Utilization of Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) Scales and Sand

as Growth Enhancer of Kangkong ( Ipomoea aquatica) for

Indoor Garden
Amelie Almy C. Olermo

INTRODUCTION
Organic fertilizer or growth enhancer for the indoor garden plant is the main

concern of the researcher. Growth enhancer increases the regular development of the

plant under controlled condition. In coordination of sustainable development program,

people who live in a city can adopt indoor kitchen garden for healthy living society. The

researcher used possible growth enhancer to improve the progress of indoor kitchen

plants.

She used Oreochromis niloticus (tilapia) scales and sand which is found easily in

the market and around the village. The scales of tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) are one

of the waste materials that is usually found in the market. To reduce the waste products

in the market the researcher used it as fertilizer in a plant, specifically the kangkong

plant.

Fish scale as presented in Wikipedia is a nutritious source of food because it is

rich in proteins and a high source of calcium phosphate. 1 Like humans, plants also need

calcium. The importance of calcium as stated by Tetra Chemicals, Calcium is the vital

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepidophagy
1
factor in plant development and nourishment. 2 Plants captivate phosphorus from the soil

in the form of phosphate. In an article entitled Phosphate Fix , Haussller and Moeller

defined phosphate as phosphorus with four oxygen atoms. 3 Phosphate fertilizer can

improve the product produced in the crops. These materials on the fish scales will be

one of the key factors on the growth of Ipomoea Aquatica.

On the other hand, the role of sand in the soil as stated in the research of

Chadwick, Kurtz and Levine Ph.D. The particles of sand permit the water to flow easily

in the soil unlike the particles of plain soil that takes time before reaching the bottom. 4

The spaces produced by the big particles of sand will serve as the route direction of air

and water to distribute the nutrients in the pot. Sand is originated from rocks made of

minerals, which are also needed by plants.

The researcher used the Kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica) as a subject for the

study. Kangkong (Ipomoea Aquatica) is a common vegetable prepared and consumed

by Filipino. It can be eaten as salads with spring onions, ginger, and sauce. Leaves are

best cooked by steaming, boiling, frying or vegetable in sinigang. The news article of

http://www.tetrachemicals.com/Contact/Index.aqf
3

Joshua Haussler, Karla Moeller. "Phosphate Fix". ASU - Ask A Biologist. 19 December 2015.
https://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/phosphate-fix
4

Oliver Chadwick, Ph.D., Andy Kurtz, Ph.D., and Elissa Levine, Ph.D. THE ROLE OF SAND, SILT, AND CLAY COMPONENTS IN SOIL
FUNCTION. ANNENBERG FOUNDATION 2017 https://www.learner.org/series/modules/express/pages/scimod_04.html
2
East-West- Seed-Group stated that Kangkong is nutritious food rich in vitamins and

minerals. Kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica) defend the body from toxic chemicals like lead,

cadmium, arsenic and carbon tetrachloride. It has also anti-diabetic effect to human. 5

Ipomoea aquatica is nutritious food not only for human but also for animals too

like a pig. They grew easily on lands and a body of water. That is the reason why the

researcher uses it as a subject in the utilization of sand and fish scales as a growth

enhancer or fertilizer for the indoor garden. Planting an indoor kitchen plant can help to

feed the fast-growing population of the world. Clean and healthy growth of Ipomoea

aquatica is the concern of the researcher.

This study investigated the effect of sand and tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) scales

in the growth of kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica). It seeks to answer the following

problems The study investigated the effect of sand and tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus)

scales on the growth of kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica). It seeks to answer the following

problems: (1) What is the average growth of kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica) using two

different treatments and four different treatments in terms of:(1.1)average height, (1.2)

number of buds; and (1.3) the number of leaves? ; (2) Is there a significant difference in

the growth of kangkong (Ipomoea Aquatica) using two different treatments and four

different treatments in terms of: (2.1) average height, (2.2) number of buds ,(2.3)

number of leaves?; (3) Is there a significant difference in the growth of kangkong using

The Health Benefits of Kangkong.16 November 2018https://in.eastwestseed.com/news/the-health-benefits-of-kangkong-seeds

3
two different treatments and four different treatments based on the total growth

indicators (average height, number of buds, and number of leaves?

