Effect of organics on growth, yield, major nutrient content and uptake by sugarcane

Introduction

Sugarcane belongs to the family poaceae and tropical sugarcane originated from Oceania (New Guinea) while Indian cane (Saccharum spontaneum L.) originated from North Eastern India. The word Saccharum is derived from the Sanskrit word "sharkara" and it indicates its Indian origin. Brazil led the world in sugarcane production. Sugarcane is an important agro-industrial commercial crop which plays pivotal role in national economy and sustains sugar industry. It is extensively grown in tropical and sub-tropical regions of India as cash crop. Besides sugar and gur production, sugarcane produces several valuable by products like, ethanol used as a fuel, alcohol used by pharmaceutical industry, bagasse used for paper and chip board manufacturing and press mud used as a rich source of organic matter and nutrients for crop production. India is second largest sugarcane producer after Brazil, grown in an area of 4.73 million hectares with total production of 376.9 million tonnes of cane with average productivity of 68 tonnes per hectare and the average sugar recovery of 10.23%. Considering area, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat are the major sugarcane growing states. Gujarat produces only 3.72 per cent sugarcane from 4.65 per cent area of India. In Gujarat sugarcane area, production, productivity and sugar recovery, were 2.23 lakh hectare, 17.44 million tones, 78.31 t/ha and 11.09%, respectively (Anon., 2024). Surat, Navsari, Valsad, Bharuch, Tapi, Narmada, Bhavnagar, Rajkot, Junagadh and Jamnagar are the important sugarcane producing districts of Gujarat Organic farming perceptions are quite divergent but there is a strong consensus on its eco-friendly nature and inherent ability to protect human health. Also, many studies have revealed that organic agriculture is productive and sustainable. However, organic food production costs are higher as compared to conventional counterparts due to higher input cost and labour intensive in nature. Efforts have been made by the government of India on an overall basis to encourage organic farming. Even different organizations have been set up for the marketing of the produce of organic farming. The increasing demand for the organic food products in the developed countries as well as the policies adopted by the government of India to encourage the exports of the organic agri-products are the driving factors responsible for the uprising of the Indian organic food industries which have the potential to strengthen the Indian economy as well as the health standards of the Indian masses (Roychowdhury et al., 2013) [9] .

Materials and methods

The experiment was conducted using the RBD (factorial concept) with three replications. Two factors were tested in which one factor was spacing (S1: 90 cm and S2: 60 -120 -60 cm paired row with dhaincha green manuring) and another factor was compost levels (M1: NADEP compost @ 100% RDN, M2: NADEP compost @ 75% RDN, M3: NADEP compost @ 50% RDN and M4: NADEP compost @ 25% RDN + sugarcane trash @10 t/ha + jeevamrut @ 2000 l/ha.).

The selected five plants from each net plot were measured for their total plant height at harvest from the ground up to the top or tip of the main tiller and millable cane height also measured after removing trash. Average value of five plants for each treatment at harvest stage were computed and recorded.

At the time of harvest, the girth of five tagged canes was measured from top to bottom. Average cane diameter was recorded by using digital Varnier caliper (Mitutoyo, Japan). Cane girth is calculated using formula, Girth = D x π, D = Diameter.

Lengths and Numbers of internodes

The lengths and numbers of internodes of five tagged plants from each plot were counted at harvest and the average was worked out.

The weight of five randomly selected canes from plot were recorded individually and presented as average weight per cane.

The net plot was harvested separately for each treatment. The canes were detoured, and millable canes were prepared by cutting the top portion. The weight of these millable canes for each experimental plot was recorded in kilograms, and then it was converted into tonnes per hectare.

