CARIBBEAN EXAMINATIONS COUNCIL

Caribbean Secondary Education

Student’s portfolio
Agriculture science

Name of

Candidate:Meron Emalda Sampson

Name of Assessor: Mr. Basdeo Bissessar
Institution: Corentyne Comprehensive High School
Centre #: 090018125
Candidate Number:
Territory: Guyana
YEAR: 2021-2023

 CARIBEAN EXAMINATION COUNCIL (CXC)

CARIBBEAN SECONDARY EDUCATION CERTIFICATE (CSEC)
SCHOOL-BASED ASSESSMENT (SBA)
 Year of Examination: 2023

                  Agricultural Science (Double Award)

Crop Production Investigation
Title of Project: ‘Crop Production’

Name of Candidate:     Meron Emalda Sampson

Registration Number:  090018 
School:                           CORENTYNECOMPRNENS                                            
HIGHT SCHOOL
Centre Number:            090018
Territory:                      Co-operative Republic of Guyana
Name of Teacher:         Mr. Basdeo Bissessar

TITLE OF PROJECT
A Comparative Analysis on the growth of lettuce (full shade, partial shade, vs no shade).
 

  

 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEGDEMENT(S) 1
INTRODUCTION 2
Literature Review 3
Problem Statement/Research Question: 5
Aim(s) of Investigation: 5
METHODOLOGY 5
Materials and Equipment Used 6
Use of Materials and Equipment: 6
Activities 2
Data Collection 4
RESULTS 18
Presentation & Interpretation of Results 21
DISCUSSION 24
CONCLUSION 25
LIMITATIONS 25
Recommendations 26
References 26
COST ANALYSIS 1: PRODUCTION & POST-PRODUCTION 28
COST ANALYSIS 2: PRODUCTION, POST-PRODUCTION & VALUE ADDITION 30
ANALYSIS / COMPARISON OF PROJECTED & ACTUAL INCOME, EXPENDITURE &
SURPLUS 33
GRAPHS SHOWING PROJECTED & ACTUAL INCOME, EXPENDITURE & SURPLUS
34
APPENDIX: PHOTOGRAPHS OF ACTIVITIES DONE DURING THE INVESTIGATION
38

Table of FIGURES 

Figure 2 Line Graph Showing Average Leaf Width 23

Figure 3 Line Graph Showing Average Number of Leaf 24
Figure 4 Bar Graph Showing Projected and Actual Income. It can be seen that actual income is
lower than the Projected Income 35
Figure 5 Bar Graph Showing Projected and Actual Expenditure. It can be seen that the actual
expenditure is more than the projected expenditure 36
Figure 6 Bar Graph Showing : Projected And Actual Surplus. 37
Figure 7 Showing land preparation 38
Figure 8 showing transplant of seedlings 39
Table of Tables 

Table 1: Treatment a) (FULL SHADE) 4

Table 2 Treatment b) (PARTIALLY SHADED) 4
Table 3  Control(NON-SHADED) 5
Table 4 Treatment a) (FULL SHADE) 5
Table 5 Treatment b) (PARTIALLY SHADED) 6
Table 6  Control (NON-SHADED) 7
Table 7 Treatment a) (FULL SHADE) 7
Table 8 Treatment b) (PARTIALLY SHADED) 8
Table 9  Control(NON-SHADED) 8
Table 10 Treament a) (FULL SHADE) 9
Table 11 Treatment b) (PARTIALLY SHADED) 10
Table 12  Control (NON-SHADED) 10
Table 13 Summary of data (average) 18

ACKNOWLEGDEMENT(S)
I want to say thanks to my colleagues and classmates: Myself, Meron Emalda Sampson 
Nathaniel Ramsingh, ,Videsh Karim, Putrina Sullivan, Jemol Light and Deshawn Gobin.

