This document summarizes research on intercropping sugarcane with other crops. It includes 7 tables that show intercropping sugarcane increased its yield, land equivalent ratio, and economic returns compared to sole sugarcane. Intercropping sugarcane with maize, vegetables, and pulses improved soil fertility. Studies found the highest cane yields and profits with sugarcane intercropped with vegetables like tomato and French beans. Intercropping sugarcane with cabbage or cauliflower also increased cane equivalent yield and net returns over sole sugarcane cultivation.

1. Ashishkumar C. Patel
4rd Sem. Ph.D (SSAC)
Reg. No.: 1010117028

2. Introduction (cash crops and intercropping)
Principles of intercropping
Types of intercropping
Advantage and disadvantage of intercropping
Important requirements for successful
intercropping
Indices for assessing yield advantage in
intercropping
Review of research work
Conclusion
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
2

3. “By the time the country
celebrates its 75th
independence anniversary in
2022, farmers’ income will
have doubled. This is my
dream.”
-Narendra Modi
Prime Minister of India
While addressing farmers
rally at Bareilly
(28-Feb-2016)
Source: TOI, 2016

5. Doubling
Farmers
Income
Improve
crop
productivity
Diversification
to farm &
non- farm
activities
Reduce post-
harvesting
losses
Resource
use
efficiency
Increase in
cropping
intensity
Give the
higher prices
to farmers
How income can be enhanced?

6.  Cash crops are grown for sale direct from the field
without processing.
 Cash crops form strong base over which the Indian
trade and commerce flourish.
 Today cash crops are grown on large scale and major
contributor to the nation’s economy.
 Sugarcane, cotton, potato, groundnut, banana, tobacco,
fibre crops are the major cash crops grown on a large
scale in India.
What is Cash crop?

7. What is Intercropping?
 Growing of two or more crops simultaneously on the
same piece of land (field). There is a crop intensification
in both time and space dimensions.
 The most common goal of intercropping is to produce a
greater yield on a given piece of land by making use of
resources that would otherwise not be utilized by a
single crop.
 Careful planning is required, taking into account the
soil, climate, crops and varieties.

8. Principles of intercropping
 Should have complementary effects rather competitive
effects.
 Should be shorter duration and of faster growing
habits.
 Should have similar agronomic practices.
 Erect growing crops should be intercropped with cover
crops.
 The component crops should have different root depth.
 Select crops as per the characteristics and constraints
of soils.

9. Intercropping is divided into following three
group
Parallel cropping
Companion cropping
Multistoried cropping

10. Cultivation of such crops which have
different natural habit and zero competition.
Ex.- Maize + Greengram or Blackgram.
Parallel
Cropping
Such intercropping where the
production of both intercrops is equal to
that of its solid planting.
Ex.- Sugacane + Musturd/Potato/Onion
Companion
Cropping
Growing plants of different height in
the same field at the same time is termed as
multistoried cropping. It is mostly practiced in
orchards and plantation crops for maximum use
of solar energy even under high planting
density. Ex.- Sugarcane + Potato + Onion
Multistoried
Cropping

11. Types of Inter cropping
Relay intercropping
Strip intercropping
Row intercropping
Mixed intercropping

12. Growing two or more crops
simultaneously during part of the life cycle
of each. A second crop is planted after the
first crop has reached its reproductive
stage but before it is ready for harvest.
Relay
intercropping
Relay intercropping wheat with soybeans
Growing two or more crops
simultaneously in different strips wide
enough to permit independent cultivation
but narrow enough for the crops to
interact agronomically.
Strip
intercropping
Strip intercropping maize with beans

13. Growing two or more crops
simultaneously with no district row
arrangement.
Mixed
intercropping
Mixed intercropping different fodder
Growing two or more crops
simultaneously where one or more crops
are planted in rows.
Row
intercropping
Row intercropping maize with soybeans

14. Based on the percent of plant population,
intercropping system is divided into two type
1. Additive Series:
• Which is mostly adopted in India, one crop is sown with
100% of its recommended population in pure stand, which
is known as the base crops. Another crop known as
intercrop is introduced into the base crop by adjusting or
changing geometry.
• The population of intercrop is less than its recommended
population in pure stand.
1. Additive Series:
2. Replacement series:

15. • LER of additive series is greater than replacement
series.
• Additive series is more efficient than replacement
series in intercropping system.
2. Replacement series:
 Both the crops are called component crops.
 By scarifying certain proportion of population of none
component, another component is introduced.
 This type of intercropping is practiced in western
countries.

16. Advantages of intercropping
 Intercropping gives additional yield income/unit area than
sole cropping.
 It acts as an insurance against failure of crops in abnormal
year.
 Helps to restore soil fertility, if legumes are included as inter
crops
 Reduction in soil runoff and controls weeds.
 Intercrops provide shade and support to the other crop.
 Intercropping with cash crops is higher profitable.
 Utilizes resources efficiently and productivity is increased.

17. Disadvantages of intercropping
 Yield decreases as the crops differ in their competitive
abilities.
 Management of Intercropping is difficult b’coz
different cultural practices.
 Allelopathic effect.
 Improved implements cannot be used efficiently.
 Higher amount of fertilizer or irrigation water cannot
be utilized properly.
 Harvesting is difficult.

18. Important requirements for successful intercropping
 The time of peak nutrient demands of component
crops should not overlap.
 Competition for light should be minimum among the
component crops.
 Complementarily should exist between the
component crops.
 The differences in maturity of component crops
should be at least 30 days.

