INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Out of the over 100 million population of the Philippines, 21.6% live below the national

poverty line. In 81 provinces in the country, 49 were considered food insecure based on a study by

the National Nutrition Council(NNC). Malnutrition and hunger are rampant in developing

countries including the Philippines (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, 2017). In addition, Save the Children

Foundation reports that 1 in 3 children below 5 years old in the here are malnourished.

There had been technological advances, though our society had witnessed transitions from

traditional rice farming to the Green Revolution where hybrid seeds, mechanization of farming

equipment, improvement of irrigation systems, use of insecticides and herbicides to control pests,

and use of chemical fertilizers to speed up growing time and increase yield are used. But employing

these techniques are expensive and can be sustained by middle-class and high-earning farmers.

Aside from the high costs of using those, those practices entail possible pollution to the air, land

and water bodies and damage to natural ecosystems. Newer practices in agriculture that have lower

environmental impacts, including the use of natural predators to pests, use of natural insecticides

and fertilizers, have are being pushed through the 21st century as means of practicing

environmentally sustainable yet profitable way of growing food (T. Mendoza, 2017).

While, farmable lands continually decrease due to industrialization and encroaching

urbanization, urban food production techniques had been tested and widely used already in

countries such as the Netherlands, to utilize available space, one of the many methods is the use

of vertical gardens. These developed countries use that method and several others such as

hydroponics, aeroponics and climate-controlled greenhouses to strengthen their food security be

1
less dependent on imports and thereby provide clean, safer, accessible food to their citizens and

even produce for export as these are being grown within specialized buildings (C. Lawson, 2015).

In the Philippines, many individuals have already adapted this technology, but it’s use is

more easily seen at landscape designs of hotels and restaurants. There had been some innovations

to utilize vertical gardens to produce vegetables in Quezon City, Cagayan de Oro, Muñoz (Nueva

Ecija) and Dagupan City. Materials that are commonly recycled to serve as plant containers are

plastic one-liter and six-liter bottles which are either placed on prism-shape stands with racks made

of bamboo or any available wood, or strung through steel wire and hung. However, putting this

type of vertical garden in congested spaces is both time-consuming and daunting.

With the threats of climate change to our country, our agriculture sector needs to employ

practices that prove resilient to the damages procured by extreme weather conditions such as El

Niño and La Niña. Subsequent calamities such as typhoons have a significant negative impact on

agricultural productivity of the country. (Israel & Briones, 2013) Also, in developing countries the

agriculture sector absorbs about 22% of the total damage and losses caused by natural hazards

(FAO, 2013).

Food deserts are places wherein the population is deprived of being capable to produce

their own supply of nutritious food for local consumption. Such examples are most urban areas,

that, though seemingly able to provide food for their respective peoples, are still not able to locally

produce foodstuffs(SustainableTable.org). Urban agriculture practices such as vertical gardening

can help increase family income and encourage interest consumption of vegetables (T.

Ranasinghe, 2009).

2
 The researcher, then had come up with an idea of redesigning a green wall type vertical

garden that it is portable, durable, made out of more diverse recycled materials, equipped with a

time and labor saving watering system, reengineered pots that would stronger support soil and

plant weight, and support production different types of leafy vegetables that could help supplement

poor diets, yet still affordable to construct and maintained; and in the near future, serve as a

standardized model that could be easily assembled.

Statement of the Problem

This study entitled “VER-G: 1m2 Vertical Vegetable Garden Units” aimed to construct vertical

garden units made of recycled materials, that can be easily replicated and setup and seeks to answer

the following questions:

1. Is the support framework able to:

a. Support weight of planted pots and irrigation system in model A and B respectively?

b. Withstand bad weather conditions such as heavy rainfall, strong winds, typhoons?

2. Can the pot-supports?

a. Withstand bad weather conditions such as heavy rainfall, strong winds, typhoons?

b. Support weights of planted pots?

3. For model A, B and the conventional elevated container method, was the potting mixture:

a. Beneficial or not to the plants it supports through evaluation of plant survival rates.

b. Able to support unhealthy or healthy plant growth?

