SUGARCANE ARTICLES

1. SUGARCANE
PRESENTED BY
M. SHRAVAN KUMAR
M.Sc. AGRONOMY – 1ST YEAR.
RAM / 16 -03.

2. Table 3. Response of S.cane varieties to various
planting geometry
Treatment Millable
canes
( X 1000
/ha)
Cane
yield
( t/ha)
Sucrose
in juice
( %)
Cost of
cultivation
( Rsx1000)
Net returns
(Rs x1000)
B:C
Planting geometry ( cm )
120 93.6 73.9 17.18 62.4 126.1 2.02
150 68.9 61.5 17.03 61.3 95.6 1.56
30:120
Paired row
116.8 90.1 17.40 65.2 164.6 2.53
90 118.2 91.7 17.59 64.3 169.5 2.64
SEm 10.23 5.09 0.203 9.17 0.198
CD ( P=0.05) 35.4 17.6 NS 31.7 0.69
SOURCE : IJ of Agronomy ,,2014 DIPIKA et al ,,2012-13,,PUSA ,,BIHAR

3. Table 2. Intercropping of medicinal and high value crops in
autumn sugarcane for higher productivity and profitability
Treatment SEY
( t/ha)
CCS
( %)
Net
returns (Rs
x 1000 )
% Increase in
Net returns
over sole
Sole S.cane 72.09 12.4 61.4
S.Cane + gobhi sarson GSC 5 (1:1) 82.03 12.9 71.3 16.2
S.Cane + gobhi sarson GSC 5 (1:1) 86.36 13.0 77.9 26.9
S.Cane + gobhi sarson GSC 6 (1:1) 79.64 12.2 67.6 10.1
S.Cane + gobhi sarson GSC 6 (1:1) 84.69 12.7 75.0 22.2
S.Cane + gobhi sarson GSC 2 (1:1) 87.95 12.8 80.9 31.8
S.Cane + Celery ( 1:1) 81.83 13.0 71.3 16.1
S.Cane + Celery ( 1:2) 87.49 12.8 79.2 29.0
S.Cane + Barley ( 1:2) 74.58 12.8 60.9 -0.9
S.Cane + radish for seed purpose 82.05 12.6 71.3 16.2
SEm 1.54 0.07
CD ( P=0.05) 3.24 NS
SOURCE : IJ of Agronomy ,2015 RAJENDAR et al,,2006-09,,Ludhiana ,,Punjab.

4. Table 4 .Effect of Integrated weed management in S.cane
Treatment Dry wt.of
weeds at
final earthing
up (t/ha)
WCE
( %)
Cane
yield
( t/ha)
Cost of
cultivation
( RsX1000)
Net
returns
( Rs x
1000)
B :C
Unweeded control 7.07 63.8 127.9 38.0 0.30
3 HW at 30,60,90DAP
and 2 IC at 45and 90DAP
1.43 78.6 134.4 141.7 207.6 1.46
Atrazine 2.0 kg/ha PE 3.60 49.9 109.3 129.8 154.2 1.19
Atrazine 2.0 kg/ha as PE
+ 1 HW and 1 IC at 60
DAP
2.89 56.3 123.9 134.6 187.3 1.39
Metribuzin 2 kg/ha as PE
+ 2,4 –Na salt 1 kg/ha as
PoE applied at 60 DAP
3.70 45.4 118.5 134.6 173.3 1.29
Atrazine 2 kg/ha as PE
+2,4-D Na at 1 kg/ha PoE
at 60 DAP
3.16 69.6 128.4 135.0 198.8 1.47
2,4-D@1 kg/ha as PoE
+paraquat at 0.5 kg/ha
PoE at 30 DAP fb 60 DAP
6.13 31.6 115.7 130.4 170.4 1.31

