Empirical assessment of soil carbon sequestration management practices among sugarcane growers: Adoption dynamics, technological barriers and policy implications

Introduction

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is one of the most vital industrial crops worldwide, playing a multi-faceted role in sugar production, bioethanol renewable energy, and rural economic livelihood. As C4 photosynthetic plants, sugarcane crops exhibit exceptional biomass accumulation capacities, fixating substantial quantities of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) per unit land area per annum. Consequently, sugarcane agroecosystems possess immense potential to act as major carbon sinks through soil organic carbon (SOC) sequestration. SOC sequestration not only mitigates greenhouse gas emissions but also enhances soil structural stability, water-holding capacity, cation exchange capacity, and microbial biodiversity (Hossain et al., 2024) [3] . Despite the ecological and agronomic benefits of SCS management, the actual realization of soil carbon potential depends heavily on farm-level adoption of sustainable management practices. Traditional sugarcane production is often characterized by intensive soil tillage, excessive reliance on synthetic mineral fertilizers, burning of post-harvest trash, and flood irrigation practices that accelerate soil organic matter mineralization, degrade soil structure, and contribute to off-farm environmental degradation. Transitioning toward climatesmart agricultural practices (CSAPs), such as reduced tillage, green manuring, trash mulching, biofertilizer cation, microirrigation, and agroforestry, is essential for long term agricultural sustainability (Jadhav et al., 2025) [4] . However, the transition to SCS practices is governed by complex socioeconomic, technical, and institutional dynamics. Farmers' decisions to adopt or reject carbon-sequestering practices are dictated by immediate economic returns, labour availability, technical know-how, and perceive risk. Understanding the current empirical landscape of practice adoption by growers, is critical for formulating effective agricultural policy interventions. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of SCS practices followed by 320 sugarcane www.extensionjournal.com growers across six thematic domains: tillage management, intercropping practices, sugarcane trash management, integrated nutrient management (INM), integrated water management (IWM), and agroforestry integration.

Methodology

A rigorous quantitative survey research design was employed to assess the adoption behaviour of sugarcane growers. The sample frame comprised N = 320 sugarcane farming households selected via simple random sampling from major sugarcane growing districts. A structured, pre-tested interview schedule was administered to collect empirical data regarding twenty-one specific soil carbon management practices categorized into six primary domains. Data were quantified using frequency (F) and percentage (P) distributions for binary adoption choices ("Followed" vs. "Not Followed"). The theoretical percentage adoption rate (Pi) for practice i was calculated as: Pi = (Fi/N) × 100 where Fi represents the number of growers practicing intervention i and N = 320 is the total respondent pool.

Results and Discussion

The comprehensive empirical findings regarding the adoption of soil carbon sequestration practices across 320 sugarcane growers are summarized in Table 1. The practices are analysed across six structural agronomic domains. [1] . www.extensionjournal.com

Intercropping Systems and Biomass Addition

Intercropping provides dual benefits of early financial returns and organic biomass accretion. Over two-thirds (67.50 per cent, n = 216) of respondents intercropped short-duration leguminous crops (Cowpea, Black gram, Green gram). As sugarcane exhibits slow initial growth during the first 90 to 100 days, legume intercropping utilizes unoccupied inter-row spatial niches (Rajula et al., 2023) [9] . Subsequent incorporation of legume crop stubbles fixes atmospheric nitrogen and adds easily degradable carbonaceous matter to the topsoil. Similarly, 62.82 per cent (n = 201) of growers incorporated green manure crops (Sunhemp, Dhaincha) at the flowering stage. Green manure incorporation at flowering maximizes tissue nitrogen content and succulent biomass degradation, rapidly releasing nutrients and augmenting active soil carbon pools (Jadhav et al., 2025) [4] . Regarding spatial crop sequences, 43.43 per cent (n = 139) followed a Sugarcane-ratoon-Wheat cropping system, whereas 56.57 per cent preferred alternative crop rotations.

