SUGARCANE FERTIGATION SHRAVAN REDDY

Nutrient uptake and fertigation in
Sugarcane
SUBMITTED BY
M. SHRAVAN KUMAR REDDY.
RAM / 16- 03.
M.Sc. (AGRO) – 1ST YEAR.

Contents covered
• Sugarcane – Introduction – Cultivation
statistics.
• Nutrient uptake and RDF .
• Fertigation
• Fertigation advantages & limitations
• Fertigation Advantages over the other
conventional methods.
• Need of Fertigation in S.cane

• Fertigation schedules
• Fertilizers suitable for Fertigation .
• Fertigation requirements .
• Currently following general methods of irrigation
• Drip and Sub surface drip – For Fertigation –
Guidelines etc.
• Steps for effective Fertigation
• Case studies
• Conclusion .

INTRODUCTION – SUGARCANE
S.N : Saccharum officinarum
Family :Graminae
 It is an important crop in the Indian sub-continent. ·
 Sugar industry is second largest agro-based industry next only to
textiles ·
 Sugarcane crop contributes more than 62% of world sugar
production. ·
 S.cane provides cheapest form of energy giving food [sucrose]. ·
 In addition to sugar, 38 value added products are obtained. ·
 Juice is used for making of white sugar, brown sugar
[khandasari] and jaggery ·
 Is a source as bio-fuel, fibre, fertilizer etc. by products viz,
bagasse [power of sugar mills} and molasses [main raw material
for alcohol].

Sugarcane World India Telangana
Area 24.42 m.ha 5.01 m.ha . 50,000 ha
Production 1672 m.tonns 350.02 m.tonns 37 lakh tonns
Productivity 69838 kg/ha . 82 tonns/ha
Cultivating
areas
Brazil,Colombia,Cu
ba, China, Pakistan,
Mexico, S. Africa,
Australia, Indonesia,
In India U.P 1st in
Area and
Production
,,Tamilnadu 1st in
Productivity .
U.P,Maharastra,
Karnataka ,Bihar,
A.P, TN , Gujarat
and Punjab
Nizamabad
,Medak,Nalgonda
etc.

Nutrient uptake
• In general Sugarcane cane producing 100 tons/ha of cane
yield uptake around 100-60-225 kg of NPK from the soil
….this may vary according to the method of cropping ,etc.
Recommended dose of fertilizers :
• For Eksali cropping : 250-100-130 NPK /ha
• For Adsali cropping :400-100-130 NPK/ha.
However nutrient recommended doses are vary
region to region depending the soil fertility ,soil type
,previous crops grown on that field ,application of green
manures or not, FYM or not ,genotype,, method of
application etc .

• Entire dose of P and K should be applied and
incorporated into the soil during final land
preparation
• Nitrogen should be applied in two equal splits at
45 and 90 DAS .For Nizambad eksali ,N in two
equal splits at 60 and 150 DAS and for adsali 120
and 169 DAS .
For reducing the nutrient losses ,and to
meet the crop nutrient needs in time Fertigation
is the best method .

Fertigation
Application of both water and fertilizers to
crop simultaneously through a drip irrigation
system.
• The aim of the Fertigation programme is to
cover the difference between requirement
and supply,

What is the needof Fertigation in sugarcane ???
 Due to Indiscriminate use of available water and
imbalanced application of fertilizers through the
conventional methods ,,resulted in most of the S.cane
growing soils have become saline .the only option to
efficiently manage water and fertilizer is the adoption of
micro – fertigation technology for increasing the WUE of
up to 70 -95 % and saving inn nutrients by 40 -50 %.
 In order to meet the demand of growing population we
need to produce around 415 m.tonns by 2020.
 It is recognized that out of total fertilizer application only
50 to 60 % of the nutrients enter in to the plant and rest
is waste

 Sugarcane being a giant crop producing huge quantity
of biomass generally need high amounts of nutrients.
 The cost of chemical fertilizers has also increased and
there is a need to improve FUE. The best answer to
this challenge is "Fertigation“.
• Fertigation ensures that essential nutrients are
supplied precisely at the area of most intensive root
activity according to the specific requirements of
sugarcane crop at that particular stage and type of soil
resulting in higher cane yields and sugar recovery.