5. Table 5. Effect of Integrated weed management in S.cane
Treatment Dry wt.of
weeds at
final earthing
up (t/ha)
WCE
( %)
Cane
yield
( t/ha)
Cost of
cultivation
( RsX1000)
Net
returns
( Rs x
1000)
B :C
2,4-D@1 kg/ha as PoE
+paraquat at 0.5 kg/ha
PoE at 30 DAP fb 60 DAP
4.20 75.5 111.4 129.4 160.2 1.24
2,4-D@1 kg/ha as PoE
+paraquat at 0.5 kg/ha
PoE at 30 DAP fb 60 DAP
4.05 76.9 113.0 129.9 163.8 1.26
2,4-D@1 kg/ha as PoE
+paraquat at 0.5 kg/ha
PoE at 30 DAP fb 60 DAP
3.90 39.4 116.0 129.9 171.8 1.32
Pendimathalin 1 kg/ha
as PE + Sunflower as
smoother crop
harvested and mulched
at 60 DAP
6.74 56.0 99.1 129.7 123.6 0.92
CD ( P=0.05 ) 1.02 17.92
SOURCE :IJ of Agronomy ,2014 MANSURI et al ,,2011-12 ,,NAVSARI ,,GUJARAT .

6. Table 6 .Growth, yield attributes ,,yield and sucrose content of
S.cane as influenced by planting methods
Treatment Plant
population
( X
1000/ha)
Millabl
e cane
( X
1000
/ha)
Cane
yield
( t/ha)
Sucrose
in juice
( %)
Cost of
cultivation
( X 1000
Rs/ha)
Net
returns
( X 1000
Rs/ha)
B : C
Planting method
Conventional 151.9 108.1 92.9 16.72 66.7 142.4 3.13
Paired row 143.9 103.1 87.9 16.65 61.3 136.4 3.21
FIRBS 134.3 96.2 82.3 16.72 66.7 112.5 2.68
SEm 6.73 3.48 2.96 0.179 3.34 0.082
CD ( P=0.05) NS 10.5 8.9 NS 5.8 0.25
SOURCE : IJ OF AGRONOMY ,,2013. NAVNITH KUMAR ,,2010 – 12 ,,PUSA,,BIHAR

7. Table 7 .Growth, yield attributes ,,yield and sucrose content of
S.cane as influenced by Irrigation levels
Treatment Cane
height
( cm)
Millabl
e cane
( X
1000
/ha)
Cane
yield
( t/ha)
Sucrose
in juice
( %)
Cost of
cultivation
( X 1000
Rs/ha)
Net
returns
( X 1000
Rs/ha)
B : C
Irrigation regime
0.50 247 93.0 75.4 16.74 63.6 106.2 2.67
0.75 260 104.3 89.7 16.65 64.9 137.0 3.11
1.00 268 110.0 98.0 16.70 66.2 148.2 3.24
SEm 6.7 3.48 2.96 0.179 3.3 0.08
CD ( P=0.05) 20 10.5 8.9 NS 5.8 0.25
SOURCE : IJ OF AGRONOMY ,,2013. NAVNITH KUMAR ,,2010 – 12 ,,PUSA,,BIHAR

8. Table 8. Effect of Genotypes and fertility levels on nutrient uptake
,,soil fertility status and economics in S.cane (Spring season )
Treatment Nutrient
uptake(kg/ha)
PH nutrient
status in soil
Cost of
cultivation
(x 1000 Rs
/ha)
Net
returns ( x
1000Rs/ha
)
B:C
N P K N P K
Genotype
BO 147 198.2 18.4 230.3 215 8.6 105 60.60 48.46 1.78
B0 146 173.1 16.3 205.1 236 11.3 114 60.60 40.80 1.66
CoP 022 144.5 13.4 171.6 252 12.5 120 60.60 34.63 1.56
SEm 4.2 0.4 4.6 5 0.3 3 - 1.03 0.04
CD( P=0.05) 12.4 1.1 13.8 15 0.8 8 - 3.07 0.11
Fertility level
75 (%) 132.6 12.5 158.4 210 7.9 101 59.67 23.40 1.38
100(%) 180 16.7 209.5 239 11.7 116 60.59 45.96 1.75
125(%) 203.2 18.9 239.1 254 12.8 122 61.53 54.52 1.88
SEm 4.2 0.4 4.6 5 0.3 3 - 1.03 0.04
CD (P=0.05) 12.4 1.1 13.8 4 0.8 8 - 3.07 0.11
SOURCE:IJ of Agronomy,2012. NAVNITH et al ,PUSA,BIHAR,2007-10.
RDF 250 ; 100: 125 )

