Standard Formulation vs.

Non-standard Formulations of Corn

Cobs (Zea maize), Lime, Saw Dust and Rice Bran as a Growth
Medium for Growing Pink Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor)

Chapter I

Introduction

Mushrooms are cultivated to meet the demands of

mushrooms in the market. It is the process of growing
mushrooms where many methods are being done. Mushroom
production is said to be a growing business in India as the
demand is increasing from the last few years
(Maheshwari,(date) Mahe’S Biotech Pvt. Ltd., India).

Growing mushrooms requires minimum space and time. It

can be grown the whole year round in backyards by simply
using sufficient amount of rice straw from their harvest.
And cultivating it uses different types of substrates
depending on its capacity to secrete enzymes such as
oxidative and hydrolytic enzymes which are involved in
utilizing Lignocellulosic substrates (materials containing
cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin). (Rossi et al., 2001;
Donini et al., 2009; Luz et al. 2012).

Corn cobs are considered agricultural waste due to

increase in production of corns (Zea mays). To utilize
them, the researchers will test their suitability with
another medium in order to grow Pink Oyster Mushroom
(Pleurotus djamor) which is a tropical mushroom. Hence,
researchers thought of the possibility of cultivating this
kind of mushroom in the Philippines. And since Pink
Flamingo Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor) is exotic in
the community, the researchers wanted to study the process
of growing Pink Flamingo Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor)
to introduce into the locality.
According to Oliver (2017), the standard formulation
in making mushroom substrates contained 79% Corn cobs, 10%
saw dust, 10% rice bran and 1% lime. He emphasized that
lime served as a neutralizer for the acidity and basicity
of a substrate. Also, he said that lime and saw dust is
used to add lignocellulosic materials to the substrate.
Therefore, the researchers will modify the formula for
better result.

A. Background of the study

Mushrooms are club fungi’s fruiting body, produced by

a fungal organism called mycelium. It is consist of chains
of fungal cells called hyphae. Mushrooms are completely
different from plants. They do not contain chlorophyll and
rely on substrates to decompose their food. An example is
the Pink Flamingo Oyster mushroom (Pleurotus sp.) which is
good for beginners to grow. Pink flamingo Oyster Mushroom
(Pleurotus djamor), Golden Mushroom and Gray Mushroom
belongs to Oyster mushroom (Pleurotus sp.) family.

Mushrooms belonging to Pleurotus species can be grown

over a short period of time. Pleurotus genus degrades
lignin by excreting four ligninolytic enzymes. In producing
this kind of mushroom, moisture, composition, water,
minerals, ratio of carbon to nitrogen, sources of nitrogen,

2
surfactant, pH, particle size, and amount of inoculum,
antimicrobial agents and the presence of interactions
between microorganisms are considered as chemical, physical
and biological factors (Eira 2003).

Pink Oyster Mushrooms (Pleurotus djamor) are pink in

color. Their shape is the same with Pleurotus species
mushroom because they belong to Pleurotus family. They are
also called Salmon Oyster mushroom, Strawberry oyster and
Pink Flamingo Mushroom (Stamets 2000). When they age, their
cap tends to curl. Pink Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor)
is considered as one of the fastest growing mushrooms that
belong to pleurotus species. It can colonize on any kind of
agricultural by-products. Pink Oyster Mushrooms (Pleurotus
djamor) are vigorous growers and multiplies rapidly. Their
shelf life is short. They often grow in bouquets. Pink
Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor) is a tropical mushroom
and prefers warm temperature and high humidity. It is very
susceptible to cold temperatures.

Pink Oyster Mushroom’s (Pleurotus djamor) pileus is

2.0 – 7.0 cm wide (Kimbrough 2000). Its gills are somewhat
crowded and when compared to other pleurotus species, its
fruit is smaller (Liou 2000). When its parts are already
mature, it losses pigmentation and turns into white
(Stamets 2000). Pink Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor)
pink pigment is present in the cytoplasm of its hyphae.

3
 B. Statement of the problem

Are the non-standard formulations of substrates made

from Corn cobs, Rice bran, Saw dust and Lime more effective
than the standard formulation in growing Pink Oyster
Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor)?

C. Statement of Objectives

This research generally aims:

 To prove that non-standard formulations of

substrates made from Corn cobs (Zea mays), saw
dust, lime and rice bran are more effective than
the standard formulation in growing Pink Oyster
mushroom (Pleurotus djamor).

Specifically:

 To formulate different substrate formulations made of

corn cobs, lime, saw dust and rice bran as growth
medium for Pink Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor)
 To grow Pink Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor) in a
minimal cash investment
 To utilize to Waste Corn cobs (Zea mays), Saw dust,
Lime and Rice bran.

4
 D. Statement of Hypotheses:

Null:

 Non-standard formulations of substrates made from

corn cobs, lime, saw dust and rice bran are not more
effective than the standard formulation in growing
Pink Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor).

Alternative:

 Non-standard formulations of substrates made from

corn cobs, lime, saw dust and rice bran are more
effective than the standard formulation in growing
Pink Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor).

E. Significance of the study

The study will be beneficial for the following:

Government – There maybe Increase of economy because it

will be an additional source of income to many farmers.
Because of the demand of Pink Flamingo Oyster Mushroom
(Pleurotus djamor), many countries are buying these goods.
In that way, our economy will increase.