4. Can the watering system:

a. Support plant survival and growth?

b. How much water at different locations in respective units can be delivered in a minute?

3
 c. How many days does it take before a separate refill of each water reservoir is

necessary?

5. How is the growth of the crops as clustered into S and N groups per model?

6. Were maintenance practices performed such as a) regular vermicast fertilization every six

days and b) pest removal helpful in achieving good plant growth?

7. How are prices of the improvised vertical garden unit prototypes compared to the

commercial ones? Which are more affordable?

8. Are the plants ready to be harvested within the period of observation?

Significance of the Study

This study is significant as it could construct a square-meter vertical garden made of

recycled materials- from the structure, watering system, potting design and soil mixture- that can

be duplicated by ordinary people, propagate and encourage the concept of vegetable vertical

gardening in poor households, contribute to local food production and food security, and address

malnutrition and hunger on the grassroots level.

Scopes and Limitations

This study entitled focused on proving the feasibility of constructing a one square meter

vertical gardening structure in which construction is more affordable costs than existing

commercial ones but more durable and cost-efficient than the usual recycled designs. It

encompasses four phases namely (1) main support structure construction, (2) engineering of sub-

components/sub-systems, (3) crop production, and (4) maintenance thru scheduled watering,

fertilization, manual pest removal. Recording of observations during the whole process is analyzed

descriptively. Units will not be compared to other existing vertical garden models as this study

4
only aims to develop two successful prototypes. Moreover, this study concentrates on presenting

the functionality of the designed structures as possible as basis for low cost vertical garden models

fit for food production in most households.

5
 REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Since the dawn of civilization, agriculture has played a key role in the existence and

progress of society. Those who can produce more food are more capable of advancing their

education, sciences, arts, religion, and other aspects of their culture. From the plain cultivation of

land, we have progressed to crop diversification, crop hybridization, systematic soil and water use,

modernization of farming equipment and transportation. But current global and local situations

pushed scientists and practical thinkers to try other practices to adjust to numerous challenges we

face in this century; climate change, decreasing arable lands, urbanization, industrialization,

population boom, thus land-use efficient techniques are being used to produce food such as

greenhouses, aeroponics, vertical gardens to name a few.

The term vertical garden refers to any kind of construction and support structure for

growing plants in an upward-directed, vertical way and thereby efficiently and productively

making use of the existing space for food, landscaping and carbon sequestration. A huge variety

of different designs and concepts are available including towers, green walls or living walls. The

reuse of different composts (e.g. compost, vermicompost) from household wastes and reclaimed

water (e.g. greywater) or urine can be considered in vertical gardening allowing enhanced food

production and to close the gap in nutrient and water cycle use at a local level. It aims to advance

the productivity levels of urban and sub-urban agricultural sites wherein most available space is

limited. Different design solutions are available. The design of a vertical garden depends on the

available material, space and local preferences as well as on the creativity and imagination of the

users. Crops that can be grown comprise food crops (vegetables, fruits, herbs) and non-food crops

(e.g. ornamental plants, medical plants). As a growing media soil, compost, vermicompost, acrylic

material as well as aquaponic and aeroponic solutions can be used. The crops can be grown in

6
sacks, bags, flowerpots and all kinds of available receptacles like bins, cans, tins, bottles, tanks or

boxes. They can be placed on yet unused places like on the roof of houses, balconies, on the top

of walls or just hung up (Gensch, 2007).

The concept of green walls was built in Babylon about 2500 years back then. There, King

Nebuchadnezzar II had the Hanging Gardens established which was ancestor of the modern green

wall (Green roofs for healthy cities, 2008). Between 3rd BC 17th AD Romans trained grapes on

garden trellises and on villa walls. In 1920’s Great Britain and North America promote trellis

structures and self-climbing plants on houses and gardens in 1988 started to use stainless steel

cable system for green facades the early 1990’s saw cable and wire-rope net systems and modular

trellis panel systems enter the North American marketplace. The first major application of a trellis

panel system is in the Universal City Walk on California in 1993 and in 1994. Indoor living wall

with bio filtration system installed in Canada Life Building in Toronto (Green Roofs Organization,

2008).

