In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most ...

1

In the name of Allah, the most merciful,

the most compassionate and the most

beneficent Oh, Allah Almighty open our eyes,

To see what is beautiful,

Our minds to know what is true,

Our hearts to love what is Allah

Agronomic Assessment of Sugar Industry By-products as Fertilizer

Supplement for Spring Planted Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.)

2

By

MUHAMMAD NAWAZ M.Sc. (Hons.) Agriculture

2006-ag-1684

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree

Doctor of Philosophy

In

Agronomy

Department of Agronomy,

Faculty of Agriculture,

University of Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan.

2016

To

The Controller of Examinations,

University of Agriculture,

Faisalabad.

We, the supervisory committee, certify that the contents and form of thesis

submitted by Muhammad Nawaz, Regd. No. 2006-ag-1684 have been found

3

satisfactory and recommend that it be processed for evaluation by external

examiner(s) for the award of degree:

SUPERVISORY COMMITTEE

1. Chairman --------------------------------------

(Dr. Muhammad Umer Chattha)

2. Co-supervisor --------------------------------------

(Dr. Muhammad Bilal)

3. Member ---------------------------------------

(Prof. Dr. Riaz Ahmad)

4. Member ---------------------------------------

(Dr. Hassan Munir)

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that the contents of the thesis, “Agronomic Assessment of

Sugar Industry By-products as Fertilizer Supplement for Spring Planted Sugarcane

(Saccharum officinarum L.)”are product of my own research and no part has been

copied from any published source (except the references, standard mathematical and

genetic models/equations/formulae/protocols etc.). I further declare that this work

has not been submitted for award of any other diploma/degree. The university may

take action if the information provided is found inaccurate at any stage. (In case of

any default the scholar will be proceeded against as per HEC plagiarism policy).

Muhammad Nawaz

2006-ag-1684

4

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T

All the unfathomable analogies humble thanks giving are preferred to ALMIGHTY

ALLAH, the most Gracious and compassionate, whose blessing and exaltation flourished my

thoughts and thrived my ambitions to eventually shape up the cherished fruit of my modest

Dedicated To

My Respected

MY LOVING PARENTS, MY CARING BROTHERS

AND MY KIND TEACHER DR. MUHAMMAD UMER

CHATTHA

WHO ALWAYS SUPPORTED AND HELPED ME TO

CATCH MY GOALS AND SEE ME SHINING LIKE A SUN

5

endeavors to this manuscript, my special praise for the HOLY PROPHET HAZRAT

MUHAMMAD (P.B.U.H) whose eternal teachings would remain a source of inspiration and

guidance for the mankind forever, whose bounteous enabled me to perceive the higher ideals

of life.

It is my pleasure to express profound gratitude to my supervisor Dr. Muhammad

Umer Chattha, Assistant Professor, Department of Agronomy, University of Agriculture,

Faisalabad, under whose dynamic supervision, scholastic guidance, consulting behavior, the

research work presented in this dissertation was carried out. My deepest and warm gratitude to

advisory committee Dr. Muhammad Bilal, Assistant Professor, Institute of Agricultural

Sciences, University of the Punjab, Lahore, Prof. Dr. Riaz Ahmad, Chairman, Department of

Agronomy, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad and Dr. Hassan Munir, Assistant Professor,

Department of Crop Physiology, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad. I am thankful for the

guidance they provided me during my work and evaluation of the work I did.

I would like to thank Shakarganj Sugar Research Institute, Jhang, Pakistan for

providing me space, all inputs of crop and labor support that improved the quality of material

presented in this dissertation. Special and particular thanks extended to Dr. Arshad Ali

Chattha, Director General (R&D), Shakarganj Sugar Research Institute, Jhang for his

cooperative and supportive attitude for his help to accomplish this humble effort in its present

form and valuable suggestions towards the achievement and completion of this script.

In addition, deepest appreciations are due to my parents, brothers and nephews for their

constant support and moral encouragement. Furthermore, special thanks to S. Khan, M. Asif

Kamal and Umair Hassan and all my dear fellows for their assistance during my research and

write up of this manuscript. Finally, I like to complement a stranger, for whom these words are

nothing but something especial from my heart and soul. I just want to say Thanks for everything

you think and did for me.

Muhammad Nawaz

2006-ag-1684

CONTENTS

CHAPTER # TITLE PAGE 1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 5

2.1 Integrated nutrient management and crops yield

5

6

2.2 Effect of combined application of inorganic and organic

sources of nutrients on growth and growth components of

crops

6


sources of nutrients on yield and yield components of crops

8


sources of nutrients on soil properties

10


sources of nutrients on uptake of nutrients

15

2.6 Use of compost for yield improvement

17

2.7 Use of spent wash water for yield enhancement

18

3 MATERIALS AND METHODS 22

3.1 Experimental site 22

3.2 Soil analysis 22

3.3 Meteorological data 25

3.4 Crop husbandry 26

3.5 Experiments and treatments 29

3.6 Observations 30

3.7 Procedures and formulae for recording observations 32

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 37

4.1 Growth parameters of experiment I 37

4.2 Quantitative parameters of experiment I 46

4.3 Quality parameters of experiment I 68

7

4.4 Plant nutrient analysis of experiment I 79

4.5 Economic analysis of experiment I 83

Discussion of experiment I 90

4.6 Growth parameters of experiment II 95

4.7 Quantitative parameters of experiment II 104

4.8 Quality parameters of experiment II 129

4.9 Plant nutrient analysis of experiment II 137

4.10 Economic analysis of experiment II 141

Discussion of experiment II 147

5 SUMMARY 152

LITERATURE CITED 156

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE # TITLE PAGE

3.1 Soil analysis before the sowing of both experiments (Each value is

average of two years)

23

3.2 Soil analysis of 1st experiment (SWW) (Each value is average of

two years) after harvest of crop

23

3.3 Soil analysis of 2nd experiment (compost) (Each value is average of

two years) after the harvest of crop

24

3.4 Some important chemical characteristics of spent wash (SW) 27

3.5 Some important chemical characteristics of Compost 28

8

4.1 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the net

assimilation rate (g m-2 day-1) of spring planted sugarcane

47

4.2 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the

emergence percentage of spring planted sugarcane

48

4.3 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the number

of tillers (m2) of spring planted sugarcane

50


of millable canes (m2) of spring planted sugarcane

51

4.5 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the plant

height (cm) of spring planted sugarcane

54


of internodes per cane of spring planted sugarcane

55

4.7 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the length of

internodes (cm) of spring planted sugarcane

56

4.8 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the cane

length (cm) of spring planted sugarcane

58


girth (cm) of spring planted sugarcane

60

4.10 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the weight

per stripped cane (kg) of spring planted sugarcane

62

4.11 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the cane top

weight (t ha-1) of spring planted sugarcane

65


trash weight (t ha-1) of spring planted sugarcane

66

4.13 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the

unstripped cane yield (t ha-1) of spring planted sugarcane

67

4.14 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the stripped

cane yield (t ha-1) of spring planted sugarcane

69

4.15 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the harvest

index (%) of spring planted sugarcane

70

4.16 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the brix

percentage of spring planted sugarcane

71

4.17 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the sucrose

content in cane juice (%) percentage of spring planted sugarcane

73

4.18 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on cane fiber

content (%) of spring planted sugarcane

74

4.19 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on commercial

cane sugar (%) of spring planted sugarcane

75

4.20 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on cane sugar

recovery (%) of spring planted sugarcane

77

4.21 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on total sugar

yield (t ha-1) of spring planted sugarcane

78


nitrogen content (%) of spring planted sugarcane

80


phosphorus content (%) of spring planted sugarcane

81


potash content (%) of spring planted sugarcane

82

9

4.25 (a) Detail of input and output cost of sugarcane (Rs. ha-1) during 2013-

14 and 2014-15 Permanent cost

84

4.25 (b) Variable cost of production during during 2013-14 (Exp. I) 85

4.25 (c) Variable cost of production during during 2014-15 (Exp. I) 85

4.26 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on net return,

net field benefits and benefit cost ratio of spring planted sugarcane

during 2013-14

86

4.27 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on net return,

net field benefits and benefit cost ratio of spring planted sugarcane

during 2014-15

86

4.28 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on dominance

analysis of spring planted sugarcane during 2013-14

88

4.29 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on dominance

analysis of spring planted sugarcane during 2014-15

88

4.30 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on marginal

rate of return of spring planted sugarcane during 2013-14

89

4.31 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on marginal

rate of return of spring planted sugarcane during 2014-15

89

4.32 Influence of compost and NPK application on the net assimilation

rate (g m-2 day-1) of spring planted sugarcane

105

4.33 Influence of compost and NPK application on the germination of

spring planted sugarcane

106

4.34 Influence of compost and NPK application on the number of tillers

(m2) of spring planted sugarcane

108

4.35 Influence of compost and NPK application on the number of

millable (m2) of spring planted sugarcane

109

4.36 Influence of compost and NPK application on the plant height (cm)

of spring planted sugarcane

111

4.37 Influence of compost and NPK application on the number of

internodes per cane of spring planted sugarcane

113

4.38 Influence of compost and NPK application on the length of

internodes (cm) of spring planted sugarcane

114

4.39 Influence of compost and NPK application on the cane length (cm)


116

4.40 Influence of compost and NPK application on the cane girth (cm)


118

4.41 Influence of compost and NPK application on the weight per

stripped cane (kg) of spring planted sugarcane

120

4.42 Influence of compost and NPK application on the cane top weight

(t ha-1) of spring planted sugarcane

123

4.43 Influence of compost and NPK application on the cane trash weight


124

4.44 Influence of compost and NPK application on the unstripped cane


125

4.45 Influence of compost and NPK application on the stripped cane


127

10

4.46 Influence of compost and NPK application on the harvest index (%)


128

4.47 Influence of compost and NPK application on the brix percentage


130

4.48 Influence of compost and NPK application on the sucrose content

in cane juice (%) of spring planted sugarcane

131

4.49 Influence of compost and NPK application on the cane fiber


132

4.50 Influence of compost and NPK application on the commercial cane

sugar (%) of spring planted sugarcane

134

4.51 Influence of compost and NPK application on the cane sugar

recovery (%) of spring planted sugarcane

135

4.52 Influence of compost and NPK application on the total sugar yield


136

4.53 Influence of compost and NPK application on the plant nitrogen


138

4.54 Influence of compost and NPK application on the plant phosphorus


139

4.55 Influence of compost and NPK application on the plant potash (%)


140

4.56 (a) Variable cost of production during during 2013-14 142

4.56 (b) Variable cost of production during during 2014-15 142

4.57 Influence of compost and NPK application on net return, net field

benefits and benefit cost ratio of spring planted sugarcane during

2013-14

143

4.58 Influence of compost and NPK application on net return, net field

benefits and benefit cost ratio of spring planted sugarcane during

2014-15

143

4.59 Influence of compost and NPK application on dominance analysis

of spring planted sugarcane during 2013-14

145

4.60 Influence of compost and NPK application on dominance analysis


145

4.61 Influence of compost and NPK application on marginal rate of

return (MRR) of spring planted sugarcane during 2013-14

146

4.62 Influence of compost and NPK application on marginal rate of

return (MRR) of spring planted sugarcane during 2014-15

146

11

LIST OF FIGURES

TABLE # TITLE PAGE 3.1 Meteorological data at SSRI, Jhang, Pakistan during 2013-14 25

3.2 Meteorological data at SSRI, Jhang, Pakistan during 2014-15 25

3.3 Layout Plan of the Experiments 26

4.1 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on the leaf area

index of spring planted sugarcane during 2013-14

38

4.2 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on leaf area

duration (days) of spring planted sugarcane

40

4.3 Relation between cumulative leaf area duration and stripped cane yield

of sugarcane

41

4.4 Relation between cumulative leaf area duration and total dry matter of

sugarcane

42

4.5 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on total dry matter

(g m-2 d-1) of spring planted sugarcane

43

4.6 Relation between total dry matter and stripped cane yield of sugarcane 44

4.7 Influence of spent wash water and NPK application on crop growth rate

(g m-2 d-1) of spring planted sugarcane

45

4.8 Relation between number of millable canes and stripped cane yield of

sugarcane

52

4.9 Relation between cane length and stripped cane yield of sugarcane 59

4.10 Relation between cane diameter and stripped cane yield of sugarcane 61

4.11 Relation between weight per stripped cane and stripped cane yield of

sugarcane

63

4.12 Influence of various inorganic fertilizers and compost levels on leaf

area index of spring planted sugarcane

96

12

4.13 Influence of various inorganic fertilizers and compost levels on leaf

area duration of spring planted sugarcane

97

4.14 Relation between cumulative leaf area duration and stripped cane yield

of sugarcane

98

4.15 Relation between cumulative leaf area duration and total dry matter of

sugarcane

99

4.16 Influence of various inorganic fertilizers and compost levels on total

dry matter (g m-2 d-1) of spring planted sugarcane

101

4.17 Relation between total dry matter and stripped cane yield of sugarcane 102

4.18 Influence of various inorganic fertilizers and compost levels on crop

growth rate (g m-2 d-1) of spring planted sugarcane

103

4.19 Relation between number of millable canes and stripped cane yield of

sugarcane

110

4.20 Relation between cane length and total stripped cane yield of sugarcane 117

4.21 Relation between cane girth and stripped cane yield of sugarcane 119

4.22 Relation between weight per stripped cane and stripped cane yield of

sugarcane

121

13

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS Abbreviation Description

BCR Benefit-cost ratio

CPF Canal point Faisalabad

CCS Commercial cane sugar

CSRP Cane sugar recovery percentage

CGR Crop growth rate

Cm Centimeter

CSR Cane sugar recovery

D Days

DAP Diammonium phosphate

DAS Days after sowing

EC Electric conductivity

FAO Food and agriculture organization

GDP Gross domestic production

G Gram

H Hours

Ha Hectare

ha-1 Per hectare

HSD Honestly significant difference

HI Harvest index

K Potassium

Kg Kilogram

LAD Leaf area duration

LAI Leaf area index

M Meter

m-2 Per meter square

MCGR Mean crop growth rate

Mg Milligram

Ml Milliliter

MS Mean sum of square

MRR Marginal rate of return

MNB Marginal net benefit

MC Marginal cost

N Nitrogen

NAR Net assimilation rate

NS Non-significant

NFB Net field benefit

OM Organic matter

P Phosphorus

pH Power of Hydrogen

PSMA Pakistan sugar mills association

PSST Pakistan society of sugar technologists

SCY Stripped cane yield

SOP Sulphate of Potash

SSP Single Super Phosphate

14

CSR Cane sugar recovery

SW Spent wash

SSRI Shakarganj Sugar Research Institute

T Temperature

TDM Total dry matter

t ha-1 Tons per hectare 0C Degree centigrade

% Percent

@ At the rate of

FYM Farm Yard Manure

RDM Recommended dose of fertilizers

S Sulphur

Ca Calcium

Mg Magnesium

COD Chemical oxygen demand

BOD Biochemical oxygen demand

15

ABSTRACT Sugarcane has a worldwide significance as a major source of food (sugar) and by-products

which are economically more important. The growth in agriculture production has to be

sustainable, this becomes possible only when the soil is in good health. The imbalanced

fertilizer application is a major cause of low sugarcane yield. The present investigations

were carried out to evaluate the comparative effect of by-products of sugar industry and

inorganic fertilizers on spring planted sugarcane. Studies were comprised of two sets of

field experiments. Two independent experiments were conducted during 2013 and repeated

during 2014 at the research farm, Shakraganj Sugar Research Institute (SSRI), Shakarganj

Mills Limited, Jhang, Pakistan. Experiment I “Agronomic assessment of spent wash water

as nutrient supplement for spring planted sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.)”

comprised of different applications of spent wash water and NPK levels viz. spent wash

(160 t ha-1) alone, NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone, spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1), spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (40 t ha-1)

+ NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) and spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1). In

experiment II “Agronomic assessment of compost as nutrient supplement for spring planted

sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.)” was studied which comprised different compost

and NPK combinations viz. compost (1124 kg ha-1) alone, NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1)

alone, compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28kg ha-1), compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK

(84:56:56 kg ha-1), compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) and compost (1124

kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1). These experiments were managed under randomized

complete block design with three replications. Sugarcane variety S2003-US-114 (CPF-248)

was used as medium for the trials. Results showed that all nutrient combinations

significantly improved growth, yield and quality of spring planted sugarcane when

compared with control. In 1st experiment considerably higher growth, yield and cane

quality was observed in canes exposed to spent wash water (80 t ha-1) with NPK (84:56:56

kg ha-1) while in 2nd experiment application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28

kg ha-1) improved the growth, yield and cane juice quality significantly during both of the

years of cane crop with minute differences. Economic analysis of both experiments

executed therein are also in agreement of the aforementioned results.

16

CHAPTER I

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is a major sugar and cash crop of Pakistan.

It is mainly grown for manufacturing the sugar and sugar related products. It provides raw

material for many industries like paper and chipboard industry. It has 3.4 and 0.7%

contribution to value added of agriculture and GDP (Bayer Crop Science, 2014). It comes

after cotton and plays an imperative role in national economy. In Pakistan, it is cultivated

on 1.14 million hectares with total production of 62.7 million tones. Its national average

yield is 54.91 t ha-1 (Govt. of Pakistan, 2015) which is much lower than that of worlds

average yield which is 65 t ha-1 (FAO Stat. 2011). Sugarcane thrives best at a temperature

above 20 0C and grows in tropical and sub-tropical regions. In the arid and semi-arid regions

the crop is grown commercially only in irrigated areas. (Khalil and Jan, 2010). Pakistan lies

in sub tropics with arid to semi-arid climate conditions where sugarcane is planted (Govt.

of Pakistan, 2010)

Sugarcane is mainstay of sugar industry. It is also an important source of raw

material for alcohol and chip board making industries (Naqvi, 2005). It plays a vital role in

agro-industrial economy of Pakistan. Sugar crisis in Pakistan is directly related to sugarcane

production. Pakistan has 1.28 million hectare area under sugarcane cultivation at 6th

position in the world (PSMA, 2013). However, production of sugar in Pakistan in the year

2012-13 was 63.7 million tonnes which ranks it at 7th position in the world and our average

sugarcane production is 56.49 t ha-1 (PSST, 2013). Whereas in the sugarcane producing

countries like Indonesia, Egypt and Brazil production is about 80-90 t ha-1 (Bhambhro,

2002).

There are many causes of low yield of sugarcane like imbalanced fertilizer

application, conventional planting techniques, higher weed intensity, poor land conditions,

use of poor quality seed, inadequate availability of water, government policies, low market

prices, lack of research and the coordination between mill owner and farmers, natural

calamities, attack of diseases and insect pest. Among these imbalanced fertilizer application

is a main root for low sugarcane production (Hussain and Afghan, 2001; Baloch et al.,

2002; Malik and Gurmani, 2005). Sugarcane is an exhaustive crop (Paul et al., 2005). It

has been reported that 85 tons of crops deplete 122.24 and 142 kg nitrogen and phosphorus

per hectare from soil (Bokhtiar et al., 2001). High nutritional requirements limit the

INTRODUCTION

17

sugarcane yield and also put the pressure of high cost of production on farmers (Gholve et

al., 2001). Similarly, the shorter availability of inorganic fertilizers (Khandagave, 2003)

and depletion of soil nutrients and organic matters with continuous cropping also

necessitates the conjunctive use of organic and inorganic fertilizers (Kumar and Verma,

2002; Ibrahim et al., 2008; Sarwar et al., 2008).

The use of high yield varieties and mono-cropping cause a depletion of organic

matter which ultimately limit the availability of both macro and micronutrients

(Rakkiyappan and Thangavelu, 2000). To compensate for their deficiency supplementing

soil micronutrients is most important. A balanced fertilization not only guarantees optimal

crop production but also gives higher benefits to the growers and is the best option to

mitigate the hazardous effect of nutrient losses to the environment. Nutrient application

varies with soil types, seasons and conditions (Schroeder et al., 1998; Ghaffar et al., 2011).

In Pakistan 90% soils are deficient in nitrogen and phosphorus while 50% have insufficient

potash (Bajwa, 1990). The unbalanced use of chemical fertilizer also leads to

environmental problems (Yadav, 1981).

Integrated nutrient management involves the combined use of organic and inorganic

fertilizers to increase soil fertility and crop productivity on sustainable bases and to prevent

the loss of nutrients to environment. It is achieved through efficient management of all

nutrient sources. Soil organic matter, animal manures, composts, green manures, plant

residues and synthetic fertilizers are important source of nutrients for plants (Singh et al.,

2002). Growth and development of the plant is determined by the accessibility of some

definite mineral nutrients which is extremely vital for the completion of its growth period

(Marschner, 1995). This necessitates the application of these nutrients to plants especially

in intensive cropping system. Micronutrients are crucial for normal growth and

development of plants, but required in small quantities (Alam 1999; Shuman, 1999).

Increase in crop residue burning and processing of industry by-products stimulated the

interest of researcher to use the industry by products as soil amendments and as a source of

growth media (Neel et al., 1978; Stoffella and Graetz, 2000; Boopathy et al., 2001;

Meunchang et al., 2005; Mathews and Thurkins, 2006).

Sugarcane has a worldwide significance as a major source of food (sugar). The use

or organic alongside the inorganic fertilizers improves the soil productivity and crop yield

by improving soil physical and chemical conditions (Tandon, 1992; Stone and Elioff,

1998). Compost is a slow releasing fertilizer as compare to fresh farm yard manure, it also

has more stable nitrogen contents that prevents the loss of nitrogen through volatilization

18

(Leonard, 1986). The material from which compost is prepared contributes markedly

towards the provision of nutrients. Compost provides the important macro and micro

nutrients in addition it also provides growth promoting substances like hormones, vitamins

and organic acids (Harris et al., 2001). Sharma and Sharma (2002) reported that conjunctive

use of urea and compost markedly improved the sugarcane yield in calcareous soils.

Likewise in other studies the use of filter cakes and press mud markedly increased the

nutrient holding capacity of soils (Rodella et al., 1990; Viator et al., 2006).

The spent wash is the discarded remaining liquid produced during alcohol

production. The ever escalating quantity of spent wash and its clearance had encouraged

the need of developing new strategies to process this waste matter proficiently and cost-

effectively (Sarayu et al., 2009). Distillery spent wash contains some soluble salts and

essential plant nutrients. Spent wash contains higher amount of K followed by nitrogen and

phosphorus it also contains a considerable amount of calcium which ameliorate the sodic

soils (Murugaragavan, 2002). The high concentration of Ca (2050 – 7000 mg/l) in spent

wash have the good potential to reclaim the sodic soils similar to that of gypsums function.

Application of spent wash also increased the enzymatic and microbial activities. There is

need to develop technologies based on scientific experiments for its effective use without

any undesirable hazards (Santiago and Nanthi, 2004). The unpleasant smell of distillery

spent wash poses a threat to water quality around the globe (Joshi et al., 1994).

Spent wash (SW) is a good source of N, P and K (3.68%, 1.1%, and 1.1%

respectively) and Ca, Mg and Cu (0.45 %, 0.50 % and 0.035 %) (Pujar, 2005). The low

molecular mass bioactive substances (hormones, humic acids and vitamins) are also present

in SW (Sarwar et al., 2008). The stillage waste or spent wash/ distillery water is rich in

nitrogen and potash in addition to many other essential major and minor elements.

Similarly, the stillage waste is also rich in nitrogen and potash. These elements are very

important for the growth of all the agricultural crops. Potash is especially more important

as regards sugarcane. It improves the sugar recovery of the cane crop. It is a blessing for

the growers especially those which cannot afford very costly inorganic fertilizers like urea,

SOP.

The use of organic fertilizers along the chemical fertilizers has been proved highly

beneficial for sustainable crop production. Many researchers have reported that use of

organic fertilizers in combination with chemical fertilizers mitigate the deficiency of many

micro and macro nutrients. The integrative use fertilizers maintains the soil organic matter

contents.

19

Objectives of the Study

Keeping in view the above scenario these studies were planned for following

objectives.

To evaluate the effects of spent wash and compost on the growth, yield and quality

of spring planted sugarcane.

To evaluate economic feasibility of spent wash and compost in combination with

NPK on the production of spring planted sugarcane.

To extract / formulate appropriate levels / doses of spent wash and compost in

combination with NPK.

20

CHAPTER II

2.1: Integrated nutrient management and crop yield

Integrated nutrient management implies the combined use of inorganic and organic

fertilizers to maintain soil fertility and plant nutrient supplies to sustain crop productivity

and minimize the nutrient losses. Soil organic matter, crop residues, animal manures,

compost and industrials wastes are important sources of plant nutrients (Singh et al., 2002).

Bangar et al., (2000) reported that sugarcane yield and dry matter increases with increasing

the rate of nitrogen and organic fertilizers. Likewise in other study Chand et al., (2006)

reported that combined application of organic and inorganic nutrients markedly buildup the

soil fertility, improves the nutrient uptake, crop productivity and soil fertility. Similarly,

Dutta et al. (2003) reported that combined use of inorganic and organic fertilizers improve

the soil fertility and microbial mass. The use of organic and inorganic fertilizers

considerably increased the absorption of nitrogen, phosphorus and potash in sugarcane leaf

as compare to alone use of chemical fertilizers (Bokhtiar and Sakurai, 2005). Combined

use of organic and inorganic fertilizers increased soil organic matter, soil N, P and K

contents, and there use also cause a substantial increases soil microbial biomass as

compared to alone use of inorganic fertilizers (Kaur et al., 2005).

According to Pichot et al. (1981) combined application of compost and fertilizers

improved the soil physical and chemical properties as compared to alone use of fertilizer

or crop residues. Palm, (1995) and Quansah et al. (1998) reported that there is remarkable

increase in crop yield with conjunctive use of organic and inorganic fertilizers as compare

to their sole use. Industrial pollutants are difficult to treat and they are important source of

water pollution. The use of industrial waste as soil amendment has generated interest in

modern era. The waste water produced continuously by the industry could cater the needs

of irrigated crops (Kuntal et al., 2004). The use of organic fertilizers like compost improves

the soil organic matter, soil physical and chemical properties. The use of compost can

replenish the depletion of nutrients in Pakistani soils (Sarwar et al., 2010). Saini et al.

(2006) reported that the use of press mud cake at rate of 10 t ha-1 for plant crop and trash

mulch at rate of 5 t ha-1 for the ratoon crop in combination with NPK produced 13–16 t ha-

1 more cane yield than alone use of fertilizers. They also reported that combined use of

synthetic and organic sources generates the higher revenue as compare to their alone use.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

21

Spent wash (SW) and compost showed significant effect on the yield of wheat and uptake

of N, P, Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu (Chandraju et al., 2008). Cheema et al. (2010) reported that

economic yield of spring maize was markedly increased with application of urea and

poultry manure. While maximum grain yield (5.6 t ha-1) was recorded with the application

of 50% N from urea + 50% N from poultry manure.

It was concluded that integration of 75% of recommended NPK fertilizer + 25%

organic fertilizer (FYM) + bio fertilizer + bio pesticide and trash mulching in alternate rows

increased the cane and ratoon yield compared to recommended NPK + micronutrient

through inorganic in plant and ratoon crop (Dashora and Gupta, 2012). Venkatakrishnan

and Ravichandran (2012) found that basal application of seasoned press mud at rate of 25

t ha-1 and application of 100% RDF + lignite fly ash at rate of 25 t ha-1 + humic acid 50 kg

ha-1 was the best integrated nutrient management (INM) combination for sustained

sugarcane productivity and soil fertility on the sandy loam soil. Patel et al. (2013) found

that for securing higher yield and remuneration in rice-sugarcane cropping sequence,

application of 25% N through FYM + 25% N through poultry manure + 50% N through

inorganic fertilizers gave net return and B:C ratio close to that obtained with 100%

recommended fertilizers alone and improved the soil health in terms of positive nutrient

balance.

Application of organic fertilizers was found beneficial for soil health and crops

yield (Ibrahim et al., 1992; Alam and Shah, 2003), but organic wastes and chemical

fertilizers in integration were proved more rewarding (Khanam et al., 2001; Alam et al.,

2003; Ahmad et al., 2013). Integrative use of inorganic and organic nutrients not only

enhanced growth, yield, and quality but also improves the nutrient uptake for sustainable

crop production (Soomro et al., 2013). Twenty percent increase in maize yield with the

synergistic use of nitrogen sources (FYM and chemical fertilizer at 25:75 N ratio) IPNM

strategy makes the system economically incentive based (Sarwar et al., 2012). Similarly,

compost and manures in combination with inorganic fertilizers improved the soil as

conflicting to heavy fertilizer doses alone or more application of crop residues (Amegashie,

2014).The combined application of ½ N from urea + ½ N from farmyard manure along

with bio microbes (BM) performed better for wheat production (Muhammad et al., 2014).

2.2: Effect of combined application of inorganic and organic sources of nutrients on

growth and growth components of crops

Sharma (1987) opined that remarkable increment in plant height and number of

leaves per plant with increase in the level of fertilizer. Addition of 12 tonnes of compost

22

per hectare along with fertilizer levels up to 60 kg N, 30 kg P and 30 kg K ha-1 significantly

improved the growth characters. Mastiholi (1994) reported that application of

vermicompost 2 t ha-1 with 25 kg N ha-1 and Azospirillum 10 kg ha-1 with 50 kg N ha-1

recorded significantly higher plant height at all the growth stages of Rabi sorghum.

Agarwal et al. (1995) reported that application of compost and farm yard manure improved

the growth of root and leaf of plant. Studies conducted on Kharif sorghum at Dharwad

under rain fed conditions in medium black soils indicated that combined application of

compost and Azospirillum along with recommended dose of fertilizers (RDF) recorded the

higher number of green leaves and leaf area index at 60 and 90 days after sowing (DAS)

and at harvest (Krishnamoorthy, 1995).

Dry matter production of plant was significantly higher with the application of

compost along with Azospirillum brasilense than their individual application (Savalgi and

Savalgi, 1992). Application of biogas slurry at the rates of equivalent to 10 kg N ha-1 and

synthetic fertilizers in the ratio of 3:1 significantly improved plant height, productive tillers,

length of ear head and produced remarkably higher seed and straw yield (Sham and

Sreenivasa, 1998). Ashok et al. (2005) found that growth of maize plants in terms of plant

height and leaf area index varied significantly due to various fertility levels. Having tallest

plants and maximum leaf area index with application of 100 % NPK with 10 t ha-1 farmyard

manure was superior over remaining fertility levels. Singh (1997) reported that at initial

stages plant height, productive tillers and total dry matter accumulation were not affected

considerably by application of organic fertilizers. But at later stages, all these growth

parameters improved significantly with the use of organic manures.

Karki et al. (2005) reported that the recommended dose of fertilizers (120:26.2:41.5

kg ha-1 NPK) being statistically similar to 120 kg N + 10 tonnes compost + 5 kg ha-1 zinc,

recorded the highest plant height and dry matter accumulation per plant, grain and stover

yield of maize. The synergistic use of nitrogen sources (compost and chemical fertilizer at

25:75 N ratio) is advantageous over the sole application of mineral fertilizer. Compost and

Zn fertilization further enhanced the crop growth and yield. Haghighi et al. (2010) reported

that integrated use of chemical and biological fertilizers markedly improved the leaf area index,

crop growth rate, number of kernel per plant and grain yield. Sarwar et al. (2012) proved that

there was up to 20% increase in maize yield with integrative use of nutrients.

