1

Seminar
On
“ Recent advances in sugarcane production

technologies ”

2
 Sugarcane
• Sugarcane is an important commercial crop and plays vital role in Indian
agriculture.
• The sugar industry is the second largest agro-based industry, next only to textiles, in
the country.
• India ranks 2nd after Brazil among sugarcane producing countries of the world.
• In the country, Uttar Pradesh accounts for nearly half of the total cane area. Other
major cane producing states are Maharashtra (13%), Tamil Nadu (12 % each),
Karnataka (9 %) and Andhra Pradesh (6 %).
Table 1 : Area, production and productivity of sugarcane in World, India and Karnataka.

Area Production Productivity

(m. ha) (m. tons) tons ha-1
World 20.10 1318.00 65.50

India 4.92 348.44 70.72

Karnataka 0.41 32.40 93.00

Anon., 2015
 Sugar Paper
Juice

Sticks
Uses
Manures

Ethanol
Bio plastic

Alcohol cosmetics
Jaggery
 Planting materials
Different kinds of planting materials like
cane setts
• Sugarcane is mainly propagated through cane stalks. These cane stalks are cut into
pieces commonly known as setts.
Settlings
Bud chips

8
Sugarcane bud chipper
 Rayungans:
Are the single node setts with shoot produced
by cutting off the top of standing cane.

when sprouts are 4-6 weeks old they harden

and are fit for removal from mother stem and
for transplanting in field.
 Spindle buds:
After removing all the open leaves carefully the spindle
region of the stalk is cut into small segments(4-5
cm),each containing 1or 2 buds.

Seblang:
These are separated tillers. Use of seblangs is good,
although shock of separation gives the tillers a setback.
 Tjeblok

These are the sugarcane settlings produced in special nursery

where setts are planted vertically with one node below the soil
level, the node below soil level produces roots and the buds
above ground produce shoots.

12
 Tissue culture technique

• Meristem tips are excised and grown

in artificial medium under laboratory
conditions.

• Multiplication is faster. Hence, it is

used to develop seed material from
the limited number of buds.
Precautions to be taken in planting material preparation

Top one third to half portion of cane is best

Saperate nursery should be raised

Remove dried leaves from hand to avoid damage to bud

Crop is fertilised about 3 weeks prior to harvest

Entire cane without cutting should not be used

Ratoon crop should not be used

Setts should be prepared at the planting place

14
Effect of planting material
on growth and yield of
sugarcane
Table 2: Yield and quality attributes of sugarcane as influenced by sett size

Treatment Per cent NMC LMC Percent CCS (%) Cane Sugar
germination / ha (cm) sucrose yield yield
(t/ha) (t/ha)

Sett size (no. of buds per sett)

Three bud setts 61.9 77925 272.3 17.94 12.70 84.9 10.6

Two bud 62.9 79122 271.7 17.98 12.42 86.3 10.8

Single bud 52.6 69299 273.5 17.90 12.31 77.9 9.6

SEm± 0.5 816 1.2 0.06 0.07 1.33

CD @ 5% 1.4 2311 0.0 NS NS 3.6

Anakapalle, AP Chitkaladevi et al., 2011

Table 3: Effect of sett size, seed rate and sett treatment on growth, yield and
quality aspects of sugarcane
Treatment Germinat No. of Cane No. of Yield Sucrose CCS
ion % Tillers Length Millable (t/ha) (%) (%)
(,000/ha) (cm) canes
(,000/ha)
Sett size
Single budded 21.1 69.5 159.5 61.1 48.9 19.03 13.24

