This study was carried out to determine whether magnetic treatment of the irrigation water may actually enhance vegetative growth and yield of tomato. Three magnetic flux densities of 124, 319 and 719 G (treatments T1, T2 and T3) were used to treat the water and a control experiment (Tc) which was irrigated with non-magnetically treated water was also set up. The magnetic field was produced by an electromagnet that had a variable voltage unit varying the voltage from 4 to 12 V. The tomato were planted in buckets, kept in a transparent garden shed for 130 days and irrigated with magnetically treated water and non-magnetically treated water. A completely randomized design experimental layout was used in this study and each of the three treatments was replicated seven times. The results indicated that tomato crop irrigated with magnetically treated water grew faster than that of the non-magnetically treated water and the stem diameters were bigger than those of control. The heights of tomato plants (T1, T2 T3 and Tc) after 47 days were 560.0, 556.4, 588.6 and 469.3 mm respectively. The total yield after 130 days of survey for T1, T2 T3 and Tc were 892.1, 1075.8, 1045.7 and 637.7 g respectively. The percentage increment in yield from the plants treated with magnetically treated water varied from 39.9 to 68.7% compared to the yield from untreated water.

No abstract

No abstract

This study was carried out to determine whether magnetic treatment of the irrigation water may actually enhance vegetative growth and yield of tomato. Three magnetic flux densities of 124, 319 and 719 G (treatments T1, T2 and T3) were used to treat the water and a control experiment (Tc) which was irrigated with non-magnetically treated water was also set up. The magnetic field was produced by an electromagnet that had a variable voltage unit varying the voltage from 4 to 12 V. The tomato were planted in buckets, kept in a transparent garden shed for 130 days and irrigated with magnetically treated water and non-magnetically treated water. A completely randomized design experimental layout was used in this study and each of the three treatments was replicated seven times. The results indicated that tomato crop irrigated with magnetically treated water grew faster than that of the non-magnetically treated water and the stem diameters were bigger than those of control. The heights of tomato plants (T1, T2 T3 and Tc) after 47 days were 560.0, 556.4, 588.6 and 469.3 mm respectively. The total yield after 130 days of survey for T1, T2 T3 and Tc were 892.1, 1075.8, 1045.7 and 637.7 g respectively. The percentage increment in yield from the plants treated with magnetically treated water varied from 39.9 to 68.7% compared to the yield from untreated water.

This study was conducted to determine the effect of magnetically treated water on the quality of tomato. The values of magnetic flux densities used for treating the irrigation water were 124, 319 and 719 G produced from electromagnet with direct current. The tomato (variety UC82B) was planted in 28 buckets in a transparent garden shed for 130 days and irrigated with magnetically treated water and non–magnetically treated water. The mean values of vitamin A and vitamin C were higher with the tomato irrigated with magnetically treated water than tomato irrigated with non – magnetically treated water. The lead was slightly higher with tomato irrigated with magnetically treated water than the non–magnetically treated water. The values of vitamin A with water treated by 124 G, 319 G and 719 G were 0.68 mg/kg, 0.74 mg/kg and 0.80 mg/kg, respectively while vitamin A for non-magnetically treated water was 0.73 mg/kg. The values of vitamin C with water treated by 124 G, 319 G and 719 G were 117.30 mg/kg, 114.03 mg/kg and 115.10 mg/kg, respectively while vitamin C for non-magnetically treated water was 113.93 mg/kg. The value of lead was 0.083, 0.090 and 0.083 mg/kg for magnetically treated water while that of non-magnetically treated water was 0.07 but WHO Standards (permissible limits) for lead in tomato is 0.1 mg/kg.Kathmandu UniversityJournal of Science, Engineering and TechnologyVol. 12, No. 2, 2016, page: 29-33