Vol.

5 (4) : 305 - 309 (2003)

SHORT COMMUNICATION

Effect of Intra-row Spacings, Fertilizer Levels and Planting Materials on Yield and Economics of Pre-seasonal Sugarcane under Drip Irrigation
B.S. R a s k a r 1 . a n d P . G . B h o i 2
1Water Management Project, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri - 413 722, Maharashtra, India 2Sugarcane Research Station, Padegaon, Dist-Satara, Maharashtra, India *Present address : Sorghum Improvement Project, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri - 413 722, India

A field experiment was carried out at, Rahuri during the seasons 1999-2000 (plant cane) and 20002001(ratoon cane). The study reveled that the yield of cane with 90 cm intra-row spacing was significantly superior over 30 and 60 cm intra-row spacing The application of 125 per cent recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF) recorded significantly higher cane yield than 75 and 100 per cent RDF. The low operational cost and high yield resulted into increased gross and net returns of sugarcane at 90 cm intra-row spacing and proportionately the B: C ratio over 30 and 60 cm spacings. The increase in gross returns by application of 125 % RDF to sugarcane over 75 and 100 % RDF were 23.21 and 8.79 per cent higher and the net returns were 48 and 16.25 % higher when data were pooled over the seasons, respectively. The application of 125 % RDF recorded maximum B:C ratio of 2.50 on pooled basis. The over all operational cost of sugarcane planted by tissue cultured plantlets was 214 per cent higher than the polybag settling in first planting season, but in ratoon, no marked difference observed in operational cost. The gross monetary returns realized by plantation of polybag settlings were higher to the tune of 21.87, 14.40 and 18.18 per cent and the net monetary returns were 370.39, 20.43 and 195.41 over plantation of tissue cultured plantlets in plant and ratoon seasons and on pooled data basis, respectively. The plantation of polybag settling recorded maximum value of B: C ratio as compared to tissue cultured plantlet cane. KEYWORDS : Sugarcane, planting materials, spacings, fertilizers, irrigation, economics

Sugarcane is an i m p o r t a n t c a s h c r o p o f M a h a r a s h t r a a n d as s u c h m o s t of the s u g a r c a n e g r o w e r s d e p e n d u p o n it for their cash r e q u i r e m e n t s . I n t r o d u c t i o n of tissue c u l t u r e p l a n t l e t s and p o l y b a g s e t t l i n g is an i m p o r t a n t step towards a u g m e n t a t i o n of sugar yield. Though these modern planting m a t e r i a l e n h a n c e s the p r o d u c t i v i t y , their e c o n o m i c f e a s i b i l i t y for c o m m e r c i a l p l a n t i n g n e e d s to be assessed critically. I m p r o v e d crop geometry and n u t r i e n t m a n a g e m e n t are crucial not o n l y for u p g r a d i n g the p r o d u c t i v i t y b u t also for l o w e r i n g the cost o f p r o d u c t i o n . S i n c e each tissue c u l t u r e p l a n t l e t is p r o d u c e d c o n s i d e r a b l y at high cost, the s u c c e s s for c o m m e r c i a l p l a n t i n g d e p e n d s on the n u m b e r of p l a n t l e t s used per hectare a n d relative yield a d v a n t a g e by p l a n t i n g g e o m e t r y . T h e r e f o r e , t h r o u g h this study, the m a j o r t h r u s t will be f o c u s e d on p r o f i t a b i l i t y of p l a n t i n g m a t e r i a l and p l a n t i n g t e c h n i q u e s . No a d e q u a t e i n f o r m a t i o n is so far a v a i l a b l e on these

aspects. Hence, initiated.