23


yield and yield components of crops

Sharma (1983) reported a significant increase in grain weight and grain yield of

maize with each successive increase in the fertilizer levels. The application of 12.0 t

compost with each fertilizer level up to 90 kg ha-1 N, 45 kg ha-1 P and 45 kg ha-1 K

significantly increased the grain yield of maize in comparison to same level without

compost. Das et al. (1991) noticed the maximum grain yield of maize with the application

of 5 tonnes of compost plus 28 kg ha-1 P as single super phosphate (4.95 t ha-1) followed

by poultry manure alone (3.81 t ha-1). Verma (1991), on a clay soil, found that increasing

the rate of crop residues from 5.0 to 10.0 t ha-1 and fertilizer application from 50 to 100 %

recommended dose of N, P and K increased the grain yield of maize. Alagawadi and Gaur

(1992) carried out experiment at Bijapur under rain fed condition on Rabi sorghum (cv. M

351) and reported that application of nitrogen along with inoculation of Azospirillum

brasilense, Pseudomonas striata has significantly increased the Rabi sorghum yield.

Juang (1993) grew rice and maize in rotation and were given inorganic fertilizers,

organic compost or combination of the both, crop yield of over 6 cropping seasons were

higher with organic fertilizers than compost + NPK. The yield increased due to compost

over time. Boochi and Tano (1994) reported that the organic manures increased the yield

of maize. The highest organic manure rate of 540 kg ha-1 as a cattle manure produced same

yield as 180 kg ha-1 and also the positive interactions between the combinations of organic

manure and nitrogen were observed. Application of compost at rate of 2.5 t ha-1 and

Azospirillum at rate of 10 kg ha-1 recorded the highest grain yield of sorghum (5080 kg ha-

1), that was statistically same with the treatment receiving vermin compost and Rhizobium

along with 75% RDF (4737 kg ha-1), but differed significantly to the treatment receiving

FYM at rate of 7.5 t ha-1 along with Azospirillum and recommended dose of fertilizer (RDF)

(Krishnamoorthy, 1995). Barewadia and Patel (1996) indicated that combined application

of farmyard manure at rate of 5 t ha-1 and nitrogen at rate of 60 kg ha-1 produced

considerably higher yield of sugarcane than FYM with 45 and 30 kg N ha-1. Kamalakumari

and Singaram (1996) produced significantly higher grain yield (4775 kg ha-1) of maize due

to combined application of compost at the rate of 10 t ha-1 and 100% NPK over 150, 100,

50% NPK, 100% NPK + 25 kg ZnSO4 ha-1, 100% N and 100% NP while higher straw yield

(8856 kg ha-1) was also obtained in the same treatment.

Bangar et al. (2000) reported that in sugarcane yield, dry matter and sugar recovery

increases linearly with increasing the rate of press mud. Pawar (1996) observed that the

24

application of vermin compost at rate of 2.5 t ha-1 along with 50% RDF gave maize grain

yield on par with 100% RDF. In another field study, he found the highest grain yield of

maize (74.81 q ha-1) due to combination of vermiculture and application of 100% RDF.

However, the treatment having vermiculture and application of only 50% RDF gave yield

equivalent to that obtained with 100% RDF i.e., by practicing vermiculture it is possible to

save 50% cost on chemical fertilizers. Palled et al. (1997) indicated that an average of 30%

nitrogen requirement of maize crop can be met with crop residues incorporation provided

the entire material is mineralized well before the crop attains maturity. Chandrashekar et

al. (2000) reported that the application of poultry manure at rate of 10 t ha-1 along with

100% recommended dose of fertilizers (150:75:37.5 kg NPK ha-1) recorded significantly

higher grain (50.8 q ha-1) and stover (74.4 q ha-1) yield of maize than vermin compost and

only RDF. Nanjappa et al. (2001) reported that conjunctive use of 50 or 75% RDF with 12

t ha-1 FYM or 2.7 t ha-1 vermin compost caused higher productivity of maize compared

with the application of either only inorganic fertilizer or organic sources. Sharma et al.

(2002) reported considerable increase in number of millable canes and yield when press

mud and urea were added in 1:1 ratio than press mud alone.

Ashok et al. (2005) recorded maximum yield of maize when 100% NPK was

applied with compost at rate of 10 t ha-1. The application of 10 t ha-1 farmyard manure along

with 100% NPK, followed by 100% NPK recorded the highest productivity. Paul and

Manan (2007) reported that combined use of organic and inorganic fertilizers not only

reduced the recommended use of chemical fertilizers but also recycled the nutrients and

caused a substantial increase in yield. According to Sarwar et al. (2007) combined use of

chemical fertilizers and compost increased biomass, yield and also improved the sugar yield

and quality. Combined application of organic fertilizer and urea fertilizer or combination

of urea fertilizer and polyamines considerably increased growth and yield of sugarcane crop

(Oad et al., 2004; Zeid, 2008). Kumar and chand (2012) found that the yields of both plant

and ratoon cane were enhanced by 27.7 and 16.2%, respectively by the application of 100%

NPK + 25% N through FYM + bio fertilizers (Azotobacter + PSB) in plant cane following

100% NPK + trash incorporation with cellulolytic culture + bio fertilizers in ratoon.

Similarly Kumar and Chand (2013) also reported that application of NPK fertilizers

improved the cane yield over N and P alone. Farm yard manure with N and ½ P, press-

mud, press mud compost with N and ½P, FYM + N and P, green manure + N and P gave

at par cane yields as full NPK fertilizers alone. Keshaviah et al. (2013) obtained

25

significantly higher sugarcane yield of 170.33 t ha-1 when nutrients were applied with 50%

N through press mud and 50% NPK through fertilizers + bio fertilizers.


soil properties

Soil physical properties

Studies from the long-term field experiments by Acharya et al. (1988) indicated

that addition of FYM along with inorganic fertilizers improved the soil structural index,

infiltration rate and water retention characteristics when compared to the addition of

inorganic fertilizers alone. Incubation studies of Forum et al. (1989) revealed that aggregate

stability of the soil was significantly improved after two weeks of incubation by addition

of the organic fractions such as humic and fulvic acids. Fulvic acid was more effective than

humic acid in increasing the stability of aggregates because of stronger and rapid soil

binding mechanisms. Lal and Mathur (1989) reported that the bulk density decreased

gradually in FYM treated plots, attaining a maximum reduction of 9% over the initial value.

It may be due to the fact that soil remains fluffy and porus as a result of extensive root

system due to adding up of organic matter through the plant residues. Lavti (1990) observed

the higher percentage of water holding capacity in Alfisols of Udaipur under rain fed

condition due to incorporation of organic materials like farmyard manure, rice straw,

ground shell and wheat straw over control.

Chawla and Chabra (1991) observed that maximum water stable aggregates in

surface soil increased linearly with increasing the rate of P. Stability of aggregates

decreased with depth in all the treatments. The decrease in water stable aggregates with

depth was more rapid in the treatment where K was also applied to both the crops. Hundekar

(1992) noticed higher value of water stable aggregates (49.88%) with sorghum stubble +

recommended level of fertilizer in Vertisols of Bijapur. Sarkar and Rathod (1992) reported

that bulk density decreased by 1.42% due to incorporation of crop residue over control. In

another study, Jadhav et al. (1993) reported that maximum water holding capacity was

increased in the plots which were treated with vermin compost at rate of 5 t ha-1 compared

to control plot.

Suri et al. (1993) observed increase in water stable aggregates and pore space with

green manuring. Decrease in bulk density, increase in water holding capacity and air

porosity due to incorporation of crop residue and green manures was found to improve soil

water plant relationship. Bellakki and Badanur (1997) reported that water stable aggregates

were increased significantly and bulk density reduced in Vertisols with incorporation of

26

stubbles alone or in combination with subabul over fertilizer application. More (1994)

observed that application of biogas slurry at rate of 10 t ha-1 or FYM at rate of 20 t ha-1 to

sodic vertisol reduced bulk density and increased infiltration rate. Mathur (1997) recorded

40.3% increase in infiltration rate over control due to addition of FYM.

Quireshi et al. (1995) found reduction in bulk density and increased infiltration rate

due to incorporation of crop residues. Sesbania green mauring as well as incorporation of

green gram residue markedly enhanced the contents of water stable aggregates (Uttam et

al., 1999). Incorporation of organic matter in to the soil reduced the bulk density, improved

the infiltration rate, water stable aggregates (>0.25 mm), soil porosity and water holding

capacity of soil (Bellakki and Badanur, 1997). Babhulkar et al. (2000) reported the effect

of use of fertilizers alone and in blend with graded levels of FYM for soybean based

cropping system in a long-term field experiment in swell-shrink soil at Nagpur. The results

indicated that the soil bulk density decreased due to combined application of FYM and

fertilizers as compared to other treatments without FYM and resulting in significant

increase in soil porosity, water holding capacity as well as hydraulic conductivity. Press

mud is an important source organic manure (Bokhtiar et al., 2001) it provides important

plant nutrients and can ameliorate the soil (Razzaq, 2001). The combined use of press mud

and urea improve the nutrient holding capacity of soil and their effect remains for many

years (Rodella et al., 1990; Viator et al., 2002).

Selvi et al. (2005) noticed that continuous addition of balanced fertilization did not

show any deteriorating effect on soil physical properties rather it significantly increased the

water holding capacity and declined the soil bulk density. Residue incorporations or

application in integration with nitrogen fertilizers have positive impacts on plant growth

and production and on soil physio-chemical properties (Huang et al., 2007). Cattle and

poultry manures supplemented with inorganic fertilizers provided slow release of nutrients,

development of roots and improvement in soil structure leading to higher yield of crops

(Samman et al., 2008). Patel et al. (2013) found that for securing higher yield and

remuneration in rice-sugarcane cropping sequence, application of 25% N through FYM +

25% N through poultry manure + 50% N through inorganic fertilizers gave net return and

B:C ratio close to that obtained with 100% recommended fertilizers alone and improved

the soil health in terms of positive nutrient balance.

pH and EC

Badanur et al. (1990) studied the effect of organic matter on soil properties and

found that electrical conductivity of soil did not vary much with incorporation of crop

27

residues and green manures over fertilizer application. Das et al. (1991) reported that the

combined use of organic and inorganic fertilizers increased the soil pH at 12 days of

incubation. Continuous application of NPK fertilizers for 12 years lowered the pH by 1.0

to 1.2 unit while the pH of unfertilized plot rose from 7.7 to 7.8 after 12 years of cropping

(Alok and Yadav, 1993). More (1994) observed that application of farmyard manure,

biogas slurry, spent wash, compost and wheat straw decreased the pH of sodic vertisol at

Parbhani. Singh and Yadav (1994) observed that the soil pH did not change markedly due

to continuous use of ammonium sulphate, groundnut cake and FYM in soil of Padegoan

and Muzaffarnagar. Whereas, electrical conductivity decreased over a time more so with a

basal application of compost.

Venkatesh (1995) noticed significant reduction in soil pH due to application of

vermin compost at rate of 5.0 t ha-1. The total soluble salt content remained unaltered due

to the fact that the doses of fertilizers added in different treatments were quite small and

salts added through fertilizers might have been leached down due to good number of

irrigations given to crops. Bellakki et al. (1998) noticed a decrease in pH from 8.45 to 8.35

in the treatments where 50% compost + 50% N through glyricidia were applied over

control. The EC of soil slightly increased from 0.21 dS m-1 to 0.23 dS m-1 over control.

Srikanth et al. (2000) observed decrease in pH of an Alfisol due to either FYM or vermin

compost applied to supplement 50% recommended phosphorus to crop. He reported that

application of FYM and compost decreased the soil pH. This decrease in pH attributed to

acidifying effect of organic acids formed during the breakdown of organic manures.

Yogananda et al. (2004) noticed a decrease in soil pH and EC by the use of urban compost

along with the use of NPK.

Organic carbon

Koni (1983) observed that the incorporation of maize stalk and jowar stubble along

with normal dose of NPK fertilizers increase the organic carbon content by 0.84 and 0.78%,

respectively and was significantly superior to normal dose of NPK fertilizer (0.73%) in clay

loam soils of Dharwad. Nambiar and Ghosh (1984) summarized the results of long-term

fertilizer experiments and reported that the organic carbon content increased appreciably

under 100% NPK + FYM treatments in all the soils and significantly in some of the soils.

Swarup (1991) observed that with the application of sesbania turming 3.85 t ha-1 biomass

contributed 110 kg N ha-1 overall improvement in organic carbon and available N content

in soil throughout the profile over the initial status and fallow treatments were observed.

28

Bhandari et al. (1992) found that organic carbon content of soil augmented

considerably with use of 100% copmost, NPK. Bellakki and Badanur (1997) reported

considerable increase in organic carbon content of surface and subsurface soils and found

increased with incorporation of FYM, compost or sunhemp to soil. Krishnamurthy (1995)

found that the combined use of compost and organic manures considerably increased the

soil organic corbon contents. Similarly, Mathur (1997) proved that combined use of FYM

and inorganic fertilizers considerably increased the organic carbon content of soil. Babu

and Reddy (2000) recorded significant increase in the organic carbon content of sandy clay

loam soil from 0.61 to 0.92% due to the addition of FYM at rate of 5 t and N at rate of 50

kg ha-1. Similar findings were also reported by Santhy et al. (2000). Studies conducted by

Vasanthi and Kumaraswamy (2000) in red clay loam soil revealed that the organic carbon

content of the treatment that received either poultry manure or sheep/goat manure at rate of

10 t ha-1 along with 50% RDF significantly increased when compared to the treatment

receiving only inorganic fertilizers. Ranjan et al. (2004) noticed that both oxidizable and

non-oxidizable soil organic carbon contents of the soil were higher in FYM treated plots at

the first two depths (1.31 and 10.44 g C kg-1 in 0–15 cm; 1.87 and 8.44 g C kg-1 in 15–30

cm, respectively for NPK + FYM treatment) and were significantly higher than all other

treatments.

Available nitrogen

Paul and Mannan (2007) found that combined use of organic waste along with

application of chemical N increases soil microbial biomass and soil P and N contents.

Venugopal and Shivashankar (1989) recorded available nitrogen content of 241 and 262 kg

ha-1 due to incorporation of maize stoverat rate of 4 and 8 t ha-1, respectively. Lavanya and

Manikam (1991) stated that application of organic manures in black soil, along with 100%

NPK fertilizers increased the available nitrogen content of soil. Bhanavase et al. (1992)

observed that available nitrogen increased from 16.50 to 43.50% due to combined

application of organic and inorganic nitrogen sources. Pawar (1996) reported that the

available N content of soil (291.96 kg ha-1) was maximum due to combined use of compost

at rate of 5.0 t ha-1 and 100% recommended dose of fertilizers and it was significantly

superior to all other treatment combinations.

Yaduvanshi (2001) reported that continuous rice-wheat cropping for five years

slightly increased the available N with the application of nitrogen fertilizers along with P

and K fertilizers. However, available nitrogen in soil considerably improved with green

manuring, compost and FYM treatments. The increase may be attributed to the

29

mineralization of N by green manuring and farm yard manure in soil. Tolanur and Badanur

(2003) reported that available nitrogen content of surface soil after the harvest of Rabi

sorghum and chickpea differed significantly with fertilizer over control. The highest

available nitrogen in surface soil (233 and 231 kg ha-1) was recorded with incorporation of

sun hemp crop residues along with fertilizers after harvest of Rabi sorghum and chickpea

crops, respectively. Sihag et al. (2005) found that combined use of organic manures and

chemical considerably increased the all types of available nitrogen over the control. Singh

et al. (2005) reported that application of organic and inorganic fertilizers increased the

buildup of available nitrogen in soil. Maximum increase in available N was observed with

the application of 60 kg N ha-1 from urea + Azolla. This might be due to higher supply of

N through urea and atmospheric nitrogen fixation by Azolla.

Available phosphorus

More and Ghonsikar (1988) reported that use of poultry manure and along with

single superphosphate to soil resulted in higher phosphorus availability and poultry manure

which was superior than FYM and goat manure. Bhanavase et al. (1992) observed a

significant increase in available phosphorus content in soil due to addition of FYM in

combination with urea as compared to crop residues in combination with urea. Balaji

(1994) obtained high levels of available P in treatment where compost was used along with

chemical fertilizers. Sharma and Singh (1991) reported that incorporation of FYM at rate

of 15 t ha-1 along with phosphorus at rate of 66 kg ha-1 caused two fold increases in the

available phosphorus content of soil after two years. Further, the use of composts improved

the accessibility of phosphorus and this was attributed to reduction in fixation of water

soluble P, increased mineralization of organic P due to microbial action and enhanced

mobility of P (Krishnamurthy, 1991).

Panneerselvam et al. (2000) studied the effect of conjunctive use of different

organic manures like FYM, sheep manure and bio-digested slurry (spent wash) and

inorganic fertilizers on the availability of phosphorus in clay loam soils. Soil available

phosphorus was higher with the application of bio-digested slurry along with RDF and was

comparable with sheep manure. This was attributed to the release of native soil phosphorus.

Similarly, there was significant increase in the available phosphorus content of an Alfisol

due to the addition of either FYM or vermin compost (Srikanth et al., 2000). Sihag et al.

(2005) reported the highest value of all types of available P under FYM followed by green

manuring and press mud treatments. Mann et al. (2006) found that available phosphorus

content augmented to 15.1, 18.4, 27.5 and 38.7 kg ha-1 from the initial value of 13.7 in 50,

30

100, 150% NP and 100% NPK + farmyard manure treatments, respectively. The higher

buildup of available phosphorus occurs because phosphorus use efficiency ranges between

16 to 32% all over the year. Therefore, the adsorption of phosphorus on soil colloids

increased its level in the soil.

Available potassium

Pandey et al. (1985) reported that the application of residues like wheat straw, maize

and jowar stalks improved the accessible potassium content of soil from 282 kg ha-1 in

control to a maximum of 357 kg ha-1 in treated plots. Shinde and Gowade (1992) observed

a raise in the accessible K of the soil due to addition of FYM at the rate of 15 t ha-1 from

235 kg ha-1 in control to 258 kg ha-1 in treated soil. Yaduvanshi (2001) reported that after

the harvest of 10 crops of rice-wheat cropping system, available K significantly declined

under N alone and NP treatments over control. The available K increased with constant use

of fertilizer K and organic manures over its initial level. The increase in the buildup of soil

available K by the application of green manures, compost may due to the action of certain

acids produced during the breakdown of these green manures, compost and FYM. Sharma

and Sharma (2002) reported that use of K considerably increased K content of soil by 3 to

4 kg ha-1 in the first year and by 17 to 19 kg ha-1 in the second year. The available K content

of soil was further increased significantly with the application of FYM along with NPK

over NPK alone. This might be possible due to additional supply of K by FYM


uptake of nutrients

Macronutrients

Chopra and Ganguly (1988) reported that the nitrogen recovery percentage was the

highest with urea, followed by biogas slurry (spent wash) and farmyard manure in the first

season of maize crop. This was because urea with NH2-N mineralized readily than FYM-

N, which is organically bound. However, biogas slurry was comparable to urea because

nitrogen was comparatively in more mineralized form due to exhaustive digestion.

Ibragimov (1990) reported that in sandy soil N, P and K uptake increased as fertilizer rate

increased resulting in progressive depletion of soil potassium reserves. Farmyard manure

and compost application enhanced the nutrient uptake at the highest NPK rates but reduced

the depletion of soil potassium reserves. Biju (1994) reported a considerable boost in the

level and subsequent uptake of N and P by wheat due to addition of farm yard manures

with rock phosphate. Nitrogen and phosphorus contents of wheat grain and straw improved

31

with the use of organic manures and were maximum with the application of vermicompost

at 10 t ha-1.

Pawar (1996) found that combined application of inorganic fertilizers along with

the vermicompost considerably increased the uptake of nitrogen, phosphorus, potash and

sulphur. Shivananda et al. (1996) studied the efficiency of sulphur uptake from FYM and

vermicompost as organic source and ammonium sulphate as inorganic source in frenchbean

cv. The highest uptake of sulphur in plant was recorded in FYM treated soils followed by

vermicompost, ammonium sulphate and control at the harvest. Gupta et al. (1999) observed

increased phosphorus use efficiency due to the application of FYM at rate of 10 t ha-1 to

sandy loam soil with maize as test crop. The extent of increase was 15.50, 11.57 and 3.93%

from soil + fertilizer, soil and fertilizer source, respectively. Nanjappa et al. (2001) noticed

that integrative use of fertilizer not only increased the availability of nutrients but also their

uptake by the crop. The uptake of N, P and K by maize was higher due to application of

75% recommended dose of fertilizer + 2.7 t ha-1 vermicompost. However, the application

of either 24 t ha-1 FYM or 10.8 t ha-1 vermicompost registered the lower nutrient uptake.

Yaduvanshi (2001) reported that use of organic manures and chemical fertilizers

enhanced the uptake of N by rice and wheat crop as compared to N alone and control

treatment. The mean increase in uptake of N over control with 50% suggested treatment

and its combined use with green manuring and FYM and 100% recommended treatments

was 39.3, 78.1 and 77.3 kg ha-1 in rice. Nitrogen uptake by rice from green manuring FYM

with 50% recommended treatment was similar to that from 100% recommended treatment.

The uptake of P and K increased significantly with the application of NPK and its combined

use with green manuring and compost. Baskar (2003) reported that over ten years of

continuous rice-rice cropping under various treatments, the differences in uptake of nutrient

and nutrient use efficiency of major nutrients in organic fertilizers alone and inorganic

fertilizers with organics were significant. The continuous use of organics along with

inorganic fertilizers increased nutrient uptake and nutrient use efficiency of major nutrients

than the inorganic fertilizers.

Kumar and Thakur (2004) observed that application of 150% recommended

fertilizer resulted in higher uptake followed by recommended fertilizer + 10 t FYM ha-1.

Singh and Sarkar (2001) also reported increased nutrient uptake with higher fertilizer

application. Application of compost with recommended fertilizer increases the uptake by

increasing the availability of nutrient. Karki et al. (2005) found that nitrogen, phosphorus

and potash contents in grain and stover of maize and their uptake were found the maximum

32

with the recommended dose of fertilizers which is at par with recommended dose of

fertilizer + 10 t FYM ha-1 treatment.

Micronutrients uptake

Singh et al. (1979) reported that there was a considerable increased in the uptake of

zinc by maize with the use of zinc amended poultry manure. Devarajan et al. (1980)

reported that the use of pig manure along with farm yard manures considerably increased

the uptake of zinc and iron in sorghum. This was attributed to the micronutrient content in

the organic manure and also the effect of organic acids produced during decomposition of

soil minerals. Prasad (1981) opined that organic manures improved the zinc and iron

content of maize from paucity to adequacy level, which caused the improvement in maize

yield of calcareous soil. Sakal et al. (1982) reported that use of compost at rate of 10 t ha-1

along with FeSO4 at rate of 100 kg ha-1 increased the uptake of Fe by maize seed and stover

by 19 and 81%, respectively over control. This was attributed to the chelation of Fe by

organic ligands from the compost and thus increasing its availability and uptake by maize.

Kher and Minhas (1991) reported that the combined application of 100% NPK

determined on the foundation of initial soil test values and farmyard manure to maize-wheat

rotation considerably improved the uptake of Zn, Mn and Fe in both crops. Madhavi et al.

(1995) observed that the uptake of micronutrients (Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu) in winter maize

improved with raise in levels of poultry manure (0–4.5 t ha-1) and NPK fertilizers (0–100%

recommended fertilizers of 120:60:60 kg ha-1 N, P and K). Ghosh et al. (2001) found that

combined use of farm yard manure and the suggested use of NPK fertilizer considerably

increased the uptake of Zn, Mn, Cu and Fe by wheat over absolute control and RDF

treatment.

2.6: Use of compost for yield improvement:

Filter mud is a source of major plant nutrients like nitrogen, phosphorus and potash

and a considerable amount of other nutrients like sodium, iron, manganese, calcium,

copper, selenium, magnesium, sulfur and zinc (Poel et al., 1998). The soils with filter mud

application showed better germination rate in sugarcane cultivars Co 6806 and Co 997,

compared to those with pure soil (Elsayed et al., 2008). Tillering potential is pre-requisite

for final yield. Tillering or shoot formation in sugarcane is a process of underground

branching from very short joints on the stem of primary shoot first and tillers later on

(Kakde, 1985). It was reported that tillering capacity or shoot formation as well as mortality

of tillers during the process of cane development could be affected by planting techniques,

planting time, moisture supply, nutrient availability, temperature and light intensity

33

prevailed around the crop plant (Dillewijn, 1952). Plant height was improved with the use

of nutrients over the control treatment (Khan et al., 1997).

Soil treated with filter mud gave significantly taller cane stalk than non-treated soil

and application of filter mud did not show any effect on number of internodes (Elsayed et

al., 2008). Soomro et al. (2005) reported that feeding of macronutrients gave the maximum

number of internodes per stalk (15.07) over control The use of compost mitigates the

potential autotoxic effects and allelophatic effects to ratoon crops when postharvest

sugarcane residues are left on the field (Viator et al., 2006). Filter mud of cane is a source

of nitrogen, phosphorus, potash, sodium, iron, manganese, calcium, copper, selenium,

magnesium, sulfur and zinc (Poel et al., 1998). Siddiqi et al. (2006) determined that varied

doses of multi nutrients considerably increased the number of millable canes from 3.94 to

7.33. The higher total dry matter of 5013 g m-2 was produced in the press mud applied plots

along with the application of sulfur, zinc and NPK fertilizers as against the minimum total

dry matter of 3520 g m-2 observed in the control plot receiving only NPK fertilizer

(Bokhtiar and Sakurai, 2005).

Analysis of leaves revealed non-significant differences in the nitrogen, phosphorus,

potash, calcium and magnesium content of plants grown in filter mud applied and untreated

soil (Elsayed et al., 2008). The uptake of nutrients (N, P, K and S) was found higher from

the press mud treated plots along with the use of sulfur, zinc and NPK fertilizers and in

plots with farm yard manure + S + Zn + NPK as against the only inorganic fertilizer

received treatment. The maximum leaf area index of 5.49 was obtained from the press mud

treated plots along with the application of sulfur, zinc and NPK fertilizers that was closely

followed by farm yard manure + S + Zn + NPK and S + Zn + NPK treatments, while the

minimum LAI of sugarcane crop was noted in the plots treated with NPK alone. Analysis

showed that press mud and farm yard manure contained micronutrients along with NPK

(Bokhtiar and Sakurai, 2005). Soils in which legumes are grown and compost and Farm

Yard Manure (FYM) incorporated contain enough suitable phosphoric acid, potash and

lime (Rao and Rao, 1982).

2.7: Use of spent wash for yield enhancement

This industrial discharge is rich in organic and inorganic matter and serves as an

excellent source of plant nutrients (N, P, K, S etc.) (Bharagava et al., 2008). The application

of distillery discharge as a soil amendment and irrigation of agricultural crops has been

increased in past decade (Biswas et al., 2009). The waste water can be essentially acts as a

soil fertilizer and utilized for crop irrigation purpose.There are several studies that

34

advocated the adequacy of distillery effluent in enhancing the productivity and agronomic

value of various crops (Khan and Srivastava, 1996; Banerjee et al., 2004; Kannan and

Upreti, 2008; Bharagava et al., 2008; Pandey et al., 2008; Biswas et al., 2009).The dilution

of waste water (25-50%) showed positive effect on plant growth and production and

supposed to be beneficial for crops. The result available after seed bioassay test advocated

the use of pure distillery effluent without dilution may adversely affect the plant

productivity (Singh and Swami, 2014).

Rath et al., (2013) reported that spent wash at 20% v/v concentration serve as an

important liquid fertilizer for germination and growth of rice crop. Based on the findings

of different researchers it can be concluded that the spent wash is highly organic in nature

having high value of COD (41,100 mg L-1). The maximum COD removal efficiency is

79.72% achieved after 30th day (optimizing time) at an organic loading rate of 0.5 kg COD/

m3.d (Mise et al., 2013). It was also reported that the water holding capacity, cation

exchange capacity, increases the availability of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, copper,

zinc, iron, manganese; but with reduced biochemical oxygen demand (BOD) with addition

of sewage sludge to a course textured sandy and calcareous soil (Badawy and Elmataium,

2009). Likewise (Ramana et al., 2001; Singh and Bahadur, 1998) reported that the dilution

of SW improved the physical and chemical properties of soil and also increased the

microbial biomass. Chandraju and Basavaraju, (2007) reported that SW contains important

nutrients like N, P, K, Ca, Mg and S and therefore it is a valued fertilizer when applied to

soil through irrigation with water. Similarly, the SW contains higher amount of BOD and

COD that creates environmental problems and pose threat to human health (Kumar and

Gopal, 2001; Workocha, 2011).

Spent wash could be used for irrigation purpose without adversely affecting soil

fertility (Kuntal et al., 2004), seed germination and crop productivity (Raverkar et al.,

2000). Rani and Vastava (1990) reported that use of spent wash had no hazardous effect of

germination but it also improved the growth of maize. Rajendran (1990) reported that use

of SW improved the leaf area, shoot growth and chlorophyll content of peas. However

Sahai et al. (1993) reported that increase in the concentration of SW caused a substantial

reduction in germination, growth and chlorophyll contents. A field experiment was done

with diverse dilutions of distillery spent wash using sugar cane (Saccharum officinarum).

The growth parameters like height of the plant, leaves length, breadth of the leaves, girth

of the stem, leaf area index, number of leaves, number of tillers per plant etc enhanced with

increase in concentration of distillery spent wash up-to 75% (Rath et al., 2010). Similarly,

35

Chandraju et al. (2012) reported that diluted SW improved the nutrient uptake, growth and

yield of vegetables.

Amar et al., (2003) reported that the SW is rich in K, S, N, P and organic matter

and its use increased the sugarcane yield. A gradual increase of up to 25% in cane length,

leaves per plant, leaf area, chlorophyll content and fresh cane weight have been observed

when supplemented with SW (Rani and Srivastava, 2000). The highest cane yield (155.8 t

ha-1) was observed with the application of spent wash (125 t ha-1) (Devarajan et al., 2004).

SW with quantity of 90 to 150 tons ha-1 significantly increases cane girth and weight in

addition to increased sugar yield (Viera, 1996). Spent wash can be conveniently used for

irrigation purpose with required dilution without affecting environment and soil (Chandraju

et al., 2012). A study in Ukraine has shown that use of SW increased the fodder, maize and

grasses yield by 45-100%. Extensive studies on distillery spent wash have been carried out

successfully with respect to various crops indifferent agro-climatic regions in India

(Kanimozhi et al., 2010).

Average height of the sugarcane plant after 210 days showed an increase of 13.45%

in the 50% SW treated plot over the control. However, the growth showed negative trend

in 100% SW. The average length of leaves of the test crop after 210 days of plantation

showed an increase of 11.22% in 50% SW treated plants over control and a negative trend

in 100% SW (Krishna et al., 2002). SW significantly improves the cane and sugar yields

(Gonzales and Tianco, 2002). SW increased yield and uptake of nutrients in mung bean

(Escolar, 1993). It was reported that spent wash (SW) increased dry matter production of

mung bean (Kuntal et al., 2004). SW improved the uptake of zinc, copper, iron and

magnesium in maize and wheat (Pujar, 1995). SW significantly increases all the plant

growth attributes (plant metabolism) (Diangan et al., 2008). SW significantly increases

yield, plant height, dry matter, leaf area and leaf area index of maize (Singh et al., 2002).

Less diluted spent wash gave a greater yield of biomass than the more diluted ones (Sarayu

et al., 2009). SW supplies essential nutrients, enhance water holding capacity, increase soil

aeration and accelerate root growth (Pathak et al., 1998; Garg et al., 2006).

There was a significantly higher yield of sugarcane when supplemented with 200

kg N through spent wash (Bajpai and Dua, 2002). In Brazil and Australia the recommended

rate of SW is 35-50 m3 ha-1 to get the higher sugarcane yield. The use of SW was found to

increase the sugarcane yield and decline the rate of potassium application. The application

of SW increased the CCS (16.04%), brix (22.68%), pol (19.46%) and purity (84.14%) of

sugarcane (Singandhupe et al., 2009). SW is a more effective fertilizer for sugarcane crop

36

than solid fertilizers (Rath et al., 2011). Application of SW has no significant difference in

Juice quality parameters (pol % and purity coefficient) as compare to solid fertilizer use

(Mohan et al., 2003). Juice quality parameters of sugarcane (brix, pol, purity and

commercial cane sugar) were high with the application of SW (Devarajan and Oblisami,

1995). Kalaiselvi and Mahimairaja, (2009) observed that brix and pol percentages of

sugarcane juice increased with the application of SW against the inorganic fertilizers.

