Table 1.

Effect of Black Soldier Fly Larvae Frass as an alternative fertilizer in cultivating

Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Pechay) in the following treatments

Treatment D5 D10 D15 D20 D25 D30 Mean SD

T0 (7g
Commercial 7.228 11.144 15.039 21.070 25.900 28.911 18.215 8.514
fertilizer)
T1 (No
fertilizer, only 5.361 8.389 12.711 15.226 17.467 19.311 13.077 5.374
Water)
T2 (15g BSFL
6.111 9.906 15.061 18.418 20.444 22.789 15.455 6.414
frass)
T3 (28g BSFL
6.294 10.322 16.344 20.756 23.587 25.189 17.082 7.538
frass)
T4 (44g BSFL
5.822 10.361 17.017 20.193 23.012 25.489 16.982 7.582
frass)
T5 (57g BSFL
6.711 10.372 18.344 22.378 24.839 27.489 18.356 8.258
frass)

Table 1 presents the effect of Black Soldier Fly Larvae Frass as an alternative

fertilizer in cultivating Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Pechay) in the following

treatments Treatment 0 (T0-7g Commercial fertilizer), Treatment 1 (T1-No fertilizer, only

Water), Treatment 2 (T2-15g BSFL frass), Treatment 3 (T3-28g BSFL frass), Treatment 4

(T4-44g BSFL frass), and Treatment 5 (T5-57g BSFL frass). It can be seen from the

results that the different treatments continuously increased the from day 5 to day 30.

The highest mean of the growth in height is T 5 ( M =18.356 ). This is followed by T 1

( M =18.215 ). Then by T3 ( M =17.082 ) . The lowest mean result is using the T1. This is the

application of no fertilizer and only water.

This result shows that the effect of Black Soldier Fly Larvae Frass as an

alternative fertilizer in cultivating Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Pechay) is effective

and it is equitable to the performance of T0 that is using the commercialized fertilizer.

Table 2. Means of treatments of Black Soldier Fly Larvae Frass as alternative fertilizer
is effective in cultivating Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Pechay).

Treatment Growth in Height (cm) Growth in Weight (g)

T0 (7g Commercial fertilizer) 18.215 8.514 106.67 3.51
T1 (No fertilizer, only Water) 13.077 5.374 22.67 3.06
T2 (15g BSFL frass) 15.455 6.414 34.67 2.52
T3 (28g BSFL frass) 17.082 7.538 38.67 2.52
T4 (44g BSFL frass) 16.982 7.582 44.67 4.62
T5 (57g BSFL frass) 18.356 8.258 73.00 12.49

Table 2 presents the effect of Black Soldier Fly Larvae Frass as an alternative

fertilizer in cultivating Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Pechay) in the growth in height

and weight of peachy. In height, the use of 57g BSFL frass in T5 got the highest mean

with 18.356 centimeters, followed by the use of commercial fertilizer in T 0 with mean of

18.215. The lowest mean result is using no fertilizer and only water in T 1 with mean of

13.077.

This result shows that the effect of Black Soldier Fly Larvae Frass as an

alternative fertilizer in cultivating Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Pechay) is effective

and it is equitable to the performance of T0 that is using the commercialized fertilizer.

In weight, the highest mean is in the use of commercial fertilizer with mean of

106.67 g followed by the use of 57g BSFL frass with mean of 73.00 g. The same in the

growth in height, the lowest mean result is using no fertilizer and only water in T 1 with

mean of 22.67 g.

This result also shows that the effect of Black Soldier Fly Larvae Frass as an

alternative fertilizer in cultivating Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Pechay) is effective

and Although, it is not equitable to the performance of T 0 that is using the

commercialized fertilizer.
Table 3. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for the difference in the height using the

different treatments with the number of days.

P-
Source of Variation SS df MS F
value
Treatment 118.551 5 23.710 12.955 0.000
Number of Days 1579.289 5 315.858 172.587 0.000
Error 45.753 25 1.830

Total 1743.593 35

A two-way ANOVA was used to test the difference in the height across different

treatments and number of days. Results show that there are significant differences with

the growth of pechay using treatments T 0 to T5 as supported by the F = 12.955 and p

= .000. A p-value of less than .05 indicates a significant difference. This is also true with

the growth in height when number of days are considered, a significant difference is

noted as evidenced by F = 172.587 and p = .000.

Table 4. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) results for the difference in the weight using the

different treatments with the number of days.

P-
Source of Variation SS df MS F
value
14430.94 2886.18
Treatment 5 81.813 .000
4 9
Error 423.333 12 35.278
14854.27
Total 17
8

A single ANOVA was used to test the difference in the weight across different treatments

and number of days. Results show that there are significant differences with the growth

of pechay using treatments T0 to T5 as supported by the F = 81.813 and p = .000.