Department of Agriculture (DA) – that they may set more

information about the production of Pink Oyster Mushroom
(Pleurotus djamor) regarding on various formulations of
corn cobs (Zea mays) as a substrate.

Community – waste product has rapidly increased overtime,

the study will give an impact to agricultural by-products
thrown away by the farmers. By doing the study, people in
the locality specially farmers, may make of waste products

5
and turn them into income generating project corn cobs as
substrates for mushroom.

Corn Farmers – the study will give them another way to

utilize their product residues. Instead of putting them
into landfill, they could start mushroom production by
using those by-products.

Future researchers – researchers who would like to study

the growth of Pink Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus djamor) can
use this study as a basis of their research.

F. Scope and limitations

The researchers only cultivated Pink Oyster Mushroom

(Pleurotus djamor) using different formulations of
substrates, composed mainly of corn cobs. The common
procedure in cultivating Pink Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus
djamor) was strictly observed in this research and is same
in all set-ups with an exception of applying certain
amounts of grind corn cobs (Zea mays), lime, saw dust and
rice bran .

As such, any change in the above scope will be a

subject to future researches.

6
 G. Materials Used

Corn cobs Saw dust Rice bran

Agricultural Cotton balls Rubber band

lime

PVC Polyprolylene bag Garbage bag

7
Weighing scale Shredder Drum

Used paper Inoculation chamber

8
 Chapter II

Method and Procedure

A. Research design

The researchers used the completely randomized design

(CRD). Treatments were assigned randomly under the
different experimental subjects without restriction. The
experimental subjects in this case were homogeneous with
respect to all other factors affecting the treatments for
comparison if they were not control.

Experimental units are randomly assigned

Experimental Control

79% corn cobs

Treatment 1 Treatment 2
10% Saw dust
84% corn cobs 89% corn cobs
10% Rice bran
7.5% Saw dust 4% Saw dust
1% lime
7% Rice bran 5% Rice bran
1.5% lime 2% lime

Treatment 3
74% corn cobs
12% Saw dust
12% Rice bran
2% lime

FIGURE 1. The Research Design

9
There were four (4) treatments: three (3) experimental set-
ups, and the control. Substrate formulations were
independent variables because each treatment received
different formulations of substrates. Treatment 1 had 2.52
kg Corn cobs; 0.225 kg saw dust; 0.21 kg Rice bran; and
0.045 kg lime; treatment 2 had 2.67 kg corn cobs; 0.12 kg
saw dust; 0.15 rice bran; and 0.06 kg lime; treatment 3 had
2.22 kg corn cobs; 0.36 kg saw dust; 0.36 kg rice bran; and
0.06 kg lime. The control set-up had 2.37 kg corn cobs; 0.3
kg saw dust; 0.3 kg rice bran; and 0.03 kg lime. Each
treatment received the same amount of spawn and water.
Spawn run was recorded for every 3 days in a span of 21
days after spawning. Growth of the mushroom was observed
after spawn run.

10
 B. Methodology

The weight of the mushroom was recorded after

harvesting the mushrooms or as soon as the mushroom’s caps
opened. Variable, such as the spawn run, was recorded every
3 days in a span of 21 days, after a week of spawning.

Treatment Preparation

Rice bran and saw dust, Corn cobs, Lime were gathered
in Goa, Tigaon, and Pili, Camarines Sur respectively. The
corn cobs were sun dried for 2 days and was shredded. They
were soaked in tap water for 9 hours, the water was
replaced every 3 hours. The soaked corn cobs was air dried
for 5 hours. Soaked Corn cobs, Agricultural Lime, Saw dust
and Rice bran was mixed together with their respective
formulation. For experimental, treatment 1 contained 84%
corn cobs, 7.5% saw dust, 7 % rice bran and 1.5% lime,
treatment 2 contained 89% corn cobs, 4% saw dust, 5 % rice
bran and 2% lime, treatment 3 contained 74% corn cobs, 12%
saw dust, 12 % rice bran and 2% lime and Control had 79%
corn cobs, 10% saw dust, 10 % rice bran and 1% lime. They
were put in separate big basins and decomposed for 21 days,
every 3 days, they were opened and was distributed evenly.

Preparation of the test samples

The researchers put the treatments in 12 polyprolylene bags

stuffed with 1 kilogram of substrate and was pasteurized
for 7 hours inside a big drum. Pink oyster mushroom
(Pleurotus djamor) was used as a spawn which were given by
the Department of Agriculture, Bicol Region. A day after
pasteurization, spawn was already put into its respective
bags.

11
Experimental Process

Three (3) different treatments together with control

were observed during the inoculation process. The bags were
placed in an inoculation chamber surrounded with alcohol
lamp. Each mushroom bag with 1 kilogram of the formulated
substrate contained 1 spoonful spawn. It was put into the
bags aseptically, by the use of spoon dipped into denatured
alcohol and lightly heated by using alcohol lamp. The
researchers enveloped the remaining upper portion of the
bag with PVC, plugged with 2 cotton balls, wrapped with
used paper and tightened with rubber band. The spawn run
was observed every 3 days in a span of 21 days, a week
after putting the spawn in the bags. After 21 days of spawn
run, the cotton, paper, and rubber band was removed. Upon
the opening of the caps of the mushrooms, they were already
ready for harvest.