9. Table9. Effect of Genotypes and fertility levels on nutrient uptake
,,soil fertility status and economics in S.cane (Spring season )
Treatment Nutrient
uptake(kg/ha)
PH nutrient
status in soil
Cost of
cultivation
(x 1000 Rs
/ha)
Net
returns ( x
1000Rs/ha
)
B:C
N P K N P K
Genotype
BO 147 198.2 18.4 230.3 215 8.6 105 60.60 48.46 1.78
B0 146 173.1 16.3 205.1 236 11.3 114 60.60 40.80 1.66
CoP 022 144.5 13.4 171.6 252 12.5 120 60.60 34.63 1.56
SEm 4.2 0.4 4.6 5 0.3 3 - 1.03 0.04
CD( P=0.05) 12.4 1.1 13.8 15 0.8 8 - 3.07 0.11
Fertility level
75 (%) 132.6 12.5 158.4 210 7.9 101 59.67 23.40 1.38
100(%) 180 16.7 209.5 239 11.7 116 60.59 45.96 1.75
125(%) 203.2 18.9 239.1 254 12.8 122 61.53 54.52 1.88
SEm 4.2 0.4 4.6 5 0.3 3 - 1.03 0.04
CD (P=0.05) 12.4 1.1 13.8 4 0.8 8 - 3.07 0.11
SOURCE:IJ of Agronomy,2012. NAVNITH et al ,PUSA,BIHAR,2007-10.

10. Table 10 .Effect of fertility levels on Growth , yield attributes,,
yield and economics of S. Cane
Treatment Cane weight
(g)
NMC
( X 1000
/ha)
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Sucrose
( %)
Net returns
( Rs/ha)
B :C
Fertility level ( % rec. dose )
75 709.2 90.0 76.2 13.43 72643 3.13
100 798.7 108.8 85.0 15.33 83574 3.36
125 818.4 110.1 88.0 15.75 86556 3.36
SEm 3.3 1.1 0.8 0.11
CD ( P =
0.05 )
12.1 2.3 3.2 0.36
SOURCE: IJ OF AGRONOMY ,,2014. KUMAR et al ,,2007 -09 ,,MUZAFFARNAGAR,U.P

11. Table 11 Effect of P and S levels on yield ,,P & S uptake and use
efficiencies of S.cane
Treatment Cane yield
(kg/ha)
P Uptake
(kg/ha )
S Uptake
(kg/ha)
P-Use
Efficiency
S-Use
Efficiency
P Level ( kg/ha )
0 61.88 12.47 24.30 92.0
17.5 68.05 14.76 27.03 358.7 101.5
35 73.54 16.48 29.72 332.9 109.5
52.5 74.73 16.90 30.27 234.5 110.5
SEm 2.23 0.22 0.42
CD 6.45 0.64 1.20
S Level (kg/ha)
0 63.44 13.35 24.38 281.8
40 67.87 14.50 27.04 300.9 106.9
80 73.17 16.17 29.68 324.5 118.7
120 73.73 16.59 30.22 327.5 84.5
SEm 2.23 0.22 0.42
CD(P=0.05) 6.45 0.64 1.20
SOURCE:IJ of Agronomy ,2008 NAVNITH AND U.P.SIMHA ,,2003-05,,PUSA,BIHAR

