CARIBBEAN SECONDARY SCHOOL EXAMINATION

(CSEC) 2025
SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENT
CROP PRODUCTION

NAME OF CANDIDATE:
CANDIDATE NUMBER: 090308
NAME OF CENTER: VREED-EN-HOOP SECONDARY SCHOOL
SCHOOL CODE: 090308
SUBJECT: AGRICULTURAL SCIENCE
TITLE OF PROJECT: The response Pak-Choi plants growing using chicken
manure as against cow manure at Vreed-En-Hoop Secondary School over a
six weeks period
COMMENCEMENT DATE:
CONCLUSION DATE:
FACILITATOR: MS. D. ALLEYNE
TERRITORY: GUYANA
YEAR: 2024
TABLE OF CONTENT

Acknowledgement

Problem of statement

Aim

List of materials

Experimental Design

Activities

Data Collection

Discussion

Reference

Conclusion

Limitation and Recommendations…

Projected Budget…

Actual Budget

2
Acknowledgment

The successful completion of this study would not have been possible without the
assistance and cooperation of my parents. I would like to thank god the almighty for
giving me the needed strength and knowledge to complete this school- based
assessment. however, I would like to thank my agricultural science teacher Miss D.
Alleyne for her patience and guidance throughout this S.B.A and my school for providing
the area to conduct this project.

3
Statement of Problem

The cultivation of cash crops such as pokchai varies with management practices. The cultivation
of pakchai was selected by the students of Vreed-En-hoop secondary because of its
manageability and its growth rate.

The demand for pakchai has increased tremendously in our community base on observation,
its nutrient value will aid in the reduction of malnutrition and an income can be earned for cash
crop farmers.

4
Aim

To determine the response of pakchai growth using two separate organic manure chicken
manure as against cow manure.

Experimental Designs

1. The experiment was conducted using pakchai plants which were planted on well prepared
beds.

2.Each bed had a dimension of 4ft x 10ft .

3.Seedlings were planted 12 ft apart between row and farrow ridges.

4 each beds were label control (chicken manure) A and experiment (cow manure) B

5
List of materials and equipment used

Seedlings
Cutlass
Watercan
Manure
Fork
Long boots
Shovel
Rake
Gloves
Bags

6
Activities Described

● Land cleaning - this was done by removing unwanted vegetation and any materials that
can hinder cultivation.

● Tillage (primary) - the first land preparation technique before any cultivation can be done
e.g. plough making of beds and drains.

● Tillage (secondary) - produce finer lilith and making of ridges and furrows along with
preparing bed for planting.

● Incorporating manure on beds.

● Preparing planting holes for seedling.

● Transplanting of seedlings and prepared holes.

● Both experimental groups were watered and covered with branches to prevent direct sun
from destroying young plants.

● Plants were watered on a daily basis for six weeks.

7
Data collection

● The plants that were planted with chicken manure and cow manure labeled.
● Over the six weeks period the following data were recorded. The height and width of the
plants from forty plants.

Plants Survival over the six week period

Weeks Cow manure (experiment) Chicken manure (control)

1 40 40

2 40 39

3 40 39

4 39 39

5 39 39

6 39 39

8
Table showing plant length using cow and chicken manure over a six week period

Week Cown Manure (experiment) Chickens Manure (control)

1 2cm 2cm

2 4cm 4.5cm

3 7cm 8cm

4 10cm 11.5cm

5 13.3cm 14.4cm

6 15cm 16cm

In Week 1, both cow manure and chicken manure treatments resulted in the same
plant length of 2 cm. By Week 2, chicken manure showed slightly better growth, with
plants reaching 4.5 cm compared to 4 cm for cow manure. This trend continued
in Week 3, where chicken manure-treated plants grew to 8 cm, while cow manure-
treated plants reached 7 cm. In Week 4, the difference became more noticeable,
with chicken manure-treated plants growing to 11.5 cm and cow manure-treated
plants reaching 10 cm. By Week 5, chicken manure-treated plants achieved 14.4
cm in growth, compared to 13.3 cm for cow manure. Finally, in Week 6, chicken
manure-treated plants reached 16 cm, while cow manure-treated plants grew to 15
cm. In summary, chicken manure consistently promoted slightly better plant growth
than cow manure over the six-week period, with both treatments showing effective
results.