Set-ups Observation and Data Gathering

Set-ups were observed every 3 days during spawn run.

Spawn length of Mycelia was recorded every 3 days within 21
days of spawn running by means of centimeter. After spawn
running, cotton balls, rubber band and paper was removed.
The researchers waited for a week and Harvesting of
mushrooms was done. Weighing of mushrooms was conducted
after harvesting.

12
 C. Statistical Treatment

The researchers compared the effectiveness of the 3

experimental set-ups, which contained the non-standard
formulation, to the control set-up which had the standard
formulation by recording mycelia’s spawn length and weight
of mushroom after harvest.

Statistical tool

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine if

the hypothesis of the experiment is highly significant: in
terms of spawn run of mycelia during spawn running and
weight of mushroom after harvesting.

Formula: F = mean square for treatments (MST)

Mean square for errors (MSE)
Where F is based on d.f. 1 = (k-1) and d.f.2 = (n-k)

The rejection region:

Reject Ho if F> Fcritical, where Fcritical lies in the upper trail
of the F-distribution table with d.f.1 = k – 1 and d.f.2 = n
– k
The following quantities must be computed.
Total SS = SST + SSE
Where total SS = total sum of squared deviations
SST = sum of squares for treatment
SSE = sum of squares for error

Total SS = (sum of squares of all X values) – CM

Where CM = correction for the mean

13
CM = (total of all observations)2
n
where n= total number of X values

SST = [sum of squares of treatment totals with each square

divided by the number of observations in that particular
total] – CM

SSE = total SS – SST

MSE = SSE
n1 + n2 + … + nk – k

where ni = number of observations per treatment

k = number of treatments

MST = SST
k – 1

where ni = number of observations per treatment

k = number of treatment

MST = SST
k – 1

F = MST
MSE

Where F based on d.f.1 = (k – 1) and d.f.2 (n – k)

MST = mean square for treatments
MSE = mean square for errors

14
If F > Fa Ho is rejected.
Where Fa = Fcritical based on (k – 1) and (n – k) degrees of
freedom at a = 0.05 or 0.01.

The computed values were summarized using ANOVA table as

shown below.

ANOVA
Source of Degrees of
SS MS F
variation freedom
Treatments k – 1 SST MST = SST MST
k-1 MSE
Error n – k SSE MSE = SSE
n-k
Total n – 1 Total SS

T-test was used to compare correlated samples

a. The formula used was:

(𝑋𝐸2 − 𝑋𝐶 )
𝑡=
𝑠𝐸22 𝑠𝐶 2
√𝑁 +𝑁
𝑥 𝑦

Where:
t = t-value
Xe2 = sample mean of X group
Xc= sample mean of Y group
Se22 = sample standard deviation of X group

15
 Sc2= sample standard deviation of Y group
Nx = size of X sample
Ny = size of Y sample

b. The null hypothesis to be ested is

𝐻0 ∶ 𝜇𝑥 = 𝜇0 𝑜𝑟 𝜇𝑥 − 𝜇 0 = 0

It states that there is no significant difference

between the two population means.

c. The alternative hypothesis is

𝐻𝑎 ∶ 𝜇 ≠ 𝜇0 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑡𝑤𝑜 𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡

∶ 𝜇 > 𝜇0 𝑜𝑟 𝜇 < 𝜇0 𝑓𝑜𝑟 𝑎 𝑜𝑛𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑖𝑙𝑒𝑑 𝑡𝑒𝑠𝑡

d. The student’s t-distribution is used instead of

the normal distribution. Find tcritical at a=0.05 or
5% level of significance at degrees of freedom =
N-1. Reject 𝐻0 if tcalculated is ≥ tcritical.

16
 D. Paradigm of the study

RESEARCH
SAMPLE

Dependent
Variable
Independent
Variable  Spawn run
of
 Formulations Mycelia
of  Mass of
substrates Mushrooms

Extraneous Variable

 Amount of planted
mushroom per substrate
 Amount of substrate
 Temperature
 Light

FIGURE 2. Research Paradigm

17
 E. Pictorials

Sun drying of collected corn cobs for 2 days.

Shredding of sundried corn cobs.

18
Soaking of shredded corn cobs for 9 hours. Water was
replaced every 3 hours.

19
Weighing and mixing of soaked Corn cobs, Agricultural lime,
Saw dust and rice bran.

20
Decomposing of substrates for a span of 21 days. Every 3
days, they were opened and mixed thoroughly.

Putting of substrates in the polypropylene bag and sealing

it with PVC, rubber band, cotton ball and Paper.

21
Pasteurization of mushroom bags for 7 hours inside a big
drum.

Aseptically spawning of the bags.

22
 Measuring of spawn run by means of centimeter.

Removing of the cotton, paper, and rubber band after 21

days.

Waiting of mushroom to grow for 7 days

23
 Harvesting of the mushrooms.

Weighing of the mushrooms.

24
 Chapter III

A. Results and Discussion

The following tables show the organized data during

the conduct of the experiment.

