EFFECT OF MAGNETIZING WATER AND SEEDS ON THE

PRODUCTION OF CUCUMBER (Cucumis sativus L.)

UNDER COOLED PLASTIC TUNNELS

By
Shiema Fathi Abdalla Saeed
B.Sc. (Hon.) Agriculture
University of Khartoum
2003

A Thesis Submitted to the University of Khartoum in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirement for the Degree of
M.Sc in Agricultural Engineering.

Supervisor: Dr. Amir Bakheit Saeed

Dept. of Agricultural Engineering

Faculty of Agriculture
University of Khartoum
 DEDICATION

This effort is dedicated

to my family
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT i
ABSTRACT ii
ARABIC ABSTRACT iv
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW 3
2.1 Magnets and magnetism 3
2.2 Claimed benefits and effects 4
2.3 Water hardness 4
2.4 Some results of applying of magnetized water for soil
desalination 6
2.5 Agricultural applications 8
2.5.1 The benefits of the magnetizer use in agriculture 9
2.6 Magnetic water treatment 10
2.7 Magnetized seeds 14
2.8 Cucumbers (Cucumis sativus) 17
CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS 19
3.1 Experimental site and layout 19
3.2 Seeds treatment 19
3.3 Cooled plastic tunnel 23
3.4 Irrigation system description 23
3.4.1 Pump unit 23
3.4.2 Control unit 23
3.4.3 Main, submain and lateral lines 23
3.4.4 Emitters 26
3.5 Data collection 26
3.5.1 Germination rate 26
 Page
3.5.2 Number of leaves per plant 26
3.5.3 Plant height (cm) 26
3.5.4 Days to 50% flowering 28
3.5.5 Fruit length (cm) 28
3.5.6 Fruit diameter (cm) 28
3.5.7 Yield (number of fruits/m2) 28
3.5.8 Yield (kg/m2) 28
3.5.9 Leaves dry meter percentage 28
3.6 Physical and chemical analysis 28
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 29
4.1 Number of leaves per plant 29
4.2 Days to 50% flowering 30
4.3 Plant height (cm) 32
4.4 Yield (kg/m2) 32
4.5 Yield (number of fruits/m2) 33
4.6 Fruit length (cm) 35
4.7 Fruit diameter (cm) 37
4.8 The leaves dry matter percentage 37
4.9 Germination rate (%) 39
4.10 Physical and chemical analyses 42
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS 43
REFERENCES 44
APPENDICES
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Title Page

2.1 Soil chemical characteristics 7
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig Title Page

3.1 Plan of split plot design 21
3.2 Drip irrigation system 25
4.1 Number of leaves/plant 31
4.2 Days to 50% flowering 31
4.3 Plant height (cm) 34
4.4 Yield (kg/m2) 34
4.5 Yield (number of fruits/m2) 36
4.6 Average fruit length (cm) 36
4.7 Fruit diameter (cm) 40
4.8 Leaves dry matter (%) 40
4.9 Germination rate 41
 LIST OF PLATES

Plate Title Page

3.1 Water magnetizing device (Modifier). 20

3.2 Seeds magnetizing device with funnel attachment 22

3.3 Plastic tunnels from inside showing the pads, the

fans and the drip irrigation laterals 24

3.4 A pressure compensating Turbo-key type of emitters 27

4.1 Fruit diameter 38

 ACKNOLEDGEMENTS

First of all, praise to Allah for giving me strength and

patience to complete this work successfully. Appreciation and

thanks are due to my supervisor Dr. Amir Bakheit Saeed who

I would ever recall his helpful guidance, constructive criticism

and unlimited advices through the course of the study.

My thanks are extended to my family for their diligence

and keenness. The co-operation of all members of the

Agricultural Engineering Dept. in this work is gratefully

acknowledged. The assistance of my colleagues and friends

especially Dalal Ezaldeen is also greatly appreciated.

Lastly, but by no means the least, thanks are also

conveyed to Miss. Bilghies H. for her assistance in making final

touches and typing this manuscript.

i
 ABSTRACT

Very recently magnetizing technology systems have been used to

magnetize irrigation water and seeds. Such magnetized treatments were
reported to play a great role in increasing the germination rate, crop stand
and reclaiming saline soils, consequently resulting in increasing yield.

The experimental work was carried out in one of the cooled plastic
tunnels of the Date Palm Technology Co. (DATECHO), Shambat, during
the summer season (May-August) of 2005.

The study was aimed at improving vegetable crop productivity by

using magnetic technologies. A split plot experimental design was used
for growing cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.). The treatments were as
follows:

a) Magnetized water + Magnetized seeds.

b) Magnetized water + Non-magnetized seeds.

c) Non-magnetized water + Magnetized seeds.

d) Non-magnetized water + Non-magnetized seeds.

Each treatment was replicated three times. The crop growth

and yield attributes were: germination rate (%), number of leaves per
plant, days to 50% flowering, plant height (cm), yield (kg/m2) and
(number of fruits/m2), fruit length (cm), fruit diameter (cm) and leaves
dry matter (%).

ii
 The results of the study showed significant differences (P ≤ 0.05)
in the germination rate (87.9%), number of leaves per plant (74.4), days
to 50% flowering (33), plant height (380.3 cm), yield (6.1 kg/m2) and
average fruit diameter (3.0 cm) when magnetized water was used as
compared to non-magnetized water, which gave (77.2%) germination
rate, (60.3) leaves per plant, (35.2) days to 50% flowering, (337.9 cm)
plant height, (4.0 kg/m2) yield and (2.9 cm) average fruit diameter.

On the other hand, there were significant differences (P ≤ 0.05)

in days to 50% flowering (33.3 days), yield (5.5 kg/ m2), yield (34.8
number of fruits/m2), average fruit diameter (3.0 cm), average fruit length
(15.2 cm) and germination rate (84.5 %) when magnetized seeds were
used as compared to non-magnetized seeds, which gave (80.6%)
germination rate, (34.8) days to 50% flowering, (4.7 kg /m2 ) and (28.9
number of fruits/m2) yield, (2.8 cm) average fruits diameter and (14.2
cm) average fruit length.

There was a significant difference (P ≤ 0.05) in the germination

rate (91.5 %) due to the interaction of magnetized water and magnetized
seeds as compared to the interaction of non-magnetized water and non-
magnetized seeds, which gave (80.6%) germination rate.

Hence, it was concluded that magnetizing irrigation water would

increase crop production and productivity, and further improvement
could be attained by magnetizing the seeds.

iii





! " #   
 .      
  

.) '.( -. /   -   *+,  $% &! '( )  
.0 1

. &+.
($.4) &
  #4 # + $ ) 5  $532
.2005 :; 9 8,

'4 >  .     

 5  <  $)= 
.(Cucumis sativus L.)
 ( 
 ?,%

:    $ $+!

