Cow (Bos Taurus) Manure and Rice (Oryza sativa) Hulls as Alternative Charcoal

A Quantitative Research
presented to the Faculty of Baliwasan Senior High School Stand Alone under the Science,
Technology, Engineering & Mathematics (STEM)

in partial fulfillment of the requirements in

Practical Research 2

Jalis, Nur-Aiza T.
Saji-in, Ylaizah N.
Alhari, Herna J.
Suan, Airic Mae P.
Lim, Kiefer Anakin B.
Bacordo, Jane Ganise A.
Mohammad, Leycia Maey L.
Research Proponents

G12-STEM B

Adriel Jan D. Bruno

Practical Research Adviser
Abstract

An experimental research study using the completely randomized design aimed to

determine the efficacy of Cow (Bos Taurus) Manure and Rice (Oryza sativa) Hulls as alternative
charcoal. Specifically, it sought to identify the effectiveness and significant difference among the
different treatments in terms of Moisture Content, Ash Content, and Burning Rate Test. There
were 4 Treatments with 3 replicates each. Based on the mean result of Moisture Content,
Treatment 1 has the highest moisture content (M = 23.48, SD = 1.79) while Treatment 3 has the
lowest moisture content (M = 17.31, SD = 3.61). In terms of Ash Content, Treatment 3 has the
highest ash content (M = 53.67, SD = 1.90), while Treatment 2 has the lowest ash content (M =
48.44, SD = 3.13). While in Burning Rate Test, Treatment 3 has the highest burning rate (M =
4.3, SD = 2.05), while Treatment 1 has the lowest burning rate (M = 3.6, SD = 1.24). One-Way
analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the significant difference among the three
Treatments. In terms of Moisture Content, Ash Content, and Burning Rate test shows that there
is no significant difference between the statistical means of the three treatments. This study
concludes that Cow (Bos Taurus) Manure and Rice (Oryza sativa) has the potential to be
alternative charcoal.
Key words: Cow Manure, Rice Hulls, Alternative Charcoal, Moisture Content, Ash Content,
Burning Rate Test

Acknowledgement

First and foremost, we would like to express our deepest and sincerely gratitude to the
Almighty God for granting and giving us blessings throughout our research study to complete the
research successfully.

We would like to express our gratitude to Mr. Adriel Jan Bruno, Our research teacher for
his support, dedication in teaching, and valuable recommendations. His lectures, guidance, and
corrections have greatly helped and contributed in the success of this experiment.

A special thanks to our beloved family for their understanding and support on our
research study. Their moral support was encouraging and a motivation for us to finish this
experiment.

We are also grateful for our friends who have extended their unwavering support,
assistance, kindness, and encouragement throughout of this research.

Furthermore, we would also like to acknowledge the Lim Family , who gave us the
permission to use all required equipment and the necessary materials to complete the task. A big
contribution from them during and after this project is indeed highly appreciated.

Lastly, we would like to acknowledge BTS, TAYLOR SWIFT, ONE DIRECTION and
other artist that we’ve been listening while we conducted the experimentation ,that make us
energetic, motivated and gave us comfort to finished the experimentation.

Together, with the support and encouragement of these people, this research would not
have been possible without the cooperation and coordinated efforts of all of these individuals.
We express our deepest gratitude to everyone who took part.
 CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This chapter presents the problem and its setting. It includes the background of the study,
the statement of the problem, the significance of the study, and the scope and delimitation of the
study.

Background of the Study

Charcoal is a versatile material that has been used by humans for thousands of years and
has many different applications. In today’s world, charcoal is commonly used for both indoor
and outdoor cooking activities, such as home cooking, grilling, barbecuing, and broiling (Iqbal et
al., 2016). However, despite its many uses, the production of traditional charcoal has a big
impact on our environment because it involves cutting down trees. According to the United
Nations Environment Programme, the traditional methods of making charcoal lead to high
carbon emissions and are a waste of wood resources (UNEP, 2019). Traditional charcoal
production and usage pose significant environmental and health problems that demand attention
and resolution. There have been many initiatives taken to address the problem of cutting down
trees in the production of traditional charcoal. One of the solution have proposed is the using
alternative energy sources, such as clean cookstoves that use less or no charcoal. However, clean
cookstoves powered by alternative energy sources may not be accessible or affordable for all
communities, which hinders their widespread utilization. Additionally, this solution have
environmental impacts. Poor management of biomass pellets or LPG cylinders can lead to
carbon emissions, deforestation, and waste management challenges. Therefore, it was necessary
to look into other resources.