21. Largest production and area cover after Brazil
Total 18.17% Production in world
Total 19.07% Cover area in world
S.
No
State Production
(Lakh tonnes)
Area
(Lakh ha)
1 Uttar Pradesh 1401.69 21.60
2 Maharashtra 522.62 6.33
3 Karnataka 273.78 3.97
4 Tamil Nadu 189.88 2.18
5 Bihar 130.36 2.40
6 Gujarat 119.5 1.69
7 Haryana 82.23 1.02
8 Other 340.64 5.17
INDIA 3060.70 44.36
Uttar
Pradesh
46%
Maharashtra
17%
Karnataka
9%
Tamil
Nadu
6%
Bihar
4%
Gujarat
4%
Haryana
3%
Other
11%
nd
State Wise Production and Area of Sugarcane
SUGARCANE
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2017
Directorate of Economics & Statistics, DAC&FW, GOI

22. Treatment
Millable
cane
count
(×103/ha)
Cane
equivalent
yield (t/ha)
CCS
( t/ha)
Net
Returns
(₹/ha)
Crop
profitability
(₹/ha/day)
B:C
ratio
T1: Sugarcane sole 133 131.5 13.6 71,145 167 1.32
T2: Sugarcane + Lentil 123 138.0 12.1 69,040 162 1.11
T3: Sugarcane + Mustard 116 128.8 11.6 62,104 146 1.03
T4: Sugarcane + Maize 131 200.6 13.3 1,24,874 294 1.90
T5: Sugarcane + Rajmash 110 133.7 11.8 65,067 153 1.05
T6: Sugarcane + Rapeseed 124 135.0 12.2 67,138 158 1.10
CD (P= 0.05) 14 11.2 1.5 24 -- --
Table 2: Effect of intercropping on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane
CCS= Commercial Cane Sugar
Rana et al. (2006)Pantnagar (Uttarakhand)

23. Treatments
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Brix value
(%)
LER
B :C
Ratio
T1: Sole sugarcane 60.40 19.20 1.00 2.86
T2: Sugarcane + Rajmash 108.00 18.50 2.20 4.07
T3: Sugarcane + Gram 80.50 18.00 1.80 4.17
T4: Sugarcane + Vegetable Pea 115.00 19.50 2.90 5.65
T5: Sugarcane + Mustard 62.00 18.10 2.70 3.44
T6: Sugarcane + Maize 91.93 18.60 2.00 4.10
T7: Sugarcane + Field Pea 77.00 15.00 2.00 4.15
CD (P = 0.05) 2.05 1.07 1.98 1.71
Allahabad (UP) Varghese et al. (2006)
LER = Land Equivalent Ratio
Table 3: Effect of different companion crops on yield, quality, LER and
economic returns of sugarcane

24. Table 6: Effect of intercropping on yield and economics of sugarcane
Treatment
Cane
yield
(t/ha)
Available
N (kg/ha)
Available
P2O5
(kg/ha)
Available
K2O
(kg/ha)
Net
return
(₹/ha)
B:C
Ratio
T1: Sugarcane + Sunnhemp 111.1 325.5 29.9 337.5 60,134 3.02
T2: Sugarcane + Maize 70.8 272.4 13.6 324.2 36,374 2.15
T3: Sugarcane + Cowpea 109.1 318.1 28.0 336.4 58,601 2.96
T4: Sugarcane + Soybean 106.9 312.4 25.0 335.4 68,336 3.21
T5: Sugarcane + Peanut 100.7 300.0 23.4 334.2 57,715 2.79
T6: Sugarcane + Potato 103.9 300.0 24.0 334.2 59,506 2.17
T7: Sugarcane + French
Bean
105.5 309.3 29.9 335.2 61,781 2.89
T8: Sugarcane alone 107.4 271.2 13.5 325.5 58,220 3.10
LSD (p=0.05) 12.3 26.14 8.21 3.82 - -
Belgaum (Karnataka) Khandagave (2010)

25. Treatment
Gross monetary
returns
(₹/ha)
Net monetary
returns
(₹/ha)
B:C ratio
2002-04 2003-05 2002-04 2003-05 2002-04 2003-05
T1: Sole sugarcane 66,050 64,250 36,367 34,567 2.22 2.16
T2: Sugarcane + potato 86,881 83,182 43,307 39,630 1.99 1.90
T3: Sugarcane + wheat 79,969 78,333 44,909 43,348 2.28 2.23
T4: Sugarcane + mustard 67,736 73,833 34,818 40,848 2.05 2.23
T5: Sugarcane + cowpea 71,295 75,750 35,938 40,376 2.01 2.14
CD (P = 0.05) 6394 5557 6394 5563 - -
Parbhani (M.H.) Suryawanshi et al. (2010)
Rates : Sugarcane = Rs. 750/ton, Potato = Rs. 650/q, Mustard = Rs. 1430/q, Wheat = Rs. 828/q, Cowpea = Rs. 1350/q
Table : Effect of intercropping systems on economic returns from
sugarcane system

26. Treatment
Cane
yield
(t/ha)
Intercrop
yield (q/ha)
Cane
equivalent
yield (t/ha)
Total
income
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Sugarcane + tomato 136.42 20.0 13.63 3,30,124 1.85
T2: Sugarcane + onion 137.65 15.04 10.27 3,25,380 1.91
T3: Sugarcane + bhendi 143.27 48.15 26.27 3,72,964 2.22
T4: Sugarcane + cowpea 159.57 9.41 17.13 3,88,684 2.34
T5: Sugarcane + french beans 169.14 13.49 12.23 3,99,068 2.36
T6: Sugarcane + vegetable
soybean
161.67 15.19 24.13 4,08,824 2.38
T7: Sugarcane + groundnut 155.13 10.00 18.20 3,81,286 2.20
T8: Sugarcane pure crop 164.51 - - 3,61,922 2.22
CD (P = 0.05) 7.32 31.05 2.62 - -
Table: Yield and economics of sugarcane as influenced by different
intercropping systems
Mandya (Karnataka) Keshavaiah et al. (2014)