.   +   (3

.  ;  +   (

.   +  ;  (0

.  ;  +  ;  (

$ .4 &,. 0   C?,

.$ B+ $# $+! < 
&. E.=(H %50   G  E$ ) F%  E(%) $1 &! :
() ' J E()' & E(2 / ) (2 /5#) 5 % E() $
.(%) F% ) )5 '

$.1 &.! M.) (P ≤ 0.05) ! 
J) K= <  /?  $L3
&. E(. 33) =(H %50   G  E(76.4) $ FG  E(% 87.9)

  ( 3.0) ' J   (2 /5# 6.1) 5 1 E( 380.3) $
(60.3) E$. &! (%77.2) $ M   ;  -  

iv
(. 2.9) .5  (2 /5# 4.0) E=(H %50   G  (35.2) EF 
.' J  

E(% 84.5) $.1 &.! M.) (P ≤ 0.05) ! 
J) K= 

N 5 <
(2. /. . 34.8) (2 /5# 5.5) E( 33.3) =(H %50   G 

. . ( 3.0) ' J   ( 15.2) ' &   E 5 1
E$. &.! (%80.6) $. M   ;   .  
E 5  (2 /  28.9) (2 /5# 4.7) E=(H %50   G  (34.8)
.' J   ( 2.8) ' &   ( 14.2)

.  &8  $1 &! M) (P ≤ 0.05) 
! 
J) K= < #
 >  ;  &8 >  (%91.5) 3 O   >
.(%76.8) $ &! $ M   ;

O. 5 1 0 1 '(  OP O   <   $,

.  K# < 

v
 CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION

Irrigation is the artificial application of water for the purpose of

crop production. In many areas of the world the amount and timing of
rainfall are not adequate to meet the moisture requirements of crops and
irrigation is essential to raise necessary crops to meet the human needs
for food and fiber.
The drip system is one of the irrigation methods, which is defined
as the frequent, slow application of water either directly onto the land
surface or into the root zone of the crop to maintain the water content of
the root zone at near optimum levels. Also, irrigation by this method
limits evaporation loss of water.
The growing scarcity and miss use of the available water resources
particularly in arid and semi arid regions constitute challenges to water
demands for various utilities.
Various means and ways were devised with a view to conserving,
developing and properly managing water resources to satisfy essential
requirements such as reuse of waste water, rainfall augmentation, berg
ice utilization and dew point and fog harvesting.
One possible approach to conserve the scarce resources may be
through improving performance of the existing irrigation systems using
magnetized water. Magnetization causes physical and chemical changes

1
of natural water parameters, resulting in an increase of the dissolving
properties of water. These changes result in an increased ability of the
soil to get rid of salts and a better assimilation of nutrients and fertilizer
in plants during the growing cycle. Watering plants with magnetized
water dissolves more nutrients because it lowers the surface tension of
water. This lets more minerals be suspended in solution. This improves
the pH and causes more minerals and nutrient to pass through the cell
walls of roots. Magnetized water penetrates the soil faster and deeper,
allowing roots to penetrate and grow larger. Magnetized water dissolves
more nutrients into root zone to become available to stimulate plant
growth. These may be the reasons why growth rates are increased. Crop
yields are big in a shorter period of time, and with much less water and
fertilizer and pesticides needs. This is the reason why magnetic water be
used for irrigation. This results in an increased crop production and good
quality of agricultural products coupled by savings in labour and money.
This is also much better for the environment in many ways both for land
and water and human health.
This study was conducted with a view to evaluating the effect of
magnetizing irrigation water and seeds on the production of cucumber
(Cucumis sativus L.) under cooled plastic tunnels.

2
 CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Magnets and magnetism

Magnetic fields are produced by the motion of charged particles,
for example, electrons flowing in a wire will produce a magnetic field
surrounding the wire. The magnetic fields generated by moving electrons
are used in many household appliances, automobile, and industrial
machines. One basic example is the electromagnet, which is constructed
from many coils of wire wrapped around a central iron core. The
magnetic field is present only when electric current is passed through the
wire coils.
Permanent magnets do not use an applied electrical current.
Instead, the magnetic field of a permanent magnet results from the
mutual alignment of the very small magnetic fields produced by each of
the atoms in the magnet. These atomic – level magnetic field result
mostly from the spin and orbital movements of electrons. While many
substances undergo alignment of the atomic – level fields in response to
an applied magnetic field, only ferromagnetic materials retain the atomic
– level alignment when the applied field is removed. Thus, all permanent
magnets are composed of ferromagnetic materials. The most commonly
used ferromagnetic elements are iron, cobalt and nickel.

3
 The strength of a magnet is given by its magnetic flux density,
which is measured in units of gauss. Typical household refrigerator
magnets have field strength of about 1,000 gauss. According to the
distribution, the magnets sold for water and fuel treatment have magnetic
flux densities in the 2,000 to 4,000 gauss range, which is usually strong.
Permanent magnets with flux densities in the 8,000 gauss range are
readily available. The magnets sold for magnetic fuel and water treatment
are not special; they are just ordinary magnets (Busch et al., 1997).

2.2 Claimed benefits and effects

The claimed benefits of magnetic water treatment vary depending
on the manufacturer. Some claim only that magnetic treatment will
prevent and eliminate lime scale in pipe and heating elements, others
make additional, more extravagant claim. Some of the additional claims
include water softening, improved plant growth and the prevention of
some diseases in people who consume magnetically treated water.
Magnetic treatment devices consist of one or more magnets, which are
clamped onto or installed inside the incoming residential water supply
line.

2.3 Water hardness

The phrase hard water originated when it was observed that water
from some sources requires more laundry soap to produce suds than

4
water from other sources. Waters that required more soap were
considered “harder” to use for laundering.
Water “hardness” is a measure of dissolved mineral content. As
water seeps through soil and aquifers, it contacts minerals such as
limestone and dolomite. Under the right conditions, small amounts of
these minerals will dissolve in the ground water and the water will
become “hard”. Water hardness is quantified by the concentration of
dissolved hardness minerals (Mike, 1998). The most common hardness
minerals are carbonates and sulfates of magnesium and calcium. Water
with a total hardness mineral concentration of less than about 17 part per
million (ppm) is categorized as “soft” by the water Quality Association
(Harrison, 1993). “Moderately hard” water has a concentration of 60 to
120 ppm and “very hard” water exceeds 180 ppm.
Hard water is often undesirable because the dissolved minerals can
form scale. Scale is simply the solid phase of the dissolved minerals,
some hardness minerals become soluble in water as temperature is
increased. These minerals tend to form deposits on the surfaces of water
heating elements, bathtubs and inside hot water pipes. Scale deposits can
shorten the useful life of appliances such as dish washers. Hard water
also increases soap consumption and the amount of “soap scum” formed
on dishes (Busch et al., 1997).
Many homeowners and businesses use water softeners to avoid the
problems that result from hard water. Most water softeners remove

5
problematic dissolved magnesium and calcium by passing water through
abed “ion exchange” beads. The beads are initially contacted with
a concentrated salt (sodium chloride) solution to saturate the bead
exchange sites with sodium ions. These ion exchange sites have a greater
affinity for calcium and magnesium, ions are captured and sodium is
released. The end result is sodium ions. Sodium salts do not readily form
scale or soap scum, so the problems associated with hard water are
avoided (Mike, 1998).
A 1960 survey of municipal water supplies in one hundred U.S.
cities revealed that water hardness ranged from 0 to 738 ppm with a
medium of 90 ppm. Ion – exchange water softeners are capable of
reducing the hardness of the incoming water supply to between 0 and 2
ppm, which is well below the levels where scale soap precipitation are
significant.
One of the principal draw backs of ions, exchange water softeners
is the need to periodically recharge the ion exchange beads with sodium
ions. Rock salt is added to a reservoir in the softener for this purpose
(Liburkin et al., 1986).