Plant analysis

Cane and trash samples were chopped with a knife, from this about 200g was taken, dried in the oven at 60 ± 5 o C temperature until complete drying. This dried samples then powdered using a mixer with stainless steel blades. Powdered plant samples digested using a di-acid mixture, i.e., 10 parts of HNO 3 and 4 parts of HClO 4 (Jackson, 1973) [6] . From the digested aliquot, elements, viz., total P, K, Fe, Mn, Zn, and Cu content, were determined by using standard methods mentioned in Table 1. The N content in the samples was estimated separately by micro Kjeldahl's method after digesting with 30% H 2 O 2 and concentrated H 2 SO 4 (Bremner,1965) [3] .

Parameters

Methods/Formula References N Micro Kjeldahl Jackson (1973) [6] P Spectrophotometer Jackson (1973) [6] K Flame photometer Jackson (1973) [6] Nutrient uptake

The macro nutrient (N, P and K) and micronutrient (Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu) uptake of cane and trash of sugarcane was calculated by using the following formula. [11] . Year effect as well as interaction effect of different treatments on plant height and millable cane height of sugarcane at harvest was non-significant during both the individual years as well as in pooled analysis (Table 2).

Results and discussion

Total plant height and millable cane height at harvest Results furnished in

Length of internodes and number of internodes

The results regarding length of internodes and number of internodes of sugarcane at harvest as influenced by different spacing and compost treatments are presented in Table 3.

The results paraded in Table 3 revealed that spacing treatments did not show significant impact on lengths and number of internodes of sugarcane at harvest during individual experimental period of both the years and pooled data analysis. The higher length of internodes (12.8, 13.3 and 13.0 cm) and number of internodes (17.8, 18.1 and 18.0) was noted in treatment S 2 (60 -120 -60 cm paired row with green manuring) as compared to S 1 during the year 2019-20, 2020-21 and in pooled analysis, respectively. In case of compost treatments, it had significant effect on only lengths of internodes at harvest (Table 3). Significantly higher lengths of internodes, 13.8 and 14.2 cm was observed in treatment, application of 100% RDN through NADEP compost (M 1 ) during the year 2019-20, 2020-21, respectively. However, this treatment was remained at par with treatment M 2 (75% RDN through NADEP compost) during the both years. While in pooled analysis treatment M 1 (100% RDN through NADEP compost) recorded significantly the highest length of internodes (14.0 cm). Application of organic manure increased the yield and yield attributing characteristics without remarkable change in sugar content of cane and exhibited better impact on root development, increased chlorophyll a and b content of leaf tissues, prevent nutrient depletion, increased nutrient availability for longer time and maintain productivity as well (Bokhtiar and Sakurai, 2005) [2] . Number of internodes were not affected significantly by compost treatments during both individual year as well as in pooled analysis. However, numerically more and a smaller number of internodes were observed in treatments M 1 and M 4 , respectively. Lengths of internodes and number of internodes of sugarcane at harvest (Table 3) were not affected significantly by year as well as any of the interaction of different treatments (S x M, Y x S, Y x M, Y x S x M).

Cane girth of sugarcane at harvest.

The results regarding cane girth of sugarcane at harvest presented in Table 4 revealed that the effect of spacing and different levels of NADEP compost did not exert any significant effect on it during both the individual years as well as in pooled analysis. However, in spacing treatments, numerically higher cane girth (8.03, 8.19 and 8.11 cm) of sugarcane at harvest was found with treatment S 2 (60 -120 -60 cm paired row with green manuring) while lower cane girth (7.84, 8.06 and 7.95 cm) was found in treatment S 1 (90 cm) during the years 2019-20, 2020-21 and in pooled analysis, respectively. In manure treatment, numerically higher cane girth was observed in treatment M 1 (NADEP compost @ 100% RDN) and lower cane girth was observed in treatment M 4 (application of NADEP compost @ 25% RDN + Sugarcane trash @ 10 t/ha + jeevamrut @ 2000 l/ha.) during the year 2019-20, 2020-21 and in pooled analysis. Such result was also reported earlier in sugarcane crop by Sinha et al. (2014) [10] . Year effect on cane girth of sugarcane was non-significant. Similarly, none of the interactions of different treatment exert significant effect on cane girth of sugarcane at harvest during individual years and in pooled analysis (Table 4).