12. Table 12. Growth attributes , yield and quality of plant crop of
S.cane under different planting methods
Treatment Gern.
(%)
Millable
canes ( X
1000 /ha )
Cane yield
( t /ha)
Brix ( % ) CCS ( % ) Sugar
yield
( t /ha)
Planting method
Convention
al
28.7 108.8 71.3 21.70 13.06 9.29
Trench 34.9 108.0 74.9 21.49 13.27 9.89
Pit 32.4 78.9 68.9 21.85 12.99 8.90
SEm 1.9 4.1 2.79 0.10 0.10 0.41
CD
( P= 0.05)
NS 8.2 NS NS NS NS
SOURCE : IJ OF AGRONOMY ,,2008 BHULLAR et al ,,2004 – 06,,PAU ,,PUNJAB

13. Table 13. Growth attributes , yield and quality of plant crop of
S.cane under different seed rates
Treatment Gern.
(%)
Millable
canes ( X
1000 /ha
)
Cane
yield ( t
/ha)
Brix ( % ) CCS ( % ) Sugar
yield
( t /ha)
Seed rate ( t /ha)
4.0 ( Trans) 74.1 93.7 67.2 21.63 13.10 8.79
8.0 ( Sett ) 32.3 93.5 68.8 21.73 13.12 9.00
16.0 ( Sett ) 31.8 109.0 79.1 21.68 13.10 10.36
SEm 1.3 3.9 3.62 0.15 0.12 0.44
CD
( P= 0.05 )
NS 8.1 7.35 NS NS 0.91
SOURCE : IJ OF AGRONOMY ,,2008 BHULLAR et al ,,2004 – 06,,PAU ,,PUNJAB

14. Table 14. Effect of FYM and fertilizer levels on yield and
economics of S.cane
Treatment Cane yield
(t /ha)
Cost (Rs
x1000)
Net inc.(Rs
x1000)
B:C
FYM ( t/ha)
0 75.3 63.51 62.41 1.99
20 87.5 67.71 78.83 2.16
SEm 2.1 3.40 0.05
CD( P=0.05) 6.4 10.31 0.16
Fertilizer levels ( kg/ha)
N 150 + P 37.1+ K 49.8 (RDF) 69.2 64.77 50.78 1.79
N 150 + P 43.6+ K 66.4(RDF) 78.3 65.21 65.82 2.01
N 200 + P 43.6 + K 83.0 (RDF) 87.6 65.94 80.66 2.23
N 200 + P 54.6 + K 99.6 (RDF) 90.7 66.54 85.23 2.28
SEm 3.0 4.81 0.08
CD ( P=0.05) 9.0 14.58 0.23
SOURCE:IJ of Agronomy,2012 KUMAR et al,2008-10 ,PUSA ,BIHAR

15. Table 15 .Effect of cropping system on yield attributes and net
returns
Treatment NMC
( X
1000 /
ha )
Cane
yield
( t /ha)
Intercrop
yield
( t/ha)
CEY
( t/ha)
Net
returns
( X 1000
Rs /ha)
B: C
Cropping system
S. Cane ( sole ) 119.9 84.3 84.3 49.3 1.60
S + Lentil 114.5 76.6 1.11 97.5 55.8 1.69
S + Rajmash 117.1 84.9 1.98 130.2 88.1 2.47
S + Ind.mustard 118.1 74.9 1.29 94.9 55.3 1.59
S + Rapeseed 109.1 73.9 1.11 89.3 50.2 1.45
S.Cane + Maize 115.1 78.5 80.4 124.8 82.7 2.31
SEm 2.1 3.0 2.5
CD ( P= 0.05 ) 6.2 8.9 7.5
SOURCE : IJ OF AGRONOMY ,,2008. SINGH et al ,,2002 -14 ,, Lucknow , U.P