2.4 Some results of applying magnetized water for soil desalination

It stands to reason that soil desalination is a crucial problem
nowadays. It is note worthy that the possibility of using magnetized

6
water to desalinate the soil accounts for its enhanced dissolving capacity,
which has been registered repeatedly.
Soviet scientists staged myriad trials on the soil of experimental
drainages grounds. They came to establish that the density of magnetize
water which had penetrated the soil layer was 0.19 g/cm more than of
non magnetized water. It was noted that filtration rate had been doubled,
in the case with magnetized water every 100 g of soil had salts removed
by 10 g more. Once 95% water solution of technical green vitriol was
exposed to magnetic treatment it yielded ameliorants, which brought out
of the soil by 20 g of salts more per every 100 g opposed to regular
water. Thereafter, these findings were incorporated repeatedly both on
testing grounds and industrial premises in the world (Tkatchenko, 1997).
The tests were implemented on a soil that contained the chemical
characteristics shown in the Table 2.1.

Table 2.1 Soil chemical characteristics

Element Content Element Content

CO3 0.019 Ca 0.082

CHO3 0.066 Mg 0.006
Cl 0.572 Na+K 1.072
SO4 1.663

7
 It was found that with optimized mode of magnetic treatment the
magnetized water would wash salts out as much as 5 times more
efficiently than the usual water (Tkatchenko, 1997).

2.5 Agricultural applications

Numerous sites promote magnet – based technologies for
improving crop production, many based on the easily – disproved fiction
that magnets can reduce tension of water and that creating greater
solubility and penetration, which stimulates root systems. Overtime, soil
compacts, which restricts the root growth. Crop Booster – treated water
de-clods and breaks up the compressed soil, giving the roots freedom to
grow and absorb nutrients more quickly.
Davies (1950) received a patent for magnetically treating seeds to
stimulate plant growth. Use of magnets in agriculture is not new and the
leading role in this respect goes to the country of Israel. The magnetizer
monopole agricultural systems have had explosive result (e.g. cucumbers
growth by 20%) in the Israel greenhouses, currently shipping magnets to
Israel, where their acceptance is growing by the month and due to water
being ascarce resource and the magnetizer serving well the kibbutz’s and
other agricultural establishments in the Holy land we expect this country
to become shortly one of the most “magnetized” regions of the world.
The tests done in Colombia on yield of cauliflowers irrigated with
magnetized water showed over 20% increase in weight (important

8
growth of the green parts to better protect white meat against the sun).
Past tests on irrigated installation on alfalfa fields in Oregon have
resulted in 42% reduction of water needs and electric costs to the pump.
Studied on magnetic treatment of squash, tomatoes and cucumber seeds
produce a 96% germination rate in only 3 days, whereas the untreated
seeds had the normal germination rate of 73% in 14 days (Davies, 1950).
The use of the magnetized water in farms in Europe results in
better hen laying, better metabolism of animals, descaling of milk stone
in dairies, …etc. The lowered surface tension creates greater water
solubility and penetration. This effect in breaking-up clods of soil
surrounding and restricting the root cilia. The declodding frees the cilia
for greater surface area to absorb more water and minerals, hence an
increase in root and plant growth. Also, minerals now pass easier through
the water into roots. Third and equally important are the electromotive
forces that are transferred from the water to the plant. These forces, as
shown in thousands of experiments and life applications, specially
stimulate growth activity.

2.5.1 The benefits of the magnetizer use in agriculture

1. Increased root growth, due to increased absorption of the dissolved
minerals and nutrients means high yields and higher profits.
2. Soil holds moisture longer, encouraging overall growth and saving
water costs.

9
3. Water conservation equals less man hours, maintenance and less
energy required to pump and irrigate.
4. Increased fertilizer efficiency, cuts fertilizer costs, also the fertilizer
is more readily absorbed by the plant and is not wasted in runoff
water.
5. The descaling of piping and clogged water jets improves efficiency,
saves maintenance time, extends the life of the irrigation system and
saves money.
6. Ease of installation and life time warranty – saving money and
bringing better yields (McBBr 8’97).

2.6 Magnetic water treatment

A wide variety of magnetic water treatment devices are available,
and most consist of one or more permanent magnets affixed either inside
or to the exterior surface of the incoming water. The water is exposed to
the magnetic field as it flows through the pipe between the magnets.
An alternative approach is to use electrical current flowing through coils
of wire wrapped around the water pipe to generate the magnetic field
(Mike, 1998).
Purveyors of magnetic water treatment devices claim that passing
water to a magnetic field will decrease the water (effective) hardness.
According to some vendors, magnetically softened water is
healthier than water softened by exchange. Ion – exchange softener

10
increases the water sodium concentration, and claimed unhealthy for
people with high blood pressure. There is apparently no consensus
among magnet vendors regarding the mechanisms by which magnetic
water treatment occurs.
Lburkin et al. (1986) found that magnetic treatment affected the
structure of gypsum (calcium sulfate). Gypsum particles formed in
magnetically treated water were found to be larger regularly oriented
than those formed in ordinary water. Similarly, Kronenberg (1985)
reported that magnetic treatment changed the mode of calcium carbonate
precipitation such that circular disc-shaped particles are formed rather
than the dendretic (branching or tree – like) particles observed in non
treated water.
Others (e.g. Chechel and Annekova, 1972; Martynova et al., 1967)
also have found that magnetic treatment affects the structure of
subsequently precipitated solids. Because scale formation involves
precipitation and crystallization, these studies imply that magnetic water
treatments is likely to have an effect on the formation of scale.
Some researchers hypothesize that magnetic treatment affects the
nature of hydrogen bonds between water molecules. They report changes
in water properties such as light absorbance, surface tension, and pH (e.g.
Joshi and Kamat 1966; Bruns et al., 1966; Klassen, 1981). However,
these effects have not always been found by later investigators
(Mirumyants et al., 1972). Duffy (1977) provides experimental evidence