Two budded 26.5 100.2 167.2 71.6 55.9 19.52 13.63

Three budded 25.5 104.3 177.4 73.6 60.2 19.45 13.57

C.D @ 5% 1.3 5.3 7.1 3.8 3.3 0.28 0.21

Sett treatment
Carbendazim(0.1%) 33.1 111.5 170.7 79.1 64.1 19.33 13.47

Carbendazim(0.1%) 15.6 71.2 165.5 58.5 46.0 19.33 13.49

+100 ppm GA3
CD @ 5% 1.1 4.3 NS 3.1 2.7 NS NS

PAU, Ludhiana Jayesh Singh et al.,2013

 Table 4: comparison of conventionally propagated v/s tissue culture
propagated sugarcane crop for yield and associated traits

Treatment cane No. of cane single

yield(t/ha) millable diameter(cm) cane
canes weight(g)
(‘000/ha)
T1 : Conventionally 74.7 81.7 2.70 870
propagated 3 eye budded sett
T2: Tissue culture 83.4 95.6 2.51 807
propagated 3 eye budded sett

CD (5%) 7.03 10.70 NS 93

CV (%) 10.23 8.14 8.80 6.41

PAU, Punjab Sandhu et al., 2009

PLANTING METHODS
 Trench Method of planting
• Trenches, 20-25 cm deep and rectangular/ trapezoidal in
section are made.

• Shallow furrows are made in the bed of trench and the setts
are placed end to end.
 Pit / Ring Method of Planting
Circular pits of 90 cm diameter are dug out to a depth of 45 cm by maintaining 120
cm
between centers of two pit.

Pit / Ring Method of Planting

Pit system of planting
Paired row Method of planting :
Ridges & furrows are made at a distance of 60 cm & a
gap of 120 cm is left after every 2 rows.

Distant Planting Method:

• Developed at IISR Lucknow.
• Single budded setts are planted in nursery @ 20 q/ha or 18000 setts/ha.
• After 45-60 days single budded setts are planted in the main field at a
spacing of 90cm×50cm.

23
Partha method of planting

24
25
Effect of planting methods
on growth and yield
Table 5: Growth attributes, yield and quality of plant crop of sugarcane under different
planting methods (mean data of 3 year)

Treatment Germin Shoot Millable Millabl Single Cane Pol % Brix CCS Sugar
ation% s canes e cane cane yield % % yield
(*103/ (*103/ha length weigh (t/ha) (t/ha)
ha) ) (cm) t(kg)
Convention 28.7 180 108.8 178 0.59 71.3 18.94 21.7 13.0 9.29
al 0 6
Trench 34.9 205 108.0 191 0.63 74.9 19.19 21.4 13.2 9.89
9 7
Pit 32.4 140 78.9 208 0.83 68.9 18.81 21.8 12.9 8.90
5 9
SEm± 1.9 5 4.1 6 0.01 2.79 0.18 0.10 0.10 0.41

CD @ 5% NS 18 8.2 15 0.03 NS 0.27 NS NS NS

Ladhoval, punjab Bhullar et al., 2008

Table 6: Effects of planting methods adopted in plant crop on growth, yield and quality
of following ratoon crop (mean of 3 year)

Treatment Shoots Millable Millable Single Cane Pol % Brix CCS Sugar
(*103/ha) canes cane cane yield % % yield
(*103/ha) length weight (t/ha) (t/ha)
(cm) (kg)
Conventional 81 68.1 161 0.59 47.8 18.82 21.59 12.97 6.21

Trench 118 85.6 159 0.57 55.5 18.99 21.66 13.13 7.26

Pit 91 70.0 161 0.71 52.8 18.71 21.42 12.91 6.83

SEm± 3 3.2 4 0.03 1.67 0.30 0.26 0.23 0.24

CD @ 5% 13 7.4 NS 0.06 3.86 NS NS NS 0.56

Ladhoval, punjab Bhullar et al., 2008

Table 7: Cane yield, sugar % and sugar yield with varieties influenced by wide row
spacing

Varieties Cane yield (t/ha) Sugar % Sugar yield (t/ha)

3 feet 5 feet 3 feet 5 feet 3 feet 5 feet
Co62175 151.08 138.71 18.46 19.00 20.63 19.68
Co86032 146.91 132.40 20.15 20.10 21.96 19.80