27. Treatment
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Cane
Equivalent
Yield
(t/ha)
LER Net
Returns
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Sole sugarcane 74.31 - 1.00 -3081 0.99
T2: Sugarcane + Green gram 116.39 119.4(3.01) 1.37 1,20,237 1.55
T3: Sugarcane + Black gram 110.42 114.1(3.68) 1.18 1,05,128 1.48
T4: Sugarcane + Soybean 122.82 132.0(9.18) 1.21 1,55,766 1.71
T5: Sugarcane + Cowpea 85.56 90.5(4.94)* 1.18 37,771 1.17
T6: Sugarcane + Sunnhemp 117.3 - 1.39 1,18,660 1.55
CD (P = 0.05) 22.42 - - - -
Coimbatore
* = Values in parentheses are cane equivalent of intercrop yields (t/ha.).
Table 6: Cane Yield, Cane Equivalent Yield, LER and Economics of
sugarcane based inter cropping system
Geetha et al. (2017)

28. Treatments
Cane
yield
(t/ha)
% increase
or decrease
in cane
yield over
sole cane
Cane
equivalen
t yield
(t/ha)
Cost of
cultivation
(₹/ha)
Net
returns
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Autumn sugarcane sole 94.50 - 94.50 1,21,715 1,33,395 1.10
T2: Sugarcane + Cauliflower (2:2) 90.69 (-)4.03 137.10 1,43,623 2,26,547 1.58
T3: Sugarcane + Cabbage (2:2) 91.20 (-)3.49 141.15 1,43,715 2,37,525 1.65
T4: Sugarcane + Knol-khol (2:3) 90.50 (-)4.42 139.54 1,43,709 2,32,941 1.62
T5: Sugarcane + Turnip (2:3) 90.01 (-)4.75 129.78 1,45,634 2,04,826 1.41
T6: Sugarcane + Carrot (2:3) 85.15 (-)9.89 123.81 1,45,579 1,88,681 1.30
T7: Sugarcane + Radish (2:3) 83.60 (-)11.53 113.06 1,43,810 1,61,560 1.12
T8: Sugarcane + Potato (2:2) 102.30 (+) 8.25 179.44 1,63,098 3,21,282 1.97
Lucknow (U.P.) Singh et al. (2018)
Table : Effect of vegetables intercropping on sugarcane yield potential
and economic returns.

29. Treatment
Nutrient uptake (kg/ha)
Available nutrient
(kg/ha) BCR
N P K N P K
T1: Sole sugarcane-90cm 171.16 10.51 248.26 286.06 11.61 258.32 1.29
T2: Sugarcane (PRS) (60×60-
12cm)
183.21 12.91 264.89 286.06 11.98 259.34 1.38
T3: Sugarcane (PRS) +
Groundnut
190.94 14.92 276.83 291.33 13.35 264.34 1.78
T4: Sugarcane(PRS) + sweet corn 161.57 12.09 234.46 283.87 10.94 254.64 1.77
T5: Sugarcane(PRS) + cabbage 185.99 12.74 270.46 290.34 11.60 258.41 1.64
T6: Sugarcane(PRS) + amaranths 180.29 12.82 264.50 288.32 11.57 259.70 1.36
T7: Sugarcane(PRS) + green gram 198.93 15.17 289.47 289.28 12.06 260.32 1.58
CD (P = 0.05) 13.18 N.S. 18.02 N.S. N.S. N.S. -
Ratnagiri (M.H.) Zarekar et al. (2018)
Table : Effect on nutrient uptake, available nutrient and harvesting index
influenced various methods of planting and intercropping
systems
PRS: Paired row sugarcane

31. In largest production and area grown in the word
Total 26.04% share in production in the word
Total 14.84% share in grown area in the world
S.
No
State Production
(‘000MT)
Area
(‘000 ha)
1 Gujarat 4185.52 64.69
2 Andhra Pradesh 3570.62 75.72
3 Tamil Nadu 4331.65 94.61
4 Uttar Pradesh 3061.21 67.00
5 Maharashtra 3025.15 69.55
6 Karnataka 2370.95 96.63
7 Madhya Pradesh 1758.05 28.35
8 Bihar 1535.30 34.80
9 Kerala 1292.41 84.56
10 Others 4003.96 225.3
All INDIA 29134.82 841.19
Gujarat
14%
AP
12%
TN
15%
UP
11%
MH
10%
Karnataka
8%
MP
6%
Bihar
5%
Kerala
5%
Others
14%
BANANA
st
1State Wise Production and Area of Banana
Source: Horticultural Statistics at a Glance 2017
Directorate of Economics & Statistics, DAC&FW, GOI

32. Treatment
Weight of
fingers
(g)
Wt. of
bunch
(kg)
Yield of
bunch
(t/ha)
Intercrop
yield
(t/ha)
Banana
equivalent
yield (t/ha)
Net
return
(Tk/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Banana (sole) 175.40 20.48 51.13 - 51.13 61,175 1.45
T2: Banana
+Okra
189.80 23.65 59.13 2.20 61.98 99,364 1.71
T3: Banana +
Sweet gourd
200.90 24.66 61.69 24.90 94.03 21,158 2.41
T4: Banana +
Bitter gourd
190.90 24.06 60.19 5.57 76.10 13,674 1.87
Table : Yield, yield attributes and economics as influenced by different
intercropping system
Madhupur, Bangladesh Nazrul et al. (2007)
1.19Tk (Bangladeshi taka)= 1 ₹ (Indian rupee)

