Improved Agro techniques to Enhance Sugarcane Productivity in India

Improved agro techniques to enhance
sugarcane productivity in India
Dept. of agronomy

• Sugarcane is an important commercial crop in India. There are 35 million
farmers growing sugarcane and another 50 million depend on employment
generated by the 571 sugar factories and other related industries using
sugar.
• Increasing demand for ethanol, sugarcane has transformed into an
important renewable energy crop as well and it is estimated that by 2025,
almost 495 MT of sugarcane will be required to meet the growing sugar
and energy demands of the country.
• In Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, sugarcane plays
a major role in the state economy.

• In India, sugar is a Rs. 30,000 crore industry, the second largest in
the country in the agro processing sector, next only to textiles, and
represents the principle livelihood of 35 million farmers.
• Apart from this, sugarcane is in great demand for various other uses
like fodder, paper production and most importantly bio-fuels.
• Economic value of sugarcane
100 t of sugarcane on an average produces 10 t of sugar,
4 t of molasses
3 t of press mud
30 t of bagasse
30 t of cane tops and leaves

 Five agro-climatic zones
(i) North Western Zone
(ii) North Central Zone
(iii) North Eastern Zone
(iv) Peninsular Zone
(v) Coastal Zone.
• Tropical Sugarcane region: (45% area and 55% production)
Peninsular zone and Coastal zone which includes the states of
Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh,Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh, Goa, Pondicherry and Kerala.
• Sub-tropical sugarcane region: (55% and 45% of area and production)
U.P, Bihar, Haryana and Punjab comes under this region.

Fig 1. Area under sugarcane in major states
SBI, Coimbatore

Fig 2. Production and productivity of sugarcane in major states
SBI, Coimbatore

Fig 3. Productivity of sugarcane in major countries
SBI, Coimbatore

Table 2. Projections of sugarcane and sugar requirements in India till 2030
Year Area (Mha) Yield (t/ha) Recovery (%)
Sugar production
(Mt)
2010 4.50 68.9 10.50 21.20
2020 4.50 88.5 11.00 28.50
2030 5.00 100 11.00 35.75
Table 1. Decade-wise trends in sugarcane area, yield, recovery and sugar production
in India
Period
Average cane
area (Mha)
Average
productivity
(t/ha)
Average cane
production (Mt)
Average sugar
recovery (%)
1950–59 1.77 38.0 67.63 9.89
1960–69 2.37 45.0 106.11 9.83
1970–79 2.77 51.0 140.71 9.69
1980–89 3.04 58.0 175.98 9.99
1990–99 3.81 68.0 258.07 9.91
2000–09 4.38 68.0 290.69 10.27
Solomon (2011)
Nair (2010)

Selection of improved varieties

State Varieties cultivated/suitable for cultivation
Andhra Pradesh Co 86032, Co 8014, CoA 92081, Co 7805, 81V48, 86V96,91V83, 93A145, CoC 671, Co85036, CoC
92061, 83V15, 97R129, 83V288, 83R23, CoA95081, CoA96081, 93R278
Bihar SOS 767, CoSe 92423, CoS 8436, CoS 8432, CoSe 95422, BO 91, CoP 9301, CoP 9702, B O 110, Co
89003, CoH 119, CoJ 88, CoJ 83, B O 146
Gujarat CoC 671, Co 86032, CoN 91132, Co 85036, Co 85004, Co 86002
Haryana CoS 767, CoS 8436, CoS 88230, CoJ 64, CoJ 85, Co 89003, CoH 119, CoJ 83, Co 0118, Co 0238, Co
0239
Karnataka Co 86032, CoC 671, Co 8371, CoSnk 03044, Co 94012, Co 91010, Co 7804, CoVc 2003-165, Co
8014, Co 62175
Maharashtra Co 86032, Co 94012, Co 7219, CoM 7125, CoM 88121, Co 8014, CoM 0265, Co 85004
Orissa Co 87263, CoA 89085, CoC(SC)23, Co 62175, Co 86249, Co 7219, Co 8021, Co 87044, CoT 8021
Punjab CoS 8436, CoJ 64, CoJ 85, Co 89003, Co 86249, CoJ 88, Co 0118, Co 0238, Co 0239
Tamil Nadu Co 86032, Co 94008, CoV 94101, CoV 92102, Co 99004, CoC 90063, Co 86249, CoSi(SC)6, CoC
02034
Uttar Pradesh CoS 8436, CoS 767, Co 0118, Co 0238, Co 98014, CoS 88230, CoS 93278, CoS 95255, CoS 96258,
CoS 96268, CoS 96269, CoS 96275, CoS 8432, CoSe 92423, CoS 94270,CoS 95422, CoS 97264, CoS
96269, CoS 99259, UP 0097, Co 0232, UP 9530, CoSe 96436
Uttarakhand CoPant 84212, CoPant 90223, CoPanth 94211, CoPanth 96219, CoS 767, Co S8436, CoS 88230, CoS
8432, CoPanth 97222, Co 0118, Co 0238, Co 0239
West Bengal CoB 94164, CoSe 92423, Co 7218, BO 91, CoJ 64, CoS 527
Table 3. Sugarcane varieties under cultivation/promising ones
Sundar (2011)

Table 4. New improved varieties recommended for peninsular zone
Variety Yield Remark
Co 94012 115 t/ha High sugar recovery and early maturing
CoSnk 03044 112 t/ha Resistance against SWA and moisture stress
CoSnk 05103 109 t/ha Better tolerance to moisture and salinity stress
CoM 0265 131 t/ha Midlate maturing with good ratooning ability
SNK 632 130-189 t/ha
Moisture stress tolerance with good ratooning ability,
Suitable for jaggery production
SNK 814 104.8 t/ha Better tolerance to moisture and salinity stress
SNK 07680 120 t/ha Non flowering and Non spiny
Co 2001-13 118 t/ha Tolerance to moisture and salinity stress
Co 2001-15 132 t/ha High sucrose content
Patil et al., 2014

Table 5. Interaction between varieties and nitrogen levels for cane yield
(t/ha)
Varieties
Nitrogen Levels (RDN)
75% 100% 125% 150% Mean
83V15 121.48 135.17 153.22 160.02 142.46
97R383 132.49 149.92 157.58 167.05 151.76
97R401 141.65 150.48 160.37 163.38 154.72
2002V48 146.29 155.65 163.61 167.06 158.15
Mean 135.48 147.80 158.69 163.12 151.79
C.D. (P= 0.05)
V X F 4.12
RDN: 224 kg/ha
ARS, Perumallapalle (AP) Sandy loam Naga Madhuri et al., 2011