Table 1. Mean of Mycelia’s length for each experimental

set-up in all trials

Experimental Mean
Trials
set-ups (cm)

1 11.67
1 2 17.33
3 12.67
1 12
2 2 17.33
3 13.67
1 13.17
3 2 18
3 16

The table above shows the obtained mean in each

experimental set-up for all trails in getting mycelia’s
length. Experimental set-ups 1, 2 and 3 got an average of
11.67, 17.33 and 12.67 respectively in the first trial. In
the second trial, experimental set-ups 1, 2 and 3 gained an
average of 12, 17.33 and 13.67 respectively. In the last
trial experimental set-ups 1, 2 and 3 had an average of
13.17, 18 and 16 respectively. Since the experimental set-
up 2 obtained the highest average in all trials, it
therefore says that it is the best-experimental set-up
among all the three set-ups in means of getting mycelia’s
length.

25
Table 2. Mean of mushroom’s weight for each experimental
set-up in all trials

Experimental Mean
Trials
set-ups (g)

1 8.67
1 2 23.33
3 3.67
1 10
2 2 25
3 17.67
1 17.67
3 2 33.33
3 14.33

Table 2 shows the attained mean in each experimental set-up

for all trails in getting mushroom’s weight. Experimental
set-ups 1, 2 and 3 got an average of 8.67, 23.33 and 3.67
respectively in the first trial. In the second trial,
experimental set-ups 1, 2 and 3 gained the average of 10,
25 and 17.67 respectively. In the last trial experimental
set-ups 1, 2 and 3 had an average of 17.67, 33.33 and 14.33
respectively. Since the experimental set-up 2 got the
highest average in all trials, it therefore concludes that
it is the best-experimental set-up among all the three set-
ups in getting mushroom’s weight.

26
Table 3. Significant difference between all experimental
set-ups on length of mycelia

TRIAL D.f. 1 D.f. 2 f-critical F

1 13.72
2 2 6 5.14 13.72
3 13

Table 3 shows that there is a significant difference in

non-standard formulations in all trials. The obtained F-
value for the three (3) trials is 13.72, 13.72 and 13
respectively. Since the F value in all trials is greater
than the f-critical of 5.14, it means that there is a
significant difference among the set-ups in terms of
mushroom’s length.

Table 4. Significant difference between all experimental

set-ups in terms of weight of the mushroom

TRIAL D.f. 1 D.f. 2 f-critical F

1 12.54
2 2 6 5.14 12.25
3 5.26

Table 4 shows that there is a significant difference in

non-standard formulations in all trials. The obtained F-
value for the three (3) trials is 12.54, 12.25 and 5.26
respectively. Since the F value in all trials is greater
than the f-critical of 5.14, it strengthens the fact that
there is a significant difference among the set-ups in
terms of mushroom’s weight.

27
Table 5. The t-test table comparing the best formulation to
the control set-up in terms of weight of mushrooms

TRIAL Degree of T-critical T

freedom
1 1.79
4
2 2.132 2.32
3 2.68

Table 5 shows the t-test result in terms of weight of

mushroom between the best formulation in experimental set-
up, which is experimental set-up 2, and the control set-up.
The t-value for the three (3) trials is 1.79, 2.32 and
2.68, respectively. The t-value for the second and third
trial exceeded at the t-critical of 2.132, which means that
experimental 2 showed better results than the control set-
up in the last two (2) trials. On the other hand, the t-
value in the first trial did not exceed the t-critical of
2.132, means that the control set-up was more effective as
compared to the experimental 2 in the first trial.

28
Table 6. The t-test table comparing the best formulation to
the control set-up in terms of length of mycelia

TRIAL Degree of T-critical T

freedom
1 3.58
2 4 2.132 3.64
3 3.5

Table 6 shows the t-test result in terms of length of

mycelia between the best formulation in experimental set-
up, which is experimental set-up 2 and the control set-up.
The t-value for the 3 trials is 3.58, 3.64 and 3.5,
respectively. Since the t-value for all trials exceeded the
t-critical of 2.132, it means that the experimental set-up
2 showed better result than the control set-up in all
trials in terms of mycelia’s length.

29
 Chapter IV

Summary and Conclusion

Mean of mycelia’s length and mushroom’s weight was

calculated to identify which experimental set-up is the
best among all the three set-ups in getting the length of
mycelia. According to the gathered results experimental
set-up 2 had the highest mean 0f 17.33, 17.33 and 18 in
trials 1, 2 and 3 respectively, which means that it is the
best experimental set-up in getting the length of mycelia.

Mean of mushroom’s weight was computed to identify the

best experimental set-up in all experimental set-ups in
terms of mushroom’s weight. According to the gathered
results experimental set-up 2 had the highest mean, 23.33,
25 and 33.33 in trials 1, 2 and 3 respectively, compared to
other experimental set-ups. It means that it is the best
experimental set-up in getting the mushroom’s weight.

Analysis of Variance test showed significant result in

terms of weight. Trial 1, 2 and 3 obtained a statistics
result of 12.54, 12.25 and 5.26 respectively which is
higher than the tabular value of 5.14 at 0.05 level of
significance. Analysis of Variance test was also used in
Spawn run which showed significant difference in the result
with Trials 1,2 and 3 obtaining statistics result of 13.72,
10.05 and 13 respectively which was higher than the tabular
value of 5.14 at 0.05 level of significance.

T-Test was used in comparing the best treatment among

the experimental groups and control. Significant result was
seen in trials 2 and 3 of weight and 1, 2 and 3 of the

30
spawn run. Unfortunately, it was not significantly
different in the first trial of weight.

