Soil Quality Determination of Vermicompost from African Night Crawlers in

Four Set-ups
Emilson Ryan Antes, Christianne Nicole Giron, Hannah Sophia Manuel
Daina Jazzmine Plantilla, Martin John Recentes
Manila Science High School

I. Introduction

Soil is one of the most important factors that affect the natural environment. It is as important as the
plants, animals, rocks, the land forms, and the water forms. Furthermore, soil is one of the vital factors
that influences and determines the distribution of the species of plants and provides a place to live for a
wide range of organisms. In addition, soil controls the flow of water and chemical substances that enter
and exit between the atmosphere and the lithosphere, as well as a producer and storage of various
important gases such as oxygen and carbon dioxide (Daly, 2016).

With the importance of soil comes the quality of it. Soil quality is the term that is used to describe
soil health and effectiveness. There are three main factors that affect soil quality: the physical, chemical,
and biological factors. Physical factors include texture that determines the retention of water transport and
the rate of soil erosion, depth and bulk density of topsoil which yields the productivity potential and rate
of soil erosion and landscape variability, and water-holding capacity that consists of the productivity,
potential for leaching, as well as the retention of water transport and the transport of chemicals by
leaching and surface flow. On the other hand, chemical factors consisting of the pH level, salt content,
organic matter, and available plant nutrients such as Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium, which
determines the soil fertility and productivity, soil stability and cover, reduction of the probability of soil
erosion, microbial density, and sequestered carbon levels of the soil. Finally, the biological factor
embodies the microbial biomass soil respiration, which inhibits the microbial activity, nutrient
availability, rate of nutrient and carbon turnover, and overall soil fertility and productivity (Keeney,
Larson, 2012).

Although the physical factors of soil quality could be manipulated through good irrigation and
placement, and movement manipulation, the chemical and biological properties of soil could be much
more complex to change. In order to this, fertilizers are used. Among these fertilizers, there are organic
fertilizers, which are fertilizers that occur by natural processes, such as composting, and the inorganic
fertilizers, that are produced chemically. Both have their advantages and disadvantages, mainly that the
soil quality produced by organic fertilizer, although natural, vary from the compost that the fertilizer used,
while chemical fertilizers on the other hand, are concentrated on the nutrients that the soil needs, however
do nothing to promote soil health, thereafter renders the soil useless after harvest (Subramaniam, 2016).
Because of these disadvantages, farmers are now looking for ways to ensure good quality soil coming out
from organic fertilizers. One such way is to use vermiculture, the process of using worms, such as African
Night Crawlers, and red-wrigglers, in order to yield vermicompost, organic waste with high quality
compost leading to nutrient rich soil. Vermicompost soil usually consists of vermicast, or earthworm
manure, and decayed organic matter. In ideal conditions, earthworms could eat organic matter that is
highly proportional, or similar to their weight. The main reason that vermicompost yields nutrient-rich
soil is because it flourishes the biological factor of soil quality drastically by having the microorganisms
feeding away the compost in the soil multiply by as much as eight times as with those with simple organic
compost (Oliver, 2012). With these knowledge in hand, the researchers attempted to identify which food
treatment from five different set-ups would yield the most nutrient-rich soil.

1.1. Statement of the Problem

  Is there any significant relationship between a vermicompost soil and the original composition of
a soil?
 How much is the Nitrogen content in the following set-ups:
a. Newspapers and tissues
b. Fruits and vegetables
c. Dried leaves
d. Organic fertilizer
 How much is the Potassium content in the following set-ups:
a. Newspapers and tissues
b. Fruits and vegetables
c. Dried leaves
d. Organic fertilizer
 How much is the Phosphorus content in the following set-ups:
a. Newspapers and tissues
b. Fruits and vegetables
c. Dried leaves
d. Organic fertilizer
 How much is the pH content of the following set-ups:
a. Newspapers and tissues
b. Fruits and vegetables
c. Dried leaves
d. Organic fertilizer
 How much is the content of organic matter in the following set-ups:
a. Newspapers and tissues
b. Fruits and vegetables
c. Dried leaves
d. Organic fertilizer

1.2. Hypothesis

H01: The researchers hypothesize that there is no correlation among the quality of soil after the
application of four different vermicompost set-ups.