M1 140.58 123.30 19.50 19.81 20.29 18.12

Co8371 138.88 131.47 19.55 19.45 20.16 18.96
CoVC9926 145.06 133.33 18.88 19.14 20.27 18.92
3
SEm± 5.07 0.392 0.934
CD @ 5% NS NS NS

ZARS, Mandya Keshavaiah et al., 2015

 Table 8: Evaluation of different methods of sugarcane cultivation

Treatment Brix Pol % Cane Cane No. of Single Yield

% length girth internode cane wt (t/ha)
(m) (cm) s (kg)
3´ planting 19.26 18.51 2.37 2.76 23.32 1.54 131.20

5´ planting 18.94 18.69 2.47 2.77 24.36 1.57 160.48

Paired row 19.00 18.38 2.70 2.71 23.44 1.70 106.33

Paired row 18.84 17.80 2.36 3.22 21.16 1.73 169.36

trench
Pit method 18.74 17.42 2.38 2.83 23.44 1.52 184.12

SEm± 4.05 0.412 0.145 0.09 1.11 1.10 4.05

CD @ 5 % NS NS NS 0.28 NS NS 12.14

ZARS, Mandya Anon., 2010

A model farmer: Mr. Vartharajan, Dharmapuri
A model Farmer, Mandya Dist.
Obtained a yield of >300 t/ha, in pit method of
Obtained highest cane yield under
System Which is almost double than
Pit system of planting
conventional ridges & furrow method

31
 SITE SPECIFIC NUTRIENT MANAGEMENT
(SSNM)
The site-specific nutrient management (SSNM) approach
emphasizes 'feeding' crop with nutrients as and when
needed.

Is defined as the dynamic, field-specific management

of nutrients in a particular cropping season to
optimize the supply and demand of nutrients
according to their differences in cycling through soil-
plant systems.
Dobermann and White (1999)
SSNM is a component of site specific crop management or
precision farming.
The basic assumptions in SSNM are :
 significant increase in nutrient use efficiency.
 Quantitative information about indigenous nutrient
supply.
 Turnover of externally applied nutrient on a field or farm
specific basis.
The SSNM approach involves three steps:
Step 1: Establish an attainable yield target
Location
Season specific
Cultivar and crop management

Step 2: Effectively use existing nutrients

Soil
Organic amendments
Crop residue
Manure and irrigation water
Step 3: Apply fertilizer to fill the deficit between
crop needs and indigenous supply
The site-specific integrated nutrient management
approach

Feeding of
crop needs

Indigenous nutrient
supply
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

Fig. 2. Effect of different fertilizer recommendation practices on cane and sugar yield
Maharastra Phoned et al., 2005
 Table 9: Effect of different treatments on yield and yield parameters of sugarcane

Treatment Yield CCS NMC CCS

(t ha-1) (t ha-1) (000 ha-1) (%)
RDNPK (250: 115: 115 kg ha-1) with FYM 107.7 17.41 78.77 16.11
Fertilizer dose as per soil test (AST) with FYM 126.4 20.41 84.61 16.13
Yield target 100 t ha -1 with FYM 105.8 17.91 77.10 16.24
Yield target 125 t ha -1 with FYM 124.7 20.31 88.23 16.31
Yield target 150 t ha -1 with FYM 145.0 23.28 96.85 16.06
RDNPK (250: 115: 115 kg ha-1) without FYM 102.9 16.61 76.16 16.14
Fertilizer dose as per soil test (AST) without 114.9 19.41 83.50 16.66
FYM
Yield target 100 t ha -1 without FYM 91.9 15.17 75.38 16.51
Yield target 125 t ha -1 without FYM 104.7 17.51 79.27 16.71
Yield target 150 t ha -1 without FYM 135.9 20.74 91.13 16.46
CD (P=0.05) 11.77 2.48 12.19 NS
CSRS, Pedegaon More et al., 2011