16. Table 16 .Effect of Spacing on yield attributes and net
returns
Treatment NMC
( X
1000 /
ha )
Cane
yield
( t
/ha)
CEY
( t/ha)
Net
returns
( X 1000
Rs /ha)
B: C
Row spacing
90 cm 111.8 76.9 103.1 62.7 1.32
75 cm 117.3 80.7 103.9 64.4 1.86
SEm 1.4 1.4 0.68
CD ( P = 0.05 ) 4.1 NS NS
SOURCE : IJ OF AGRONOMY ,,2008. SINGH et al ,,2002 -14 ,, Lucknow , U.P

17. Table 17. Yield of S.cane as influenced by fertigation
levels
Treatment No. of
tillers
(180 DAP)
No. of
millable
canes /ha
Cane yield
(t/ha)
Sugar yield
( t/ha)
Increase in
yield ( %)
100 % Fert.(A) 78413 77627 178.59 19.68 35.26
80 % Fert.(A) 74186 73067 164.41 17.18 24.02
60 % Fert.(A) 72560 72160 149.19 13.92 12.13
100 % Fert.(A) 78400 77867 187.75 22.00 41.77
80 % Fert.(B) 74288 73253 168.30 18.14 27.26
60 % Fert.(B) 76610 75200 156.71 15.31 17.96
100 % CF (NTD) 75216 75013 165.90 16.40 25.30
100 % CF + DI 73882 73253 156.25 15.48 17.61
100 % CF + SI 71719 62960 133.42 12.52
CD ( P=0.05) 685 NS 21.07 4.10
SOURCE :IJ of Agril sciences,2014. PAWAR et al,,2007 -10.RAHURI ,MAHARASTRA.
RDF : 250 – 150 – 150 .

18. Table 18. Economics of S.cane as influenced by
different treatments of fertigation .
Treatment Seasonal
cost
Net
seasonal
income
Net extra
income over
control
B :C Pay back
period
100 % Fert.(A) 84258 208311 48362 3.74 1.24
80 % Fert.(A) 80174 190851 30902 3.76 1.94
60 % Fert.(A) 76100 167820 7871 3.60 7.62
100 % Fert.(B) 84258 226196 66246 4.15 0.91
80 % Fert.(B) 80174 196864 36915 3.78 1.63
60 % Fert.(B) 76100 179782 19833 3.69 3.03
100 % CF (NTD) 70945 199869 39920 4.25 1.50
100 % CF + DI 70945 182420 22471 3.93 2.67
100 % CF + SI 53521 159949 4.68 1.24
CD ( P=0.05) 31200 NS
SOURCE :IJ of Agril sciences,2014. PAWAR et al,,2007 -10.RAHURI ,MAHARASTRA.
RDF : 250 – 150 – 150 .

19. Table 19.Effect of N application through fertigation
on yield ,quality parameters in S.cane
Treatment Cane
yield
(t/ha)
Brix (%) Sucrose (%) Purity (%) CCS (%)
Nitrogen levels ( RDF : 224 – 80 – 80 )
D1-100 % RDN 137.48 17.09 13.61 79.39 6.75
D2-75 % RDN 136.13 16.35 12.95 79.17 6.23
D3-50 % RDN 115.86 15.62 12.10 77.22 5.72
D4-Farmers
practice
104.11 16.45 13.31 80.58 6.39
SEm± 3.03 0.78 0.88 2.29 0.28
CD (0.05) 7.42 NS NS NS NS
PRABAKHAR et al ,ANGRAU ,,UTKUR ,,KADAPA,2009 -10 .

