EVALUATION OF TWO NUTRIENT SOLUTIONS FOR GROWING TOMATOES IN A NON-CIRCULATING HYDROPONICS SYSTEM

A study was conducted to evaluate two prominent nutrient solution recipes of different strengths (½and full) to grow tomatoes in a non-circulating hydroponics system at Peshawar to evaluate this technology for the peoples living in the congested urban centres of the province to grow fresh vegetables/tomatoes without using soil on their cemented floors, courtyards, verandas or rooftops. For this purpose plants of the tomato variety ‘Rio- Grande’ were grown in 13-litre plastic trash bins type containers using (1) Cooper’s 1988 and (2) Imai’s 1987 nutrient solutions on a randomized complete block design(RCBD) in the greenhouse facility of the Institute of Biotechnology and Genetic Engineering (IBGE), KPK Agricultural University, Peshawar Pakistan ,during spring 2006. The tomato crop grown in Cooper’s 1988 recipe (Half (1a) and full strength(1b) solutions respectively) produced flowers significantly earlier (54.78 and 55.45 days of seed sowing), fruits also matured/harvested earlier (98.44 and 96.67 days of seed sowing), plants developed more flower clusters (14.70 and 13.48 plant1), more flowers cluster^-1(10.33 and 8.00), more fruits plant^-1(36.03 and 31.56) the average fruit weight was higher (77.38g and 61.70g), the fruit diameter (4.57cm and 4.27cm), number of leaves plant 1(72.89 and 64.89), and the fruit yield plant-1was also better (2.787kg and 1.935kg)than those grown in 2a and 2b solutions, plants consumed more nutrient solution(89.23 and 44.61 litres plant^1), the cost of nutrient solution chemicals was higher(Rs 145.31 and Rs 51.08 ), but the crop revenues obtained plant^ -1/ container^-1 were also higher(Rs 97.54 and Rs 67.83 ) as compared to those plants grown in the corresponding strengths of the Imai’s 1987 recipe solutions. Similarly, the cost benefit ratio (CBR) values on total cost container1 basis were better (0.96: 1.00 and 0.83:1.00) for ½ strengths solutions grown plants of the Cooper’s 1988 recipe than those obtained in the corresponding strengths of Imai’s 1987 recipe solutions because of the higher cost of chemicals used (Lab grade chemicals).However, CBR values (on solution chemical cost basis) were better for Imai’s 1987 recipe grown plants (1.20: 1.00 and 2.13: 1.00).