313: 115: 58 kg NPK ha-1 for soli test basis

166: 11: 140 kg NPK ha-1 for yield target of 100 t ha-1
331: 64: 205 kg NPK ha-1 for yield target of 125 t ha-1
496: 116: 270 kg NPK ha-1 for yield target of 150 t ha-1
Table 10: Effect of different treatments on soil chemical properties at harvest

pH EC Org. C Avail. N Avail. P Avail. K

Treatment (dSm-1) (%) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1) (kg ha-1)

Initial status 7.66 0.25 0.83 200 23 382

RDNPK (250: 115: 115 kg ha-1) with FYM 7.72 0.18 0.83 226 22 349
Fertilizer dose as per soil test (AST) with 8.01 0.20 0.80 226 26 353
FYM
Yield target 100 t ha -1 with FYM 8.03 0.15 0.84 218 25 346
Yield target 125 t ha -1 with FYM 8.05 0.13 0.84 222 19 356
Yield target 150 t ha -1 with FYM 7.87 0.15 0.86 234 23 387
RDNPK (250: 115: 115 kg ha-1) without 8.28 0.22 0.74 206 22 339
FYM
Fertilizer dose as per soil test (AST) 7.97 0.22 0.74 218 20 348
without FYM
Yield target 100 t ha -1 without FYM 7.95 0.27 0.72 203 18 331
Yield target 125 t ha -1 without FYM 7.92 0.23 0.75 208 23 338
Yield target 150 t ha -1 without FYM 7.95 0.26 0.76 223 23 381
CD (P=0.05) NS 0.06 0.05 5.17 2.56 7.6

CSRS, Pedegaon More et al., 2011

 Table 11: Yield & yield attributes of sugarcane as influenced by different
treatments
Cane Cane yield
Internode NMC
Treatment weight (t ha-
length (cm) ('000 ha )
-1
(kg) 1
)
T1 Control (No fertilizer) 0.96 10.29 58.01 65.05
T2 N 1.21 11.51 64.40 82.36
T3 NP 1.42 11.89 70.33 96.64
T4 NPK 1.52 12.58 71.53 103.59
T5 NPK + S 1.54 12.67 71.13 104.95
T6 NPK + Zn 1.55 12.63 70.80 105.17
T7 NPK + Fe 1.53 12.61 70.73 103.81
T8 NPK + Mn 1.52 12.88 70.05 103.59
T9 NPK + S + Zn 1.63 13.61 70.27 110.92
T10 NPK + S + Zn + Fe 1.70 13.69 71.96 115.86
T11 NPK + S + Zn + Fe + Mn 1.73 13.79 71.97 117.49
T12 Soil test based fertilizer application 1.80 13.93 73.00 122.51
S.Em+ 0.10 0.67 2.79 6.66
Mandya Anon.,
CD (p=0.05) 0.29 1.95 8.20 19.53
Response of intercrops to SSNM
 Table 12: Yield (t ha-1) of cane and intercrops as influenced by different fertilizer management
packages
Treatments Cane Onion Lentil DMY of GM