11
that scale that scale suppression in magnetic water treatment devices is
due to not to magnetic effects on the fluid, but to the dissolution amount
of iron.
Iron ions can suppress the rate of scale formation and encourage
the growth of a softer scale deposit. Busch et al. (1986) measured the
voltages produced by fluids flowing through a commercial magnetic
treatment device. Their data support the hypothesis that a chemical
reaction driven by the induced electrical current may be responsible for
generating the ions shown by Duffy (1977) to affect scale formation.
Among those who report some type of direct magnetic water treatment
effect, a consensus seems to be emerging that the effect results from the
interaction of the applied magnetic field with surface charges of
suspended particles.
Whether or not some magnetic water treatment effect actually
exists, the further question, and the most important for consumers, is
whether the magnetic water treatment devices perform as advertised
numerous accounts of the successes and failures of magnetic water
treatment devices can be found in the literature (Lin and Yotvat, 1989;
Raisen, 1984; Wilkes and Baum, 1979; Welder and Partridge, 1954).
However, because of the varied conditions under which these field trials
are conducted it is unclear whether the positive reports are due to
magnetic treatment or to other conditions that were not controlled during
the trial. Some commercial devi as have been subjected to test under
controlled conditions. Unfortunately, the results are mixed. Duffy (1977)
tested a commercial device with an internal magnet and found that it had

12
no significant effect on the precipitation of calcium carbonate scale in
a heat exchanger.
According to Lipus et al. (1994), however, the scale prevention
capability to their ELMAG device is proven, although they do not supply
much supporting data. Busch et al. (1997) measured the scale formed
by the distillation of hard water with and without magnetic treatment;
using laboratory – prepared hard water a 22 percent reduction in
scale formation was observed when the magnetic treatment device was
used instead of a straight pipe section. However, a 17 percent reduction
in scaling was found when non-magnetized otherwise, identical, device
was installed, Busch et al. (1997) speculated that fluid turbulence inside
the device may be the cause of the 17 percent reduction, with the
magnetic effect responsible for the additional 5 percent. River water was
subjected to similar tests, but no difference in scale formation was found
with and without the magnetic treatment with a commercial magnetic
water treatment device was conducted by Hasson and Baramson (1985).
Under the technical supervision of the device supplier, they tested the
device to determine its ability to prevent the accumulation of calcium
carbonate scale in a pipe. Very hard water (300 to 340 ppm) was pumped
through a cast – iron pipe, and the rate of scale accumulation inside the
pipe was determined by periodically inspecting the pipe interior.
Magnetic exposure was found to have no effect on either the rate of scale
accumulation or the adhesive nature of the scale deposits.
The general principle operation for magnetic field technology is
a result of the physics of interaction between a magnetic field and
associated with each of poles varies, depending on the fluid flow gap.

13
Because there are no moving parts, the magnetic unit is low maintenance
and does not use energy to produce the treatment. The manufactured
units have a capacity ranges from 19 pH up to 50,000 g pH of water
conditioning. The natural gas application ranges from 0.25 inch up to
20 inch diameter pipe.
Proper installation of the unit is critical. Parameters of interest to
the manufacturer include fluid flow rate, proximity to electromagnetic
fields, and in the case of water applications, water quality parameters
such as hardness, iron, silica, and alkalinity.

2.7 Magnetized seeds

The potential energy of self – preservation in seeds differs at
different stages of development. During the harvest collection, seeds also
contain different energy levels and not all planted seeds will grow. That
is the reason for an increase of the sowing normal, which is taken to the
maximum amount of grown seeds for a hectare.
Therefore, it results in the excess of costly seed material being
used. Magnetic treatment of seeds before sowing not only allows
spending 30-50% less on the sowing material but also provides earlier
ripening of the harvest. Seeds, which were treated using magnetic field,
grow faster (Kronenberg, 1985).
Also, the property of magnetic field to activate the process of seeds
protein formation to be provided for the growth of roots and activate
processes in weak seeds. As the experiments have shown, it is important
to note that the vital element while magnetizing seeds is to choose the

14
right lunar phase, and to magnetize seeds affected by fungal diseases
during the first half of the day.
For example it is better to magnetize wheat seeds during the new
moon, cucumber – during the last quarter of the lunar phase, tomato in
full moon; carrot – in the first quarter of the lunar phase, in addition
magnetization of seeds can be done 5 months before sowing as on the
same day.
Application of the above mentioned technology in Russia,
Ukraine, Byelorussia, Uzbekistan, UAE, Malaysia, Indonesia and Egypt,
with considerable decrease in the ripening time and an increase in the
quality of vegetable, fruits and cereals, allowed for an increase of harvest
by 12-36% and in some cases up to 100% and more (Tktchenko, 1997).
Seeds prepared for the treatment before sowing must be from one
group with controlled seeds. Identical by lineage, reproduction conditions
of sorting. Seeds from different layers should be thoroughly mixed and
humidity should not be more than 14%, multiplicity of the treatment is
not important.
The physiological method of definition of magnetized seed,
productivity is in measuring the length of the embryonic root. It was
experimentally proved that plants with good rate of growth of the
embryonic root during transition from heterotrophic to autotrophic type
of nourishment are more productive and create more developed root
system.

15
 Magnetic treatment of seeds can be applied at both methods of
sowing:
1. Sowing with soaked seeds.
2. Sowing with un-soaked seeds.
1- The seeds were magnetized by pouring water on them through
a magnetic funnel. They were left for about 3 minutes. Then they
were poured again through the magnetic funnel where they become
ready for immediate or late sowing as recommended by Mike (1998).
2- This method of magnetic treatment of seeds is used for sowing on
large industrial areas (grain, wheat, maize, barely, millet, buck wheat,
etc…).
When seeds soaking is difficult due to large quantities, it is enough
to pass seeds through magnetic funnel. The result of both methods will
be much better if after magnetic treatment of seeds; magnetic water is
used for irrigation (Mike, 1998).
In 1980-1984, collective farms of Leningrad region saw
experiment on pre-sowing magnetization of potato tubers on a total area
of more than 3000 hectares. An average increase of the yield made up
4.18 tons per hectare or 23.8% and in some cases, 35%.
Agro-industrial tests on pre – sowing seed magnetization of
carrots, radish, cabbage, Swede, cotton, sugar beets and other crops were
carried out in 1980-1984. The relevant analysis showed a 30% harvest
growth with significant reduction of vegetative period and quality
improvement (Tkatchenke, 1997).

16
 Experts from Azerbaijani Scientific Research Institute of water
machinery and land improvement irrigated plots of land by magnetized
sea water (salt content 15mg/1). The level of tomato productivity and
sorghum increased by 44.6% and 19.45%, respectively. Fresh
magnetized water applied for irrigation did not produce impressive
effects although they were quite visible. Yield supplement of tomatoes
and sorghum constituted 11.4% and 10.4%, respectively.
Experimental station of oil crops at Soviet Union held tests on pre-
sowing treatment of sunflower seeds in a magnetic system in 1985. The
additional harvest ran up to 430 kg hectare. Field research on irrigation of
tomatoes by magnetized water was run at Novocherkask mechanical
engineering institute in 1984. Magnetic systems were mounted on
sprinklers. The tomato yield swelled by 570 kg per hectare. Likewise, the
number of green and ripe fruits per one bush built up by 2 and 31 pieces,
respectively (Tkatchenko, 1997).