In recent years, researchers have explored alternative sources of charcoal that are more
sustainable and environmentally friendly and accessible to everybody. Utilizing waste products
like agricultural waste is one of these methods. Charcoal can be produced from any appropriate
agricultural waste (Singh et al., 2010). By converting these waste materials into charcoal, they
can be used as a natural source that is easily accessible by everybody and is environmentally
friendly. Furthermore, the use of waste materials as a source of energy can reduce the amount of
waste going to landfills, which can have environmental benefits. One such alternative source of
charcoal is cow manure and rice hulls. Cow manure and rice hulls are abundant waste materials
that are produced in large quantities in many agricultural areas. Cow manure is rich in organic
matter, which makes a suitable feedstock for charcoal production. Cow manure contains a high
percentage of carbon, which is the primary element needed for charcoal production. In addition,
it has a high carbon content, low moisture content, rich in nutrients, abundant supply, and low-
cost. Rice hulls, on the other hand, are a by-product of rice milling and are often burned or
thrown away. Rice hull has physical and chemical properties that make a suitable raw material
for the production of charcoal. It is a potential carbon source that can be used as an alternative
energy source (Yuliah et al., 2017). Some characteristics of rice hulls it is an abundant
availability, high carbon content , low moisture content, and renewable and environmentally
friendly that make rice hulls suitable and promising material for alternative charcoal production
(Glushankova et al., 2018), so using them as a resource can be a sustainable, cost-effective
solution, and improved performance compared to traditional charcoal.

Charcoal made from cow manure and rice hulls is considered environmentally friendly
because it produces less smoke and fewer harmful emissions than regular charcoal. This makes it
safer for the environment and for people who use it. Additionally, this process is also more
sustainable because it doesn’t require cutting down trees, which helps prevent deforestation.
Hence, further studies are needed to investigate the feasibility and potential uses of cow manure
and rice hulls as alternative charcoal sources. It provides valuable insights into their feasibility,
potential benefits, as well as contributing to the development of processes that are more efficient
and environmentally friendly. This research goal is to make alternative charcoal using a waste
material such as cow manure and rice hulls.

Statement of the Problem

This study aims to determine the efficacy of Cow (Bos taurus) manure and Rice (Oryza
sativa) hulls as an alternative charcoal. Specifically, this study seeks to answer the following
questions:
 1. Which among the different treatments of Cow (Bos taurus) manure and Rice (Oryza
sativa) hulls is a potential alternative charcoal in terms of moisture content, ash content,
and burning rate test?

Treatment 1 - 50 grams of Cow Manure and 50 grams of Rice hulls

Treatment 2 - 30 grams of Cow Manure and 70 grams of Rice hulls
Treatment 3 - 70 grams of Cow Manure and 30 grams of Rice hulls
Treatment 4 – Traditional Charcoal

2. Is there a significant difference on the effectiveness among the different treatments of

Cow (Bos taurus) manure and Rice (Oryza sativa) hulls as a potential alternative charcoal
in terms of moisture content, ash content, and burning rate test?

3. Is there a substantial difference in the effectiveness of the most recommended treatment

of Cow(Bos taurus) manure and Rice (Oryza sativa) hulls as an alternative charcoal
compared to the traditional charcoal?

Hypothesis
Ho: There is no significant difference in the effectiveness of the different treatments of
cow manure and rice hulls as alternative charcoal in terms of burning rate test, moisture content,
and ash content.

Significance of the Study

With the global demand for charcoal increasing, forests are being depleted at an alarming
rate, this study aims to determine the potential of utilizing abundant and sustainable resources
such as cow manure and rice hulls to create an environmentally friendly alternative to traditional
charcoal. Thenceforward, beneficiaries of the study are as follows:
 Environment - This study will help by reducing deforestation, mitigating climate change,
promoting sustainable agriculture, and increasing community engagement in sustainable
practices.