The statistical result showed that non-standard

formulations of substrates made from corn cobs (Zea mays),
agricultural lime, saw dust and rice bran are more
effective than the standard formulation. Non-standard
formulations were based from the standard formulation, 79%
corn cobs, 10% rice bran, 10% saw dust and 1% lime, which
was from the Department of Agriculture, Bicol region main
branch. To obtain the non-standard formulations, the
researchers revised the standard formulation. It was done
to prove that there is a formulation better than the
standard ones.

31
 Recommendations

After a careful and thorough study and research the

researchers recommend the following:

 Results of the study should be submitted to the

Department of Agriculture for them to know that
there is a much better formulation of their
formulated substrate.
 Different agricultural by-products must be utilized
to know which agricultural wastes are also rich in
lignocellulosic that will enable a mushroom to
grow.
 Starting a mushroom business with the help of this
study is also recommended for economic advantage.

32
 Reference list

 Book

Department of Food Science, Alabama A & Al University.

Normal, AL 35762, USA

 Websites

David Fischer
http://americanmushrooms.com/basics.htm

Mushroom Production Guide

http://www.pinoybisnes.com/agri-business/mushroom-
production-guide/#sthash.2BZiKK5I.dpuf

The Pink Oyster Mushroom

http://freshcapmushrooms.com/learn/cadidates-for-
cultivation-the-pink-oyster-mushroom/

Journal of Cancer Science & Therapy Open Access

http://dx.doi.org/10.4172/scientificreports

 Publications
Retrieved from http://attra.ncat.org/attra-
pub/PDF/mushroom.pdf
Retrieved from http://attra.ncat.org/attra-
pub/PDF/mushroom.pdf

Retrieved from http://attra.ncat.org/attra-

pub/PDF/mushroom.pdf

 Authorities
Oliver, Pedro – Science Research Specialist II,
Department of Agriculture; Bicol Integrated
Agricultural Research Center, San Agustin, Pili
Camarines Sur.

33
 Chapter V

Appendices

Appendix A

Definition of terms

Inoculation chamber – served as a house of the

mushrooms during the experiment

Pasteurization – process which the substrates

were sterilized to kill harmful
bacteria.

Pink Oyster Mushroom – fungi that was used in the

(Pleurotus djamor) experiment

Polyprolylene plastic – used as a bag for the substrates

bag

PVC pipe – used as an improvised seal for

the mushroom bags

Spawn run – also referred as length of

mycelia

Substrate – used as a medium for growing of

mushrooms

34
 Appendix B

Statistical computation

Weight

TRIAL 1

Table 7. Weight of each harvested mushroom after 1st trial

Experimental Experimental Experimental

REPLICATE
1 (in grams) 2 (in grams) 3 (in grams)
1 10 20 0
2 13 25 0
3 3 25 11
Total 26 70 11
Average 8.67 23.33 3.67
Grand total = 107 n = 9

CM = (107) 2 = 1272.111111
9
Total SS = (10)2 +(13)2 +(3)2 +(20)2 +(25)2 +(25)2 +(0)2 +(0)2
+(11)2 – CM

= 100 + 169 + 9 + 400 + 625 + 625 + 0 + 0 + 121 –

1272.111111

= 2049 – 1272.111111
= 776.8888889

SST = (26)2 +(70)2 +(11)2 – CM

3 3 3
= 2848.5 – 1272.111111
= 626.8888889

SSE = Total SS – SST

= 776.8888889 - 626.8888889
= 150

MST = SST = 626.8888 = 313.4444

k – 1 3 – 1

35
MSE = SSE = 150 = 25
n–k 9-3
The test statistic fort testing the null hypothesis is

F = MST = 313.4444 = 12.5377777

MSE 25

Where d.f.1 = (k – 1) = 3 – 1 = 2

Where d.f.2 = (n – k) = 9 – 3 = 6

Fcritical for a= 0.05 is 5.14

Since F = 12.5377777 exceeds F0.05, reject Ho

ANOVA Table

Source of d.f. SS MS F
Variation
Treatments 2 626.89 313.44 12.54
Error 6 150 25
Total 8 776.89

T-test:

Experimental Control (in

2 (in grams) grams)
1 20 20
2 25 10
3 25 20
Total 70 50
Average 23.33 16.67

(𝑋𝐸2 − 𝑋𝐶 )
𝑡=
𝑠𝐸22 𝑠𝐶 2
√𝑁 +𝑁
𝑥 𝑦

36
 (23.33333333 − 16.66666667)
𝑡=
√8.333333 + 33.33333
3 3

𝑋𝐸2 = 23.33333333

𝑋𝐶 = 16.66666667
t = 1.788854382
𝑠𝐸22 = 8.333333
Level of significance = 0.05
𝑠𝐶 2 = 33.33333 Degree of freedom = 4

𝑁𝑥 = 3 T critical = 2.132

Accept Null Hypothesis

𝑁𝑦 = 3

37
 TRIAL 2

Table 8. Weight of each harvested mushroom after 2nd trial

Experimental Experimental Experimental Control

Replicate
1 (in grams) 2 (in grams) 3 (in grams) (in grams)