T1-Sole sugarcane (Fer. For MYG as per FRG 97) 83.75 - - -

T2- Sugarcane (Fer. For MYG as per FRG 97) + GM 91.78 - - 2.5
T3- Sugarcane (Fer. For MYG as per FRG 97) + Onion 93.57 8.20 - 2.38
(control) +GM
T4- Sugarcane (Fer. For MYG as per FRG 97) + Onion 104.60 9.92 - 2.67
(Fer. as per FRG 97) +GM
T5- Sugarcane (STB)+ Onion (STB) +GM 118.97 8.96 - 2.64
T6- Sugarcane (Fer. For MYG as per FRG 97) + Lentil 114.19 - 0.92 2.31
(control) +GM
T7- Sugarcane (Fer. as per FRG 97) + Lentil (Fer. For MYG 117.55 - 1.09 2.41
as per FRG 97) +GM
T8- Sugarcane (STB)+ Lentil (STB) +GM 121.55 - 1.05 2.75
Rajshahi
CD (Bangladesh)
(P=0.05) 3.95 NS Bokhtiar et al.,2002
0.036 -
FRG- Fertilizer recommendation guide 1997 MYG- Moderate yield goal (80 ± 10 t ha-1)
130:35:60:20:3 kg/ha N P K S Zn for sugarcane
50:20:30:10:0 kg/ha N P K S Zn for onion GM- Green manure
5:5:0:0:0 kg/ha N P K S Zn for lentil
STB- Soil test basis -190:44:65:25:3.5 kg/ha N P K S Zn for sugarcane
55:18:25:6:0 kg/ha N P K S Zn for onion
10:5:6:4:0 kg/ha N P K S Zn for lentil
“Drip fertigation in sugarcane”
Higher yield
and quality

Higher
WUE

Higher FUE
FERTIGATION
 Why fertigate ?

Fertigation : Conventional fertilization :

Fertilizer applied along with the Fertilizer applied separately

water from the water

Nutrients are dissolved and taken Nutrients are not dissolved in the dry
up in the root zone zones where the soil is not wetted
High fertilizer efficiency
Fertilizer efficiency decreases
Preferred method to correctly
apply fertilizers to irrigated crops
Table 13 : Comparison between flood irrigation and drip
fertigation in sugarcane

Particulars Flood irrigation Drip Fertigation

Water Requirement 2200 mm. 1000 mm.
Duration of irrigation 250 days 250 days
Irrigation interval 7 days 2 days
Number of irrigation 36 125
Yield 92-105 t/ha 150-200 t/ha
(53-61% )
Fertilizer use efficiency 30% 60%

TNAU Anon., 2013

 Fertigation equipments

Three main groups of equipments used in drip system are :

1.Venturi injector.
2.Fertilizer tank or by-pass pressure tank.
3.Fertilizer pump or Direct injection System.
Fertigation through Ventury
Fertilizer Tank Fertigation Pump
 ADVANTAGES

Nutrients and water are supplied near root zone.

Increases yield by 25-50 per cent .
FUE 60-80 per cent.
Application efficiency is 100%.
Saves time, labour and energy.
Safer application method.
Reduction of soil compaction and mechanical damage to the crops.
Convenient use of compound and ready-mix nutrient solutions containing small
concentration of micronutrients.
No salt build up in the crop root zone.
Minimum nutrient losses :weeds, leaching and runoff.
 LIMITATIONS

Very high cost of installation of drip irrigation system.

Emitter clogging.

Damage to pipes mechanically or by rodents and wild animals.

Selected soluble fertilizers can be used.

 Table 14: Fertilizers Suitable for Fertigation Via Drip Irrigation System
Nutrient Water soluble fertilizers Nutrient content

Nitrogen Urea 46-0-0

Ammonium nitrate 34-0-0
Ammonium sulphate 21-0-0
Calcium nitrate 16-0-0
Magnesium nitrate 11-0-0
Urea Ammonium nitrate 32-0-0
Potassium nitrate 13-0-46
Monoammonium phosphate 32-0-0

Phosphorus Monoammonium phosphate 12-61-0

Monopotassium phosphate 0-54-32
Phosphoric acid 0-82-0
Potassium Potassium chloride 0-0-60
Potassium sulphate 0-0-50
Potassium nitrate 13-0-46
Monopotassium phosphate 0-52-34

NPK Polyfeed 19-19-19

20-20-20
Micro nutrients Fe EDTA 13
Fe DTPA 12
Fe EDDHA 6
Zn EDTA 15
Ca EDTA 9.7
Rexolin CXK (B+ Cu + Fe + Mn +Mo+ Zn+ Mg ) …