            

  INTRODUCTION 
Name of Project:           Lettuce Production
Location:                        Corentyne Comprehensive High School    Free   Yard Port Mourant
Name of Crop:               Lettuce 
Scientific Name:           Lactuca  sativa  
Type of Crop:                Leafy vegetables
Family:                           Asteraceae 
Variety:                          Loose Leaf Lettuce
Starting Date:               15/11/2021
Termination Date:       18/01/2022

Literature Review 
 Latuca sativa is a leaf vegetable of the Asteraceae family. It is usually eaten fresh or commonly
served as the green base of salads. It is rich in vitamins K and A. There are many varities of
lettuce, namely:  (1) celtuce, or asparagus lettuce (variety augustana), with narrow leaves and a
thick, succulent, e ( Lanka, Effect of Different Shade Levels on Growth and Yield, n.d.)dible
stem; (2) head, or cabbage, lettuce (variety capitata), with the leaves folded into a compact head;
(3) leaf, or curled, lettuce (variety crispa), with a rosette of leaves that are curled, finely cut,
smooth-edged, or oak-leaved in shape; and (4) cos, or romaine, lettuce (variety longifolia), with
smooth leaves that form a tall, oblong, loose head. There are two classes of head lettuce: the
butterhead types, such as Bibb lettuce, with soft heads of thick oily-textured leaves, and
crisphead types, such as iceberg lettuce, with brittle-textured leaves that form very hard heads
under proper temperature conditions (Petruzzello, 2021).
The integrated form and training center faculty of Agriculture University, during March to May
in 2016 conducted an experiment to see how the different   found results that indicated a
significant increase in growth and yield in partially shade levels. They  found out that the lettuce
growing under the partially shade levels had longer and thicker  and the leaves were very bright
green compared to the lettuce growing under the fully shaded level which had relatively longer
and thinner leaves on the other hand the lettuce growing out in the open where shorter and less
bright in color than the other leaves .The  concluded that the growth and yield of lettuce was
positively  influenced by  the partially shade level since snice this level had the most longer,
thicker leaves and greenest leaves. (Anusiya, 2019)
During March to July in 2017 at the facility of ' Agriculture university of Jaffna ,Ariviyal Nagar,
A study  done to determine the  effects of different shade levels on the growth and yield of
lettuce  such as 25% (open field) ,50% and 75% were used as treatments .The results revealed
that the growth and yield of lettuce was greatly influence by the 50 % shade level the lettuce
grown under this level were thicker and broader they had the most number  of leaves and the
brightest color whereas the lettuce under the 75% shade level were smaller compared to the 50%
shade level . The lettuce in the 75 % shade level where long and stringy there leaves where big
and thick but not as the ones in the 50% shade level. The lettuce in 0% (open field) showed the
less growth and yield these lettuce where small and did not have a large number of leaves there
color where not that bright compared to the ones in the 50 % and 75 % shade level.  It was
concluded that lettuce growth and yield was greatly influenced by the 50% shade levels the
plants had the most number of leaves and the greenest leaves. ( Lanka, 2018)

METHODOLOGY
Experimental Design
There was six beds (2) was for Control, (2) was for Treatment a) partially shade and (2) was for
Treatment b) Full shade. The beds were constructed the same way 1m×3m. Equal amounts of
plants were planted on each bed. Measurements was taken on a weekly basis to determine the
average length of leaves, the average width and number of leaves. All the beds were watered
every day.   

                                          Aims of Investigation

 To see if lettuce grows better on non-shaded, shaded or partially

Shaded beds.

 Problem Statement/Research Question

 People or customers prefer large lettuce and not bitter or small lettuce. Lettuce over five week
becomes bitter and does not sell that much. This leads to wastage and loss of profit on the
farmers on the farmer’s side. An experiment was set up to see how to get the biggest lettuce
possible in the four weeks using a number of shade. Hence the researcher sought to
comparatively analyze the growth of lettuce using Control, Full shade and Partially shaded.

Materials and Equipment Used

The following materials and equipment were used for the production of crop:
         *Equipment 

 Rake
 Cutlass
 Spade
 Fork
 Grass cutting machine
 Bucket 
 Mattock 
 Hoe  
 Hammer  
 Measure tape
 Long boots 
     *Materials 
 Banana leaves
 Wood 
 Ply wood 
 Nails 
 Twine 
 Coconut branch 

Use of Materials and Equipment: 

