CARIBBEAN SECONDARY EDUCATION CERTIFICATE

SCHOOL BASED ASSESSMENT (SBA)

AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE (DOUBLE AWARD)
CROP PRODUCTION

Name of Student: Cheeanna Chung

Student Registration Number: 0901000132
Name of School: Saraswati Vidya Niketan
Name of Teacher: A. Rampersaud
Title of Project:
An investigation to determine the efficiency of Inorganic
fertilizer (Nurish 20-20-20 + Micros) VS. Organic manure
(Liquid Litter) on Lettuce production.

Start Date:
Termination Date:

1|Page
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contents
INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................................3
PROBLEM STATEMENT..........................................................................................................................4
AIM.............................................................................................................................................................5
METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................................6
ACTIVITIES...............................................................................................................................................7
DATA COLLECTION..............................................................................................................................11
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION................................................................................................................12
CONCLUSION.........................................................................................................................................17
LIMITATION...........................................................................................................................................18
RECOMMENDATION.............................................................................................................................19
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................20
COST ANALYSIS....................................................................................................................................21

2|Page
INTRODUCTION
Literature Review
A fertilizer is a chemical or natural material that is put to soil or land to make it more
fertile. Organic and inorganic fertilizers are the two types of fertilizers. Inorganic fertilizers,
according to Miller (2018), are those that are made artificially and contain minerals or synthetic
compounds. Organic fertilizers are mineral sources that are naturally accessible and include a
reasonable amount of plant needed minerals (Shaji et al, 2021). Although these two forms of
fertilizers encourage plant growth and development, they come with a number of advantages and
downsides.
The 20:20:20 is an inorganic fertilizer that has equal amounts of nitrogen, phosphorous,
and potassium (20%). Nitrogen stimulates general plant growth, phosphorous promotes root
system growth and development, and potassium is required for photosynthesis and root system
development. Liquid litter is an organic fertilizer made up of urea, ammonium, and nitrogen in
various amounts. Ammonium and nitrogen have comparable effects on plant development, and
urea is employed to enhance the growth of fleshy leaves.
Inorganic fertilizers have the following advantages: they encourage quick plant
development, they take action instantly, they have a high nutritional content, and just a little
amount is necessary for productivity. According to Mintesinot (2019), inorganic fertilizers are
susceptible to leeching if over applied, raise soil acidity, accelerate organic matter breakdown,
resulting in soil structure deterioration, and reduce fertilizer efficiency overall.
Organic fertilizers increase soil fertility by increasing organic matter in the soil, which
improves soil structure, air and water retention, and the rate at which nutrients are released
(Mintesinot, 2019). Although organic fertilizers appear to be perfect, they have restricted nutrient
availability and the possibility to include viruses if improperly processed, which will most likely
harm the plant.
Fertilizers, whether organic or artificial, are used extensively on farms to increase crop
output. It is undeniable that fertilizers enhance plant growth and development in order to boost
market profitability. This raises the question of which fertilizer is the most effective. The goal of
this study is to see if organic or inorganic fertilizers are more effective in promoting plant
growth.

3|Page
PROBLEM STATEMENT

The majority of commercial farmers use fertilizers to improve the profitability of their
crops. Fertilizers are necessary for the proper growth and development of the plant, as such they
are essential. Therefore, the researcher decided to investigate whether inorganic (20: 20: 20)
fertilization or organic (liquid Litter) fertilizers is better for plant growth and development.

4|Page
AIM
- To determine if tomatoes grown with organic fertilizer (liquid litter) vs inorganic
fertilizer (20:20:20) will gain higher yield.

- To determine if tomatoes grown with organic fertilizer (liquid litter) vs inorganic

fertilizer (20:20:20) will gain higher income.

5|Page
METHODOLOGY

- A plot of land was selected in the school compound on the 19th September, 2022.
- The land was cleared manually using brush-cutter on the 20th September, 2022.
- Primary tillage was done manually using a garden fork on the 21th and 22th September,
2022.
- Secondary tillage was done manually using a cutlass to chip the soil on the 23th
September.
- Eleven (11) ridges (beds) we created on the 24th September, 2022. Another eleven (11)
were crested on the 26th September, 2022, given the total of twenty-two (22) ridges.
- Eleven beds were selected for the treatment of organic and another eleven were selected
for the treatment of inorganic fertilizer.
- The beds were soaked using a garden hose and transplanting of tomato seedlings was
done late in the afternoon on 03rd October 2022.
- Three (3) plants were transplanted on each bed given a total of 66 seedlings.
- A shade was constructed using the black saran netting to protect the young seedlings
from direct sunlight until they were able to with stand the exposure of full sunlight.
- The first eleven beds were treated with organic fertilizer (liquid litter) and the second
eleven were treated with inorganic fertilizer (20:20:20)
- Application of the different types of fertilizer was given every at 7 days’ intervals.
- Weed control was done on a weekly basis.
- The saran netting was removed and staking was done on the 15th November, 2022.
- Irrigation and watering of plants was done on a daily basis expect on rainy days.
- Two beds were mulched with dry grass and two beds were observed without mulching.
- Harvesting was done during the ------ and ---- of December 2022 and the tomatoes were
sold.