TREATMENT D5 D10 D15 D20 D25 D30 Mean SD
0 (7g
Commercial 7.228 11.144 15.039 21.070 25.900 28.911 18.215 8.514
fertilizer)
1 (No
fertilizer, only 5.361 8.389 12.711 15.226 17.467 19.311 13.077 5.374
Water)
2 (15g BSFL
6.111 9.906 15.061 18.418 20.444 22.789 15.455 6.414
frass)
3 (28g BSFL
6.294 10.322 16.344 20.756 23.587 25.189 17.082 7.538
frass)
4 (44g BSFL
5.822 10.361 17.017 20.193 23.012 25.489 16.982 7.582
frass)
5 (57g BSFL
6.711 10.372 18.344 22.378 24.839 27.489 18.356 8.258
frass)

Anova: Two-Factor Without

Replication

Averag Varianc
SUMMARY Count Sum SD
e e
T0 6 109.292 18.215 72.483 8.514
T1 6 78.465 13.077 28.880 5.374
T2 6 92.729 15.455 41.143 6.414
T3 6 102.492 17.082 56.827 7.538
T4 6 101.894 16.982 57.483 7.582
T5 6 110.133 18.356 68.191 8.258

D5 6 37.528 6.255 0.433 0.658

D10 6 60.494 10.082 0.849 0.922
D15 6 94.516 15.753 3.781 1.944
D20 6 118.039 19.673 6.412 2.532
D25 6 135.249 22.541 9.605 3.099
D30 6 149.178 24.863 11.781 3.432

ANOVA
P-
Source of Variation SS df MS F F crit
value
Rows 118.551 5 23.710 12.955 0.000 2.603
Columns 1579.289 5 315.858 172.587 0.000 2.603
Error 45.753 25 1.830

Total 1743.593 35
Statement of the Problem
This study generally aims to determine the potential efficacy of Hermetia illucens
L. (Black Soldier Fly Larvae Frass) as an alternative fertilizer for the cultivation on
Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Pechay).
Specifically, this study shall seek answers to the following questions:
1. What is the effect of Black Soldier Fly Larvae Frass as an alternative fertilizer in
cultivating Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Pechay) in the following treatments?
3.1 T0 – 7g Commercial fertilizer, 2000g soil
3.2 T1 – 350 mL Water, 2000g soil
3.3 T2 – 15g BSF frass, 2000g soil
3.4 T3 – 28g BSF frass, 2000g soil
3.5 T4– 44g BSF frass, 2000g soil
3.6 T5– 57g BSF frass, 2000g soil
2. Which of the treatments of Black Soldier Fly Larvae Frass as alternative fertilizer
is effective in cultivating Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Pechay) in terms of:
2.1 A. Height?
2.2 B. Weight?
3. Is there a significant difference between the treatments of Black Soldier Fly
Larvae Frass as an alternative fertilizer in cultivating pechay?
4. Is there significant difference between the treatments of Black Soldier Fly Larvae
as an alternative fertilizer in cultivating Brassica rapa subsp. chinensis (Pechay)
in terms of:
4.1 A. Height?
4.2 B. Weight?
 Descriptives
TREATMENT

95% Confidence Interval for Mean

N Mean Std. Deviation Std. Error Lower Bound Upper Bound Minimum Maximum

1 6 6.2545 .65782 .26855 5.5642 6.9448 5.36 7.23

2 6 10.0823 .92137 .37615 9.1154 11.0493 8.39 11.14
3 6 15.7527 1.94436 .79378 13.7122 17.7931 12.71 18.34
4 6 19.6735 2.53230 1.03381 17.0160 22.3310 15.23 22.38
5 6 22.5415 3.09911 1.26521 19.2892 25.7938 17.47 25.90
6 6 24.8630 3.43239 1.40127 21.2609 28.4651 19.31 28.91
Total 36 16.5279 7.05819 1.17636 14.1398 18.9161 5.36 28.91

ANOVA
TREATMENT

Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 1579.327 5 315.865 57.674 .000