Advantages of Fertigation
Ensures a regular flow of water as well as nutrients
resulting in increased growth rates for higher yields
Offers greater scope in timing of the nutrient
application to meet specific crop demands
Safer method which eliminates the danger of
burning the plant root system.
 simpler and more convenient application than soil
application of fertilizer thus saving time, labour,
equipment and energy.
Improves FUE

Reduction of soil compaction and mechanical
damage to the crops
Convenient use of compound and ready-mix
nutrient solutions containing also small
concentration of micronutrients.
Free from chlorides and sodium
No salt build up in the crop root zone
Most of the fertilizers are blended with
micronutrients.

Fertigation - Several Distinct Advantages in
Comparison to Conventional Application Methods:
• Distribution of plant nutrients more evenly throughout
the wetted root zone resulting in increased nutrient
availability & uptake.
• Supply of nutrients according to the crop developmental
phases throughout the season to meet the actual
nutritional requirements of the crop
• Careful regulation and monitoring the supply of
nutrients.

• Usually less labour & equipment are required
for application of the fertilizer and to
supervise the application
• Soil compaction is avoided because heavy
equipment never enters the field
• No salt injury to foliage
• Allows rising of crop on marginal lands,
where accurate control of water and nutrient
ion in the plant's root environment is critical.

• Application of nutrients to the soil when crop or
soil conditions would otherwise prohibit entry
into the field with conventional equipment.
• Minimal nutrient losses through consumption by
weeds, leaching and runoff.
• No damage to the crop by root pruning, breakage
of leaves, or bending of leaves, as occurs with
conventional fertilizer application
methods/equipment.
• Less energy is expended in application of the
fertilizer.

Limitations of Fertigation
• Initial investment is high
• Chemical reaction in drip system leading to corrosion and
precipitation of fertilizer
• Clogging of emitters.
• Concentration of the solution decreases as the fertilizer
dissolves. This may lead to poor nutrient placement.
• The water supply for fertigation is to be kept separate from
the domestic water supply to avoid contamination.
• Possible pressure loss in the main irrigation line.
• The process is dependent on the water supply's non-
restriction by drought rationing.

Fertigation Schedule for Seasonal (12 months)/Ratoon
Sugarcane
Days After
Planting
Nutrients (kg/ha/day)
N P2O5 K2O
1-30 Days 1.20 0.1 0.2
31-80 Days 1.50 0.4 0.24
81-110 Days 2.00 1.00 0.4
111-150 Days 0.75 0.3 0.75
151-190 Days - - 1.50
191-Harvest - -

Fertigation Schedule for Pre seasonal (14 to
18 months) Sugarcane
Days After
Planting
Nutrients (kg/ha/day)
N P2O5 K2O
1 – 30 Days 1.5 0.15 0.25
31 – 80 Days 2.0 0.60 0.30
80 – 110 Days 2.5 1.50 0.50
111 – 150 Days 0.75 0.50 1.0
151– 190 Days - - 1.80

Model Fertigation schedule
Crop
Stage
Duration in
days
Fertilizer
grade
No. of
times
Quantity
( kg
/time)
First stage From planting to
70 Days
( 5 , 10 , … 70th
day )
12-61-00 14 0.9
13-00-45 14 1.8
Urea 14 12.1
Second
stage
71 Days to 120
Days
12-61-00 10 1.2
13-00-65 10 5.0
Urea 10 20.9

Model Fertigation schedule
Crop
Stage
Duration in
days
Fertilizer
grade
No. of
times
Quantity
( kg
/time)
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 120
Day.
12-61-00 10 2.5
13-00-65 10 6.8
Urea 10 8.3

Avg nutrient uptake of S.cane
Element Plant cane Ratoon cane
kg ha-1 day-1
N 0.59 0.73
P 0.08 0.11
K 0.71 0.95
Ca 0.45 0.33
Mg 0.24 0.26
S 0.16 0.31

Steps for effective Fertigation
Wash the filter element before starting Fertigation
Installation of Drip irrigation should be as per an
accurate design
Flush the laterals daily.
Fertigation should be done towards an end of
irrigation event .
After completion of fertigation irrigation should be
continued for another 15 minutes. this will ensure
total removal of fertilizer from irrigation system
Concentration of fertilizers in effective root zone
should not exceed 1000 ppm.