6|Page
 TABLE 1: MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT

Materials Equipment
Tomato seedlings Fork
Liquid litter Shovel
Nurish 20-20-20 Cutlass
Stakes Water Can
Black Saran Nettings Garden Hose
Water- proof Garden Twine Brush-cutter
Knap-sack sprayer

7|Page
ACTIVITIES
 Seedlings were transplanted

 Mulching was done.

 Plants were watered daily

 Weed control was done weekly

 Fertilizer applications were done at 7 days’ intervals

 Harvesting was done at the end of four weeks.

8|Page
DATA COLLECTION

- A dairy was kept on all activities and observations that was

made daily for the duration of the project

- The plants were measured weekly to obtain the heights of

plants

- Each set of tomato (from the different treatments) was

harvested and separately sold.

9|Page
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
GRAPH SHOWING AVERAGE HEIGHT OF LETTUCE PLANTS
HARVESTED (INORGANIC B1 VS ORGANIC B1)
16
14.1
14
12
10 8.9 9.2
Height (cm)

8.3
7.7
8 7
6 6
6
4
2
0
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
Weeks

Inorganic(B1) Organic(B1)

FIGURE 5: AVERAGE HEIGHT OF BATCH 1 INORGANIC & ORGANIC LETTUCE

The plants all began out at the same height in the first week, as can be observed. In week 2, the
plants given inorganic fertilizers (8.3) had a 0.6cm height advantage over the ones given
organic fertilizers (7.7cm). Plants given inorganic fertilizers (8.9cm) grew even higher than
plants given organic fertilizers (7cm) in the third week, a difference of 1.9cm. This pattern
continued in the last week, with plants given inorganic fertilizers (14.1cm) growing quicker than
plants given organic fertilizers, with a difference of 4.9cm.

10 | P a g e
 GRAPH SHOWING AVERAGE HEIGHT OF LETTUCE PLANTS
HARVESTED (INORGANIC B2 VS ORGANIC B2)
10
8.9 9.1
9 8.7 8.8

8
7.2
7 6.5 6.3
6
6
Height (cm)

5
4
3
2
1
0
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

Weeks

Inorganic(B2) Organic(B2)

FIGURE 6: AVERAGE HEIGHT OF BATCH 2 INORGANIC & ORGANIC LETTUCE

In the first week of development, the plants provided organic fertilizer (6.5cm) outgrew the
plants given inorganic fertilizer (6cm) by 0.5cm, as seen in the graph above. Plants given
inorganic fertilizers (8.7cm) grew at a faster pace in the second week, while plants given organic
fertilizers (7.2cm) grew at a slower rate. The tendency remained in the third week, with
inorganic fertilizer plants (8.8cm) continuing to dominate, while organic fertilizer plants'
average plant height decreased. Organic fertilizer-fed plants (9.1cm) outgrew inorganic
fertilizer-fed plants (8.9cm) by 0.2cm in the last week.

11 | P a g e
 GRAPH SHOWING THE AVERAGE # OF LEAVES (Inorganic B1
VS Organic B1)
7

5
# of leaves

0
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4
Weeks

Inorganic(B1) Organic(B1)

FIGURE 7: BATCH 1 AVERAGE # OF INORGANIC & ORGANIC LEAVES.

Both batches of plants had the same amount of leaves after the first week. The batch fed
inorganic fertilizers (4 leaves) produced 1 leaf more than the organic batch in the second week
(3 leaves). Both batches produced the same amount of leaves during the third (5 leaves) and
fourth (6 leaves) weeks.