33. Treatments
No. of
hands/
bunch
No. of
fingers/
bunch
Average
weight of
finger (g)
Weight of
bunch
(kg /plant)
Bunch
yield
(t/ha)
Banana
equivalent
yield
(t/ha)
T1 : Sole banana 9.8 135.8 172.19 20.58 37.80 37.80
T2 : Banana + Onion (@ 50% RDN) 9.3 126.2 166.19 19.21 35.29 72.96
T3 :Banana+ Onion (@ 100% RDN) 10.0 138.3 174.56 21.14 38.82 76.27
T4 : Banana + Garlic(@ 50% RDN) 9.7 131.5 169.30 19.29 35.42 95.70
T5 : Banana + Garlic(@ 100% RDN) 10.8 141.8 176.45 22.32 41.00 113.30
T6 : Banana + Radish(@ 50% RDN) 8.9 109.1 153.90 18.71 34.36 84.86
T7 : Banana + Radish(@ 100% RDN) 9.1 119.8 159.45 18.97 34.85 91.55
T8 : Banana +Beet (@ 50% RDN) 8.5 111.1 158.29 18.80 34.53 61.65
T9 : Banana +Beet (@ 100% RDN) 9.3 123.8 159.05 19.11 35.09 64.86
S.Em. (±) 0.35 4.97 0.96 0.61 1.12 1.82
CD (P= 0.05) 1.0 14.5 2.6 1.74 3.28 5.31
Navsari (Gujarat) Bambhaneeya et al. (2015)
RDN: Garlic: 25 kg N/ha, Onion: 80 kg N/ha; Radish: 100 kg N/ha, Beet: 70 kg N/ha
Table: Effect of intercropping in banana under organic farming on yield
attributes, yield, quality and economics of banana
Con.

34. Treatments
TSS
(%)
Wt. of
pulp
(g/finger)
Total sugar
(%)
Net
return
(₹/ha)
BCR
T1: Sole banana 25.0 44.66 13.8 1,82,110 2.21
T2: Banana + Onion (@ 50% RDN) 24.5 45.25 13.6 3,68,430 2.63
T3: Banana+ Onion (@ 100% RDN) 25.2 46.09 15.0 4,07,910 2.36
T4: Banana + Garlic(@ 50% RDN) 25.0 45.53 13.8 4,96,180 3.31
T5: Banana + Garlic(@ 100% RDN) 25.3 46.61 15.2 6,42,540 3.39
T6: Banana + Radish(@ 50% RDN) 23.7 41.77 12.7 3,92,850 2.54
T7: Banana + Radish(@ 100% RDN) 24.2 42.99 13.4 4,64,240 2.58
T8: Banana +Beet (@ 50% RDN) 24.1 41.79 13.1 3,93,240 2.54
T9: Banana +Beet (@ 100% RDN) 24.3 45.25 12.8 4,09,470 2.24
Navsari (Gujarat) Bambhaneeya et al. (2015)
RDN: Garlic: 25 kg N/ha; Onion: 80 kg N/ha; Radish: 100 kg N/ha; Beet: 70 kg N/ha

35. Treatments
Banana
yield
(t/ha)
Intercrop
yield*
(t/ha)
Banana
equivalent
yield (t/ha)
B:C
ratio
Land
equivalent
ratio
T1: Sole Banana 47.00 - 47.00 1.98 1.00
T2: Banana+ Bush beans 42.43 2.13 42.32 2.19 1.44
T3: Banana+ Dolichos bean 46.53 5.53 45.92 2.49 1.48
T4: Banana+ Clusterbean 48.82 2.67 48.96 2.37 1.58
T5: Banana+Blackgram 48.14 0.5 48.51 2.37 1.49
T6: Banana+Greengram 45.82 0.53 45.95 2.18 1.47
T7: Banana+Cowpea 43.96 0.68 43.72 2.09 1.45
T8: Banana+Field bean 47.51 0.75 47.76 2.29 1.49
CD (P= 0.05) 2.61 0.51 1.12 0.31 0.03
Kadapa (A.P.) Kadiri et al. (2015)
Table: Effect of banana legume intercropping combinations on banana
yield, intercrop yield, banana equivalent yield, B:C ratio and LER
Yield* = Vegetable/seed intercrop yield

36. Treatment
Bunch
weight (kg)
Yield of
bunch
(t/ha)
Yield of
Intercrop
(t/ha)
Net
return
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Banana + Colocasia 12.00 30.00 10.70 6,64,000 1.87
T2: Banana + Elephant Foot
Yam
11.90 29.75 13.90 7,83,750 2.15
T3: Banana + Arrowroot 11.55 28.88 16.40 8,43,200 2.38
T4: Banana + Ginger 11.43 28.56 6.20 6,76,400 1.91
T5: Banana + Mango Ginger 11.85 29.63 7.60 6,72,450 1.90
T6: Banana + Turmeric 11.71 29.26 9.30 8,10,900 2.29
T7: Sole banana 11.85 29.63 - 4,44,450 1.78
CD(P = 0.05) NS NS 8.50 - -
Bhubaneswar (Odisha)
Table : Influence of intercrops on yield and economics of banana
Swain et al. (2016)

38. S.
No
State
Production
(Million Bales)
(170kg. each)
Area
(Million
ha)
Av.
Yield
(Kg/ha)
1 Gujarat 9.40 2.72 587
2 Maharashtra 7.50 4.21 303
3 Telangana 3.66 1.77 351
4 Madhya Pradesh 1.80 0.56 544
5 Haryana 0.99 0.62 274
6 Andhra Pradesh 1.89 0.67 482
7 Rajasthan 1.21 0.45 461
8 Karnataka 2.00 0.64 530
9 Punjab 0.75 0.34 376
10 Others 0.80 0.32 -
All INDIA 30.01 12.29 415
Maharashtra
25%
Gujarat
31%Telangana
12%
MP
6%
Haryana
3%
AP
6%
Rajasthan
4%
Karnataka
7%
Punjab
3%
Others
3%
Largest production after China
Total 23.66% share in production in the word
Total 11642.64 ₹ crore export in the all around
world (raw cotton)
nd
State Wise Production, Area and productivity of Cotton
COTTON
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2017
Directorate of Economics & Statistics, DAC&FW, GOI