2.8 Cucumbers (Cucumis sativus)

Cucumber the English name, under Cucurbitaceae family
commonly the centre of origin and distribution probably northern India,
introduced to the Mediterranean at an early date and known in China by
the second century. Now wide spread throughout the world.
Cucumbers are well adapted to warm climates but will grow well
at lower temperatures than melons. The optimum range of day – night
temperatures is 21-28°C. Water requirement is high but a very high
humidity encourages the development of leaf diseases and may affect

17
flower production. Soils should be well drained, with a high level of
organic content. A high light intensity tends to increase the number of
staminate flowers produced; lower light levels result in the production of
more pistilate flowers, seeds germinate well at 27°C. This required at
frequent intervals and a high level of soil moisture should be maintained
throughout the growing period. NPK should be applied before sowing or
planting, followed by applications of liquid manure every 14-21 days
until fruits form. Potassium should be available throughout the growth
period; the developing fruits and seeds particular have a high nitrogen
requirement. Fruits may be harvested 40-80 days from sowing or
planting, when 15-20 cm in length. The yield is approximately 5-7 t/ha.
Mature fruits should be firm, green and of the size typical of the cultivar.
For storage, temperatures should be above 10°C, otherwise chilling
injury may occur; at temperatures in excess of 16°C however, fruits
rapidly become yellow. The maximum storage period is approximately
14 days (Tindall, 1983).

18
 CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Experimental site and layout

The experiment was conducted in the cooled plastic tunnels of the
Date Palm Technology Co. (DATECHO) at Shambat.
The study was carried out during 2005 summer reason. The
experimental period extended over June-August. A cooled plastic tunnel
with 223 m2 was planted with cucumber divided into six drip irrigation
lines, three lines were irrigated with magnetized water and the rest of the
lines were irrigated with non-magnetized water.
The magnetic device depicted in Plate 3.1 was attached at the
beginning of the line to magnetize the water that passes through it to the
plants. Each line was divided into two equal parts, one part planted with
magnetized seeds and the other with non-magnetized seeds.
Four treatments were arranged in a split plot design Fig 3.1, and
replicated three times. The treatments were as follows:
1- Magnetized water and magnetized seeds (MWMS).
2- Magnetized water and non-magnetized seeds (MWNMS).
3- Non-magnetized water and magnetized seeds (NMWMS).
4- Non-magnetized water and non-magnetized seeds (NMWNMS).

3.2 Seeds treatment

The seeds were magnetized by passing them through a magnetic
funnel, which consisted of magnetic plates fixed inside it (Plate 3.2).

19
Plate 3.1 Water magnetizing device (Modifier)

20
 N
↑

MWMS NMWMS MWMS NMWMS MWMS NMWMS

MWNMS NMWNMS MWNMS NMWNMS MWNMS NMWNMS

Fig 3.1 Plan of split plot design

Where:
MW = magnetized water, NMW = non-magnetized water
MS = magnetized seeds, NMS = non-magnetized seeds

21
 Magnetizing device

Funnel

Plate 3.2 Seeds magnetizing device

with funnel attachment

22
3.3 Cooled plastic tunnel
Made of reinforced plastic sheets, installed over a frame of
galvanized steel pipes. One door was attached on the front side and a
cooling system containing two exhaust fans and cooling pads (Plate 3.3).

3.4 Irrigation system description

Fig 3.2 shows the drip irrigation system which consists of the
following components:
Pump unit, control unit, main line, sub-main lines, lateral line and
the emitters or drippers.

3.4.1 Pump unit

The pressure to force water through the different components of
the system. An electric motor was used to draw irrigation water by
centrifugal pump from the main domestic supply system.

3.4.2 Control unit

Two valves were fixed, one directly after the pump unit and the
other after it to control discharge and pressure in the entire system. Water
flow to the individual laterals is controlled by valves.

3.4.3 Main, submain and lateral lines

These supply water from the control head into the field. These are
made of polyethylene (PE) .

23
Plate 3.3 Plastic tunnels from inside showing the
pads, the fans and the drip irrigation laterals

24
Fig 3.2 Drip irrigation system

25
3.4.4 Emitters
These devices are used to control water flow from the lateral lines
into the soil. They are pressure compensating (Turbo-key) type (Plate
3.4). These emitters have high resistance to clogging they give different
amounts of flow at different levels of pressure.

3.5 Data collection

The plant growth parameters measured are as follows:

3.5.1 Germination rate

Calculated by dividing the number of germinated seeds over the
total number of seeds as a percentage.

Germination rate (%) = number of germinating seeds × 100

number of seeds

3.5.2 Number of leaves per plant

Three plants were taken at random from each treatment so as to
count the number of leaves per plant, and the mean number of leaves of
the three plants was recorded.

3.5.3 Plant height (cm)

Plant height was measured by a meter from the base of the stem to
the youngest leaf, three plants were taken at random from each treatment,
and the mean height of the three plants was recorded.

26
Plate 3.4 A pressure compensating Turbo-key
type of emitters

27
3.5.4 Days to 50% flowering
The number of days when 50% of plants in each treatment reached
flowering was recorded.

3.5.5 Fruit length (cm)

Fruits length for each treatment was measured by a ruler and then
the mean fruit length was recorded.

3.5.6 Fruit diameter (cm)

Fruits diameter for each treatment was measured by a vernire
caliber and then the mean fruits diameter was recorded.

3.5.7 Yield (number of fruits/m2)

An area of one meter square was randomly taken form each
treatment, and the number of fruits were recorded.

3.5.8 Yield (kg/m2)

A sensitive balance was used to record the total weight of the fruits
in randomly selected square meter.

3.5.9 Leaves dry matter percentage

A sample of leaves was taken from each treatment and the fresh
weight was determined. The leaves were then placed in the oven at 70°C
to dry and the dry weight was then determined. The dry matter
percentage was calculated using the following formula:
Dry matter % = dry weight ×100
fresh weight
3.6 Physical and chemical analyses
Physical and chemical analyses were carried out for the water
before and after magnetization.

28
 CHAPTER FOUR
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The experimental results are presented in Figures 4.1 to 4.8 and

Appendices A and B and are briefed in the following:

4.1 Number of leaves per plant

An average value of the number of leaves per plant was recorded
for magnetized water 76.4 leaves/plant, while for non-magnetized water
it was 60.3 leaves/plant (Appendix A).
Appendix (A) also shows that, the average value of number of
leaves per plant for magnetized seeds was 70.4 leaves/plant, while for a
non-magnetized seeds it was 66.3 leaves/plant.
From the statistical analysis, there was a significant difference in
the number of leaves per plant when magnetized water was used and this
agrees with Elhassan (2004).
The value of magnetized seeds irrigated by magnetized water
gave a higher value of 77.2 leaves/plant, compared to non-magnetized
seeds irrigated by magnetized water 75.7 leaves/plant (Fig 4.1 and
Appendix B).
From Fig 4.1 and Appendix B it can also be observed that,
magnetized seeds irrigated by non-magnetized water gave 63.7

29
leaves/plant. The non-magnetized seeds irrigated by non-magnetized
water gave a lower value of 57.0 leaves/plant (Fig 4.1 and Appendix B).