Fertilizers Suitable for Fertigation Via Drip Irrigation System
Nutrient Water soluble fertilzers Nutrient content
Nitrogen Urea
Ammonium Nitrate
Ammonium Sulphate
Calcium Nitrate
Magnesium Nitrate
Urea Ammonium Nitrate
Potassium Nitrate
Monoammonium Phosphate
46-0-0
34-0-0
21-0-0
16-0-0
11-0-0
32-0-0
13-0-46
32-0-0
Phosphorus Monoammonium Phosphate
Monopotassium Phosphate
Phosphoric Acid
12-61-0
0-54-32
0-82-0

Fertilizers Suitable for Fertigation Via Drip Irrigation
System
Nutrient Water soluble fertilzers Nutrient content
Potassium Potassium Chloride
Potassium Sulphate
Potassium Nitrate
Potassium Thio
sulphate
Monopotassium
Phosphate
0-0-60
0-0-50
13-0-46
0-0-25
0-52-34
Micronutrients Fe EDTA
Fe DTPA
Fe EDDHA
Zn EDTA
Ca EDTA
13
12
6
15
9.7
---

Fertigation equipments• Ventury
• Fertilizer tank
• Fertilizer pump
Ventury
Construction in the main water flow pipe causes a pressure
difference (Vaccum) which is sufficient to suck fertilizer
solution from an open container into the water flow. It is very
easy to handle and it is affordable even by small farmers. This
equipment is most suitable for smaller area.
 Fertilizer tank
A tank containing fertilizer solution is connected to the irrigation
pipe at the supply point. Part of the irrigation water is diverted
through the tank diluting the nutrient solution and returning to
the main supply pipe. The concentration of fertilizer in the tank
thus becomes gradually reduced.

Fertilizer pump
The fertilizer pump is a standard component of the control
head. The fertilizer solution is held in non-pressurised tank and
it can be injected into the irrigation water at any desired ratio.
Therefore the fertilizer availability to each plants is maintained
properly.
• Cost of fertigation equipments
Sl.No. Fertigation devices Cost (Rs.)
1. Ventury 1,200.
2. Fertilizer Tank 3,000.
3. Injectors 12,000.

Average water requirement for sugarcane
S. No. Crops Duration in
days
Water
requirement
(mm)
No. of
irrigations
1. Sugarcane 365 2000 24
Depending upon the agro climatic conditions, type of soil, methods
of planting and use of manures and fertilizers and sugarcane yield
the water requirement varies.
The crop sown in trenches needs relatively
less water but sandy soils and application of more fertilizers increase
the water uptake. On an average 1 ton cane needs about 60-70 tons
of water or thin varieties of cane need 150 cm thick canes and need
200 cm water and Adsali planted canes 200 cm, in addition to 75 cm
rainfall. The crop should be irrigated when available water reaches
to 50% level

Other general methods of irrigation in sugarcane
Flooding method
Furrow method
Alternate furrow method
Sprinkler method

Months sugarcane crop water requirement at each
growth phase Irrigation interval approach
Growth Phase Duration of phase
Water
Requirement
Germination 0-45 days 300mm
Tillering Phase 45-120 days 550mm
Grand Growth Phase 120-270 days 1000mm
Ripening Phase 270-360 days 650mm

Possible Water Use Efficiency of Differentirrigation
systems -- s.cane
Irrigation
system
Water applied
(ha -cm)
Cane yield
(m.t/ha)
Water use
efficiency
Rain gun
sprinkler
175.26 126.56 0.72
Drip irrigation 132.14 128.64 0.97
Furrow
irrigation
258.45 104.42 0.4

Poor irrigation leads to
• Decrease length of internodes
• Decrease amount of juice and increase percent of fiber
• Decrease rate of germination
• Decrease of sugar yield
Heavy irrigation leads to
• Death of buds,
• damage to roots,
• sugar content decreases,
• cane yield decreases
• plant can not adsorb elements from soil and becomes
yellowish.