the

present

investigation

was

Author for Correspondence : B.S. Raskar

A f i e l d e x p e r i m e n t w a s c o n d u c t e d at W a t e r M a n a g e m e n t Project, Rahuri d u r i n g the s e a s o n s 19992000 ( p l a n t c a n e ) and 2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 1 ( r a t o o n c a n e ) . The soil of the e x p e r i m e n t a l field was fine clay in texture, m e d i u m in a v a i l a b l e "nitrogen (380 kg ha-t), m o d e r a t e l y high in p h o s p h o r u s (28.4 kg ha "t ) and high in p o t a s s i u m (572 kg ha -1) a n d a l k a l i n e in r e a c t i o n (pH 8.4). T h e e x p e r i m e n t was laid out in s p l i t - p l o t d e s i g n with three r e p l i c a t i o n s . T h e total 18 t r e a t m e n t c o m b i n a t i o n s c o m p r i s i n g of three intrarow s p a c i n g s viz., 30, 60 a n d 90 c m a n d three levels o f f e r t i l i z e r s v i z . , 75, 100 a n d 125 p e r c e n t o f r e c o m m e n d e d dose of f e r t i l i z e r were a l l o t t e d to the m a i n plots and two t r e a t m e n t s o f s o u r c e o f p l a n t i n g m a t e r i a l viz., t i s s u e c u l t u r e p l a n t l e t s a n d p o l y bag s e t t l i n g s w e r e a s s i g n e d to the s u b - p l o t . T h e e x p e r i m e n t was c o n d u c t e d u n d e r drip i r r i g a t i o n with f o u r r o w p l a n t i n g t e c h n i q u e ( 9 0 - 1 8 0 c m ) . Two a d d i t i o n a l c o n t r o l t r e a t m e n t s of p l a n t i n g m a t e r i a l

305

were also taken under surface irrigation with r e c o m m e n d e d f e r t i l i z e r s and c o n v e n t i o n a l p l a n t i n g o f 100 x 30 c m f o r c o m p a r i s o n w i t h o t h e r 18 t r e a t m e n t s . To w o r k o u t the e c o n o m i c s first the total variable cost (TVC) of standard cultivation practices was e s t i m a t e d b a s e d on the m a r k e t p r i c e s o f the input u s e d a n d l a b o u r e m p l o y e d . T h e c o s t o f d r i p unit was workout considering the purchasing cost with d e p r e c i a t i o n as p e r t h e life o f each i t e m a n d it f i n a l l y a d d e d in t o t a l v a r i a b l e cost. T h e p u r c h a s i n g c o s t o f tissue c u l t u r e p l a n t l e t s and p o l y b a g s e t t l i n g w e r e Rs. 4 / p l a n t and Rs. 1/plant respectively. The following economics indices viz g r o s s m o n e t a r y r e t u r n s ( G M R ) , net m o n e t a r y r e t u r n s (NMR) and benefit : cost ratio were calculated ( S u n d a r a , 1995). i. ii. G r o s s m o n e t a r y r e t u r n s (Rs/ha) = C a n e Yield (t/ha)" x P r i c e o f c a n e (Rs/t) Net monetary returns (Rs/ha) = Gross monetary returns - (cost of cultivation + cost of drip unit for individual years)

iii. B e n e f i t : c o s t r a t i o = G r o s s m o n e t a r y r e t u r n s (Rs h a - 1 ) / T V C (Rs ha -l)

Yield and yield attributes

T h e c a n e h e i g h t , m i l l a b l e c a n e s and n u m b e r o f internodes did not differ significantly by intra-row s p a c i n g but c a n e g i r t h and p e r c a n e w e i g h t i n c r e a s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y at w i d e r i n t r a - r o w s p a c i n g o f 90 cm in