4.2 Days to 50% flowering

The data given in Appendix A show an average value of 33 days
for magnetized water, while for non-magnetized water it was 35.2 days.
The data of Appendix A also show an average value of 33.3 days
for magnetized seeds, while for non-magnetized seeds it was 34.3 days.
Statistical analysis shows that, there was a significant difference
for magnetized water and seeds.
With reference to Appendix A and Fig 4.2, it was found that, the
interaction of magnetized water and magnetized seeds gave a lower value
of 32.3 days, while for interaction of magnetized water and a non-
magnetized seeds it was 33.7 days.
Also, it was found that, the interaction of non-magnetized water
and magnetized seeds gave 34.3 days, while the interaction of a non-
magnetized water and non-magnetized seeds gave a higher value of
36 days (Fig 4.2 and Appendix B).

30
 80.00

Number of leaves/plant
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
M.W. NMW
Treatments

M.S. NMS

Fig. 4.1. Number of leaves/plant

36.00

35.00

34.00
Days

33.00

32.00

31.00

30.00
M.W. NMW
Treatments

M.S. NMS

Fig. 4.2. Days to 50% flowering

31
4.3 Plant height (cm)
The data given in Appendix A reflect that, the average value of
380.3 cm for plant height was given by magnetized water, while for non-
magnetized water it was 337.9 cm.
Also, the results showed that, the average value of plant height for
magnetized seeds was 367.4 cm, while for non-magnetized seeds it was
350.8 cm (Appendix A).
From the statistical analysis, it was found that, there was a
significant difference in plant height for magnetized water.
The results showed that, the magnetized seeds irrigated by
magnetized water gave a higher value of plant height of 384.3 cm,
whereas the non-magnetized water gave plant height of 376.2 cm. Also,
the non-magnetized seeds irrigated by magnetized water gave plant
height of 350.4 cm, when irrigated by non-magnetized water gave
a lower value of plant height of 325.3 cm (Fig 4.3 and Appendix B).

4.4 Yield (kg/m2)

The results showed that, the average yield for plants irrigated by
magnetized water was 6.1 kg/m2, while the average yield for plants
irrigated by non-magnetized water it was 4.0 kg/m2 (Appendix A).
The results illustrated that, the average yield for magnetized seeds
was 5.5 kg/m2, while the average yield for non-magnetized seeds it was
4.7 kg/m2.

32
 From the statistical analysis, there was a significant difference in
yield (kg/m2) when magnetized water was used. This result agrees with
results obtained by Elhassan (2004).
Also, the statistical analysis showed that, there was a significant
difference in yield (kg/m2) when magnetized seeds were used.
The magnetized seeds when irrigated by magnetized water gave
a higher yield of 6.7 kg/m2, while the non-magnetized seeds irrigated by
magnetized water gave 5.6 kg/m2. Also, the magnetized seeds irrigated
by non-magnetized water gave 4.3 kg/m2, while the non-magnetized
seeds irrigated by non-magnetized water gave a lower yield of 3.7 kg/m2
(Fig 4.4 and Appendix B).

4.5 Yield (number of fruits/m2)

From Appendix A it can be observed that, the average yield when
magnetized water was used was 37.4 number of fruits/m2, while the
average yield for non-magnetized water it was 31.3 number of fruits /m2.
Referring to Appendix A, it was found that, the average yield
when magnetized seeds were used was 39.8 number of fruits/m2, while
the average yields when non-magnetized seeds were used it was 28.9
number of fruits/m2.
The statistical analysis reflects a significant difference in yield
(number of fruits/m2) for magnetized seeds.
The interaction of magnetized water and magnetized seeds gave
a higher yield of 42.7 number of fruits/m2. The interaction of magnetized
water and non-magnetized seeds gave 32.2 number of fruits/m2 (Fig 4.5
and Appendix B).

33
 390.00
380.00
370.00

Plant height (cm)

360.00
350.00
340.00
330.00
320.00
310.00
300.00
290.00
M.W. NMW
Treatments

M.S. NMS

Fig. 4.3. Plant height (cm)

7.00

6.00
Yield (kg/m2)

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
M.W. NMW
Treatments

M.S. NMS

Fig. 4.4. Yield (kg/m2)

34
 Also, Fig 4.5 and Appendix (B) show that, the interaction of non-
magnetized water and magnetized seeds gave 36.8 number of fruits/m2,
and the interaction of non-magnetized water and non-magnetized seeds
gave a lower yield of 25.7 number of fruits/m2.

4.6 Fruit length (cm)

The results showed that, the average fruit length for magnetized
water was 14.9 cm, while for non-magnetized water it was 14.5 cm
(Appendix A).
The results also show that, the average fruit length for magnetized
seeds was 15.2 cm, while for non-magnetized seeds it was 14.2 cm
(Appendix A).
There was a significant difference in fruit length (cm) when
magnetized seeds were used.
The magnetized seeds irrigated by magnetized water gave a higher
value of 15.3 cm, while for the non-magnetized seeds when irrigated by
magnetized water it was 14.5 cm. Also, magnetized seeds when irrigated
by non-magnetized water gave 15.1 cm, while the non-magnetized seeds
irrigated by non-magnetized water gave a lower value of 13.9 cm (Fig
4.6 and Appendix B).

35
 50.00
40.00

of fruits/m 2)
Yield (No. 30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
M.W. NMW
Treatments
M.S. NMS

2
Fig. 4.5. Yield (No. of fruits/m )

15.50

15.00

14.50
cm

14.00

13.50

13.00
M.W. NMW
Treatments

M.S. NMS

Fig. 4.6. Average fruit length (cm)

36
4.7 Fruit diameter (cm)
The data given in Appendix A reflect that, the average value of
fruit diameter for magnetized water was 3.0 cm, while for non-
magnetized water it was 2.9 cm.
The results show that, the average value of fruit diameter
for magnetized seeds was 3.0 cm, while for non-magnetized seeds it was
2.8 cm.
The results of statistical analysis show that, there was a significant
difference in fruit diameter for magnetized water and seeds.
The interaction of magnetized water and magnetized seeds gave
a higher value of 3.1 cm (Plate 4.1), while the interaction of magnetized
water and non-magnetized seeds gave 2.9 cm. Also, the interaction of
non-magnetized water and magnetized seeds gave 2.9 cm, while the
interaction of non-magnetized water and non-magnetized seeds gave
a lower value of 2.8 cm (Fig 4.7 and Appendix B).

4.8 The leaves dry matter percentage

The results illustrate that, the average value of leaves dry matter
ratio for magnetized water was 14.7%, while for non-magnetized water it
was 12.2% (Appendix A).
Also, the results show that, the average value of leaves dry matter
percentage for magnetized seeds was 15.4%, while for non-magnetized
seeds it was 11.5% (Appendix A).