TNAU Anon., 2013

 Essential characteristics of fertilizers for fertigation

o The selected fertilizer grade should be 100 per cent soluble

o It should avoid corrosion, softening of plastic pipes and

clogging of the irrigation system
o It should not react adversely to salts and other chemicals
present in irrigation water
o It should be completely soluble in water
 Steps for effective
fertigation
i. Installation of drip irrigation should be as per design
ii. Wash the filter element before starting fertigation
iii. Flush the laterals daily
iv. Fertigation should be done towards the end of an irrigation event. This is
to ensure that the fertilizer is washed away from the root by the incoming
water flow
v. After the completion of the fertigation, irrigation should be continued for
another 15 minutes. This will ensure the total removal of the fertilizer
from the irrigation system
vi. Concentration of fertilizers in effective root zone should not exceed
1000ppm
 Table 15 : FERTIGATION SCHEDULE
Recommended dose: 275: 62.5:112.5 kg NPK / ha
Crop stage Duration in days Fertilizer grade No. of times Quantity
(kg/time)
First stage From planting to 70 days 12-61-00 14 0.9
(5, 10,….. 70th day) 13-00-45 14 1.8
Urea 14 12.1
Second stage 71 days to 120 days 12-61-00 10 1.2
13-00-45 10 5.0
Urea 10 20.9
Third stage 121 days to 160 days 12-61-00 8 3.1
13-00-45 8 5.6
Urea 8 14.1
Fourth stage 161 days to 210 days 12-61-00 10 2.5
13-00-45 10 6.8
Urea 10 8.3

TNAU Anon., 2013

 Methods of fertigation

Surface Drip Irrigation Sub-surface Drip Irrigation

Effect of drip fertigation on growth, yield
and quality of sugarcane
 Table 16: Growth and Yield attributes of sugarcane as influenced by
irrigation methods, fertigation interval and planting pattern.
Treatment No. of shoots Millable cane Diameter of Cane yield
(‘000 s / ha) height (cm) cane (cm) (t/ha)

T1: Drip Normal planting Weekly 94.1 321.0 3.21 143.6

T2 : Drip Normal planting Fortnightly 85.7 308.6 3.23 133.7
T3 : Drip 60-120-60 cm PRP Weekly 84.9 332.0 3.17 129.8
T4 : Drip 60-120-60 cm PRP 95.6 317.3 3.15 134.6
Fortnightly
T5 : Drip 60-180-60 cm PRP Weekly 81.2 346.6 3.40 144.2
T6 : Drip 60-180-60 cm PRP 84.5 320.6 3.21 136.3
Fortnightly
T7 : Furrow Normal planting NCU as N 84.9 303.0 2.78 124.7
source
T8 : Furrow Normal planting Urea as N 86.7 299.0 2.87 117.2
source
C.D. (5%) 5.59 23.6 0.197 10.92

Note : PRP = Paired row planting ; NCU = Neem coated urea

ARS Arabhavi, Medium deep block soil Chandrashekara, 2009
 Table 17 : Yield characters as influenced under sugarcane fertigation.
(3 years mean)
Treatment NMC Weight of Cane yield Sugar yield Increase
(‘000 s / ha) millable cane (t/ha) (t/ha) in yield
(kg) (%)
100% fertigation (A) 78 3.0 178.6 19.7 35.3
80% fertigation (A) 73 2.6 164.4 17.2 24.0
60% fertigation (A) 72 2.4 149.2 13.9 12.1
100% fertigation (B) 78 3.1 187.8 22.0 41.8
80% fertigation (B) 73 2.8 168.3 18.1 27.3
60% fertigation (B) 75 2.4 156.7 15.3 18.0
100% CF (NTD) 75 2.7 165.9 16.4 25.3
100% CF + DI 73 2.6 156.3 15.5 17.6
100% CF + SI 63 2.2 133.4 12.5 -
S.Em.± 18 0.2 6.5 1.4