Water saving, yield and profit under drip and drip
fertigation systems
Crop
Water
Saving
(%)
Possible Yield (t/ha) Profit (Rs/ha)
Conven
tional
Drip
Drip+
Fertgn
Drip+
Fertgn
Conven
tional
Drip
Drip +
Fertgn
Sugarcane 29 120 160 207 30000 47000 68000

Fertilizer efficiencies of various application methods in
sugarcane
Nutrient
Fertilizer use efficiency (%)
Soil application Fertigation
Nitrogen 30-50 95
Phosphorous 20 45
Potassium 50 80

Sugarcane Drip Design Guidelines
Plantin
g
pattern
Drip
system
Distance (m) Dripline
installat
ion
depth
(cm)
Emitter
distance
(m)
Discharg
e
(LPH)Two
rows
of a
pair
Two
paire
d
rows
/ two
rows
Two
driplin
es
Single
row
Surface --- 1.2 to
1.5
1.2 to
1.5
--- 0.4 to 0.6 1.0 to 3.0
Paired
row
Surface 0.4 to
1.0
1.4 to
2.0
1.8 to
2.5
--- 0.4 to 0.6 1.0 to 3.0
Paired
row
Sub
surface
0.4 to
1.0
1.4 to
2.0
1.8 to
2.5
0.15 to
0.30
0.4 to 0.6 1.0 to 2.3

Concept of Fertigation in sugarcane
• Fertigation is the judicious application of fertilizers by
combining with irrigation water.
• Fertigation can be achieved through fertilizer tank,
venturi System, Injector Pump, Non-Electric
Proportional Liquid Dispenser (NEPLD) and automated
system.
• Recommended Nitrogen & Potassium @ of 275 and
112.5 kg/ha may be applied in 14 equal splits with 15
days interval from 15 DAP.
• 25 kg Nitrogen and 8 kg K2O per ha per split.
• Urea and MOP (white potash) fertilizers can be used as
Nitrogen and Potassium sources respectively.
• Fertigation up to 210 DAP can also be recommended.

Technology
 Pit to pit spacing - 1.5 x 1.5 m
 Number of pits/ha - 4,444 pits
 Pit diameter - 0.9 m
 Pit depth - 0.38 m
 Number of budded setts / pit- 32 (single budded setts)
 Fill the pits to a depth of 15 cm with compost and native
soil and mix it well. Place the healthy setts in circular
fashion leaving 10 cm from the outer boundary of the pits
with equal spacing between each setts and cover the setts
with soil. On 50 to 60 days after planting give partial
earthing up by sliding the soil from the outer boundary of
the pit and full earthing up should be given leaving a
depression of 2.5 cm from the ground level at 90 to 100
days after planting
 Fertilizer dose - 275:62.5:112.5kg NPK/ha

• Drip design -lateral to lateral spacing 3.0 m (alternate
rows)
• 8 mm micro tubes on either side of the lateral to a length
of 1.0 m with one 8 LPH drippers / pit
• Irrigation - daily or in alternative days.

Drip irrigation
• Drip irrigation is defined as the precise, slow and
frequent application of water through point or line
source emitters on or below the soil surface at a small
operating pressure (20-200 kPa) and at a low discharge
rate (0.6 to 20 LPH), resulting in partial wetting of the
soil surface.
• Drip irrigation in sugarcane is a relatively new
innovative technology that can conserve water, energy
and increase profits.
• Drip irrigation may help in solving three most
important problems of irrigated sugarcane - water
scarcity, rising pumping (energy) costs and depressed
farm profits

• Drip will be successful depends on a host of
agronomic, engineering and economic factors.
• 12 mm drip laterals have to be placed in the
middle ridge of each furrow with the lateral
spacing of 240 cm & 8 ‘Lph’ clog free drippers
should be placed with a spacing of 75 cm on the
lateral lines. The lateral length should not exceed
more than 30-40 m.
• Drip Irrigation is given once in three days based
on the evapo-transpiration demand of the crop.