1 10 20 20 10
2 10 25 20 20
3 10 30 13 0
Total 30 75 53 30
Average 10 25 17.67 10
Grand total = 158 n = 9

CM = (158)2 = 2773.77777
9

Total SS = (10)2 +(10)2 +(10)2 +(20)2 +(25)2 +(30)2 +(20)2

+(20)2 +(13)2 – CM

= 100 + 100+ 100+ 400 + 625 + 900 + 400 + 400 + 169 –

2773.77777

= 3194 – 2773.77777
= 420.2222222

SST = (30)2 +(75)2 +(53)2 – CM

3 3 3
= 3111.3333 – 2773.77777

= 337.5555556

SSE = Total SS – SST

= 420.2222222 - 337.5555556
= 82.66666667

MST = SST = 337.5555556= 168.7777778

k – 1 3 – 1
MSE = SSE = 82.66666667= 13.77777778
n–k 9-3

38
The test statistic for testing the null hypothesis is

F = MST = 168.7777778 = 12.25

MSE 13.77777778

Where d.f.1 = (k – 1) = 3 – 1 = 2

Where d.f.2 = (n – k) = 9 – 3 = 6

Fcritical for a= 0.05 is 5.14

Since F = 12.25 exceeds F0.05, reject Ho

ANOVA Table

Source of d.f. SS MS F
Variation
Treatments 2 337.56 168.78 12.25
Error 6 82.67 13.78
Total 8 420.22

T-test:

Experimental Control (in

2 (in grams) grams)

1 20 10
2 25 20
3 30 0
Total 75 30
Average 25 10

(𝑋𝐸2 − 𝑋𝐶 )
𝑡=
𝑠𝐸22 𝑠𝐶 2
√𝑁 +𝑁
𝑥 𝑦

(25 − 10)
𝑡=
252 1002
√
3 + 3
39
𝑋𝐸2 = 25

𝑋𝐶 = 10 t = 2.32379

Level of significance = 0.05

𝑠𝐸22 = 25
Degree of freedom = 4

𝑠𝐶 2 = 100 T critical = 2.132

Reject Null Hypothesis

𝑁𝑥 = 3

𝑁𝑦 = 3

40
TRIAL 3

Table 9. Weight of each Harvested Mushroom after trial 3

Experimental Experimental Experimental

Replicate
1 (in grams) 2 (in grams) 3 (in grams)

1 20 40 13
2 13 40 20
3 20 20 10
Total 53 100 43
Average 17.67 33.33 14.33
Grand Total 196 n = 9

CM = (196)2 = 4268.444444
9

Total SS = (20)2 +(13)2 +(20)2 +(40)2 +(40)2 +(20)2 +(13)2

+(20)2 +(10)2 – CM

= 400 + 169 + 400 + 1600 + 1600 + 400 + 169 + 400 + 100 –

4268.444444

= 5238 – 4268.444444
= 969.5555556

SST = (53)2 +(100)2 +(43)2 – CM

3 3 3
= 4885.9999 – 4268.444444

= 617.5555556

SSE = Total SS – SST

= 969.5555556 - 617.5555556
= 352

MST = SST = 617.5555556 = 308.77777

k – 1 3 – 1
MSE = SSE = 352 = 58.66666667
n–k 9-3

The test statistic for testing the null hypothesis is

F = MST = 308.77777 = 5.263257576

MSE 58.66666667

41
Where d.f.1 = (k – 1) = 3 – 1 = 2

Where d.f.2 = (n – k) = 9 – 3 = 6

Fcritical for a= 0.05 is 5.14

Since F = 5.263257576 exceeds F0.05, reject Ho

Source of d.f. SS MS F
Variation
Treatments 2 617.56 308.78 5.26
Error 6 352 58.67
Total 8 4268.44

T-test:

Control
Experimental
(in
2 (in grams)
grams)

1 40 20
2 40 10
3 20 10
Total 100 40
Average 33.33 13.33

(𝑋𝐸2 − 𝑋𝐶 )
𝑡=
𝑠𝐸22 𝑠𝐶 2
√𝑁 +𝑁
𝑥 𝑦

(33.33 − 13.33)
𝑡=
2 2
√25133.3333 + 33.33333
3 3

42
𝑋𝐸2 = 33.33
t = 2.683282
𝑋𝐶 = 13.33
Level of significance = 0.05

𝑠𝐸22 = 133.3333 Degree of freedom = 4

T critical = 2.132
𝑠𝐶 2 = 33.33333
Reject Null Hypothesis
𝑁𝑥 = 3

𝑁𝑦 = 3

43
 SPAWN RUN

TRIAL 1

Table 10. Length of the Mycelia in the three (3)

experimental set-ups for trial 1.