Table 6. Response of sugarcane varieties to application of biofertilizers on
cane yield
Varieties
Cane yield (t/ha)
Control Azotobacter Azospirillum
Glucon-
acetobacter
Mean
Co – 8014 91.6 97.1 116.8 91.1 99.2
Co – 8122 85.5 84.4 101.2 86.8 89.5
Co – 8021 94.1 106.8 112.1 101.2 103.6
Co – 6304 100.8 99.8 112.7 115.2 107.2
CoC – 85061 110.9 104.4 115.4 113.3 111.0
Mean 96.6 98.5 111.7 101.5 102.1
C.D . (P= 0.05 )
B 4.7
V 5.3
B X V 10.6
SBI, Coimbatore Sandy loam Hari and Srinivasan, 2005

Nutrient management practices (NMP)
Cane yield (t/ha)
G1 G2 G3 Mean
100 % organics equivalent to RDN through FYM+ VC+
IGM (1/3rd each)
114.3 125.4 92.7 110.8
100 % organics equivalent to RDN through FYM +VC
+EPM (1/3rd each)
120.5 128.3 99.9 116.2
100 % organics equivalent to RDN through FYM +VC
+IGM +EPM (1/4th each)
113.2 125.8 93.8 110.9
100 % inorganics, 250:75:190 Kg N:P2O5:K2O kg/ha
respectively
114.7 128.9 96.9 113.5
Recommended package of practices (RPP) 127.4 141.2 110.9 126.5
Mean 118.0 129.9 98.9 115.6
C.D. (P=0.05)
Genotypes (G) 7.99
NMP 8.43
Interaction NS
Table 7. Response of sugarcane varieties to nutrient management
practices
G1– CoSnk 07103 G2–CoSnk 05104 G3– Co 92005
ARS, Sankeshwar Medium deep black Sharanappa (2014)

Table 8. Comparative study of planting single bud primed setts with conventional
three bud setts planting in sugarcane cultivation (Pooled data of 2 years)
Treatments
Length of
cane (cm)
Cane
girth (cm)
Cane
weight (kg)
No. of millable
canes (000/ha)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
CCS
(t/ha)
T1 : Untreated single budded
sett
157.8 1.9 1.46 48.08 58.80 6.72
T2 : Single budded setts
treated in 500 C hot water for
2 hrs
183.8 2.8 1.59 48.61 61.75 6.92
T3 : Single budded setts
treated in 500 C hot water &
3% urea solution for 2 hrs
187.0 3.1 1.58 60.50 63.50 7.34
T4 : Priming of single bud
setts in cattle dung, cattle urine
and water in 1: 2 : 5 ratio
199.1 3.2 1.59 70.75 75.00 8.85
T5 : Conventional 3 budded
sett planting
212.5 3.4 1.62 75.67 80.75 9.83
T6 : Primed (cattle dung, cattle
urine and water in 1: 2 : 5
ratio) and sprouted cane nodes
209.0 3.4 1.61 71.17 76.74 8.54
C.D .(P= 0.05) 21.24 0.5 0.25 10.87 10.35 1.31
Nayagarh (Odisha) Sandy loam Mohanty et al., 2014

Table 9. Cane yield and yield attributes of sugarcane as influenced by methods of
planting and N levels
N levels
(Kg/ha)
NMC (000/ha)
Cane length
(cm)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
AE Kg-1 N
Flat Pit Flat Pit Flat Pit Flat Pit
0 70 79 77 80 31 65
75 75 83 82 87 38 98 93 440
150 78 112 96 98 43 125 160 400
225 81 125 103 105 47 140 71 333
300 88 158 111 115 50 151 63 287
Mean 78.4 143 93.8 97 51.8 146 96.5 436.7
C.D.
(p=0.05)
11.6 2.3 17.8 31.5
IISR, Lucknow Sandy loam Yadav, 2004

Fig 4. Cane yield (t/ha) under wider row and normal spaced sugarcane
Tamil Nadu Rajula and Muthu samy, 2012

Table 10. Effect of planting methods on cane yield and nutrient uptake after
harvest of sugarcane (pooled data of 2 years)
Treatments Cane yield (t/ha)
Uptake of nutrients (kg/ha)
N P K
T1: Conventional furrow planting
at 90 cm apart
94.87 122.17 64.30 187.10
T2: Deep furrow (20 cm) planting
at 90 cm apart covering setts with
2.5 cm of soil layer
99.14 128.45 68.09 195.05
T3: Paired row furrow planting at
120:60:120 cm
97.02 124.96 66.26 192.79
T4: Paired row deep furrow (20
cm) planting at 120:60:120 cm
covering setts with 2.5 cm of soil
layer
101.23 135.71 70.90 203.67
T5: Modified trench planting at
120 cm apart placing setts across
the furrow and covering them with
2.5 cm of soil layer
120.18 168.60 87.31 254.46
CD (P = 0.05) 4.93 9.43 5.72 12.68
Shahjahanpur (UP) Sandy loam Singh et al., 2013

The main plots
• M1 - 120 cm row spacing with end to end method of planting
• M2 - 120 cm row spacing with crossing planting method (setts placed across the furrow),
• M3 - M1 + successive intercropping (blackgram sown immediately after planting and harvested on 60th
day and then sunnhemp was sown immediately and incorporated in situ on 45th day of sowing),
• M4 – M2 + successive intercropping
• M5 – 80 cm row spacing with conventional method of planting (end to end method)
• M6 - 80 cm row spacing with cross planting method
• M7 – M5 + intercropping (black gram)
• M8 – M6 + intercropping (black gram).
The sub plots
• S1– recommended dose of fertilizer (275:62.5:112.5kg NPK/ha)
• S2 – S1 + Acetobacter @ 10 kg/ha
• S3 – S1 + foliar spraying of 1 % micronutrients mixture at 45 and 75 DAP
• S4 - S1 + Acetobacter @ 10 kg/ha-+ foliar spraying of 1 % micronutrients mixture at 45 and 75 DAP.
Effect of planting methods and nutrient management practices on cane and sugar
yield
Ariyalur (TN) Manimaran et al., 2009