12 | P a g e
 GRAPH SHOWING THE AVERAGE # OF LEAVES (Inorganic B2
BS Organic B2)
8

5
# of leaves

0
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4

Weeks

Inorganic(B2) Organic(B2)

Figure 8: BATCH 2 AVERAGE # OF INORGANIC & ORGANIC LEAVES

Figure 8 shows that the number of leaves in both batches remained the same in the first week.
The inorganic fertilizer batch (4 leaves) gained 1 leaf more than the organic fertilizer batch (3
leaves) in the second week. This pattern continued in the third (5 leaves to 4 leaves) and fourth
weeks (6 leaves to 5 leaves), with the inorganic fertilizer batch growing 1 leaf more each week
than the organic fertilizer batch.

13 | P a g e
 # OF PLANTS HARVESTED

12

Inorganic(B1) Organic(B1)

FIGURE 9: BATCH 1 # OF INORGANIC & ORGANIC PLANTS HARVESTED

The number of plants taken from batch 1 of inorganic and organic fertilizers was very different,
as shown in Figure 9. The plants given organic fertilizers (12 plants) all survived the four weeks,
however the ones given inorganic fertilizers (8 plants) only survived four weeks, with four plants
dying from the initial number of plants (12 plants).

# OF PLANTS HARVESTED

11
12

Inorganic(B2) Organic(B2)

FIGURE 10: BATCH 2 # OF INORGANIC & ORGANIC PLANTS HARVESTED

There is a discrepancy of one plant death between the number of plants gathered in batch 2 of
inorganic and organic fertilizers. Plants given organic fertilizers (12 plants) survived the entire
four-week period, but plants given inorganic fertilizers (11 plants) died one by one.

14 | P a g e
CONCLUSION
Organic fertilizer was shown to be the best fertilizer in the study. This is demonstrated by the
performance demonstrated in the production of lettuce during a four-week period. In
comparison to inorganic fertilizer, it demonstrated constant height, leaf development, and higher
survival. In comparison to inorganic fertilizers, organic fertilizers are less expensive. It enables
the farmer to generate maximum profit at the lowest possible expense.

15 | P a g e
LIMITATION

16 | P a g e
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the findings of this study, a farmer would be advised to use organic fertilizers since
they have demonstrated that they maintain plant survival, provide regular development in height
and number of leaves, and are less expensive than inorganic fertilizers.

17 | P a g e
REFERENCES
 Retrieved 2nd January 2022 from World Wide Web:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/liquid-
fertilizers
 M. Dehenanew (2019) “The Integrated Use of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizers on
Production and Soil Fertility in Ethiopia”
https://www.grin.com/document/506911
 R. Miller (2018) “Inorganic Fertilizer Vs. Organic Fertilizer”
https://homeguides.sfgate.com/inorganic-fertilizer-vs-organic-fertilizer-39528.html
 H. Shaji et al (2020) “Organic Fertilizer”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/organic-
fertilizer
 Retrieved 1st January 2022 form World Wide Web
https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-organic-and-vs-inorganic-
fertilizer/

18 | P a g e
COST ANALYSIS
Projected and Actual Expenditures
Projected Expenditure (Plot #1)
Items Quantity Cost Total
Seedlings 24 10 240
Hose - 400 400
Transportation - 150 150
Liquid Litter 1 750 750
Total 1540

Actual Expenditure (Plot #1)

Items Quantity Cost Total
Seedlings 24 7 168
Hose - 350 350
Transportation - 200 200
Liquid litter 1 500 500
Total 1218

Projected Expenditure (Plot #2)

Items Quantity Cost Total
Seedlings 24 10 240
Hose - 400 400
Transportation - 150 150
Nurish (20-20-20+Micros) 1 1000 1000
Total 1790

Actual Expenditure (Plot #2)

Items Quantity Cost Total
Seedlings 24 7 168
Hose - 350 350
Transportation - 200 200
Nurish (20-20-20+Micros) 1 500 500
Total 1218

Expenditure
Plots 1 and 2 have predicted expenditures that exceed their actual revenue. The cost of
purchasing equipment looked to be far lower than anticipated. Although the expenditures for
both plots are comparable, the cost of fertilizer had a significant impact on the final total in both
the anticipated and actual budgets. Plot 1's expense, on the other hand, came out to be less for
both the planned and actual spending. Organic fertilizer production is claimed to be less
expensive than inorganic fertilizer manufacturing.

19 | P a g e
Projected and Actual Income
Projected Income (Plot #1)
# Of Plants Unit price Total
24 180 4320

Actual Income (Plot #1)

# Of Plants Unit price Total
24 200 4800

Projected Income (Plot #2)

# Of Plants Unit price Total
24 160 3840

Actual Income (Plot 2)

# Of Plants Unit price Total
21 200 4200

Income
As can be seen from the table above, real earnings exceeded expectations. The reason for this is
that the lettuce was being sold for a higher unit price. The difference in value was predicted
since the lettuce would have been sold for a lesser price. Batch 1 with the organic fertilizer
clearly outperformed batch 2 (inorganic fertilizer) in terms of total money earned and number of
plants surviving. In general, batch 1 outperformed batch 2 in terms of marketability and
durability.