         *Equipment 
 Rake-                                use for gathering the grass and garbage. 
 Cutlass-                            use for weeding grass and weeds for and around the beds.
 Spade-                              use for making drains and to plow beds.
 Fork-                                use for plowing beds.
  Grass cutting machine-   use for cutting large or big grass. 
 Bucket-                            use for watering the plants. 
 Mattock-                         use foe plowing parts of the beds that has plant roots, stones and
very hard dirt.   
 Hoe-                                use for leveling the beds.
 Hammer-                         use for nailing nails and hitting woods into the grown.  
 Measure tape-                 use froe measuring the length and width of the beds.
 Long boots-                    use foe preventing your feet from getting dirty.  
     *Materials 
 Banana leaves-               use to cover the beds.
 Wood-                            use as a structure that goes over the beds to put the leaves on.
  Ply wood-                       use to cover the beds. 
 Nails-                              use to hold the structure that’s goes over the beds together.
 Twine-                        use to rap around the structure so the leaves could be secured in
place. 
 Coconut branch-             use to cover the beds. 

                                                                              

Activities

The following activities were done for the production of the crop:
 1. Land preparation:   Land preparation involved:
a. Land clearing: the weeds were cleared using a cutlass. And the fork and the
mattock was used to dig up drains.
b. Laying out: the area was measured and marked with stakes and twine to show
each beds.
2. Constructing beds and drains:
c. Ploughing: a fork was used to upturn the soil
d. Harrowing(chipping): breaking down of clods using a hoe
e. Application of manure: measuring or monitoring the plants length width and
numbed or leaves. 
Application of manure
3. Transplanting: taking the seedlings out of the trays and planting them unto the beds, spaced
30cm apart. 
4. Irrigation: watering of the plants using a bucket.  
5. Moulding: dirt was pulled around the roots of the plants to cover exposed roots as they grew. 
6. Inter-tillage: a cutlass was used to loosen the soil between plants.
7. Pest and diseases management: 10 ml of organic pesticide was added to 1 liter   of water and
applied to the crops. A total of three liter of liquid was used.
8. Weed control: the weeds were hand pulled. 
9. Harvesting: The plants were pulled from the ground and the roots were cut using a sharp.
Knife. Dry, dead and damaged leaves were removed. 
10. Post-Harvest Activities: The harvested plants were washed to remove dirt and any insect’s in.
between the leaves. They were left to drip dry in the shade before packing. 
11. Packaging and marketing:  Harvested plants were packaged individually and sold.
12. Value addition: vegetable and chicken salad was made. Using most of the harvested lettuce.
. 

                                            Data Collection
Data was collected weekly basic, measurements were taken using a ruler on random plants for
40% of the beds for each treatment   and control, for average leaf length, average leaf width, and
average number of leaves. The individual measurements and average for each week for each set
of measurement is as follows:
 

                                                       RESULTS

                                                             Collection of Data 

The data below was collected for the two groups of plants used during this investigatio 
                                                              Week 1

Table 1: Treatment a) (Full shaded)

Length of leaves Width of leaves Number of leaves

5.5 cm 5.5cm 4.5cm 3cm 6 4

5.6 cm 6.5cm 3.6cm 4.3cm 5 5

4.7cm 7cm 4cm 4.9cm 6 6

6.2cm 7.2cm 3.9cm 4cm 6 4

4.4cm 6.2cm 3.1cm 2.2cm 9 5

4.2cm 6.3cm 2cm 3.2cm 6 5

6cm 6cm 4cm 2.5cm 5 4

6.1cm 7.2cm 3.5cm 3cm 4 5

7cm 5.9cm 3.5cm 3.6cm 6 5

6.8cm 4.6cm 4cm 3cm 5 6

Total : 118.6/20=5.9 Total 69.8/20=3.49 Total : 107/20=5.35/6

:

Table 2: Treatment b) (Partially shaded)

 Length of leaves Width of leaves Number of leaves

5 cm 7.5cm 3.5cm 4cm 3 3

5 cm 9cm 3.5cm 3cm 4 3

8.5cm 9cm 3.5cm 4cm 2 3

8.5cm 8cm 2.5cm 2.5cm 3 3

8cm 9.5cm 2.5cm 4cm 4 3

9.5cm 10cm 3.5cm 3cm 3 3

8cm 11cm 3.5cm 4cm 2 3

6cm 8.5cm 3cm 3cm 2 2

9.5cm 8cm 3cm 2.cm 3 1

9cm 7cm 4cm 3cm 3 3

Total 172.5/20=8.625 Total: 65/20=3.25 Total: 56/20=2.8/3

:

                                                     

Table 3: Treatment c) (Control)

Length of leaves Width of leaves Number of leaves

6.3 9.2 cm 3.5cm 3.5  cm 4 3

cm

7 cm 7.5 cm 4  cm 3cm 4 3

6.5 6,8 cm 3.5cm 3.3cm 5 3

cm

7 cm 7 cm 4cm 3 cm 3 4

6.5 7.5 cm 3cm 3cm 4 6

cm

6.6 7.8  cm 4cm 3cm 4 4

cm
 8.6 8 cm 4.5cm 3.5cm 4 3
cm

10 cm 6.5 cm 3.5cm 3cm 2 4

8.5 6.5 cm 3.5cm 3cm 4 5

cm

.4 cm 4.5 cm 3.5cm 3cm 4 5

Total: 147.7/20=7.385 Total: 68.3/20=3.415 Total: 78/20=3.9/4

                          

   Week 2 

    Table 4: Treatment a) (Full shaded)

Width  of leaves Length  of leaves Number of leaves

3.4 4.5cm 7.4cm 6.6cm 4 6

cm

5.5 6.5cm 8.2cm 9cm 5 6

cm

4.8 9cm 7.5cm 8.5cm 7 5

cm

3.3cm 5cm 7cm 9.3cm 4 7

5.5cm 7cm 94cm 9.5cm 8 8

4cm 6cm 6.5cm 8cm 5 7

4 cm 4.2cm 5.3cm 5cm 6 7

4.4cm 4.5cm 6cm 7.5cm 4 5

3cm 4.5cm 9.5cm 7.6cm 5 12

6.3 5cm 8.5cm 6cm 5 9

cm

Total: 100.4/20= Total: 155.3/20= Total: 117/20=

5.02 7.765 5.85/6

                                                               
 

Table 5: Treatment b) (Partially shaded)

Width  of leaves Length of leaves Number of leaves

1. 3cm 11. 1. 9.2cm 11. 6cm 1. 3 11. 5

4.5cm

2. 3.4cm 12. 2. 6.8cm 12. 8.5cm 2. 5 12. 5

3.3cm

3. 4cm 13. 4cm 3. 6cm 13. 6.5cm 3. 4 13. 5

4. 3cm 14. 3cm 4. 7cm 14. 7cm 4. 6 14. 5

5. 3cm 15. 5. 5.5cm 15. 7cm 5. 5 15. 3

2.5cm

6. 4cm 16. 6. 7.5cm 16. 7.2cm 6. 5 16. 5

4.5cm

7 3.5.cm 17. 5cm 7. 7.2cm 17 7.3.cm 7. 5 17. 4

8. 3.5cm 18. 8. 5.9cm 18. 4cm 8. 4 18. 5

3.5cm

9. 4cm 19. 4cm 9. 6.5cm 19. 7.2cm 9. 5 19. 4

10. 3.3cm 20. 4cm 10 6.5.cm 20. 6cm 10. 5 20. 5

Total: 75/20= Total: 134.8/20= Total: 93/20=

3.75 6.74 4.65/5
Table 6: Treatment c) (Control)

Length of leaves Width of leaves Number of leaves

6.1cm 5.5cm 5cm 2.5cm 4 4

4.4cm 7cm 3.5cm 3cm 4 6

6.4cm 5.5cm 5cm 3.5.cm 5 6

9.5cm 7cm 3.5cm 3cm 5 5

8cm 5.4cm 3.5cm 3.5cm 4 4

5.4cm 4.cm 5cm 3.9cm 6 4

6.5cm 5.4cm 3.5cm 2.5cm 5 5

5.5cm 6cm 4.5cm 2.5cm 5 4

4.5cm 4.6cm 4cm 4cm 6 3

6cm 6.8cm 3.5cm 3.2cm 4 4

Total: 113.5/20= Total: 72.6/20= Total: 93/20=

5.675 3.63 4.65/5

                                              

                                                              

       
Week 3

Table 7: Treatment a) (Full shaded)