Table 11. Effect of planting methods and nutrient management practices on cane
and sugar yield
Treatment
Cane yield (t/ha) Sugar yield (t/ha)
S1 S2 S3 S4 Mean S1 S2 S3 S4 Mean
M1 134.08 138.53 136.87 139.28 137.19 14.44 15.71 15.08 16.16 15.35
M2 135.16 135.76 140.32 142.94 138.55 14.71 15.48 15.66 16.71 15.64
M3 143.12 146.56 147.96 151.78 147.36 15.93 17.10 16.75 18.03 16.95
M4 144.33 147.02 150.85 153.41 148.90 16.11 17.20 17.35 18.47 17.28
M5 131.37 134.00 133.66 136.10 133.78 13.87 15.17 14.23 15.53 14.70
M6 128.52 132.17 131.75 134.85 131.82 13.76 14.62 14.61 15.40 14.60
M7 132.91 134.84 137.88 139.22 136.21 14.58 15.51 15.46 16.39 15.48
M8 131.25 133.84 135.47 138.14 134.68 14.49 15.42 15.28 16.29 15.37
Mean 135.09 137.84 139.35 141.97 138.56 14.74 15.78 15.55 16.62 15.67
CD (P = 0.05) CD (P = 0.05)
M 2.40 0.30
S 2.02 0.25
M X S 4.14 0.62
Ariyalur (TN) Sandy loam Manimaran et al., 2009

Table 12. Effect of subsoiling-cum-deep fertilizer placement and preparatory
tillage practices on root biomass, shoot biomass, cane yield and B:C ratio of
sugarcane
Treatment
Root dry weight
(g/ m3)
Shoot dry matter
(t/ha)
Cane yield(t/ha) B:C
ratio
Plant Ratoon Plant Ratoon Plant Ratoon
S1 : No Subsoiling 46.1 41.0 30.4 27.0 59.2 54.3 1.69
S2 : Subsoiling at 1.0 m 62.9 67.1 36.0 33.7 68.2 66.8 2.19
S2 : Subsoiling at 1.5 m 57.0 58.8 35.1 31.3 67.6 63.6 2.11
S4 : Cross-subsoiling at
1.0 m 70.1 85.7 40.9 40.2 75.8 74.9 2.42
S4 : Cross-subsoiling at
1.5 m 67.0 73.2 38.1 37.0 70.6 69.7 2.24
CD (P = 0.05) 5.0 6.6 1.8 2.3 6.7 5.5 0.17
Preparatory tillage
2H : Two harrowing 51.2 61.6 33.6 31.3 66.8 63.1 2.04
4H : Four harrowing 70.1 70.0 38.5 36.6 69.2 68.3 2.20
1R : Once rotavator 60.5 63.8 36.2 33.9 68.8 66.2 2.16
CD (P = 0.05) 12.1 4.7 NS NS NS NS NS
GBPUAT, Pantnagar Silty clay loam Kumar et al., 2014

Table 13. Effect of time and level of earthing up on yield parameters and
yield of ratoon sugarcane
Treatment
No. of tillers
(’000 /ha)
Cane length
(cm)
NMC
(000/ ha)
No. of
internodes
Green tops
yield
(t/ha)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Time of earthing up
M1 - 25th
April
121.09 383.78 105.17 40.80 24.83 173.50
M2 - 25th
May
132.07 363.00 111.44 35.50 23.17 158.39
M2 - 25th
June
137.82 361.17 112.67 32.18 21.61 149.72
CD (P = 0.05) 9.59 16.70 NS 2.25 2.35 9.47
Level of earthing up
L1 - Light
(10 cm
height)
134.68 361.63 112.67 35.10 22.04 155.44
L1 – Heavy
(20 cm
height)
125.98 377.00 106.85 37.22 24.37 165.63
CD (P = 0.05) 7.83 13.63 NS 1.84 1.92 7.73
BHU, Varanasi Sandy clay loam Dev et al., 2011

Fig. 5. Effect of different fertilizer recommendation practices on cane and sugar yield
Maharastra Phonde et al, 2005
Recommendations Fertilizer application (kg/ha)
N P2O5 K2O S Zn Fe Mn
State soil test 312 115 115 - - - -
State general 250 115 115 - - - -
Farmer practice 255 80 60 - - - -
SSNM practice 180 180 120 20 20 50 10

Maharastra Phonde et al., 2005
Fig. 6. Effect of different fertilizer recommendation practices on B:C ratio of
sugarcane

Table 14. Cane yield and economics of sugarcane as influenced by
nitrogen management through LCC (Pooled data of 2 years)
Treatment
N applied
(kg/ha)
Cane height
(cm)
No of inter
nodes
Cane girth
(cm)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
B: C ratio
LCC 4
175
(4 Splits)
184 18 2.19 101.80 1.29
LCC 5
250
(6 Splits)
228 23 2.70 145.10 2.11
LCC 6
300
(7 Splits)
233 25 2.83 152.20 2.17
Rec. N
250
(4 Splits)
202 21 2.42 124.30 1.71
C.D. (P=0.05) 26.44 4.21 0.316 18.93
Nandi sugars, Galagali Medium black Gaddanakeri et al., 2007

Table 15. Effect of application of micronutrients on yield attributes and
quality of sugarcane (Mean data of 2 years)
Treatments
NMC
(‘000/ha)
Millable
cane
height(cm)
Cane
diameter
(cm)
Cane yield
t/ha
Sugar
yield t/ha
Sucrose
%
T1: control 96.67 276.87 2..70 106.83 12.98 18.99
T2: ZnSO4 @ 50 kg/ha 106.46 286.50 2.88 111.46 13.99 19.57
T3: ZnSO4 @ 0.2 %
twice (30 and 60 DAP)
104.33 288.63 2.87 109.99 13.88 19.42
T4: FeSO4 @ 2 %
108.55 300.30 3.00 112.67 14.66 19.95
T5: FeSO4 @ 3 %
110.23 292.76 2.98 113.67 15.05 20.48
T6: Borax @ 10 kg/ha 95.81 278.93 3.22 107.98 13.18 20.95
T7: Boron spray @ 0.1
% twice (30 and 60
DAP)
95.10 280.94 3.00 106.15 12.98 19.19
C.D. (P=0.05) 7.12 NS 0.37 2.64 1.26 0.86
Perumallapalle (AP) Sandy loam Naga Madhuri et al., 2013

Table 16. Effect of biofertilizer and nitrogen interactions on cane yield of
sugarcane plant–ratoon system
Treatments
Plant crop (t/ha) Ratoon crop (t/ha)
N0 N75 N150 N0 N75 N150
T1: Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus 76.6 90.5 97.6 75.3 81.7 90.0
T2: Azotobacter chrococcum 71.0 74.6 82.6 72.3 75.3 82.0
T3: Azospirillum brasilense 72.9 81.5 82.4 68.3 71.7 73.0
T4: T1 + T2 76.3 83.3 90.3 71.7 78.6 84.0
T5: T1 + T3 74.6 84.8 88.3 69.3 75.3 76.0
T6: T2 + T3 72.7 78.1 82.2 66.9 69.0 75.0
T7: T1 + T2 + T3 69.8 73.2 74.8 73.7 75.3 88.3
T8: uninoculated control 60.1 65.5 71.2 57.0 65.7 72.3
C.D. (P=0.05)
Bacterial treatment (T) 2.96 2.88
Nitrogen (N) 1.81 1.76
T X N 5.13 4.99
IISR, Lucknow Fine loamy Suman et al., 2013