both the seasons. On the c o n t r a r y , t h o u g h the m i l l a b l e c a n e s / h a was less in 90 c m i n t r a - r o w s p a c i n g this treatment produced significantly higher cane girth, c a n e w e i g h t a n d d r y m a t t e r p e r p l a n t ( T a b l e 1). T h e r e f o r e , even t h o u g h the 90 c m s p a c i n g r e c o r d e d less m i l l a b l e cane, was a b l e to g i v e h i g h e r cane y i e l d . The y i e l d o f c a n e with 90 c m i n t r a - r o w s p a c i n g was s i g n i f i c a n t l y s u p e r i o r o v e r 30 a n d 60 c m i n t r a - r o w s p a c i n g r e s p e c t i v e l y in b o t h the s e a s o n s ( T a b l e 2). This m i g h t be due to b e t t e r l i g h t i n t e r c e p t i o n in w i d e r i n t r a - r o w s p a c i n g o f 90 c m . T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t i m p r o v e m e n t in girth o f c a n e , h e i g h t o f cane, m i l l a b l e c a n e s / h a , n u m b e r o f i n t e r n o d e s / c a n e , w e i g h t / c a n e and d r y m a t t e r / p l a n t d u e to a p p l i c a t i o n o f h i g h e r l e v e l o f f e r t i l i z e r i.e.125 p e r c e n t R D F than l o w e r f e r t i l i z e r l e v e l o f 75 p e r c e n t R D F in s u c c e s s i v e s e a s o n . T h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f 125 p e r c e n t r e c o m m e n d e d d o s e o f fertilizer (RDF) recorded significantly higher cane y i e l d t h a n 75 and 100 p e r c e n t R D F in p l a n t and r a t o o n c a n e r e s p e c t i v e l y . S i n g h et al. ( 2 0 0 0 ) a n d K o l a g e e t al. ( 2 0 0 1 ) a l s o o b s e r v e d i n c r e a s e in y i e l d o f s u g a r c a n e with 125 p e r c e n t RDF. T h e p l a n t i n g o f polybag settling recorded significantly higher girth of cane, height of cane, number of internodes/cane, w e i g h t / c a n e and d r y m a t t e r / p l a n t than t i s s u e - c u l t u r e d p l a n t c a n e and r a t o o n b u t r e v e r s e t r e n d o b s e r v e d in n u m b e r of. m i l l a b l e c a n e s . P l a n t i n g o f p o l y b a g settlings recorded significantly higher cane yield and y i e l d a t t r i b u t e s w h e n c o m p a r e d with t i s s u e c u l t u r e d p l a n t l e t s . A n o n y m o u s ( 2 0 0 1 ) r e p o r t e d that, p l a n t i n g o f setts a n d s e t t l i n g s g a v e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r y i e l d

Table 1. Yield attributing parameters of sugarcane as influenced by different treatments Treatments Girth of cane (cm) I A. lntra- row spacings II Cane height (cm) I II Millable canes/ ha/cane I II No. of internodcs (g) I II Weight/ cane (g) I II Dry matter/plal

II

30 cm 60 cm 90 cm CD 0.05

7.86 - 8.09 8.35 0.26

7.68 8.18 8.24 0.27

299.58 297.84 296.75 NS

266.83 265.55 265.27 NS

130094 128174 127794 NS

124975 123729 122268 NS

23.26 23.04 22.73 NS

20.13 19.86 19.23 NS

1027 1168 1260 57.45

900 1006 1067 60.94

450.00 466.66 479.55 6.05

420.88 425.50 434.50 5.88

B. Levels (~f fertilizer

75 % RDF 100 % RDF

7.94 8.08

7.91 7.96 8.24 0.27

293.58 297.50 303.10 5.47

249.11 269.72 278.83 19.52

125746 129094 131221 3624

120762 124427 125783 3330

22.48 22.91 23.63 0.81

18.39 19.60 21.24 0.86

1038 1159 1258 57.45

926 998 1049 60.94

450.00 465.18 479.05 6.05

415.00 425.83 440.05 5.88

125 % RDF 8.28 CD 0.05 0.26

C. Planting materials

Plantlets Settlings CD 0.05

7.21 9.00 0.32

7.08 8.99 0.32

294.50 301.62 3.44

258.00 273.00 13.27

133586 123788 2604

128581 118734 2927

22.65 23.37 0.35

19.60 20.04 0.41

991 1312 56.50

888 1094 66.54

357.25 572.22 4.57

327.37 526.55 7.33

I - Plant cane; II - Ratoon cane 306

Table - 2. C a n e y i e l d (t/ha) of s u g a r c a n e a n d total v a r i a b l e cost ( R s / h a ) o f s u g a r c a n e as i n f l u e n c e d by d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t s Treatments Plant cane C a n e yield (t/ha) Ratoon Pooled mean Total v a r i a b l e cost ( R s / h a ) Plant cane Ratoon Pooled mean

A.