Note : A, B–fertigation schedules; CF–Conventional fertilizers; NTD–Nitrogen through

Drip; DI–Drip Irrigation; SI–Surface Irrigation RDF=250:115:115
Maharashtra, clay soil Pawar et al., 2013
 Table 18 : Yield and juice quality attributes of sugarcane as influenced by drip
fertigation
Treatment NMC Length of Cane yield Sucrose CCS Sugar
(‘000/ha) milliable (t/ha) (%) (%) yield
cane (cm) (t/ha)

100%RD of N&K through SF 83,476 322 98.8 17.85 13.08 13.0

150%RD of N&K through SF 87,401 321 106.9 18.10 13.23 14.3

100%RD of N&K through WSF 78,903 302 89.5 17.55 12.85 11.7

150%RD of N&K through WSF 81,004 313 98.1 17.10 12.65 12.7

100%RD of N&K through LF 80,687 295 96.4 17.30 12.60 12.3

150%RD of N&K through LF 85,206 313 103.9 18.00 12.00 13.8

100%RD of N through urea 76,058 321 85.9 18.20 13.33 11.5

150%RD of N through urea 79,566 315 89.6 18.75 13.20 11.9

S.Em.± 433 3.58 3.2 6.93 13.63

C.D.(5%) 4234.5 NS 9.7 NS NS.

SF= solid fertilizers (urea & MOP). WSF= water soluble fertilizers. LF = liquid fertilizers.
RD= Recommended dose 112 & 100 kg N& K/ha
Ankapale (A.P.) Sandy loam Gouri et al., 2012
Table 19 : Effect of Precision nutrients management through drip fertigation
on quality parameters of sugarcane ratoon crop.

Fertigation treatments Brix (%) Purity(%) Pol (%) Recover

y (%)

T1- 75% RDN&K weekly 22.90 86.51 19.81 13.35

T2- 100% RDN&K weekly 21.82 86.80 18.94 12.65

T3- 75% RDN&K fortnightly 21.68 86.30 18.71 12.09

T4- 100% RDN&K fortnightly 22.42 85.69 19.19 12.47

T5- 75% RDN&K monthly 22.11 85.25 18.85 12.20

T6- 100% RDN&K monthly 22.04 84.98 18.73 12.11

T7- Check (furrow irrigated) 21.85 86.59 18.92 12.64

Dharwad Nadagouda, 2011
Table 20 : Effect of Multispecialty Water Soluble Fertilizers and Sulphur on
growth, yield and quality attributes of plant cane under sub surface drip
fertigation system.
Treatment Tiller NMC/ Cane CCS
prodn./ m yield (%)
m (t/ha)
F1 - Recd. P as soil application. N and K through drip as 15.2 15.2 105.5 7.81
Urea & MOP
F2 - 100 % recd. dose of P & K - (50 % P and K as basal 16.4 16.2 134.3 8.40
and balance nutrients through WSF)
F3 - 125 % recd. dose of P & K - (50 % P and K as basal 17.9 16.9 146.4 8.59
and balance nutrients through WSF)
F4 - F1 + Gromore Sulphur 30 kg / ha assoil application 17.5 15.8 144.7 8.85
F5 – F2 + Gromore Sulphur 30 kg / ha as soil application 20.8 17.3 173.4 9.52
F6 – F3 + Gromore Sulphur 30 kg / ha as soil application 21.4 18.4 193.6 9.77
F7 - Absolute control with surface irrigation with RDF 11.7 13.7 86.8 7.77
C.D. (5%) 1.29 1.44 12.45 0.68

Madurai, Tamil Nadu clay loam Guruswamy et al., 2013

 Table 21: Cane yield and quality of sugarcane as affected by subsurface drip fertigation

    Cane yield Juice Reducing Sugar

Brix Pol Purity CCS
  (t ha-1)
Treatments extraction sugars yield
 
(%) (%) (%) (%)
     
(%) (%) (t ha-1)
             