20. Table 20 . Effect of Organic nutrition on yield and economics of
sugarcane
Treatment Cane yield
( t/ha)
Cost of cultivation
(Rsx1000)
Net profit
(Rs x 1000)
B:C
SPM 10 t/ha+
Azatobacter
74.3 35.66 46.61 1.3
FYM 20 t/ha
+T.viridae+IC
70.4 35.57 52.48 1.5
SPM 10 t/ha
+FYM @ 10 t/ha
79.4 36.10 51.82 1.5
SPM 10 t/ha + IC 69.9 36.63 51.76 1.5
FYM @ 20 t/ha
+Acetobacter
71.8 34.56 44.83 1.4
Control 59.3 33.08 32.47 1.0
SEm 2.48
CD( P=0.05) 7.6
SOURCE:IJ of Agronomy,,2008. SRIVASTAVA et al, 2003-06 ,Lucknow ,,U.P

21. Table 22 .Effect of seed rate on Growth ,yield and economics of
pit planted S.cane
Treat. ( Seed rate /
planting density )
Germ.
%
Cane
height
( cm )
Cane
yield
( t /ha )
Sugar
yield
( t /ha )
Net ret
( Rs /ha )
B : C
12 Two budsetts /pit 47.4 245 84.7 10.0 29030 0.62
15 two bud setts /pit 48.0 245 110.2 12.9 55620 0.92
18 two bud setts /pit 47.6 247 132.0 15.4 77957 1.12
21 two bud setts /pit 47.0 248 144.8 16.8 89942 1.18
21 Sin bud setts / pit 48.0 248 146.2 17.1 88820 1.15
24 Sin bud setts /pit 44.3 228 80.9 9.4 24410 0.56
30 Sin bud setts /pit 45.2 230 105.8 12.2 50310 0.86
36 Sin bud setts /pit 44.7 233 121.9 14.1 66092 0.98
42 Sin bud setts /pit 44.7 233 142.4 16.4 86932 1.15
SOURCE : IJ OF AGRONOMY ,2011 CHAND et al, 2007 – 09 ,, KARNAL ,, HARYANA.

22. Table 23. Effect of seed rate on Growth ,yield and economics of
pit planted S.cane
Treat. ( Seed rate /
planting density )
CCS
( % )
Cane
height
( cm )
Cane
yield
( t /ha )
Sugar
yield
( t /ha )
Net ret
( Rs /ha )
B : C
12 Settlings / pit 11.7 246 86.0 10.1 33015 0.73
15 Settlings / pit 11.8 247 113.1 13.3 63036 1.07
18 Settlings / pit 11.6 247 133.4 15.5 85260 1.28
21 Settlings / pit 11.7 248 141.9 16.6 93915 1.35
24 Settlings /Pit 11.5 248 145.0 16.7 96366 1.36
SEm 0.2 1.6 0.4 1041 0.02
CD ( P = 0.05 ) NS 4.7 1.3 3042 0.05
SOURCE : IJ OF AGRONOMY ,2011 CHAND et al, 2007 – 09 ,, KARNAL ,, HARYANA.

23. Table 24 . Influence of genotypes and fertility levels on yield and nutrient uptake
in S.cane
RATOON OF SUMMER CANE
Treatment Cane
yield
( t/ha)
Nutrient uptake(kg/ha) Plant –ratoon system
N P K Gross(X
1000)
Net(
X1000)
B:C
Genotype
CoLk 9411 77.08 148.8 36.9 195.8 136.7 87.4 2.77
CoLk 9412 64.50 125.8 32.3 165.8 119.3 68.9 2.42
CoLk 94184 83.55 159.6 38.4 209.7 143.4 94.1 2.91
SEm 1.85 1.6 0.6 2.1
CD(P=0.05) 5.50 4.9 1.8 6.4
Fertility level ( NPK kg/ha)
150 +19.6+37.4 70.78 133.8 32.6 177.7 124.2 75.7 2.56
200 +26.2 +49.8 74.21 143.2 35.6 188.5 133 83.7 2.70
250 +32.8 +62.2 80.24 158.1 40.1 206.2 142.3 93 2.83
SEm 1.85 1.6 0.6 2.1
CD (P=0.05) 5.50 4.9 1.8 6.4
SOURCE: IJ of Agronomy,2007 SHUKLA et al,,2002-04,,Luknow,U.P