Surface Drip:
The application of water to the soil surface as drops
or a tiny stream through emitters placed at
predetermined distance along the drip lateral is
termed as surface drip irrigation.
It can be of two types - online or integral type
surface drip system. Integral dripline is
recommended for sugarcane.

Sub surface Drip
 Application of water below the soil surface through
emitters molded on the inner wall of the dripline,
with discharge rates (1.0 - 3.0 LPH) generally in the
same range as integral surface drip irrigation.
The integral dripline (thin or thick-walled) is
installed at some predetermined depth in the soil
depending on the soil type and crop requirements.
There are two main types of SDI - "one crop" and
"multicrop".
Subsurface irrigation saves water and improves
yields by eliminating surface water evaporation and
reducing the incidence of disease and weeds.

CASE STUDIES
On NUTRIENT UPTAKE And
FERTIGATION IN SUGARCANE

Table 1. Effect of Genotypes and fertility levels on nutrient uptake
,,soil fertility status and economics in S.cane (Autumn 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 147 231.9 20.6 261.0 214 8.5 101 62.84 57.78 1.90
B0 146 203.2 18.5 233.3 228 10.1 109 62.84 48.25 1.75
CoP 022 165.4 15.0 192.9 242 11.3 114 62.84 40.53 1.63
SEm 5.2 0.4 5.5 5 0.3 3 - 1.35 0.05
CD( P=0.05) 15.6 1.3 16.5 15 0.8 8 - 4.02 0.15
Fertility level
75 (%) 152.0 14.3 181.4 204 7.6 96 61.91 30.40 1.48
100(%) 206.0 18.8 236.2 232 10.8 110 62.83 55.36 1.87
125(%) 242.6 21.0 269.4 248 11.5 118 63.77 60.80 1.94
SEm 5.2 0.4 5.5 5 0.3 3 - 1.35 0.05
CD (P=0.05) 15.6 1.3 16.5 15 0.8 8 - 4.02 0.15
SOURCE:IJ of Agronomy,2012. NAVNITH et al ,PUSA,BIHAR,2007-10.

Table2. 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.

Table 3. Influence of genotypes and fertility levels on yield and nutrient uptake
in S.cane
RATOON OF SPRING 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 60.34 116.4 28.9 153.3 131.4 82.0 2.66
CoLk 9412 57 111.2 28.5 146.6 117.1 67.3 2.37
CoLk 94184 70.46 134.6 32.4 176.8 147.9 98.6 2.99
SEm 2.16 1.8 0.6 2.1
CD(P=0.05) 6.4 4.3 1.8 6.2
Fertility level ( NPK kg/ha)
150 +19.6+37.4 64.30 121.5 29.6 147.8 128.5 80.1 2.65
200 +26.2 +49.8 58.19 112.3 27.9 161.4 131.6 82.3 2.67
250 +32.8 +62.2 64.30 126.7 32.2 165.3 135.3 85 2.69
SEm 2.16 1.8 0.6 2.1
CD (P=0.05) NS 4.3 1.8 6.2
SOURCE: IJ of Agronomy,2007 SHUKLA et al,,2002-04,,Luknow,U.P

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
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

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
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

in S.cane
SUMMER SEASON CROP
( 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
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

Table 7. Effect of Organic nutrition on yield and economics of
sugarcane
( 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

Table 9. Effect of P and S levels on yield ,,P & S uptake and use
efficiencies of S.cane
(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

Table 10. Effect of different nutrient management treatments on yield and
nutrient uptake in S.cane
Treatment Cane
yield
(kg/ha)
Nutrient uptake
(kg/ha)
N P K
RDF (250 -125-125 NPK /ha) 98.4 194 56 218
75 % RDF + 25 % N as FYM 89.1 185 54 205
75% RDF +25 % N as Pressmud (PM) 89.4 163 47 180
RDF 97.5 185 53 203
75 % RDF + 25 % N as FYM + Bio fert. 90.0 187 56 210
75 % RDF +25 % N as PM + Bio.fert 91.8 185 54 208
50 % RDF + 25 % N as FYM +Bio.fert 81.9 138 39 157
50 % RDF +25 % N as PM + Bio.fert 90.1 130 38 143
50 % RDF + 25 % N as V.C.+ Bio.fert 83.9 171 47 183
100 % RDF +25 % N as FYM + Bio.fert 4 kg/ha 102.9 235 68 253
SEm 4.5
CD(P=0.05) NS
SOURCE :IJ of Agronomy ,2010 VIRDIA et al,2002 -06,Navsari,Gujarat.