Single cane weight and millable cane yield of sugarcane at harvest

The results pertaining to effect of different treatments on single cane weight and millable cane yield of sugarcane at harvest are presented in Here, significant year effect was observed on single cane weight and millable cane yield was significant and in both the parameters and higher yield was observed during the year 2020-21 (Table 5). However, single cane weight and millable cane yield at harvest were not affected significantly by any of the interaction of different treatments (S x M, Y x S, Y x M, Y x S x M).

Nutrient content and uptake of cane and trash of sugarcane

The results pertaining to N, P, K, Fe, Mn, Zn and Cu content and uptake of cane and trash of sugarcane as influenced by different treatments are furnished in Tables 6 to 11.

Nitrogen content of cane and trash

The results regarding N content (%) in cane and trash of sugarcane is presented in Table 6. Except N content in sugarcane trash in the year 2020-21, the effect of spacing treatment on N content in cane and trash of sugarcane at harvest did not differ significantly during individual year as well as in pooled analysis. During the year 2020-21, the paired row spacing treatment S 2 (60 -120 -60 cm paired row with green manuring) recorded significantly higher N content in sugarcane trash (0.748%) as compared to treatment S 1 .

In case of compost treatments, it was significant with respect to N content in cane and trash during second year of experiment as well as in pooled analysis (Table 6). In the year 2020-21 and in pooled analysis, treatment M 1 recorded significantly higher N content in cane i.e. 0.48 and 0.45 per cent, respectively. However, this treatment was remained at par with the treatment M 2 with respect to N content in cane during the year 2020-21 as well as in pooled analysis. Similar treatment effect was also observed in N content in trash. Here also significantly higher N content was recorded in treatment M 1 but it was remained at par with the treatment M 2 during the year 2020-21 as well as in pooled analysis. These findings are in accordance with the earlier finding by Patil et al. (2015) and Gilbert et al. (2008) [5,8] . Year effect was significant on N content in cane and trash of sugarcane and significantly higher N content in cane and trash was observed during the year 2020-21 as compared that observed during the year 2019-20 (Table 6). None of the interactions had significant effect on N content in cane and trash of sugarcane (Table 6).

Phosphorus content of cane and trash

The results of P 2 O 5 content (%) in cane and trash of sugarcane as influence by different treatment are presented in Table 7.

The results revealed that effect of different row spacing on P 2 O 5 content (%) of cane and trash did not differ significantly during individual years and in pooled data analysis. However, higher P 2 O 5 content in cane and trash was observed in treatment S 2 as compared to S 1 . However, compost treatments affect the P 2 O 5 content in cane and trash of sugarcane significantly during first year of experiment as well as in pooled analysis (Table 7). In the year 2019-21 and in pooled analysis, treatment M 1 recorded significantly higher P 2 O 5 content in cane i.e. 0.223 and 0.235 per cent during the year 2019-20 and in pooled analysis, respectively. Application of compost @ 100% RDN treatment (M 1 ) recorded significantly higher P 2 O 5 content in trash during the year 2019-20 and in pooled analysis.

Treatment M 4 recorded comparatively lower P 2 O 5 content in cane and trash during all the individual years as well as in pooled analysis. The similar findings were also reported earlier by Caporali et al. (2004) [4] . Year effect was significant on P 2 O 5 content in cane and trash of sugarcane and significantly higher P 2 O 5 content in cane and trash was observed during the year 2020-21 as compared that observed during the year 2019-20 (Table 7). None of the interactions had significant effect on N content in cane and trash of sugarcane (Table 7).

Potassium content of cane and trash

Content of K 2 O (%) in cane and trash of sugarcane was not affected significantly by the treatments of spacing and compost as well as year and their interactions (Table 8).