lntra- row spacihgs

30 cm 60 cm 90 cm CD 0.05
B. Levels (~f fertilizer

137.13 149.42 160.76 6.36

116.10 123.97 130.14 6.38

126.61 136.70 145.45 4.50

119345 77109 63588

30801 30569 30245

75073 53839 46916

75% RDF 100% RDF 125% RDF CD 0.05

C. Planting materials

131.04 150.31 165.96 6.36

111.70 124.84 133.68 6.38

121.37 137.57 149.82 4.50

84700 87185 88158

29207 30538 31869

56953 58861 60013

Plantlets Settlings CD 0.05

Control-surJbce irrigation

134.40 163.81 5.76

115.11 131.70 7.18

124.75 147.75 4.61

118174 55187

30538 30538

74356 42862

Plantlets Settlings General mean

102.60 137.81 146.20

96.29 118.41 121.80

99.44 128.i I 134.00

176081 59315 89782

18667 18667 29350

97374 38991 59566

o v e r p l a n t a t i o n o f TCP. T h e g i r t h o f c a n e a n d p e r c a n e w e i g h t was the m a j o r f a c t o r that a f f e c t e d the yield of tissue-cultured canes.

Total variable cost

T h e total v a r i a b l e c o s t at 30 cm i n t r a row s p a c i n g was h i g h e r by 54.77 and 87.68 p e r c e n t in p l a n t c a n e and 39.43 and 6 0 . 0 0 p e r c e n t h i g h e r on p o o l e d m e a n b a s i s o v e r 60 a n d 90 cm s p a c i n g , r e s p e c t i v e l y d u e to h i g h c o s t o f p l a n t i n g m a t e r i a l but the d i f f e r e n c e s in c o s t o f r a t o o n c a n e w e r e m a r g i n a l (Table 2). T h e total v a r i a b l e c o s t i n c r e a s e d with i n c r e a s e in f e r t i l i z e r l e v e l s f r o m 75 to 125 % RDF. T h e o v e r all t o t a l v a r i a b l e c o s t o f s u g a r c a n e p l a n t e d by t i s s u e c u l t u r e d p l a n t l e t s was 214 p e r c e n t h i g h e r than the p o l y b a g s e t t l i n g in first p l a n t i n g s e a s o n , but in r a t o o n , no m a r k e d d i f f e r e n c e o b s e r v e d in o p e r a t i o n a l cost. T h e p o o l e d m e a n c o s t o f s u g a r c a n e p l a n t e d by t i s s u e c u l t u r e d p l a n t l e t s was 7 3 . 4 7 p e r c e n t h i g h e r t h a n p o l y b a g s e t t l i n g . T h e c h a n g e d g e o m e t r y r e s u l t e d in higher cost of TCP under surface irrigation. The higher operational cost of mericlone derived tissue c u l t u r e c a n e was a l s o ' r e p o r t e d by S u n d a r a ( 1 9 9 5 ) and S r e e n i v a s a n ( 1 9 9 5 ) . Gross returns The gross monetary return was significantly

h i g h e r at 90 c m i n t r a - r o w s p a c i n g o v e r 30 c m in b o t h the s e a s o n s , 60 c m in p l a n t c a n e and on p o o l e d m e a n b a s i s but in r a t o o n it was on p a r w i t h 60 cm s p a c i n g ( T a b l e 3). T h e 125 % R D F r e g i s t e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r g r o s s m o n e t a r y r e t u r n s than that r e c o r d e d in o t h e r f e r t i l i z e r l e v e l s d u r i n g b o t h the s e a s o n s a n d on p o o l e d m e a n b a s i s . T h e p o l y b a g settling planted treatment registered significantly higher gross returns than those recorded from p l a n t a t i o n o f T C P in p l a n t c a n e , r a t o o n c a n e and on pooled mean basis, respectively. The gross monetary returns estimated by plantation of cane under surface i r r i g a t i o n w e r e m i n i m u m as c o m p a r e d d r i p i r r i g a t i o n .
Net returns