Length of leaf Width of leaf Number of leaf

4cm 2 cm 2cm 4cm 4 11

2 cm 2.2cm 2.2cm 7cm 5 7

3cm 3 cm 3cm 6cm 3 2

3cm 3 cm 2cm 5cm 6 6

9 cm 4.2cm 5.3cm 4cm 11 4

3.4 2 cm 3.2cm 3.2cm 9 7

cm

6cm 6.1 cm 3cm 4cm 8 12

2 cm 3cm 6cm 5cm 2 3

7cm 2 cm 5cm 3cm 5 6

8.9cm 3 cm 8cm 9cm 5 4

Total= 84/20=4.2 Total= 89.9/20= Total= 114/20=

4.495 5.7/6
Table 8: Treatment b) (Partially shaded) 

Length of leaf Width of leaf Number of leaf

6 cm 4cm 6 cm 2 cm 8 3

4.3cm 2.3 cm 7cm 6cm 3 3

4cm 3.3 cm 4cm 5 cm 4 7

5cm 4.1cm 9cm 5.4 cm 7 6

3cm 3 cm 10cm 8cm 3 4

5.6 6 cm 13cm 3cm 3 2

cm

6 cm 5cm 8cm 4cm 7 6

7.3cm 3cm 6cm 5cm 5 5

3.9cm 6cm 7cm 8cm 3 4

5.5cm 4.5 cm 4 cm 3cm 2 7

Total= 91.8/20=4.59 Total 123.4/20=6.17 Total= 92/20=4.6/5

=

    
Table 9: Treatment c) (Control)

Length of leaf Width of leaf Number of leaf

1cm 5cm 5cm 3cm 5 6

7.5 cm 4 cm 5.3cm 6cm 3 5

9cm 6cm 4.3cm 6.2cm 5 2

8cm 5 cm 3.2cm 7cm 3 6

4.5cm 3.4cm 5cm 4.4cm 5 4

4.3cm 2.5 cm 5.3cm 6cm 4 6

3.4cm 5.5cm 8cm 6.2cm 3 2

7.2cm 4.7cm 5.5cm 3cm 7 3

5cm 3cm 5cm 7cm 4 4

4cm 5.2cm 7cm 4cm 3 2

Total= 103.2/20=5.16 Total= 106.4/20=5.32 Total= 82/20=4.1/5

      

                                                         
     Week 4 

     Table 10: Treatment a) (Full shaded)

Length of leaf Width of leaf Number of leaf

1.3 cm 7 cm 2cm 2cm 5 6

2.1 cm .3cm 5cm 5cm 4 5

3cm 5 cm 5.5cm 4.3cm 6 4

4cm .3 cm 6cm 5cm 2 13

8cm 6 cm 6.3 cm 3.4cm 9 9

3.5cm 5 cm 2 cm 4.3cm 6 6

.6.3 cm 5 cm 4cm 2.3 cm 8 8

9cm 7 cm 8cm 3.4cm 4 7

2cm cm 4cm 4.4cm 8 4

4cm 5 cm 5cm 4.5cm 1 10

Total= 94.9/20= Total= 86.4/20= Total= 133/20=

4.745 4.32 6.65/7

                                                           
Table 11: Treatment b) (Partially shaded) 

Length of leaf Width of leaf Number of leaf

3 cm 3cm 5.4cm 3cm 4 6

5cm 5cm 7cm 5cm 3 7

3cm 3cm 4cm 4cm 6 5

6cm 5cm 8cm 4.6cm 4 3

3cm 3cm 4cm 5.2cm 3 6

2cm 7cm 9cm 3.3cm 2 5

5cm 6cm 4cm 6cm 6 3

. 3.2cm 2.2cm 4cm 3cm 9 4

4.3 cm 6cm 5cm 4cm 5 6

4.3cm 3.2cm 4cm 6cm 3 8

Total= 77.9/20= Total= 98.5/20= Total= 98/20=4.9/5

3.895 4.925
                                                               

 
Table 12: Treatment c) (Non-shaded)

Length of leaf Width of leaf Number of leaf

4cm 2.1cm 3.4cm 5cm 7 6

6cm 3cm 3cm 3 cm 6 2

2.3cm 5 cm 5cm 4 cm 5 3

3.2cm 4cm 3cm 4.3cm 9 4

4.5cm 3.2cm 2.8cm 3 cm 6 6

5.1cm 3.2cm 4.9 cm 8cm 4 2

3.1cm 5.2cm 2.3cm 7cm 3 3

2.5cm .3.4 cm 4.1cm .4cm 5 5

3.2cm 3cm 2.9cm .6cm 2 .5

3cm 5 cm 4.1 cm 3cm .4 4

Total= 75/20=3.7 Total= 82.8/20= Total= 86/20=4.3/5

4.14

Table 13: Summary of Data (Average)