Standard vertical gardening models (P. Sharma, 2016) that currently exist are mainly

classified into green facades and living walls. The following diagram show those types further.

7
Fig. 1: Flowchart of Classification of Vertical Gardens (P. Sharma, 2016).

In addition, different alternative designs have been improvised and presented for the use of

ordinary people, such as examples of those designs are shown in the next figures.

Fig. 2: “Veggie Pipes”, introduced on 2015 by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority(AVA) of

Singapore where the pipes cost around S$5-7(PHP186-261) and seedling at four cents each to

encourage more Singaporeans to grow their own food.

8
Fig. 3: This garden is tended by Grades V and VI pupils in Bonuan Boquig Elementary School,

Dagupan City (Philippine Daily Inquirer, Mar. 30, 2015) showed that even limited land-space

cannot hinder food production. Those pupils receive part of the harvest for free.

Fig. 4: Cultivation arch, cultivation tower, and cultivation bag designs of vertical gardens in

Gampaha, Sri Lanka (Ranasinghe, 2009)

Fig. 5: Cultivation umbrella, cultivation bangle, and cultivation tat, in Gampaha, Sri Lanka

(Ranasinghe, 2009)

9
Fig. 6: Cultivation ladder, cultivation pyramid, cultivation rack, in Gampaha, Sri Lanka

(Ranasinghe, 2009).

Fig. 7: Cultivation ladder, in Cagayan de Oro, Philippines (Gensch & Sacher 2009.)

Vertical gardening is also a form of home gardening. The key benefits of home gardening

are improved food security, increased availability of food and better nutrition through food

diversity, income and enhanced employment through additional or off-season production,

decreased risk through diversification; environmental benefits from recycling water and waste

nutrients, controlling shade, dust and erosion, and maintaining or increasing local biodiversity

(Galhena, et al, 2013).

10
Fig. 8: The structure and irrigation layout and physical look of a simple modular commercial

vertical garden model (Sharma, 2016).

The Philippine Statistics Authority(PSA) tells that 5 of the 9 basic sectors of the country

have higher poverty incidence than the general population estimated at 21.6% in 2015. Among the

nine basic sectors, farmers, fishermen and children belonging to families with income below the

official poverty threshold or poor families posted the highest poverty incidences in 2015 at 34.3%,

34.0% and 31.4%, respectively. These sectors consistently registered as the three sectors with the

highest poverty incidence in 2006, 2009 and 2012.

Save the Children Foundation reported that 1 in 3 children below 5 years old in the

Philippines is malnourished. A study by the Food and Nutrition Research Institute says that 26

percent of children up to 2 years old suffer from chronic malnutrition, the highest number in 10

years.

11
 METHODOLOGY

I. Making of Individual Component Subsystems

A. Support Framework

Materials

For Model A: Scrap metal rods, ropes, meter stick, black electric tape, scissors were utilized.

For Model B: Scrap wood, saw, ropes, meter stick, black electric tape, scissors were utilized.

Procedures

For Model A: Metal rods were cleaned, and then measured to one--meter intervals and marked

with black electric tape. Afterwards, the metal was taken to the welding shop to cut the edges of

the marks, and spot wield those to give smooth edges and a rectangular finished look. Next, the

rope was cut into 22 over one-meter pieces and were tied to form a net on the welded metal, with

enough space on the eyes of the net to allow for pot spacing and distance between leaves of

adjacent potted plants which is six inches from each knot.

For Model B: Scrap wood were cleaned, and then measured to one--meter intervals and marked

with black electric tape. Afterwards, the wood was sawn at the edges of the marks, and nailed to

form a rectangular look. Next, the rope was cut into 22 over one-meter pieces and were tied to

form a net on the wooden frame, with enough space on the eyes of the net to allow for pot spacing

and distance between leaves of adjacent potted plants which is six inches from each knot.

B. Pot-Supports

Materials

12
 The researcher used 27 empty plastic liter bottles, scissors, jumbo size sewing needle,

nylon thread, ice pick, three plastics of charcoal, fire stove, clips, 18 ten pesos worth each

polyethylene pots-filled with the prepared potting mixture and 12 meters rope.