Community - This research will provide them a low-cost, sustainable, and

environmentally friendly fuel source, while also improving air quality, creating economic
opportunities, and promoting sustainable development.

Governments - This study serves as their guide in reducing import costs, promoting rural
development, reducing environmental impact, and promoting sustainable development.

Farmers - This study can benefit farmers by providing them with a low-cost, sustainable,
and environmentally friendly fuel source, while also improving soil quality and increasing crop
yields.

Future Researchers - This research will be a useful reference for the researchers who
would plan to make any related study precisely to provide a new area of inquiry and potential
opportunities for innovation, as well as expanding their understanding of sustainable and
alternative fuels.

Scope and Delimitations

This research study focuses on examining the use of cow manure and rice hulls as
primary raw materials for creating charcoal. It will be conducted at Tambis Drive, Baliwasan,
Zamboanga City, with strict adherence to safety protocols, within a timeframe of 7 days. The
study aims to determine the efficacy of Cow Manure and Rice Hulls as Alternative Charcoal by
evaluating specific parameters. These parameters include the moisture content, ash content, and
burning rate test. The study will consist of four (4) treatments with three (3) replicates each to
assess the effectiveness of the alternative charcoal. Additionally, the optimal conditions for
producing cow manure and rice hull charcoal will be determined, including the required material
quantity and treatment duration. The produced charcoal will be compared to traditional charcoal
in terms of moisture content, ash content, and burning rate test.
 CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the relevant literature studies that the researchers considered for
better comprehension of the study.

Cow manure

Cow manure, often referred to as cow dung, is a readily available and cost-effective
bioresource. In recent times, it has garnered significant attention due to its versatility and various
applications within society. Traditionally, cow manure has served as a valuable resource,
functioning as a fertilizer, soil enhancer, energy source, and even a construction material. This
livestock waste is rich in essential and recyclable materials, encompassing nutrients, organic
matter, solid wastes, energy, and fiber (Hamid et al., 2021). It emerges as a renewable and
sustainable energy resource, primarily through the production of dung cakes. These dung cakes
serve as viable alternatives to charcoal, fuel wood, and firewood, reducing dependence on these
traditional sources of fuel (Ebenezer Owusu et al., 2018). Furthermore, cow manure is abundant
in organic compounds such as protein, hemicellulose, cellulose, and various forms of nitrogen
(Yusef et al., 2017).

Cow manure presents a promising option as an alternative energy source to replace fossil
fuels. It boasts a high caloric content, capable of producing methane gas and approximately 4000
calories per gram when utilized as a fuel source. The presence of methane gas enhances the
flammability of briquettes created from cow manure, making them highly combustible
(Aynharan et al., 2020). According to the study by Vincent Marwa (2020), cow manure can
indeed be used as an alternative to charcoal. The co-briquettes created by combining cow manure
with coal waste have demonstrated a significant calorific value. Specifically, the co-briquettes
with a 50:50 ratio of cow manure and coal waste were found to have a calorific value of 5919.7
Kcal/kg. This value is comparable to the calorific value of charcoal, which is 5807.22 Kcal/kg.

The utilization of cow manure, often referred to as feedlot biomass (FB), as a fuel source
offers a promising solution to address waste disposal challenges while simultaneously reducing
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels. Past endeavors to employ animal waste as the
primary fuel source encountered challenges primarily related to the higher ash content, elevated
moisture levels, and inconsistent properties associated with FB (John M. Et al., 2003).

Rice hulls

Rice hulls, also known as rice husks, are a by-product generated during rice milling,
typically considered waste in many rice-growing regions (Trail et al., 2019). These are
mechanically separated from rice grains through a process called hulling. Given rice’s global
cultivation and consumption, a substantial amount of rice hulls is produced as a by-product (Jeng
et al., 2012).

