SUGARCANE FERTIGATION SHRAVAN REDDY

NUTRIENT UPTAKE AND FERTIGATION CONCEPT IN SUGARCANE

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

2. 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

3. 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 .

4. 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].

5. 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,Cuba, China, Pakistan, Mexico, S. Africa, Australia, Indonesia, In India U.P 1 st in Area and Production ,, Tamilnadu 1 st in Productivity . U.P,Maharastra, Karnataka , Bihar, A.P, TN , Gujarat and Punjab Nizamabad ,Medak,Nalgonda etc.

6. 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 .

7. 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 .

8. 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, 

9. What is the need of 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

10. 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.

11. 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

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. 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.

16. 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.

17. Fertigation Schedule for  Seasonal (12 months)/Ratoon Sugarcane Days After Planting Nutrients (kg/ha/day) N P 2 O 5 K 2 O 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 - -

18. Fertigation Schedule for  Pre seasonal (14 to 18 months) Sugarcane Days After Planting Nutrients (kg/ha/day) N P 2 O 5 K 2 O 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

19. 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 , … 70 th 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

20. Model Fertigation schedule Crop Stage Duration in days Fertilizer grade No. of times Quantity ( kg /time) Third stage 121 Day s 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

21. 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

22. 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.

23. 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

24. 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  ---

25. 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 .

26. 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. V entury 1, 200. 2. F ertilizer Tank 3, 000. 3. In jectors 12, 000.

27. Fertilizer Tank

28. Ventury

29. Fertilizer pump

30. 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

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

32. M onths 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

33. Possible Water Use Efficiency of Different irrigation 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

34. 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.

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

36. Fertilizer efficiencies of various application methods in sugarcane Nutrient Fertilizer use efficiency (%) Soil application Fertigation N itrogen 30-50 95 P hosphorous 20 45 P otassium 50 80

37. Sugarcane Drip Design Guidelines Planting pattern Drip system Distance (m) Dripline installation depth (cm) Emitter distance (m) Discharge (LPH) Two rows of a pair Two paired rows / two rows Two driplines 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

38. Concept of F ertigation 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.

39. 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

40. 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.

41. 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

42. 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.  

43. 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 .

44. 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.  

45. Sub surface drip Fertigation

46. CASE STUDIES On NUTRIENT UPTAKE And FERTIGATION IN SUGARCANE

47. 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.

48. 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.

49. 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

50. Table 4. 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

51. Table 5. 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

52. Table 6. 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

53. Table 7. 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

54. Table 9. 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 ) 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) 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

55. 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 .

56. 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 .

57. Table 12. 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) 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

58. 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) 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

59. 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 ,without GG 115.35 49.0 12.6 100 % 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

60. 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 ,without GG 71.1 114.5 1.74 50 % Rec.P /ha ,with GG 74.9 114.2 1.75 100 % Rec.P /ha ,without GG 72.4 130.4 2.01 100 % 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

61. 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

62. 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 .

63. 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 .

64. Table 19..Influence of subsurface drip fertigation on yield ,quality parameters ,and economics in sugarcane Treatment Cane yield (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 135 cm LS and DSP 178 1.59 18.98 159.60 SSDF with 150 cm LS and SSP 153.6 1.57 16.54 137.72 SSDF with 150 cm LS and DSP 170 1.68 18.62 152.43 SSDF with 165 cm LS and SSP 150 1.66 16.22 134.50 SSDF with 165 cm LS and DSP 172 1.76 18.94 154.22 SSDF with 180 cm LS and SSP 147.6 1.67 15.97 132.34 SSDF with 180 cm LS and DSP 170 1.78 18.63 152.43 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

65. 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 SSDF with 135 cm LS and DSP 118118 222500 104382 1.88 SSDF with 150 cm LS and SSP 108226 192000 83774 1.77 SSDF with 150 cm LS and DSP 112326 212500 100174 1.89 SSDF with 165 cm LS and SSP 103968 187500 83532 1.80 SSDF with 165 cm LS and DSP 109468 215000 105532 1.96 SSDF with 180 cm LS and SSP 99944 184500 84556 1.85 SSDF with 180 cm LS and DSP 105544 212500 106956 2.01 SD with rec. practices 70639 120000 49361 1.70 MAHESH et al ,,,2008,,MADHURAI . RDF : -- 275: 62.5: 112.5

66. 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 .

67. 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-'

68. 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

69. 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 -10 . RDF : 224 :80 80

70. 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 .

71. 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.

72. 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

73. 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

74. 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.