Procedures

For the making of the pot-supports, each bottle is labeled to four parts where the bottom

and “funnel” are to be removed and the two middle parts are of same size. Then the marked areas

were cut off, the middle parts held firmly and cut into two open-ended cylinders. The cylinder was

cut lengthwise to make each into a band of plastic. Next, bands were bent to make a circle and

overlap each other for around three inches. Another band was inserted between the intersections

on the circle, fastened with clips and a filled pot was placed with the clips adjust to fit loosely.

With the filled pot removed, a red-hot ice pick was used to punch holes through the overlaps to

make an X-pattern. Then, the pattern of holes was followed during sewing. When done, clips were

removed and a pot for each support was placed and the ropes were tied in a way to attach each

support-and-pot assemblage to the support framework.

C. Watering System

Materials

Three empty two-liter plastic bottles, three used macro sets, iron nail, and water sealant

were used.

Procedures

Thee bottles were punctured to have a hole each- near its bottom using the nail, the

macroset end was inserted and the sides made leak-proof with the water sealant.

13
II. Assemblage of Subsystems

Materials

The support framework, pot-supports, planted polyethylene pots, rope, watering system

were gathered together.

Procedures

Planted pots were placed in the pot-supports and 1.5 m rope pieces were used to make

attachments to the support framework. Afterwards, the frameworks were hung on the fence; then

the watering systems were secured in the uppermost left corner of model A and B, in the upper

right corner of the conventional elevated containers group using one-meter pieces of rope.

III. Crop Production

A. Potting Mixture

Materials

Eight parts rice hull charcoal (200 grams), three parts soil were gathered by the researcher

for each pot, 18 polyethylene pots, container for mixing, and a shovel were used.

Procedures

Using a shovel, three parts soil with compost (50 grams) and eight parts rice hull charcoal

were mixed thoroughly in a container until a texture similar to sandy loam was achieved. The

mixture was then distributed in each of the pots, filling just half of each.

B. Plant Propagation

Materials

14
 Seedling pots, garden soil, seeds of kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica) and pakchoi (Brassica

rapa- Vera Green F1 hybrid variety), camote (Ipomoea batatas) cuttings, stored unchlorinated

water or collected rainwater in buckets, a dipper.

Procedures

The seeds and cuttings were first propagated in separate pots designated to each plant type,

watered once a day for the first three weeks and transplanted on the fourth week to the pots

containing the prepared soil mixture. Two plants were planted per pot, those placed western-ward

are labeled as the N-Group (“northern” group) and those more eastern-ward as S-Group

(“southern” group).

IV. Maintenance

Materials

Approximately three kilograms of vermicast, a measuring cup, six-liter plastic bottle, a

laundry clip, and rainwater and/or unchlorinated water were used.

Procedures

Every six days, the pots are resupplied with a handful of vermicast (approximately 25

grams) each. The water reservoirs are refilled whenever there is no water coming out of the

macrosets. Water hauled in a six-liter bottle, transferred by a measuring cup into the mouth of the

liter bottle reservoirs until each were full. Pest monitoring is done every morning and evening.

Whenever a pest is sited, it is crushed with a laundry clip or scraped off the leaves.

15
 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

As shown in Tables 1.1 and 1.2, the support framework was able to hold the weights of the

planted pots, watering system and the weight of both; and was also able to withstand typhoons,

heavy rainfall, and strong winds without showing any damage during the period of observation.

Table 1.1 Ability of the Support Framework to Hold Weights

Model A B

Planted Pots Able Able

Watering System Able Able

Both Able Able

Number of Days Within 30 30

Observation Period

Table 1.2 Ability of the Support Framework to Withstand Bad Weather Conditions

Number of Model
Bad Weather
Days of A B
Condition
Experienced

Typhoons (Urduja, 7 Able Able

Vinta, Agaton)

Heavy Rainfall 10 Able Able

Strong Winds 10 Able Able

Any Damage None None

Observed

16
 In Tables 2.1 and 2.2 respectively, pot-supports are observed to be able to withstand

weather conditions such as typhoons, heavy rainfall, and strong winds. Also, the pot-supports were

able to carry the weights of individually filled pots.