Table 17. Effect of fertility levels and enriched pressmud on cane and sugar
yield of sugarcane
Treatments
50% Rec NPK 75% Rec NPK 100% Rec NPK Mean
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Sugar
yield (t/ha)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Sugar
yield (t/ha)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Sugar yield
(t/ha)
Cane
yield
(t/ha)
Sugar
yield
(t/ha)
EPMC (10 t/ha)
163.3 24.16 172.00 24.94 183.67 26.19 173.00 25.10
EPMC (15 t/ha)
180.33 26.68 185.33 26.87 198.00 29.32 187.89 27.62
RPMC (15 t/ha)
167.00 24.04 179.33 25.25 191.67 28.01 179.33 25.77
Control
148.33 21.90 153.67 22.19 163.67 24.00 155.22 22.70
Mean
164.75 24.19 172.58 24.81 184.25 26.88
CD (P=0.05)
F 7.11 1.47
P 7.74 1.54
P X F 13.52 1.22
Mandya Alfisols Shankaraiah and Kalyana Murthy, 2005

Table 18. Economics of sugarcane as influenced by fertility levels and
enriched pressmud
Treatments
Gross returns
(Rs/ha)
COC
(Rs/ha)
Net returns
(Rs/ha)
B:C
50% Rec.NPK+EPMC 10 t/ha 138830 81384 57446 1:1.70
50% Rec.NPK+EPMC 15 t/ha 153280 83384 69896 1:1.8
50% Rec.NPK+RPMC 15 t/ha 141950 81884 60066 1:1.73
Control 126080 77384 48696 1:1.63
75% Rec. NPK +EPMC 10 t/ha 146200 82662 63538 1: 1.76
75% Rec. NPK +EPMC 15 t/ha 157530 84662 72868 1:1.86
75% Rec. NPK +RPMC 15 t/ha 152430 83162 69268 1:1.8
Control 130619 78662 51957 1:1.6
100%Rec. NPK+EPMC 10 t/ha 156119 84000 72119 1:1.85
100%Rec. NPK+EPMC 15 t/ha 168300 86000 82300 1:1.95
100%Rec. NPK+RPMC 15 t/ha 162919 84500 78419 1:1.93
Control 139119 80000 59119 1:1.7
Mandya Alfisols Shankaraiah and Kalyana Murthy, 2005

Table 19. Millable cane number and cane girth (cm) as influenced by nutrient management
practices in plant crop of sugarcane
Nutrient Management Practices
(N)
Millable canes (X000/ha) Cane girth (cm) Cane yield (t/ha)
V1 V2 Mean V1 V2 Mean V1 V2 Mean
N1: Pressmud + sunnhemp + B 103.65 91.11 97.38 2.84 2.50 2.67 135.31 118.95 127.13
N2: Pressmud + FYM + B 102.51 90.79 96.65 2.81 2.49 2.65 133.83 118.52 126.17
N3: Pressmud + FYM + French
beans + B
105.21 97.05 101.13 2.89 2.66 2.77 137.35 126.69 132.02
N4: Pressmud + FYM + neem cake +
B
104.26 92.88 98.57 2.86 2.55 2.70 136.11 121.25 128.68
N5: Pressmud + FYM + VC + B 104.17 91.68 97.93 2.86 2.51 2.69 135.99 119.69 127.84
N6: 50% N through pressmud + 50%
N through fertilizers + B
143.96 116.98 130.47 3.95 3.21 3.58 187.94 152.72 170.33
N7: RPP 153.95 122.04 137.99 3.99 3.35 3.67 191.65 157.99 174.82
N8: 100% NPK through fertilizers 104.97 95.46 100.22 2.88 2.62 2.75 137.04 124.63 130.83
Mean 115.34 99.75 3.13 2.74 149.40 130.05
C.D. (P=0.05)
Varieties (V) 3.16 0.02 2.73
NMP (N) 4.88 0.04 5.02
V x N 6.90 0.05 7.10
B- Biofertilizer
VC- Vermicompost V1 = Co.62175 V2 – Co.86032
Mandya Alfisol Keshavaiah et al., 2013

Table 20. Economics as influenced by nutrient management practices in plant crop of
sugarcane
Nutrient Management
Practices (N)
Gross income (Rs. 000/ha) Net income (Rs. 000/ha) B:C ratio
V1 V2 Mean V1 V2 Mean V1 V2 Mean
N1: Pressmud + sunnhemp + B 149.29 131.24 140.27 61.03 42.98 52.00 1.69 1.49 1.59
N2: Pressmud + FYM + B 147.65 130.76 139.20 59.59 42.70 51.14 1.68 1.48 1.58
N3: Pressmud + FYM + French
beans + B
151.54 139.81 145.67 62.75 51.01 56.88 1.71 1.57 1.64
N4: Pressmud + FYM + neem
cake + B
150.18 133.79 141.99 61.18 44.80 52.99 1.69 1.50 1.60
N5: Pressmud + FYM + VC + B 150.03 132.05 141.04 61.94 43.96 52.95 1.70 1.50 1.60
N6: 50% N through pressmud +
50% N through fertilizers + B
207.35 168.49 187.92 124.97 86.12 105.54 2.52 2.05 2.28
N7: RPP 211.43 174.31 192.82 117.84 80.71 99.28 2.26 1.86 2.06
N8: 100% NPK through
fertilizers
151.20 137.50 144.35 67.06 53.31 60.21 1.80 1.63 1.72
Mean 164.83 143.49 77.04 55.71 1.88 1.64
C.D. (P=0.05)
Varieties (V) 6.08 6.01 0.07
NMP (N) 5.49 5.50 0.06
V x N 7.76 7.76 0.09
B- Biofertilizer
VC- Vermicompost V1 = Co.62175 V2 – Co.86032
Mandya Alfisol Keshavaiah et al., 2013