Within Groups 164.303 30 5.477
Total 1743.630 35

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: TREATMENT
Tukey HSD

Mean Difference 95% Confidence Interval

(I) days (J) days (I-J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound

1 2 -3.82783 1.35114 .079 -7.9375 .2818

3 -9.49817* 1.35114 .000 -13.6078 -5.3885

*
4 -13.41900 1.35114 .000 -17.5286 -9.3094

5 -16.28700* 1.35114 .000 -20.3966 -12.1774

*
6 -18.60850 1.35114 .000 -22.7181 -14.4989
2 1 3.82783 1.35114 .079 -.2818 7.9375
*
3 -5.67033 1.35114 .003 -9.7800 -1.5607
*
4 -9.59117 1.35114 .000 -13.7008 -5.4815
*
5 -12.45917 1.35114 .000 -16.5688 -8.3495
6 -14.78067* 1.35114 .000 -18.8903 -10.6710
*
3 1 9.49817 1.35114 .000 5.3885 13.6078
 2 5.67033* 1.35114 .003 1.5607 9.7800
4 -3.92083 1.35114 .068 -8.0305 .1888
*
5 -6.78883 1.35114 .000 -10.8985 -2.6792
*
6 -9.11033 1.35114 .000 -13.2200 -5.0007
*
4 1 13.41900 1.35114 .000 9.3094 17.5286
2 9.59117* 1.35114 .000 5.4815 13.7008
3 3.92083 1.35114 .068 -.1888 8.0305
5 -2.86800 1.35114 .303 -6.9776 1.2416
*
6 -5.18950 1.35114 .007 -9.2991 -1.0799
5 1 16.28700* 1.35114 .000 12.1774 20.3966
*
2 12.45917 1.35114 .000 8.3495 16.5688
*
3 6.78883 1.35114 .000 2.6792 10.8985
4 2.86800 1.35114 .303 -1.2416 6.9776
6 -2.32150 1.35114 .531 -6.4311 1.7881
*
6 1 18.60850 1.35114 .000 14.4989 22.7181
*
2 14.78067 1.35114 .000 10.6710 18.8903

3 9.11033* 1.35114 .000 5.0007 13.2200

*
4 5.18950 1.35114 .007 1.0799 9.2991

5 2.32150 1.35114 .531 -1.7881 6.4311

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

TREATMENT
a
Tukey HSD

Subset for alpha = 0.05

days N 1 2 3 4

5 6 6.2545
10 6 10.0823
15 6 15.7527
20 6 19.6735 19.6735
25 6 22.5415 22.5415
30 6 24.8630
Sig. .079 .068 .303 .531

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 6.000.
 Descriptives
weight
95% Confidence Interval
for Mean
Std. Std. Lower Upper
N Mean Deviation Error Bound Bound Minimum Maximum
T0 3 106.67 3.512 2.028 97.94 115.39
T1 3 22.67 3.055 1.764 15.08 30.26 20 26
T2 3 34.67 2.517 1.453 28.42 40.92 32 37
T3 3 38.67 2.517 1.453 32.42 44.92 36 41
T4 3 44.67 4.619 2.667 33.19 56.14 42 50
T5 3 73.00 12.490 7.211 41.97 104.03 63 87
Total 18 53.39 29.560 6.967 38.69 68.09 20 110

ANOVA
weight
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 14430.944 5 2886.189 81.813 .000
Within Groups 423.333 12 35.278
Total 14854.278 17