Keeping in view the above scenario it is concluded that use of organic inputs such

as crop residues, manures and compost have greater potential for improving soil

productivity and crop yield through improvement of the physical, chemical and

microbiological properties of the soil as well as nutrient availability (Tandon, 1992; Stone

and Elioff, 1998). The material from which compost is prepared contributes markedly

towards the provision of nutrients. Compost provides the important macro and micro

nutrients in addition it also provides growth promoting substances like hormones, vitamins

and organic acids (Harris et al., 2001). The stillage waste or spent wash/ distillery water is

also rich in nitrogen and potash in addition to many other essential major and minor

elements (Murugaragavan, 2002). The conjunctive use of inorganic and organic fertilizers

has proved beneficial for sustainable crop production. Several studies have reported that

the beneficial effect of integrative use of inorganic and organic fertilizers to alleviate the

shortage of many secondary and micronutrients in fields that constantly received only N, P

and K fertilizers for a few years without any micronutrient or organic fertilizer. It was

revealed that balanced fertilization using both organic and chemical fertilizers is important

for maintenance of soil organic matter (OM) contents and long-term soil productivity in the

tropics where soil OM content is low.

Integrated nutrient management involves the combined use of organic and inorganic

fertilizers to increase soil fertility and crop productivity on sustainable bases and to prevent

the loss of nutrients to environment. It is achieved through efficient management of all

nutrient sources. Soil organic matter, animal manures, composts, green manures, plant

residues and synthetic fertilizers are important source of nutrients for plants (Singh et al.,

2002). Growth and development of the plant is determined by the accessibility of some

definite mineral nutrients which is extremely vital for the completion of its growth period

(Marschner, 1995).

37

CHAPTER III

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1: Experimental site

The designed studies were conducted at research farm of Shakarganj Sugar Research

Institute, Shakarganj Mills Limited, Jhang. Sugarcane variety S2003-US-114 (CPF 248) was

sown as medium of the trial. Studies were comprised of two sets of field experiments with

seven treatments in each, laid out using randomized complete block design (RCBD) in three

replications. The net plot size was 4.9 m × 9 m with planting technique 1.20 m apart with

double rows using seed rate of 75000 double budded sets ha-1. Optimization of comparative

effect of by-products of sugar industry and inorganic fertilizers was determined for spring

planted sugarcane. Physico-chemical analysis of experimental soil was conducted before

sowing and after harvest of the crop during both the cane growing years. All the crop

husbandry practices were kept normal and uniform except treatments under study.

3.2: Soil analysis

Soil samples were collected up to 40 cm depth for analysis of the experimental location.

The soil is productive without any problem for sugarcane production. The soil was sandy

loam deficient in NPK and organic matter. To determine major physical and chemical

properties of the experimental location, the composite soil samples were taken from soil

depth (0-40 cm) with the help of auger at the start and end of crop during both the cane

growing years. Samples were picked up in plastic bags and were stored in control laboratory

conditions (Temp 30-35°C). Collected samples were chemically analyzed by following the

standard protocols and were presented in Table 3.1, 3.2 & 3.3 (Homer and Pratt, 1961).

Soil samples were analyzed by standard procedure as described below.

Soil textural class

Soil textural class was determined by taking 50 g of soil in 500 ml beaker and 40 ml of

1 % sodium hexametaphosphate [Na (PO3)] 6 solution and 250 ml of distilled water were

added and kept it for overnight. Soil was stirred with a mechanical stirrer for 10 minutes, it

was transferred to a one liter graduated cylinder and the volume was made up to the mark.

After mixing the suspension reading was recorded with Bouyoucos hydrometer (Moodie et

al., 1959). Soil textural class was designated using International Textural Triangle (ITT).

38

Saturation percentage (SP)

Saturated paste was prepared and a portion was transferred to a tarred china dish

and weighed. Weighed soil paste was placed in an oven and dried to constant weight at

105°C. Saturation percentage was calculated by using following formula (Method 27a)

(U.S. Salinity Lab. Staff, 1954).

Mass of wet soil – Mass of dry soil

SP = × 100

pH of saturated soil paste

The pH of saturated soil paste was determined after preparing saturated soil paste. For

this about 250 g soil was saturated with distilled water. The paste was allowed to stand for

one hour and pH was recorded (U.S. Salinity Lab. Staff, 1954) by using pH meter (Kent

Eil 7015).

Table 3.1: Soil analysis before the sowing of both experiments (Each value is average

of two years)

Treatments pH EC (dS m-1) OM (%) N (%) P (ppm) K (ppm)

Composite sample 7.88 1.71 0.65 0.042 4.58 120

Table 3.2: Soil analysis of 1st experiment (SW) (Each value is average of two years)

after harvest of crop


T1 7.88 1.80 0.61 0.039 4.43 122

T2 7.73 1.71 0.69 0.041 4.45 128

T3 7.85 1.73 0.63 0.042 4.50 125

T4 7.82 1.75 0.62 0.042 4.48 123

T5 7.79 1.70 0.69 0.043 4.51 125

T6 7.82 1.76 0.65 0.039 4.47 122

T7 7.74 1.73 0.68 0.042 4.49 127

T1 = Control (no spent wash + no NPK), T2 = Spent wash (160 t ha-1), T3 = NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1), T4 =

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), T5 = Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), T6

= Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1), T7 = Spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1.

Mass of oven dry soil

39

Table 3.3: Soil analysis of 2nd experiment (compost) (Each value is average of two

years) after the harvest of crop


T1 7.88 1.81 0.60 0.038 4.41 123

T2 7.82 1.68 0.72 0.042 4.53 134

T3 7.86 1.73 0.64 0.041 4.49 127

T4 7.85 1.69 0.63 0.040 4.51 125

T5 7.85 1.70 0.73 0.044 4.59 131

T6 7.87 1.71 0.70 0.039 4.51 126

T7 7.83 1.70 0.72 0.043 4.51 135

T1 = Control (no compost + no NPK), T2 = Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1, T3 = NPK alone at 168:112:112

kg ha-1, T4 = Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), T5 = Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56

kg ha-1), T6 = Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1), T7 = Compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1).

Electrical conductivity (EC)

For determining EC, extract of each soil paste was obtained by using vacum pump.

Electrical conductivity was noted with digital Jenway conductivity meter model 4070 (U.S.

Salinity Lab Staff, 1954).

Organic matter

Soil organic matter contents were determined according to the method described by

Moodie et al. (1959). According to this, 1 g of soil sample was mixed thoroughly with 10

ml in potassium dichromate solution and 20 ml concentrated sulphuric acid. Then 150 ml

of distilled water and 25 ml of 0.5 N ferrous sulphate solution was added and the excess

was treated with 0.1 N potassium permanganate solutions to pink end point.

Total nitrogen

For the determination of total nitrogen, sulfuric acid digestion method gunning and

hibbard was used for soil samples digestion and for the distillation of ammonia into 4%

boric acid, macro Kjeldhal’s method was used (Jackson, 1962).

Available phosphorous

Five gram soil was extracted with 0.5 M NaHCO3 solution adjusted to pH 8.5. A sample

of 5 ml of clear filterate was taken in 100 ml volumetric flask and then 5 ml color

developing reagent (ascorbic acid) was added. Volume was made up to the mark. Readings

were recorded on spectrophotometer using 880 nm wavelengths with the help of standard

curve (Watanabe and Olsen, 1965).

40

Extractable potassium

Extraction was also done with ammonium acetate (1 N of pH 7.0) and potassium

was determined by using flame photometer (U.S. Salinity Lab. Staff, 1954).

3.3: Meteorological data

Meteorological data for growing periods of the crop was collected from the

observatory, Shakarganj Sugar Research Institute (SSRI) unit, Shakarganj Mills Limited,

Jhang, Pakistan, The climate of the region is semi-arid to sub-tropical. Normally, the

temperature of this region ranges between 2 to 3°C in January and up to 48°C in June with

mean annual rainfall of about 200-250 mm. The prevailing climatic conditions during both

cane growing years are presented in fig. 3.1 & 3.2.

Fig 3.1: Meteorological data (2013-14)

Fig 3.2: Meteorological data (2014-15)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Max. Temp. (°C) Min.Temp. (°C) Max. Humadity (%) Min. Humadity (%) Rain (mm)

Mar-13 Apr-13 May-13Jun-13 Jul-13 Aug-13Sep-13 Oct-13 Nov-13Dec-13 Jan-14 Feb-14

0

20

40

60

80

100

Max. Temp. (°C) Min.Temp. (°C) Max. Humadity (%) Min. Humadity (%) Rain (mm)

Mar-14 Apr-14 May-14Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14Sep-14 Oct-14 Nov-14Dec-14 Jan-15 Feb-15

41

3.4: Crop husbandry

Seed bed preparation

The seed bed preparation was uniform in each experiment. Each year before seed

bed preparation, presoaking irrigation of 10 cm depth was applied. When the soil reached

the proper moisture level (Locally called as “Watter” condition), the seedbed was prepared

by sub soiler ploughing 2 times in cross direction followed by cultivating the soil 2 times

with tractor mounted cultivator cum planking to a depth of 10-12 cm each. The trenches

were made by ridger according to the treatments of each experiment.

Time and method of sowing

The crop was planted on 25th February 2013 and 28th February 2014.

Fig 3.3: Layout plan of the experiments

SUB-WATER CHANNEL

MA

IN W

AT

ER

CH

AN

NE

L

NE

P

T4 T1 T5 T7 T2 T6 T3

NE

P

PATH

NE

P

T6 T2 T1 T3 T4 T5 T7

NE

P

SUB-WATER CHANNEL

NE

P

T3 T7 T4 T6 T5 T2 T1

NE

P

Path

Site: Research farm, Shakarganj Sugar Research Institute (SSRI), Shakarganj Mills

Limited, Jhang

Design: Randomized complete block design

Net Plot Size: 4.9 m x 9.0 m (1.20 m apart trenches)

Replication: 3

Cultivar: S2003-US-114 (CPF 248)

Sowing Date: 25-02-2013 and 28-02-2014

Seed Rate: 75000 double budded setts ha-1

42

Spent wash (SW)

Chemical analysis of spent wash is given in table. 3.4. SW is a rich source of macro

and micro nutrients. Spent wash was applied in 4 splits 1st application was applied after 60

days of sowing of crop then after every 30 days interval by mixing with irrigation. Nitrogen

(N), phosphorous (P) and potash (K) were applied in the form of Urea, DAP and Potassium

sulphate. N was applied in 3 splits, 1/3 was applied at the time of sowing, while other splits

were applied after 60 and 90 days after sowing, respectively. However, the full dose of P

and K were applied at the time of sowing.

Table. 3.4. Some important chemical characteristics of spent wash (SW)

Parameters Range values*

pH 3.9 – 4.3

EC (dSm-1) 30.5 – 45.2

Biological Oxygen demand 46100 – 96000

Chemical oxygen demand 104000 – 134400

Total dissolved solids 79000 – 87990

Nitrogen 1660 – 4200

Phosphorous 225 – 3038

Potassium 9600 – 17475

Calcium 2050 – 7000

Magnesium 1715 – 2100

Sodium 492 – 670

Sulphate 3240 – 3425

Chloride 7238 – 42096

SAR 5.0 – 7.3

Zinc 3.5 – 10.4

Copper 0.4 – 2.1

Manganese 4.6 – 5.1

Gibberellic acid 3246 – 4943

Indole acetic acid 25 – 61

(*All values are in mgL-1 unless otherwise stated).

43

Compost

The macro and micro nutrients of compost are given in table 3.5. Full dose of

compost was applied at the time of sowing and mixed with soil by cultivation. Nitrogen

(N), phosphorous (P) and potash (K) were applied in the form of Urea, DAP and Potassium

sulphate. N was applied in 3 splits, 1/3 was applied at the time of sowing, while other splits

were applied after 60 and 90 days after sowing, respectively. However, the full dose of P

and K were applied at the time of sowing.

Table. 3.5. Some important chemical characteristics of Compost

Parameters Percent (%)

Nitrogen (N) 11.26

Phosphorous (P) 8.33

Potassium (K) 5.83

Sulphur (S) 0.25

Calcium (Ca) 0.40

Magnesium (Mg), mg/kg 1.50

Manganese (Mn), mg/kg 1.75

Organic matter (O. M) 25

Sulphur (S) 0.25

Calcium (Ca) 0.40

Magnesium (Mg), mg/kg 1.50

Manganese (Mn), mg/kg 1.75

Organic matter (O. M) 25

Sugar 0.44

Copper (Cu), mg/kg 1.80

Iron (Fe), mg/kg 125

Zinc(Z), mg/kg 6.5

Sodium (Na) % 0.10

Chlorine (Cl) % 1.20

Gibberellic acid (GA) Traces

Indole acetic acid (IAA) Traces

(Wornick, 1969; Anonymous, 1970; Hendrickson andKesterson, 1971; NRC, 1971;

Curtin, 1973 and NRC, 1979) and Shakarganj mills limited Jhang.

44

Plant protection measures

Insect pests and weeds were kept under control through chemical and cultural

practices. Larsban was applied at 5 liters per hectare with 1st irrigation after planting to

control the termites. Furadon granules at 35 kg ha -1 were applied to control borers.

Sugarcane weeds were controlled through the application of Gezapax Combi at 3.75 kg ha-

1, five days after sowing after first irrigation with a Knapsack sprayer in the furrows and

trenches and with inter-culture in between the furrows and trenches.

Management of irrigation

Irrigation at 100 mm was applied after sowing and then each irrigation was applied

after 15 days interval in each experiment except the irrigation interval was 10 days for the

months of May and June. In each treatment, same number of irrigations (15) each of 100

mm was applied and time of irrigation was related to the prevailing temperature and

incidence of rainfall in different months.

Crop harvest

The crop was harvested at its physiological maturity

3.5: Experiments and treatments

The experiments were consist of following treatments:

Experiment I

Agronomic assessment of spent wash water as nutrient supplement for spring planted

sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.)

Treatments

T1 = Control (no spent wash + no NPK)

T2 = Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone

T3 = NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone

T4 = Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1)




45

Experiment II

Agronomic assessment of compost as nutrient supplement for spring planted


Treatments

T1 = Control (no compost + no NPK)

T2 = Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1

T3 = NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1

T4 = Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1)




3.6: Observations

Data of the following parameters were recorded during the course of study for both

experiments.

Growth analysis

Leaf area index

Leaf area duration (days) (Hunt, 1978)

Total dry matter (t ha-1)

Crop growth rate (g m-2 day-1) (Hunt, 1978)

Net assimilation rate (g m-2 day-1) (Hunt, 1978)

Quantitative parameters

Emergence percentage

Number of tillers per m2

Number of millable canes per m2

Plant height (cm)

Number of internodes per cane

Length of internodes (cm)

Cane length (cm)

Cane girth (cm)

Weight per stripped cane (kg)

Cane tops weight (t ha-1)

46

Cane trash weight (t ha-1)

Un-stripped cane yield (t ha-1)

Stripped cane yield (t ha-1)

Harvest index (%)

Plant Nutrient Analysis

Nitrogen content (%)

Phosphorus content (%)

Potash content (%)

Quality parameters

Brix percentage (Spancer and Meade, 1963)

Sucrose content in cane juice (%) (Spancer and Meade, 1963)

Cane fiber content (%) (Spancer and Meade, 1963)

Commercial cane sugar (%) (Spancer and Meade, 1963)

Sugar recovery (%) (Spancer and Meade, 1963)

Total sugar yield (t ha-1)

Economic analysis

Net field benefit

Benefit cost ratio (BCR)

Dominance analysis

Marginal rate of return

3.7: Procedures and formulae for recording observations

Growth analysis

Leaf area index

C1-203 CID, USA meter was used for recording the leaf area of cane plant.

Samples are placed between fixed guides on the lower transparent belt and allowed to pass

through the LI-3100C. As a sample travels under the fluorescent light source, the projected

object is reflected by a system of three mirrors to a linear array camera within the rear

housing. This unique optical design results in high accuracy, dependability and speed. An

adjustable press roller flattens curled leaves and feeds them properly between the

transparent belts. This makes it possible to accurately measure leaf area of crops. As the

sample passes under the light source, the accumulating area, in cm2, is shown on the LED

display. Leaf area index (LAI) was measured nine times, first leaf area index was measured

after 60 days of sowing, then after every 30 days interval by using standard method. Leaf

47

area index was calculated as ratio of the leaf surface area to the ground area occupied by a

plant stand (Thomas and Winner, 2000).

Leaf area duration (Days)

Leaf area duration (LAD) was calculated according to formula of Hunt (1978).

Where LAI1 and LAI2 are the leaf area indices at time T1 and T2, respectively; and T1 and

T2 are with 30 days interval, while 1st data was taken after 60 days of planting.

Crop growth rate (g m-2 day-1)

Crop growth rate (CGR) was determined by using the following formula of Hunt

(1978).

Where,

W1 = plant dry weight m-2 at time T1,

W2 = plant dry weight m-2 at time T2,

T1 = time of 1st harvest

T2 = time of 2nd harvest

T1 and T2 are with 30 days interval, while 1st data was taken after 60 days of planting.


A sample of plants was taken at random after 30 days interval from a sampling

distance of 60 cm for each treatment after seedling emergence and each plant was separated

into different fractions such as leaves, stem and trash. Fresh weight of each fraction was

recorded separately. Sub sample of 10 g from each fraction was taken to determine the dry

weight of the whole sample after oven drying at 65 0C till constant weight. Total dry matter

production was calculated by adding dry weights of leaves, stem and trash and was

converted to t ha-1.

Net assimilation rate (NAR) (g m-2 day-1)

Net assimilation rate (NAR) (g m-2 day-1) was determined by the formula of Hunt

(1978).

Where, TDM = total dry matter and LAD= Leaf area duration

48

Quantitative parameters

Emergence percentage

A uniform number of double budded setts per plot were planted and at the

completion of emergence after 45 days of sowing, the number of seedlings emerged in each

plot were counted and then converted into percentage by using the following formula:

Emergence percentage = Number of emergate plants × 100

Total number of buds

Number of tillers (m2)

At the completion of tillering after 90 days of sowing, total number of plants per

unit area was counted. Then total germinants were subtracted from the total plants already

germinated 45 days after planting to get number of tillers per unit area.

Tillers per unit area = Total number of germinants 90 days after planting per unit area –

Total number of germinants per unit area 45 days after planning.

Number of millable canes (m2)

A millable cane refers to the cane that has attained full height and thickness at its

physiological maturity and is ready to harvest for processing. Number of millable canes in

each plot was counted at harvest and then converted into number of millable canes ha -1.

Plant height (cm)

Ten randomly selected stalks from each treatment were tagged. Shoot length

between soil surface and growing point of shoot was measured at the physiological maturity

of the crop.

Number of internodes per cane

Number of internodes of ten randomly selected stripped canes was counted and then

averaged.

Length of internodes (cm)

Length of all internodes of ten randomly selected stripped canes at harvest was

measured (cm) and then averaged.

Cane length (cm)

At harvest length of ten randomly selected canes from each treatment was measured

and averaged.

Cane girth (cm)

Ten canes were randomly selected from each treatment and girth of each cane from

base, middle and top was measured with a vernier caliper. The average of these values was

taken as cane girth.

49


A stripped cane refers to the stalk that is clean, free from trash and top, dirt and

other foreign matter. The randomly selected ten stripped canes from each treatment were

weighed together. Then weight per stripped cane (kg) was calculated.

Cane-top weight (t ha-1)

At harvest, the tops of canes of each treatment were removed. The tops of each

treatment were weighed separately and converted into t ha-1.

Cane trash weight (t ha-1)

Trash of all stalks from each plot was stripped, weighed and converted into t ha-1.

Unstripped cane yield (t ha-1)

All un-stripped canes (two trenches in each plot) were weighed (kg) before stripping

and then transformed to tons per hectare.

Stripped cane yield (t ha-1)

All stripped canes from two trenches in each experimental unit were weighed and

transformed to tons per hectare.

Harvest Index (%)

Harvest index (HI) % for each treatment was calculated by using the method of

Donalid and Hamblin, (1976) as follows:

Plant analysis

Sugarcane plants were analyzed for determination of N, P and K uptake at crop

harvest. The plant N concentration was calculated by Kjeldahl Method (Jackson, 1958), P

and K by Method 54a and 58a, respectively (US Salinity Lab. Staff, 1954). The obtained

values of nutrient concentration were multiplied with total dry matter of plant.

Quality parameters

Brix percent

Ten canes samples from each treatment were crushed through a cane crusher. Juice

was collected in the glass jars. Temperature of the juice was noted. Then the brix (percent)

reading was recorded by Brix hydrometer. The recorded brix values were corrected by

using the Schmitz’s table (Spancer and Meade, 1963).

50

Sucrose in juice

With the help of polarimeter, pol reading of extracted juice of every treatment was

recorded. Sucrose contents of cane juice were calculated with the help of Schmitz’s table

(Spancer and Meade, 1963).

Cane fiber percent

Cane fiber in cane was calculated by using the following formula (Spancer and Meade,

1963).

Cane fiber percent = Dry weight of the washed, shredded cane (g) × 100

Fresh weight of the shredded cane (150 g)

Commercial cane sugar percent

Commercial cane sugar (CCS) in percent was determined by using the following

formula (Spancer and Meade, 1963):

Where, P = pol percent juice, B = brix percent juice and F = fiber percent cane

Cane sugar recovery percent

Cane sugar recovery percent (CSR %) was calculated by the formula as follows:

C.S.R. (%) = CCS (%) x 0.94

Where CCS = Commercial cane sugar and 0.94 is net titer (Sugar losses)

Total sugar yield

Sugar yield (t ha-1) was determined by the following formula:

Economic analysis

Net field benefits

Net field benefits were determined by subtracting the total variable cost from the

gross benefits of each treatment combination (CIMMYT, 1988). Input and output cost of

each treatment combination was converted to Rs. ha-1.

Benefit cost ratio

Benefit cost ratio was calculated by dividing gross income to the total cost of

production.

51

Dominance analysis

Dominance analysis for each treatment combination was thus carried out first listing

the treatments in order of increasing costs that vary. The treatment that had net benefit that

was less than or equal to those treatments with lower variable cost, was dominated

(CIMMYT, 1988).

Marginal rate of return

The marginal net benefit (MNB) divided by the marginal cost (MC), expressed in

percentage is called marginal rate of return (MRR). MRR was calculated with the formula

of CIMMYT, 1988.

MRR = marginal rate of return, MNB = marginal net benefit, MC= marginal cost

Statistical analysis:

Data regarding quantitative and qualitative characteristics were recorded and

analyzed using Tukey’s HSD technique and treatments’ means were compared at 0.05

probability level. The significance of regression was tested against tabulated values given

by Snedecor and Cochran (1989). The computer package MS Excel was used to prepare

the graphs.

52

CHAPTER IV

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Environment friendly growing of sugarcane by applying sugarcane processing by

products like compost and distillery spent wash is not only an organic approach to grow

sugarcane but also reduces cost of production by reduced application of inorganic synthetic

fertilizers. Integrated nutrient management of cane taken as treatments by employing

fertilizer and spent wash combinations as in the Experiment I or fertilizer and compost

combinations as in the Experiment II exposed significant differences among the treatments

when tested for consecutive two years.

Experiment I

4.1: Growth parameters

4.1.1: Leaf area index

Leaf area index (LAI) of sugarcane was recorded as in Fig 4.1. Leaf area index

(LAI) steadily increased in all the treatments. In the beginning, LAI among treatments was

merely different, but as the crop proceeded, this difference became significantly visible

until it reached the peak leaf growth at 180 days stage after which it started reducing till

physiological maturity. Comparison between the growing years i.e. 2013-14 and 2014-15,

crop achieved the maximum LAI of 7.57 in 2013-14 as compared to LAI of 7.34 during

2014-15. During both of the cane growing years, spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56

kg ha-1) produced maximum leaf area index of cane, followed by spent wash (160 t ha-1) +

NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone while the minimum LAI was

observed in treatment with no spent wash or no NPK application.

4.1.2: Cumulative leaf area duration (days)

Periodic data regarding seasonal leaf area duration (LAD) of spring planted

sugarcane as affected by different treatments during both the cane growing years was

depicted as in Fig 4.2. Visible differences in LAD at different treatments were observed.

The years had significant effect on LAD and cumulative leaf area duration was 1213.21

days and 1206.71 days during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. Data showed significant

effect of spent wash and NPK application on cumulative leaf area duration of spring planted

sugarcane during both the cane growing years.

53

Fig. 4.1: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on leaf area index of spring

planted sugarcane

T1 = Control (no spent wash + no NPK), T2 = Spent wash (160 t ha-1), T3 = NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1),

T4 = Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), T5 = Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-

1), T6 = Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1), T7 = Spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg

ha-1)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Lea

f ar

ea i

ndex

Number of days after sowing

(2013-14) T1 T2 T3T4 T5 T6T7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Lea

f ar

ea i

ndex


(2014-15)T1 T2 T3T4 T5 T6T7

54

Results showed that during both of the cane growing years spent wash (80 t ha-1) +

NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) produced significantly more seasonal leaf area duration, followed

by spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone,

while treatment with no spent wash or no NPK gave poor response for seasonal leaf area

duration. The regression analysis showed a linear and positive association between seasonal

leaf are duration and striped cane yield giving R2 of 0.89 and 0.76 during 2013-14 and

2014-15, respectively (Fig. 4.3). Relationship between leaf area duration and total dry

matter (Fig. 4.4) was significant and linear during 2013-14 and 2014-15 giving R2 of 0.54

and 0.60, respectively.

4.1.3: Total dry matter (t ha-1)

Total dry matter (TDM) accumulation was increased steadily after crop emergence

until harvesting in all the treatments (Fig 4.5). Year’s effect on final TDM was non-

significant. Seasonal total dry matter was 28.91 t ha-1 and 28.71 t ha-1 during 2013-14 and

2014-15, respectively. Data showed that during both of the cane growing years the

combined application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) and NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) produced

maximum total dry matter, while treatment with no spent wash or no NPK gave poor

response to total dry matter. Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), NPK

(168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone and spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) were

statistically at par for total dry matter of spring planted sugarcane. Relationship between

total dry matter and stripped cane yield (Fig. 4.6) was significant and linear during 2013-

14 and 2014-15 giving R2 of 0.56 and 0.59, respectively.

4.1.4: Crop growth rate (g m-2 d-1)

Data pertaining to periodic crop growth rate (CGR) was recorded as in Fig 4.7. The

maximum crop growth rate was recorded up to 210 DAS during both the cane growing

years. The years had significant effect on mean crop growth rate (MCGR). Crop was

achieved higher MCGR of 12.22 g m-2 d-1 in 2013-14 as compared to MCGR of 10.32 g m-

2 d-1 during 2014-15. Crop achieved 15.53% more MCGR in 2013-14 as compared to 2014-

15. Data exhibited that highest crop growth rate was recorded where combination of spent

wash (80 t ha-1) and NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) was applied and lowest crop growth rate was

indicated by treatment with no spent wash or no NPK. Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK

(84:56:56 kg ha-1), NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone and spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1) were statistically at par for crop growth rate of spring planted sugarcane.

55

Fig. 4.2: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on leaf area duration (days) of





ha-1)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Lea

f ar

ea d

ura

tion (

day

s)


(2013-14)

T1 T2 T3T4 T5 T6T7

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Lea

f ar

ea d

ura

tion (

day

s)


(2014-15)

T1 T2 T3 T4

T5 T6 T7

56

Fig.4.3: Relation between cumulative leaf area duration and stripped cane yield of

sugarcane

y = 0.315x - 298.25

R² = 0.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t ha

-1)

Cumulative leaf area duration (days)

(2013-14)

y = 0.2831x - 267.68

R² = 0.7

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t ha

-1)


(2014-15)

57

Fig.4.4: Relation between cumulative leaf area duration and total dry matter of

sugarcane

y = 0.0118x + 14.63

R² = 0.5

23

25

27

29

31

33

35

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400

Tota

l dry

matt

er(t

ha-1

)


(2013-14)

y = 0.0122x + 14

R² = 0.6

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

1000 1050 1100 1150 1200 1250 1300 1350 1400

Tota

l dry

mat

ter

(t h

a-1

)


(2014-15)

58

Fig. 4.5: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on total dry matter (g m-2 d-1)





ha-1)

100

600

1100

1600

2100

2600

3100

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Tota

l dry

mat

ter

(g m

-2d

-1)


(2013-14)

T1 T2 T3 T4

T5 T6 T7

100

600

1100

1600

2100

2600

3100

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Tota

l dry

mat

ter

(g m

-2 d

-1)


(2014-15)

T1 T2 T3 T4

T5 T6 T7

59

Fig.4.6: Relation between total dry matter and stripped cane yield of sugarcane

y = 6.8132x - 113.41

R² = 0.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t ha

-1)


(2013-14)

y = 15.658x - 375.57

R² = 0.5

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

24 26 28 30 32 34

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t ha

-1)


(2014-15)

60

Fig. 4.7: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on crop growth rate (g m-2d-1)





ha-1)

1

6

11

16

21

26

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Cro

p g

row

th r

ate

(g m

-2d

-1))


(2013-14)

T1 T2 T3T4 T5 T6T7

1

3

5

7

9

11

13

15

17

19

21

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Cro

p g

row

th r

ate

(g m

-2 d

-1)

Number of days after soing

(2014-15)

T1 T2 T3T4 T5 T6T7

61

4.1.5: Net assimilation rate (g m-2 day-1)

Net assimilation rate (NAR) represents the net photosynthates per unit leaf area

duration of a crop. Year’s effect on NAR was significant. Seasonal NAR was 1.31 % higher

during 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15 (Table 4.1). NAR of 2.32 g m-2 d-1 was recorded

in the 1st year of study while during 2nd year NAR of 2.29 g m-2 d-1 was achieved. Results

showed that spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) gathered maximum net

assimilation rate of spring planted sugarcane in both the cane growing years, followed by

spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone,

while treatment with no spent wash or no NPK gave poor response for net assimilation rate

of spring planted sugarcane in both the cane growing years.

4.2: Quantitative parameters

4.2.1: Emergence percentage

Emergence count is an important yield contributing factor in sugarcane plant. It is

an important feature of setts which determines the yield of sugarcane. A perusal of the data

revealed that effect of spent wash and NPK application was found non-significant on

emergence percentage between treatments mean and among the years mean. Non-

significant difference in emergence percentage among different treatments during both the

cane growing years was due to the use of same seed rate in all treatments. The reason for

overall low emergence was might be due to the use of double budded setts where only one

bud germinates normally. The emergence percentage among all the treatments ranged

between 43.94 to 51.52% and 40 to 50% during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively (Table

4.2). The non-significant effect of spent wash and NPK application on emergence

percentage indicated that all the sugarcane setts had enough energy to meet the

requirements for germination subject to optimal availability of temperature and moisture.

62

Table 4.1: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on net assimilation rate (g m-

2 day-1) of spring planted sugarcane

A. Analysis of variance

SOV DF SS MS F Value

2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.155 0.129 0.078 0.065

Treatment 6 0.241 0.628 0.040 0.105 0.18* 0.59 *

Error 12 0.261 0.212 0.022 0.018

Total 20 0.440 0.287

SOV= Sources of variation; DF= Degree of freedom; SS= Sum of squares; MS= mean

sum of squares; * = Significant

B. Comparison of treatment means

Means followed by different letters are significantly different at 0.05 probability level.