These rice husks, sometimes called rice hulls, represent a valuable biomass resource that
is typically disposed of or burned as waste. However, they hold significant potential as a carbon
source for alternative energy production (Yuliah et al., 2017). Their abundance, renewability,
and environmentally friendly characteristics make them highly attractive for a range of
applications, including soil improvement, animal bedding, gardening, industrial uses, and energy
production (Tosi, 2017). Rice hulls possess unique qualities such as quality, density, absence of
chemical additives, lightweight nature, excellent insulation properties, and rich silica content that
contribute to their value. Their combustion properties further enhance their utility, allowing for
efficient biofuel production, including alternative charcoal with low ash content and a high
calorific value (Karan Homchat et al., 2022). The abundant availability, high carbon content, low
moisture content, and renewable, environmentally friendly attributes collectively position rice
hulls as a promising material for alternative charcoal production (Glushankova et al., 2018).
Additionally, rice hulls are recognized as renewable and abundant sources of biomass, further
enhancing their appeal as options for sustainable charcoal production (Qu et al., 2020).
Charcoal

In various fields, charcoal serves diverse purposes, such as art, medicine, purification,
filtration, and environmental applications (Alexander et al., 2019). However, its predominant use
remains as a cooking fuel for individuals. Charcoal is a coal-like black substance primarily used
as a fuel source. It is produced by burning wood in an oxygen-deprived environment, resulting in
impure carbon residue (J. Beam et al., 2023).

Special manufacturing techniques yield highly porous charcoals with extensive surface
areas, known as active or activated charcoals. These materials are widely utilized for adsorbing
odorous or colored substances from gases or liquids. They play a crucial role in various
applications, such as purifying drinking water, sugar, and many other products, as well as
recovering solvents and other volatile materials. Additionally, active charcoals are employed in
gas masks to remove toxic compounds from the air and as catalysts in the production of specific
chemicals (A. Augustyn et al., 2019). Furthermore, charcoal is characterized by low sulfur and
mercury content, minimal nitrogen and ash content, high reactivity, and ease of storage and
handling (Antal, Gronli et al., 2003).

Charcoal production relies on wood as a raw material, which undergoes multiple

processes, some of which pose potential risks to laborers. The process of obtaining wood for
charcoal, which often involves tree cutting, can have adverse environmental effects. Frequent
tree felling not only halts carbon absorption but also releases stored carbon as carbon dioxide
when wood is burned or left to rot post-deforestation due to its carbon content. Considering that
trees take years to mature, it becomes evident that the finite nature of the materials required for
charcoal production raises concerns (Alexander et al., 2019). Charcoal production, particularly
in tropical regions, has raised environmental concerns. The primary focus is on deforestation,
which involves clearing forested areas. While deforestation does occur at a small spatial scale, on
a larger landscape scale, charcoal production more frequently leads to forest degradation
(Chidumayo, 2013).

Burning Rate Test

 This test determines the rate at which alternative charcoal samples burn by recording
their weight until complete combustion occurs. The rate of fire consumption is calculated using
an appropriate equation (Onuegbu et al., 2011). In a study conducted by Aynharan et al. (2020),
the burning rate test was employed to evaluate different briquettes made from pinecones, cow
dung, pine needles, and commercial charcoal briquettes. The results indicated that the burning
rate was lowest for the sample with a mixture of pinecones and cow dung, measuring 1.29 g/min.
The study emphasized that, for better efficiency, a lower burning rate is desirable. In contrast, the
briquette made from pine needles exhibited the fastest burning rate at 5.36 g/min, while the
commercial coal briquette had a burning rate of 6.25 g/min.

Moisture content

Moisture content refers to the amount of water present in charcoal. It includes both
moisture that can be easily removed by evaporation at room temperature and inherent moisture,
which is trapped within the charcoal structure (Pillai, 2018). In the study conducted by Tanko et
al. (2020), the moisture content findings suggest that a lower moisture content is favorable for
achieving good-quality charcoal briquettes. In the research, briquettes with moisture content
ranging from 10 to 14%, particularly those with 10% moisture content, were considered
appropriate for utilization as an alternative energy source.