1.3. Significance of the Study

The study will be a significant endeavor in promoting substantial soil quality consequently, it is also
beneficial to farmers whereas they can use the vermicompost soil as an alternative to profit-oriented
fertilizers. Moreover, this study might be helpful to the local government units as they might be able to
recognize the sustainability of land use.
Lastly, the study can also be a springboard of future researchers to gain knowledge about the
betterment of soil quality.

1.4. Scope and Delimitations

In order to pursue the study, the researchers were required to provide a soil sample from a source that
had no treatment in order to have a pre-treated soil analysis, as well as using this soil to create four
different set-ups containing different components. The researchers started in the structure of the main
bedding and the four set-ups. The three set-ups were labelled with different materials-newspapers and
tissues, fruits and vegetables, and dried leaves that are fed to the African Night Crawlers, one set-up
containing organic fertilizer. Afterwards, the researchers provided a week of observation for the
composition of the soil to alter. Additionally, the behaviour of the African Night Crawlers in each set-up
was also observed regularly. However, the worm’s behaviour may affect the result of the analysis because
of its transitive movement from one set-up to another. Accordingly, a week after the observation, the
researchers brought the four different set-ups, and the pre-treated soil to the Philippine Coconut
Authority’s Laboratory Service Division for the analysis of the soil set-ups. From there on, the laboratory
staff had to wait for a week or two in order for the soil to dry before the accomplishment of the analysis.
This had affected the researchers for it is time-consuming and the drying of the soil depends on the
weather for it cannot be processed with the use of ‘oven-drying’- which may influence the results in terms
of the parameter of organic matter and the NPK.

1.5. Definition of Terms

Throughout this quantitative study, these are the different terms you will encounter:

African Night Crawler. This is the species of worm, Eudrilus eugeniae that performed the
vermicomposting process.
Dried leaves. This refers to the material added in the third set-up in which African Night Crawler are
fed which helped in the process of vermicomposting.
Fruits and vegetables. This refers to the material added in the second set-up in which African Night
Crawler are fed which helped in the process of vermicomposting.
Newspaper and tissues. This refers to the material added in the first set-up in which African Night
Crawler are fed which helped in the process of vermicomposting.
Nitrogen. This is one of the chemical substances analyzed and measured for the content in the soil
that helps produce chlorophyll for plants.
Organic fertilizer. This is the control variable that is mainly compare the composition to the other
set-ups.
Organic matter. This is one of the substance analyzed and measured for the content in the soil.
Pearson r. This is the statistical test used by the researchers to determine the relationship between of
the vermicompost and the soil quality.
Ph level. This is measured to know the acidity and alkalinity of soil, and its nutrient availability.
Phosphorus. This is one of the chemical substances analyzed and measured for the content in the soil
that it used in complex energy transformation in plants.
Potassium. This is one of the chemical substances analyzed and measured for the content in the soil
that it used to regulate plant processes.
Soil composition. This determines which set-up produced the most nutrient-rich soil.
Vermicompost. This is the end-product of composting process of the African night crawler.

II. Methodology
The researchers worked with the Philippine Coconut Authority (PCA) to conduct the preliminary
and post soil analysis. The study was operated by testing and determining the following: (1) the Nitrogen
content (2) Phosphorus content (3) Potassium Content (4) pH level (5) and Organic Matter content from
the four soil set-ups with African night crawlers. The TRP Vermi Farm assisted the researchers in
gathering and briefing on how to take care of the African night crawlers for the soil samples.
The researchers collected soil samples from JGH soil enterprises that were approximately 25
kilograms for the five soil set-ups. The five soil set-ups are placed in a pot with African night crawlers to
secure and each kit were labelled differently from the materials the African night crawlers are fed – (1)
Paper and Tissue (2) Fruits and Vegetables, and (3) Dried Leaves. Lastly, the fourth kit were labelled as
organic fertilizer as our controlled sample.
 The conceptual framework below shows the process of the study wherein the researchers
collected the soil sample, made the set up, and after one week, went to the Philippine Coconut Authority
simultaneous for pre and post analysis, meaning both the initial state soil and the treatment of the soil in
four different set ups. The researchers determined the correlation between Vermicompost and feed for the
worms, as well as the significant differences of the set ups with respect to the respective parameters using
ANOVA, Tukey’s HSD and paired t- tests. As for the recommendation, the researchers made an advocacy
for the use of Vermiculture for development of soil fertility.
Methodological Framework
Figure 1
2.1 Treatment of Data

The researchers gathered the data through structuring of each set-ups and from there on, each
set-up were observed for a week. Thereafter, the set-ups were brought to the Philippine Coconut
Authority for the testing of parameters which are: (1) the pH level of each set-up (2) the organic
matter (3) the NPK. The information was acquired through thorough statistical analysis and treatment
with respect to the approach of a quantitative research.