Treatment 2013-14 2014-15 Mean

Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 2.25 d 2.17 c 2.21

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 2.29 c 2.28 b 2.29

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 2.34 ab 2.32 ab 2.33

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 2.30 c 2.29 b 2.29

Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 2.37 a 2.36 a 2.36

Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 2.31 bc 2.30 b 2.31

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 2.35 a 2.32 ab 2.33

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.031 0.053 0.052

Years mean 2.32 A 2.29 B

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.024

63

Table 4.2: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on emergence percentage of




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 76.84 221.43 38.42 110.71

Treatment 6 133.85 233.33 22.31 38.89 0.39NS 0.94NS

Error 12 681.55 495.24 56.80 41.27

Total 20 892.24 950.00


sum of squares; NS = Non-Significant



Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 43.94 40.00 41.97

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 45.45 41.67 43.56

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 51.52 50.00 50.76

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 46.97 43.33 45.15




Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 NS NS NS

Years mean 47.40 45.00

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 NS


64

4.2.2: Number of tillers (m2)

Number of tillers (m2) is an imperative factor, which contribute significantly

towards yield of the crop. The year’s effect on number of tillers was non-significant.

Seasonal number of tillers (m2) were 12.83 and 11.62 during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively (Table 4.3). The data revealed that combination of spent wash (80 t ha-1) and

NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) produced maximum number of tillers (m2) of spring planted

sugarcane during both the cane growing years, while treatment with no spent wash or no

NPK gave poor response for number of tillers (m2). On the basis of year’s mean data spent

wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) (15.18), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28

kg ha-1) (14.85) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone (12.85) were statistically at par for

number of tillers (m2) of sugarcane.

4.2.3: Number of millable canes (m2)

Number of millable canes per unit area is the major yield component of sugarcane.

Results regarding effect of spent wash and NPK application on millable canes (m2) of

spring planted sugarcane during both the cane growing years were recorded as in table 4.4.

Year’s effect on number of millable canes (m2) at final harvest was non-significant. Crop

produced 7.24% more number of millable canes in 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15.

Number of millable canes (m2) were 10.67 and 9.95 during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively.

Data showed significant effect of spent wash and NPK application on number of

millable canes (m2). Data showed that combined application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) and

NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) produced more millable canes (m2) in both the cane growing years

as compared to other treatments. Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) (13.46),

spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) (13.16) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1)

alone (11.04) were statistically at par for millable canes (m2) of spring planted sugarcane.

Regression model indicated the dependence of stripped cane yield on number of millable

canes during both the cane growing years (Fig. 4.8).

4.2.4: Plant height (cm)

There was significant effect of spent wash and NPK application on plant height

during both the cane growing years (Table 4.5). Data showed that during both the cane

growing years markedly more plant height was observed by combined application of spent

wash (80 t ha-1) with NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), while minimum plant height was recorded

in treatment with no spent wash + no NPK.

65

Table 4.3: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on number of tillers (m2) of




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 2.67 11.52 1.33 5.76

Treatment 6 148.57 178.29 24.76 29.71 13.51* 23.55*

Error 12 22.00 15.14 1.83 1.26

Total 20 173.24 204.95





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 7.02 c 6.00 c 6.51 C

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 11.35 b 10.33 b 10.84 B

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 13.02 ab 12.67 ab 12.85 AB

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 12.65 b 10.35 b 11.50 B

Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 15.35 a 15.00 a 15.18 A



Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 2.364 3.206 2.495




66

Table 4.4: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on number of millable canes

(m2) of spring planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 2.44 16.10 1.22 8.05

Treatment 6 114.23 135.62 19.04 22.60 17.62* 20.49*

Error 12 12.97 13.24 1.08 1.10

Total 20 129.64 164.95












Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 2.197 2.998 2.647




67

Fig.4.8: Relation between number of millable canes and stripped cane yield of

sugarcane

y = 10.743x - 30.692

R² = 0.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t ha

-1)

Number of millable cane (m2)

(2013-14)

y = 10.717x - 30.756

R² = 0.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t ha

-1)


(2014-15)

68

Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK

(42:26:26 kg ha-1) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone were statistically at par for plant

height of sugarcane. The year’s effect on plant height was significant. Crop achieved

7.24% more plant height in 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15 (Table 4.5). Plant height was

326 cm and 304 cm during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. Results showed that all

treatments increased the plant height as compared to control.

4.2.5: Number of internodes per cane

Data on number of internodes per cane of sugarcane during both the cane growing

years were recorded as in table 4.6. It was observed that markedly more number of

internodes per cane were produced during both the growing years with the application of

spent wash when applied at the rate of 80 t ha-1 with NPK at the rate of 84:56:56 kg ha-1

while minimum number of internodes per cane were in treatment with no spent wash or no

NPK. On the basis of two year’s mean data spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-

1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone

were statistically at par for number of internodes per cane of spring planted sugarcane.

Year’s effect on number of internode per cane at final harvest was non-significant and these

were 20.24 and 19.14 during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

4.2.6: Length of internodes (cm)

Data regarding length of internodes as affected by application of spent wash and

NPK at different levels during both the cane growing years was recorded as in table 4.7.

The year’s effect on length of internodes was significant and crop achieved 5.55% more

length of internodes in 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15. Length of internodes was 10.46

cm and 9.91 cm during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively (Table 4.7). Data showed that

maximum length of internodes was recorded with spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56

kg ha-1) application, while minimum was recorded in treatment with no spent wash or no

NPK. Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone,

spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone, spent wash

(120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) and spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-

1) were statistically at par for length of internodes of sugarcane.

69

Table 4.5: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on plant height (cm) of spring

planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 928.3 122.0 464.14 61.00

Treatment 6 33887.0 51635.2 5647.83 8605.87 19.60* 32.69*

Error 12 3457.0 3159.3 288.09 263.28

Total 20 38272.3 54916.6





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 250 c 195 d 223

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 307 b 281 c 294

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 335 ab 327 ab 331

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 322 b 302 bc 312

Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 377 a 360 a 369

Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 323 b 314 bc 319

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 371 a 340 ab 356

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 47.44 44.31 43.68

Years mean 326 A 304 B



70

Table 4.6: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on number of internodes per

cane of spring planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 2.50 2.00 1.25 1.00

Treatment 6 94.01 75.91 15.67 12.65 12.18* 7.35*

Error 12 15.44 20.67 1.29 1.72

Total 20 111.94 98.57





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 16.07 d 15.00 d 15.54 D

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 19.46 c 18.67 c 19.07 C

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 20.87 abc 20.00 abc 20.44 ABC

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 19.66 c 19.00 c 19.33 C


Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 20.18 bc 19.33 bc 19.76 BC

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 22.28 ab 20.67 ab 21.48 AB

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 2.337 1.461 1.942




71

Table 4.7: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on length of internodes (cm)




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.231 1.59 0.115 0.793

Treatment 6 15.86 17.96 2.64 2.99 5.38* 5.02*

Error 12 5.90 7.15 0.492 0.596

Total 20 21.989 26.693

SOV= Sources of variation; DF= Degree of freedom; SS= Sum of squares; MS= Mean




Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 8.44 b 7.37 b 7.91

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 10.65 a 9.96 a 10.31

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 10.86 a 10.27 a 10.57





Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 2.008 2.203 2.093




72

4.2.7: Cane length (cm)

Data (Table 4.8) showed significant effect of spent wash and NPK application on

cane length of spring planted sugarcane during both the cane growing years among the

treatments and between the years mean. Crop achieved 5.74% more cane length in 2013-

14 as compared to 2014-15 and seasonal cane length was 213.28 cm and 201.71 cm during

2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively (Table 4.8). Results showed that combination of spent

wash (80 t ha-1) and NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) produced maximum cane length while

treatment with no spent wash or no NPK gave poor response to cane length of spring

planted sugarcane during both the cane growing years. Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK

(84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) and NPK (168:112:112

kg ha-1) alone were statistically at par for cane length of sugarcane. Linear relationship

between cane length and stripped cane yield was indicated by regression analysis during

both the years (Fig 4.9).

4.2.8: Cane girth (cm)

Results regarding effect of spent wash and NPK application on cane girth of spring

planted sugarcane during both the cane growing years was recorded as in table 4.9. Year’s

effect on cane girth (cm) at final harvest was non-significant and it was 2.23 cm and 2.11

cm during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. Data showed that combined application of

spent wash (80 t ha-1) and NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) produced more cane girth of spring

planted sugarcane during both the growing years as compared to other treatments. Spent

wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone and spent

wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) were statistically at par for cane girth of spring

planted sugarcane. Relationship between stripped cane yield and cane girth (Fig. 4.10) was

linear and significant during 2013-14 (R2 = 0.87) and 2014-15 (R2 = 0.80).

4.2.9: Weight per stripped cane (kg)

The year’s effect on weight per stripped cane was significant (Table 4.10). Crop

achieved 5.33% more weight per stripped cane in 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15.

Seasonal weight per stripped cane was 0.79 kg and 0.75 kg during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively (Table 4.10). Data showed that maximum weight per stripped cane was

observed by spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) application while minimum

was in treatment with no spent wash or no NPK. Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56

kg ha-1), NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone and spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg

ha-1) were statistically at par for weight per stripped cane.

73

Table 4.8: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on cane length (cm) of spring

planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 565.3 86.0 282.64 43.00

Treatment 6 28777.7 36329.0 4796.29 6054.83 25.72* 20.22*

Error 12 2237.6 3593.3 186.47 299.44

Total 20 31580.6 40008.3





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 135.26 c 119.67 d 127.47

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 207.03 b 186.00 c 196.52

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 221.19 abc 216.00 abc 218.60

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 209.59 c 191.00 c 200.30


Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 211.67 bc 198.33 bc 205.00

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 249.01 ab 246.00 ab 247.51

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 38.973 49.388 43.171

Years mean 213.28 A 201.71 B



74

Fig.4.9: Relation between cane length and stripped cane yield of sugarcane

y = 0.6441x - 53.495

R² = 0.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

100 150 200 250 300

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t ha

-1)

Cane length (cm)

(2013-14)

y = 0.6328x - 51.742

R² = 0.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

100 150 200 250 300

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t ha

-1)

Cane length (cm)

(2014-15)

75

Table 4.9: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on cane girth (cm) of spring

planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.152 0.667 0.076 0.333

Treatment 6 1.85 2.00 0.308 0.333 19.99* 18.73*

Error 12 0.185 0.213 0.015 0.018

Total 20 2.047 2.218







NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 2.47 a 2.33 a 2.40 A





Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.101 0.108 0.117




76

Fig. 4.10: Relation between cane diameter and stripped cane yield of sugarcane

y = 82.875x - 101.21

R² = 0.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t h

a-1

)

Cane girth (cm)

(2013-14)

y = 84.047x - 101.39

R² = 0.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t ha

-1)

Cane girth (cm)

(2014-15)

77

Table 4.10: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on weight per stripped cane

(kg) of spring planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.95 0.133 0.48 0.067

Treatment 6 0.247 0.310 0.041 0.052 43.40* 152.27*

Error 12 0.114 0.407 0.010 0.034

Total 20 0.259 0.315





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 0.56 d 0.48 d 0.52

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 0.75 c 0.71 c 0.73

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 0.87 a 0.83 a 0.85



Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 0.80 b 0.76 b 0.78


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.031 0.043 0.049




78

Fig. 4.11: Relation between weight per stripped cane and stripped cane yield of

sugarcane

y = 241.71x - 107.02

R² = 0.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t ha

-1)


(2013-14)

y = 225.1x - 92.066

R² = 0.8

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Str

ipped

can

e yie

ld (

t ha

-1)


(2014-15)

79

Stripped cane yield and weight per stripped cane were linearly related and giving R2 0.95

and 0.82 during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively (Fig. 4.11).

4.2.10: Cane tops weight (t ha-1)

Data regarding cane tops weight of sugarcane during both the cane growing years

was significant (Table 4.11). The year’s effect on cane tops weight was significant and crop

achieved 15.60% more cane tops weight in 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15 (Table 4.11).

Seasonal cane tops weight was 19.87 t ha-1 and 16.77 t ha-1 during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively. It was observed that maximum cane tops weight during both the years was

recorded by combined application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) and NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1)

while treatment with no spent wash or no NPK gave poor response to cane tops weight of

spring planted sugarcane. Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160

t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone were statistically at

par for cane tops weight of spring planted sugarcane.

4.2.11: Cane trash weight (t ha-1)

Data (Table 4.12) showed that seasonal effect on cane trash weight was significant

and crop achieved 25.11% more cane trash weight during 2013-14 than 2014-15. Seasonal

cane trash weight was 4.46 t ha-1 and 3.34 t ha-1 during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

Data (Table 4.12) showed significant effect of spent wash and NPK application on cane

trash weight of spring planted sugarcane during both the cane growing years. Results

showed that combined application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) with NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1)

produced maximum cane trash weight while minimum was in treatment with no spent wash

or no NPK.

4.2.12: Unstripped cane yield (t ha-1)

Year’s effect on un-stripped cane yield was significant (Table 4.13). Crop achieved

12.12% more unstripped cane yield during 2013-14 than 2014-15 and seasonal unstripped

cane yield was 103.09 t ha-1 and 91.95 t ha-1 during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. It

was observed that maximum unstripped cane yield during both the cane growing years was

recorded by combined application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) with NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1)

while treatment with no spent wash or no NPK gave poor response to unstripped cane

yield. Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) were statistically at par for unstripped

cane yield of sugarcane.

80

Table 4.11: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on cane tops weight (t ha-1)




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 16.45 9.94 8.23 4.97

Treatment 6 934.20 847.44 155.70 141.24 31.45* 39.71*

Error 12 59.40 42.68 4.95 3.56

Total 20 1010.05 900.06





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 6.91 d 5.63 c 6.27

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 15.86 c 13.03 b 14.45

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 21.18 abc 18.52 ab 19.85




Spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 26.52 ab 24.20 a 25.36

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 7.681 7.213 7.431




81

Table 4.12: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on cane trash weight (t ha-

1) of spring planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.297 1.33 0.149 0.663

Treatment 6 46.19 28.48 7.70 4.75 15.91* 30.17*

Error 12 5.81 1.89 0.484 0.157

Total 20 52.294 31.696





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 1.75 c 0.99 c 1.37

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 4.02 b 2.83 b 3.43

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 4.26 b 4.15 ab 4.21

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 4.12 b 3.27 ab 3.70


Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 4.24 b 3.04 ab 3.64


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 1.985 1.672 1.948




82

Table 4.13: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on unstripped cane yield (t

ha-1) of spring planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 204.0 1110.5 102.00 555.27

Treatment 6 21754.8 24762.0 3625.80 4127.01 77.19* 43.16*

Error 12 563.7 1147.5 46.97 95.63

Total 20 22522.5 27020.1








Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 92.80 c 79.84 bc 86.32




Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 23.561 31.650 28.680




83

4.2.13: Stripped cane yield (t ha-1)

Year’s effect on stripped cane yield was significant (Table 4.14). Crop achieved

11.99% more stripped cane yield during 2013-14 than 2014-15 and seasonal stripped cane

yield was 83.88 t ha-1 and 74.90 t ha-1 during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. It was

mainly attributed to 5.33% more weight per stripped cane during 2013-14 than 2014-15

(Table 4.10). Data showed that the maximum stripped cane yield was observed with spent

wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) application while treatment with no spent wash

or no NPK gave poor response to stripped cane yield during both the years (Table 4.14).

Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28

kg ha-1) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone were statistically at par for stripped cane

yield of spring planted sugarcane.

4.2.14: Harvest index (%)

Harvest index showed the physiological efficiency of plants to convert the fraction

of photo-assimilates to economic yield. Data (Table 4.15) showed that year’s effect was

non-significant and crop had an average harvest index of 81.13% and 81.86% in 2013-14

and 2014 15, respectively. Average data of two years showed that combined application of

spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) produced highest harvest index as

compared to other treatments. On the basis of two years mean spent wash (80 t ha-1) +

NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK

(168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone, spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) and spent

wash (160 t ha-1) alone were statistically at par for harvest index of sugarcane.

4.3: Quality parameters

4.3.1: Brix percentage

Total concentration of solutes in a biological solution such as cane juice is expressed

on ‘brix’ degree basis. Cane maturity is commonly measured on the basis of brix degree.

Data (Table 4.16) revealed that year’s effect was non-significant on brix percentage and

crop had brix percentage 19.64% and 19.42% during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

Data (Table 4.16) showed significant effect of spent wash and NPK application on brix

percentage of spring planted sugarcane during both the cane growing years. On the basis

of average data of two years results showed that application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) +

NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) produced maximum brix (20.52%) while minimum (18.00%) was

in treatment with no spent wash + no NPK .

84

Table 4.14: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on stripped cane yield (t ha-




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 167.8 860.9 83.91 430.47

Treatment 6 15478.7 17775.9 2579.78 2962.65 65.33* 38.21*

Error 12 473.8 930.4 39.49 77.53

Total 20 16120.3 19567.2








Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 74.94 c 65.05 bc 70.50




Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 21.203 25.112 23.581




85

Table 4.15: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on harvest index (%) of




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 1.61 11.59 0.806 5.80

Treatment 6 51.26 84.53 8.54 14.09 15.60* 6.96*

Error 12 6.57 24.29 0.548 2.02

Total 20 59.441 120.42





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 78.36 b 77.21 b 77.79 B

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 80.85 ab 81.16 ab 81.01 AB


Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 80.75 ab 82.68 a 81.72 AB

Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56) kg ha-1) 83.27 a 83.19 a 83.23 A

Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84kg ha-1) 80.02 ab 82.80 a 81.41 AB


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 3.305 4.061 3.941




86

Table 4.16: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on brix percentage of spring

planted sugarcane







Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 18.58 bc 18.38 bc 18.48 C


Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 19.05 bc 18.95 abc 18.99 BC



Spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 20.53 a 20.11 ab 20.32 A

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 1.463 1.827 1.083





2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 2.09 0.450 1.05 0.235

Treatment 6 22.44 15.81 3.74 2.64 14.24* 6.43*

Error 12 3.15 4.92 0.263 0.410

Total 20 27.689 21.203

87

On the basis of two years mean data spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-

1) (20.52%), NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone (20.42%), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1) (20.32%) and spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) (19.98%)

were statistically at par for brix percentage of sugarcane (Table 4.16).

4.3.2: Sucrose content in cane juice (%)

Data (Table 4.17) showed that year’s effect on sucrose contents was significant.

Crop gained 3.13% more sucrose contents during 2013-14 than the later years and crop had

sucrose content of 17.16% and 16.64% during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. It was

observed that maximum sucrose content in cane juice during both the cane growing years

was recorded by spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) application while

minimum sucrose content was in treatment with no spent wash + no NPK. Two years mean

data basis spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone, spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK

(126:84:84 kg ha-1) and spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) were statistically

at par for sucrose content of sugarcane.

4.3.3: Cane fiber content (%)

Fiber % is a genetically controlled feature of the sugarcane crop. The fact that fiber

is mainly controlled by varietal genetic makeup thus fiber was not affected significantly

during each year of study by any factor. However, on the two years average, the fiber was

ranged from 12.25 to 12.67% during 2013-14 and 12.21 to 12.52% in 2014-15 (Table 4.18).

Data (Table 4.18) revealed that year’s effect was non-significant on fiber content

percentage and seasonal fiber content was 12.41% and 12.38% during 2013-14 and 2014-

15, respectively.

4.3.4: Commercial cane sugar (%)

The real cane quality is reflected by its commercial cane sugar (CCS) percentage.

Data (Table 4.19) revealed that year’s effect on CCS percentage was found non-significant.

Crop attained 4.35% more CCS during 2013-14 than the later year and seasonal CCS was

12.95% and 12.41% during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. Data showed that

maximum CCS was observed by combined application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK

(84:56:56 kg ha-1) while treatment with no spent wash + no NPK gave poor response to

CSS of sugarcane.

88

Table 4.17: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on sucrose content in cane

juice (%) percentage of spring planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.392 0.481 0.196 0.240

Treatment 6 30.47 29.01 5.08 4.84 9.98* 16.43*

Error 12 6.11 3.53 0.509 0.294

Total 20 36.972 33.03





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 15.02 c 14.56 d 14.79

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 16.05 bc 15.63 cd 15.84

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 18.30 a 17.65 a 17.98

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 16.54 abc 16.02 bcd 16.28

Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56) kg ha-1) 18.36 a 18.03 a 18.20

Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84kg ha-1) 17.69 ab 17.10 abc 17.40


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 2.036 1.549 1.903




89

Table 4.18: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on cane fiber content (%)




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.105 0.471 0.053 0.236

Treatment 6 0.420 0.332 0.070 0.055 0.59NS 0.44NS

Error 12 1.42 1.51 0.118 0.126

Total 20 1.943 2.310





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 12.26 12.53 12.39

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 12.33 12.41 12.37

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 12.52 12.21 12.37









90

Table 4.19: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on commercial cane sugar

(%) of spring planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.478 1.22 0.239 0.608

Treatment 6 22.70 25.45 3.78 4.24 6.40* 6.43*

Error 12 7.09 7.91 0.591 0.660

Total 20 30.269 34.575





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 11.04 b 10.39 b 10.71 b

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 12.04 ab 11.59 ab 11.81 ab

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 13.83 a 13.35 a 13.59 a

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 12.47 ab 11.87 ab 12.17 ab

Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 13.93 a 13.77 a 13.85 a



Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 2.194 2.318 2.206




91

4.3.5: Cane sugar recovery (%)

Data (Table 4.20) expressed that year’s effect on cane sugar recovery (CSR) % was

non-significant. Crop attained 4.28% more CSR during 2013-14 than the later year and

seasonal CSR was 12.17% and 11.67% during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. Data

(Table 4.20) showed significant effect of spent wash and NPK application on cane sugar

recovery of spring planted sugarcane. Results showed that combination of spent wash (80

t ha-1) and NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) produced maximum sugar recovery while treatment with

no spent wash + no NPK gave poor response for sugar recovery of spring planted sugarcane

during both the years. Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t

ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), spent

wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1), NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone and spent

wash (160 t ha-1) alone were statistically at par for cane sugar recovery of sugarcane during

both the years.

4.3.6: Total sugar yield (t ha-1)

Data (Table 4.21) revealed that year,s effect on total sugar yield was found non-

significant. Crop achieved 14.14% more total sugar yield during 2013-14 than 2014-15 and

seasonal total sugar yield was 11.13 t ha -1 and 9.75 t ha-1 during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively.

Data (Table 4.21) showed significant effect of spent wash and NPK application on

total sugar yield of spring planted sugarcane during both the cane growing years. Results

showed that combined application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) with NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1)

produced maximum total sugar yield while treatment with no spent wash + no NPK gave

poor response for total sugar yield of spring planted sugarcane. Spent wash (80 t ha-1) +

NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) and NPK

(168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone were statistically at par for total sugar yield of sugarcane during

both the growing years.

92

Table 4.20: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on cane sugar recovery (%)




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.425 1.07 0.213 0.537

Treatment 6 20.03 22.44 3.34 3.74 6.38* 6.43*

Error 12 6.28 6.98 0.523 0.582

Total 20 26.731 30.502





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 10.38 b 9.76 b 10.07 b

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 11.32 ab 10.89 ab 11.11 ab

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 13.09 a 12.55 a 12.82 a

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 11.72 ab 11.16 ab 11.44 ab




Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 2.064 2.177 2.143




93

Table 4.21: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on total sugar yield (t ha-1)

of spring sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 5.47 18.55 2.74 9.27

Treatment 6 369.80 387.82 61.63 64.64 50.25* 26.77*

Error 12 14.72 28.97 1.23 2.41

Total 20 389.99 435.34





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 3.53 d 2.51 d 3.02 d

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 8.28 c 7.67 bc 7.98 c

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 13.30 ab 11.84 ab 12.57 ab

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 9.35 c 6.70 cd 8.03 c

Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56) kg ha-1) 16.42 a 15.70 a 16.06 a

Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84kg ha-1) 11.28 bc 9.28 bc 10.28 bc


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 3.161 4.434 3.493




94

4.4: Plant Nutrient Analysis

4.4.1: Plant nitrogen content (%)

Data of plant nitrogen content was recorded as in table 4.22. Data revealed that

year’s effect was non-significant on plant nitrogen content and seasonal plant nitrogen

content was 0.75% during both the years. On the basis of two years mean data maximum

plant nitrogen content was recorded with combined application of spent wash (80 t ha-1)

and NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) while minimum was in treatment with no spent wash + no

NPK. Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) were statistically at par for plant nitrogen

content of sugarcane crop.

4.4.2: Plant phosphorus content (%)

Data (Table 4.23) expressed that year’s effect on plant phosphorus content (%) was

non-significant and seasonal plant phosphorus content was 0.14% and 0.13% during 2013-

14 and 2014-15, respectively. It was observed that average data of two years showed

maximum plant phosphorous content by spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1)

application while treatment with no spent wash + no NPK gave poor response to plant

phosphorus content of sugarcane. Two years average data showed that spent wash (80 t ha-

1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) and NPK

(168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone were statistically at par for plant phosphorus content of spring

planted sugarcane.

4.4.3: Plant potash content (%)

Data (Table 4.24) revealed that year’s effect was non-significant on plant potash

content and seasonal plant potash content was 1.11 % during both the cane growing years.

On basis of two years mean data maximum plant potash content was recorded by

combination of spent wash (80 t ha-1) with NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) while minimum was in

treatment with no spent wash + no NPK application. Two years mean data showed that

spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28

kg ha-1) and NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone were statistically at par for plant phosphorus

content of sugarcane.

95

Table 4.22: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on plant nitrogen content




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.153 0.293 0.076 0.146

Treatment 6 1.37 1.35 0.228 0.225 89.13* 40.87*

Error 12 0.307 0.661 0.026 0.055

Total 20 1.42 1.45




Treatment 2013-

14

2014-15 Mean

Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 0.19 d 0.18 d 0.19 D

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 0.66 c 0.67 c 0.67 C

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 0.90 ab 0.84 abc 0.87 ABC

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 0.70 c 0.71 c 0.71 C


Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 0.81 bc 0.82 bc 0.82 B


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.149 0.198 0.165




96

Table 4.23: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on plant phosphorus content




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.087 0.167 0.043 0.083

Treatment 6 0.157 0.146 0.026 0.024 13.10* 7.81*

Error 12 0.240 0.373 0.020 0.031

Total 20 0.190 0.20












Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.040 0.050 0.043




97

Table 4.24: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on plant potash content (%)




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.539 0.529 0.270 0.265

Treatment 6 0.828 0.886 0.138 0.148 25.93* 27.74*

Error 12 0.638 0.639 0.053 0.053

Total 20 0.945 1.029





Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 0.66 c 0.68 d 0.67 D

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 1.11 ab 1.09 bc 1.10 C


Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 1.05 b 1.02 c 1.03 C


Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 1.14 ab 1.13 bc 1.14 BC

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 1.27 a 1.28 ab 1.28 A

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.208 0.208 0.104




98

4.5: Economic Analysis

As farmers are more concerned in variable costs and net returns of certain

treatments so to look the experiment from the farmer’s point of view economic analysis

becomes essential. It helps researcher to plan for further investigation or to make

recommendations to the farmers. As there were differences in yield and output price during

2013-14 and 2014-15; the analysis was made on individual year basis by using standard

procedures as mentioned in Chapter 3.

4.5.1: Net field Benefit

Farmers are more interested in variability in benefits than variability in yields,

therefore net field benefits were calculated against the variable cost. They also want to

estimate all the changes that are involved in adopting a new practice. It is therefore,

important to take into concern all inputs related with the experimental treatments. During

2013-14, more net field benefits (NFB) were recorded as compared with 2014-15 (Table

4.26 & 4.27) due to more stripped cane yield of sugarcane during the first year. Maximum

NFB of Rs. 412,800 and Rs. 401,625 ha-1 was achieved with the application of Spent wash

(80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) in sugarcane during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively

(Table 4.26 & 4.27). The minimum NFB of Rs. 119,738 and Rs. 90,750 ha-1 was obtained

in treatment with no spent wash + no NPK. Increase in net field benefits with application

of spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha- 1) was mainly due to increase in stripped

cane yield.

4.5.2: Benefit cost ratio (BCR)

Benefit cost ratio (BCR) is further important to farmers because they are interested

in seeing the increase in net returns with a given increase in total costs. BCR is an indicator

that attempts to summarize the overall value for money of a project or proposal. A major

shortcoming of BCR is that it ignores non-monetized impacts. The maximum BCR of 1.81

and 1.78 was found with the application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-

1) in 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively (Tables 4.26 & 4.27). Minimum BCR was

produced by the treatment with no spent wash + no NPK during both the cane growing

years (Tables 4.26 & 4.27).

99

Table 4.25 (a): Detail of input and output cost of sugarcane (Rs. ha-1) during 2013-14

and 2014-15 permanent cost

Sr. No. Description No. Cost (Rs.) unit-1 Total cost (Rs.)

1 Primary tillage

Deep ploughing 1 3,000 3,000

Leveling 1 2,000 2,000

2 Seed bed preparation

Cultivation 2 2,000 4,000

Trench making 1 2,500 2,500

3 Seed and sowing operations

Seed cost 8 t 4,500 t-1 36,000

Sowing charges 15 man ha-1 400 6,000

4 Interculture / Hoeing

Herbicide 3 1,350 4,050

Labour charges on spray 3 400 1,200

Interculture and earthing up 2 1,200 2,400

5 Irrigation

Cleaning of water course 5 400 2,000

37 irrigation 37 1,300 48,100

Labour charges on irrigation 38 400 15,200

6 Plant Protection

Granular + Liquid flooding

against borers 3 1,650 4,950

Application charges 3 400 1,200

Grand total (Item 1-6) 131,800

7 Land rent for 12 months 30,000

8 Management charges 13,000

Total permanent cost (Rs.) 175,600

100

Table 4.25 (b) Variable cost of production during during 2013-14

Treatments Nutrient

cost

(Rs.)

Yield

(t ha-1)

Hauling

charges

(Rs.)

Total

variable cost

(Rs.)

Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 0 31.93 23,948 23,948

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 11,450 69.00 51,750 63,200

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 45,000 96.43 72,323 117,323

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 19,850 74.94 56,205 76,056




Table 4.25 (c) Variable cost of production during during 2014-15

Treatments Nutrient

cost

(Rs.)

Yield

(t ha-1)

Hauling

charges

(Rs.)

Total

variable cost

(Rs.)

Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 0 24.20 18,150 18,150

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 11,450 56.15 42,113 53,563

NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 45,000 88.62 66,465 111,465





101

Table 4.26: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on net return (Rs.), net field

benefits (Rs.) and benefit cost ratio of spring sugarcane during 2013-14

Treatments Variable

cost

Total

cost

Gross

income

Net

return

Net field

benefit

Benefit

cost ratio

T1 23,947 199,548 143,685 (55,863) 119,738 0.72

T2 63,200 238,800 310,500 71,700 247,300 1.30

T3 117,323 292,923 433,935 141,012 316,612 1.48

T4 76,055 251,655 337,230 85,575 261,175 1.34

T5 116,400 292,000 529,200 237,200 412,800 1.81

T6 99,563 275,163 377,775 102,612 278,212 1.37

T7 107,675 283,275 509,850 226,575 402,175 1.80




ha-1)

Table 4.27: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on net return (Rs.), net

field benefits (Rs.) and benefit cost ratio of spring sugarcane during 2014-15

Treatments Variable

cost

Total

cost

Gross

income

Net

return

Net field

benefit

Benefit

cost ratio

T1 18,150 193,750 108,900 (84,850) 90,750 0.56

T2 53,563 229,163 252,675 23,513 199,113 1.10

T3 111,465 287,065 398,790 111,725 287,325 1.39

T4 69,388 244,988 297,225 52,238 227,838 1.21

T5 114,165 289,765 515,790 226,025 401,625 1.78

T6 91,140 266,740 327,240 60,500 236,100 1.23

T7 104,435 280,035 490,410 210,375 385,975 1.75


102



ha-1

4.5.3: Dominance analysis

Net field benefits (NFB) calculation is only an intermediate step in economic

analysis. As NFB does not indicate the rate of return in relation to investment, final

recommendation for some latest production technology cannot be specified to a common

farmer only on the basis of NFB. Domination is the mechanism for the identification of

good alternatives. Thus, before manipulating returns to investment, dominance analysis

was worked out. Data given in tables 4.28 and 4.29 revealed that NFB of some treatments

were less to those with lower cost. As a result these treatments were dominated (D). The

remaining (un-dominated) treatments were further considered for the marginal analysis.