Table 21. Cane yield and quality as influenced by residual effect of
sulphur on ratoon crop of sugarcane
Treatment
No. of
internodes
Cane
length
(cm)
Cane girth
(cm)
NMC
(000/ha)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Sugar yield
(t/ha)
Brix
T1 –
Control
28.10 3.02 9.08 85.00 123.40 15.18 19.38
T2 - S @
20 kg/ha
28.80 3.13 8.88 85.36 130.40 15.24 19.70
T3 - S @
40 kg/ha
29.40 3.10 9.19 87.76 133.60 15.70 19.54
T4 - S @
60 kg/ha
29.00 3.31 9.51 88.44 183.80 16.20 19.66
T5 - S @
80 kg/ha
28.60 3.32 9.37 88.86 136.20 16.80 19.92
C. D.
(P= 0.05)
NS 0.12** 0.47* 3.01** 7.80** 1.13* NS
*Significant at 5% level, **Significant at 1% level
Thiruvalla, Kerala Vertisol Mathew et al., 2003

Micro irrigation and Fertigation
in Sugarcane

Long duration crop (12-18 months)
Producing huge amounts of biomass
High water requirement (250 cm)
Grown as an irrigated crop
1 kg cane
= 200 – 250 ltr.
Water requirement at different stages (2500 mm)
Establishment stage Up to 45 days 300 mm
Tillering stage 45 – 120 days 550 mm
Grand growth stage 120-270 days 1000 mm
Maturity/ Ripening stage 270-360 days 650 mm

Surface Drip Irrigation
Sub-surface Drip Irrigation
Laterals installation in subsurface layer

Evaluation of drip fertigation in sugarcane
• Treatment details
Schedule A- all the fertilizers were applied in 12 equal splits at an interval of 15 days
Schedule B the fertilizers were applied in 26 weekly splits apportioned as per growth stages
Schedule B
Period after
planting
N (%) P (%) K (%)
1-4 weeks 15 10 10
5-9 weeks 35 35 15
10-20 weeks 50 55 35
21-26 weeks 40
Rahuri Pawar et al., 2013

Table 22. Yield and water use characters as influenced under sugarcane fertigation
(pooled data of 3 years)
Treatment
NMC
(000/ha)
Cane
yield
(t/ha)
Sugar yield
(t/ha)
Water
applied
(CM)
Total water
use (cm)
FWUE
(kg/ha-cm)
Water saving
(%)
Increase in
yield (%)
100% fertigation
(A)
78 178.6 19.7 88.1 103.7 1,714.6 56.8 35.3
80% fertigation (A) 73 164.4 17.2 88.1 103.7 1,579.4 56.8 24.0
60% fertigation (A) 72 149.2 13.9 88.1 103.7 1,433.7 56.8 12.1
100% fertigation
(B)
78 187.8 22.0 88.1 103.7 1,803.4 56.8 41.8
80% fertigation (B) 73 168.3 18.1 88.1 103.7 1,616.2 56.8 27.3
60% fertigation (B) 75 156.7 15.3 88.1 103.7 1,505.6 56.8 18.0
100% CF (NTD) 75 165.9 16.4 88.1 103.7 1,593.5 56.8 25.3
100% CF + DI 73 156.3 15.5 88.1 103.7 1,501.4 56.8 17.6
100% CF + SI 63 133.4 12.5 210 241.8 563.2
SEm± 18.0 6.5 1.4
RDF- 250:115:115 NPK kg/ha
Rahuri Clay Pawar et al., 2013

Effect of various levels of potassium application through drip irrigation on yield of
sugarcane
Treatments Irrigation methods
N-P2O5-K2O
(kg/ha)
No. of fertilizer
application Application method
T1 Long furrow 340-170-170 4 A
T2 Drip 340-170-170 4 A
T3 Drip 240-170-196 13 B
T4 Drip 240-170-170 13 B
T5 Drip 240-170-145 13 B
T6 Drip 240-170-120 13 B
T7 Drip 240-170-95 13 B
A = All fertilizers applied directly to soil.
B = N and K applied in fertigation; P as single super phosphate (SSP) in two
soil applications.
Treatment details
Deshmukh et al., 2010

Table 23. Effect of drip fertigation on cane yield, WUE and economics of sugarcane production
(pooled data of two plant and one ratoon crop)
Treatments
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Water applied
(m3/ha)
WUE
(kg cane/m3)
Cost of cultivation
(Rs/ha)
Gross
income
B:C
T1
142.82 26556 5.4 86,549 142,820 1.65
T2
163.88 14563 11.3 100,666 163,880 1.63
T3
170.32 14563 11.7 100,657 170,320 1.69
T4
169.43 14563 11.6 100,315 169,430 1.69
T5
175.5 14563 12.1 101,085 175,500 1.73
T6
170.08 14563 11.7 99,969 170,080 1.7
T7
148.25 14563 10.2 96,105 148,250 1.54
CD at 5%
6.24 0.064
Deshmukh et al., 2010Pune

Irrigation systems Yield (t/ha) Water applied (cm) Water saving (%)
Drip 162.36 111.25 49.21
Overhead sprinkler 157.02 159.74 27.07
Raingun 150.05 171.37 21.76
Microsprinkler 154.11 152.42 30.41
Micro jet 153.0 149.42 31.78
Surface 134.06 219.02
AICRP on Water Management Rahuri Shekinah and Rakkiyappan (2011)
Table 24. Yield and water use parameters of sugarcane under different
irrigation methods

Table 25. Performance of subsurface drip fertigation and conventional method
of irrigation in sugarcane (pooled mean of 2 years)
Particulars SSDF Conventional method
Cane yield(t/ha) 113.9 86.8
% yield increase 30.8
Total water use 1730 2499
% water saving 30.7
WUE (kg/ha/mm) 65.8 34.8
Cost of cultivation 88,058 85,645
Gross income 2,27,753 1,74,300
B:C 2.58 2.04
RDF- 275:62.5:112.5 NPK kg/ha
Once in 8 days, 25 equal splits
Madurai Sandy clay loam Veeraputhiran et al., 2012

Table 26. Effect of NPK fertilizer rates applied through Rain gun
sprinkler irrigation (RGSI) on WUE and yield of sugarcane.
(pooled data for plant cane, first and second ratoons)
NPK fertilizer levels
Quantity of
water applied
(mm)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Sugar yield
(t/ha)
WUE
(t/ha-mm)
125% of recommended dose
through RGSI
1743 156.1* 21.59* 0.0895
through RGSI
1743 154.1* 21.33* 0.0884
through RGSI
1743 151.8* 20.76* 0.0871
through RGSI
1743 137.3 18.99 0.0788
100% recommended dose under
surface irrigation (Control) 2564 132.2 18.36 0.0515
C.D. (P=0.05) 7.46 1.04
RDF- 315:140:140 NPK kg/ha) 4 equal splits up to 4.5 months
Pune Deep black Shinde and Deshmukh, 2007