The researcher formulated the following hypotheses: There is no growth of

kangkong (Ipomoea Aquatica) in two different treatments and four different treatments in

terms of average height, number of buds and number of leaves.

There is no significant difference in the growth of kangkong (Ipomoea Aquatica)

using two different treatments and four different treatments base on the total growth

indicators (average height, number of buds and number of leaves).

This study deemed significant for its benefits on the following: (1.)

Community/Environment- The result of this study will give the community the idea to

use organic and available growth enhancer. Furthermore, it will also help them to

reduce the solid waste pollution caused by a fish scale in the market. It reduces the cost

of waste elimination that is usually one of the pollutants in the environment. (2) Health-

This study benefitted one’s health by providing plants available anywhere, free from

chemicals. If the plant is easily grown anywhere and healthy, then this will improve the

health of the community. (3) Fertilizer Manufacturer- This study can contribute to the

knowledge of the manufacturers of commercially made available fertilizer industries of

finding alternative ways of producing fertilizers. It can be a good source of income.

4
 (4) Future researchers- This study can provide additional knowledge and information

regarding alternative use of fish scales and sand as fertilizer, moreover, they

could use other plants and other fish scales.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study used the following materials: Tilapia (Oreochromis nilocitus) scales,

sand, plastic bottles, and kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica). The researcher collected the

tilapia scales as solid materials along with the fish section in Susano Public Market at

Novaliches, Quezon City. The researchers cleaned the scales using tap water, then

were dried for 24 hours using air and sundry method.

Tilapia ( Oreochromis niloticus) scales

Photo Credits:Amelie Almy C. Olermo

Figure 1. Collection and drying of fish scales

The researcher gathered kangkong tops in their garden. The soft buds and the

leaves were cut. The mature buds were soaked for 3 days and new roots were

developed. She prepared 2 plastic bottles with holes underneath for the first set of the
5
experiment. The height of the soil is 14 cm before the mature stalk was planted in 4cm

depth. Treatment A had loam soil only and treatment B had loam soil and sand.

Kangkong using two treatments was planted last August 3, 2019. She measured the

height and counted the number of buds and leaves once a week. It is usually on

Saturday.

Kangkong (Ipomoea Aquatica)

Photo Credits:Amelie Almy C. Olermo

Figure 2. Collection of kangkong stalks

The kangkong using four treatments was planted last August 26, 2019. The

height of the soil was 11cm. Treatment A had loam soil, treatment B had loam with sand,

treatment C is composed of loam and tilapia (Ipomoea aquatica) scales and treatment

D is made up of loam soil, sand, and tilapia (Ipomoeaa aquatica) scales. In treatment

C, it contained 10 cm soil and 1cm fish scales and some of them were added on the

top. On treatment D, she put sand under the 9 cm soil and added 1 cm scales. The

researcher measured the height and counted the number of buds and leaves every 2
6
days. She watered the plant once in the morning and once and the afternoon. Each

treatment receives an equal amount of water. She used a container of sardines to water

the kangkong which is170 mL capacity.

MONITORING, GATHERING AND RECORDING DATA

The researcher measured the height of kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica), count the

number of buds and the number leaves once a week for kangkong using two

treatments. Then she determined the average height, number of buds and leaves every

2 days for kangkong (Ipomoea Aquatica) using four treatments.

DATA ANALYSIS

Data were analyzed using the average per growth indicator in kangkong

(Ipomoea aquatica) using two treatments and kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica) using four

treatments. To determine the significant difference of growth in different indicators in

kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica) using two treatment, she used the t-test Two-tailed with

Unequal Variances. The statistical treatment used to test the difference between the

sample means by which the population variances are unequal. For kangkong (Ipomoea

aquatica) using four treatments, she applied single way ANOVA to determine the

significant difference in the growth of kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica) in terms of;

average height, the number of buds, and the number of leaves. The same procedure

was used to determine the significant difference in the growth of kangkong (Ipomoea

7
aquatica) based on height, the number of buds and number of leaves. The one-way

analysis of variance (ANOVA) is used to determine whether there are any statistically

significant differences between the means of two or more independent variables.