Bar Graph showing plant length using cow and chicken manure over a six-week period

9
 18

16

14

12

10

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

Cow Manure (Experiment) Chickens Manure (control)

Table showing plant width using cow and chicken manure over a six week period

10
 Week Cow manure Chicken manure

1 1cm 1cm

2 2cm= 2.5cm

3 4cm 4cm

4 6cm 7cm

5 8cm 9cm

6 10cm 12cm

This table tracks the weekly application of cow manure and chicken manure, both measured in
centimeters (cm). Starting with 1 cm of each in week 1, the application amounts increase
progressively. By week 6, cow manure application reaches 10 cm, while chicken manure,
known for its higher nutrient concentration, is applied at 12 cm. This data suggests a deliberate
increase in fertilizer application over time, likely to meet the growing nutrient demands of plants.
However, the higher rate of chicken manure application warrants careful monitoring to prevent
potential nutrient overload or “burn” in sensitive plants.

11
Line Graph showing plant width using cow and chicken manure over a six week period

14

12

10

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

Cow Manure Chicken Manure

12
 Treatment cow manure Control chicken manure
Fresh weight of harvest(kg) fresh weight of harvest(kg)
2.5 1.9

Fresh Weight of Harvest:

 Plants treated with cow manure produced a fresh weight of 2.5 kg.
 Plants treated with chicken manure produced a fresh weight of 1.9 kg.
 This suggests that cow manure leads to higher yields compared to chicken manure.

Discussion

13
Both chicken manure and cow manure are valuable sources of nutrients for crops, but
they have different properties that make them suitable for various applications. Here’s a
breakdown of their key differences:

Nutrient Content:

Chicken Manure: Generally has a higher concentration of nitrogen, phosphorus, and

potassium (NPK) compared to cow manure. This makes it a more potent fertilizer, but it
also means it needs to be used carefully to avoid burning plants.
Cow Manure: Has a lower NPK content, making it a gentler, more balanced fertilizer. It’s
often preferred for general soil improvement and for plants that are sensitive to high
nutrient levels.
Other Properties:

Chicken Manure: Tends to be more acidic than cow manure. It’s important to compost
chicken manure before use to balance its pH and reduce the risk of harming plants.
Cow Manure: Contains more organic matter than chicken manure, which can improve
soil structure, water retention, and aeration.
Availability and Cost:

Chicken Manure: May be more readily available in areas with poultry farms. It can be
more cost-effective than cow manure, especially if you can source it locally.
Cow Manure: May be more common in areas with cattle farms. The cost can vary
depending on availability and processing.
Uses:

Chicken Manure: Ideal for crops with high nutrient demands, such as vegetables and
fruits. It can also be used as a soil amendment to boost fertility.
Cow Manure: Suitable for a wide range of plants, including lawns, gardens, and flower
beds. It’s also great for composting and improving soil health.
Important Considerations:

Composting: Both chicken and cow manure should ideally be composted before use to
reduce pathogens, weed seeds, and excess nutrients.
Application: Always follow recommended application rates to avoid over-fertilizing and
harming plants.
Sourcing: Choose manure from healthy animals and reputable sources to minimize the
risk of contaminants.
Ultimately, the best choice between chicken manure and cow manure depends on your
specific needs, the types of plants you’re growing, and the availability of each resources

14
Conclusion

In conclusion, the data demonstrates a progressive increase in both cow and chicken
manure application over a six-week period, with chicken manure being applied at a
higher rate. While this likely reflects the increasing nutrient needs of developing plants
and the higher concentration of nutrients in chicken manure, the lack of crucial context
such as plant type, soil conditions, and application method necessitates caution.
Without this information, it’s impossible to definitively assess the appropriateness of
these application rates and underscores the importance of careful monitoring and
potentially soil testing to optimize plant health and avoid over-fertilization.
.