Table 2.1 Ability of the Pot-Supports to Withstand Bad Weather Conditions

Model A B

Typhoons Able Able

Heavy Rainfall Able Able

Strong Winds Able Able

Any Damages Observed None Slight Loosening of One Tie

in One Pot-Support

Table 2.2 Ability of the Pot-Supports to Hold Weights

Model A B Number of Days Held

Potting Mixture Filled Only Able Able 2

Planted Pots Able Able 30

Any Damages Observed None None

17
Table 3.1 Survival Among Plants in Models A, B, and the Conventional Elevated Containers

(CEC)

Model A B CEC

First Day All alive All alive 10/12 alive

1st Week 17/18 alive 5/6 alive 10/12 alive

2nd Week 16/18 alive 5/6 alive 10/12 alive

3rd Week 16/18 alive 5/6 alive 10/12 alive

4th Week 16/18 alive 5/6 alive 10/12 alive

Assessment 89% survived 83% survived 83% survived

Table 3.1 reports that most of the plants propagated in three systems namely model A, B,

and conventional elevated containers(CEC) were able to survive in their respectively places.

However, survival rates among plants in model B and CEC are the same and is only slighty less

than that of in model A.

Table 4.1 Ability of the Watering System to Support Plant Growth

Model A B CEC
Pakchoi Able N/A N/A
Kangkong Able N/A Able
Camote N/A Able Able
Number of Days Within Observation Period Where Water System is 16 16 16
Used

18
Table 4.2 Amount of Water Transferred at Different Locations Within a Minute

Position in Amount of Does the Amount Deliver

Respective Water (ml) Enough Water in a
Unit per min Minute?
Pak1 Top Left 85 Yes
Pak2 Top Middle 80 Yes
Pak3 Top Right 70 No
Model A*

Pak4 Middle Left 125 Yes

Pak5 Center 118 Yes
Pak6 Middle Right 110 Yes
Kan1 Bottom Left 170 Yes
Kan2 Bottom Middle 165 Yes
Kan3 Bottom Right 160 Yes
Cmt1 Bottom Left 165 Yes
Model B*

Cmt2 Bottom Middle 160 Yes

Cmt3 Bottom Right 155 Yes
Kan4 Back Left 90 Yes
Kan5 Back Middle 90 Yes
CEC

Kan6 Back Right 90 Yes

Cmt4 Front Left 80 Yes
Cmt5 Front Middle 80 Yes
Cmt6 Front Right 88 Yes
Location of Water System Reservoir: *Above Top Left, CEC-Upper Right

Table 4.3 Days when separate refills of each watering system were done

Model Amount of Water(Full) Jan. 13 Jan. 25 Feb. 1 Feb. 3

A 2L Refilled Refilled Refilled

B 2L Not Refilled Refilled Refilled

CEC 2L Refilled Refilled Refilled

19
 The watering system has been able to support the plants in their growth within the

observation period as seen in Table 4.1. Then in Table 4.2, most of the pots in each gardening unit

were delivered with enough water within a minute excluding Pak3 container. And in Table 4.3,

the water systems in model A and CC took 15 days before being first refilled, while the watering

system in model B took 20 days before refill. In the next week, the refill took once every other day

as weather is getting dry. There is no observed fixed pattern for water refill.

Chart 5.1 Plant Growth in Conventional Elevated Container (CEC) System S-Group

Crop Length (in mm) Day 0
Crop Length (in mm) Day 12
Crop Length (in mm) Day 24
341
335
Crop Length (in mm) Day 6
Crop Length (in mm) Day 18
Crop Length (in mm) Day 30

332
326
312
311

290
290

289
282

280

278
274

272
263
261
242

237
232
216

213

204
135
107
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
KAN4 KAN5 KAN6 CMT4 0 CMT5 CMT6
S-GROUP