Figure 3. Diagrammatic Representation of the Experimentation Setup

8
 Preparation of kangkong stalk. Remove the young buds
and leaves and soak for 3 days.

Collection and preparation of Tilapia scales. Clean it

Preparation for two treatments. 2 Plastic pot.
with water, filter and dry it with air and sunlight. 4 Plastic
Loam soil and sand.
pot, loam soil and sand

Testing of the effectiveness of the applied fertilizer on the

pot

Kangkong using 2 treatments Kangkong using 4 treatments

A B C D
A B
Loam Sandy Loam With Tilapia With sand and
Plain soil With sand
Scales Tilapia Scales

Effectiveness of growth enhancer or fertilizer based on

the height, number of leaves and buds of the plants

Tabulation of the collected data

Analysis and interpretation for collected data and

results of the experimental setup

9
 Two Treatments

Kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica)

Photo Credits:Amelie Almy C. Olermo

Figure 4. Experimental Set-Up and Observations in Kangkong Using Two Treatments

10
 Four Treatments

Tilapia (Oreochromis niloticus) scales

Photo Credits: Amelie Almy

Figure 4.1 Experimental Set-Up and Observations in Preparation for Four Treatments

11
Kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica)

Photo Credits:Amelie Almy C. Olermo and Jayvee C. Olermo

Figure 4.2 Experimental Set-Up and Observations in Preparation for Four Treatments

12
Photo Credits:Amelie Almy C. Olermo

and Jayvee C. Olermo

13
Figure 4. 3. Experimental Set-Up and

Observations in Preparation for Four Treatments

RESULTS

After gathering of the data the researcher tabulates the data in Microsoft

Excel. And she came up with the following outcomes.

Table 1.Average Height of Ipomoea aquatica Using Two Different Treatments

Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Treatment (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) (cm) Average
A 20 27.6 33.33 37.67 43 58.67 66.67 78.83 45.72
B 20 34.33 40.67 50 65 79 92 116 62.13
Table 1 showed the average height of kangkong using two different treatments

Chart 1: Average Height of Ipomoeaa Aquatica Using Two different Treatments

200
180
160
140
120
Average Height

100
80
60
40
20
0
Week 0Week 1Week 2Week 3Week 4Week 5Week 6Week 7Average
Treatment

A B

14
 Chart 1 revealed the visual comparison of average height of kangkong using two

different treatments

Table 2.Number of Buds of Kangkong Using Two different Treatments

Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week

Treatment 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average
A 0 2 3 4 5 5 5 5 4.14
B 0 2 3 4 5 6 6 6 4.57

Table 2 indicates the number of buds of kangkong using two different treatments

Chart 2:Number of Buds of Ipomoeaa aquatica Using Two Different Treatments

7
6
5
Number of Buds

4
3
2
1
0
Week 0 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7
Treatment

A B

Chart 2 represented the number of buds using two different treatments

Table 3.Number of Leaves of Ipomoea aquatica Using Two Different Treatments

15
Treatmen Week Week Week Week Week Week Week Week

t 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Average
A 0 4 7 11 15 17 20 24 14
B 0 8 15 20 26 28 30 40 23.86

Table 3 defines the number of leaves that grew from the stalks and buds of kangkong

using two different treatments.

Chart 3: Number of Leaves of Ipomoea Aquatica Using Two Treatments

45
40
35
30
Number of Leaves

25
20
15
10
5
0
Week 0 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6 Week 7 Average
Treatment

A B

Chart 3 expounds the number of leaves using two different treatments.

Table 4. Average Height of Ipomoea Aquatica Using Four Different Treatments

16
Table 4 presented the growth of Ipomoea aquatica using four different treatments.

Chart 4: Average Height of Ipomoeaa Aquatica Using Four Different Treatments

35

30

25

20

15
Average Height

10

Treatment
A B C D

Chart 4 describes the average height of Ipomea aquatica using four

different treatments.