It is clear from the tables 4.28 and 4.29 that the treatments in which sugarcane was

treated with organic alone and supplemented with chemical fertilizers (spent wash (160 t

ha-1) alone, spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK

(126:84:84 kg ha-1), spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) and spent wash (80

t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) were not dominated due to their lower variable cost. The

treatment with application of NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone was dominated due to less

net field benefit during both the years (Table 4.28 and 4.29). So, farmers would be better

off using integrated nutrient management for sugarcane.

4.5.4: Marginal analysis

Marginal analysis is used to assist people in allocating their limited resources to

maximize the benefit of the output produced. The advantages of the marginal analysis are

that it makes the basis of economic reasoning and it looks at the effects of a small change

in the control variable. As real differences were found in yield among different treatments,

therefore a marginal analysis was done. Tables 4.30 and 4.31 present the marginal analysis

of undominated treatments during 2013-14 and 2014-15. Maximum marginal rate of return

528% was obtained by the crop treated with spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg

ha-1) during 2013-14. While in the year 2014-15, crop applied spent wash (160 t ha-1) +

NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) gave maximum marginal rate of return 427%. It is clear from the

results that farmers with poor resources can accomplish maximum benefits by combined

application of spent wash (160 t ha-1) with NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) gave higher economic

returns for spring planted sugarcane.

103

Table 4.28: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on dominance analysis of

spring planted sugarcane during 2013-14

Treatments Variable cost Net field

benefit

Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 23,947 119,738

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 63,200 247,300

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 76,055 261,175




NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 117,323 316,612 D

D= Dominance

Table 4.29: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on dominance analysis of


Treatments Variable cost Net field

benefit

Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 18,150 90,750

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 53,563 199,113




NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone 111,465 287,325 D


D= Dominance

104

Table 4.30: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on marginal rate of return


Treatments Variable

cost

MVC NFB MNFB MRR

Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 23,947 - 119,738 - -

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 63,200 39253 247,300 127562 325

Spent wash (120 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 76,055 12855 261,175 13875 108

Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84kg ha-1) 99,563 23508 278,212 17037 73


Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56) kg ha-1) 116,400 8725 412,800 10625 126

Table 4.31: Influence of spent wash and NPK application on marginal rate of return


Treatments Variable

cost

MVC NFB MNFB MRR

Control (no spent wash + no NPK) 18,150 - 90,750 - -

Spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone 53,563 35413 199,113 108363 306


Spent wash (40 t ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84kg ha-1) 91,140 21752 236,100 8262 38


Spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56) kg ha-1) 114,165 9730 401,625 15650 161

105

DISCUSSION

Effect of spent wash and NPK application on growth parameters of spring planted

sugarcane

Poor nutrition is one of the main causes of low cane yield more pronouncedly under

spring planting conditions. Results expose combined application of organic and chemical

fertilizers as key strategy to improve qualitative and quantitative traits of spring planted

sugarcane. Growth and yield attributes of cane proved that the supplementation of spent

wash in reduced fertilizer use environment is critically supporting plant for gathering better

biomass and lush growth than those only grown on simply fertilizers or by individual

application of spent wash. Application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1)

in sugarcane promoted the leaf area index, total dry matter (t ha-1), crop growth rate (g m-2

d-1) and net assimilation rate (g m-2 d-1) as compared to other treatments. It is well

established that growth of maize plant for plant height and leaf area index significantly

differed when exposed to different fertilizer levels. Tallest plants and the maximum leaf

area index was recorded in treatment with combination of 75% NPK and 25% spent wash

+ crop residues (Ashok et al., 2005).

Spent wash increased the growth of shoot length, leaf number per plant, leaf area

and chlorophyll content in peas (Rani and Srivastata, 2000). Our results are in agreement

with work of Chand et al. (2006). They reported that combined application of organic

source of nutrients and synthetic fertilizers markedly improved the soil crop growth and

yield as compared to their sole application. Spent wash is useful in improving growth and

yield of several crops as it judiciously alter the soil characteristics like pH, Ec and available

nutrient form for better crop level utilization (Suganya and Rajannan, 2009). A field

experiment was conducted with different levels of distillery spent wash using sugarcane

(Saccharum officinarum L.). Growth parameters like cane height, leaf length, leaf breadth,

stem girth, leaf area index, leaves per plant and tillers per plant were enhanced with

increased concentration of distillery spent wash up to 75% with NPK (Rath et al., 2010).

Fertilizer application at NPK (170:85:85 kg ha-1) + biocane (2.5 ha-1) proved to be

sufficient for getting higher cane growth, yield and sucrose contents (Shahid et al., 2011).

Spent wash increased the uptake of nutrients, height, growth and yield of leafy vegetables

(Chandraju et al., 2012). Supplementation of spent wash with inorganic fertilizers

increased the growth traits (Leaf area index, total dry matter, crop growth rate, net

assimilation rate) of sugarcane and other crops like wheat, maize, cotton and sunflower

(Chandraju et al., 2011; Rath et al., 2013). Application of distillery effluent supplemented

106

with inorganic fertilizers to sugarcane as a nutrient source helps to improve growth and

productivity on sustainable basis (Balasubramaniam et al., 2013). Spent wash (40-50%)

supplemented with synthetic fertilizers improved most of the sugarcane growth parameters,

like leaf area, crop growth rate, shoot length, number of tillers and fresh shoot weight except

seedling vigor index (Kaloi et al., 2015). Integrated use of organic crop residues with

fertilizers for sugarcane crop was extremely important for growth parameters, cane yield

and nutrient uptake where nutrients were supplied from 50% crop residues and 50%

through inorganic fertilizers (Darandale, 2015).

Effect of spent wash and NPK application on quantitative parameters of spring

planted sugarcane

Our study results revealed that combined application of organic and chemical

fertilizers improved the quantitative parameters of sugarcane. It was observed that

combined application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) promoted the

number of tillers (m2), number of millable canes (m2), plant height (cm), number of

internodes per cane, length of internodes (cm), cane length (cm), cane diameter (cm),

weight per stripped cane (kg), un-stripped cane yield (t ha-1) and stripped cane yield (t ha-

1) as compared to other treatments. On two years mean data basis there was 25.48% more

stripped cane yield was observed with application of spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK

(84:56:56 kg ha-1) over the NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone application. Improvement in

quantitative parameters by synergistic use of spent wash and NPK might be due to spent

wash releases the nutrients, stimulated the soil microbes that solubilize already fixed

nutrients in soil, improved the soil physical and chemical properties, and promoted the

uptake, prevent the fixation and adsorption of nutrients and increased the efficiency of

chemical fertilizers (Richardson and John, 2005; Muhammad and Khattak, 2009).

Our findings are correlated with work of Gitari and Friesen, (2001); Makinde,

(2010). They observed that the combined use of organic and mineral fertilizers results in

higher quantitative and quality parameters of plants than either source used alone, the

results of this study have shown an enrichment of the organic sources by the mineral

fertilizers. Average height of the sugarcane plant after 210 days showed an increase of

13.45% in the 50% SW with inorganic fertilizers treated plot over the control. The average

length of leaves of the test crop after 210 days of plantation showed an increase of 11.22%

in 50% SW with 50% recommended fertilizers treated plants over control (Krishna et al.,

2002). SW with quantity of 90 to 150 tons ha-1 markedly increases cane girth and weight

in addition to increased sugar yield (Viera, 1996). Irrigation with treated distillery effluent

107

at 1:10 dilution was found the optimum level for building up the soil fertility and increasing

the sugarcane yield in sandy soils (Gopal et al., 2001).

Nanjappa et al. (2001) reported that combined application of 75% recommended

dose of fertilizer with 25% SW caused higher productivity of maize as compared with the

application of either only inorganic fertilizer or organic sources. Use of waste water

supplemented with fertilizers has increased the cane yield and commercial cane sugar

(CCS) upto 45% and 12%, respectively (Braddock and Downs, 2001). Results are also

correlated with the findings of Kayalvizh et al., (2001). They found increase of about 15 t

ha-1 of cane yield by using of spent wash supplemented with fertilizers in sandy loam soils

of Coimbatore. Ashok et al. (2005) recorded maximum yield of maize when 75% NPK was

applied with 25% SW. The highest productivity of sugarcane was recorded with the

application of 10 t ha-1 farm yard manure along with 100% SW. Integrated application of

25-50% reduced recommended chemical fertilizers along with nutrients by recycling from

organic wastes of crops produced higher yields in plant and ratoon sugarcane (Paul and

Mannan, 2007).

Similar findings were also observed by Qasim et al., (2004), they reported that

integrated use of organic and mineral fertilizers improved plant growth and quantitative

parameters as compared to their sole use. Our results are in agreement with work of Chand

et al. (2006). They reported that combined application of organic source of nutrients and

mineral fertilizers markedly improved the soil fertility, crop growth and yield as compared

to their sole application. Integration of 75% of recommended NPK fertilizer + 25% organic

fertilizer (FYM) + biofertilizer + biopesticide and trash mulching in alternate rows

increased the cane and ratoon yield compared to recommended NPK + micronutrient

through inorganic in cane plant and ratoon crop (Dashora and Gupta, 2012). Highest cane

yield, sugar yield and nutrient uptake were recorded with the application of 25% NPK

fertilizer + 75% effluent application (Sharma, 2014).

Effect of spent wash and NPK application on quality parameters of spring planted

sugarcane

Our study results revealed that cumulative use of bio-organic and mineral fertilizers

increased the quality parameters of sugarcane. It was concluded that all combinations of

nutrients except control (no spent wash + no NPK) improved the brix percentage, sucrose

content in cane juice (%), commercial cane sugar (%) and sugar recovery (%). Data

regarding increment in these quality parameters can be correlated with work of Braddock

and Downs, (2001). They found that application of 50% spent wash supplemented with

108

50% synthetic fertilizers increased the cane yield by 45% and commercial cane sugar (CCS)

increase of 12% over control treatment. Ravindra et al. (2002) observed that use of organic

fertilizers along with mineral fertilizers markedly improved the quality parameters of plants

as compared to their alone use. Juice quality parameters of sugarcane (brix, pol, purity and

commercial cane sugar) were high with the application of SW supplemented with inorganic

fertilizers (Devarajan and Oblisami, 1995).

Kalaiselvi and Mahimairaja, (2009) observed that brix and pol percentages of

sugarcane juice were increased with the combined application of SW and inorganic

fertilizers against the sole use of SW or fertilizers. Results are correlated with the findings

of Singh et al. (2005). They reported that recommended N dose of rice could be substituted

up to 33% by using of organic compost compost. There was a considerable increase in

quality parameters with the integrated use of nutrient management. The application of SW

increased the CCS (16.04%), brix (22.68%), pol percent (19.46) and purity (84.14) of

sugarcane (Singandhupe et al., 2009). SW supplemented with inorganic fertilizers are more

effective fertilizers for improving cane juice quality of sugarcane crop than their sole

application (Rath et al., 2011).

Effect of spent wash and NPK application on plant nutrient content and economics of


Our results revealed that combined use of organic and chemical fertilizers increased

the NPK contents of spring planted sugarcane. It was concluded that combined application

of spent wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) improved NPK as compared to other

combination of nutrients. Our study results are similar with the work of Baskar, (2003). He

reported that over ten years of continuous rice-rice cropping under various treatments, the

differences in nutrient uptake and nutrient use efficiency of major nutrients in organic

fertilizers alone and inorganic fertilizers with organics were significant. The continuous use

of organics along with inorganic fertilizers increased nutrient uptake and nutrient use

efficiency of major nutrients than the inorganic fertilizers. Kumar and Thakur, (2004)

observed that application of 25% organic fertilizers with recommended fertilizer resulted

in higher uptake of NPK followed by recommended fertilizer. Singh and Sarkar (2001) also

reported increased nutrient uptake with higher fertilizer application. Application of organic

fertilizers with recommended chemical fertilizer increased the uptake by increasing the

availability of nutrient.

Karki et al. (2005) reported that N, P and K contents in grain and stover of maize

and their uptake were found the maximum with the recommended dose of fertilizers which

109

is at par with recommended dose of fertilizer + 10 tonnes spent wash per hectare treatment.

Selvi et al. (2005) noticed that continuous addition of balanced fertilization showed

beneficial effect on physical properties of the soil; rather it significantly increased the water

holding capacity and reduced bulk density of the soil in long run. Significant improvement

in the physical properties of the soil was observed under the integrated application of

organics and inorganics. Application of 50 percent nutrients through organic source (crop

residues) and 50 percent NPK through fertilizers caused higher nutrients uptake and

increase in yield of sugarcane (Keshavaiah et al., 2013). Highest cane yield, sugar yield

and nutrient uptake were recorded with 25 percent NPK fertilizer + 75 percent effluent

application (Sharma, 2014).

The maximum benefit cost ratio (BCR) and net field benefit was gained by spent

wash (80 t ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) followed by spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1) application. Maximum marginal rate of return (528%) was obtained by

the crop treated with spent wash (160 t ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) during 2013-14.

These results are in line with the findings of Phonde et al. (2005). They found highest

benefit-cost ratio of 2.64 with the application of SW supplemented with NPK and accrued

benefit reduced by 18, 29, 19, 20, 27, and 6%, if P, K, S, Zn, Fe, or Mn was omitted from

the integrated use of nutrients management. While, Tunio et al. (2004) reported maximum

benefits with the application of crop residues, manures and inorganic fertilizer application.

110

Experiment II



4.6: Growth analysis:

4.6.1: Leaf area index

Leaf area index is a major factor determining radiation interception, canopy

photosynthesis and therefore yield. Periodic data on leaf area index (LAI) of sugarcane was

recorded as in Fig 4.12. Leaf area index (LAI) values steadily increased in all the treatments

and reached the maximum value at 180 days after sowing (DAS); thereafter, LAI declined

until physiological maturity. In the beginning, differences in LAI among treatments were

less visible, but with time these differences became progressively more visible. The years

had significant effect on LAI and crop achieved higher LAI of 7.80 in 2013-14 as compared

to LAI of 7.65 during 2014-15. Crop was achieved 2% more LAI in 2013-14 as compared

to 2014-15. LAI was significantly affected by compost and NPK application on sugarcane

during both the cane growing years. It was observed that maximum leaf area index during

both the years of study was recorded by compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1)

application, while minimum was observed in control (no compost + no NPK). Results

showed that integration of organic and inorganic fertilizers showed better response as

compared to control.

4.6.2: Cumulative leaf area duration (days)

Periodic data of leaf area duration (LAD) of sugarcane during both the cane growing

years was recorded as in Fig 4.13. Visible differences in LAD at different treatments were

observed. However, the differences were less visible at the start and became more

pronounced as the crop advanced towards maturity. Leaf area duration steadily increased

in all the treatments and reached maximum value at 270 days after sowing (DAS). The

year’s effect on LAD was found significant. Seasonal leaf area duration was 1238.86 days

and 1233.64 days during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. Data showed significant effect

of compost and NPK application on leaf area duration of spring planted sugarcane during

both years of study. Results showed that application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1) produced markedly higher seasonal leaf area duration of spring planted

sugarcane during both the cane growing years, followed by NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg

ha-1 and compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), while minimum was observed in

control (no compost + no NPK) treatment.

111

Fig 4.12: Influence of various inorganic fertilizers and compost levels on leaf area

index of spring planted sugarcane




(42:28:28 kg ha-1)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Lea

f ar

ea i

ndex


(2013 - 14) T1 T2 T3

T4 T5 T6

T7

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Lea

f ar

ea i

ndex


(2014 - 15) T1 T2 T3

T4 T5 T6

T7

112

Fig. 4.13: Influence of various inorganic fertilizers and compost levels on leaf area

duration of spring planted sugarcane




(42:28:28 kg ha-1)

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Lea

f ar

ea d

urat

ion

(day

s)


(2013 - 14)

T1 T2 T3

T4 T5 T6

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270

Lea

f ar

ea d

urat

ion

(day

s)

Number of days oafter sowing

(2014 - 15)

T1 T2 T3T4 T5 T6T7

113

Fig. 4.14: Relation between cumulative leaf area duration and stripped cane yield of

sugarcane

y = 0.2525x - 221.99R² = 0.73

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Str

ipp

ed c

ane

yiel

d

(t h

a-1)


(2013-14)

y = 0.2494x - 222.07R² = 0.76

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

Str

ipp

ed c

ane

yiel

d

(t h

a-1

)


(2014-15)

114

Fig. 4.15: Relation between cumulative leaf area duration and total dry matter of

sugarcane

y = 0.0125x + 13.579R² = 0.92

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

To

tal

dry

mat

ter

(t h

a-1)


(2013-14)

y = 0.0122x + 13.76R² = 0.90

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500

To

tal

dry

mat

ter

(t h

a-1)


(2014-15)

115

It was observed that cumulative effect of inorganic and organic fertilizers showed

better results and produced maximum seasonal leaf area duration during both years as

compared to control. The regression analysis showed a linear and positive association

between seasonal leaf are duration and striped cane yield giving R2 of 0.73 and 0.76 during

2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively (Fig. 4.14). Relationship between leaf area duration and

total dry matter (Fig. 4.15) was also significant and linear during 2013-14 and 2014-15

giving R2 of 0.92 and 0.90, respectively.

4.6.3: Total dry matter (t ha-1)

Total dry matter (TDM) accumulation increased steadily after crop emergence until

harvesting in all the treatments. Data pertaining to total dry matter (TDM) during both years

of study was depicted as in Fig 4.16. The maximum total dry matter was increased with

passage of days. Results showed that there was significant effect of compost and NPK

application between treatments mean and among the years mean on total dry matter of the

crop. Seasonal total dry matter was 28.99 t ha-1 and 28.73 t ha-1 during 2013-14 and 2014-

15, respectively. Data showed that combined application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) with

NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) produced more total dry matter during both the cane growing years

as compared to control (no compost + no NPK). Results showed that application of compost

(1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 and compost

(562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) were statistically at par for total dry matter of

sugarcane. Relationship between total dry matter and stripped cane yield (Fig. 4.17) was

significant and linear during 2013-14 and 2014-15 giving R2 of 0.72 and 0.74, respectively.

4.6.4: Crop growth rate (g m-2 day-1)

Periodic data of crop growth rate during both the cane growing years was depicted

as in Fig. 4.18. Crop growth rate steadily increased in all the treatments and reached at

maximum value at 210 days after sowing (DAS); thereafter, crop growth rate declined until

harvest. Results exhibited statistically significant effect of compost and NPK application

on crop growth rate (CGR). Results showed that all treatments improved the crop growth

rate as compared to control but more improvement was observed in treatment with the

application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) during both of the cane

growing years. The year had significant effect on mean crop growth rate (MCGR) and crop

achieved MCGR of 12.04 g m-2 day-1 in 2013-14 as compared to MCGR of 10.34 g m-2

day-1 during 2014-15. Crop achieved 16.44 % more MCGR in 2013-14 as compared to

2014-15.

116

Fig. 4.16: Influence of various inorganic fertilizers and compost levels on total dry

matter (g m-2 d-1) of spring planted sugarcane




(42:28:28 kg ha-1)

100

600

1100

1600

2100

2600

3100

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Tota

l dry

mat

ter

(g m

-2d

-1)


(2013 - 14)

T1 T2 T3T4 T5 T6T7

100

600

1100

1600

2100

2600

3100

60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Tota

l dry

mat

ter

(g m

-2d

-1)


(2014 - 15)

T1 T2 T3

T4 T5 T6

117

Fig. 4.17: Relation between total dry matter and stripped cane yield of sugarcane

y = 19.157x - 466.04R² = 0.71

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Str

ipp

ed c

ane

yiel

d

(t h

a-1)


(2013-14)

y = 19.054x - 464.14R² = 0.74

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

26 27 28 29 30 31 32

Str

ipp

ed c

ane

yiel

d (t

ha

-1)


(2014-15)

118

Fig. 4.18: Influence of various inorganic fertilizers and compost levels on crop growth

rate (g m-2 d-1) of spring planted sugarcane

T1 = Control (no compost + no NPK), T2 = Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1, T3 = NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1, T4 = Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), T5 = Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56


(42:28:28 kg ha-1)

1

6

11

16

21

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Cro

p g

row

th r

ate

(g m

-2d

-1)


(2013 - 1 4)

T1 T2 T3T4 T5 T6T7

1

6

11

16

21

90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300

Cro

p g

row

th r

ate

(g m

-2d

-1)


(2 0 1 4- 15)

T1 T2 T3

T4 T5 T6

T7

119

4.6.5: Net assimilation rate (g m-2 day-1)

Net assimilation rate (NAR) represents the net photosynthates per unit leaf area

duration of a crop. Data (Table 4.32) showed the considerably effect of compost and NPK

application on net assimilation rate of spring planted sugarcane during both the years of

study. The maximum net assimilation rate was recorded with the combined application of

compost (1124 kg ha-1) with NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) (2.49 g m-2 day-1), while minimum

was observed with control (no compost + no NPK) (Table 4.32). Results showed that

compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 and

compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) were statistically at par for net assimilation

rate of spring planted sugarcane during both the cane growing years.

Year’s effect on NAR was found to be significant and crop attained 1.30% more NAR

during 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15 (Table 4.32). NAR of 2.34 g m-2 day-1 was

recorded during the 1st year of study while during 2nd year crop achieved 2.31 g m-2 day-1

NAR. This might be due to less losses of assimilates during first year due to mild

environmental conditions.

4.7: Quantitative Parameters

4.7.1: Emergence (%)

Emergence is an important yield contributing factor in sugarcane plant. It is an

important feature of setts which determines the yield of sugarcane. Data on emergence

percentage as affected by different treatments of compost and NPK application in spring

planted sugarcane was recorded as in table 4.33. A perusal of the table revealed that effect

of compost and NPK application was non-significant on emergence between treatments

mean and among the years mean. The emergence percentage among all the treatments

ranged between 41.67 to 50% and 42.59 to 48.15% during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively (Table 4.33).

4.7.2: Number of tillers (m2)

Number of tillers is an imperative factor, which contribute significantly towards

yield of the crop. Data (Table 4.34) showed that effect of compost and NPK application on

number of tillers (m2) of spring planted sugarcane was significant. The maximum number

of tillers were recorded with the application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28

kg ha-1), while minimum were observed with control (no compost + no NPK) treatment

during both the cane growing years. Results revealed that compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 and compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK

(84:56:56 kg ha-1) were statistically at par for number of tillers of sugarcane.

120

Table 4.32: Influence of compost and NPK application on net assimilation rate (g m-2

day-1) of spring planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.213 0.140 0.106 0.070

Treatment 6 0.132 0.135 0.022 0.023 9.47* 9.71*

Error 12 0.279 0.279 0.0232 0.023

Total 20 0.162 0.177





Control (no compost + no NPK) 2.14 d 2.09 c 2.12

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 2.36 bc 2.32 b 2.34

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 2.42 ab 2.38 ab 2.40

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 2.29 c 2.28 b 2.29

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 2.37 abc 2.36 ab 2.36

Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 2.31 bc 2.30 b 2.30

Compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 2.49 a 2.45 a 2.47

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.124 0.101 0.1179

Years Mean 2.34 A 2.31 B



121

Table 4.33: Influence of compost and NPK application on germination of spring

planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 141.07 163.83 70.54 81.91

Treatment 6 152.98 72.08 25.50 12.01 0.74NS 0.23NS

Error 12 413.10 634.00 34.43 52.83

Total 20 707.143 869.899


sum of squares; N.S = Non-Significant



Control (no compost + no NPK) 41.67 42.59 42.13

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 45.00 45.37 45.19

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 50.00 48.15 49.07

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 43.33 43.52 43.42








122

Year’s effect on number of tillers (m2) was found to be significant and crop

achieved 8.21% more number of tillers during 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15. Seasonal

number of tillers (m2) were 12.52 and 11.57 during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively

(Table 4.34).

4.7.3: Number of millable canes (m2)

Results regarding effect of compost and NPK application on millable canes (m2)

were recorded as in table 4.35. The maximum millable canes (m2) were recorded with the

application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), while minimum were

observed in control (no compost + no NPK) during both the cane growing years. Results

revealed that compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at 168:112:112

kg ha-1 and compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) were statistically at par for

millable canes of sugarcane.

Year’s effect on number of millable canes (m2) was found significant and crop

achieved 5.23% more number of millable canes during 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15

(Table 4.35). Seasonal number of millable canes (m2) were 11.48 and 10.91 during 2013-

14 and 2014-15, respectively. Regression model indicated the dependence of stripped cane

yield on number of millable canes by giving R2 of 0.98 and 0.97 during 2013-14 and 2014-

15, respectively. (Fig. 4.19).

4.7.4: Plant height (cm)

Plant height is an important morphological trait of combined effects of genetic

makeup of a plant, environmental conditions and nutrient status of soil in which the plant

is grown. Plant height reflects the growth behavior of crop plant in response to applied

inputs. Data regarding plant height as affected by application of compost and NPK at

different levels was recorded as in table 4.36. Results showed that all treatments improved

the plant height as compared to control but more improvement was observed in treatment

with application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) followed by NPK

alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 and compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), while

minimum plant height was in control (no compost + no NPK) treatment.

Year’s effect on plant height (cm) was found to be significant and crop achieved

8.25% more plant height during 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15 (Table 4.36). Seasonal

plant height was 328 cm and 303cm during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

123

Table 4.34: Influence of compost and NPK application on number of tillers (m2) of




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 2.95 5.43 1.46 2.71

Treatment 6 137.24 139.81 22.87 23.30 13.04* 20.11*

Error 12 21.05 13.91 1.754 1.14

Total 20 161.238 159.143

SOV= Sources of variation; DF= Degree of freedom; SS= Sum of squares; MS = mean




Control (no compost + no NPK) 7.00 e 6.00 d 6.50

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 13.33 bc 12.00 bc 12.67


Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 11.00 d 10.67 c 10.83

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 13.67 ab 12.33 abc 13.00

Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 13.00 c 11.67 bc 12.33


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 1.480 2.372 2.078




124

Table 4.35: Influence of compost and NPK application on number of millable (m2) of




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 8.67 5.81 4.33 2.91

Treatment 6 128.57 135.81 21.43 22.64 16.07* 19.14*

Error 12 16.00 14.19 1.33 1.182

Total 20 153.238 155.810





Control (no compost + no NPK) 6.00 d 5.33 d 5.67



Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 10.67 c 10.00 c 10.33

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 12.33 abc 12.00 abc 12.17

Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 11.67 c 11.00 bc 11.33


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 1.796 2.104 2.130




125

Fig. 4.19: Relation between number of millable canes and stripped cane yield of

sugarcane

y = 10.187x - 26.439R² = 0.98

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Str

ipped

can

e yi

eld (t

ha

-1)

Number of millable cames (m2)

(2013-14)

y = 9.7394x - 20.732R² = 0.97

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

Str

ipp

ed c

ane

yiel

d (t

ha-1

)


(2014-15)

126

Table 4.36: Influence of compost and NPK application on plant height (cm) of spring

planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 1461.8 977.8 730.90 488.90

Treatment 6 32901.9 35273.6 5483.65 5878.94 43.53* 26.73*

Error 12 1511.5 2639.5 125.96 219.96

Total 20 35875.2 38891.0





Control (no compost + no NPK) 247 d 223 d 235

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 333 bc 303 bc 318

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 365 a 347 ab 356

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 304 c 276 c 290

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 345 ab 320 abc 333

Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 331 bc 301 bc 316

Compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 374 a 351 a 363

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 32.03 46.33 36.11

Years mean 328 A 303 B



127

4.7.5: Number of internodes per cane

Data on number of internodes per cane of sugarcane during both the cane growing

years was recorded as in table 4.37. Results showed that maximum number of internodes

per cane during both years of study were recorded by compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1) application, while minimum number of internodes per cane were

observed in control (no compost + no NPK) treatment. Application of compost (1124 kg

ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1, compost (562 kg ha-1)

+ NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1), compost (843

kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) and compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 were statistically at

par for the number of internodes per cane of sugarcane (Table 4.37).

Year’s effect on number of internodes per cane were found to be significant and

crop achieved 4.72% more number of internodes per cane during 2013-14 as compared to

2014-15 (Table 4.37). Seasonal number of internodes per cane were 19.10 and 18.24 during

2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

4.7.6: Length of internodes (cm)

Data regarding length of internodes as affected by application of compost and NPK

at different levels during both the cane growing years was recorded as in table 4.38. Data

showed that there was considerably effect of compost and NPK application on length of

internodes during both the years of study. On the basis of two years mean data the

maximum length of internodes (12.67 cm) was observed by combined application of

compost (1124 kg ha-1) with NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) while minimum (8.59 cm) was

observed with control (no compost+ no NPK). Results showed that all treatments improved

the length of internodes as compared to control. Application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) +

NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 and compost (562 kg ha-1) +

NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) were statistically at par for the length of internodes of sugarcane.

Year’s effect on length of internodes was found to be non-significant. Seasonal length of

internodes was 11.66 cm and 11.20 cm during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively (Table

4.38).

4.7.7: Cane length (cm)

There was considerably effect of compost and NPK application on cane length of

spring planted sugarcane during both the cane growing years (Table 4.39). Results showed

that maximum cane length was recorded by compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg

ha-1) application, while control (no compost + no NPK) treatment gave poor response for

cane length of sugarcane during both the cane years.

128

Table 4.37: Influence of compost and NPK application on number of internodes per

cane of spring planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.667 1.24 0.333 0.619

Treatment 6 59.81 41.14 9.97 6.86 4.72* 4.24*

Error 12 25.33 19.43 2.11 1.62

Total 20 85.810 61.810





Control (no compost + no NPK) 15.67 b 15.33 b 15.50

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 19.33 ab 18.33 ab 18.83

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 20.67 a 19.33 a 20.00

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 18.00 ab 18.00 ab 18.00




Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 4.147 3.632 3.442




129

Table 4.38: Influence of compost and NPK application on length of internodes (cm)




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 1.01 3.23 0.503 1.62

Treatment 6 26.06 44.76 4.34 7.45 7.74* 10.51*

Error 12 6.73 8.51 0.561 0.709

Total 20 33.796 56.501





Control (no compost + no NPK) 9.19 d 7.98 e 8.59 E

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 11.84 bc 11.65 bc 11.74 BC

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 12.64 ab 12.14 ab 12.39 AB

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 11.29 c 10.38 d 10.84 D

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 12.07 abc 12.12 ab 12.09 ABC

Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 11.79 c 11.55 c 11.67 C

Compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 12.78 a 12.56 a 12.67 A

Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.826 0.504 0.671




130

Application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at

168:112:112 kg ha-1 and compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) were statistically

at par for cane length of sugarcane. Year’s effect on cane length was found to be significant

and crop achieved 8.86% more cane length during 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15 (Table

4.39). Seasonal cane length was 224.05 cm and 205.81 cm during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively. Linear relationship between cane length and stripped cane yield was indicated

by regression analysis (R2, 0.80 and 0.81) during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively (Fig

4.20).

4.7.8: Cane girth (cm)

Cane girth was markedly affected by compost and NPK application (Table 4.40).

On the basis of two years mean data the maximum cane girth (2.93 cm) was recorded by

the combined application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) with NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), while

minimum cane girth (1.87 cm) was observed in control (no compost + no NPK) treatment.

Two years mean data showed that compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK

alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1, compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), compost

(281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) and compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 were

statistically at par for cane girth of spring planted sugarcane. Year’s effect on cane girth

was found to be non-significant. Seasonal cane girth was 2.18 cm and 2.11 cm during 2013-

14 and 2014-15, respectively (Table 4.40). Relationship between cane girth and stripped

cane yield (Fig. 4.21) was linear and significant during 2013-14 (R2 = 0.62) and 2014-15

(R2 = 0.76).