Nutrient uptake by sugarcane Nitrogen uptake by cane and trash

The results regarding N uptake (kg/ha) by cane and trash of sugarcane is presented in Table 9. The result revealed that spacing did not affect the N uptake (kg/ha) by cane significantly during individual years as well as pooled data analysis. However, the spacing treatment affect the N uptake by trash significantly during the year 2020-21 and in pooled analysis. The paired row spacing treatment S 2 (60 -120 -60 cm paired row with green manuring) registered significantly higher N uptake by trash during the years 2020-21 (39.0 kg/ha) and in pooled analysis (34.8 kg/ha) as compared to treatment S 1 .

The compost treatment affects the N uptake by cane and trash of sugarcane significantly (Table 9). Application of NADEP compost @ 100% RDN (M 1 ) recorded significantly higher N uptake by cane (151.1, 188.7 and 169.9 kg/ha) during the years 2019-20, 2020-21 and in pooled analysis, respectively. However, this treatment was remained statistically at par with M 2 (application of NADEP compost @ 75% RDN). Similar treatment effect was observed in trash, here also application of NADEP compost @ 100% RDN (M 1 ) recorded significantly higher N uptake by trash (34.6, 43.8 and 39.2 kg/ha) during the years 2019-20, 2020-21and in pooled analysis. However, it was remained statistically at par with treatment M 2 during the years 2019-20 and 2020-21 only. These findings are in accordance with the earlier finding by Patil et al. (2015) [8] .

In pooled analysis, year effect was significant on N uptake by cane and trash. Significantly higher N uptake by cane and trash was observed in the year 2020-21 as compared to the year 2019-20 (Table 9). Interaction effect of S x M, Y x S, Y x M, Y x S x M did not exert any significant effect on N uptake by cane and trash of sugarcane at harvest during individual years and in pooled data analysis (Table 9).

Phosphorus uptake by cane and trash

The results regarding P 2 O 5 uptake by cane and trash of sugarcane is presented in table 10. The result revealed that P 2 O 5 uptake by cane was affected significantly by spacing treatments during the year 2020-21 and in pooled analysis. Spacing treatment S 2 (60 -120 -60 cm paired row with green manuring) recorded significantly higher P 2 O 5 uptake by cane during the year 2020-21 (89.3 kg/ha) and in pooled analysis (78.3 kg/ha) as compared to spacing treatment S 1 . However, P 2 O 5 uptake by trash was not affected significantly by spacing treatments during the individual year and in pooled analysis.

Compost treatment was significant during the individual year and in pooled analysis with respect to P 2 O 5 uptake by cane and trash of sugarcane (Table 10). Significantly higher phosphorus uptake by cane (79.1, 97.6 and 88.4 kg/ha) was recorded in M 1 (application of NADEP compost @ 100% RDN) during the year 2019-20, 2020-21 and in pooled analysis and stood on at par with treatment M 2 during the year 2020-221. Similarly higher phosphorus uptake by trash (8.6, 10.2 and 9.4 kg/ha) was recorded in M 1 (application of NADEP compost @ 100% RDN) during the year 2019-20, 2020-21 and in pooled analysis, respectively whereas, treatment M 2 (application of NADEP compost @ 75% RDN) remained at par during the year 2020-21 and recorded P 2 O 5 value of 9.4 kg/ha. This might due to use of organic manure have a higher positive effect on microbial biomass and hence soil health which helped in utilizing, increasing, available nitrogen as well as phosphorus from soil, the organic acid produced during decomposition also favoured solubilization of native soil phosphorus, reduced phosphorus fixation and retaining more available phosphorus for longer period resulting in higher uptake of phosphorus. (Bokhtiar & Sakurai 2005) [2] . Year effect was significant on P 2 O 5 uptake by cane and trash of sugarcane. Significantly higher P 2 O 5 uptake by cane and trash of sugarcane was observed in the year 2020-21 as compared to the year 2019-20 (Table 10).

Interaction effect of S x M, Y x S, Y x M, Y x S x M did not exert any significant effect on P 2 O 5 uptake by cane and trash of sugarcane at harvest during individual years and in pooled data analysis (Table 10).