Table 5. Number of Buds of Ipomoea Aquatica Using Four Different Treatments

17
Table 5 shows the number of buds of Ipomoea aquatica using four different treatments.

Chart 5: Number of Buds of Ipomoea Aquatica Using Four Different Treatments

6
5
4
3
Number of Buds

2
1
0

Treatment

A B C D

Chart 5 displays the number of buds of Ipomoea aquatica per treatment.

Table 6.Number of Leaves of Ipomoeaa Aquatica Using Four Treatments

18
Table 6 above indicates the number of leaves per treatment using four treatments

Chart 6: Number of Leaves of Ipomoea Aquatica Using Four Treatments

25

20
Number of Leaves

15

10

0
Day 1 Day 3 Day 5 Day 7 Day 9 Day 11 Day 13 Day 15 Day 17 Day 19 Day 21 Day 23 Average
Treatment

A B C D

Chart 6 figures out the number of leaves of Ipomoea aquatica using four different

treatment

Table 7.t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances:

Average Height of Kangkong Using Two Treatments

20 20

19
 68.1428571

Mean 49.39571429 4
869.075823

Variance 360.3913952 8
Observations 7 7
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Df 10
-

t Stat 1.414573871
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.093783514
t Critical one-tail 1.812461123
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.187567027
t Critical two-tail 2.228138852

Table 7 explains the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms of average

height using two different treatments.

Table 8.t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal

Variances: Number of Buds of Kangkong Using Two

Treatments
2 2
Mean 4.5 5
Variance 0.7 1.6
Observations 6 6
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Df 9
t Stat -0.807572853
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.220078765
t Critical one-tail 1.833112933
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.44015753
t Critical two-tail 2.262157163
20
 Table 8 discusses the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in

terms of the number of buds

Table 9.t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal

Variances: Number of Leaves of Kangkong Using Two

Treatment

4 8
15.666666

Mean 7 26.5
37.466666

Variance 7 74.3
Observations 6 6
Hypothesized Mean

Difference 0
Df 9
t Stat -2.5100454
0.0166541

P(T<=t) one-tail 4
t Critical one-tail 1.83311293
0.0333082

P(T<=t) two-tail 7
2.2621571

t Critical two-tail 6

21
 Table 9 shows the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms of the

number of leaves using two treatments.

Table 10.ANOVA: Single Factor Average Height of Kangkong

Using Four Treatments

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
12 3 36 12 0
13.27 3 48.53 16.1766667 0.99253333
12.3 3 50.43 16.81 0.5383
12.8 3 54.83 18.2766667 0.67853333
13.33 3 57.5 19.1666667 6.67723333
11.76 3 59.57 19.8566667 6.54453333
4 3 61.91 20.6366667 10.5221333
4.3 3 55.83 18.61 6.2863
4.6 3 51.67 17.2233333 8.23853333
5 3 52.66 17.5533333 7.13963333
5.3 3 63 21 32.1489
5.6 3 69.99 23.33 49

ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 268.10133 11 24.3728485 2.27135069 0.0451 2.2163
Within Groups 257.53327 24 10.7305528

Total 525.6346 35
Table 10 discusses the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms of the

average height using four treatments.

Table 11.ANOVA: Single Factor Number of Buds of Kangkong Using

Four Treatments
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
1 3 6 2 0
2 3 7 2.333333333 0.333333333
3 3 10 3.333333333 0.333333333
4 3 13 4.333333333 0.333333333

22
 3 3 13 4.333333333 0.333333333
1 3 13 4.333333333 0.333333333
1 3 13 4.333333333 0.333333333
1 3 11 3.666666667 0.333333333
1 3 11 3.666666667 0.333333333
1 3 11 3.666666667 0.333333333
1 3 12 4 0
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 19.63636364 10 1.963636364 7.2 6.02E-05 2.296696
Within Groups 6 22 0.272727273

Total 25.63636364 32

Table 11 states the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms of

the number of buds using four different treatments.