39. Treatment
Seed cotton
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield of
intercrops
(kg/ha)
Cotton
equivalent
yield (kg/ha)
Net
returns
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Cotton sole 1047 - 1047 9,179 1.69
T2: Cotton +Soybean (1:1) 955 786 1443 13,850 1.81
T3: Cotton +Soybean (1:2) 712 1335 1545 12,901 1.63
T4: Cotton + Black gram (1:1) 837 558 1162 9,810 1.65
T5: Cotton + Black gram (1:2) 612 909 1143 7,756 1.47
T6: Cotton + Green gram (1:1) 884 655 1263 12,023 1.80
T7: Cotton + Green gram (1:2) 677 955 1236 9,739 1.59
T8: Cotton + Cowpea (1:1) 736 415 960 5,951 1.41
T9: Cotton + Cowpea (1:2) 480 720 867 2,878 1.17
S.Em.+ 67.9 76.7 87.6 - -
C.D. (P=0.05) 204 232 266 - -
Rekha et al. (2008)Adilabad (Andhra Pradesh)
Table : Effect of legume/pulse intercrops on yield and economics of
rainfed cotton (pooled of three years)

40. Treatment Seed Cotton
Yield(kg/ha)
Intercrop
yield (kg/ha)
CEY
(kg/ha)
Net returns
(₹/ha)
B: C
ratio
T1: Cotton sole (120x 45 cm) 1659 - 1659 21,475 1.07
T2: PR Cotton (180-60 x 45 cm) 1404 - 1404 15,100 0.76
T3 : Cotton + Greengram (1:1) 1405 458 1954 27,050 1.24
T4 : Cotton + Greengram (1:2) 1436 500 2037 29,125 1.34
T5 : Cotton + Cowpea (1:1) 1110 405 1353 12,025 0.55
T6 : Cotton + Cowpea (1:2) 1217 376 1443 14,275 0.65
T7 : Cotton + Blackgarm (1:1) 1385 268 1600 18,200 0.83
T8 : Cotton + Blackgram (1:2) 1353 318 1607 18,375 0.84
T9 : Cotton + Sesamum (1:1) 1184 610 2282 35,050 1.59
T10 : Cotton + Sesamum (1:2) 1278 548 2264 34,600 1.57
T11 : Cotton + Maize (1:1) 1286 1508 1679 17,975 0.75
T12: Cotton + Maize (1:2) 1254 1462 1634 16,850 0.70
S.Em. + 92 - 136 - -
C. D. (P=0.05) 262 - 388 - -
Patel et al. (2010)Surat (Gujarat)
Table : Yield and economics of cotton as influenced by various cotton
based intercropping treatments (pooled of three years)
CEY – cotton equivalent yield

41. Treatment
Seed
Cotton
Yield
(q/ha)
Water Use
Efficiency
(kg/ha-cm)
Land
Equivalent
Ratio
Area Time
Equivalent
Ratio
Weed
Smothering
Efficiency
(%)
B:C
ratio
T1: Cotton+ radish +
beet root + coriander
25.45 108.2 2.2 1.5 28.1 2.9
T2: Cotton + radish +
cluster bean + beet
root
25.85 95.2 1.8 1.3 33.8 3.2
T3: Sole cotton 26.15 38.4 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.8
CD (p=0.05) NS 13.7 0.4 0.3 - 0.2
Sankaranarayanan et al. (2011)Coimbatore (Tamilnadu)
Table : Different yield, production efficiency, input use efficiency, Weed
efficiency and economics of multi-tier cropping system

42. Treatment
Cotton
equivalent
yield (q/ha)
Intercrop
yield
(kg/ha)
Net
return
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
Crop
profitability
(₹/ha/day)
LER
T1:Bt cotton (pure) 20.7 - 26,990 1.0 180 -
T2:Non Bt cotton (pure) 20.0 - 24,100 0.9 161 -
T3:Bt cotton + Redgram
(1:2)
20.1 215 24,470 0.9 163 1.44
T4:Bt cotton + Cowpea
(1:2)
27.0 714 41,750 1.5 278 1.88
T5:Bt cotton + Onion (1:2) 25.1 2158 33,360 1.1 222 1.62
T6:Bt cotton + Bhindi
(1:2)
31.6 6368 49,720 1.6 331 1.51
Coimbatore (Tamilnadu) Sankaranarayanan et al. (2012)
Table : Economics of Bt cotton as influenced by cotton based
intercropping systems (Mean of two seasons)

43. Treatment
Seed cotton
equivalent yield
(t/ha)
Relative
crowding
coefficient (K)
Net
returns
(₹/ha)
B: C
ratio
T1: Sole Bt cotton 1.91 - 32,070 1.95
T2: Bt cotton + fodder maize (1:1) 2.74 15.24 54,060 2.47
T3: Bt cotton + fodder bajra (1:1) 2.04 0.42 36,240 2.19
T4: Bt cotton + fodder cowpea (1:1) 2.40 20.02 44,200 2.24
T5: Bt cotton + summer mungbean (1:1) 2.32 16.03 41,260 2.14
T6: Bt cotton + long melon (1:1) 2.14 193.45 33,440 1.86
T7: Bt cotton + fodder maize (1:2) 2.57 7.15 49,190 2.36
T8: Bt cotton + fodder bajra (1:2) 1.89 0.31 31,160 2.02
T9: Bt cotton + fodder cowpea (1:2) 2.52 7.17 47,340 2.28
T10: Bt cotton + summer mungbean (1:2) 2.22 6.04 37,310 1.98
T11: Bt cotton + long melon (1:2) 2.07 380.30 31,470 1.80
CD (P = 0.05) 0.22 - 7290 0.21
Table : Growth and yield attributes of Bt cotton as influenced by different
intercropping systems (Pooled data of 2 years)
Ludhiana (Punjab) Singh et al. (2014)
Selling price (2010) Bt cotton 30,000 ₹/t; fodder maize 1,250₹/t; fodder bajra 1,000 ₹/t; fodder cowpea 1,250 ₹/t; summer mungbean 1,700 ₹/t; long melon 5,000 ₹/t; cotton sticks 900 ₹/t.