                                                                            Full shade 
              Total length of     Total width of leave        Total number of leave
leave

Week  1 5.93 3.49 6

Week  2 7.765 5.02 6

Week  3 4.2 4.495 6

Week  4 4.745 4.32 7

                                                                  Partially shaded

              Total length of     Total width of leave        Total number of leave

leave

Week  1 8.625 3.25 3

Week  2 6.74 3.75 5

Week  3 4.59 6.17 5

Week  4 3.895 4.925 5

                                                                      Control 

              Total length of     Total width of leave        Total number of leave

leave

Week  1 7.385 3.415 4

Week  2 5.675 3.63 5

Week  3 4.59 5.32 5

Week  4 3.7 4.14 5

Presentation & Interpretation of Results plot graph and explain them.
Bar graph 
The data collected during this investigation is presented in the following graphs.
Figure 1: Line Graph Showing the Average Length of Leaf

Figure 2: Line Graph Showing the Average Width of Leaf

Figure 3: Line Graph Showing Average Number of Leaf
 DICUSSION

      An experiment was conducted by my group members and I to see how the different levels of

shade affected the growth and yield of lettuce . Different shade levels included 50% shade 78%

shade and 0% shade .

 The experiment concluded that the growth and yield of lettuce were greatly influenced by 78% 

shade levels , the lettuce grew better in this shade level than it did in any other shade level . On

other hand  results showed the lettuce that grew in no shade  yield the lowest . And the ones in

the partially shade level were second compared to the ones that grew in full shade . These

differences could be due to the rate at which water evaporated under the different levels of

shade . The water in the fully shaded area evaporated the slowest the  shade prevented the sun

from evaporating the water as fast providing water and  moisture for longer periods of time .

Where as  the water evaporated faster on the beds that were out in the open , given that the

lettuce were growing in the dry season this did not work out well for the plants the lack of water

caused them to be stunned . 

 Results indicate that 50% shade level increase the growth of the plants. Because the beds were

partially shaded the sun heat did not evaporate the water and moister on the beds as fast as out in

the open, this was a good and a bed thing, because moister stays on the beds very long weeds

tend to grow very quickly, and also because the beds were partially shade it was a little difficult

to see on the beds making it challenge to know if weeds were on the beds. Which could cause the

plants to grow at a different rate than the other shade levels However the lettuce on the fully

shaded area the results indicated a significant increase in growth and yield of leafy lettuce was

observed in the fully shaded level. 

We can see that when lettuce is shaded it gets more biomass, leaves and is more profitable. On

the fully shaded beds results had indicated the significant increase in growth and yield of lettuce

was observed in the fully shaded area. Because the beds were fully shaded the sun did not

evaporate the water as fast as out in the open ,the plants were planted In the dry season and this

was a great advantage because those beds kept water and moisture for a longer period of time

cause the lettuce under the fully shaded area to grow best  .For the two non-shaded beds those

plants had shown to be the smallest .this was due to lack of water and the young plant being in

direct contact with the Sunshine   which caused the water and moisture to evaporate faster.

                                       

                                               
 CONCLUSION

Result has showing that lettuce grows better on fully shaded beds, the reason for that being is

because the shade prevent the sun heat from going directly on the beds and drying up the water

on the beds.  

 
  LIMITATIONS

*The plants did not have enough water

 *The watering schedule was not on point 
*The plants were planted during the hot season 
*On the non-shaded beds the heat from the sun had cause water to evaporate faster 
   

RECOMMENDATIONS

*Do regular bed maintenance to ensure that there are no weeds on the beds 
*have a better watering secudual 
* Plan a better fixed watering cycle  
 References

Petruzzello, M. (2021, May 16). Lettuce. Retrieved March 15, 2022, from https://www.britannica.com:
https://www.britannica.com/plant/lettuce

Lanka, J. S. (2018, May-June). Effect of Different Shade Levels on Growth and. Retrieved march 16,
2022, from International Journal of Environment, Agriculture and Biotechnology (IJEAB):
https://media.neliti.com/media/publications/264360-effect-of-different-shade-levels-on-grow-
180f50c3.pdf