2.2 Results and Discussions

The inputted data was derived from the given results of the Philippine Coconut Authority which was
from there on, the total percentages, multiple comparisons and the test of significant difference of the
parameters: (1) NPK, (2) Organic Matter, (3) pH content are interpreted and analyzed by the
researchers.
Table 1. Total percentage of Phosphorus as the dependent variable using Tukey HSD

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Difference (I- Std. Lower Upper
(I) Type of Soil (J) Type of Soil J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
*
WETTISSUE DRIEDLEAVES -834.0000 .6157 .000 -836.507 -831.493
CTRL 964.1000* .6157 .000 961.593 966.607
FRTSANDVEGG
352.4000* .6157 .000 349.893 354.907
IES
DRIEDLEAVES WETTISSUE 834.0000* .6157 .000 831.493 836.507
*
CTRL 1798.1000 .6157 .000 1795.593 1800.607
FRTSANDVEGG
1186.4000* .6157 .000 1183.893 1188.907
IES
CTRL WETTISSUE -964.1000* .6157 .000 -966.607 -961.593
DRIEDLEAVES -1798.1000* .6157 .000 -1800.607 -1795.593
FRTSANDVEGG
-611.7000* .6157 .000 -614.207 -609.193
IES
FRTSANDVEGG WETTISSUE -352.4000* .6157 .000 -354.907 -349.893
IES DRIEDLEAVES -1186.4000* .6157 .000 -1188.907 -1183.893
*
CTRL 611.7000 .6157 .000 609.193 614.207

With respect to the set-up of the Wet Tissue’s phosphorus content, the set-up of Dried leaves,
Control, and Fruits and vegetables are significantly different. Likewise, the comparisons for Dried
Leaves, Control, and Fruits and Vegetables are also significantly different. Furthermore, the mean
differences are greater in value compared to the Tabular Value. Consequently, we therefore reject the
null hypothesis.
Table 2. Total Percentage of Nitrogen as the dependent variable using Tukey HSD

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Difference (I- Std. Lower Upper
(I) Type of Soil (J) Type of Soil J) Error Sig. Bound Bound
WETTISSUE DRIEDLEAVES .183500 .109855 .440 -.26370 .63070
CTRL .073000 .109855 .905 -.37420 .52020
FRTSANDVEGG
.194000 .109855 .402 -.25320 .64120
IES
DRIEDLEAVES WETTISSUE -.183500 .109855 .440 -.63070 .26370
CTRL -.110500 .109855 .756 -.55770 .33670
FRTSANDVEGG
.010500 .109855 1.000 -.43670 .45770
IES
CTRL WETTISSUE -.073000 .109855 .905 -.52020 .37420
DRIEDLEAVES .110500 .109855 .756 -.33670 .55770
FRTSANDVEGG
.121000 .109855 .708 -.32620 .56820
IES
FRTSANDVEGG WETTISSUE -.194000 .109855 .402 -.64120 .25320
IES DRIEDLEAVES -.010500 .109855 1.000 -.45770 .43670
CTRL -.121000 .109855 .708 -.56820 .32620

Table 3. Multiple Comparisons – Total percentage of Potassium as the dependent variable using
Tukey HSD