Ash content

Ash content indicates the amount of inorganic minerals and impurities left behind when
the charcoal is burned. High ash content reduces the calorific value of charcoal and can affect its
combustion efficiency. Determining ash content involves burning a charcoal sample in the
presence of air and measuring the weight loss (Pillai, 2018). The ash content findings in the
study of Tanko et al. (2020) suggest an inverse relationship between ash content and the calorific
values of the briquettes. The ash contents of rice hull (RH) and coconut shell (CS) briquettes
ranged from 26-38%, with RH briquettes having the highest ash content at 38% and CS
briquettes having the lowest at 26%. The study observed that the higher the ash content, the
lower the calorific values of the briquettes. For instance, CS briquettes with an ash content of
26% demonstrated a higher calorific value of 18.6 MJ/kg. In summary, the study implies that for
better-quality charcoal briquettes with higher calorific values, a lower ash content is desirable.
The results highlight the significance of managing and controlling ash content in the production
of charcoal briquettes to ensure optimal combustion efficiency and energy content.

CHAPTER III

METHODOLOGY

This chapter presents the methods used in the study. It describes the research design, the
research sample, the procedure for data gathering, and the statistical tool used.

Research Design
This research study will employ a Completely Randomized Design (CRD). In this
design, the treatments will be randomly assigned to ensure that each experimental unit has an
equal chance of receiving any treatment. The study will consist of three (3) experimental
treatments and one (1) control treatment (traditional charcoal), with three (3) replicates each. The
research design aims to compare the effectiveness of Cow Manure and Rice Hulls as alternative
charcoal components to traditional charcoal using the following parameters: burning rate test,
moisture content, and ash content.

Research Locale

The study will be conducted at Tambis Drive, Baliwasan, Zamboanga City.

Research Sample

A total of two thousand (2000) grams of cow manure and two thousand (2000) grams of
rice hulls will be collected at the DPWH Divisoria Zamboanga City and Don Toribio St., Tetuan,
Zamboanga City, respectively.

General Procedure

Gathering of Materials

The cow manure will be collected from DPWH, Divisoria, Zamboanga City, while the
rice hulls will be gathered from Don Toribio St., Tetuan, Zamboanga City.

Drying of Cow Manure and Rice Hulls

Cow manure and rice hulls will be sundried for seven (7) days; afterwards, they will be
stored in a separate container.

Carbonization of Cow Manure and Rice Hulls

After drying, the cow manure and rice hulls will be carbonized separately to remove
excess moisture. The carbonization process will be done using improvised pyrolysis equipment
made of cast iron pots.
 Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the improvised pyrolysis equipment.

Preparation of Treatments

After carbonization, 50 grams of rice hulls and 50 grams of cow manure will be mixed
and it will be added with 100 grams of cassava starch and 1 liter of water. Same procedure will
be done for other treatments.

Preparation of Molders

PVC pipe will be used as molders for charcoal production. The PVC pipe molders
measure 3 inches in length and 3.4 inch in width.

Figure 2. Schematic diagram of the molder.

Charcoal Briquettes Production

 After mixing the starch mixture with the carbonized cow manure and rice hulls in their
assigned treatment, shape it into briquettes using the manual molder. The charcoal briquettes will
be placed in a well-ventilated area until they are dry and firm for 1-5 days.

Data Gathering

After experimentation, the researchers will collect and gather data by listing the results
and observations according to the following parameters adapted from Tanko et al.,(2020).

Moisture Content

To determine the moisture content weigh the samples before (initial weight) and after
drying (dry weight) in each treatment. The moisture content will be calculated using the weight
difference.

Formula for the moisture content:

Moisture Content = initial weight – dry weight x 100

initial weight

Ash content

To determine the ash content ash the samples in a high-temperature furnace to completely
burn off organic material, then weigh the ashed samples. The ash content will be calculated using
the weight difference.

Formula for the ash content:

Ash Content = weight of ash (g) x 100

weight of dry biomass (g)

Burning rate test

 To determine the burning rate of samples charcoal, ignite each sample separately in a
controlled environment and the time will be measured using a timer to compare their burning
rate.

Proper Waste Disposal

The wastes will be properly disposed of after the experimentation. The used materials
such as gloves and masks will be disposed of properly in a plastic bag and thrown in a non-
biodegradable trash bin.