        Irrigation levels         
I1 : 75 % Epan 205 64.52 20.77 19.73 93.45 14.10 2.87 28.80
I2 :100 % Epan 219 65.71 21.15 20.09 95.18 14.36 2.82 31.48
I3 : Furrow 148 62.73 19.99 18.99 92.96 13.57 2.99 20.03
S.Em ± 5.3 0.70 0.30 0.33 0.61 0.10 0.02 0.72
CD (p=0.05) 20.7 2.21 0.90 0.98 2.00 0.30 0.06 2.83
Fertilizer levels
  F1 :125 % 216 64.39 20.66 19.63 93.96 14.02 2.90 30.40
  F2 :100 % 201 64.21 20.60 19.57 93.71 13.99 2.89 28.23
  F3 : 75 % 181 64.03 20.54 19.52 93.45 13.95 2.88 25.34
  F4 : 50 % 164 64.00 20.50 19.50 93.34 13.08 2.91 23.10
  S.Em ± 9.3 0.59 0.19 0.18 0.85 0.13 0.03 1.23
  CD (p=0.05) 27.6 NS NS NS NS NS NS 3.65

Mandya Gururaj Kombli et al., 2016

Effect of drip fertigation on WUE and NUE
 Table 22 : Water use characters as influenced under sugarcane
fertigation.
Treatment Total water FWUE Water saving Increase in
use (cm) (kg/ha-cm) (%)* yield (%)*
100% fertigation (A) 103.7 1,714.6 56.8 35.3
80% fertigation (A) 103.7 1579.4 56.8 24.0
60% fertigation (A) 103.7 1433.7 56.8 12.1
100% fertigation (B) 103.7 1803.4 56.8 41.8
80% fertigation (B) 103.7 1616.2 56.8 27.3
60% fertigation (B) 103.7 1505.6 56.8 18.0
100% CF (NTD) 103.7 1593.5 56.8 25.3
100% CF + DI 103.7 1501.4 56.8 17.6
100% CF + SI 241.8 563.2 - -
Note : A, B–fertigation schedules; CF–Conventional fertilizers; NTD–Nitrogen through Drip; DI–Drip
Irrigation; SI–Surface Irrigation * =Water save and yield increase over conventional.

Maharashtra clay soil Pawar et al., 2013

 Table 23: Water use efficiency of sugarcane as influenced by irrigation
methods, fertigation interval and planting pattern.

Treatment Total water Saving in FWUE

applied (cm) water (cm) (kg/ha-cm)
T1: Drip Normal planting Weekly 94.7 57.3 1517
T2 : Drip Normal planting Fortnightly 94.7 57.3 1413
T3 : Drip 60-120-60 cm PRP Weekly 94.7 57.3 1371
T4 : Drip 60-120-60 cm PRP Fortnightly 94.7 57.3 1422
T5 : Drip 60-180-60 cm PRP Weekly 94.7 57.3 1523
T6 : Drip 60-180-60 cm PRP Fortnightly 94.7 57.3 1429
T7 : Furrow Normal planting NCU as N 152.0 - 821
source
T8 : Furrow Normal planting Urea as N 152.0 - 771
source
C.D.(5%) 0.02 - 99
Note : PRP = Paired row planting ; NCU = Neem coated urea

ARS Arabhavi, medium deep black soil Chandrashekara, 2009

 CONCLUSION

1. Wider row planting of sugarcane (5 ft and 3 ft) gives higher

yield compared to normal planting.
2. Soil test based fertilizer application recorded higher cane yield
compared to NPK alone.
3. The increment in yield was around 39 per cent as compared to
furrow irrigation.
4. Application of 125 % RDF recorded significantly higher cane
yield.
 Future line of work

 Studies on precision water and nutrient management are needed.

 In depth study on fertigation interval and termination of fertigation
is needed.
 In depth study on sub surface fertigation is required.
 AN K
TH
YOU