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Difference (I- Lower Upper
(I) Type of Soil (J) Type of Soil J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound
*
WETITTISUE DRIEDLEAVES -1.867000 .000707 .000 -1.86988 -1.86412
CTRL -8.858000* .000707 .000 -8.86088 -8.85512
FRTSANDVEGGI
-7.279000* .000707 .000 -7.28188 -7.27612
ES
DRIEDLEAVES WETITTISUE 1.867000* .000707 .000 1.86412 1.86988
*
CTRL -6.991000 .000707 .000 -6.99388 -6.98812
 FRTSANDVEGGI
-5.412000* .000707 .000 -5.41488 -5.40912
ES
CTRL WETITTISUE 8.858000* .000707 .000 8.85512 8.86088
*
DRIEDLEAVES 6.991000 .000707 .000 6.98812 6.99388
FRTSANDVEGGI
1.579000* .000707 .000 1.57612 1.58188
ES
FRTSANDVEGGI WETITTISUE 7.279000* .000707 .000 7.27612 7.28188
ES DRIEDLEAVES 5.412000 *
.000707 .000 5.40912 5.41488
CTRL -1.579000* .000707 .000 -1.58188 -1.57612

Table 4. Total percentage of pH as the dependent variable using Tukey HSD

Mean 95% Confidence Interval

Difference (I- Lower Upper
(I) Type of Soil (J) Type of Soil J) Std. Error Sig. Bound Bound
WETTISSUE DRIEDLEAVES -.096000 .068549 .559 -.37505 .18305
CTRL .215000 .068549 .110 -.06405 .49405
FRTSANDVEGGI
.125000 .068549 .381 -.15405 .40405
ES
DRIEDLEAVES WETTISSUE .096000 .068549 .559 -.18305 .37505
CTRL .311000* .068549 .035 .03195 .59005
FRTSANDVEGGI
.221000 .068549 .102 -.05805 .50005
ES
CTRL WETTISSUE -.215000 .068549 .110 -.49405 .06405
*
DRIEDLEAVES -.311000 .068549 .035 -.59005 -.03195
FRTSANDVEGGI
-.090000 .068549 .602 -.36905 .18905
ES
FRTSANDVEGGI WETTISSUE -.125000 .068549 .381 -.40405 .15405
ES DRIEDLEAVES -.221000 .068549 .102 -.50005 .05805
CTRL .090000 .068549 .602 -.18905 .36905

In the table of multiple comparisons of the pH content, it is presented that with respect to the set-
up of the Wet Tissue’s pH level, the set-up of Dried leaves, Control, and Fruits and vegetables are
significantly different, Likewise, with the comparisons for Dried Leaves, Control, and Fruits and
Vegetables are also significantyly different. In addition to that, the mean differences are greater
compared to the Tabular Value. Consequently, we therefore reject the null hypothesis.

Table 7. Test of Significant Difference of the Nitrogen Conte

 ANOVA

Total Percentage of Nitrogen

Interpretation
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .052 3 .017 1.431 .358 No significant

difference.
Within Groups .048 4 .012
Total .100 7

The table above represents the significant differences of the set-ups with regards to the total percentage of
Nitrogen. Provided with the tabular value of t=6.5914, the F values was compared which was 1.431.
Consequently, the researchers therefore accepted the null hypothesis.

Table 8. Test of Significant Difference of Phosphorus Content

ANOVA

Total percentage of Phosphorus

Interpretation
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 3382058.015 3 1127352.672 2973662.624 .000 Statistically

significant.
Within Groups 1.516 4 .379
Total 3382059.531 7

The table above represents the significant differences of the set-ups with regards to the total percentage of
Phosphorus. Provided with the tabular value of t=6.5914, the F values was compared which was
2973662.624. Consequently, the researchers therefore rejected the null hypothesis.

Table 9. Test of Significant Difference of Potassium Content

ANOVA
Total percentage of Potassium

Sum of Interpretation
Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups 107.795 3 35.932 71863586.667 .000 Statistically

significant.
Within Groups .000 4 .000
Total 107.795 7

The table above represents the significant differences of the set-ups with regards to the total percentage of
Potassium. Provided with the tabular value of t=6.5914, the F values was compared which was
71863586.667. Consequently, the researchers therefore rejected the null hypothesis.

Table 10. Test of Significant Difference of pH Content

 ANOVA
Total percentage of pH
Interpretation
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.

Between Groups .112 3 .037 7.971 .037 Statistically

significant.
Within Groups .019 4 .005
Total .131 7

The table above represents the significant differences of the set-ups with regards to the total percentage of
pH. Provided with the tabular value of t=6.5914, the F values was compared which was 7.971.
Consequently, the researchers therefore rejected the null hypothesis.

