type of fertilizer.
 26

Table 11 shows the mean height and the p-value of the lettuces treated with urea

fertilizer and the guso fertilizer in day 21. The mean of the height of lettuces treated with

guso fertilizer had the measurement of 160.47mm which is higher than the measurement

of the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer. The probability value (p-value) of the height of

the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer

had the same value of 0.000 that is less than 0.05, so it tells that there is a significant

difference between the height of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the

lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.

Table 11. Height of green ice loose leaf lettuce in Day 21 of observation (in millimeters)
TYPE OF MEAN P - VALUE REMARKS
FERTILIZER

Urea Fertilizer 98.11 .000 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 160.47 .000 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in height when grouped according to the
type of fertilizer.

Weight of the Lettuce

Table 12 shows the mean weight and the p-value of the lettuce treated with urea

fertilizer and the guso fertilizer. The mean of the weight of lettuces treated with guso

fertilizer had the measurement of 66.49grams which is higher than the measurement of

the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer with 57.42grams. The probability value (p-value)

of the weight of the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and the lettuces treated

with urea fertilizer had the same value of 0.005 that is less than 0.05, so it means that
 27

there is a significant difference between the weight of the lettuces treated with guso liquid

fertilizer and the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer.

Table 12. Weight of green ice loose leaf lettuce (in grams)
Type of Fertilizer Mean P-value Remarks

Urea Fertilizer 57.42 .005 Reject H0

Guso Liquid 66.49 .005 Reject H0

Fertilizer
*Null Hypothesis (H0): There is no significant difference in weight when grouped according to
the type of fertilizer.

Generally, the lettuces applied with guso fertilizer grew better than the lettuces

applied with urea fertilizer. This could be attributed to the time where the guso fertilizer

was applied to the plants which was 4p.m. onwards. It was the time when the plant’s

stomata are open. Hence, using foliar feeding method, the nutrients are then easily

absorbed by the plant’s open stomata. Moreover, the nutrient content of the guso seaweed

could also be a factor for the better growth response of the lettuce. According to Lawson

(2016), the guso seaweed contains hormones, auxins and cytokinins, in which, the

auxins’ main function is the balanced control of speed growth while the cytokinins can

stimulate growth rate of the plant. It may also be possibly because of the nutrients that is

provided by the fermented guso since the guso seaweed was fermented and the extract or

the fermented plant juice of the fermented guso was mixed with water and used as the

fertilizers. According to Valdez (2016), FPJ or Fermented Plant Juice is rich in micro and

macro nutrients and the FPJ can provide nitrogen and some micronutrients like calcium,

molybdenum, manganese, iron, and carbon. However, it was observed that the lettuces
 28

treated with fermented guso liquid fertilizer was attacked by insects. It seems that the

insects are easily attracted to the fertilizer due to the presence of sugar from the molasses

that was used in the fermentation process.

 29

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATION

Summary

This study was conducted to determine the effect of Guso as an organic liquid

fertilizer in growing of Green Ice Loose Leaf Lettuce. Specifically, the study aimed to:

(1) determine the growth characteristics of lettuce treated with the Guso fertilizer in terms

of height and weight and (2) determine if there is a significant difference in the growth of

lettuce treated with Guso fertilizer and commercial fertilizer in terms of height and

weight.

Six (6) kilograms of Guso seaweed was sliced into one centimeter size before

mixing with three kilos of molasses. It was placed in a container with a cloth and thick

rubber band as cover on the top of the mix and left for two weeks of fermentation. After

the fermentation process, the filtrate were collected by filtering the mixture and the

filtrate obtained was placed inside a clean container and diluted to one liter of water per

one tablespoon of fermented guso and preserved for future uses. Urea liquid fertilizer was

used as treatment 2. Urea (46-0-0) was dissolved in water in the ratio of one liter of water

per one tablespoon of urea fertilizer. The fertilizers were applied once a week with a total

of three applications. On the last 15 days of data gathering, the fertilizer was not applied

to the plant since it had no effect at all.

The data for the height of the plant was measured every other day, while the data

for the weight was measured after the harvest.

The results of the study showes that there is a significant difference between the

growth response of lettuce treated with guso liquid fertilizer to urea fertilizer. In terms of
 30

height, the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer had given better results than the

lettuces treated with urea fertilizer and both the lettuce treated with guso liquid fertilizer

and urea fertilizer has 0.000 probability value (p-value) and it indicates that there is a

significant difference between the two treatments. And in terms of weight, the lettuces

treated with guso fertilizer are heavier than the lettuces treated with urea fertilizer and

both the lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and urea fertilizer had the probability

value (p-value) of 0.005 and it tells that there is a significant difference between the

lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer and urea fertilizer.

Conclusion

After the conduct of this study, the researchers came up with the following

conclusions:

1. The lettuces treated with guso liquid fertilizer had higger values in terms of height

and weight as compared to lettuces treated with urea fertilizer. This indicates that guso

liquid fertilizer could enhance the growth of lettuce.

2. There is a significant difference between the lettuces treated with guso liquid

fertilizer and lettuces treated with urea fertilizer in terms of height and weight. This could

be attributed to the natural nutrients and hormones of the guso that can be utilized for

plant’s growth and development.

 31

Recommendation

After the conduct of this study, the researchers came up with the following

recommendations:

1. Extend the duration of the fermentation process.

2. Use other kind and concentration of inorganic fertilizer.

3. Use different concentrations and formulation of the fertilizer.

4. Use other parameters like the number of leaves, mortality rate, concentration, etc. in

assessing the growth response of the plants to the formulated liquid fertilizer.