20 | P a g e
Projected and Actual Profit
Projected Profit (Plot 1)
Projected Profit = Projected income - Projected expenditure
4320 1540 2780

Actual Profit (Plot 1)

Actual Profit = Actual income - Actual expenditure
4800 1218 3582

Projected Profit (Plot 2)

Projected Profit = Projected income - Projected expenditure
3840 1790 2050

Actual Profit (Plot 2)

Actual Profit = Actual income - Actual expenditure
4200 1218 2982

Profits
The tables above show that the profit earned by batch 1 and batch 2 preform greatly than
thought. The actual profit earned from batch 1 is greater than that of batch 2, as predicted in the
projected budget. Batch 1 (organic fertilizer) performed better in the market thus, making it of
high value. The main factor that has influenced the profits made is the number of lettuce plants
that survived.

21 | P a g e
CSEC® Agricultural Science – DOUBLE AWARD
Rubric for Crop and Broiler Production Investigations
ITEM DESCRIPTOR Marks
Total Awarded
Name of Student - -
Student Registration Number - -
Name of School - -
Title of Project - -
Start Date - -
Termination Date - -
Table of Contents - -
Literature Provided a clear and accurate
INTRODUCTION (6) Review (3) summary of literature reviewed 2

At least 3 references cited in 1

summary
Problem statement clearly written 1
Aim (2) Technical /technology related
objective addressing production 1
and post-production levels
Income related 1
Experimental Experimental design clearly 1
Design (2) Described
Comparison of production technology
/ management practice 1
/ value-addition technology
METHODOLOGY (11) Materials and Materials 1
Equipment (2) Tools and Equipment 1
Activities (production and processing) (4) 4

Data Collection - Data (at least 2 sets) and how it was 3

collected (3)
RESULTS (9) Presented and described data including performance
Production and Post- of value added products / comparison of value added 3
Production and non-value added product where applicable (3)
Value Addition (where Interpreted results accurately (3) 3
applicable)
Presented results properly (2) 2
Labelled tables, charts (1) 1
DISCUSSION (8) How technical Provided a full discussion of 1
results relate to results”
the issue (2) Relating results to literature 1
accurately with reference

22 | P a g e
 Effect of the discussed the effect of technology 2
technology used used during production/post-
during production as it relates to value
production/
CSEC® Agricultural Science – DOUBLE AWARD
Rubric for Crop and Broiler Production Investigations

after addition with supporting evidence

production / for and cited relevant literature
value addition
(2)
Effect of Fully discussed the effect of
technical / technical / technology on
technology on profitability and referring to 2
profitability (2) relevant data with supporting
evidence and cited
relevant
Literature
Overall findings Fully discussed the findings as it 2
as it relates to relates to issue with supporting
the issue (2) evidence and cited relevant
Literature
Conclusion (2) Based on outcomes with respect to 1
CONCLUSION, technical / technological aspects
LIMITATION & Based on outcomes and income 1
RECOMMENDATIONS Aspect
(4) Limitations (1) 1
Recommendations (1) 1
Less than 5 spelling and grammatical errors 1
PRESENTATION (2) contained in the report (1)
At least 3 references properly cited (1) 1

TOTAL (Technical Report) 40 ÷ 2 …… ÷ 2

= 20 = ………

COST ANALYSIS Projected Income – output, price, 1

(10) Total
(Please tick √ which Projected Expenditure – inputs, 1
is applicable) Complete Budget
price, total
Surplus/Shortfall correctly 1
1
calculated
(Production,
Postproduction) or Actual Income & Income/Sale of Produce – quantity, 1
2 Expenditure price, total
(Production, Post- Expenditure – quantity, price, total 1
Production and Surplus/Shortfall correctly 1

23 | P a g e
 calculated
Comparison of Provides a full and accurate 4
Projected and comparison of all 3 parameters
Actual Partially compares all 3 parameters 3
- Income
Correctly compares any 2 2
- Expenditure
Value Addition) Parameters
- Surplus/shortfall
Correctly compares any 1 parameter 1
Did not attempt to compare any 0
Parameter
TOTAL COST ANALYSIS 10

24 | P a g e