20
Chart 5.2 Plant Growth in Conventional Elevated Container (CEC) System N-Group

Crop Length (in mm) Day 0 Crop Length (in mm) Day 6 Crop Length (in mm) Day 12
Crop Length (in mm) Day 18 Crop Length (in mm) Day 24 Crop Length (in mm) Day 30

348
346
331
309
305

305
284
282

282
277

246
235
229
224
217

214
210

209
207

207
206
187

187
182

180

162
158

157
157

152

150
139
129
108

101
99
KAN4 KAN5 KAN6 CMT4 CMT5 CMT6
N-GROUP

Chart 5.3 Plant Growth in Model A S-Group

Crop Length (in mm) Day 0 Crop Length (in mm) Day 6 Crop Length (in mm) Day 12
Crop Length (in mm) Day 18 Crop Length (in mm) Day 24 Crop Length (in mm) Day 30376
374

371
368
345
334
316
307
304

292

284
277
257

255
241

240
226
219
184

160
158

146
144
143

134
125
118

114
107
94

92
86
85

85
83
76
75

74
73
70
64

64
60

57

54
53

52
49
47
40
0
0
0
0

PAK1 PAK2 PK3 PK4 PK5 PK6 KN1 KN2 KN3

S-GROUP

21
Chart 5.4 Plant Growth in Model A N-Group

Crop Length (in mm) Day 0 Crop Length (in mm) Day 6 Crop Length (in mm) Day 12
Crop Length (in mm) Day 18 Crop Length (in mm) Day 24 Crop Length (in mm) Day 30

470
460
419
368
331

291
285
281
271
263
251
231
229
220
219
211

211
187

160
159

157

144
137

137

136

125
121

118

103
103

95
93

92
86

86
82

82
81
80

79
74

73
72
66

59
54

39
30

15
0
0
0
0
0
PK1 PK2 PK3 PK4 PK5 PK6 KN1 KN2 KN3
N-GROUP

Chart 5.5 Plant Growth in Model B S-Group

Crop Length (in mm) Day 0 Crop Length (in mm) Day 6 Crop Length (in mm) Day 12
Crop Length (in mm) Day 18 Crop Length (in mm) Day 24 Crop Length (in mm) Day 30
384

322
266

186
171
155

144
142
133

126
122

114
112
99

97
88
82

75

CM1 CM2 CM3

S-GROUP

22
Chart 5.6 Plant Growth in Model B N-Group

Crop Length (in mm) Day 0 Crop Length (in mm) Day 6 Crop Length (in mm) Day 12
Crop Length (in mm) Day 18 Crop Length (in mm) Day 24 Crop Length (in mm) Day 30

351
334
274
223

210

199
190
170
168
158

149
146

133

0
CM1 CM2 CM3
N-GROUP

In general, Charts 5.1 up to 5.6 tell of positive growth of plants as shown in their progress

of length in their six-day interval of measurement. Also, most of the plants experienced a rise of

more plant growth during the last two weeks of observation and the dead plants in the charts are

marked by zero millimeters of growth.

Table 6.1 Potting Mixture Composition and Corresponding Average Plant Growth (in mm)
per Plant Type
A A B CEC CEC
Model
(Pakchoi) (Kangkong) (Camote) (Kangkong) (Camote)

3:8 soil to rice hull char 61 226.67 140 236.5 82.17

3:8 soil to rice hull char

64.42 252.17 117.83 247.17 87.33
and 25 grams vermicast

23
 3:8 soil to rice hull char
69.58 286.83 126.17 254.83 143.83
and 50 grams vermicast

3:8 soil to rice hull char

75.92 317.17 152.5 275.67 126.67
and 100 grams vermicast

3:8 soil to rice hull char

111.83 338.33 191.17 282.83 142.83
and 150 grams vermicast

3:8 soil to rice hull char

125.42 338.33 192.83 303.17 157.5
and 175 grams vermicast

Table 6.2 Pest Removal and Corresponding Plant Growth

Plant Pest; DateAverage Plant Length Average Plant Length Difference in

Killed During Preceding During Adjacent Average Length
Measuring Day (cm) Measuring Day (cm) (cm)
Cmt1 scales, Jan. 11.55 12.9 1.35
26
Cmt3 stinkbug, 20.9 25.25 4.35
Jan. 26
Cmt3 stinkbug, 25.25 26.85 1.6
Feb. 1
Kan1 rust, Jan. 26.2 26.9 0.7
27
Kan2 rust, Jan. 37.65 41.8 4.15
27

Table 6.1 shows that the increasing amount of added soil supplementation was able to support
the increasing plant length. While, Table 6.2 reveals that after the pests were removed, there were
no big difference in the length of subjected plants.