4.7.9: Weight per stripped cane (kg)

There was significant effect of compost and NPK application on weight per stripped

cane of spring planted sugarcane (Table 4.41). On the basis of two years mean data the

maximum weight per stripped (0.86 kg) was observed by combined application of compost

(1124 kg ha-1) with NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), while minimum (0.65 kg) was observed by

control (no compost + no NPK) treatment. Results showed that compost (1124 kg ha-1) +

NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1, compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK

(84:56:56 kg ha-1), compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) and compost alone at

1124 kg ha-1 were statistically at par for weight per stripped cane of sugarcane during both

the cane growing years. Year’s effect on weight per stripped cane was found to be non-

significant (Table 4.41). Seasonal weight per stripped cane was 0.80 kg and 0.79 kg during

2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively. Regression analysis indicated

131

Table 4.39: Influence of compost and NPK application on cane length (cm) of spring

planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 457.2 1148.7 228.62 574.33

Treatment 6 31763.0 32393.9 5293.83 5398.98 28.38* 25.74*

Error 12 2238.8 2516.7 186.56 209.72

Total 20 34459.0 36059.2





Control (no compost + no NPK) 143.33 d 122.67 d 133.00

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 229.00 bc 213.67 abc 221.33




Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 223.67 bc 203.33 bc 213.50


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 38.983 41.332 39.636

Years mean 224.05 A 205.81 B



132

Fig. 4.20: Relation between cane length and total stripped cane yield of sugarcane

y = 0.615x - 47.313R² = 0.80

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

100 150 200 250 300

Str

ipp

ed c

ane

yiel

d

(t h

a-1)

Cane length (cm)

(2013-14)

y = 0.5859x - 35.116R² = 0.81

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

50 100 150 200 250 300

Str

ipp

ed c

ane

yiel

d

(t h

a-1)

Cane length (cm)

(2014-15)

133

Table 4.40: Influence of compost and NPK application on cane girth (cm) of spring

planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.695 0.857 0.348 0.429

Treatment 6 1.66 1.95 0.277 0.325 10.25* 15.95*

Error 12 0.324 0.245 0.027 0.020

Total 20 2.052 2.206





Control (no compost + no NPK) 1.93 c 1.80 b c 1.87 C

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 2.93 ab 2.70 ab 2.82 AB


Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 2.67 b 2.60 b 2.63 B

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 2.80 ab 2.83 ab 2.77 AB



Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.279 0.283 0.293




134

Fig. 4.21: Relation between cane girth and stripped cane yield of sugarcane

y = 69.995x - 62.187R² = 0.62

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Str

ipped

can

e yi

eld

(t h

a-1

)

Cane girth (cm)

(2013-14)

y = 72.635x - 68.097R² = 0.77

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Str

ipp

ed c

ane

yiel

d

(t h

a-1)

Cane girth (cm)

2014-15

135

Table 4.41: Influence of compost and NPK application on weight per stripped cane

(kg) of spring planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.20 0.92 0.10 0.46

Treatment 6 0.997 0.101 0.166 0.0168 16.17* 15.83*

Error 12 0.123 0.127 0.010 0.011

Total 20 0.112 0.115





Control (no compost + no NPK) 0.65 c 0.64 d 0.65 C


NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 0.85 a 0.84 ab 0.85 A

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 0.75 b 0.74 c 0.75 B


Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 0.82 ab 0.80 b 0.81 AB


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.092 0.047 0.087




136

Fig.4.22: Relation between weight per stripped cane and stripped cane yield of

sugarcane

y = 353.84x - 192.35R² = 0.87

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

Stip

ped

can

e yi

eld

(t

ha-1

)


(2013-14)

y = 324.95x - 171R² = 0.80

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

Str

ipp

ed c

ane

yiel

d (t

ha

-1)

weight per stripped cane (kg)

(2014-15)

137

linear relationship between weight per stripped cane and stripped cane yield and giving R2

0.87 and 0.80 during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively (Fig. 4.22).

4.7.10: Cane tops weight (t ha-1)

Cane tops weight of spring planted sugarcane was markedly effected by compost

and NPK application (Table 4.42). It was observed that maximum cane tops weight (19.13

t ha-1) was recorded by compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) application, while

minimum can tops weight was observed in control (no compost + no NPK) treatment.



at par for cane top weight of spring planted sugarcane.

Year’s effect on cane top weight was found to be significant and crop achieved

2.84% more cane tops weight during 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15 (Table 4.42).

Seasonal cane tops weight was 14.96 t ha-1 and 14.45 t ha-1 during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively.

4.7.11: Cane trash weight (t ha-1)

There was significant effect of compost and NPK application on cane trash weight

during both the cane growing years (Table 4.43). Results showed that maximum cane trash

weight (4.40 t ha-1) was recorded with compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1)

application, while minimum was observed with control (no compost + no NPK) treatment.



at par for cane top weight of spring planted sugarcane. Year’s effect on cane trash weight

was found to be significant and crop achieved 4.60% more cane trash weight during 2013-

14 as compared to 2014-15 (Table 4.43). Seasonal cane trash weight was 3.41 t ha-1 and

3.26 t ha-1 during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

4.7.12: Unstripped cane yield (t ha-1)

Compost and NPK application was markedly affected the unstripped cane yield of

spring planted sugarcane (Table 4.44). Data showed that maximum unstripped cane yield

(141.61 t ha-1) was recorded with the application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1), while minimum was observed with control (no compost + no NPK)

treatment. Application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at


at par for unstripped cane yield of spring planted sugarcane. Year’s effect on unstripped

cane yield was found to be significant and crop achieved 5.89% more

138

Table 4.42: Influence of compost and NPK application on cane top weight (t ha-1) of




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 2.26 2.65 1.13 1.33

Treatment 6 459.01 516.95 76.50 86.16 22.99* 14.24*

Error 12 39.93 72.60 3.33 6.05

Total 20 500.959 592.20





Control (no compost + no NPK) 4.70 e 3.67 e 4.19

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 16.97 b 16.26 bc 16.61


Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 12.54 d 11.78 d 12.16




Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 1.596 2.620 2.223




139

Table 4.43: Influence of compost and NPK application on cane trash weight (t ha-1) of




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.875 2.81 0.438 1.41

Treatment 6 27.00 25.38 4.50 4.23 31.52* 3.90*

Error 12 1.71 13.00 0.143 1.08

Total 20 29.592 41.194





Control (no compost + no NPK) 1.01 d 0.92 c 0.97

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 3.92 ab 3.67 ab 3.79

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 4.37 a 4.19 a 4.28

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 2.62 c 2.48 b 2.55

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 4.10 ab 4.00 a 4.05

Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 3.44 bc 3.40 ab 3.42


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.892 1.275 1.077




140

Table 4.44: Influence of compost and NPK application on unstripped cane yield (t ha-




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 630.9 380.0 315.45 189.98

Treatment 6 19363.0 19469.4 3227.16 3244.90 19.03* 28.37*

Error 12 2035.2 1372.4 169.60 114.37

Total 20 22029.1 21221.7






Control (no compost + no NPK) 44.01 d 38.27 e 41.14



Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 94.86 c 86.65 d 90.76


Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 112.04 bc 106.20 c 109.12


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 24.169 19.522 23.169

Years mean 109.63 A 103.53 B


141

unstripped cane yield during 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15 (Table 4.44). Seasonal

unstripped cane yield was 109.63 t ha-1 and 103.53 t ha-1 during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively.

4.7.13: Stripped cane yield (t ha-1)

Compost and NPK application was considerably affected the stripped cane yield of

spring planted sugarcane (Table 4.45). Results showed that maximum stripped cane yield

(118.90 t ha-1) was recorded by compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1)


Data showed that compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at


at par for stripped cane yield of spring planted sugarcane.

Year’s effect on stripped cane yield was found to be significant and crop achieved

5.85% more stripped cane yield during 2013-14 as compared to 2014-15 (Table 4.45).

Seasonal stripped cane yield was 90.47 t ha-1 and 85.47 t ha-1 during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively.

4.7.14: Harvest index (%)

There was significant effect of compost and NPK application on harvest index of

sugarcane (Table 4.46). On the basis of two years mean data results showed that maximum

harvest index (83.96%) was recorded by compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1)

application, while minimum was observed with control (no compost + no NPK).


168:112:112 kg ha-1, compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1), compost (281 kg ha-

1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) and compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 were statistically at par for

the harvest index of spring planted sugarcane.

Year’s effect on harvest index was found to be non-significant (Table 4.46).

Seasonal harvest index was 82.03% and 82.18% during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

142

Table 4.45: Influence of compost and NPK application on stripped cane yield (t ha-1)




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 447.3 281.6 223.66 140.78

Treatment 6 14377.9 14161.8 2396.31 2360.30 19.93* 34.49*

Error 12 1442.9 821.2 120.24 68.43

Total 20 16268.1 15264.5





Control (no compost + no NPK) 34.40 e 30.18 d 32.30



Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 77.07 d 70.97 c 74.02

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 101.26 abc 97.70 ab 99.48

Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 92.00 cd 87.22 bc 89.61


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 19.296 21.967 18.181




143

Table 4.46: Influence of compost and NPK application on harvest index (%) of spring

planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.427 1.11 0.214 0.552

Treatment 6 62.19 45.13 10.37 7.52 11.65* 11.49*

Error 12 10.67 60.73 0.889 5.06

Total 20 73.293 106.961





Control (no compost + no NPK) 78.29 c 78.95 c 78.62 C



Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 81.15 b 81.90 b 81.53 B




Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 2.692 2.109 2.376




144

4.8: Quality Parameters

4.8.1: Brix percentage

Data (Table 4.47) showed significant effect of compost and NPK application on

brix percentage during both the cane growing years. On two years mean data basis results

showed that compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) produced maximum brix

(20.76%), while control (no compost + no NPK) treatment gave poor response for brix.



1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) and compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 were statistically at par for

brix percentage of sugarcane.

Year’s effect on brix percentage was found to be non-significant (Table 4.47).

Seasonal brix was 19.79% and 19.49% during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

4.8.2: Sucrose content in cane juice (%)

Sucrose content in cane juice was significant affected by compost and NPK

application (Table 4.48). On the basis of two years mean data results showed that compost

(1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) produced maximum sucrose content in cane juice

(18.35%), while control (no compost + no NPK) gave poor response for sucrose content of

spring planted sugarcane. Application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-

1), NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1, compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1),

compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) and compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 were

statistically at par for sucrose content in cane juice.

Year’s effect on sucrose content was found to be non-significant (Table 4.48).

Seasonal sucrose content was 17.35% and 16.65% during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively.

4.8.3: Cane fiber content (%)

Fiber is a genetically controlled feature of the sugarcane crop. The fact that fiber

was mainly controlled by varietal genetic makeup was proved and thus fiber was not

affected significantly during each year of study by any factor (Table 4.49). However, fiber

ranged from 12.34 to 12.61% during 2013-14 and 12.27 to 12.59% in 2014-15. Data (Table

4.49) revealed that year’s effect was also found to be non-significant on fiber content and

seasonal fiber content was 12.43% and 12.37% during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

145

Table 4.47: Influence of compost and NPK application on brix percentage of spring

planted sugarcane





Treatment 2013-14 2014-15 Means




Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 18.97 bc 18.84 b 18.91 B




Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 1.573 1.443 1.531

Years Mean 19.79 19.49




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.172 0.477 0.086 0.239

Treatment 6 16.27 23.36 2.71 3.89 3.61* 15.23*

Error 12 9.01 3.07 0.751 0.256

Total 20 25.450 26.901

146

Table 4.48: Influence of compost and NPK application on sucrose content in cane juice




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.635 0.609 0.317 0.304

Treatment 6 33.46 36.83 5.58 6.14 12.49* 16.45*

Error 12 5.36 4.48 0.447 0.373

Total 20 39.456 41.914







NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 18.28 a 17.83 ab 18.06 A

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 16.24 bc 16.00 b 16.12 B




Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 1.907 1.873 1.739




147

Table 4.49: Influence of compost and NPK application on cane fiber content (%) of




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.495 0.030 0.248 0.015

Treatment 6 0.165 0.211 0.027 0.035 0.24NS 0.35NS

Error 12 1.36 1.20 0.113 0.099

Total 20 2.017 1.432





Control (no compost + no NPK) 12.49 12.43 12.46

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 12.40 12.27 12.34

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 12.41 12.37 12.39









148

4.8.4: Commercial cane sugar (%)

Commercial cane sugar (CCS) was markedly affected by the compost and NPK

application (Table 4.50). On the basis of two years mean data results showed that maximum

CCS (13.92%) was recorded with compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1)


Data showed that compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at


1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1), compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 and compost (843 kg ha-1) +

NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1 were statistically at par for CCS of spring planted sugarcane. Data

(Table 4.50) revealed that year’s effect was found to be non-significant for CCS of cane.

Seasonal CCS was 13.12% and 12.40% during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

4.8.5: Cane sugar recovery (%)

There was considerably effect of compost and NPK application on cane sugar

recovery (CSR) of spring planted sugarcane (Table 4.51). On two years mean data basis

results showed that maximum cane sugar recovery (13.08%) was recorded by compost

(1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) application, while minimum was observed with

control (no compost + no NPK) treatment. Results revealed that compost (1124 kg ha-1) +

NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1, compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK

(84:56:56 kg ha-1), compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1), compost alone at

1124 kg ha-1 and compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1 were statistically at par

for cane sugar recovery of spring planted sugarcane. Data (Table 4.51) revealed that year’s

effect was non-significant on cane sugar recovery and average year’s cane sugar recovery

was 12.33% and 11.65% during 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

4.8.5: Total sugar yield (t ha-1)

Total sugar yield was markedly affected by compost and NPK application (Table

4.52). On two years mean data basis results showed that maximum total sugar yield (16.24

t ha-1) was recorded by compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) application, while

minimum was observed with control (no compost + no NPK) treatment. Results revealed

that compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1,

compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) were statistically at par for total sugar yield

of spring planted sugarcane. Data (Table 4.52) revealed that year effect was non-significant

on total sugar yield. Seasonal sugar yield was 12.15 t ha-1 and 10.89 t ha-1 during 2013-14

and 2014-15, respectively.

149

Table 4.50: Influence of compost and NPK application on commercial cane sugar (%)




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.912 0.77 0.456 0.385

Treatment 6 30.31 30.47 5.05 5.08 4.42* 10.28*

Error 12 13.73 5.925 1.14 0.494

Total 20 44.950 37.163





Control (no compost + no NPK) 10.61 b 9.99 b 10.30 B

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 13.81 a 12.42 a 13.12 A

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 13.99 a 13.53 a 13.76 A





Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 3.053 2.006 2.364




150

Table 4.51: Influence of compost and NPK application on the cane sugar recovery (%)




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.802 0.682 0.401 0.341

Treatment 6 26.72 26.99 4.45 4.50 4.38* 10.25*

Error 12 12.19 5.26 1.02 0.439

Total 20 39.71 32.93





Control (no compost + no NPK) 9.98 b 9.39 b 9.68 B

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 12.98 a 11.68 a 12.33 A

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 13.15 a 12.72 a 12.94 A





Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 2.876 1.890 2.234




151

Table 4.52: Influence of compost and NPK application on total sugar yield (t ha-1) of




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 4.98 8.96 2.49 4.48

Treatment 6 359.79 326.03 59.97 54.34 23.32* 57.18*

Error 12 30.86 11.40 2.57 0.95

Total 20 395.629 346.395





Control (no compost + no NPK) 3.67 c 3.00 e 3.34 E

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 13.33 ab 11.37 c 12.35 BC

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 15.73 a 14.51 ab 15.12 AB

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 9.20 b 8.42 d 8.81 D

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 14.10 a 12.80 bc 13.45 ABC

Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 12.23 ab 10.43 cd 11.33 CD


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 4.58 2.78 3.51




152

4.9: Plant Nutrient Analysis

4.9.1: Plant nitrogen content (%)

Sugarcane plant nitrogen content (%) was significantly affected by the compost and

NPK application (Table 4.53). On the basis of two years mean data results showed that

maximum plant nitrogen content (1.02%) was recorded with compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1) application, while minimum was observed with control (no compost +

no NPK) treatment. Data showed that compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1),

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1, compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) and

compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 were statistically at par for plant nitrogen contents. Data

(Table 4.53) revealed that year’s effect was found to be non-significant on plant nitrogen

content. Seasonal plant nitrogen content was 0.81% and 0.77% during 2013-14 and 2014-

15, respectively.

4.9.2: Plant phosphorus content (%)

There was significant effect of compost and NPK application on plant phosphorus

content (%) of spring planted sugarcane (Table 4.54). On two years mean data basis results

showed that maximum plant phosphorus content (0.17%) was recorded with compost (1124

kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) application, while minimum was observed with control

(no compost+ no NPK) treatment. Results revealed that compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1, compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK

(84:56:56 kg ha-1), compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) and compost alone at

1124 kg ha-1 were statistically at par with each other for plant phosphorus content of

sugarcane. Data (Table 4.54) revealed that year’s effect was non-significant on plant

phosphorus content and seasonal plant phosphorus content was 0.14% and 0.13% during

2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively.

4.9.3: Plant potash content (%)

Data (Table 4.55) showed considerably effect of compost and NPK application on

plant potash content. On two year’s mean data basis results showed that maximum plant

potash content (1.30%) was recorded with compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-

1) application, while minimum was observed with control (no compost+ no NPK)

treatment. Results revealed that compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), NPK

alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1, compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) and compost

alone at 1124 kg ha-1 were statistically at par for plant potash content of sugarcane. Data

revealed that year’s effect was found to be non-significant on plant

153

Table 4.53: Influence of compost and NPK application on plant nitrogen content (%)




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.135 0.401 0.068 0.200

Treatment 6 1.36 1.35 0.226 0.226 52.28* 26.90*

Error 12 0.520 0.10 0.043 0.008

Total 20 1.42 1.46






Control (no compost + no NPK) 0.50 e 0.39 c 0.45 D

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 0.82 bcd 0.80 ab 0.82 ABC


Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 0.69 d 0.67 b 0.68 C

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 0.92 abc 0.89 ab 0.91 AB

Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 0.74 cd 0.71 b 0.73 BC


Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.188 0.269 0.200



154

Table 4.54: Influence of compost and NPK application on plant phosphorus content




2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.087 0.209 0.043 0.104

Treatment 6 0.169 0.160 0.028 0.027 12.04* 5.94*

Error 12 0.280 0.538 0.023 0.045

Total 20 0.205 0.235





Control (no compost + no NPK) 0.08 c 0.08 b 0.08 C


NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 0.16 ab 0.15 a 0.16 AB

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 0.12 bc 0.11 ab 0.12 BC

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 0.15 ab 0.14 a 0.15 AB



Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.044 0.060 0.041




155

Table 4.55: Influence of compost and NPK application on plant potash (%) of spring

planted sugarcane



2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15 2013-14 2014-15

Replication 2 0.586 0.221 0.293 0.110

Treatment 6 0.802 0.815 0.133 0.136 34.44* 18.29*

Error 12 0.466 0.891 0.039 0.074

Total 20 0.907 0.926





Control (no compost + no NPK) 0.67 c 0.65 b 0.66 C

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 1.11 b 1.09 a 1.10 B

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 1.25 ab 1.24 a 1.24 AB

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 1.10 b 1.07 a 1.09 B




Tukey’s HSD at P ≤ 0.05 0.178 0.246 0.197




156

potash content and seasonal plant potash content was 1.12% and 1.10% during 2013-14

and 2014-15, respectively.

4.10: Economical Analysis

As farmers are more concerned in variable costs and net returns of certain

treatments so to look the experiment from the farmer’s point of view economic analysis

becomes essential. It helps researcher to plan for further investigation or to make

recommendations to the farmers. As there were differences in yield and output price during

2013-14 and 2014-15; the analysis was made on individual year basis by using standard

procedures as mentioned in Chapter 3.

4.10.1: Net field Benefit

Farmers are more interested in variability in benefits than variability in yields,

therefore net field benefits were calculated against the variable cost. They also want to

estimate all the changes that are involved in adopting a new practice. It is therefore,

important to take into concern all inputs related with the experimental treatments. During

2013-14, more net field benefits (NFB) were recorded as compared with 2014-15 (Table

4.57 & 4.58) due to more stripped cane yield of sugarcane during the first year. Maximum

NFB of Rs. 413,125 and Rs. 393,400 ha-1 was achieved with the application of Compost

(1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) in spring planted sugarcane during 2013-14 and

2014-15, respectively (Table 4.57 & 58). The minimum NFB of Rs. 129,000 and Rs.

113,175 ha-1 was obtained in control (no compost + no NPK) during 2013-14 and 2014-15,

respectively. Increase in net field benefits with application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) +

NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) was mainly due to increase in stripped cane yield.

4.10.2: Benefit cost ratio (BCR)

Benefit cost ratio is further important to farmers because they are interested in

seeing the increase in net returns with a given increase in total costs. BCR is an indicator

that attempts to summarize the overall value for money of a project or proposal. A major

shortcoming of BCR is that it ignores non-monetized impacts. The maximum BCR of 1.80

and 1.75 was found with the application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-

1) in 2013-14 and 2014-15, respectively (Tables 4.57 & 4.58). Minimum BCR was

produced by the control (no spent wash + no NPK) during both the years (Tables 4.57 &

4.58).

157

Table 4.56 (a): Variable cost of production during during 2013-14

Treatments Nutrient

cost

(Rs.)

Yield

(t ha-1)

Hauling

charges

(Rs.)

Total variable

cost (Rs.)

Control (no compost + no NPK) - 34.4 25,800 25,800

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 21,500 96.75 72,563 94,063

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 45,000 112.9 84,675 129,675

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 27,500 77.07 57,803 85,303


Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84 kg ha-1) 39,100 92 69,000 108,100


Table 4.56 (b): Variable cost of production during during 2014-15

Treatments Nutrient

cost

(Rs.)

Yield

(t ha-1)

Hauling

charges

(Rs.)

Total

variable cost

(Rs.)

Control (no compost + no NPK) - 30.18 22,635 22,635

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 21,500 91.4 68,550 90,050

NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 45,000 107.2 80,400 125,400





158

Table 4.57: Influence of compost and NPK application on net return (Rs.), net field

benefits (Rs.) and benefit cost ratio of spring planted sugarcane during 2013-14

Treatments Variable

cost

Total

cost

Gross

income

Net

return

Net field

benefit

Benefit

cost ratio

T1 25,800 200,800 154,800 (46,000) 129,000 0.77

T2 94,063 269,063 435,375 166,313 341,313 1.62

T3 129,675 304,675 508,050 203,375 378,375 1.67

T4 85,303 260,303 346,815 86,512 261,513 1.33

T5 108,945 283,945 455,670 171,725 346,725 1.60

T6 108,100 283,100 414,000 130,900 305,900 1.46

T7 121,925 296,925 535,050 238,125 413,125 1.80




(42:28:28 kg ha-1)

Table 4.58: Influence of compost and NPK application on net return (Rs.), net field

benefits (Rs.) and benefit cost ratio of spring planted sugarcane during 2014-15

Treatments Variable

cost

Total

cost

Gross

income

Net

return

Net field

benefit

Benefit

cost ratio

T1 22,635 197,635 135,810 (61,825) 113,175 0.69

T2 90,050 265,050 411,300 146,250 321,250 1.55

T3 125,400 300,400 482,400 182,000 357,000 1.61

T4 80,728 255,728 319,365 63,638 238,638 1.25

T5 106,275 281,275 439,650 158,375 333,375 1.56

T6 104,515 279,515 392,490 112,975 287,975 1.40

T7 117,980 292,980 511,380 218,400 393,400 1.75




(42:28:28 kg ha-1)

159

4.10.3: Dominance analysis

Net field benefits (NFB) calculation is only an intermediate step in economic

analysis. As NFB does not indicate the rate of return in relation to investment, final

recommendation for some latest production technology cannot be specified to a common

farmer only on the basis of NFB. Domination is the mechanism for the identification of

good alternatives. Thus, before manipulating returns to investment, dominance analysis

was worked out. Data given in tables 4.59 & 4.60 revealed that NFB of some treatments

were less to those with lower cost. As a result these treatments were dominated (D). The

remaining (un-dominated) treatments were further considered for the marginal analysis.

It is clear from the Tables 4.59 & 4.60 that the treatments in which sugarcane was treated

with organic alone and supplemented with chemical fertilizers (compost (1124 kg ha-1) +

NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1), compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1). compost alone

at 1124 kg ha-1 and compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28kg ha-1) were not dominated

due to their lower variable cost as compared. The treatment with application of NPK

(168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone and compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84kg ha-1) was

dominated due to less net field benefit during both the years (Table 4.59 & 4.60).

4.10.4: Marginal analysis

Marginal analysis is used to assist people in allocating their limited resources to

maximize the benefit of the output produced. The advantages of the marginal analysis are

that it makes the basis of economic reasoning and it looks at the effects of a small change

in the control variable. As real differences were found in yield among different treatments,

therefore a marginal analysis was done. Tables 4.61 & 4.62 present the marginal analysis

of undominated treatments during 2013-14 and 2014-15. Maximum marginal rate of return

(513%) was obtained by the crop treated with compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg

ha-1) during 2014-15. While in the year 2013-14, crop applied compost (1124 kg ha-1) +

NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) gave maximum marginal rate of return 511%. It is clear from the

results that farmers with poor resources can accomplish maximum benefits by combined

application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) gave higher economic

returns for spring planted sugarcane.

160

Table 4.59: Influence of compost and NPK application on dominance analysis of


Treatments Variable cost Net field benefit

Control (no compost + no NPK) 25,800 129,000

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28kg ha-1) 85,303 261,513

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 94,063 341,313

Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84kg ha-1) 108,100 305,900 D

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 108,945 346,725


NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 129,675 378,375 D

D = Dominance

Table 4.60: Influence of compost and NPK application on dominance analysis of


Treatments Variable cost Net field benefit

Control (no compost + no NPK) 22,635 113,175

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28kg ha-1) 80,728 238,638

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 90,050 321,250

Compost (281 kg ha-1) + NPK (126:84:84kg ha-1) 104,515 287,975 D



NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1 125,400 357,000 D

D = Dominance

161

Table 4.61: Influence of compost and NPK application on marginal rate of return

(MRR) of spring planted sugarcane during 2013-14

Treatments Variable

cost

MVC NFB MNFB MRR

Control (no compost + no NPK) 25,800 - 129,000 - -

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28kg ha-1) 85,303 59,503 261,513 132,513 223

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 94,063 8,760 341,313 79,800 211

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 108,945 14,882 346,725 5,412 37

Compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 121,925 12,980 413,125 66,400 511

Table 4.62: Influence of compost and NPK application on marginal rate of return

(MRR) of spring planted sugarcane during 2014-15

Treatments Variable cost MVC NFB MNFB MRR

Control (no compost + no NPK) 22,635 - 113,175 - -

Compost (843 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28kg ha-1) 80,728 58093 238,638 125463 216

Compost alone at 1124 kg ha-1 90,050 9322 321,250 82612 286

Compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) 106,275 16225 333,375 12125 75

Compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) 117,980 11705 393,400 60025 513

162

DISCUSSION

Effect of compost and NPK application on growth and quantitative parameters of


Our study results showed that combined use of organic and mineral fertilizers

improved the quantitative parameters of sugarcane. It was observed that application of

Compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) promoted number of millable canes per

m2, plant height (cm), weight per stripped cane (kg), un-stripped cane yield (t ha-1) and

stripped cane yield (t ha-1) as compare to other treatments. The maximum leaf area index,

total dry matter (t ha-1), crop growth rate (g m-2 day-1) and net assimilation rate (g m-2 day-

1) was observed with application of compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) as

compared to other combination and sole application of compost and NPK. Similar results

were reported by different researchers. Varied doses of multi nutrients considerably

increased the number of millable canes from 3.94 to 7.33 (Siddiqi et al., 2006). The higher

total dry matter of 5013 g m-2 was produced in the press mud applied plots along with the

application of sulfur, zinc and NPK fertilizers as against the minimum total dry matter of

3520 g m-2 observed in the control plot receiving only NPK fertilizer (Bokhtiar and Sakurai,

2005). Patel et al. (2013) found that for securing higher yield and remuneration in rice-

sugarcane cropping sequence, application of 25% N through FYM + 25% N through

poultry manure + 50% N through inorganic fertilizers gave net return and B:C ratio close

to that obtained with 100% recommended fertilizers alone and improved the soil health in

terms of positive nutrient balance.

Kumar and Chand (2013) found that application of NPK fertilizers increased the

cane yield of plant and ratoon crops of sugarcane over N and P alone. Farm yard manure

with N and ½ P, press-mud, and compost with N and ½P, FYM + N and P, green manure

+ N and P gave at par cane yields as full NPK fertilizers alone. Press mud can serve as a

good source of organic manure (Bokhtiar et al., 2001) an alternate source of crop nutrients

and soil ameliorates (Razzaq, 2001). Dry matter, cane and sugar yields increase with

increasing nitrogen and press mud cake rates (Bangar et al., 2000). The integrated use of

press mud and urea 1:1 ratio at 180 kg ha–1 is beneficial for cane crop in calcareous soil

(Sharma et al., 2002). Filter cake increases cation exchange capacity for thirty months after

its application (Rodella et al., 1990) and its residual effect remains after four years (Viator

et al., 2002). Sharma et al. (2002) recorded an increase in number of millable canes and

yield when press mud and urea were added in 1:1 ratio than press mud alone. Incorporating

press mud into the soil increased the sugar yield and cane juice quality (Sarwar et al., 2010).

163

All the facts under study, it can be suggested to practice and popularize the integrated

nutrient management packages with nutrient recycling from available organic wastes and

reduced chemical fertilizers for improving sugar productivity, generating higher income

and sustaining soil health (Paul and Mannan, 2007). Spent wash (SW) and compost showed

significant effect on the yield of wheat and uptake of N, P, Fe, Zn, Mn and Cu (Chandraju

et al., 2011). Karki et al. (2005) showed that the recommended dose of fertilizers

(120:26.2:41.5 kg ha-1 NPK) being statistically similar to 120 kg N + 10 tonnes farmyard

manure + 5 kg zinc per hectare, recorded the highest plant height and dry matter

accumulation per plant and grain and Stover yields of maize. The maximum leaf area index

of 5.49 was obtained from the press mud treated plots along with the application of sulfur,

zinc and NPK fertilizers that was closely followed by farm yard manure + S + Zn + NPK

and S + Zn + NPK treatments, while the minimum LAI of sugarcane crop was noted in the

plots treated with NPK alone. Analysis showed that press mud and farm yard manure

contained micronutrients along with NPK (Bokhtiar and Sakurai, 2005).

Use of compost can be beneficial to improve organic matter status in soil because

compost is rich source of nutrients with high organic matter content. Depletion of nutrients

and poor organic matter contents of Pakistani soils can only be replenished by applying

compost to these soils (Sarwar, 2012). The combination of compost with chemical fertilizer

further enhanced the biomass and grain yield of both crops (Sarwar et al., 2007). Farmers

practicing rice-wheat system in Pakistan particularly and elsewhere in the world generally

under similar climatic and soil conditions are recommended to compost the rice and wheat

straw coupled with animal dung and other crop residues instead of burning or wasting

otherwise. The composts such prepared will not only supplement the chemical fertilizers

but also reduce the environmental pollution. In this strategy, the cost of production is also

reduced. Hence, higher yield with resultantly more income is expected for the farming

community in this system of farming. The overall fertility and productivity of the land can

be improved on sustainable basis (Sarwer et al., 2008). Combinations of organic and

mineral N fertilizers with and without Zn application performed better for maize LAI, yield

and nutrient uptake. Farmyard manure (25% N-basis) + 4 kg Zn ha-1 performed better than

N fertilizer alone (100%) for maize production. The study led to the conclusion that the

synergistic use of nitrogen sources (FYM and chemical fertilizer at 25:75 N ratio) is

advantageous over the sole application of mineral fertilizer. Farm yard manure and Zn

fertilization further enhanced the crop growth and yield. Twenty percent increase in maize

yield with the above mentioned IPNM strategy makes the system economically incentive

164

based (Sarwar et al., 2012). The composting process should also minimized potential auto

toxic effects to ratoon sugarcane crops or allelopathic effects on other crops that can occur

when postharvest sugarcane residues are left on the field (Viator et al., 2006).