M a x i m u m net r e t u r n s w e r e r e a l i z e d b y a d o p t i n g 90 cm i n t r a - r o w s p a c i n g and were s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r as c o m p a r e d to 30 a n d 60 c m i n t r a - r o w s p a c i n g during both the seasons and averaged over two s e a s o n s ( T a b l e 3). G a f f a r e t al. ( 2 0 0 0 ) r e p o r t e d that p l a n t i n g in 90 cm s p a c e d (90 x 90 c m p i t s ) g a v e the h i g h e s t net i n c o m e . T h e net r e t u r n s o b t a i n e d at 125 % R D F w e r e maximum and significantly higher than the a p p l i c a t i o n o f 75 % R D F a n d 100 % in p l a n t c a n e , ratoon cane and pooled mean basis, respectively. 307

Table - 3 : Economics Treatments

o f s u g a r c a n e in r e l a t i o n to Gross monetary returns Plant cane Ratoon Pooled mean

cost a n d g r o s s m o n e t a r y r e t u r n s Net monetary returns Plant cane Ratoon Pooled mean Plant cane Benefit : Cost ratio Ratoon Pooled mean

A.

Intra- row spacings

30 cm 60 c m 90 c m CD 0.05 102848 112068 120574 4772 99382 106121 111407 5460 101115 109094 115990 3626 -16497 34959 56986 4560 68583 75109 81162 5365 26043 55034 69074 3519 0.86 1.45 1.89 3.22 3.47 3.68 2.04 2.46 2.78

B.

Levels o f fertilizers
75% R D F 100% RDF 125% R D F CD 0.05 98284 112733 124474 4777 95613 106864 114433 5460 96948 109798 119453 3626 13584 25548 36316 4560 66408 76327 82119 5365 39996 50937 59217 3519 1.16 1.29 1.41 3.27 3.49 3.59 2.21 2.39 2.50

C.

Planting materials
Plantlets Settlings SE CD 0.05 100803 122857 1461 4340 98540 112733 2072 6152 99671 117795 1267 3764 -17374 67670 1541 4575 68002 81901 2074 6158 25315 74785 1283 3809 0.85 2.22 3.22 3.69 2.03 2.95

Control -surface irrigation

Plantlets Settlings Mean 76956 103357 109662 82424 101358 104262 79687 102357 106962 -99131 44042 19879 63757 82691 74778 -17687 63366 47328 0.43 1.74 1.28 4.41 5.42 3.60 2.42 3.58 2.43

Table - 4 : Economic

analysis of plantation sugarcane settlings under drip irrigation aspects Plant cane Drip irrigation Ratoon Pooled mean Plant cane Surface irrigation Ratoon Pooled mean

Particular of economical

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

Fixed cost o f drip s y s t e m (Rs./ha) Operational cost (Rs./ha) Seasonal cost (Rs./ha) Water applied ( c m / h a ) Yield (t/ha) Market rate (Rs./t) Gross i n c o m e (Rs. /ha) Net I n c o m e (7-3) R s / h a Benefit o f drip a. b. c. d. Water s a v i n g (%) Area i n c r e a s e d (ha.) A d d i t i o n a l g r o s s i n c o m e (Rs.) Additional cost o f i n c r e a s e d area (Rs.)

14080 41107 55187 132.65 163.81 750 122857 67670

14080 16458 30528 123.73 131.70 856 112733 82205

14080 28782 42862 128.19 147.75 803 117795 74933 58976 58976 196.00 137.81 750 103357 44381 18667 18667 188.00 118.41 856 101358 82691 38991 38991 192.00 128.11 803 102357 63366

32.32 0.47 57742 25937 81124 180590 91745 2.22 55433 510.13

34.18 0.51 57493 15669 46097 170226 123825 3.69 41134 661.93

33.23 0.49 57719 20984 63864 175504 111502 2.74 48136 583.39 224.70 439.84 330.03 58976 103557 44042 1.74 18667 101358 82691 5.42 38991 102357 63366 3.58

10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15.