Potash uptake by cane and trash

Result regarding K 2 O uptake by cane and trash of sugarcane given in Table 11 revealed that it was not affected significantly by the spacing treatments during the year 2019-20, 2020-21 and in pooled analysis. However higher K 2 O uptake by cane and trash was recorded in spacing treatment S 2 as compared to S 1 .

As far as compost treatment is concerned, it had significant effect on K 2 O uptake by cane and trash of sugarcane during the year 2019-20, 2020-21 and in pooled analysis (Table 11). Significantly the higher K 2 O uptake by cane (160.4, 183.1 and 171.7 kg/ha) and trash (35.1, 41.0 and 38.0 kg/ha) was recorded in treatment M 1 (application of NADEP compost @ 75% RDN) during the years 2019-20, 2020-21 and in pooled analysis, respectively. However, it was remained at par with treatment M 2 (application of NADEP compost @ 75% RDN) during the year 2019-20, 2020-21 and in pooled analysis, respectively. The application of organic manure has been shown to replenish soil organic C and improve cation exchange capacity, water holding capacity, physical and biological quality of soil and reduced fixation of nutrients (Lakshmi et al., 2011) [7] . Moreover, several kinds of microbial agents capable of fixing N or mobilizing K and others nutrients are becoming an integral component of organic manure so increasing yield as well as uptakes of nutrients.

Year effect was significant on K 2 O uptake by cane and trash. Significantly higher K 2 O uptake by cane and trash was observed in the year 2020-21 as compared to the year 2019-20 (Table 11). Interaction effect of S x M, Y x S, Y x M, Y x S x M did not exert any significant effect on K 2 O uptake by cane and trash of sugarcane at harvest during individual years and in pooled data analysis (Table 11).

References

1. Anonymous. Commodity Profile for Sugar, March, (2024) [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2026 Apr 6]. Available from:
2. Bokhtiar SM, Sakurai K. Effects of organic manure and Inorganic Fertiliser on Soil Fertility and the Productivity of Sugarcane in Bangladesh. The Planter. 2005;80(940):443-452.
3. Bremner JM. Inorganic forms of nitrogen. In: Black CA, editor. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 2. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy; 1965. p. 1179-1237.
4. Caporali F, Campiglia E, Mancinelli R, Paolini R. Maize Performances as Influenced by Winter Cover Crop Green Manuring. Ital J Agron. 2004;8(1):37-45.
5. Gilbert RA, Morris DR, Rainbolt CR, McCray JM, Perdomo RE, Eiland B, et al. Sugarcane response to mill mud, fertilizer, and soybean nutrient sources on a sandy soil. Agron J. 2008;100(3):845-854.
6. Jackson ML. Soil Chemical Analysis. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India Pvt. Ltd.; 1973.
7. Lakshmi CS, Rama T, Rani T, Usha R, Naidu NV. Effect of organic manures on soil fertility and productivity of sugarcane in north coastal zone of Andhra Pradesh. Indian J Agric Res. 2011;45(4):307-313.
8. Patil KB, Nevkar GS, Kadam BS, Veer DM. Effect of nutrient management practices on juice quality, jaggery quality and productivity of sugarcane plant cane and its ratoon. J Agric Res Technol. 2015;40(2):207-213.
9. Roychowdhury R, Abdel Gawwad MR, Banerjee U, Bishnu S, Tah J. Status, trends and prospects of organic farming in India: A Review. Int J Plant Biol Res. 2013;2:38-48.
10. Sinha SK, Jha CK, Kumar V, Kumari G, Alam M. Integrated effect of bio-methanated distillery effluent and bio-compost on soil properties, juice quality and yield of sugarcane in Entisol. Sugar Tech. 2014;16(1):75-79.
11. Yadav DV, Yaduvanshi NPS. Integration of green manure intercropping and fertilizer-N for yield and juice quality and better soil conditions in sugarcane grown after mustard and wheat in different plant arrangements. J Agric Sci. 2001;136:199-205.