Gutser et al. (2005) studied the effect of bio-compost with and without mineral

nitrogen fertilizer applied to barley optimized corn, winter wheat and summer (crop

rotation) in a randomized field experiment on a Luvisol in southwestern Germany. The

purpose of their experiment was to evaluate the effect of bio-compost application on crop

yield and N-net mineralization in soil. In the treatment of bio-compost application (100 kg

total N ha-1, which is about 7.5 TDM) with optimized performance mineral N fertilization

of spring barley (1999) and maize (2000) was higher than in the mineral N treatment

without optimized bio-compost application. Similar results were obtained with the rate of

application of bio-compost higher (400 kg total N ha-1, which is about 30 t MS) without

additional mineral N fertilization. The yield increase can be attributed to improved soil

structure in the Luvisols. Chandrashekar et al. (2000) reported that the application of

poultry manure @ 10 t ha-1 along with 100% recommended dose of fertilizers (150:75:37.5

kg NPK ha-1) recorded significantly higher grain (50.8 q ha-1) and stover (74.4 q ha-1) yield

of maize than vermicompost and only RDF. Nanjappa et al. (2001) reported that combined

application of 50 or 75% recommended dose of fertilizer with 12 tonnes per hectare FYM

or 2.7 t ha-1 vermicompost caused higher productivity of maize compared with the

application of either only inorganic fertilizer or organic sources.

Keshavaiah et al. (2013) obtained significantly higher sugarcane yield of 170.33 t

ha-1 when nutrients were applied with 50% N through press mud and 50% NPK through

fertilizers + bio fertilizers. Kumar and chand, (2013) found that the yields of both plant and

ratoon cane were enhanced by 27.7 and 16.2%, respectively by the application of 100%

NPK + 25% N through FYM + bio fertilizers (Azotobacter + PSB) in plant cane following

100% NPK + trash incorporation with cellulolytic culture + biofertilizers in ratoon.

Venkatakrishnan and Ravichandran, (2012) found that basal application of seasoned press

mud at the rate of 25 t ha-1 and application of 100% RDF + lignite fly ash @ 25 t ha-1 +

humic acid 50 kg ha-1 was the best INM combination for sustained sugarcane productivity

and soil fertility on the sandy loam soil. Ashok et al. (2005) recorded maximum yield of

maize when 100% NPK was applied with farmyard manure at the rate of 10 t ha-1. From

the results under field studies, it was confirmed that the integrated application of 25-50%

reduced recommended chemical fertilizers along with nutrients by recycling from organic

165

wastes of press mud at 10-20 t and rice mill ash at 10 t ha-1 produced higher yields in plant

and ratoon sugarcane (Paul and Mannan, 2007).

Effect of compost alone and in combination with NPK on quality, plant nutrient

content and economic analysis of sugarcane

Our study results revealed that combined use of organic and chemical fertilizers

increased the NPK parameters of sugarcane. Improvement in NPK contents by combined

use of compost and NPK might be due to the application of compost increased organic

matter content, available phosphorus and exchangeable potassium of soil and improved the

porosity and water holding capacity of the soil and it also reduced soil temperature

fluctuations, reduced evaporation of soil water, and influenced the levels of some nutrients

measured in plant. Because physical conditions of soil has been improved that’s why

nutrient uptake was more in plant that effect crop yield. The maximum benefit cost ratio

(BCR) and net field benefit was gained by compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-

1) application. Maximum marginal rate of return (513%) was obtained by the crop treated

with compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) during 2014-15. The uptake of

nutrients (N, P, K and S) was found higher from the press mud treated plots along with the

application of sulfur, zinc and NPK fertilizers and in plots with farm yard manure + S + Zn

+ NPK as against the only inorganic fertilizer received treatment (Bokhtiar and Sakurai,

2005). Soils in which legumes are grown and compost and Farm Yard Manure (FYM)

incorporated contain enough suitable phosphoric acid, potash and lime (Rao and Rao,

1982).

Kaur et al. (2005) compared the change of chemical and biological properties in

soils receiving FYM, poultry manure and sugarcane filter cake alone or in combination

with chemical fertilizers for seven years under a cropping sequence of pearl millet and

wheat. All treatments except chemical fertilizer application improved the soil organic C,

total N, P and K status. Increase in microbial biomass C and N was observed in soils

receiving organic manures alone or with the combined application of organic manures and

chemical fertilizers compared to soils receiving chemical fertilizers. Nanjappa et al. (2001)

noticed that combined application of organic and inorganic chemical fertilizers not only

increased the availability of nutrients but also their uptake by the crop. The uptake of N, P

and K by maize was higher due to application of 75% recommended dose of fertilizer + 2.7

t ha-1 vermicompost. However, the application of either 24 t ha-1 FYM or 10.8 t ha-1

vermicompost registered the lower nutrient uptake. The reason of high uptake of nutrients

by soil applied compost along with chemical fertilizers was that it beside improving soil

166

quality also supplied micro, macro nutrient to soil, increase uptake of nutrients to plant that

flourish the plant growth that was observed in compost application due to supplying of

more readily available nutrients.

Sarwar et al. (2009) also found similar results. They concluded that maximum NPK

uptake by plant where integrated nutrient management practices was adopted as compare

to sole application method. In pot experiment, it was found that combined application of

the organic waste (press mud / cow dung sugarcane trash / mustard oil cake) at 2 g C kg t

soil with chemical N increased mineral N, and microbial biomass C and N contents in soil

(Paul and Mannan, 2007). Yaduvanshi (2001) reported that continuous rice-wheat cropping

for five years slightly increased the available N with the use of fertilizer N in combination

with P and K fertilizers. However, available N content of the plant significantly increased

with green manuring, compost and FYM treatments. Sihag et al. (2005) reported that

application of chemical fertilizers alone or in combination with organic manures

significantly increased all the forms of nitrogen except unidentified hydrolysable N over

control or their initial status. Among the various N fractions, amino acid N was the

dominant N fraction. On an average, amino acid, amino sugar, ammonia N and unidentified

hydrolysable N constituted about 33.2, 8.9, 29.0 and 29.8% of total hydrolysable N.

Singh et al. (2005) reported that there was a buildup of available N due to addition

of organic or inorganic sources of N either alone or in combination. Maximum increase in

available N was observed with the application of 60 kg N ha-1 from urea + Azolla. This

might be due to higher supply of N through urea and atmospheric nitrogen fixation by

Azolla. Sihag et al. (2005) noticed highest amount of all the forms of phosphorus under

farmyard manure followed by green manuring and press mud treatments. Averaged across

treatments, soloed P constituted about 2% of the total phosphorus. The Al-P and Fe-P

accounted for 8.4 and 12.1% of total P respectively. The Ca-P accounted for nearly 44% of

total P. Mann et al. (2006) reported that available phosphorus content increased to 15.1,

18.4, 27.5 and 38.7 kg ha-1 from the initial value of 13.7 in 50, 100, 150% NP and 100%

NPK + farmyard manure treatments, respectively. The higher buildup of available

phosphorus occurs because phosphorus use efficiency ranges between 16 to 32% all over

the year. Therefore, the adsorption of phosphorus on soil colloids increased its content in

the soil.

167

CHAPTER V

SUMMARY

The present studies were planned to evaluate the comparative effect of by-products

of sugar industry and inorganic fertilizers on spring planted sugarcane. Studies were

comprised of two sets of field experiments. Both the experiments were laid out in

randomized complete block design (RCBD) in three replications and were conducted for

two consecutive years i.e. 2013 and 2014 at research farm, Shakarganj Sugar Research

Institute (SSRI), Shakarganj Mills Limited, Jhang. Sugarcane variety S2003-US-114 (CPF

248) was used as medium for the trials. The net plot size 4.9 m × 9 m was maintained and

crop was sown in the pattern of 1.20 m spaced double row strips using seed rate of 75000

double budded sets ha-1. All other agronomic practices were kept normal and uniform. Data

regarding growth, quantitative and qualitative characteristics of cane were recorded and

analyzed using Tukey’s HSD techniques.

Experiment I

“Agronomic assessment of spent wash as nutrient supplement for spring planted

sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.)” was comprise of different applications of spent

wash and NPK levels viz. spent wash (160 t ha-1) alone, NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone,

spent wash @ 120 t ha-1 + NPK @ 42:28:28 kg ha-1, spent wash @ 80 t ha-1 + NPK @

84:56:56 kg ha-1, spent wash @ 40 t ha-1 + NPK @ 126:84:84 kg ha-1 and spent wash @

160 t ha-1 + NPK @ 42:28:28 kg ha-1. All these treatments were compare with control (no

spent wash + no NPK). The results are summarized below:

Growth parameters like leaf area index, leaf area duration, crop growth rate and net

assimilation rate was significantly increased by combined application of spent wash and

NPK. Treatment combination T5 (spent wash @ 80 t ha-1 + NPK @ 84:56:56 kg ha-1)

showed the best results in this regard. Highest values of all these parameters obtained under

this treatment (T5). While combination spent wash @ 160 t ha-1 + NPK @ 42:28:28 kg ha-

1 (T7) and NPK 168:112:112 kg ha-1 alone (T3) were statistically similar with T5. The

performance of control (no spent wash + no NPK) was at bottom. Quantitative traits

including number of tillers (m-2), number of millable cane (m-2), number of internodes per

cane, length of internodes (cm), cane girth (cm), plant height (cm), cane length (cm), weight

per stripped cane (kg), unstripped cane yield (t ha-1) and stripped cane yield (t ha-1) were

affected by the application of spent wash and NPK combination. The maximum values of

168

these traits were recorded in those plots where spent wash and NPK was applied at

combination rate of spent wash @ 80 t ha-1 + NPK @ 84:56:56 kg ha-1. Treatment

combination T7 and T3 again performed statistically similar results as T5. Minimum value

were recorded in control (no spent wash + no NPK). The maximum stripped cane yield was

obtained with spent wash @ 80 t ha-1 + NPK @ 84:56:56 kg ha-1 during 2013-14 which is

22% more than the NPK (168:112:112 kg ha-1) alone application.

All the quality parameters except cane fiber content (%) were improved with the

application of medium level of nutrient combination i.e spent wash @ 80 t ha-1 + NPK @

84:56:56 kg ha-1. Values of brix (%), Pol (%), commercial cane sugar (%) and sugar

recovery (%) increase by this level. All other treatment combination performed statistically

closely related with combination (T5). Minimum values of these parameters were recorded

where no spent wash and no NPK used (control). The uptake of NPK by crop was maximum

when the treatment combination T5 (spent wash @ 80 t ha-1 + NPK @ 84:56:56 kg ha-1)

was applied which was at par with T7 (spent wash @ 160 t ha-1 + NPK @ 42:28:28 kg ha-

1) and T3 (NPK 168:112:112 kg ha-1 alone) (T3). The minimum uptake of these nutrients

(NPK) were recorded in control condition (no spent wash + no NPK). Economic analysis

was also in agreement with the above mentioned results. The maximum net field benefit

(NFB) and benefit cost ratio (BCR) were obtained with T5 (spent wash @ 80 t ha-1 + NPK

@ 84:56:56 kg ha-1). It is concluded that all nutrient combinations significantly improved

growth, yield and quality of spring planted sugarcane when compared with control (no

spent wash + no NPK) application. However, significantly higher growth, yield and cane

quality was observed in canes exposed to spent wash @ 80 t ha-1 with NPK @ 84:56:56 kg

ha-1. Similar trend of growth, yield and quality of cane was recorded when compared in

term of planting years with minute differences among the recorded traits. Economic

analysis executed therein are also in agreement of the aforementioned results.

Experiment II


sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) was studied which comprise different compost and

NPK combinations viz. compost @ 1124 kg ha-1 alone, NPK @ 168:112:112 kg ha-1 alone,

compost @ 843 kg ha-1 + NPK @ 42:28:28 kg ha-1, compost @ 562 kg ha-1 + NPK @

84:56:56 kg ha-1, compost @ 281 kg ha-1 + NPK @ 126:84:84 kg ha-1 and compost @ 1124

kg ha-1 + NPK @ 42:28:28 kg ha-1. One treatment was control (no spent wash + no

NPK).The results are summarized below:

169

There was significantly increased growth parameters like leaf area index, leaf area

duration, crop growth rate and net assimilation rate by combined application of compost

and NPK. Treatment combination T7 (Compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1))

showed the better results in this regard. Maximum values of all these parameters obtained

under this treatment (T7). While combination NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha -1 (T3) and

compost (562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) (T5) were statistically similar with T7. The

performance of control (no compost + no NPK) was remained at lowest level. Quantitative

traits including number of tillers (m-2), number of millable cane (m-2), number of internodes

per cane, length of internodes (cm), cane girth (cm), plant height (cm), cane length (cm),

weight per stripped cane (kg), unstripped cane yield (t ha-1) and stripped cane yield (t ha-1)

were affected by the application of compost and NPK combination. The maximum values

of these traits were recorded in those plots where compost and NPK was applied at

combination rate of compost 1124 kg ha-1 + NPK 42:28:28 kg ha-1. Treatment combination

T3 and T5 again performed statistically similar results with T7. Minimum value were

recorded in control (no compost + no NPK). The maximum stripped cane yield was

obtained with compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK (42:28:28 kg ha-1) during 2013-14.

All the quality parameters except cane fiber content (%) were improved with the

application of appropriate level of nutrient combination i.e compost (1124 kg ha-1) + NPK

(42:28:28 kg ha-1. Values of brix (%), Pol (%), commercial cane sugar (%) and sugar

recovery (%) increase by this level. All other treatment combination performed statistically

closely related with combination (T7). Minimum values of these parameters were recorded

where no compost and no NPK used (control). The uptake of NPK by crop was maximum

when the treatment combination T7 (compost @ 1124 kg ha-1 + NPK @ 42:28:28 kg ha-1)

was applied which was at par with T3 (NPK alone at 168:112:112 kg ha-1) and compost

(562 kg ha-1) + NPK (84:56:56 kg ha-1) (T3). The minimum uptake of these nutrients (NPK)

were recorded in control condition (no compost + no NPK). Economic analysis executed

therein are also in agreement of the aforementioned results. The maximum net field benefit

(NFB) and benefit cost ratio (BCR) were obtained with T7 (compost @ 1124 kg ha-1 +

NPK @ 42:28:28 kg ha-1).Similar trend of growth, yield and quality of cane was recorded

when compared in term of planting years with minute differences among the recorded traits.

Growth, yield and quality of spring planted sugarcane was significantly improved with all

nutrient combinations over control. Economic analysis executed therein are also in

agreement of the aforementioned results.

Salient findings of the study

170

• Cane residue based on soil amendments in the form of spent wash and compost

integrated with NPK fertilizers proved rich source of nutrition for sugarcane as

indicated by increased growth, yield and quality.

• Significantly better growth, higher yield and improved cane quality was observed

by the application of spent wash @ 80 t ha-1 and NPK @ 84:56:56 kg ha-1. Similarly

application of compost @ 1124 kg ha-1 and NPK @ 42:28:28 kg ha-1 also recorded

significantly higher growth, yield and improved cane quality during both of the

years of cane crop.

• Successful integrated use of spent wash and compost with NPK fertilizers helped

in reducing the cost of production and excessive use of synthetic fertilizers. This

strategy contributed for cheaper, better and improved cane production.

FUTURE RESEARCH THRUST

• Effect of spent wash and processed cane compost on other crops needs to be

assessed for improved crop productivity.

• Impact of SW and compost on soil microbial and physical transformation need to

be investigated.

• Foliar application of SW on cane and other crops may be investigated for its

nutritive and other possible effects.

• Biochemical and physiological investigation of use of spent wash and compost as

nutrient supplement is needed.

• Method of application and transport of spent wash is one tedious and costly avenue.

Processing of spent wash for its efficient application demands research in this area.

171

LITERATURE CITED

Acharya, C.L. Bishnoi, S.K. and H.S. Yadhuvanshi. 1988. Effect of long-term application

of fertilizers and organic and inorganic amendments under continuous cropping on

soil physical and chemical properties in Alfisols. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 58: 509-516.

Agarwal, L.G., N.K. Shekon, A.S. Sidhu and Mahant. 1995. Plant water status of maize

and succeeding wheat grown on organically amended soils. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci.

43: 152-155.

Ahmad, W., Z. Shah, F. Khan, S. Ali and W. Malik. 2013. Maize yield and soil properties

as influenced by integrated use of organic, inorganic and biofertilizers in a low

fertility soil. Soil and Environ. 32: 121-129.

Alam, S.M. 1999. Nutrient uptake by plants under stress condition. In: Handbook of plant

and crop stress. Ed. M Pessarakli. Marcel Dakker. Publishers. New York. U.S.A.

pp: 285-313.

Alam, S.M. and S.A. Shah. 2003. Effect of individual versus integrated use of phosphatic

fertilizer on P uptake and yield of maize and wheat. Pak. J. Soil Sci. 22: 74-80.

Alam, S.M., S.A. Shah, S. Ali and M.M. Iqbal. 2003. Effect of integrated use of industrial

wastes and chemical fertilizer on phosphorus uptake and crop yields. Pak. J. Soil

Sci. 22: 81-86.

Alok, K. and D.S. Yadav. 1993. Effect of long-term fertilization on soil fertility and yield

under rice-wheat cropping system. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 41: 178-180.

Amar, B.S., B. Ashisk and R. Sivakoti. 2003. Effect of distillery effluent on plant and soil

enzymatic activities and ground nut quality. Journal of Plant Nutrition and Soil

Science, 166: 345-347.

Amegashie, V.S. 2014. Waste management and environmental sustainability in ghana:

challenges and strategies of the ketu north assembly in managing waste. Public

Policy and Administration Research, 8: 20-44.

Ashok, K.R.C., G.R. Singh and K.S. Rana. 2005. Growth, yield and economics of maize

(Zea mays) wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping sequence as influenced by

integrated nutrient management. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 75: 709-711.

Babhulkar, R.M., W.P. Wandile and S.S. Balpande. 2000. Residual effect of long-term

application of FYM and fertilizers on soil properties (Vertisols) and yield of

soybean. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 48: 89-92.

172

Babu, R. and V.C. Reddy. 2000. Effect of nutrient sources on growth and yield of direct

seeded rice (Oryza sativa L.). Crop Res. 19: 189-193.

Badawy, S. H. and R. A. Elmataium. 2009. Effect of irradiated and non-irradiated sewage

sludge application on some nutrient-heavy metal content of soil and tomato plant.

1st Congress on Recent Technology on Agriculture. Bulletin Faculty Agriculture.

University of Cairo, pp. 728-744.

Bajpai, P.D. and S.P. Dua. 2002. Studies on the utility of distillery effluent (spent wash)

for its manurial value on soil properties. Indian sugar. pp: 687-690.

Bajwa, M.I. 1990. Soil fertility management for sustainable agriculture. Proc. 3rd National.

Congress of Soil Science, held at Lahore from 20th to 22nd March, pp: 7-25.

Balaji, S.K. 1994. Effect of vermicompost on growth and flower yield of China aster

(Callistephus chinensis). M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad (India).

Balasubramaniam P., R.A. Silviya, K. Nagarajan and A. Tajuddin. 2013. Effect of graded

levels of Treated Sugarcane Distillery Effluent with Soil Test Based NPK on Yield

and Nutrient Uptake of Rice (Oryza sativa L.) in Sandy Clay Loam soil.

International Journal of Chemical, Environmental and Biological Sciences, 1: 380-

382.

Baloch, S.M., I.H. Shah, I. Hussain and K. Abdullah. 2002. Low sugar production in

Pakistan causes and remedies. Pak. Sugar Journal. pp: 13-14.

Banerjee, A.C., I. Bajwa, K.K. Bahal. 2004. Effect of distillery effluents on growth of

Casuarina equisetifolia. Pollution Research, 23: 179-182.

Bangar, K.S., B.B. Parmar and A. Maini. 2000. Effect of nitrogen and pressmud application

on yield and uptake of N, P and K by sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). Crop

Research (Hisar), 19: 198-203.

Baskar, K. 2003. Effect of integrated use of inorganic fertilizers and FYM or green leaf

manure on uptake and nutrient use efficiency of rice-rice system on an in ceptisol.

J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 51: 47-51.

Bayer Crop Sciences. 2014. Bayer crop sciences Pakistan. (Accessed on 27/11/2014),

www.bayercropscience.com.pk.

Bellakki, M. A., V.P. Badanur and R.A. Shetty. 1998. Effect of long term integrated

nutrient management on some important properties of vertisol. J. Indian Soc. Soil

Sci. 46: 176-180.

http://www.bayercropscience.com.pk/

http://www.bayercropscience.com.pk/

173

Bellakki, M.A. and V.P. Badanur. 1997. Long-term effect of integrated nutrient

management on properties of vertisol under dry land agriculture. J. Indian Soc. Soil

Sci. 45: 438-442.

Bhambhro, S.N. 2002. Daily Dawn, Pakistan December, 25.

Bhanavase, D.B., A.J. Patil and S.D. Kulkarni. 1992. Studies on recycling of crop residues

in soil and its effects on rabi sorghum under dryland condition. Proc. Nation. Sem.

Organic Farm. Pune, pp. 18-20.

Bhandari, A.L., A.S. Sharma and D.S. Rana. 1992. Integrated nutrient management in a

rice wheat system. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 40: 742-747.

Bharagava, R.N., R. Chandra and V. Rai. 2008. Phytoextraction of trace elements and

physiological changes in Indian mustard plants (Brassica nigra L.) grown in post

methanated distillery effluent (PMDE) irrigated soil. Biore. Tech. 99: 8316-8324.

Biju, J. 1994. Studies on phosphorus in soybean-wheat crop sequence in vertisols. M.Sc.

(Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, Karnataka (India).

Biswas, A.K., M. Mohanty, K.M. Hati and A.K. Misra. 2009. Distillery effluents effect on

soil organic carbon and aggregate stability of a vertisol in India. Soil and Tillage

Research, 104: 241-246.

Bokhtiar, S.M. and K. Sakurai. 2005. Effect of application of inorganic fertilizers on

growth, yield and quality of sugarcane. Sug. Tech. pp: 33-37.

Bokhtiar, S.M., G.C. Paul, M.A. Rashid and A.B.M. Rahman. 2001. Effect of pressmud

and oganic nitrogen on soil fertility and yield of sugarcane grown in high gangs

river flood plain soils of Bangladesh. Indian Sugar, 1: 235-240.

Boopathy, R., T. Beary and P.J. Templet. 2001. Microbial decomposition of post-harvest

sugarcane residue. Bioresource Technology, 79: 29-33.

Braddock, D. and P. Downs. 2001. Waste water irrigation strategy for increasing sugarcane

production. Intl. Soc. of Sugarcane Technologists, 20: 171-173.

Chand, S., M. Anwar and D.D. Patra. 2006. Influence of long-term application of organic

and inorganic fertilizer to build up soil fertility and nutrient uptake in mint mustard

cropping sequence. Communications in Soil Science and Plant Analysis, 37: 63-76.

Chandraju, S. and H.C. Basavaraju. 2007. Impact of distillery spent wash on seed

germination and growth of leaves vegetables. Sugar J. 38: 20-50.

Chandraju, S., C. Thejovathi and C.S.C. Kumar. 2011. Impact of distillery spent wash

irrigation on sprouting and growth of gardenia (rubi aceae) flowering plant. J.

Chem. Pharm. Res. 3: 376-381.

174

Chandraju, S., C. Thejovathil and C.S.C. Kumar. 2012. Experimental study on the reuse of

distillery spent wash on sprouting, growth and yield of nerium oleander

(Apocynaceae) flowering plant. International Journal of Pharmaceutical, Chemical

and Biological Sciences, pp: 588-594.

Chandraju, S., H.C. Basavaraju and C.S. Chidankumar. 2008. Investigation of impact of

Irrigation of distillery spent wash on the growth, yield and nutrients of leafy

vegetable. Chem. Env. Res. pp: 17-23.

Chandrashekar, C.P., S.I. Harlapur, S. Muralikrishna and G.K. Girijesh. 2000. Response of

maize to organic manures with inorganic fertilizers. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 13:

144-146.

Chawla, K.L. and R. Chabra. 1991. Physical properties of a gypsum amended sodic soil as

affected by long-term use of fertilizers. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 39: 40-45.

Cheema, M.A., W. Farhad, M.F. Saleem, H.Z. Khan, A. Munir, M.A. Wahid, F. Rasul and

H.M. Hammad. 2010. Nitrogen management strategies for sustainable maize

production. Crop and Environment, 1: 49-52.

Chopra, N. and T.K. Ganguly. 1988. Efficiency of different sources of nitrogen in relation

to yield and quality of maize (Zea mays L.) and their residual effect on succeeding

rape (Brassica campestris). Indian J. Agric. Chem. 21: 187-192.

CIMMYT. 1988. From agronomic data to farmers recommendations: An economics

training manual. Completely revised edition. Mexico. D.F.

Darandale, V.E. 2015. Influence of Integrated Nutrient Management on the Growth, Yield

and Nutrient Uptake on Sugarcane. Journal of Basic Sciences, pp: 111-114.

Das, M., B.P. Singh, M. Ram, B.S. Dwivedi and R.N. Prasad. 1991. Effect of phosphorus

fertilizers amended organic manure on P nutrition of crops under mid altitude of

Meghalaya. Ann. Agric. Res. 12: 134-141.

Dashora, P. and S. Gupta. 2012. Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield, nutrient

uptake and changes in soil fertility under sugarcane-ratoon system in sub humid

agro eco-system of Rajasthan. Crop Res. 43: 216-221.

Dashora, R. and S. Gupta. 2012. Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield, nutrient

uptake and changes in soil fertility under sugarcane ratoon system in subhumid agro

eco-system of Rajasthan. Crop Res. 43: 216-221.

Devarajan, L., G. Rajanan, G. Ramanathan and G. Oblisami. 2004. Performance of field

crops under distillery effluent irrigations. Kisan World, 21: 48-50.

175

Devarajan, L.O. and G. Oblisami. 1995. Effect of distillery effluent on soil fertility status,

yield and quality of rice. Madras Agri. J. 82: 664-665.

Devarajan, R., G. Ramanathan, K. Shanmugam and V. Ravikumar. 1980. Note on effect of

organic manures on uptake of micronutrients by sorghum. The Madras Agri. J. 67:

128-130.

Diacono, M. and F. Montemurro. 2010. Long-term effects of organic amendments on soil

fertility. A review. Agronomy for sustainable development, Agron. Sustain. Dev.

30: 401-422.

Diangan J., M. Perez and R. Claveria. 2008. Analysis of land application as a method of

disposal of distillery effluent Int. J. Env. Health, pp: 258- 271.

Dillewijn, C.V. 1952. Botany of sugarcane. The Chronica Botanica Co. Book Dept.,

Waltham, Mass. USA. pp: 59-151.

Donalid, C.M. and J. Hamblin. 1976. The biological and harvest index of cereals of

agronomic and plant breeding criteria. Advances in Agronomy, 28: 361-405.

Dutta, S., R. Pal, A. Chakeraborty and K. Chakrabarti. 2003. Influence of integrated plant

nutrient phosphorus and sugarcane and sugar yields. Field Crop Research, 77:43-

49.

Elsayed, M.T., M.H. Babiker, M.E. Abdelmalik, O.N. Mukhtar and D. Montange. 2008.

Impact of filter mud applications on the germination of sugarcane and small seeded

plants and on soil and sugarcane nitrogen contents. Bioresource Tech. pp: 4164-

4168.

FAO Stat. 2011. Statistical Database. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO).

www.faostat.fao.org.

Forum, A., C. Fortun and C. Ortega. 1989. Effect of farmyard manure and its humic

fractions on the aggregate stability of a sandy loam soil. J. Soil Sci. 40: 293-298.

Garg, V.K., Y.K. Yadav, S. Sheoran, S. Chand and P. Kausik. 2006. Live stocks excreta

management through vermin composting using an epigeic earthworm

Eiseniafoetida. Environmentalist, 26: 269-276.

Ghaffar, A., E.N. Akbar and S.H. Khan. 2011. Influence of zinc and iron on yield and

quality of sugarcane planted under various trench spacings. Pak. J. Agri. Sci. 48:

25-33.

Gholve, S.G., S.G. Kumbhar and D.S. Bhoite. 2001. Recycling of various conventional and

non-conventional organic sources in adsali sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.)

planted with different patterns. Indian Sugar, 1: 23-27.

http://www.faostat.fao.org/

176

Gitari, J.N. and D.K. Friesen. 2001. The use of organic/inorganic soil amendaments for

enhancing maize production in centeral highlands of Kenya. In Friesen DK, Palmer

AFE, Integrated Approaches to Higher Maize Productivity in new Millennium:

Proceedings of the Seventh Eastern and Southern Regional Maize Conference,

CIMMYT and KARI, Nairobi, Kenya, pp: 367-371.

Gonzales, M.Y. and A.P. Tianco. 2002. Effect of volume and time of application of

distillery slops on growth and yield of sugarcane. Proc. of 29th Ann. Conven. Sugar

Technology Association Ag. Philippines, pp. 467-490.

Gopal, H., C. Kayalvizhi, M. Baskar, M.S.C. Bose and M. Sivanandham. 2001. Effect of

distillery effluent on changes in soil properties, microbial population, yield and

quality of sugarcane in sandy soils. Sugar Technologists Association of India, pp:

55-58.

Government of Pakistan. 1984. Analysis manual of soil, plant and water. Soil Fertility and

Soil Testing Institute, Deptt. Agric. Punjab, Pakistan. pp: 16-72.

Government of Pakistan. 2010. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan 2010-2011. Ministry of

Food, Agric. and Livestock (Economics Wing), Islamabad, Page: 17-18.

Government of Pakistan. 2012. Agricultural Statistics of Pakistan 2012-2013. Ministry of

Food, Agric. and Livestock (Economics Wing), Islamabad, Page: 20.36.

Gutser, R., T. Ebertseder, A. Weber, M. Schraml, U. Schmidhalter. 2005. Short term and

residual availability of nitrogen after long-term application of organic fertilizers on

arable land. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 168: 439-446.

Haghighi, B.F., Z. Yarmahmodi and O. Alizadeh. 2010. Evaluation the effects of biological

fertilizer on physiological characteristic and yield and its components of Corn (Zea

mays L.) under drought stress. American Journal of Agricultural and Biological

Sciences, 5: 189-193.

Harris, P.J.C., M. Allison, M. Smith, G. Kindness and J. Kelly. 2001. The Potential use of

waste stream products for soil amelioration in peri-urban interface agricultural

production systems. Indian J. Agron. 42: 188-190.

Huang, B., W.Z. Sun, Y.Z. hao, J. hu, R. Yang, Z. Zou, F. Ding and J. Su. 2007. Temporal

and spatial variability of soil organic matter and total nitrogen in an agricultural

ecosystem as affected by farming practices. Geoderma, 139: 336-345.

Hundekar, S.T.1992. Influence of organic residues and fertilizers on soil properties,

nutrient uptake and sorghum yield. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.

Dharwad (India).

177

Hunt, R. 1978. Plant growth analysis. Edward Arnold U.K. pp: 26-38.

Hussain, S.Z. and S. Afghan. 2001. Efficacy of pre emergence application of different

herbicides in sugar cane. Pak. Sugar Journal. pp: 45-50.

Ibragimov, A.C. 1990. Nutrient uptake and accumulation in maize grown in sandy soils.