3.1 Conclusion and Recommendation

Given the data which undergone statistical treatment, it implied that hypothesis can be rejected
for the NPK amount, organic matter, and pH level of soil samples under the vermicompost which
suggests that there is a significant difference between the said results. We can conclude that the new
compost provided by the worms are healthy that can support plant life more than an organic fertilizer and
an ordinary soil can do.
With the acquired data and provided results from the study, the researchers have come up with
the following recommendations that scholars tackling the same field of study could utilize. This research
focused on NPK content, organic matter and pH level aspects of the soil. We recommend to check other
aspects of the soil such as microbial property, etc that would affect the soil quality. It is also suggested to
add more time for the experimentation and observation period. Also, researchers could feed the worms
other food in order to know more at what will obtain the best compost. It would also provide more
accurate results if each set-up was isolated so that the movement of the worms so that it would affect the
experiment less significantly.
3.2 Acknowledgement
The researchers would like to recognize and gratify the following people who helped in the
successful accomplishment of the study:
To Miss Maria Eva S. Nacion, the principal of the Manila Science High School, Miss
Elizabeth Marasigan, the subject group head. Lastly, Mr. Jonas Feliciano Domingo, the research
adviser who pushed through and inspired this study to be a success, who shared his expertise, and who
trusted the guts and aspire the researchers to innovate knowledge.
Furthermore, the researchers would like to gratify the TRP Vermifarm, and Philippine
Coconut Authority, especially the Product Quality Control Laboratory (PQCL) who helped and
guided the researchers to finish the study.
Lastly, the researchers would like to thank and continuously glorify the Lord for the fulfilment
of this study and for future studies to be conducted.
Bibliography
Fritzie Rodriguez (2014), PH Agriculture: Why Is It Important? Retrieved from
http://www.rappler.com/move-ph/issues/hunger/52372-agriculture-hunger-food-security
Rolanda Carey (2016), Vermicompost in the Philippines, Retrieved from
http://www.boyzenmagazine.com/vermicompost-in-the-philippines/
Roqaia Bibi (2016), Effects of Vermicompost on Growth and Land Sustainability Production,
Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication
Encyclopedia of the Nations, Philippines Agriculture, Retrieved from
http://www.nationsencyclopedia.com/economies/Asia-and-the-Pacific/Philippines-
AGRICULTURE.html
Appendix A
Letters
 Appendix B
Statistical Tables
T tests
T test of total percentage of Organic Matter

One Way Anova Test

Post Hoc Tests
Tukeys HSD
 Appendix C
Documentation

Laboratory visits
 Collection of materials and experimentation setup

Philippine Coconut Authority- Laboratory Services Division laboratory tests receipts

Laboratory test results
 Appendix D
Curriculum Vitae

PERSONAL
Name Emilson Ryan D. Antes
City Address 3113 3A Abucay St., Tondo, Manila
Date of Birth December 27, 2000
Civil Status Single
Parents Emilio Antes

Rosario Antes
Contact No. 09210047233
Email Address emilsonryan_27@yahoo.com

Name Christianne Nicole A. Giron

City Address SS4 Blk. 6 Lt. 25, Lancaster New City,
Gen. Trias, Cavite
Date of Birth October 12, 1999
Civil Status Single
Parents Nelia A. Giron

Romulo S. Giron Jr.

Contact No. 09275916827

Email Address arianabutera_nicole@yahoo.com

Name Hannah Sophia N. Manuel

City Address Blk 6 Lt. 19 Barietto St., Phase 9,
Bahayang Pag-asa Subdivision, Imus,
Cavite
Date of Birth July 12, 2000
Civil Status Single
Parents Adelina N. Manuel

Romulo F. Manuel
Contact No. 09358038714
Email Address hannahmanuel127@gmail.com
Name Daina Jazzmine E. Plantilla
City Address 7151 Azalea St. Maligaya Park
Subd. Fairview, QC.
Date of Birth July 30, 2000
Civil Status Single
Parents Ariel A. Plantilla
Edwina E. Plantilla
Contact No. 0947460051
Email Address dainaplantilla@gmail.com

Name Martin John V. Recentes

City Address 356 Zenia St., San Martin de Porres III,
Pana Panapaan V, Bacoor City, Cavite
Date of Birth January 28, 2000
Civil Status Single
Parents John Rene Recentes
Corazon V. Recentes
Contact No. 09988678254
Email Address recentesmartin@yahoo.com