44. Treatment
Seed cotton
yield
(kg/ha)
Yield*
of intercrops
(kg/ha)
Seed cotton
equivalent
yield (kg/ha)
Net
returns
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Sole cotton 888 - 888 8,057 1.65
T2: Cotton + Groundnut (1:1) 671 550 1084 11,032 1.70
T3: Cotton + Soybean (1:1) 650 331 796 4,849 1.35
T4: Cotton +Blackgram (1:1) 817 558 1183 13,544 1.97
T5: Cotton + Cowpea (1:1) 735 601 1067 10,613 1.75
T6: Cotton + Greengram (1:1) 812 542 1287 15,389 2.06
T7: Cotton + Sesamum (1:1) 677 579 1503 20,744 2.51
Vekariya et al. (2015)Targhadia (Gujarat)
Sole cotton : Rs. 22.50/kg, Cotton stalk : Rs. 00.25/kg, Groundnut fodder : Rs. 02.00/kg Soybean fodder : Rs. 00.50/kg, Black gram fodder : Rs 00.40/kg, Cowpea
fodder : Rs. 00.40/kg, Green gram fodder : Rs. 00.40/kg, Sesame fodder : Rs. 00.20/kg
Yield*= Pod/grain yield of intercrops
Table : Economics of cotton based intercropping systems under rainfed
conditions

46. S.
No
State
Production
(Million
Tonnes)
Area
(Million ha)
1 Gujarat 2.34 1.41
2 Rajasthan 1.05 0.52
3 Andhra Pradesh 0.80 0.78
4 Tamil Nadu 0.89 0.35
5 Maharashtra 0.33 0.31
6 Karnataka 0.40 0.57
7 Madhya Pradesh 0.33 0.24
8 Others 0.59 0.42
ALL INDIA 6.73 4.60
Gujarat
35%
Rajasthan
15%Andhra
Pradesh
12%
Tamil
Nadu
13%
Maharashtra
5%
Karnatak
a…
Madhya
Pradesh
5%
Others
9%
Largest production, exporter and grown area after China
Total15.02% share in production in the word
Total 17.01% share in grown area in the world
Total 5444.33 ₹ crore export in the all around world
nd
State Wise Production and Area of Groundnut
GROUNDNUT
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2017
Directorate of Economics & Statistics, DAC&FW, GOI

47. Treatment
Groundnut
equivalent
yield (t/ha)
Gross
return
(Tk/ha)
Net return
(Tk/ha)
BCR
T1: Sole Groundnut 1.80 27,000 12,238 1.83
T2: Groundnut + Onion (1:1) 2.57 38,550 20,225 2.10
T3: Groundnut + Onion (1:2) 2.67 40,050 21,381 2.15
T4: Groundnut + Garlic (1:1) 2.72 40,800 23,088 2.30
T5: Groundnut + Garlic (1:2) 2.94 44,100 26,788 2.41
Pabna (Bangladesh) Mollah et al. (2007)
Groundnut@ Tk-15/kg, Onion@ Tk-10/kg, Garlic@ Tk-20/kg
1.19Tk (Bangladeshi taka)= 1 ₹ (Indian rupee)
Table : Effect of groundnut intercropping on Groundnut equivalent yield
& Economics

48. Treatment
Yield (kg/ha) Equivalent
yield
(kg/ha)
Net
return
(₹/ha)
B:C ratio
Groundnut Intercrop
T1: Sole Groundnut 1053 - 1053 13,336 2.03
T2: Groundnut + Soybean 571 696 907 9,644 1.64
T3: Groundnut + Castor 601 1427 1944 33,053 3.23
T4: Groundnut + Bt cotton 715 571 1355 19,086 2.29
T5: Groundnut + Mungbean 573 184 843 5,358 1.40
T6: Groundnut + Pigeon pea 468 2204 2055 36,290 3.40
T7: Groundnut + Cluster bean 864 1087 1256 17,999 2.34
T8: Groundnut + Hybrid cotton 736 736 1561 24,232 2.64
T9: Groundnut + Sunflower 697 39 816 4,237 1.31
T10: Groundnut + Desi cotton 792 399 1240 17,204 2.25
Junagadh (Gujarat) Prasad and Gedia (2011)
Table : Effect of groundnut based intercropping system on the yield and
economics (mean of two years)

49. Treatment
G’nut pod
equivalent
(kg/ha)
Land
equivalent
ratio
Area time
equivalent
ratio
Net
returns
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Sole groundnut 1489 1.00 1.00 46,467 3.23
T2: G’nut + Pearl millet 991 1.02 0.87 28,365 2.60
T3: G’nut + Black gram 1241 1.04 0.95 37,742 3.18
T4: G’nut + Soybean 1186 1.01 0.98 34,906 2.97
T5: G’nut + Cotton 1766 1.27 1.13 53,215 3.38
T6: G’nut + Castor 1794 1.42 1.21 56,599 3.76
T7: G’nut + Pigeon pea 1802 1.45 1.28 57,392 3.82
S.Em± 73 0.04 0.04 3131 0.17
CD (p=0.05) 226 0.13 0.12 9584 0.51
Chaudhari et al. (2017)Junagadh (Gujarat)
Table : Yield and economics analysis of groundnut based cropping systems
under rainfed conditions

50. Treatment
G’nut pod
equivalent
yield (kg/ha)
Land
equivalent
ratio
Nutrient use
productivity
(kg/ha/kg)
Net
returns
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Sole groundnut 1046 1.00 27.88 29,517 1.55
T2: Sole greengram 939 1.00 15.65 22,386 1.53
T3: Sole sesamum 849 1.00 11.32 18,822 1.28
T4: Sole mothbean 873 1.00 14.56 20,134 1.44
T5: G’nut + greengram (1:1) 1059 1.08 21.72 28,969 1.72
T6: G’nut + sesamum (1:1) 1106 1.18 19.66 30,691 1.82
T7: G’nut + mothbean (1:1) 932 0.99 19.12 23,741 1.44
T8: G’nut + greengram (3:1) 942 0.94 21.84 24,179 1.35
T9: G’nut + sesamum (3:1) 972 1.00 20.73 25,531 1.42
T10: G’nut + mothbean (3:1) 852 0.87 19.76 20,755 1.17
CD (p=0.05) 146 0.10 2.06 6649 0.29
Bhuva et al. (2017)
Table : Effect of groundnut based- intercropping system on LER and
economics under rainfed condition (Pooled data of 3 years)
Surendranagar (Gujarat)
Nutrient use productivity (NUP) was calculated dividing the equivalent yield of the system by the total
quantity of nutrients used.