Statistical Tool

Mean will be used to determine which treatment is the most effective in terms of
moisture content, ash content, and burning rate test. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)
will be used to determine the significant difference between the experimental treatments in terms
of combustibility, burning rate test, moisture content, and ash content. Post Hoc Test (Tukey)
will be used to determine the significant difference of the treatments compared to each other. The
Independent T-test will be utilized to assess the significant difference between the most
recommended treatment and the control setup (traditional charcoal) in terms of moisture content,
ash content, and burning rate test.
 Figure 3. Flowchart

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the data collected during the experimentation period, detailing the
differences observed in outcomes across various setups for each parameter examined.
Additionally, it provides a summary of the results following the application of statistical analysis
and the study's methodology.

Table 1 shows that Treatment 1 has the highest moisture content (M = 23.48, SD = 1.79)
while Treatment 3 has the lowest moisture content (M = 17.31, SD = 3.61).

Table 1.
Mean Percentage of Moisture Content of Different Combinations of Cow Manure and Rice Hulls
as Bio Charcoal.
Treatments N Mean (%) Standard Deviation
T1 3 23.48 % 1.79
(50g of CM + 50g of RH)
 T2 3 22.38 % 9.80
(30g of CM + 70g of RH)

T3 3 17.31 % 3.61
(70g of CM + 30g of RH)

Traditional Charcoal 3 39 % 0

Note: CM = Cow Manure, RH = Rice Hull

The analysis of variance in Table 2 showed no significant difference (p = 0.579; p > 0.05)
in the moisture content among treatments.
Table 2.
One-way ANOVA (Fisher’s)- Analysis of Mean Percentage of Moisture Content of Different
Combinations of Cow Manure and Rice Hulls as Bio Charcoal.
F df1 df2 p

Moisture Content 0.599 2 6 0.579

Table 3 shows that Treatment 3 has the highest ash content (M = 53.67, SD = 1.90), while
Treatment 2 has the lowest ash content (M = 48.44, SD = 3.13).

Table 3.
Mean Percentage of Ash Content of Different Combinations of Cow Manure and Rice Hulls as
Bio Charcoal.
Treatments N Mean (%) Standard Deviation

T1 3 50.42 % 5.81
(50g of CM + 50g of RH)

T2 3 48.44 % 3.13
(30g of CM + 70g of RH)

T3 3 53.67 % 1.90
(70g of CM + 30g of RH)

Traditional Charcoal 3 2.6 % 0

Note: CM = Cow Manure, RH = Rice Hull

 The analysis of variance in Table 4 showed no significant difference (p = 0.461; p > 0.05)
in the ash content among treatments.
Table 4.
One-way ANOVA (Fisher’s) – Analysis of Mean Percentage of Ash Content of Different
Combinations of Cow Manure and Rice Hulls as Bio Charcoal.
F df1 df2 p

Ash Content 0.884 2 6 0.461

Table 5 shows that Treatment 3 has the highest burning rate (M = 4.3, SD = 2.05), while
Treatment 1 has the lowest burning rate (M = 3.6, SD = 1.24).
Table 5.
Mean of Burning Rate of Different Combinations of Cow Manure and Rice Hulls as Bio
Charcoal.
Treatments N Mean (minutes) Standard Deviation

T1 3 3.6 mins 1.24

(50g of CM + 50g of RH)

T2 3 4mins 0.81
(30g of CM + 70g of RH)

T3 3 4.3 mins 2.05

(70g of CM + 30g of RH)

Traditional Charcoal 3 44.20 sec 0

Note: CM = Cow Manure, RH = Rice Hull

 The analysis of variance in Table 6 showed no significant difference (p = 0.903; p > 0.05)
in the burning rate among treatments.
Table 6.
One-way ANOVA (Fisher’s) – Analysis on the Burning Rate of Charcoal.
F df1 df2 p