24
Table 7.1 Cost Evaluation of Model A and B VER-G units.

ITEMS A B
A. Structural Components
1. support framework 180 60
2. pot-supports 81 47
3. pots 90 30
4. watering system 10 10
Sub-total 361 147
B. Crop Production
1. seeds/cuttings 55 10
2. potting mix (dry weight) 9 6
Sub-total 64 16
C. Maintenance
1. Regular Soil Supplementation 63 42
D. Total Costs, PHP 488 205

Table 7.2 Cost of Commercial Vertical Garden Units

Type Cost Range (in PHP)

Wall planters/ vertical pots (5 units) 249-400

Whole garden units 643-645

Drip irrigation system 376-999

Shown on Tables 7.1 and 7.2, the costs of buying commercial vertical garden supplies/

units alone outweigh the costs of assembling both VERG-units. With its structural expenses worth

P361 and P147, respectively, model A and B VER-G units are more affordable than commercial

vertical garden structural costs.

Table 8.1 Photo Evaluation of Readiness of Plants for Harvest

25
 Model A VER-G Unit
Pakchoi 1 Pakchoi 2 Pakchoi 3

Age: 61 days Age: 61 days

Age: 61 days No. of Days to Harvest: 22-40
No. of Days to Harvest: 22- No. of Days to Harvest: 22-
Ave. Longest Leaf Length: 40
40 15.7cm
Ave. longest leaf length: 14.2 Ave. Longest Leaf Length:
cm 14.75 cm
Pakchoi 4 Pakchoi 5 Pakchoi 6

Age: 61 days Age: 61 days

Age: 61 days No. of Days to Harvest: 22-
No. of Days to Harvest: 22- No. of Days to Harvest: 22-40
40 40
Longest leaf length: 13.9 cm Longest leaf length: 16 cm
Longest leaf length: 16.55
cm
Kangkong 1 Kangkong 2 Kangkong 3

Age: 61 days Age: 61 days

No. of Days to Harvest: 30
Ave. Longest Stem Length:
26.35 cm
No. of Days to Harvest: 30
Ave. Longest Stem Length:
Age: 61 days 32.95
No. of Days to Harvest: 30
Ave. Longest Stem Length:
42.2 cm

26
 Model B VER-G Unit
Camote 1 Camote 2 Camote 3

Age: 61 days
No. of Days to Harvest: 90-120
Ave. Longest Stem Length: 14.9
cm

Age: 61 days Age: 61 days

No. of Days to Harvest: 90- No. of Days to Harvest: 90-
120 120
Ave. Longest Stem Length: Ave. Longest Stem Length:
32.2 cm 26.85 cm
Witnessed from the photo evaluation, the plants are therefore ready for harvest within two

months after being sown are most have reach the expected days to harvest and have shown

considerable plant length suitable for home consumption.

27
 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary of Findings

Based on the results, VER-G units were able to serve as feasible prototypes that can support

plant growth and be more affordable than existing commercial models. The support framework,

pot-supports were able to withstand weights they carry and persist in bad weather conditions such

as typhoons, heavy rainfall, and strong winds. The potting mixture was shown to be able support

the growth of plants within each respective unit, and the analysis of plant length during the

observation period showed that their growth indicates a positive trend.

Conclusion

Therefore, the researcher concludes that VER-G vertical vegetable garden units were able

to be successful prototypes of urban vegetable garden modules. Component subsystems were

shown to be able to endure typhoons, strong winds, and heavy rainfall, and were able to withstand

the weight of the planted pots. The watering system and regular soil supplementation were also

able to help support plant growth in the VER-G units and a positive growth trend was observed.