52. S.
No
State Production
(‘000MT)
Area
(‘000 ha)
Productivity
(MT/Ha)
1 Uttar Pradesh 13851.76 607.32 22.81
2 West Bengal 8427.00 427.00 19.74
3 Bihar 6345.52 319.13 19.88
4 Gujarat 3549.38 112.40 31.58
5
Madhya
Pradesh
3161.00 141.05 22.41
6 Punjab 2385.26 92.36 25.83
7 Assam 1037.26 104.83 9.89
8 Haryana 853.81 34.27 24.91
9 Others 3806.06 278.60 --
All INDIA 43417.05 2116.93 20.51
UP
32%
WB
19%Bihar
15%
Gujarat
8%
MP
7%
Punjab
6%
Assam
2%
Haryana
2%
Others
9%
POTATO
Largest production and area grown in the word after China
Total 12.15% share in production in the word
Total 10.57% share in grown area in the world
nd
State Wise Production, Area and Productivity of Potato
Source: Horticultural Statistics at a Glance 2017
Directorate of Economics & Statistics, DAC&FW, GOI

53. Treatment
Potato
Tubers
(q/ha)
Intercrop
yield (q/ha)
Potato
equivalent
yield (q/ha)
LER
Net returns
(₹/ha)
T1: Sole potato 127.1 - 127.1 1.00 14,797
T2: Potato + cabbage 80.7 128.4 251.9 1.13 44,570
T3: Potato + turnip 73.0 82.5 128.2 0.93 30,900
T4: Potato + radish 76.2 48.2 108.3 1.31 12,773
T5: Potato + Chinese
cabbage
87.7 41.3 115.2 0.96 12,773
T6: Potato + lettuce 81.9 32.1 103.3 1.04 4,980
T7: Potato + pea 79.6 21.2 122.0 0.95 13,850
CD (p=0.05) 3.18 - 18.24 - -
Malhotra and Kumar (1995)Lari (HP)
Table : Yield and economics of potato and intercrops as influenced by
different intercropping system

54. Treatment
Potato
Tubers
(q/ha)
Potato
equivalent
yield (q/ha)
Net returns
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
LER
T1: Sole potato
(60 ×20 cm)
253.11 253.11 1,00,744 1.97 1.00
T2: Potato +
Fenugreek (1:1)
235.46 265.93 1,02,675 1.80 1.32
T3: Potato + Cabbage (1:1) 227.33 332.53 1,45,313 2.68 1.64
T4: Potato + Knol-khol
(1:1)
222.11 315.42 1,32,497 2.33 1.54
T5: Potato + Coriander (1:1) 228.11 288.44 1,16,339 2.05 1.31
CD (p=0.05) 6.284 - - - -
Banjare (2008)Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
Table : Yield, Economics & LER as influenced by different potato based
intercropping system

55. Treatment
Potato
Tubers
(t/ha)
Potato
equivalent yield
(kg/ha)
Competition
ratio
Net profit
(₹/ha)
Net
B:C
ratio
T1: Sole potato 22.47 22.47 - 33,030 0.41
T2: Potato + Frenchbean
(Fb) (75:25)
19.51 25.22 0.97 62,250 0.98
T3: Potato + Fb (75:50) 17.55 27.12 1.04 66,600 1.00
T4: Potato + Fb (50:50) 11.42 21.60 0.96 64,400 1.39
T5: Potato + wheat (75:25) 20.73 22.31 1.33 28,050 0.33
T6: Potato + wheat (75:50) 15.59 18.17 1.23 16,500 0.24
T7: Potato + wheat (50:50) 12.41 15.39 1.27 22,500 0.48
T8: Potato + maize (75:25) 12.63 14.41 0.89 11,010 0.17
T9: Potato + maize (75:50) 10.58 14.47 0.69 2,760 0.04
T10: Potato + maize (50:50) 7.06 11.50 0.60 13,920 0.30
CD (p=0.05) 1.36 3.27 6.240 -
Manorama and Lal (2010)The Nilgirs (Tamil Nadu)
Table : Economic yield and economics analysis of different intercrop
combination

57. Largest production and area grown in the word after China and Brazil
Total 10.69% share in production in the word
Total 11.41% share in grown area in the world
Total 4249.85 ₹ Crore export in the all around world
S.
No
State
Production
(‘000MT)
Area
(‘000 ha)
Productivity
(Kg./ha)
1 Gujarat 326.00 198.01 1646
2
Andhra
Pradesh
222.07 98.26 2265
3 Uttar Pradesh 138.64 31.64 4382
4 Karnataka 49.10 84.32 583
5 West Bengal 25.34 15.07 1681
6 Bihar 15.81 9.10 1736
7 Others 26.06 14.91 2297
All INDIA 802.71 450.69 1781
Gujarat
41%
AP
28%
UP
17%
Karnataka
6%
WB
3%
Bihar
2%
Others
3%
TOBACCO
rd
3State Wise Production, Area and Productivity of Tobacco
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2017
Directorate of Economics & Statistics, DAC&FW, GOI

58. Table : Yield, chewing quality, TEY, and economics of chewing tobacco
based intercropping system ( Mean of two year)
Treatment
TCLY
(t/ha)
TEY
(t/ha)
Net
Returns
( ₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Chewing tobacco + aggregatium onion 4.18 5.49 60,700 1.35
T2: Chewing tobacco +bellary onion 4.15 4.74 52,400 1.35
T3: Chewing tobacco + beet root 2.84 5.02 57,200 1.44
T4: Chewing tobacco + radish 3.92 4.26 46,400 1.27
T5: Chewing tobacco + annual moringa
(Planting)
4.02 6.60 76,500 1.78
T6: Chewing tobacco + annual moringa
(Ratoon)
3.95 6.28 72,300 1.67
T7: Chewing tobacco (Sole) 3.92 2.70 20,300 0.66
CD (P = 0.05) 0.36 0.99 18,700 0.45
TCLY = Total Cured Leaf Yield
TEY = Tobacco Equivalent Yield
Vedasandur (Tamil Nadu) Kumaresan and Rao (2013)