24. Table 25 . Influence of genotypes and fertility levels on yield and nutrient uptake
in S.cane
SPRING PLANTED CROP
Treatment Cane yield
( t/ha)
Nutrient uptake(kg/ha)
N P K
Genotype
CoLk 9411 71.03 139.9 34.8 184.7
CoLk 9412 60.11 120.8 30 158.1
CoLk 94184 77.42 150.9 37.2 198.9
SEm 1.5 2.2 0.8 1.9
CD(P=0.05) 4.5 6.5 0.5 5.8
Fertility level ( NPK kg/ha)
150 +19.6+37.4 64.22 123.9 29.5 163.1
200 +26.2 +49.8 73.37 146 35.9 190.8
250 +32.8 +62.2 70.97 145.5 36.9 188.8
SEm 1.5 2.2 0.8 1.9
CD (P=0.05) 4.5 6.5 2.5 5.8
SOURCE: IJ of Agronomy,2007 SHUKLA et al,,2002-04,,Luknow,U.P

25. Table 26. Influence of genotypes and fertility levels on yield and nutrient uptake
in S.cane
SUMMER SEASON CROP
Treatment Cane yield
( t/ha)
Nutrient uptake(kg/ha)
N P K
Genotype
CoLk 9411 59.61 117.4 27.4 154.9
CoLk 9412 54.81 113.3 27.4 144.2
CoLk 94184 59.84 116.7 28.7 153.8
SEm 1.32 2.7 0.4 2.1
CD(P=0.05) 3.83 5.2 1.4 6.1
Fertility level ( NPK kg/ha)
150 +19.6+37.4 53.4 103.1 24.5 135.6
200 +26.2 +49.8 58.82 117.1 28.8 152.9
250 +32.8 +62.2 62.04 127.2 32.2 165.5
SEm 1.32 2.7 0.4 2.1
CD (P=0.05) 3.83 5.2 1.4 6.1
SOURCE: IJ of Agronomy,2007 SHUKLA et al,,2002-04,,Luknow,U.P

26. Table 1 .Integrated weed management for S.cane
plant -ratoon system
Treatment Weeds
/m2
Cane yield
( t/ha)
CCS ( %) Cost of
cultivation
( Rs/ha)
Net return
( Rs/ha)
B:C
Weed management method in plant cane
Chemical 378 72.7 11.9 45912 27668 1.60
Interculture 281 75.7 12.0 49527 31749 1.64
Integrated 325 73.9 11.9 47485 31503 1.66
Weedy
check
523 65.4 11.9 43036 15932 1.37
CD( P=0.05) 37 3.8 NS 46490 26713 1.57
SOURCE :IJ of Agronomy ,,2006. ROSHAN et al,,2001- 04,,Karnal ,,Haryana

27. Table 27. Effect of planting methods and irrigation schedules on
cane yield ,and economics of S. Cane
Treatment NMC ( X
1000 /ha )
Cane yield
( t /ha)
Sugar yield
( t /ha )
Net returns (
X 1000 Rs
/ha)
B : C
Planting method
Conventional flat 97.0 65.8 8.68 56.2 0.71
Paired row trench 105.7 76.4 10.15 75.3 0.93
FIRB 100.6 74.8 9.90 73.1 0.90
SEm 1.27 1.01 0.14 1.9 0.02
CD (P = 0.05 ) 3.6 2.9 0.39 5.4 0.06
Irrigation schedule ( IW / CPE )
0.50 90.6 64.5 8.45 54.3 0.69
0.75 103.6 73.7 9.82 70.6 0.88
1.0 109.0 78.7 10.46 79.6 0.97
SEm 1.27 1.01 0.14 1.9 0.02
CD ( P = 0.05 ) 3.6 2.9 0.39 5.4 0.06
SOURCE : IJ OF AGRONOMY, 2015. KULDEEP SINGH et al ,, 2009 – 11 ,,FARIDKOT ,,PUNJAB