Experimental 1 Experimental 2 Experimental 3 Control

Day
(in cm) (in cm) (in cm) (in cm)
(Date)
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
1.08-03 9 8 9.5 10 10 9.5 7.5 10 9 4 6 9
2.08-09 9 8.5 12 12 11 12 8.5 11 9.5 10 10 10.5
3.08-12 10 8.5 13 12 11 13 9 11 11 13 10.5 13.5
4.08-15 10.5 9 13 13 12.5 14 10 12 11 13 10.5 14
5.08-18 11 9.5 14 16 18 15 12 12 12 13 11 14
6.08-21 11 10 14 18 18 16 12 13 13 14 15 15

Table 11. The average length of mycelia for trial 1

Experimental Experimental Experimental

Replicate
1 (in cm) 2 (in cm) 3 (in cm)
1 11 18 12
2 10 18 13
3 14 16 13
Total 35 52 38
Average 11.67 17.33 12.67
Grand Total 125 n = 9

CM = (125)2 = 1736.111111
9
Total SS = (11)2 +(10)2 +(14)2 +(18)2 +(18)2 +(16)2 +(12)2
+(13)2 +(13)2 – CM

= 121 + 100 + 196 + 324 + 324 + 256 + 144 + 169 + 169 –

1736.111111

44
= 1803 – 1736.111111
= 66.88888889

SST = (35)2 +(52)2 +(38)2 – CM

3 3 3
= 1790.999993 – 1736.111111

= 54.88888889

SSE = Total SS – SST

= 66.88888889 - 54.88888889
= 12

MST = SST = 54.88888889 = 27.44444444

k – 1 3 – 1
MSE = SSE = 12 = 2
n–k 9-3

The test statistic for testing the null hypothesis is

F = MST = 27.44444444 = 13.72222222

MSE 2

Where d.f.1 = (k – 1) = 3 – 1 = 2

Where d.f.2 = (n – k) = 9 – 3 = 6

Fcritical for a= 0.05 is 5.14

Since F = 13.72222222 exceeds F0.05, reject Ho

ANOVA TABLE

Source of d.f. SS MS F
Variation
Treatments 2 54.89 27.44 13.72
Error 6 12 2
Total 8 66.89

45
T-test:

Experimental Control (in

2 (in cm) cm)
1 18 14
2 18 15
3 16 15
Total 52 44
Average 17.33 14. 67

(𝑋𝐸2 − 𝑋𝐶 )
𝑡=
𝑠𝐸22 𝑠𝐶 2
√𝑁 +𝑁
𝑥 𝑦

(17.33 − 14.66)
𝑡=
1.3333332 0.3333332
√ +
3 3

t = 3.577708764
𝑋𝐸2 = 17.33
Level of significance = 0.05
𝑋𝐶 = 14.66 Degree of freedom = 4

𝑠𝐸22 = 1.333333 T critical = 2.132

Reject Null Hypothesis

𝑠𝐶 2 = 0.333333

𝑁𝑥 = 3

𝑁𝑦 = 3

46
 TRIAL 2

Table 12. Length of the Mycelia in the three (3)

experimental set-ups for trial 2

Experimental 1 Experimental 2 Experimental 3 Control (in cm)

Day
(in cm) (in cm) (in cm)
(Date)
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
1.08-03 9 8 9 11 11 11 8.5 10 9 10 10.5 13.5
2.08-09 10 8.5 12 12 12 12 9 10 9.5 10 11 13.5
3.08-12 10 9 13 13 12 14 12 11 11 13 11 14
4.08-15 11 9.5 13.5 16 18 15 12.5 12 12 14 12 14
5.08-18 12 10 14 16 18 16 13 13 13 14 15 15
6.08-21 12 10 14 18 18 16 13 13 15 14.5 15 15

Table 13. Average length of the Mycelia for trial 2

Experimental Experimental Experimental

Replicate
1 (in cm) 2 (in cm) 3 (in cm)
1 12 18 13
2 10 18 13
3 14 16 15
Total 36 52 41
Average 12 17.33 13.67
Grand total = 129 n = 9

CM = (129)2 = 1849
9
Total SS = (12)2 +(10)2 +(14)2 +(18)2 +(18)2 +(16)2 +(13)2
+(13)2 +(15)2 – CM

= 144 + 100 + 196 + 324 + 324 + 256 + 169 + 169 + 225 –

1849 = 1907 – 1849
= 58

SST = (36)2 +(52)2 +(41)2 – CM

3 3 3
= 1790.999993 – 1736.111111

47
= 54.88888889

SSE = Total SS – SST

= 66.88888889 - 54.88888889
= 12
MST = SST = 54.88888889 = 27.44444444
k – 1 3 – 1
MSE = SSE = 12 = 2
n–k 9-3

The test statistic for testing the null hypothesis is

F = MST = 27.44444444 = 13.72222222

MSE

Where d.f.1 = (k – 1) = 3 – 1 = 2

Where d.f.2 = (n – k) = 9 – 3 = 6

Fcritical for a= 0.05 is 5.14

Since F = 13.72222222 exceeds F0.05, reject Ho

ANOVA table

Source of d.f. SS MS F
Variation
Treatments 2 54.89 27.44 13.72
Error 6 12 2
Total 8 66.89

T-test:

Experimental Control (in

2 (in cm) cm)
18 14.5
18 15
16 15
Total 52 44.5
Average 17.33 14.83

48
 (𝑋𝐸2 − 𝑋𝐶 )
𝑡=
𝑠𝐸22 𝑠𝐶 2
√𝑁 +𝑁
𝑥 𝑦

(17.33 − 14.83)
𝑡=
1.3333332 0.0833332
√ +
3 3

𝑋𝐸2 = 17.33
t = 3.638034376
𝑋𝐶 = 14.83 Level of significance = 0.05

Degree of freedom = 4
𝑠𝐸22 = 1.333333
T critical = 2.132
𝑠𝐶 2 = 0.083333
Reject Null Hypothesis