Limitation

1limited land clearing tools such as cutlasses

2.Each child such be in protective gears such as long booths and gloves where
necessary
3.Difficulty in cultivating land due to poor clay soil and easily water logged

Recommendation

● More gardening tools need to be available for students to work.

● Lot more organic manure should be made available in order to improve soil
structure and have more planting done

15
Reference

. Online Resources

- Rodale Institute

A leader in organic farming research, offering insights into the use of manure and
compost in sustainable agriculture.

Website: [https://rodaleinstitute.org](https://rodaleinstitute.org)

Gardening Know How

Provides practical tips for gardeners on using chicken and cow manure in gardens.

Website: [https://www.gardeningknowhow.com](https://www.gardeningknowhow.com)

- Composting Council

Offers resources on composting manure and its benefits for soil health.

Website: [https://www.compostingcouncil.org](https://www.compostingcouncil.org)

16
 APPENDIX

17
Projective budget

Items Quantity Unit price Total cost

Pakchoi 74 heads of pakchoi $200per parcel 35 $7,000
parcel

actual expenditure

seedlings 80 seedlings 200 per dozen 1700

manure 2 bags 500 1000

bags 1pack 400 400

transportation 500 500

18
 Total cost 3600

Surplus equal income -total expenditures

$6000- $3600

Surplus =$3400

Actual budget

Items Quantity Unit price Total cost

Pakchoi 78 heads of pakchoi 200 per parcel 38 $7,600

19
 Actual expenditures

Seedlings 80 seedlings 200 per dozen per a 1500

dozen

manure 4 bags 0 0

bags 2 bags 1000 1000

Transportation 2 cow manure 500 500

total 3000

Income – expenditures

7,600-3000

Surplus =$4,600

Budget Analyzation

Expenditures
Projected Budget
 Expenditure: $3,600
Actual Budget
 Expenditure: $3,000
Difference
 The actual expenditure is $600 more than projected.

Income
Projected Budget
 1ncome $7,000
Actual Budget
 Income : $7,600
Difference

20
Projected income was $6000 and actual income was $7600,a difference of $600 more than
projected budget

Surplus

Projected Budget
 surplus: $3,400
Actual Budget

 surplus: $4,600
Difference
 The actual surplus is $1,200 more than projected. surplus

21
 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 - -

Introduction Table of Contents - -

(2) Problem statement clearly written 1

Aim clearly stated 1

Experimental Design 1

List of Materials and Equipment Used 1

Activities 5 or more activities 2

described

1 to 4 activities 1
described

No activities described 0

3 or more photographs showing students engaged in 1

Methodology this investigation

(6) Data Collection 1

Results Collected relevant data 1

(4) Presentation of results 1

22
 Interpretation of results Fully interprets results 2

Partially interprets 1
results

Did not attempt to 0

interpret results

Fully discussed findings with reference to relevant 3

supporting literature

Partially discussed findings with reference to relevant 2

supporting literature

Discussed findings with no supporting literature 1

Discussion
(3) Did not attempt to discuss findings 0

Conclusion, Conclusion 1

Limitations and Limitations 1

Recommendations
Recommendations for improvement 1
(3)

Presentation (1) Less than 5 spelling and grammatical errors contained 1

in the report

References (1) At least 2 references properly cited

TOTAL (Technical Report)

20÷2
Cost Analysis Complete Budget Project Income - output, 1
price, total

23
 Projected Expenditure 1
inputs, price, total

Surplus/Shortfall 1
correctly calculated

Income/Sales of 1
Product - quantity,
price, total

Actual Income and Expenditure - quantity, 1

price, total
Expenditure
Surplus/Shortfall 1
correctly calculated

Comparison of Provides a full and 4

accurate comparison of
Projected and Actual all 3 parameters
- Income
Partially compares all 3 3
- Expenditure
parameters
- Surplus/shortfall
Correctly compares any 2
2 parameters
Correctly compares any 1
1 parameters
Did not attempt to 0
compare any parameter

TOTAL (Cost Analysis)

24