37
 Magnetized
water & seeds

Non-Magnetized

Plate 4.1 Fruit diameter

38
 Fig 4.8 and Appendix B show that, the interaction of magnetized
water and magnetized seeds gave a higher value of 16.0%, while the
interaction of magnetized water and non-magnetized seeds gave 13.4%.
Also, the results show that, the interaction of non-magnetized
water and magnetized seeds gave 14.9%, while the interaction of non-
magnetized water and non-magnetized seeds gave a lower value of 9.6%
(Fig 4.8 and Appendix B).

4.9 Germination rate (%)

As shown in Appendix A the average value of 87.9% germination
rate for magnetized water, while for non-magnetized water it was 77.2%.
The results show that, the average value for magnetized seeds was
84.5% germination rate, while for non-magnetized seeds it was 80.6%
(Appendix A).
There was a significant difference in the germination rate for
magnetized water and seeds.
The interaction gave a significant difference, when magnetized
seeds were irrigated with magnetized water gave 91.5% germination rate,
while non-magnetized seeds irrigated with magnetized water gave 84.3%
(Fig 4.9 and Appendix B)
Also, from Fig 4.9 and Appendix B, it was found that, magnetized
seeds irrigated with magnetized water gave 77.5% germination rate,
while non-magnetized seeds irrigated with non-magnetized water gave
76.8%.

39
 3.10
3.05
Fruit diameter (cm) 3.00
2.95
2.90
2.85
2.80
2.75
2.70
2.65
2.60
M.W. NMW
Treatments

M.S. NMS

Fig. 4.7. Fruit diameter (cm)

16.00

14.00
Leaves dry matter %

12.00
10.00

8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
M.W. NMW
Treatments
M.S. NMS

Fig. 4.8. Leaves dry matter (% )

40
 95.00
Germination rate (%)

90.00

85.00

80.00

75.00

70.00

65.00
M.W. Treatments NMW

M.S. NMS

Fig. 4.9. Germination rate (% )

41
4.10 Physical and chemical analyses
The results of the physical analyses showed that, there were
differences in water physical properties capillarity (cm), dynamic
viscosity (kgm-1S-×10-4), electric susceptibility, specific heat (Jkg-1k-
1
×103), which were higher after magnetizing water (Table 1 Appendix
C).
Also, the chemical analysis show that, there were differences in the
(pH and ammonia NH3), which were raised after magnetizing the water
(Table 2 Appendix C).

42
 HAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From the results of this study the following conclusions and

recommendations can be made:
- Magnetizing irrigation water can lead to an increase in the number
of leaves/plant, plant height, fruit diameter and encourage seed
germination.
- Magnetizing seeds can increase fruit length, encourage seed
germination and eventually lead to better crop productivity
(number of fruits/m2).
- Hence, it can be concluded that, generally magnetizing irrigation
water lead to an improvement in crop production (kg/m2), and
further improvement can be attained by magnetizing the seeds.
- Since the technology of magnetization has been newly introduced
and it proves to have good potentialities in agricultural production
further research studies are highly recommended in this area.

43
 REFERENCES

Bruns, S.A.; V.I. Klassen, and A.K. Konshina, (1966). Change in the
extinction of light by water after treatment in a magnetic field.
Kolloidn. Zh., 28: 153-155.

Busch, K.W.; M.A. Busch; R.E. Darling, S. Maggard, and S.W. Kubala,
(1997). Design of a test loop for the evaluation of magnetic
water treatment devices. Process Safety and Environmental
Protection. Transaction of the Institution of Chemical
Engineers 75 (Part B): 105-114, Russia.

Chechel, P.S. and G.V. Annekova, (1972). Influence of magnetic

treatment on solubility of calcium sulphate. Coke Chem.
USSR, 8: 60-61.

Davies, A.R. (1950). Magnetism in agriculture www.mundi.com/

agrieng3.html-17k

Duffy, E.A. (1977). Investigation of magnetic water treatment devices.

Ph.D. Dissertation, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C, USA.

Elhassan, A.M. (2004). Effect of magnetizing irrigation water and seeds

on the production of okra, M.Sc. Thesis, University of
Khartoum.

44
Harrison, (1993). WGA glossary of terms. Water Quality Association,
www.heall.com/healingnews/may/magentictreatment.html-43k.

Hasson, D. and D. Bramson, (1985). Effectiveness of magnetic water

treatment in suppressing CaCO3 scale adsorption. Ind. Eng.
Chem. Process Des. Dev., 24: 588-592.

Joshi, K.M. and P.V. Kamat, (1966). Effect of magnetic field on the
physical properties of water. J. Ind. Chem. Soc., 43: 620-622.

Klassen, V.I. (1981). Magnetic treatment of water in mineral processing.

In Developments in Mineral Processing, Part B, Mineral
Processing. Elsevier, pp. 1077-1097, N.Y.

Kronenberg, K.J. (1985). Experimental evidence for the effect of

magnetic fields on moving water. IEEE Trans. On Magnetic,
21(5): 2059-2061.

Liburkin, V.G.B.; S. Kondateve, and T.S, Pavlyukova, (1986). Action

magnetic treatment of water on the structure of gypsum. Glass
Ceramics (English Translation of Steklo Ikeramika), 1: 101-
105, Russia.

Lin, I. and Y. Yotvat, (1989). Electro-magnetic treatment of drinking

water on the structure formation of gypsum. Glass and
Ceramics (English Translation of Steklo Ikeramika), 1: 101-
105, Russia.

45
Lipus, L.; J. Krope, and L. Garbai, (1994). Magnetic water treatment for
scale prevention, Hungary J. Ind. Chem., 22: 239-242.

Martynova, O.I.; E.F. Tebenekhin, and B.T, Gusev, (1967). Conditions

and mechanism of deposition of the solid calcium carbonate
phase from aqueous (sic) solutions under the influence of
a magnetic field. Colloid J.USSR, 29: 512-514.

McBBr, J. (1897). The magnetizer and water. www.wholly-water.com/

magnetizerpages.hotm.96k.

Mike, R.P. (1998). Magnetic water and fuel treatment: Myth, Magic or
Mainstream Science. Skeptical Inquirer Magazine.

Mirumyants, S.O.; E.A. Vandyukov, and R.S. Tukhvatullin, (1972). The

effect of constant magnetic field on the infrared absorption
spectrum of liquid water. Russian J. Phys. Chem. 46: 124.

Parsons, S. (1999). Overview of recent magnetic treatment research at

Carnfield University, in MAG3, 3rd Symposiuon Anti-Scale
Magnetic Water and Physical Conditioning, the School of
Water Sciences. Cranfield University, Cranfield Bedford Shire,
UK.

Tindall, H.D. (1983). Vegetables in the tropic English language society,

Macmillan, pp. 159-161.

46
Tkatchenko, Y.P. (1997). Practical magnetic technologies in agriculture,
Dubai, U.A.E.

Welder, B.Q. and E.P. Partridge, (1954). Practical performance of water

conditioning gadgets. Ind. Eng. Chem., 46: 954-960, Russia.