Table 27. Cane yield, WUE, nutrient uptake and agronomic efficiency as
influenced by irrigation and nitrogen (Pooled data of 2 years)
Treatment
Cane yield
(t/ha)
IWUE
(kg/ha- cm)
N uptake
(kg/ha)
Agronomic
efficiency (kg
cane yield / kg
of applied N)
Apparent
recovery (%)
Irrigation schedule
Furrow method
at 75 mm CPE
131.4 787 113.4 253.0 22.2
Drip at 2 days 157.3 1644 146.4 363.1 30.4
3 days 152.7 1593 144.8 366.3 33.4
4 days 149.0 1551 138.9 376.2 31.8
SE 2.7 26 5.2 23.2 NS
Nitrogen (kg/ha)
250.0 158.7 1499 144.3 300.4 24.7
187.5 147.1 1390 134.1 340.4 27.3
125.0 137.0 1291 129.0 378.4 36.3
SE 1.6 14 7.0 14.1 3.0
Irrigation X
nitrogen
NS NS NS NS NS
Rahuri Clay Singandhupe et al. 2008

Table 28. Effect of irrigation methods, planting pattern and fertigation interval on cane yield
and field water use efficiency (FWUE) in sugarcane
Treatments Cane yield (t/ha) FWUE (kg/ha-cm )
Irrigation
methods
Planting
patterns
Fertigation
interval
Preseasonal
planting
Seasonal
planting
Preseasonal
planting
Seasonal
planting
Drip Normal planting Weekly 144.2 143.6 1515 1517
Drip Normal planting Fortnightly 140.8 133.7 1479 1413
Drip
60-120- 60 cm
PRP*
Weekly 134.8 129.8 1416 1371
Drip
60-120- 60 cm
PRP*
Fortnightly 129.2 134.6 1357 1422
Drip
60-180- 60 cm
PRP
Weekly 153.6 144.2 1614 1523
Drip
60-180- 60 cm
PRP
Fortnightly 137.1 136.3 1440 1429
Furrow Normal planting
NCU as
N source
106.4 124.7 675 821
Furrow Normal planting
Urea as
N source
105.4 117.2 669 771
LSD (0.05) 10.52 10.92 84.05 99
Total water applied (cm) – Drip 95.1 and 94.7 Saving in water (cm) – Preseasonal – 62.5
Furrow 157.7 and 152.0 Seasonal - 57.3
Arabhavi Medium deep black Chandrashekar, (2009)

Table 29. Comparison of fertilizer use efficiency in different
irrigation methods
Nutrients
Fertilizer use efficiency
Soil
application
Drip + soil
application
Drip +
fertigation
Nitrogen 30–50 65 95
Phosphorus 20 30 45
Potassium 50 60 80
Shekinah and Rakkiyappan (2011)

Fig. 7. Nutrient distribution pattern in different irrigation
methods

Table 30. Dry weight of weeds at 60 days after application of halosulfurm
methyl (75% WG)
Treatments
(g a.i./ha))
Dry weed biomass of
Cyperus rotundus (g/m2)
WCE (%) against Cyperus
rotundus
2008–09 2010–11 Mean 2008–09 2010–11 Mean
Halosulfuron methyl (52.5) 3.70 2.86 3.28 83.8 86.1 84.9
Atrazine (PE) followed by
2,4-D at 45 DAP (2000 + 340)
21.4 18.30 19.85 6.1 11.2 8.7
Three hand hoeings (30, 60, 90
DAP)
12.3 10.00 11.15 46.1 51.5 48.8
Untreated control 22.8 20.06 21.43
C.D. (P=0.05) 0.53 0.49
Karnal Clay loam Chand et al., 2014

Treatments
(g a.i./ha))
Cane yield (t/ha) % increase over control
2008–09 2010–11 Mean 2008–09 2010–11 Mean
Atrazine (PE) followed by
2,4-D at 45 DAP (2000 + 340)
67.0 71.4 69.2 35.9 32.0 33.9
Three hand hoeings (30, 60, 90
DAP)
85.3 89.1 87.2 73.0 64.7 68.9
Untreated control 49.3 54.1 51.7
C.D. (P=0.05) 3.1 3.6
Table 31. Effect of different treatments on cane yield and percent increase
in cane yield of sugarcane plant crop
Karnal Clay loam Chand et al., 2014

Table 32. Effect of weed control treatments on creeper weeds and yield attributes
of sugarcane (Mean of two years data of plant crop)
Treatments
No. of
creeper
weeds /plot
(harvest)
Creeper
weed dry
weight
(kg/ha)
WCE
(%)
Cane
length
(m)
Cane
diameter
(cm)
T1 Control ( No weeding) 39.0 192.2 1.85 2.22
T2: Hand weeding at 30 and 60 DAP 20.0 54.5 71.5 2.68 2.68
T3: 2, 4-D sodium salt @ 2 kg a.i. /ha at 60
DAP
22.0 79.8 58.5 2.89 2.92
T4: Hand weeding at 30, 60 DAP + 2,4-D
sodium salt @ 2 kg a.i. /ha at 75 DAP
21.0 30.5 84.0 3.12 2.83
T5: Metribuzin @1.25 kg a.i. /ha + 2,4-D
19.0 34.5 82.1 2.90 2.48
T6: Almix @ 20 g a.i. /ha at 75 DAP 24.0 68.8 64.2 2.82 2.96
T7: Metribuzin @ 1.25 kg a.i. /ha + Almix @
20 g a.i. /ha at 75 DAP
25 72.2 62.2 2.68 2.65
T8: Ethoxy sulfuran @ 50 g/ha at 75 DAP 26 84.5 55.9 2.45 2.76
T9: Metribuzin @ 1.25kg a.i. /ha + Ethoxy
sulfuran @ 50 g a.i. /ha at 75 DAP
22 66.3 65.6 2.85 2.84
C.D. (P=0.05) 67.3 0.65 0.29
Perumallapalle (AP) Sandy loam Sarala et al., 2011