Table 12.ANOVA: Single Factor Number of Leaves of Kangkong Using Four

Treatments
SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
1 3 9 3 0
3 3 13 4.3333333 2.3333333
3 3 20 6.6666667 6.3333333
5 3 26 8.6666667 6.3333333
6 3 31 10.333333 4.3333333
2 3 36 12 1
3 3 35 11.666667 0.3333333
2 3 41 13.666667 50.333333
3 3 45 15 49
4 3 44 14.666667 6.3333333
4 3 46 15.333333 4.3333333
ANOVA
Source of

Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between

Groups 560.9090909 10 56.090909 4.7219388 0.001159 2.296696

23
Within Groups 261.3333333 22 11.878788
Total 822.2424242 32
Table 12 presents the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms of the

number of leaves using four treatment

Table 13.t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Unequal Variances

Average Height, Number of Buds & Number of Leaves Using

Two Treatments
45.72 62.13
Mean 9.07 14.215
Variance 48.6098 186.05205
Observations 2 2
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Df 1
t Stat -0.474984166
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.358850123
t Critical one-tail 6.313751515
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.717700246
t Critical two-tail 12.70620474

Table 13 clarifies the significant difference in the growth of kangkong based on the total

growth indicators ( average height, number of buds, and number of leaves) using two

different treatments.

Table 14. One-way ANOVA: Single Factor Average Height, Number of Buds, and

Number of Leaves Using Four Treatments

SUMMARY
Groups Count Sum Average Variance
8.69 3 55.16 18.3867 3.30243
1.73 3 10.92 3.64 0.0243
24
 3.27 3 31.46 10.4867 1.40623
ANOVA
Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit
Between Groups 326.751 2 163.376 103.556 2.232E-05 5.1433
Within Groups 9.465933 6 1.57766

Total 336.217 8

Table 14 shows the significant difference (One-way Anova) in the growth of kangkong

based on the total growth indicators (average height, number of buds and the number of

leaves ).

DISCUSSIONS

As shown in table 1 the average height of kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica) is

measured once a week. There are 3 pieces of stalk per plastic pot so to avoid confusion

on the piece of stalk the researcher uses the average height of the 3 stalks. Treatment A

is consisting of loam soil, treatment B had sand and loam soil. There is an increase in

height per week on both treatments. The average height of treatment B (62.13m) is

greater than the average height of treatment A (45.72 cm).

Chart 1 revealed the average height of kangkong using two different

treatments As revealed on the chart 1 as the number of weeks increases the size of

kangkong(Ipomoea aquatica) plants increases too. But the average height of treatment

25
B is greater than treatment A. It means treatment B is suitable to enhance the growth of

Ipomoea aquatica.

Table 2 indicated the number of buds existing per week. Treatment A had an

average of 4.14 and treatment B had 4.57 average. Treatment B had greater growth in

terms of the number of buds than treatment A. It means treatment in B is more

productive than treatment A.

Chart 2 denoted the number of buds existing per week. From week 1 to 4

they have the same number of buds. But in week 5, 6, 7 treatment B had a greater

number of buds than treatment A.

Table 3 showed the number of leaves grew from the stalks and buds.

Treatment A had an average of 14 and treatment B had an average of 23.86. There are

more leaves grown on treatment B.

Chart 3 illustrated the number of leaves per week. As the number of weeks

increases the number of leaves increases too. Treatment B had a greater number of

leaves. Treatment B enhance the growth of kangkong (Ipomoea aquatica) in terms of

the number of leaves.

In the next set-up of the experiment, the researcher used four treatments.

Treatment A had loam soil, treatment B had sandy loam soil, treatment C had tilapia

(Oreochromis nilocitus) scales and on treatment D had sandy loam and tilapia

(Oreochromis nilocitus) scales.