Izvestiya akademii nauk turkemenskoi. SSR. Seriya Biologicheskikb Nauck, 1: 29-

34.

Ibrahim, M., A. Hassan, M. Iqbal and E.E. Valeem. 2008. Response of wheat growth and

yield to various levels of compost and organic manure. Pak. J. Bot. 40: 2135-2141.

Ibrahim, M., N. Ahmad, A. Rashid and M. Saeed. 1992. Use of press mud as source of

phosphorus for sustainable agriculture. In: Proc. Symp. “On Role of Phosphorus in

crop production”, NFDC, technical research report, pp: 293-301.

Jackson, M.L. 1962. Chemical composition of soil. In F.E. Bean (ed.) Chemistry of soil.

van Nostrand Reinheld Co. New York, pp: 71-144.

Jadhav, S.B., M.B. Jadhav, V.A, Joshi and P.B. Jagtap. 1993. Organic farming in the light

of reduction in use of chemical fertilizers. Proc. 43rd Ann. Deccan Sugar Technol.

Assoc., Pune Part-I, pp: 53-65.

Joshi, H.C., N. Karla, A. Choudhury and D.L. Deb. 1994. Environmental issues related

with distillery effluent utilization in agriculture in India. Asia Pacific Journal of

Environment Development, 1: 92-103.

Kakde, J.R. 1985. Growth and sugarcane production. Metropolitan Book Co. Pvt. Ltd. New

Delhi, Ind. pp: 69-75.

Kalaiselvi, P. and S. Mahimairaja. 2009. Effect of biomethanated spent wash on soil

enzymatic activities. Botany Research International. pp: 267-272.

Kaloi, G.M., M. Memon, K.S. Memon and S. Tunio. 2015. Integrated use of spent wash

water and mineral fertilizers on germination and initial growth of sugarcane

(Saccharum officinarum L.). Soil Environ. 34: 01-08.

Kanimozhi, R. and N. Vasudevan. 2010. An over view of waste water treatment in distillery

industry. Int. J. Env. Engineering, pp: 159-184.

Kannan, A. and R.K. Upreti. 2008. Influence of distillery effluent on germination and

growth of mung bean (Vigna radiata L.) seeds. Journal of Hazardous Material, 53:

609-615.

Karki, T.B., Ashok K. and R.C. Gautam. 2005. Influence of integrated nutrient

management on growth, yield, content and uptake of nutrients and soil fertility

status in maize (Zea mays). Indian J. Agric. Sci. 75: 682-685.

178

Kaur, K., K.K. Kapoor and A.P. Gupta. 2005. Impact of organic manures with and without

mineral fertilization on soil chemical and biological properties under tropical

conditions. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 168: 117–122.

Kayalvizhi, C., H.I. Gopal, M. Baskar, M.S.C. Bose and M. Sivanandham. 2001. Recycling

of distillery effluent in agriculture effect on soil properties and sugarcane yield.

Sugar Technologists Association of India, pp: 146-156.

Keshavaiah, K.V., Y.B. Palled, C. Shankaraiah, H.T. Channal, B.S. Nandihalli and K.S.

Jagadeesha. 2013. Effect of nutrient management practices on nutrient dynamics

and performance of sugarcane. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci. 25: 187-192.

Khalil, I.A. and A. Jan. 2010. Cropping technology. National book foundation Islamabad,

pp: 268-275.

Khan, K.S., S. Rehman, G. Ahmad, D. Khan and G. Rehman. 1997. Effect of foliar

application of micronutrients on the yield and yield components of sugarcane. Proc.

32nd Ann. Conv., Pak. Soc. Sug. Tech. Rawalpindi.

Khan, S.A. and J. Srivastava. 1996. Distillery waste (effluent) utilization in agriculture.

International conference India. Plant and Environment Pollution, pp: 26-30.

Khanam, M., M.M. Rahman and M.R. Islam. 2001. Effect of manures and fertilizers on the

growth and yield of BRRI Dhan 30. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 4: 172-174.

Khandagave, R.B. 2003. Influence of organic and inorganic manure on sugarcane and sugar

yield. Indian Sugar, 52: 981-989.

Kher, D. and R.S. Minhas. 1991. Effect of fertilizer application, manuring and liming on

the yield and micronutrients uptake by maize and wheat under mid-hilly conditions

of Himachal Pradesh. Crop Res. 4: 165-168.

Koni, S.B. 1983. A study on crop residue management in chilli (Capsicum annuum L.)

production. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Bangalore (India).

Krishna, K. and Leelavathi. 2002. Toxicity of sugar factory effluent to germination, vigour

index and chlorophyll content of paddy. Nature Environ. Pollut. Tech. pp: 249-253.

Krishnamoorthy, T. 1995. Studies on integrated nutrient management in kharif sorghum

(Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) in transitional tract. M. Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ.

Agric. Sci. Dharwad India.

Krishnamurthy, K. 1991. Effect of sources and methods of phosphorus application on the

growth, grain yield and P use efficiency of lowland rice. Ph. D. Thesis, Andhra

Pradesh Agric. Univ. Hyderabad.

179

Kumar A. and K.S. Thakur. 2004. Effect of fertility levels on promising hybrid maize (Zea

mays) under rainfed conditions of himachal pradesh.Indian J. Agron. 47: 526-530.

Kumar, M. and M. Chand. 2013. Effect of integrated nutrient management on cane yield,

juice quality and soil fertility under sugarcane based cropping system. Sugar Tech.

15: 214-218.

Kumar, S. and K. Gopal. 2001. Impacts of distillery effluents on physiological

consequences in the freshwater teleost channa punctatus. Bull Environ.

Contamination and Toxicol, 66: 617-622.

Kumar, V. and K.S. Verma. 2002. Influence of use of organic manures in combination with

inorganic fertilizers on sugarcane and soil fertility. Indian Sugar, 11: 177-181.

Kumar, V. and M. Chand 2012. Effect of integrated nutrients management on cane yield,

juice quality and soil fertility under sugarcane based cropping system. Sugar Tech.

15: 214-218.

Kuntal, M.H., A.K. Biswal, K. Bandyopadhyaya and K. Mishra. 2004. Effect of post

methanation effluent on soil physical properties under a soyabean-wheat system in

a vertisol. J. Plant Nutri. Soil Sci. pp: 584-590.

Lal, S. and B.S. Mathur. 1989. Effect of long-term fertilization, manuring and liming of an

Alfisol on maize, wheat and soil properties-II. Soil physical properties. J. Indian

Soc. Soil Sci. 37: 815-817.

Lavanya, P.G. and T.S. Manikam. 1991. Organic manure and their interaction with

inorganic fertilizer on nutrient availability uptake and yield of rabi crop. Madras

Agric. J. 78: 248-253.

Lavti, D.L. 1990. Residual effect of different organic materials on soil properties and wheat

yield. Rajasthan Res. J. 3: 20-28.

Leonard, D. 1986. Soil, crop and fertilizer use, a field manual for development workers.

Under contract with pace corps. 4th edition revised and expanded. United stat pace

corps. Information collection and exchange. Reprint R0008.

Madhavi, B.L., R.M. Suranarayana and R.B. Uma. 1995. Effect of poultry manure on the

available micronutrient status in soil and yield of maize. Nation. symp. Agric.

Relation to Env. pp: 16-18.

Makinde E.A, O. Fagbola, E.A. Akinrinde and E.A. Makinde. 2010. Effects of organic,

organ mineral and NPK fertilizer treatment on the quality of Amaranthus cruentus

(L.) on two soil types in Lagos, Nigeria. Nat. Sci. 8:56-62.

180

Malik. K.B. and M.H. Gurmani. 2005. Cane production guide. Dewan farooque sugarcane

research institute Dewan city, district Thatta, Sind Pakistan, pp: 38-41.

Mann, K.K., B.S. Brar and N.S. Dhillon. 2006. Influence of long term use of farmyard

manure and inorganic fertilizers on nutrient availability in a typic ustochrept. Indian

J. Agric. Sci. 76: 477-480.

Marschner, H. 1995. Mineral nutrition of higher plants. 2nd edition, pp: 889.

Mastiholi, A. B. 1994. Response of rabi sorghum (Sorghum biocolor L.) to biofertilizer and

in situ moisture conservation practices in deep black soil. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis,

University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

Mathews, B.W. and C.J. Thurkins. 2006. Agronomic responses in the short term to some

management options for sugarcane top residues. Journal for Hawaiian and Pacific

Agriculture, pp: 23-34.

Mathur, G.M. 1997. Effect of long-term application of fertilizers and manures on soil

properties and yield under cotton-wheat rotation in north-west Rajasthan. J. Indian

Soc. Soil Sci. 45: 288-292.

Meunchang, S., S. Panichsakpatana and R.W. Weaver. 2005. Co-composting of filter cake

and bagasse, by-products from A Sugar Mill. Bio Resource Technology, pp: 437-

442.

Mise, R.S., Rajani, S. and R. Ramkhade. 2013. Treatment of distillery spent wash by

anaerobic digestion process. International Journal of Research in Engineering and

Technology, 7: 34-38.

Mohan S., M.P. Agarwal and A.K. Srivastava. 2003. Effect of effluents on cane yield and

quality. Natnl. Sym. on improv in sugarcane qual. Increasing sugar prod., Indian

Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow.

Moodie, C., D.H.W. Smith and R.A. Mcreery. 1959. Laboratory manual of soil fertility.

Dept. agron. Stat college washington pullman, Washington, USA. pp: 1-175.

More, S.D. 1994. Effect of farm wastes and organic manures on soil properties, nutrients

availability and yield of rice-wheat grown on vertisol. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 42:

253-256.

More, S.D. and C.P. Ghonsikar. 1988. Effect of some organic manures on the availability

of phosphorus to wheat. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 36: 372-374.

Muhammad, D. and R.A. Khattak. 2009. Growth and nutrients concentrations of maize in

press mud treated saline sodic soils. Soil and Environ. 28: 145-155.

181

Muhammad, H., A. Zaman, S. K. Khalil and Z. Shah. 2014. Effect of beneficial microbes

(BM) on the efficiency of organic and inorganic n fertilizers on wheat crop. Sarhad

J. Agric. 30: 7-14.

Murugaragavan, R. 2002. Distillery spent wash on crop production in dry land soils. M.Sc.

(Environmental sciences) Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore,

India.

Nambiar, K.K.M. and A.B. Ghosh. 1984. Highlights of long-term fertilizer experiments in

India (1971-82). Long-term fert. expt. res. Bull. 1, Indian Agricultural Research

Institute, New Delhi.

Nanjappa, H.V., B.K. Ramachandrappa and B.O. Mallikarjun. 2001. Effect of integrated

nutrient management on yield and nutrient balance in maize (Zea mays). Indian J.

Agron. 46: 698-701.

Naqvi, H.A. 2005. In: Pakistan sugar book. Pak. Soc. of Sug. Technol, Mandi Baha-ud-

din, Punjab, Pakistan.

Neel, P.L., E.O. Burt and P. Busey. 1978. Sod production in shallow beds of waste

materials. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science, 103: 549-553.

Oad, F.C.V., A. Buriro and S.K. Agla. 2004. Effect of organic and inorganic fertilizer

application maize fodder production. Asian J. Plant Sci. 3: 375-377.

Palm, C.A. 1995. Contribution of agroforestry trees to nutrient requirements of

intercropped plants. Agroforestry Systems, 30: 105-124.

Pandey, S.N., B.D. Nautiyal and C.P. Sharma. 2008. Pollution level in distillery effluent

and its phytotoxic effect on seed germination and early growth of maize and rice. J.

Env. Bio. 29: 267-270.

Pandey, S.P., Haishankar and V.K. Sharma. 1985. Efficacy of some of organic and

inorganic residues in relation to crop yield and soil characteristics. J. Indian Soc.

Soil Sci. 33: 179-181.

Panneerselvam, S., A. Christopher, Louduraj and N. Balasubramanian. 2000. Soil available

phosphorus and its uptake by soybean (Glycine max L.) Merrill) as influenced by

organic manures, inorganic fertilizers and weed management practices. Indian J.

Agric. Res. 34: 9-16.

Patel, K.P., J.D. Thanki, D.D. Patel, A.M. Bafna, M.K. Arvadia and R.C. Gami. 2013.

Integrated nutrient management in Rice (Oryza sativa) sugarcane (Saccharum

officinarum) (plant), sugarcane (ratoon) cropping sequence. Indian J Agron. 58: 9-

14.

182

Pathak, H., H.C. Joshi, A. Chaudhary, R. Chaudhary, N. Kalra and M.K. Dwivedi. 1998.

Distillery effluent as soil amendment for wheat and rice. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. pp:

155-157.

Paul, G.C. and Mannan. 2007. Integrated fertilizer management packages to improve sugar

productivity and soil health. Indian J. Sugarcane Technology, 9:28-35.

Paul, G.C., S.M. Bokhtiar, H. Rehman, R.C. Kabiraj and A.B.M.M. Rahman. 2005.

Efficacies of some organic fertilizers on sustainable sugarcane production in old

Himalayan piedmont plain soil of Bangladesh. Pak. Sug. J. pp: 20: 2-5.

Pawar, R.B. 1996. Dynamics of earthworm-soil-plant relationship in semi-arid tropics. Ph.

D. Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci. Dharwad, India.

Pichot, J., P.M. Sedogo, J.F. Poulains and J. Arrivets. 1981. Evolution de la fert ilité d’un

sol ferrugineaux tropical sous l’influence de fumures minérales et organiques.

Agron. Trop. 36:122-133.

Poel, P.W.V., H. Schiweck and T. Schwart. 1998. Sugarcane technology, beet and cane

sugar manufacture. Verlag Dr. Albert Bartens Berlin, pp: 554-559.

Prasad, B. 1981. Use of organic manure for correction of zinc and iron deficiencies in maize

plant grown on calcareous soil. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 29: 132-133.

PSMA. 2013. Pakistan Sugar Mills Association (PSMA).

http://www.psmacentre.com/aboutus.php?id=7&type=previous_reviews&status=1

&yearid=24&year=2013.

PSST. 2013. Pakistan Society of Sugar Technologists (PSST).

http://www.psst.org.pk/downloads.html.

Pujar, S.S. 1995. Effect of distillery effluent irrigation on growth, yield and quality of crops.

M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.

Qasim, M., M. Umar and M. Jamil. 2004. Effect of Different levels of Zn on the Yield and

Yield Components of Rice in Different Soils of D. I Khan, Pakistan. Sarhad. J.

Agric. 1: 63-69.

Quansah, C., E. Asare, E.Y. Safo, O. Ampontuah, N. K. Baffour and J.A. Bakang. 1998.

The effect of poultry manure and mineral fertilizer on maize/cassava intercropping

in peri-urban Kumasi, Ghana. In Drechsel, P and L. Gyiele (eds.). On-farm research

on sustainable land management in sub-saharan Africa approaches, experiences and

LESSONS. IBSRAM Proceedings No. 19 Bangkok, Thailand, pp: 73-90.

Quireshi, A., C.V. Patil, and S.S. Prakash. 1995. Crop residue management for sustainable

agriculture. Paper presented in Int. Conf. Sust. Agric. Env. HAU, Hissar, pp: 63-72.

http://www.psmacentre.com/aboutus.php?id=7&type=previous_reviews&status=1&yearid=24&year=2013

http://www.psmacentre.com/aboutus.php?id=7&type=previous_reviews&status=1&yearid=24&year=2013

http://www.psst.org.pk/downloads.html

183

Rajendran, K. 1990. Effect of distillery effluent on the seed germination, seedling growth,

Chlorophyll content and mitosis in peas. Indian Botanical Contactor, 7: 139-144.

Rakkiyappan, P. and S. Thangavelu. 2000. Effect of iron on ratoon crops of six sugarcane

varieties grown in iron deficient soil. Proc. Int. Conf. on Manag. Natural Resou. For

Sustainab. Agric. Product. in the 21st century. New Delhi, India. pp: 266-268.

Ramana, S., A.K. Biswas, A.B. Singh and R.B.R. Yadava. 2001. Relative efficacy of

different distillery effluents on growth, nitrogen fixation and yield of groundnut.

Biores. Tech. 81: 117-121.

Rani, R. and M.M. Srivastata. 2000. Ecophysiological responses of Pisum sativum and

citrus maxima to distillery effluents. Int. J. Eco. Environ. Sci. pp: 16-23.

Ranjan B., V.P. Kundu, S. Srivastava and A.K. Gupta. 2004. Effect of long-term manuring

on soil organic carbon, bulk density and water retention characteristics under

soybean-wheat cropping sequence in North-Western Himalayas. J. Indian Soc. Soil

Sci. 52: 238-242.

Rao, M.S. and M.S. Rao. 1982. Investigations into the time of application of potash t o

sugarcane. Proceedings of the Meeting of the West Indies Sugar Technologists, pp:

143-148.

Rath, P., G. Pradhan and M.K. Misra. 2010. Effect of sugar factory distillery spent wash

(DSW) on the growth pattern of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) crop.

Journal of Phytology, 2: 33–39.

Rath, P., G. Pradhan and M.K. Misra. 2011. Effect of distillery spent wash (DSW) and

fertilizer on growth and chlorophyll content of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum

L.) plant. Recent Research in Science and Technology, pp: 169-176.

Rath, P., K. Biswal and M.K. Misra. 2013. Effects of sugar factory distillery spent wash on

germination and seedling growth of rice (Oryza sativa L.). The International Journal

of Science, Innovations and Discoveries, 3: 191-201.

Raverkar, K.P., S. Ramana, A.B. Singh, A.K. Biswas and S. Kundu. 2000. Impact of post

methanated spent wash (PMS) on the nursery rising, biological parameters of

Glyricidiasepum and biological activity of soil. Annual Plant Research, 2: 161-168.

Ravindra, S., S.K. Agarwal and M.L. Jat. 2002. Quality of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)

and nutrient status in soil as influenced by organic and inorganic sources of

nutrients. The Indian J. Agric. Sci. 72: 456-460.

Razzaq, A. 2001. Assessing sugarcane filter cake as crop nutrients and soil health

ameliorant. Pak. Sug. J. 21: 15-18.

184

Richardson, T.E. and John. 2005. Students’ approaches to learning and teachers’

approaches to teaching in higher education. Educational Psychology, 25: 673-680.

Rodella, A.A., L.C.F.DA. Silva and J.O. Filho. 1990. Effect of filter cake application on

sugarcane yields. Turrialba, 40: 323-326.

Sahai, R., S. Jabeen and P.K. Saxena. 1993. Effect of distillery waste on seed germination,

seedling growth and pigment content of rice. Indian J. Ecol. 10: 7-10.

Saini S.K., T. Shashank, S. Dheer, S.K. Sinha and S. Vijendra. 2006. Nutrient (NPK)

uptake influenced by integrated nutrient management in spring planted sugarcane

grown in sugarcane based cropping sequence. Indian Sugar, 56: 67-72.

Sakal, R., B.P. Singh and A.P. Singh. 1982. Iron nutrition of maize as influenced by iron

carriers and compost application in calcareous soil. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 30: 190-

193.

Samman, S., J.W.Y. Chow, M.J. Foster, Z.I. Ahmad, J.L. Phuyal and P. Petocz. 2008. Fatty

acid composition of edible oils derived from certified organic and conventional

agricultural methods. Food Chemistry, 109: 670-674.

Santhy, P., D. Selvi and Dhakshinamoorthy. 2000. Long-term fertilizer experiment an

index of yield and soil sustainability. The Madras Agric. J. 87: 40-43.

Santiago, M., and S.B. Nanthi. 2004. Australian New Zealand soils conference, University

of Sydney, Australia. Published on Cdrom. Website www.regional.org.au/au/asssi

Sarayu, M., K. Bhavik, K. Acharya and D. Madamwar. 2009. Distillery spent wash

treatment technologies and potential applications. J. Hazardous Material, 163:12-

25.

Sarkar, S.N. and P.S. Rathod. 1992. Effect of crop residue on crop yield, physical and

chemical properties of soils. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 40: 462-469.

Sarwar, G., H. Schmeisky, M.A. Tahir, Y. Iftikhar and N.U. Sabah. 2010. Application of

green compost for improvement in soil chemical properties and fertility status. The

J. Animal and Plant Sciences, 20: 258-260.

Sarwar, G., H. Schmeisky, N. Hussain, S. Muhammad, M. Ibrahim and E. Safdar. 2008.

Improvement of soil physical and chemical properties with compost application in

rice-wheat cropping system. Pak. J. Bot. 40: 275-282.

Sarwar, G., N. Hussain, H. Schmeisky and S. Muhammad. 2007. Use of compost and

environment friendly technology for enhancing rice-wheat production in Pakistan.

Pak. J. Bot. 39: 1553-1558.

185

Sarwar, G., N. Hussain, H. Schmeisky and S. Muhammad. 2008. Efficiency of various

organic residues for enhancing rice-wheat production under normal soil conditions.

Pakistan J. Botany, 40: 2107-2113.

Sarwar, M., G. Jilani, E. Rafique, M.E. Akhtar and A.N. Chaudhry. 2012. Impact of

integrated nutrient management on yield and nutrient uptake by Maize under rain

fed conditions. Pakistan Journal of Nutrition, 11: 27-33.

Savalgi, V.P. and V. Savalgi. 1992. Effects of Azospirillum brasilense and earthwarm cast

as seed treatment on sorghum. J. Maharashtra Agric. Univ. 16: 107-108.

Schroeder, B.L., A.W. Wood and G. Kingston. 1998. The evolution on the bases for

fertilizer recommendation in the Australia Sugar Industry. In: Proc. Aust.

Sugarcane Technol, 21: 239-247.

Selvi, D., P. Santhy and Dakshinamoorthy. 2005. Effect of inorganics alone and in

combination with farmyard manure on physical properties and productivity of

vertic-haplustepts under long-term fertilization. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 53: 302-307.

Shahid, Z., A. Ahmad and H.M.R. Javeed. 2011. Integrated application of fertilizers and

biocane (organic fertilizers) to enhance the productivity and juice quality of autumn

planted sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.). African Journal of Agricultural

Research, 6: 4857-4861.

Sham, M. and M.N. Sreenivasa. 1998. Use of biogas plant spent slurry in agriculture. Tech.

Bull, pp: 462 478.

Sharma, A. 2014. Effect of spent wash and chemical fertilizer on yield and nutrient uptake

by sugarcane. Annals of Plant and Soil Research, 16: 32-34.

Sharma, A.R. and B.N. Singh. 1991. Effect of green manuring and mineral fertilizers on

growth and yield of crops in rice based cropping on a laterite soil. Journal of

Agricultural Sciences, 110: 605-608.

Sharma, B.L., S. Singh, S. Sharma, V. Prakash and R.R. Singh. 2002. Integerated response

of pressmud cake and urea on sugarcane in calcareous soil. Cooperative Sugar, 33:

1001-1004.

Sharma, H.L., C.M. Singh and S.C. Modgel. 1987. Use of organic manure in rice-wheat

crop sequence. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 57: 163-168.

Sharma, S.K. and S.N. Sharma. 2002. Integrated nutrient management for sustainability of

rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat (Triticum aestivum) cropping system. The Indian J. Agric.

Sci. 72: 573-576.

186

Shinde, P.H. and D.B. Gowade. 1992. Effect of application of FYM on the availability of

nitrogen, potassium and born in soils. Proc. Nation. Sem. Organic Farm, Pune, pp:

10-11.

Shivananda, T.N., K.G. Sreerangangappa, B.S. Lalitha, V.R.P. Ramakrishna and R.

Siddaramappa. 1996. Efficacy of farmyard manure, vermicompost and ammonium

sulphur for sulphur uptake in frenchbean. Proc. Nation. Sem. Organic Farm. Sust.

Agric. pp: 99-100.

Shuman, L.M. 1999. Micronutrient fertilizers. J. of Crop production, 1: 165-195.

Siddiqi, A., A.P. Singh, P.C. Srivastava and S.K. Singh. 2006. Effect of multi micro

nutrients and pressmud compost application on yields and nutrient uptake of

sugarcane ratoon sequence. Ind. Sug. 55: 33-42.

Sihag, D., J.P. Singh, D.S. Mehla and Bharawdaj, 2005. Effect of integrated use of

inorganic and organic materials on the distribution of different forms of N and P in

soil. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 53: 80-84.

Singandhupe, R.B., M. Das, H. Chakraborthy and A. Kumar. 2009. Effect of different

levels of distillery effluents on growth, yield and soil health in sugarcane crop in

Orissa. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 79: 1030-1035.

Singh, G.B. and D.W. Yadav. 1994. Critical analysis of the long-term experiments on

sugarcane. Sugar J. 39: 25-34.

Singh, L.N., R.K.K. Singh, A.H. Singh and Chhangte. 2005. Efficacy of urea in integration

with azolla and vermicompost in rainfed rice (Oryza sativa) production and their

residual effect on soil properties. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 75: 44-45.

Singh, R.B., P. Kumar and T. Woodhead. 2002. Smallholder farmers in India, food security

and agricultural policy. Plant Soil Sci. 60: 262-268.

Singh, R.P. and R.N. Prasad, H. Sinha and K.D.N. Singh. 1979. Effect of organic

amendments on zinc availability to maize and soybean in calcareous soil. J. Indian

Soc. Soil Sci. 27: 321-324.

Singh, S. and A.K. Sarkar. 2001. Balanced use of major nutrients for sustaining higher

productivity of maize-wheat cropping system in acidic soils of Jharkhand. Indian

Journal of Agronomy, 46: 605-610.

Singh, S.V. and V.K. Swami. 2014. Impact of distillery wastewater irrigation on chemical

properties of agriculture soil. International Journal of Innovative Research in

Science, Engineering and Technology, 3: 17028-17032.

187

Singh, Y. and R. Bahadur. 1998. Effect of application of distillery effluent on maize crop

and soil properties. Indian. J. Agri. Sci. 68: 70-74.

Snedecor, G.W. and W.G. Cochran. 1989. Statistical methods. 8th Ed. Lowa State Univ.

Press. pp: 473.

Soomro, A.F., S. Tunio, C.O. Fateh and I. Rajper. 2013. Integrated effect of inorganic and

organic fertilizers on the yield and quality of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum

L.). Pak. J. Bot. 45: 1339-1348.

Soomro, F.M., M.B. Bhatti, M.H. Leghari, G.H. Jamro and M.I. Kumbhar. 2005. Growth

and yield of sugarcane variety Cp-65/357 as affected by foliar feeding of

micronutrients. Indus Bio. Sci. 2: 211-218.

Spancer, G.L. and G.P. Meade. 1963. Cane sugar hand book. 9th Ed. G.P. Meade. John

Wiley and Sons, Inc. New York. pp: 17-29.

Srikanth, K., C.A. Srinivasmurthy, R. Siddaramappa and P.V.R. Ramakrishna. 2000. Direct

and residual effects of enriched composts, FYM, vermicompost and fertilizer on

properties of an alfisol. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 48: 496-499.

Stoffella, P.J. and D.A. Graetz. 2000. Utilization of sugarcane compost as a soil amendment

in a tomato production system. Compost Science and Utilization, 8: 210-214.

Stone, D.M. and J.D. Elioff. 1998. Soil properties and aspen development five years after

compaction and forest floor removal. Canadian Journal of Soil Science, 78: 51-58.

Suganya, K. and G. Rajannan. 2009. Effect of one time post-sown and pre-sown application

of distillery spent wash on the growth and yield of maize crop. Bot. Res. Inter. 2:

288-294.

Suri, H.S., A.S. Shidu, R. Singh, G.C. Agarwal and K.S. Sandhu. 1993. Long-term effect

of green manuring on solid physical properties and production potential in green

manuring maize-wheat sequence. Ann. Agric. Res. 14: 125-131.

Swarup, A. 1991. Long-term effect of green manuring (Sesbania aculeate) on soil

properties and sustainability of rice and wheat yield on a sodic soil. J. Indian Soc.

Soil Sci. 39: 777-780.

Tandon, H.L.S. 1992. Components of integrated plant nutrition. In H.L.S. Tandon (ed.).

Organic manures, recyclable wastes and biofertilizers, fertilizer development and

consultation organization. 204, bhanot corner 1-2, pamposh enclave, New Delhi,

India.

188

Thomas, S.C. and W. E. Winner. 2000. Leaf area Index of an old growth. Douglas fir forest

estimated from direct structural measurements in the canopy. Canadian J. Forest

Res. 1922–1930.

Tolanur, S.I. and V.P. Badanur. 2003. Effect of integrated use of organic manure, green

manure and fertilizer nitrogen on sustaining productivity of rabi sorghum –

chickpea system and fertility of a Vertisol. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 51: 41-44.

Tunio S.D, S.N. Kaka, A.D. Jarwar and M.R. Wagan. 2004. Effect of integrated weed

management practices on wheat yield. Pak. J. Agric. Eng. Vet. Sci. 20: 5-10.

U.S. Salinity Laboratory Staff. 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils.

USDA. Hand book No. 60. Washington, DC, USA.

Uttam, K.M., S.N. Sharma, S. Gurcharan and D.K. Das. 1999. Effect of sustainable green

manuring and greengram residue incorporation on physical properties of soil under

rice (Oryza sativa)-wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) cropping system. Indian J. Agric.

Sci. 69: 615-620.

Vasanthi, D. and K. Kumarswamy. 2000. Effects of manure fertilizer schedules on the yield

and uptake of nutrients by cereal fodder crops and on soil fertility. J. Indian Soc.

Soil Sci. 48: 51-515.

Venkatakrishnan, D. and M. Ravichandran. 2012. Effect of integrated nutrient management

on sugarcane yield and soil fertility on an ultichaplustalf. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci.

60: 74-78.

Venkatesh. 1995. Effect of vermiculture on soil composition, growth, yield and quality of

thompson seedless grapes (Vitis vinifera). M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Univ. Agric. Sci.

Dharwad, India.

Venugopal, N. and K. Shivashankar. 1989. Direct and cumulative effect of maize stover

incorporation in conjugation with nitrogen on maize. Indian J. Dryland Agric. Dev.

4: 107-116.

Viator, R.P., J.L. Kovar and W.B. Hallmark. 2002. Gypsum and compost effects on

sugarcane root growth, yield and plant nutrients. Agron. J. 94: 1332-1336.

Viator, R.P., R.M. Johnson, C.C. Grim and E.P. Richard. 2006. Allelopathic, autotoxic, and

hormetic effects of postharvest sugarcane residue. Agronomy Journal, 98: 1526-

1531.

Viera, D.B. 1996. Methods of Vinasse application in sugarcane, APC Sao Paulo, pp: 21-

26.

189

Watanabe, F.S. and S.R. Olsen. 1965. Test of an ascorbic acid method for determining P in

water and sodium bicarbonate extracts from soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc.

29:677·678.

Watson, D.J. 1947. Comparative physiological studies in the growth of field crops.

Variation in net assimilation rate and leaf area between species and varieties, and

within and between years. Ann. Bot. 11: 41-76.

Workocha, G.A. 2011. Impacts of industrial effluents on water body and health of oil

producing communities in reverse stat. Res. J. Int. Stud. 18: 35-40.

Yadav, R.L. 1981. Leaf area index and functional leaf area duration of sugarcane as affected

by N rates. Indian J. Agron. 26: 130-136.

Yaduvanshi, N.P.S. 2001, Effect of five years of rice-wheat cropping and NPK fertilizers

use with and without organic and green manures on soil properties and crop yields

in a reclaimed sodic soil. J. Indian Soc. Soil Sci. 49: 714-719.

Yogananda, S.B., V.C. Reddy and K. Sudhir. 2004. Effect of urban compost and inorganic

fertilizers on soil nutrient status and grain yield of hybrid rice. Mysore J. Agric. Sci.

38:454-458.

Zeid, I.M. 2008. Effect of Arginine and urea on polyamines content and growth of bean

under salinity stress. Acta Physiologiea Plantarum, 10: 201-209.

In the name of Allah, the most merciful, the most ...

Documents