Table 33. Effect of weed control treatments on yield and economics of sugarcane
(Mean of two years data of plant crop)
Treatments
Cane
yield
(t/ha)
Total cost of
cultivation
(Rs/ha)
Gross
returns
(Rs/ha)
Net
returns
(Rs/ha)
B:C
T1 Control ( No weeding) 57.8 84000 115600 31600 1.37
T2: Hand weeding at 30 and 60 DAP 101.2 109000 202400 93400 1.85
T3: 2, 4-D sodium salt @ 2 kg a.i. /ha at 60
DAP
86.9 87274 173800 86526 1.99
T4: Hand weeding at 30, 60 DAP + 2,4-D
110.3 101255 220500 119245 2.17
T5: Metribuzin @1.25 kg a.i. /ha + 2,4-D
103.3 88874 206700 117826 2.32
T6: Almix @ 20 g a.i. /ha at 75 DAP 82.8 86040 165700 79660 1.92
T7: Metribuzin @ 1.25 kg a.i. /ha + Almix @
20 g a.i. /ha at 75 DAP
89.3 98152 178500 80348 1.81
T8: Ethoxy sulfuran @ 50 g/ha at 75 DAP 83.7 85264 167500 82236 1.96
T9: Metribuzin @ 1.25kg a.i. /ha + Ethoxy
sulfuran @ 50 g a.i. /ha at 75 DAP
95.3 88376 190600 102224 2.15
C.D. (P=0.05) 10.8
Perumallapalle (AP) Sandy loam Sarala et al., 2011

Table 34. Weed density and fresh weight of weeds as influenced by different weed
control treatments in ratoon crop (mean of 3 years)
Treatment
Fresh
weight of
weeds (t/ha)
WCE
(%)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Sugar
yield
(t/ha)
T1 : Control 10.60 0.0 75.4 9.1
T2 : Three hoeings (1st , 4th , 7th WARI). 2.01 81.0 96.0 11.9
T3 : Atrazine @ 2 kg a.i/ha as pre – emergence +
2,4-D at 1 kg a.i/ha at 45 DARI
3.60 66.0 91.5 11.3
T4 : Atrazine @ 2 kg a.i/ha as pre – emergence +
hoeing at 45 DARI
3.47 67.3 94.2 11.7
T5 :Metribuzin @ 1 kg a.i/ha as pre – emergence +
2,4-D at 1 kg a.i/ha at 45 DARI
3.30 68.9 93.1 11.4
T6 : Metribuzin @ 1 kg a.i/ha as pre – emergence +
hoeing at 45 DARI.
2.50 76.4 97.4 11.9
T7 :Glycel – 41 @ 0.4 kg a.i/ha at 3 weeks stage 5.21 39.2 81.3 9.9
T8 :T7 + one hoeing at 60 DARI 4.15 60.8 87.1 10.6
T9 :Trash mulching in alternate rows + hoeing at 1st
and 6th WARI
2.93 72.3 91.8 11.4
T10 :Trash mulching in all rows. 4.664 56.2 85.1 10.5
C.D. (P = 0.05) 4.6
Anakapalle (AP) Sandy loam Devi et al., 2010

Table 35. Effect of organic mulches on WCE, yield and economics of sugarcane
Treatments WCE (%) Tillers/ha
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Sugar yield
(t/ha)
B:C ratio
Raw pressmud as mulch
@ 25 t ha-1
62.5 3,49,900 119.0 13.05 2.64
Co 5 cowpea as intercrop
(two lines along the
ridges)
63.8 3,36,300 112.8 11.24 2.61
Trash mulching @ 5 t/ha 71.8 3,69,200 128.5 15.28 2.90
Integrated use of atrazine
1 kg ha-1 plus one hand
weeding on 55 DAP
67.8 3,57,300 118.4 12.34 2.63
Farmers practice (Three
hoeing)
66.9 3,66,200 115.7 11.75 2.61
Control (unweeded) - 2,16,200 82.4 8.36 -
CD (P=0.05) - 22.40 8.59 1.26 -
Cuddalore (TN) Jayachandran et al., 2004

Sugarcane based cropping systems

Table 36. Effect of french bean intercropping on productivity, income and
OC status (pooled data of 2 years)
Particular
Sugar cane sole crop
Sugar cane+ French bean
intercrop
% increase
over s cane
alone
Minimum maximum average Minimum maximum average
Productivity ( t/ha )
(A)S cane 63.30 68.90 66.97 80.50 88.92 83.89 25.28
(B)French
bean
0.0 0.0 0.0 7.43 8.69 8.17 100
Total 63.30 68.90 66.97 87.94 97.32 92.10 37.46
Income (Rs lacks/ha)
(A)S cane 0.95 1.03 1.004 1.18 1.33 1.26 25.49
(B)French
bean
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.97 1.12 1.06 100
Total 0.95 1.03 1.004 2.15 2.45 2.32 131.07
Organic carbon Percent
OC % 0.37 0.65 0.48 0.67 0.77 0.73 52.08
Meerut (UP) Prakash et al., 2012

Table 37. Effect of different treatments on yield and quality of sugarcane ratoon
Cropping system
NMC
(000/ha)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Intercrop
yield (t/ha)
Cane equivalent
yield (t/ha)
N uptake by
sugarcane
(kg/ha)
Ratoon cane sole 112.4 64.8 64.8 98.6
Ratoon cane + berseem 117.8 72.4 32.2 90.8 115.7
Ratoon cane+senji 116.5 71.5 17.1 79.9 111.2
CD(P=0.05) 5.0 6.6 2.9 5.4
Table . Effect of cropping system on soil physico-chemical properties
Ratoon cane sole
Ratoon cane +
berseem
Ratoon cane+senji
Infiltration rate (mm/hr) 3.63 4.82 4.31
Bulk density (g/cm3) 1.42 1.26 1.31
Available soil N (kg/ha)
Initial 208.7 208.7 208.7
After harvest of forage
205.9 243.5 253.6
IISR, Lucknow Clay loam Singh et al., 2007

Table 38. Effect of different intercropping systems on cane yield and
economics of sugarcane (mean data of 2 years)
Treatments
Tiller count
(000/ha)
NMC
(000/ha)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Intercrop
yield (kg/ha)
Net income
(Rs/ha)
B:C
Sugarcane sole 237.0 127.8 105.7 - 27,872 1.57
Sugarcane + Blackgram 230.0 125.8 104.3 374 32,544 1.64
Sugarcane +Soyabean 222.4 119.0 96.9 368 23,699 1.47
Sugarcane +Greeengram 213.3 114.7 94.7 258 22,157 1.44
Sugarcane +Groundnut 213.8 116.5 95.7 484 15,274 1.49
Sugarcane +Sunnhemp 220.8 125.1 113.3 8675 32,731 1.66
Sugarcane +Cowpea 197.5 112.3 91.1 262 19,598 1.39
CD (P=0.05) 27.5 14.2 11.4 - - -
Cuddalore (TN) Clay loam Marimuthu (2009)

• Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative is a method of
sugarcane production which involves using
less seeds, less water and optimum utilization
of fertilizers and land to achieve more yields.
Driven by farmers, SSI is an alternate to
conventional seed, water and space intensive
Sugarcane cultivation.
Producing ‘More with Less’

• Raising nursery using single budded chips
• Transplanting young seedlings (25-35 days old)
• Maintaining wide spacing (5X2 feet) in the main
field
• Providing sufficient moisture through water
saving efficient irrigation technologies viz., skip
furrow, alternate furrow and subsurface drip
irrigation
• Practicing intercropping with effective utilization
of land

Water management
Produce more per mm of water and all
other inputs
Raise cane crop even under marginal
lands
Raise crop in problem soils and water
Minimum tillage
Create micro catchments for water
harvesting
 Multi-ratooning
 Produce higher cane yield with less
water

Removing leaves from healthy canes Cutting buds from canes
Cutting buds from canes Bud treatment
The SSI Process

Partly filling of coco-pith in the tray Placing the buds in the tray and
covering the buds completely with
coco-pith
The SSI Process
Stacking: placing trays one above the other Stacking (for 5-8 days)

Stacking opened after 5 days) Watering (20-25 days)
GradingWell-maintained nursery
The SSI Process

The SSI Process
Transplanting of 25-35 day-old Seedlings
Safe transportation to fieldSeedlings ready for transplanting

Sugarcane: Seed cane planting
• Requires12-15% of annual production
• Bulky, cumbersome and costly
• Labour-intensive, ineffective
• Constrains promotion of new varieties
• Seed treatment is impossible
• Not possible to fix plant population
Result of cane planting:
• Poor tillering
• Poor yields
• More input costs
• Pest attacks

Case study 1
• Name of farmer: Bastapure Sagar Narsingh
• Place: Sakhra, Latur, Maharashtra
• Experience in sugarcane farming: 20 years
• Experience on SSI: 1 year
• Total agricultural land: 13 acres
• SSI area: 4 acres
• Variety: Co- 86032
• No. of seedlings planted: 20,000
• Spacing: 5 x 2 ft
• Date of transplantation: 06-Nov-2011
• Avg. no. of millable canes: 13
• Avg. length & girth of canes: 9 feet / 2.6 cm
• Date of crop harvested: 17-Nov-2012
• Avg. yield: 57 t / acre
• Rate for cane sold: Rs. 2500 per ton
• Total income: Rs. 142,500
• Cost of cultivation: Rs. 47,000
• Net income: Rs. 95,500
• Cane sold: To factory

Case study 2
• Name of farmer: Rajkumar Jadhav
• Place: Dhanori, Nilangna, Maharashtra
• Experience in sugarcane farming: 5 years
• Experience on SSI: 1 year
• Total agricultural land: 15 acres
• SSI area: 6 acres
• Variety: Co- 671
• No. of seedlings planted: 33,000
• Spacing: 6 x 1.5 ft
• Date of transplantation: 14-Jan-2012
• Avg. no. of millable canes: 8
• Avg. length & girth of canes: 8 feet / 2.7 cm
• Date of crop harvested: 25-Dec-2012
• Avg. yield: 50 t / acre
• Rate for cane sold: Rs. 2500 per ton
• Total income: Rs. 125,000
• Cost of cultivation: Rs. 60,000
• Net income: Rs. 65,000
• Cane sold: To factory

Table 39. Cost-Benefit Analysis of 2 Case Studies SSI vs.
Conventional (per acre)
Avg. yield of Latur district: 28 t/acre
SSI vs. Conventional
Particulars
Bastapure Sagar Narsingh Rajkumar Jadhav
SSI Conventional SSI Conventional
Land Cost Own land Own land Own land Own land
Seed Cost 10,000 7,000 11000 7,500
Land Preparation Cost 2,000 2,000 3,000 6,500
Transplantation 500 2,000 1,000 1,500
Fertilizer Cost 18,000 18,000 25,000 25,000
Weeding/Earthing up 8,000 15,000 9,000 15,000
Propping-up NA NA 1,000 1,000
Irrigation 8,500 10,000 10,000 15,000
Harvesting By factory By factory By factory By factory
TOTAL COST 47,000 54,000 60,000 71,500
Output (t/acre) 57 40 50 40
Total Income 1,42,500 1,00,000 1,25,000 1,00,000
NET INCOME 95,500 46,000 65,000 28,500

Other Benefits
• Seed cane saving – reduce requirements
Conventional 7-10 t/ha; SSI only 1.25 t/ha
• Water saving in nursery – 90 % in the
first month
• Water saving in main field – Use of drip system & wide
spacing saves up to 30-60%
• Scope for Intercropping… improve soil fertility
Saving in conventional fertilisers and pesticides due to
scope for more targeted doses, with high intake methods

Contd..
• Faster varietal spread –
Conventional 1:6 to 1:8; SSI 1: 100
• Water essentially confined to the root zone - Salinity
build-up reduced
• Healthy growth from the
beginning -
Pest and disease incidence lower
• Intercropping is possible –
Additional/interim income for
the farmer

Overall benefits
In conventional method, cost of
setts occupies the major part of
cost of cultivation
By practicing SSI, this seed cost
can be reduced up to 75%
Reduction in the plant mortality
rate
Increases in the length and
weight of each cane
It is easy to transport the young
seedlings for longer distance
Intercultural operations can be
carried out easily due to wider
spacing

Conclusion
 Improved cultivars like CoSnk 814, SNK 07680, CoM 0263, 2002V48 are
promising in improving productivity of sugarcane
 Planting methods like ring pit method of planting, wide row planting ensures
the higher cane yield (20-30 t/ha) than conventional method
 Integrated nutrient management with use of micro nutrients and
biofertilizers leads to sustain sugarcane productivity in India
 Fertigation through drip and sprinkler irrigation help to increase the cane
yield (25-42%), nutrient use efficiency and saving in water (49-56%)
 The Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative (SSI) is yet another practical approach
to sugarcane production which is based on the principles of ‘more with less’.
SSI improves the productivity of cane, water, land and labour, all at the
same time, while reducing the overall pressure on water resources.

Improved Agro techniques to Enhance Sugarcane Productivity in India

Improved Agro techniques to Enhance Sugarcane Productivity in India

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Improved Agro techniques to Enhance Sugarcane Productivity in India

Similar to Improved Agro techniques to Enhance Sugarcane Productivity in India (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Improved Agro techniques to Enhance Sugarcane Productivity in India

Editor's Notes