Burning Rate 0.103 2 6 0.903

DISCUSSION

Moisture content plays a significant role in the combustion process of charcoal briquettes.
Lower moisture content is generally preferred as it ensures better combustion efficiency and a
higher calorific value. Briquettes with a moisture content ranging from 10% to 14% were found
to be suitable for use as alternative energy sources (Tanko et al., 2020). As shown in the moisture
content result, Treatment 3 has the lowest moisture content. However, moisture content analysis
showed no significant difference among the treatments, indicating that all treatments fall within
the desirable range between 10% and 14% recommended by Tanko et al. (2020) for producing
high-quality charcoal briquettes. This suggests that T1, T2, and T3 are suitable options for
charcoal production in terms of moisture content, ensuring optimal quality and combustion
efficiency.
 Ash content is another crucial parameter affecting the quality of charcoal briquettes.
Higher ash content can reduce the calorific value of the briquettes and hinder efficient
combustion (Tanko et al., 2020). The ash content result did not reveal any significant differences
among the treatments. This indicates that all treatments exhibit ash content within an acceptable
range between 26% and 38% for producing charcoal briquettes with desirable calorific values
(Tanko et al., 2020).

The burning rate is an essential factor in assessing the practical usability of charcoal
briquettes. A lower burning rate is desirable as it ensures longer burning duration and sustained
heat output (Onuegbu et al., 2011). A study by Aynharan et al. (2020) emphasized the
importance of a lower burning rate for better efficiency in charcoal briquettes. Briquettes with
slower burning rates are considered more efficient.

As shown in Table 6, there was no significant difference among the treatments. This
suggests that all three treatments, T1, T2, and T3, exhibit comparable burning rates, indicating
similar combustion efficiency. emphasized the importance of a lower burning rate for better
efficiency, and while our results did not show variations among treatments, it implies that each
treatment can potentially provide efficient combustion when used as charcoal briquettes.
(Aynharan et al., 2020).

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

This chapter presents the conclusions and recommendations of the study.

CONCLUSION

Based on the comprehensive analysis of Moisture Content, Ash Content, and Burning Rate
Test parameters for Cow (Bos Taurus) Manure and Rice (Oryza sativa) Hulls as Alternative
Charcoal, it is concluded that there were no significant differences observed among treatments
T1, T2, and T3. The Moisture Content levels of all treatments fell within the recommended range
for producing high-quality charcoal briquettes, indicating their suitability for charcoal
production. Similarly, the Ash Content analysis revealed no discernible variation across
treatments, affirming the acceptability of T1, T2, and T3 for charcoal production purposes.
Moreover, the Burning Rate test demonstrated comparable burning rates among treatments,
suggesting similar combustion efficiency. In conclusion, the findings from this study suggest that
cow (Bos taurus) manure and rice (Oryza sativa) hulls are viable alternatives for charcoal
production. Treatments T1, T2, and T3 exhibit favorable characteristics for charcoal production,
providing valuable insights into sustainable energy solutions.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Environment - The findings of this study suggest that the utilization of cow manure and
rice hulls as alternative charcoal sources can significantly contribute to environmental
sustainability. It is recommended that environmental organizations and policymakers promote
the adoption of this eco-friendly approach to charcoal production. By reducing deforestation,
mitigating climate change, and promoting sustainable agriculture, the widespread
implementation of this method can lead to positive environmental impacts on a global scale.

Community - For the community, it is recommended to consider utilizing cow manure

and rice hulls as alternative charcoal sources. This approach offers low-cost, sustainable, and
environmentally friendly fuel options, while simultaneously improving air quality, creating
economic opportunities, and promoting sustainable development.

Government - This study investigates the potential of utilizing cow manure and rice hulls
as alternative charcoal sources, presenting an opportunity for governments to play a crucial role
in promoting sustainable energy practices. Policymakers are recommended to incentivize the
adoption of these alternative charcoal production methods through targeted policies and
regulations. By reducing import costs, promoting rural development, and supporting sustainable
practices, the government can significantly contribute to environmental conservation and socio-
economic development agendas.

Farmers - The findings of this study suggest that utilizing cow manure and rice hulls as
alternative charcoal sources can benefit farmers by providing them with low-cost, sustainable,
and environmentally friendly fuel sources. It is recommended that farmers consider adopting this
approach, as it not only improves soil quality but also increases crop yields, contributing to
overall agricultural sustainability and productivity.