Anusiya, S. .. (2019, march). Effect of Different Shade Levels on Growth and Yield. Retrieved march 16,
2022, from International Journal of Forestry and Horticulture (IJFH):
https://www.arcjournals.org/pdfs/ijfh/v5-i3/1.pdf
                   COST ANALYSIS 2: PRODUCTION, POST-PRODUCTION &

VALUE ADDITION COMPLETE BUDGET

Projected Income, Expenditure and Surplus

PROJECTED INCOME

Income Quantity  Unit Price ($) Total ($)

Sale of lettuce  45 1 300 13,500
Sale of Value-Added Product (Pakura)  22 1 100 2,200
Total Projected Income 15,700

PROJECTED EXPENDITURE

Expenditure Quantity Unit Unit Cost Total Cost

($) ($)
 Seeds

Expenses: Value-added product 1 bottle    1 $2,200 $2,200

Oil  8 packs  45paper       1  $140 $1,120
Bara mix bowl       1  $6.66 $300
Paper bowls  45small plastic       1  $2.22 $100
Plastic bags  bag       1  $40 $40
Yeast  1small pack       1  $20 $200
Mango          10      1/3  $40 $40
Salt     1/3 pound       1/2  $60 $60
Sugar      ½ pound
 $4,060
Total Projected Expenditure
15,700-
Projected Profit = Total Projected 4,060=
Income – Total Projected Expenditure $11,640

 ACTUAL INCOME & EXPENDITURE STATEMENT 

                                          Actual Income, Expenditure and Surplus

ACTUAL INCOME

Income Quantity  Unit Price Total ($)

($)
Sale of lettuce  - - - -
Sale of Value-Added 120 22 100 2,200
Products:
Pakura 

Total Actual Income 2,200

ACTUAL EXPENDITURE

Expenditure Quantity Uni Unit Cost Total Cost

t ($) ($)
Seeds 108 1 $12 $1296
Organic pesticide ½ ml ½ $500 $500
Sticks 36 9 $75 $150
Green banana leaves 50 25 $75 $150
 Dry banana leaves 100 50 $75 $150
Expenses: Value-added products 2,246
Oil 1 1 2,200
Bara mix 8 1 140 1,120

$3,366
Total Actual Expenditure
3,366-2,246=
Actual Profit = Total Actual Income – Total A loss of
Actual Expenditure $1,120

ANALYSIS / COMPARISON OF PROJECTED & ACTUAL INCOME,

EXPENDITURE & SURPLUS

INCOME 

The actual income ($2,200) was lower than the projected income ($15,700). The actual income
was lower because? Not enough value addition product was made to be sold and most lettuce
was very small.
EXPENDITURE

The actual expenditure ($3,366) was less than the projected expenditure ($4060). The actual
expenditure was lower because? Most of the product bought we did not use all of it.

SURPLUS

After completing this project there was an actual profit (surplus) of $1,120. This was compared
with a projected surplus of $11,640. There was a lower actual profit.
 GRAPHS SHOWING PROJECTED & ACTUAL INCOME, EXPENDITURE & SURPLUS

Figure 1: Projected and Actual Income. It can be seen that actual income is lower than the
projected income.

Graph Showing Actual Income Vs Project Income

16,000
14,000
Amount of Money

12,000
10,000 15,700
8,000
6,000
4,000 2,200
2,000
0
Actual income projected Projected income
income
Income

Figure 4: Bar Graph Showing Comparison of Income

The projected income was (5) times more than the actual income.
Figure 2: Projected and Actual Expenditure. It can be seen that the actual expenditure is less than
the projected expenditure.