26
 Table 4 presented the growth of Ipomoea aquatica in 4 treatments.

Treatment A consists of loam soil. Treatment B is sandy loam. Treatment C is loam with

fish scales then Treatment C had sandy loam and fish scales. Treatment A had 8.68 cm,

Treatment B had 16.5 cm, Treatment C had 18.6 cm and treatment D had 20.1. Based

on the results of the recorded measurement, the highest average height of kangkong is

treatment D.

Chart 4 described the average height of Ipomea aquatica per treatment. At

the beginning of the experiment, they have the same average height. But then as the

days, passed the average height became unpredictable. Treatment A showed

decreased in height on day 14 then increased again on day 15 th. In treatment B, there is

growth in 3 consecutive records then reduced in Day 9. Treatment C had 6 recorded

increase of height then decreases on Day 15 and the height increases again. Treatment

D had the best growth in terms of average height there is a constant growth from day 3

to day 23.

As indicated in Table 5 above the number of buds of using four different

treatment were increased from day 1 to day 9. Treatment A on day 11 was reduced to 3

than on day 11 up to day 23 there is only one bud left. Treatment B had the same

number of buds from day 5 to 23. On the other hand, treatment C from day 9 to day 15

had the same number of buds (5) then it decreased to 3 from day 17 to day 21 and

became 4 on day 23. Treatment D had the equal number of buds from day 4 to day 23.

Chart 5 displayed the number of buds of Ipomoea aquatica per treatment.

On day ,1 there is a mark of buds to be developed on every stalk. Treatment A had an

27
increasing number of buds from day 3 to day 9, but it was decreased on day 11 then

dropped down on day 13. Then, there was minimal growth up to day 23. Kangkong on

treatment B had an increasing number of buds but on day 9 to day 23, they have the

same number of buds. Ipomoea aquatica on treatment C had the greatest number of

buds from day 9 to 15, but it decreased on day 17, then it increased again on day 23.

The number of buds of kangkong in treatment D had the same number of buds in

treatment B.

Table 6 indicated the number of leaves per treatment from day 1 to day 23.

Ipomoea aquatica on treatment A had the lowest number of leaves with an average

number of leaves of 3.27. Followed by treatment B with 9.55. Next is treatment D with

11.8. And the greatest number of leaves of Ipomoea aquatica was treatment C.

Chart 6 figure out the number of leaves of Ipomoea aquatica per treatment.

Ipomoea aquatica in treatment A had the least number of leaves. Next is the Ipomoea

aquatica in treatment in treatment B which is increasing from day 3 to day 13 decrease

on day 15 and at the lowest number on day 17 then increases again up today 23.

Kangkong on treatment C had the highest number of leaves on day 17 and 19 then drop

on day 21 and increase on day 23. Kangkong on treatment D had a constant increase in

the record and had the highest number of leaves on the last recorded observation in

day 23.

Table 7 explained the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in

each treatment. As seen on the table above the computed p-value is 0.19 it is higher

28
than the baseline p-value which is 0.05. This means the null hypothesis is accepted.

There is no significant relationship on the height of kangkong using two treatment.

Table 8 discussed the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in

terms of the number of buds. The computed p-value is 0.44 which is greater than the

standard p-value 0.05. Means there is no significant relationship on the growth of

kangkong in terms of the number of buds using two treatment. Therefore, the null

hypothesis is accepted.

Table 9 showed the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms of

the number of leaves using two treatment. The computed p-value is 0.033 it is lower

than the standard p-value which is 0.05. So, the null hypothesis is rejected, it means

there is a significant difference in the number of leaves using two treatment.

Table 10 discussed the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms

of the average height of kangkong using four treatments. The computed p-value is

0.0451, it is lower than the standard p-value which is 0.05. So, the null hypothesis is

rejected. Therefore, there is a significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms

of average height using four treatments.

Table 11 stated the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms of

the number of buds using four different treatments. The resulting p-value is 0.00000602

which is lower than 0.05 the standard p-value. Therefore the null hypothesis is rejected.

There is a significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms of the number of

buds using four treatments.