Future Researchers - For future researchers, it is recommended to explore alternative

methods and ratios for utilizing cow manure and rice hulls as alternative charcoal sources. While
our study did not find significant differences among treatments, further investigation into
different processing techniques and combinations of materials may yield insights for optimizing
charcoal production efficiency and quality. Additionally, future studies could focus on scaling up
production and assessing the long-term sustainability of this alternative fuel source.

References

Iqbal, M. A., & Kim, K.-H. (2016). Sampling, pretreatment, and analysis of particulate
matter and trace metals emitted through charcoal combustion in cooking activities. TrAC Trends
in Analytical Chemistry, 76, 52-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trac.2015.11.005

Singh, M., & et al. (2010). Fuel from the Fields: Charcoal from Agricultural Waste.
Retrieved from MIT OpenCourseWare website: https://ocw.mit.edu/courses/ec-711-d-lab-
energy-spring-2011/2b5321517d0b0e6a217aeeaba60c6bbe_MITEC_711S11_read5_fuel.pdf

Beam, J. (2023, June 02). What is Charcoal? Retrieved from Delighted Cooking website:
https://www.delightedcooking.com/what-is-charcoal.htm
 Trail, P., & Riley, D. (2019). Issue 37. Retrieved from ECHOcommunity website:
https://www.echocommunity.org/en/resources/9f9bcb3a-ed2e-4209-bf90-38a759ff3340

Yusefi, M., Khalid, M., Yasin, F.M., & et al. (2018). Performance of cow dung
reinforced biodegradable poly(lactic acid) biocomposites for structural applications. *Journal of
Polymer and the Environment*, *26*(2), 474-486. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10924-017-0963-z

Kesmayanti, N., & Ilmi, B. (2022). The Husk Charcoal Biobriquettes as Alternative
Energy Based on Rice Husk Waste. NU Scientech: Proceedings Series, 1(1), 109-113. Retrieved
from https://nstproceeding.com/index.php/nuscientech/article/download/881/836.

Glushankova, I., Ketov, A., Krasnovskikh, M., Rudakova, L., & Vaisman, I. (2018). Rice
Hulls as a Renewable Complex Material Resource. Resources, 7(2),
31.https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7020031

Ycaza, S. R., & Barre, J. T. (2018). Charcoal Briquettes Manufactured from Dried
Mango Leaves (DML)–An Alternative Solid Fuel Source. Research Journal, 37, 13-24.
Retrieved from http://wmsu.edu.ph/research_journal/journal/briquettes_ycaza.pdf

Chidumayo, E. N. (2013). Charcoal production therefore affects global carbon balance,

deforestation and the energy supply to the urban and rural poor. Forest Ecology and
Management, 17(2),86-94.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0973082612000476

Hamid, N. A., Abu Muaddah, H., Sharif Za’ba, A. S., & Nor Afandy, M. D. (2020).
Biomass Briqmure: BBQ Briquettes Fuel Source from Cow Manure. Proceedings of the
International Conference on Science, Technology, Engineering, and Industrial Research, volume
536. Retrieved from https://www.atlantis-press.com/proceedings/icsteir-20/125954028

Pillai, P. D. (2018). Moisture & Ash Content In Charcoal & Activated Charcoal. Journal
of Emerging Technologies and Innovative Research, 5(10). Retrieved from
https://www.jetir.org/papers/JETIR1810274.pdf

Aynharan, S., Rathnayake, R. M. S. M., Sinthuja, P., & Fernando, P. R.

(2020). Making Charcoal Briquettes Using Agricultural Wastage. International Journal of
Scientific Research in Physics and Applied Sciences, 8(4), 18-21. Retrieved from
https://www.isroset.org/pub_paper/IJSRPAS/4-IJSRPAS-04242.pdf

Suryaningsih, S., et al. (2019). The analysis of ignition and combustion properties of the
burning briquettes made from mixed biomass of rice husk and corn cob. IOP Conference Series:
Materials Science and Engineering, 550, 012006. Retrieved from
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1757-899X/550/1/012006

Tanko, J., Ahmadu, U., Sadiq, U., & Muazu, A. (2020, November). Characterization of
Rice Husk and Coconut Shell Briquette as an Alternative Solid Fuel. Advanced Energy
Conversion Materials.https://doi.org/10.37256/aecm.212021608