Wilkes, J.F.; and R. Baum, (1979). Water conditioning devices – an

update. Int. Water Conf.: 40th Annual Meeting, Paper No. IWC
– 79-20, Russia.

47
 APPENDICES

Appendix A. Effect of magnetizing irrigation water and seeds

on the cucumber growth parameters

Parameters MW NMW MS NMS

Number of leaves 76.4 60.3 70.4 66.3

Days to 50% flowering 33.0 35.2 33.3 34.8
Plant height (cm) 380.3 337.9 367.4 350.8

Yield (kg/m2) 6.1 4.0 5.5 4.7

Yield (number of fruits/m2) 37.4 31.3 34.8 28.9

Fruit length (cm) 14.9 14.5 15.2 14.2

Fruit diameter (cm) 3.0 2.9 3.0 2.8

Leaves dry matter percentage 14.7 12.2 15.4 11.5

Germination rate (%) 87.9 77.2 84.5 80.6

Where:
MW = magnetized water, NMW = non-magnetized water
MS = magnetized seeds, NMS = non-magnetized seeds

48
Appendix B. The interaction of water and seeds

MW NMW
Parameters
MS NMS MS NMS
Number of leaves 77.2 75.7 63.7 57.0
Days to 50% flowering 32.3 33.7 34.3 36.0

Plant height (cm) 384.3 376.2 350.4 325.3

Yield (kg/m2) 6.7 5.6 4.3 3.7

Yield (number of fruits/m2) 42.7 32.2 36.8 25.7

Fruit length (cm) 15.3 14.5 15.1 13.9

Fruit diameter (cm) 3.1 2.9 2.9 2.8

Leaves dry matter percentage 16.0 13.4 14.9 9.6

Germination rate (%) 91.5 84.3 77.5 76.8

Where:
MW = magnetized water, NMW = non-magnetized water
MS = magnetized seeds, NMS = non-magnetized seeds

49
Appendix C.
Table 1. Physical properties

Viscosity
Capillarity dynamic Electric Specific heat
Properties -1 -1 3
(cm) -1 -
(kgm S ×10 )
-4 Susceptibility (Jkg k ×10 )

Normal water 2.54 7.322 80.90 4.132

Magnetized water 2.70 7.283 82.40 4.120

Table 2. Chemical properties

Properties pH Ammonia (NH3 mg/l)

Normal water 8.0 4.0
Magnetic water 8.1 10.8

50
Appendix D.
Table 1. Number of leaves/plant

S.F df SS MS f-cal t-tab.(.05) t-tab.(.01)

Blocks 2 9.88 4.94 0.31ns 19.00 99.00
Factor A 1 776.02 776.02 49.21* 18.51 98.50
Error (a) 2 31.54 15.77
Factor B 1 50.02 50.02 4.75 ns 7.71 21.20
AB 1 20.02 20.02 1.90 ns 7.71 21.20
Error (b) 4 42.08 10.52
Total 11

Where:
df = degree of freedom
SS = sum of square
MS = mean sum of square
f-cal = f calculated
f-tab = f tabulated
Factor A = water
Factor B = seeds
AB = interaction (water x seeds)
ns = non significant
* = significant

51
Table 2. Days to 50% flowering

S.F df SS MS f-cal t-tab.(.05) t-tab.(.01)

Blocks 2 1.17 0.58 1.00ns 19.00 99.00
Factor A 1 14.08 14.08 24.14* 18.51 98.50
Error (a) 2 1.17 0.58
Factor B 1 6.75 6.75 16.20* 7.71 21.20
AB 1 0.08 0.08 0.20ns 7.71 21.20
Error (b) 4 1.67 0.42
Total 11

52
Table 3. Plant height (cm)

S.F df SS MS f-cal t-tab.(.05) t-tab.(.01)

Blocks 2 527.66 263.83 1.69ns 19.00 99.00
Factor A 1 5389.04 5389.04 34.51* 18.51 98.50
Error (a) 2 312.33 156.17
Factor B 1 821.71 821.71 6.53ns 7.71 21.20
AB 1 214.21 214.21 1.70ns 7.71 21.20
Error (b) 4 503.12 125.78
Total 11

53
Table 4. Yield (kg/m2)

S.F df SS MS f-cal t-tab.(.05) t-tab.(.01)

Blocks 2 3.50 1.75 11.88ns 19.00 99.00
Factor A 1 13.32 13.32 90.45* 18.51 98.50
Error (a) 2 0.29 0.15
Factor B 1 2.02 2.02 10.26* 7.71 21.20
AB 1 0.28 0.28 1.41ns 7.71 21.20
Error (b) 4 0.79 0.20
Total 11

54
Table 5. Yield (number of fruits/m2)

S.F df SS MS f-cal t-tab.(.05) t-tab.(.01)

Blocks 2 67.17 33.58 0.24ns 19.00 99.00
Factor A 1 114.08 114.08 0.80ns 18.51 98.50
Error (a) 2 284.67 142.33
Factor B 1 352.08 352.08 10.72* 7.71 21.20
AB 1 0.33 0.33 0.01ns 7.71 21.20
Error (b) 4 131.33 32.83
Total 11

55
Table 6. Fruit length (cm)

S.F df SS MS f-cal t-tab.(.05) t-tab.(.01)

Blocks 2 2.57 1.28 14.55ns 19.00 99.00
Factor A 1 0.56 0.56 6.34ns 18.51 98.50
Error(a) 2 0.18 0.09
Factor B 1 3.18 3.18 16.97* 7.71 21.20
AB 1 0.16 0.16 0.86ns 7.71 21.20
Error (b) 4 0.75 0.19
Total 11

56
Table 7. Fruit diameter (cm)

S.F df SS MS f-cal t-tab.(.05) t-tab.(.01)

Blocks 2 0.00 0.00 3.74ns 19.00 99.00
Factor A 1 0.05 0.05 67.75* 18.51 98.50
Error (a) 2 0.00 0.00
Factor B 1 0.08 0.08 11.47* 7.71 21.20
AB 1 0.00 0.00 0.02ns 7.71 21.20
Error (b) 4 0.03 0.01
Total 11

57
Table 8. Leaves dry matter percentage (%)

S.F df SS MS f-cal t-tab.(.05) t-tab.(.01)

Blocks 2 34.99 17.49 0.62ns 19.00 99.00
Factor A 1 17.76 17.76 0.63ns 18.51 98.50
Error (a) 2 56.13 28.07
Factor B 1 47.20 47.20 6.73ns 7.71 21.20
AB 1 5.60 5.60 0.80ns 7.71 21.20
Error (b) 4 28.04 7.01
Total 11

58
Table 9. Germination rate (%)

S.F df SS MS f-cal t-tab.(.05) t-tab.(.01)

Blocks 2 6.12 3.06 0.51ns 19.00 99.00
Factor A 1 347.76 347.76 57.66* 18.51 98.50
Error (a) 2 12.06 6.03
Factor B 1 46.41 46.41 11.28* 7.71 21.20
AB 1 32.01 32.01 7.78* 7.71 21.20
Error (b) 4 16.45 4.11
Total 11

59