Table 11. Effect of different nutrient management treatments on yield and
nutrient uptake in S.cane
Treatment Avail.nutrients in soil
(kg/ha)
Cost
( Rs x1000)
Net income
( Rs x1000)
B: C
N P K
T1 212 22.0 191.7 66.42 160.04 2.41
T2 248 45.7 230.0 71.58 147.11 2.06
T3 238 41.0 221.7 66.61 147.83 2.22
T4 222 33.5 202.5 66.13 153.80 2.33
T5 262 34.5 221.7 72.10 152.69 2.12
T6 251 29.4 214.2 67.13 159.96 2.38
T7 251 29.9 191.7 69.01 131.46 1.90
T8 230 29.3 188.3 64.04 139.57 2.18
T9 235 28.3 195.0 56.89 153.80 2.70
T10 282 46.9 237.5 73.58 172.81 2.35
SEm 4 1.6 5.8
CD(P=0.05) 12 4.7 17.5
Initial 248 38.6 302.0
SOURCE :IJ of Agronomy ,2010 VIRDIA et al,2002 -06,Navsari,Gujarat.

Table 12. Effect of FYM and fertilizer levels on yield and
economics of S.cane
(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

Table 13. Effect of and fertilizer levels nutrient uptakes of N ,P,
K in S.cane
Treatment N Uptake
( kg/ha)
P Uptake
( kg/ha)
K Uptake
( kg/ha)
FYM ( t/ha)
0 187 17.2 219.1
20 226 20.7 263.4
SEm 3 0.3 2.5
CD( P=0.05) 9 1.0 7.7
Fertilizer levels ( kg/ha)
N 150 + P 37.1+ K 49.8 (RDF) 164 14.9 191.3
N 150 + P 43.6+ K 66.4(RDF) 196 18.1 230.5
N 200 + P 43.6 + K 83.0 (RDF) 227 20.8 265.5
N 200 + P 54.6 + K 99.6 (RDF) 238 21.9 277.6
SEm 4 0.4 3.6
CD ( P=0.05) 12 1.4 10.9
SOURCE:IJ of Agronomy,2012 KUMAR et al,2008-10 ,PUSA ,BIHAR

Table 14. Yield, total P uptake and Avail. P in soil as
influenced by P management in S.cane
Treatment SEY ( kg/ha) Total P Uptake
( kg/ha)
Available P in
soil
( kg/ha)
P levels with and with out intercrop applied succeeding autumn S.cane
O kg P ,with out G.gram 91.44 23.8 10.1
0 kg P , with G.gram 95.30 29.1 11.2
50 % Rec.P /ha ,without GG 103.48 36.6 11.9
50 % Rec.P /ha ,with GG 105.93 39.2 12.8
100 % Rec.P /ha ,with GG 119.49 53.5 13.9
SEm 2.47 1.3 0.4
CD ( P=0.05) 6.98 3.6 1.1
SOURCE : IJ of Agronomy ,2012 PATEL et al ,2004 -06 ,, Navsari ,,Gujarat

Table 15. Economics of S.cane as influenced by P
management
Treatment Cost (Rs
x1000)
Net inc.(Rs
x1000)
B:C
P levels with and with out intercrop applied succeeding autumn S.cane
O kg P ,with out G.gram 69.9 98.4 1.44
0 kg P , with G.gram 73.7 100.2 1.45
50 % Rec.P /ha ,with GG 74.9 114.2 1.75
100 % Rec.P /ha ,with GG 76.2 132.5 2.00
SEm 3.6 0.04
CD ( P=0.05) 10.1 0.10
SOURCE : IJ of Agronomy ,2012 PATEL et al ,2004 -06 ,, Navsari ,,Gujarat