59. Treatment
No. of
cured leaf/
plant
Total cured
leaf
(kg/ha)
First grade
leaf
(kg/ha)
Yield of
intercrops
(kg/ha)
Net
return
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Tobacco +
garlic
13.4 2292 1256 1184 42928 1.78
T2: Tobacco +
common bean
13.2 2283 1244 789 41581 1.74
T3: Tobacco +
potato
13.2 2143 1164 6582 36785 1.65
CD (P= 0.05) 0.19 37 29 167 - -
Table : Effects of intercrops on growth, yield and economics of tobacco
(Pooled of three year)
Pusa (Bihar) Singh et al. (2013)

60. Table : Effects of intercrops on yield and economics of tobacco crop
Prajapati (2015)AAU(Anand)
Treatment
Tobacco
equivalent
yield
(kg/ha)
Available
N
(kg/ha)
Available
P2O5
(kg/ha)
Available
K2O
(kg/ha)
Net
return
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Tobacco alone - 3054 397 26.60 341 67,740 1.5
T2: Tobacco + Cabbage (1:2) 5741 357 26.35 348 1,32,016 1.6
T3: Tobacco + Cauliflower (1:2) 4521 364 26.53 356 88,549 1.1
T4: Tobcco + Onion (1:2) 5607 381 26.50 341 1,35,201 1.9
T5: Tobacco + Garlic (1:3) 6052 380 26.33 334 1,38,717 1.6
T6: Tobacco + Radish (1:3) 5860 355 26.98 358 1,43,174 2.0
T7: Tobacco + Beet (1:3) 6593 376 26.08 370 1,76,023 2.6
T8: Tobacco + Fenugreek (1:3) 4231 377 26.63 346 1,06,543 2.1
T9: Tobacco + Spinach (1:3) 7762 336 25.88 377 2,13,678 2.9
T10: Tobacco + Coriander (1:3) 4772 382 28.53 355 1,20,563 2.1
CD (P=0.05) 1047 17.35 1.19 15.56 - -
C.V. % 13.32 3.23 3.03 3.04 - -

61. Sisal
Agave sisalana
Jute
White jute (Corchorus capsularis)
Tossa jute (Corchorus olitorius)
Ramie
Boehmeria nivea

62. In largest production, exporter and grown area in the word
Total 54.04% share in production in the word
Total nearly 0.80 m ha grown area in India.
Total nearly10 million bales production.
S. No State
Production
(Million Bales)
(170kg. each)
Area
(Million ha)
Productivity
(Kg./ha )
1 West Bengal 7.78 0.55 2526
2 Bihar 1.63 0.11 2658
3 Assam 0.89 0.08 2103
4 Andhra Pradesh 0.04 0.01 1584
5 Odisha 0.06 0.01 1033
6 Others 0.12 0.03 --
All INDIA 10.52 0.78 2421
st
1State Wise Production, Area and Productivity of Jute and allied fibre crops
Jute and allied fibres (mesta, ramie, sisal and flax)
Source: Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2017, Directorate of Economics & Statistics, DAC&FW, GOI

63. Table : Effects of intercrops on equivalent yield and economics of mung
Treatment
Fibre equivalent
yield (t/ha)
Net return
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Jute (30cm) + mung (PM-4) 4.95 90,401 2.25
T2: Jute (30cm) + mung (PM-5) 4.81 86,814 2.23
T3: Jute (30cm) + mung (sukumar) 4.71 80,273 2.19
T4: Jute (25cm) + mung (RMG-62) 5.26 1,02,213 2.46
CD (p=0.05) 0.21 11873 0.262
Var. maturity:
Mung (Pant Mung -4): 65 days
Mung (Pant Mung -5): 55-60 days
Mung (RMG-62): 55-60 days
Mung (Sukumar): 55-60 days
Ghorai and kumar (2016)Barrackpore (WB)

64. Treatment
Sisal fibre
yield
(kg/ha)
Sisal
equivalent
yield (kg/ha)
Net returns
(₹/ha)
B:C
ratio
T1: Sisal + aloe-vera 850 585.47 2,146 1.05
T2: Sisal + asalio 895 432.79 15,825 2.49
T3: Sisal + isabgol 875 380.95 19,600 2.58
T4: Sisal + vetiver 885 789.25 43,500 2.90
T5: Sisal + lemon grass 885 354.25 2,557 1.09
T6: Sisal + palmorosa 870 285.11 3,200 1.15
T7: Sisal + citronella 85 365.35 2,290 1.08
T8: Sisal + kalmegh 845 463.33 16,500 1.72
T9: Sisal + musk dana 890 464.76 22,240 2.32
T10: Sisal + horse gram 915 162.49 12,542 1.26
T11: Sisal + ashwagandha 855 352.37 10,272 2.52
T12: Sisal + safed musili 905 1416.07 45,275 2.55
CD (p=0.05) 0.55 1.33 296.02 0.02
Table : Yield and economics of sisal based intercropping system
Sambalpur (Odisha) Behera et al. (2015)

65. Treatment
Net return
(₹/ha/yr)
T1: Sole areca nut 25,138
T2: Sole ramie 33,250
T3: Ramie + areca nut 63,945
Table : Economics of ramie + arecanut multi-tier
Sorbhog, Assam Annual Report (AINPJAF, 2008 )

66. From the foregoing discussion, it can be
concluded that cash crop based intercropping
increases the overall crop production
economically as well as in sustainable manner,
that ultimately leads to doubling farm income
up to some extent.
Conclusion