Post Hoc Tests

Multiple Comparisons
Dependent Variable: weight
Mean 95% Confidence Interval
Difference (I-
(I) treatment (J) treatment J) Std. Error Sig. Lower Bound Upper Bound
Tukey HSD T0 T1 84.000* 4.850 .000 67.71 100.29
T2 72.000* 4.850 .000 55.71 88.29
T3 68.000* 4.850 .000 51.71 84.29
T4 62.000* 4.850 .000 45.71 78.29
T6 33.667* 4.850 .000 17.38 49.96
T1 T0 -84.000* 4.850 .000 -100.29 -67.71
T2 -12.000 4.850 .206 -28.29 4.29
T3 -16.000 4.850 .055 -32.29 .29
T4 -22.000* 4.850 .007 -38.29 -5.71
T6 -50.333* 4.850 .000 -66.62 -34.04
*
T2 T0 -72.000 4.850 .000 -88.29 -55.71
T1 12.000 4.850 .206 -4.29 28.29
T3 -4.000 4.850 .957 -20.29 12.29
T4 -10.000 4.850 .366 -26.29 6.29
T6 -38.333* 4.850 .000 -54.62 -22.04
T3 T0 -68.000* 4.850 .000 -84.29 -51.71
T1 16.000 4.850 .055 -.29 32.29
T2 4.000 4.850 .957 -12.29 20.29
T4 -6.000 4.850 .811 -22.29 10.29
T6 -34.333* 4.850 .000 -50.62 -18.04
 T4 T0 -62.000* 4.850 .000 -78.29 -45.71
T1 22.000* 4.850 .007 5.71 38.29
T2 10.000 4.850 .366 -6.29 26.29
T3 6.000 4.850 .811 -10.29 22.29
T6 -28.333* 4.850 .001 -44.62 -12.04
T6 T0 -33.667* 4.850 .000 -49.96 -17.38
T1 50.333* 4.850 .000 34.04 66.62
T2 38.333* 4.850 .000 22.04 54.62
T3 34.333* 4.850 .000 18.04 50.62
T4 28.333* 4.850 .001 12.04 44.62
LSD T0 T1 84.000* 4.850 .000 73.43 94.57
T2 72.000* 4.850 .000 61.43 82.57
T3 68.000* 4.850 .000 57.43 78.57
T4 62.000* 4.850 .000 51.43 72.57
T6 33.667* 4.850 .000 23.10 44.23
T1 T0 -84.000* 4.850 .000 -94.57 -73.43
T2 -12.000* 4.850 .029 -22.57 -1.43
T3 -16.000* 4.850 .006 -26.57 -5.43
T4 -22.000* 4.850 .001 -32.57 -11.43
T6 -50.333* 4.850 .000 -60.90 -39.77
T2 T0 -72.000* 4.850 .000 -82.57 -61.43
T1 12.000* 4.850 .029 1.43 22.57
T3 -4.000 4.850 .426 -14.57 6.57
T4 -10.000 4.850 .062 -20.57 .57
T6 -38.333* 4.850 .000 -48.90 -27.77
T3 T0 -68.000* 4.850 .000 -78.57 -57.43
T1 16.000* 4.850 .006 5.43 26.57
T2 4.000 4.850 .426 -6.57 14.57
T4 -6.000 4.850 .240 -16.57 4.57
T6 -34.333* 4.850 .000 -44.90 -23.77
T4 T0 -62.000* 4.850 .000 -72.57 -51.43
T1 22.000* 4.850 .001 11.43 32.57
T2 10.000 4.850 .062 -.57 20.57
T3 6.000 4.850 .240 -4.57 16.57
T6 -28.333* 4.850 .000 -38.90 -17.77
T5 T0 -33.667* 4.850 .000 -44.23 -23.10
T1 50.333* 4.850 .000 39.77 60.90
T2 38.333* 4.850 .000 27.77 48.90
T3 34.333* 4.850 .000 23.77 44.90
T4 28.333* 4.850 .000 17.77 38.90

*. The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level.

Homogeneous Subsets

weight
treatment N Subset for alpha = 0.05
 1 2 3 4
Tukey HSDa T1 3 22.67
T2 3 34.67 34.67
T3 3 38.67 38.67
T4 3 44.67
T5 3 73.00
T0 3 106.67
Sig. .055 .366 1.000 1.000

Means for groups in homogeneous subsets are displayed.

a. Uses Harmonic Mean Sample Size = 3.000.

TREATMENT D5 D10 D15 D20 D25 D30 Mean SD

0 (7g
Commercial 7.228 11.144 15.039 21.070 25.900 28.911 18.215 8.514
fertilizer)
1 (No
fertilizer, only 5.361 8.389 12.711 15.226 17.467 19.311 13.077 5.374
Water)
2 (15g BSFL
6.111 9.906 15.061 18.418 20.444 22.789 15.455 6.414
frass)
3 (28g BSFL
6.294 10.322 16.344 20.756 23.587 25.189 17.082 7.538
frass)
4 (44g BSFL
5.822 10.361 17.017 20.193 23.012 25.489 16.982 7.582
frass)
5 (57g BSFL
6.711 10.372 18.344 22.378 24.839 27.489 18.356 8.258
frass)

Anova: Two-Factor Without

Replication

Averag Varianc
SUMMARY Count Sum SD
e e
T1 6 109.292 18.215 72.483 8.514
T2 6 78.465 13.077 28.880 5.374
T3 6 92.729 15.455 41.143 6.414
T4 6 102.492 17.082 56.827 7.538
T5 6 101.894 16.982 57.483 7.582
T6 6 110.133 18.356 68.191 8.258

D5 6 37.528 6.255 0.433 0.658

D10 6 60.494 10.082 0.849 0.922
D15 6 94.516 15.753 3.781 1.944
D20 6 118.039 19.673 6.412 2.532
D25 6 135.249 22.541 9.605 3.099
D30 6 149.178 24.863 11.781 3.432

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Rows 118.551 5 23.710 12.955 0.000 2.603
1579.28
Columns 5 315.858 172.587 0.000 2.603
9
Error 45.753 25 1.830

1743.59
Total 35
3