𝑁𝑥 = 3

𝑁𝑦 = 3

49
 TRIAL 3

Table 14. Length of the Mycelia in the three (3)

experimental set-ups for trial 3

Experimental 1 Experimental 2 Experimental 3 Control (in cm)

Day
(in cm) (in cm) (in cm)
(Date)
R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3 R1 R2 R3
1.08-03 9 8 9 11 11.5 11 8.5 10 9 9 10 10
2.08-09 10 8.5 12 12 12 11 9 10 9.5 10 11 12.5
3.08-12 10 9 13 13 12.5 12 11 11 11 12.5 12.5 13
4.08-15 11 9.5 13.5 15.5 16 15 12.5 13 13 13 13 14
5.08-18 12 10 14 16 18 16 14 14.5 14 15 15 14
6.08-21 13.5 11 15 18 18 18 16 16 16 15 15 15

Table 15. Average length of the Mycelia for trial 3

Experimental Experimental 2 Experimental 3

Replicate
1 (in cm) (in cm) (in cm)

1 13.5 18 16

2 11 18 16

3 15 18 16

Total 39.5 54 48

Average 13.17 18 16

Grand total = 141.5 n = 9

CM = (141.5)2 = 2224.694444
9
Total SS = (13.5)2 + (11)2 + (15)2 +(18)2 +(18)2 +(18)2 +(16)2
+(16)2 +(16)2 – CM

= 182.25 + 121+ 225+ 324 + 324 + 324 + 256 + 256 + 256 –

2224.694444

50
= 2268.25 – 2224.694444
= 43.55555556

SST = (39.5)2 +(54)2 +(48)2 – CM

3 3 3
= 2260.08333 – 2224.694444

= 35.38888889

SSE = Total SS – SST

= 43.55555556 - 35.38888889
= 8.166666667

MST = SST = 35.38888889 = 17.69444444

k – 1 3 – 1
MSE = SSE = 8.166666667 = 1.361111111
n–k 9-3

The test statistic for testing the null hypothesis is

F = MST = 17.69444444 = 13
MSE 1.361111111

Where d.f.1 = (k – 1) = 3 – 1 = 2

Where d.f.2 = (n – k) = 9 – 3 = 6

Fcritical for a= 0.05 is 5.14

Since F = 13 exceeds F0.05, reject Ho

Anova Table

Source of d.f. SS MS F
Variation
Treatments 2 35.39 17.69 13
Error 6 8.17 1.36
Total 8 43.56

51
T-test:

Experimental Control
2 (in cm) (in cm)
18 15
18 15
16 15
Total 52 45
Average 17.33 15

(𝑋𝐸2 − 𝑋𝐶 )
𝑡=
𝑠𝐸22 𝑠𝐶 2
√𝑁 +𝑁
𝑥 𝑦

(17.33 − 15)
𝑡=
1.3333332 02
√ +3
3

𝑋𝐸2 = 17.33 t = 3.5

Level of significance = 0.05

𝑋𝐶 = 15
Degree of freedom = 4
𝑠𝐸22 = 1.333333
T critical = 2.132

𝑠𝐶 2 = 0 Reject Null Hypothesis

𝑁𝑥 = 3

𝑁𝑦 = 3

52
 Appendix C

Acknowledgement
The proponents of this research would like to
acknowledge those persons who guided and lent their hands
in realizing this work. Our heartfelt gratitude is extended
to the following:
Mr. Heriberto C. Bacud, our research adviser, for his
never ending support, advice and guidance in every step of
the way in finishing this paper.
Mrs. Gloria P. Bacares, our school principal, for
giving us permission to conduct this research.
Mr. Rodolfo A. Pempeña and Mrs. Elsie B. Narvaez for
sparing their time to guide us until the last revision of
our paper.
Mr. Joel S. Villegas for encouraging us to finish the
research paper and experiment in time. Also for lending us
his classroom to make this paper during weekends.
Mrs. Gabriela Dela Cruz, for proofreading our papers
until its final revision.
Mr. Tom Arkhel D. Palma, for helping us in our
statistical tool.
Mrs. Sheryl Obias for assisting us in looking for corn
cobs and giving us the corn cobs for free.
Mrs. Bella Beltran and the garbage collectors of LGU
Tigaon for assisting us in shredding the corn cobs.
Mr. Peter Oliver, Mrs. Beth Hilotin, Mr. Allan Pascual
and the rest of the staff of Department of Agriculture,
Pili for assisting and helping us to finish this paper.
Climacosa Furniture shop for giving us the sawdust for
free.

53
 Mrs. Mercia G. Villareal for giving us the rice bran
for free.
To our ever supportive parents for their endless love
and support in both moral and financial aspects.
And above all, to the Almighty for his unending love,
guidance and inspiration.

54
 Appendix D
Expected Cost Analysis for the Materials Used.
Items Quantity Amount
Polypropylene 1 pack Php 30.00
plastic bag
PVC pipe 1 meter Php 102.00
Rubber band 2 boxes Php 16.00
Cotton balls 1 pack Php 42.00
Lysol 1 can Php 212.00
Garbage bag 5 pcs Php 40.00
Total Php 442.00

55