Gr aph Showing A ctual Expen -

ditur e VS Pr ojected Expendi -
tur e

$4,500
Amount Of Money

$4,000
$3,500
$3,000 $4,060
$2,500 $3,366
$2,000
$1,500
$1,000
$500
$0
Actual Expenditure Projected Expenditure
Expenditure

Figure 5: Bar Graph Showing Comparison Expenditure

The projected expenditure was (1 and 1/5) times more than the actual expenditure.
Figure 3: Projected and Actual Surplus. It can be seen that the actual surplus is lower than the
projected surplus

Graph Showing Actual Surplus VS

Projected Surplus

-11,640 Projected Surplus

Surplus

Actual Surplus 1,120

-12,000 -10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000

Amount Of Money

Figure 6: Bar Graph Showing Comparison Surplus

The profit sirplus was (6) times more than the actual sirplus. 
 APPENDIX: PHOTOGRAPHS OF ACTIVITIES DONE DURING THE

INVESTIGATION  

Figure 7: Plowing of Land  Figure

Frigure 8: Making of Drains  Figure 

 Figure 9: Making of the Structure that Goes Over the Beds

            

Figure 10: Planting of   

      

Figure 12: Watering of Plants    

                                                                                                         

                         

            

Figure 13: Beds That Were Watered     

Figure 12:Progess pictures 

Figure 14: Harvest

Figure 15: Value Addition Product

                                                                                                                                                                                            
                           

CSEC Agricultural Science (Double Award)

Rubric for Crop and Broiler Production Investigations

 
 ITEM DESCRIPTOR MARKS

Total Awarded

INTRODUCTION (6) Name of Student                   - -

Student Registration Number   - -

Name of School                    - -

Title of Project                      - -

Start Date                              - -

Termination Date                 - -

Table of Contents                 - -

Literature Review Provided a clear and 2 2

(3) accurate summary of
literature reviewed

At least 3 references 1 1
cited in summary

Problem statement clearly written 1 1

 Aim (2) Technical /technology 1 1
related objective addressing
production and post-
production levels

Income related 1 1

METHODOLOGY (11) Experimental Experimental design clearly 1 1

Design (2) described

Comparison of production 1 1
technology/management
practice/value-addition
technology

Materials and Materials 1 1

Equipment (2)

Tools and Equipment 1 1

Activities (production  and processing) (4) 4 3

Data Collection - Data (at least 2 sets) and how 3 3

it was collected (3)

RESULTS (9) Presented and described data including 3 2

performance of value added products /
-  Production and Post- comparison of value added and non-value
Production added product where applicable (3)

-  Value Addition
(where applicable)
Interpreted results accurately (3) 3 2
 Presented results properly (2) 2 1

Labelled tables, charts (1) 1 1

DISCUSSION (8) How technical Provided a full discussion 1 1

results relate to of results”
the issue (2)

Relating results to literature 1 1

accurately with reference

Effect of the discussed the effect of 2 1

technology used technology used during
during production/post-production
production/ after as it relates to value
production / for addition with supporting
value addition evidence and  cited relevant
(2) literature

Effect of Fully discussed the effect of 2 1

technical / technical / technology on
technology on profitability and referring to
profitability (2) relevant data with
supporting evidence and 
cited relevant literature

Overall findings Fully discussed the findings 2 1

as it relates to as it relates to issue with
the issue (2) supporting evidence and 
cited relevant literature

CONCLUSION, Conclusion (2) Based on outcomes with 1 1

LIMITATION & respect to technical /
RECOMMENDATIONS technological aspects
(4)

Based on outcomes and 1 1

income aspect

Limitations (1) 1 1

Recommendations (1) 1 1

PRESENTATION (2) Less than 5 spelling and grammatical errors 1 0

contained in the report (1)

At least 3 references properly cited (1) 1 1

TOTAL (Technical Report) 40 ÷ 32÷ 2

2
=  16
= 20

COST ANALYSIS (10) Complete Budget Projected Income – 1 1

output, price, total
(Please tick √ which is
applicable)

  Projected Expenditure – 1 1
inputs, price, total
1

(Production, Post-
Production) Surplus/Shortfall 1 1
correctly calculated
or

  2 Actual Income & Income/Sale of Produce – 1 1

 Expenditure quantity, price, total

Expenditure – quantity, 1 1
price, total

Surplus/Shortfall 1 1
correctly calculated

Comparison of Provides a full and 4  

Projected and Actual accurate comparison of
all 3 parameters
-   Income

-   Expenditure
Partially compares all 3 3  
-   Surplus/shortfall parameters
(Production, Post-
Production and Value
Addition)
Correctly compares any 2 2 2
  parameters

Correctly compares any 1 1  

parameter

Did not attempt to 0 0

compare any parameter

TOTAL COST ANALYSIS 10 8