Table 16.Effect of Nitrogen levels on nutrient uptake,,net
nutrient availability and economics of S.cane
Treatment Total nutrient
uptake (kg/ha)
Net avail.nut(kg/ha) Cost
(Rs
x1000)
Net
returns (
Rs
x1000)
B:C
N P K N P K
Nitrogen levels ( kg/ha)
150 113 18.4 113.6 159.0 118.2 63.6 79.92 237.27 3.5
180 137.
4
21.2 138.6 184.2 122.3 50.1 80.26 321.98 4.4
210 144.
9
22.6 144.9 212.8 122.4 46.1 80.60 347.87 4.7
SEm 0.8 0.2 1.0
CD
( P=0.05)
2.3 0.4 2.03
SOURCE :IJ of Agronomy ,,2011. DEV et al,,2008-10,,VARANASI ,,U.P

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.(B) 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 .

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 .

Table 19..Influence of subsurface drip fertigation on
yield ,quality parameters ,and economics in sugarcane
(t/ha)
Cane
weight(kg)
Sugar yield
(t/ha)
WUE
kg/ha/mm
SSDF with 120 cm lateral spacing and
SSP
168 1.53 17.24 150.64
SSDF with 120 cm LS and DSP 180 1.57 19.33 161.40
SSDF with 135 cm LS and SSP 164.5 1.53 17.0 147.50
SSDF with 165 cm LS and SSP 150 1.66 16.22 134.50
SD with rec. practices 96.0 1.12 9.4 56.07
SED 5.32 0.05 0.56
CD (P=0.5) 10.86 0.10 1.16
MAHESH et al ,,,2008,,MADHURAI .RDF : -- 275: 62.5: 112.5

Table 20..Influence of subsurface drip fertigation on
yield ,quality parameters ,and economics in sugarcane
Treatment Cost of
cultivation
Gross
income
Net
income
B:C
SSDF with 120 cm lateral spacing and
SSP
120095 210000 89905 1.75
SSDF with 120 cm LS and DSP 123095 225000 101905 1.83
SSDF with 135 cm LS and SSP 114743 205625 90882 1.79
SD with rec. practices 70639 120000 49361 1.70
MAHESH et al ,,,2008,,MADHURAI .RDF : -- 275: 62.5: 112.5

Table 21. Effect of fertigation on emitter discharge and field emission
uniformity for different treatments
Treatments
Average discharge , lph Avg. Field emission uniformity
Before
fertn
After
fertn.
% Redn
discharge
Before
fertn.
After fertn. % Redn in
avg. EU
Fertigation levels
T1 10 % RD 4.618 4.433 4.006 93.01 90.94 2.225
T2 10 % RD 4.631 4.435 3.859 92.95 90.80 2.313
T3 10 % RD 4.627 4.416 4.560 92.88 90.68 2.368
T4 10 % RD 4.633 4.423 4.533 92.83 90.44 2.574
T5 10 % RD 4.622 4.398 4.846 92.74 90.31 2.631
T6 10 % RD 4.619 4.395 4.849 92.84 90.13 2.919
T7 10 % RD 4.635 4.368 5.761 92.52 89.68 3.058
T8 10 % RD 4.660 4.350 6.652 92.41 89.21 3.462
T9 10 % RD 4.639 4.291 7.502 91.36 88.36 3.283
T10 10%RD 4.618 4.212 8.792 90.34 87.19 3.486
SEm 0.829
C.D( P= 0.05 ) 2.462
KADAM et al ,,2009 ,,Ahmad nagar ..RDF : 250 – 115 – 115 .