Furthermore, the plants have the potential of being harvest at the end of the observation

Recommendations

Nevertheless, the researcher entices more in-depth research related to this study. Further

analyses are encouraged to develop more cost-efficient and standardized models that are much

more affordable and includes more recycled materials. Evaluation of water systems, improvement

of pot-supports, better pest management, more recycled materials to be used, structural variety,

and added diversity of supported plant life are recommended.

28
 REFERENCES

CHAPTER 2 THE ROLE OF AGRICULTURE IN THE ECONOMY. (n.d.). Retrieved February

13, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/W7440E/w7440e03.htm

Cardinoza, G. & Sotelo, Y. ( March, 2015) This school garden responds to community’s food

needs. Philippine Daily Inquirer Retrieved December 1, 2017 from

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/682150/this-school-garden-responds-to-communitys-food-needs

Colasanti, K. J. A., Hamm, M. W., & Litjens, C. M. (2012). The City as an "Agricultural

Powerhouse"? Perspectives on Expanding Urban Agriculture from Detroit, Michigan.

Urban Geography, 33(3), 348–369. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.33.3.348

Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Plant Industry (n.d.) Pechay Production Guide [Brochure].

Jimenez, E., Mariano, J., Ferrer, M., De Leon, V.

Fact Sheet Philippines – Women in agriculture, environment and rural production. (n.d.).

Retrieved February 13, 2018, from http://www.fao.org/docrep/008/ae946e/ae946e03.htm

FAO IFAD UNICEF, W. & W. (2017). The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World.

Fao. Retrieved February 13, 2018 from http://www.fao.org/3/a-I7695e.pdf

Foundation, G. C. (2017, November 25). Food Security & Food Access. GRACE

Communications Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.sustainabletable.org/280/food-

security-food-access

Gensch, R., Sacher, N., (2009) Vertical Gardens Retrieved Dec. 2, 2017 from

https://www.sswm.info/content/vertical-gardens

Green roofs for healthy cities. 2008. Introduction to green walls technology, benefits and

29
design. Retrieved from

http://www.greenscreen.com/Resources/download_it/IntroductionGreenWalls.pdf.

Israel, D. C., & Briones, R. M. (2013). ERIA-DP-2013-15 Impacts of Natural Disasters on

Agriculture, Food Security, and Natural Resources and Environment in the Philippines.

Retrieved from http://www.eria.org/ERIA-DP-2013-15.pdf

Lawson, C. (2015). Vertical farming: A hot new area for investors—commentary. Retrieved
December 1, 2017, from https://www.cnbc.com/2015/04/02/vertical-farming-a-hot-new-
area-for-investors-commentary.html
Mendoza, T. (2017). A Consumption Led Strategy to Achieve Food Sufficiency or Food

Sovereignty in the Philippines* (PDF Download Available). In Food Sufficiency vs. Food

Sovereignity. Quezon City, Philippines. Retrieved from

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318066495_A_Consumption_Led_Strategy_to_A

chieve_Food_Sufficiency_or_Food_Sovereignty_in_the_Philippines

Ranasinghe, T. (2009). MANUAL OF LOW/NO-SPACE AGRICULTURE (L/N-SA) -CUMFAMILY

BUSINESS GARDENS (FBG). Retrieved from https://medium.com/@wayneroberts/tall-is-

beautiful-urban-agriculture-is-looking-up-8f6e8ce39f7a

Satterthwaite, D., McGranahan, G., & Tacoli, C. (2010). Urbanization and its implications for

food and farming. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences,

365(1554), 2809–2820. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0136

Sharma, P. (2016). Vertical Gardens- An Innovative Element of Green Building Technology.

Retrieved Dec. 1, 2017 from http://iec.edu.in/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/7_Piyush-

Sharma_VERTICAL-GARDENS-pp.42-48.pdf

Specht, K., Siebert, R., Hartmann, I., Freisinger, U. B., Sawicka, M., Werner, A., … Dierich, A.

30
(2014). Urban agriculture of the future: an overview of sustainability aspects of food

production in and on buildings. Agriculture and Human Values, 31(1), 33–51.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-013-9448-4

31