29
 Table 12 presented the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms

of the number of leaves using four treatment. The computed p-value is 0.001159 it is

lower than the standard p-value 0.05. The null hypothesis is rejected. Meaning there is

a significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms of the number of leaves using

four treatments.

Table 13 clarified the significant difference in the growth of kangkong in terms of

average height, number of buds, and number of leaves using two different treatments.

The computed p-value is 0.7177 it is higher than the standard p-value which is 0.05.

The null hypothesis is accepted there is no significant difference in the growth of

kangkong in terms of average height, number of buds, number of leaves using two

treatments.

Table 14 enlightened the significant difference of kangkong growth in terms of

average height, number of buds and number of leaves using four treatments. The

calculated p-value is 0.0000223 it is lesser than the standard p-value. So, the null

hypothesis is accepted. Therefore, there is a significant difference in the growth of

kangkong in terms of average height, number of buds and number of leaves.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the result gathered from the growth of the Ipomoea aquatica in two

treatments and four treatments, there is an increase in the growth of Ipomoea aquatica

in terms of average in height, number of buds and number of leaves. There is a

30
significant difference in the growth of Ipomoea aquatica in terms of the number of

leaves using two treatments. In the four treatments, there is a significant difference in

the growth of Ipomoea aquatica in terms of average height, number of buds and number

of leaves. The presence of sand in loam soil can increase the growth of Ipomoea

aquatica. It is an earth material that is usually found anywhere. Coarse particles in the

soil can ease the flow of nutrients through the water in the soil. Sand contains also

minerals that can enhance the growth of Ipomoea aquatica. Oreochromis nilocitus scale

is consist of a layer rich in protein mucus and a high source of calcium phosphate.

These components can enhance the growth of Ipomoea aquatica as revealed in the

results of the experiment. The used of organic waste materials like Oreochromis

niloticos scales can reduce the solid pollutants on land. It can help our environment to

regain its nutrients from natural processes. Vegetables free from chemicals can make

the human body healthier and improve the immune systems.

RECOMMENDATIONS

To improve this study, the researcher recommends the future researchers to

utilize the other scales to be used as fertilizer or growth enhancer. Future study may

also investigate the comparative analysis of organic fish scale fertilizer with sand to

commercially made fertilizer. Lastly, future studies may also investigate the effect of fish

scale and sand in the growth of other types of kitchen plant.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

31
 The researcher would like to express her sincere gratitude and appreciation to

the following for their help and invaluable support for the completion of this work.

To Mrs. Julie C. Olermo, my research adviser and my beloved mother for her

critical evaluation, for her insights and recommendations which contributed to the

refinement of this work, and for the patience, hard work, sacrifices, and straight concern

in checking the paper.

To Mrs. Angelina B. De Chavez, our beloved principal and Mrs. Chedita R.

Pericon, the Department Head of Science Department who keep on motivating me to go

on with my project.

To my loving parents that serve as my strength. They are always there to support me

morally and financially to be successful in this study.

Above all, to God be the highest glory and praises.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepidophagy
2 http://www.tetrachemicals.com/Contact/Index.aqf
3 Joshua Haussler, Karla Moeller. "Phosphate Fix". ASU - Ask A Biologist. 19

December 2015. https://askabiologist.asu.edu/explore/phosphate-fix

4 Oliver Chadwick, Ph.D., Andy Kurtz, Ph.D., and Elissa Levine, Ph.D. THE ROLE OF

SAND, SILT, AND CLAY COMPONENTS IN SOIL FUNCTION. ANNENBERG

32
 FOUNDATION 2017

https://www.learner.org/series/modules/express/pages/scimod_04.html
5 The Health Benefits of Kangkong.16 November 2018

https://in.eastwestseed.com/news/the-health-benefits-of-kangkong-seeds

https://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNReQF-

S6ouA76dYfMnfFl5f_93Xjw:1569131187064&q=Do+fish+scales+have+nutriti

onal+value

%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwih6oqY3ePkAhUVfnAKHUPVA78Qzmd6BAgMEC

A&biw=1366&bih=62

33