Gross operational cost Rs. (3 +9d) Total gross i n c o m e (Rs.) (7+ 9c)

Total net i n c o m e (Rs.) (11-10) Benefit : cost ratio (11/10) Net i n c o m e over s u r f a c e (Rs) Net p r o f i t / c m o f water R s . ( 8 / 4 )

308

P l a n t a t i o n of tissue c u l t u r e d plantlets resulted in significant loss in net returns (Rs. 17,374/ha) in plant cane c o m p a r e d to plantation o f p o l y b a g settling (Rs. 6 7 , 6 7 0 / h a ) . In ratoon cane, the net m o n e t a r y returns r e c e i v e d by p l a n t a t i o n o f p o l y b a g s e t t l i n g w e r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r over net returns obtained f r o m TCP. T h e p o o l e d mean indicated that, N M R was three times h i g h e r due to p l a n t a t i o n o f p o l y b a g settling (Rs. 74 785/ha) than plantation o f TCP. Gupta (1999), V i s w a n a t h a n and S a m i y a p p a n (1999) stated that p o l y b a g settlings were e c o n o m i c a l l y beneficial due to r e d u c t i o n in cost and increase in productivity. Similar results were obtained under surface irrigation. Benefit : Cost ratio The h i g h e r value o f B:C ratio was r e c o r d e d at 90 cm intra-row s p a c i n g and by application o f 125 % R D F in both the season and on p o o l e d mean basis. P l a n t a t i o n o f p o l y b a g settling r e c o r d e d m a x i m u m value o f B: C ratio i.e. 2 . 2 2 , 3.69 and 2.95 as c o m p a r e d to B:C ratio o b s e r v e d under tissue cultured plantlet cane i.e. 0.85, 3.22 and 2.03 in plant cane, ratoon c a n e and p o o l e d m e a n basis. Economics under drip irrigation The e c o n o m i c analysis o f p o l y b a g settling u n d e r drip irrigation indicated that 0.47, 0.51 and 0.49 ha additional area can be i n c r e a s e d due to saving o f irrigation by 32.32, 34.18 and 33.23 per cent in plant cane, r a t o o n cane and on a v e r a g e o f two seasons, respectively (Table 3). The data clearly revealed that, the s a v i n g in irrigation water g i v i n g additional gross

i n c o m e o f Rs. 55 742, Rs.57 493 and Rs. 57 7 1 9 / h a in plant cane, r a t o o n cane and on a v e r a g e basis over surface irrigation. The m a x i m u m net profit per cm o f water used was Rs. 5 1 0 . 1 3 , Rs. 661.93 and Rs. 583.29 was o b t a i n e d in drip irrigation as a g a i n s t Rs. 224.70, Rs. 4 3 9 . 8 4 and 3 3 0 . 0 3 in s u r f a c e irrigation in plant cane, r a t o o n cane and p o o l e d m e a n basis. N o n e o f the interaction effects w e r e f o u n d to be significant during both the seasons.
REFERENCES Anonymous (2001). Effect of spacing for tissue-cultured plantlets on yield and quality of sugarcane at Kolhapur. Research Review Committee Report, Central Sugarcane Research Station, Padegon (Maharashtra), Agro SRS : 23-26. Gaffar, Ao, Ahmed, R., Ahmed, A. and Jobber, A. (2000).

Effect of flat and pit plantation on agronomic traits and juice quality of autumn planted sugarcane. Pakistan Sugar Journal., 15(4) : 18-20.
Kolage, A.K., Pilani, M.S., Munde, M.S. and Bhoi, P.G. (2001). Effect of fertilizer levels on yield and quality of new sugarcane genotype. Indian Sugar., LI(6) : 375-378. Singh, N.P., Verma, R.D.N., Singh, R.G. and Singh, S.B. (2000). Effect of planting geometry and N levels on yield and juice quality of sugarcane. Sugar Tech., 2(1&2) : 40-43. Sreenivasan, T.V. (1995). Micro propagation of newly released sugarcane varieties for quality seed production. Kisan Word.,

22(1) : 22. Sundara, B. (1995). Economics of sugarcane merielones for commercial planting. Co-operative Sugar, 26(6) : 459-461.
Viswanathan, R. and Samiyappan, R. (1999). New planting method in sugarcane and red rot disease management. Kisan World, 26(7) : 21-22.

309