Table 22. Comparison of cane yield, water use and economics of
S.cane under SSDF and conventional method
Treatments SSDF Conventional
method
Cane yield (kg ha') 113.9. 86.8
Percent yield increase 30.8
Total water use (mm) 1730. 2499.
Percent water saving by SSDF 30.7
Water use efficiency (kg halmm-1) 65.8. 34.8.
Cost of cultivation(Rs ha') 88,058. 85,645.
Gross income (Rs ha') 2,27,753. 1,74,300
Net income (Rs ha') 1,39,691 . 88,655.
Additional net income by SSDF (Rs ha') 51,036
Benefit - Cost ratio 2.58 2.04
Veeraputhiran et al ,,2009 -11,, Madurai ,,TNAU.275: 62.5: 112.5 NPK kg ha-'

TABLE 22. Growth and yield of S.cane as influenced by
different levels of Fertigation .
Treatments Height (cm) Weight / cane
( kg )
Leaf area Cane yield
( t / ha )
50 % RDF 342.83 2.05 8.60 135.60
75 %B RDF 346.83 2.30 8.97 146.57
100 % RDF 347.67 2.40 9.06 148.9
125 % RDF 352.67 2.55 9.17 159.17
S.E 1.73 0.07 0.27 3.30
CD ( p= 0.05) 5.25 0.29 NS 7.63
Chaudary et al , Gujarath,2010.
RDF : 250 :100; 125

Table 23.Effect of N application through fertigation
on yield ,quality parameters in S.cane
Treatment Cane
yield
(t/ha)
Brix (%) Sucrose (%) Purity (%) CCS (%)
Nitrogen levels
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 -RDF : 224 :80 80

TABLE 24. Effect of levels of fertilizer on yield and yield
components of sugarcane Under drip subsurface fertigation
system
Treatments NMC Cane legnth
( cm)
Cane weight
( kg)
Cane yield
( kg /ha)
Fertlizer levels
125 % RDF 26.69 227.3 1.74 218
100 % RDF 25.56 219.5 1.62 197
75 % RDF 24.20 218.4 1.54 188
50 % RDF 22.42 212.1 1.44 166
SEm 0.93 2.71 0.11 8.40
CD ( p = 0.05) 2.77 8.23 0.32 24.89
RDF : 250 : 100 : 125
Gururaj et al , 2015 .

CONCLUSION
It is concluded that fertigation could play
significant role in S.cane farming not only to
increase the yield and it increase the quality of
S.cane ,but also to increase WUE & FUE.
This requires creating better awareness and
educating both extension workers and farmers
In other words we can say that fertigation
technology is now the need of the hour.

• In fertilizer scheduling through fertigation process
we need to apply
• NPK @ 1.20 - 0.1 – 0.2 Kg/ha/day ( 1- 30 DAS)
• NPK @ 1.50 - 0.4 – 0.24 Kg/ha/day ( 31- 80 DAS)
• NPK @ 2.00 - 1.00 – 0.4 Kg/ha/day ( 81- 110 DAS)
• NPK @ 0.75 - 0.3 – 0.75 Kg/ha/day ( 111- 150 DAS)
• K @ 0.2 Kg/ha/day ( 151- 190 DAS)
• UNDER NORMAL SOIL CONDITIONS – FOR
SEASONAL SUGARCANE CROP

• In fertilizer scheduling through fertigation process
we need to apply
• NPK @ 1.50 - 0.5 – 0.25 Kg/ha/day ( 1- 30 DAS)
• NPK @ 2.0 - 0.60 – 0.40 Kg/ha/day ( 31- 80 DAS)
• NPK @ 2.5 - 1.5 – 0.5 Kg/ha/day ( 81- 110 DAS)
• NPK @ 0.75 - 0.5 – 1.0 Kg/ha/day ( 151- 190 DAS)
• UNDER NORMAL SOIL CONDITIONS – FOR PRE
SEASONAL / ADSALI SUGARCANE CROP

FUTURE RESEARCH NEEDS
Region specific evaluation of optimum
fertilizer dose by using 100 % water soluble
fertilizer for S.cane planting is very important
To find out nutrient requirement and schedule
of application as per crop critical growth
stages.

SUGARCANE FERTIGATION SHRAVAN REDDY

SUGARCANE FERTIGATION SHRAVAN REDDY

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie SUGARCANE FERTIGATION SHRAVAN REDDY

Ähnlich wie SUGARCANE FERTIGATION SHRAVAN REDDY (20)

Mehr von SHRAVAN KUMAR REDDY

Mehr von SHRAVAN KUMAR REDDY (11)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

SUGARCANE FERTIGATION SHRAVAN REDDY