Sugarcane Trash Management and Biochar Potential

Sugarcane generates massive post-harvest biomass residue (trash), typically amounting to 10 to 12 tonnes/ha. Trash mulching was practiced by 53.43 per cent (n = 171) of growers, serving as an effective surface cover that suppresses weed growth, conserves soil moisture, and gradually releases carbon into the surface soil layer. Direct trash incorporation at the rate of 5 to 6 ton/ha was adopted by 49.06 per cent (n = 157) of growers. However, 50.94 per cent refrained from trash incorporation, citing acute agricultural labour shortages during peak harvest windows and narrow temporal turnarounds required for planting subsequent crops.

Integrated Sugarcane Trash Management Technology saw adoption by only 26.87 per cent (n = 86), while 73.13 per cent relied on traditional practices or field burning. Alarmingly, zero respondents (0.00 per cent) practiced biochar preparation from sugarcane trash. Biochar pyrolysis represents one of the most stable recalcitrant carbon storage mechanisms available to agriculture. Primary barriers preventing biochar adoption include a total lack of farmer awareness regarding pyrolysis equipment, absent extension support, and lack of conviction regarding long-term return on investment (Rajula et al., 2020) [8] .

Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) and Organic Inputs

Nutrient management exhibited the widest variance in adoption metrics. Universal adoption (100.00 per cent, n = 320) was recorded for Farmyard Manure (FYM) application at the baseline rate of 12.5 ton/ha, confirming high traditional awareness of organic manure value. Compost and vermicompost application (5 to 10 ton/ha) was high at 79.37 per cent (n = 254). In contrast, specialized bio-inoculants and liquid organic formulations registered low adoption. Application of biofertilizers (sett treatment with Azospirillum and Acetobacter @ 10 kg/100 L water for 30 minutes) was followed by only 35.00 per cent (n = 112) of growers. Formulations like Jeevamrut (500 L/ha) and organic biopesticides (Beejamrut, Dashparni arka, Neem cake) were adopted by 33.44 per cent and 32.18 per cent of growers, respectively. Constraints stem from high labour inputs required for liquid preparation, variable efficacy, and limited commercial availability. A critical vulnerability identified is the negligible rate of soil testing prior to planting (11.56 per cent, n = 37). Nearly 88.44 per cent of growers apply fertilizers without diagnostic soil testing, driven by poor awareness of analytical facilities and underutilization of government programs like the Soil Health Card scheme (Manisha et al., 2024) [6] . Furthermore, certified Organic Sugarcane farming was practiced by only 1.56 per cent (n = 5), constrained by yield penalties during initial transition years, complex certification protocols, and lack of premium market channels (Hossain et al., 2025) [2] .

Water Management and Solar Energy Transitions

Micro-irrigation (drip and sprinkler systems) was implemented by 47.81 per cent (n = 153) of growers, whereas 52.19 per cent maintained conventional flood irrigation. Micro-irrigation reduces soil carbon loss by preventing waterlogging induced anaerobic conditions and excessive leaching of soluble organic carbon fraction. High capital costs of drip infrastructure, frequent sub-surface emitter clogging, and expensive repair services hinder broader adoption (Shete et al., 2023) [10] . Solar photovoltaic water pumping systems recorded an adoption rate of only 10.93 per cent (n = 35), leaving 89.07 per cent dependent on grid electricity or diesel pumps. Financial constraints prevent smallholders from absorbing upfront capital investments. Furthermore, technical limitations such as reduced pumping efficiency during cloudy days and winter seasons coupled with low institutional awareness of subsidized schemes like PM-KUSUM, restrict solar adoption (Nikita et al., 2024) [7] .

Agroforestry Integration

Agroforestry integration offers vertical carbon stratification through root and woody biomass accumulation. Peripheral windbreaks (Bamboo, Moringa, Eucalyptus) were maintained by 31.87 per cent (n = 102) of growers. In-field tree integration (Gliricidia, Sesbania, Neem) was practiced by only 21.25 per cent (n = 68). Tree integration faces severe adoption barriers due to light competition and operational interference. Trees shade the light-demanding sugarcane canopy, reducing photosynthetic rates during early vegetative growth. Additionally, tree roots compete aggressively for subsoil moisture and nutrients. From an operational perspective, fixed tree stands impede tractor-drawn tillage, mechanical harvesting, and field transport, presenting major obstacles for modernizing sugarcane farms (Luis et al., 2023) [5] .

Implications

To accelerate soil carbon sequestration in sugarcane farming, a targeted multi-pronged policy strategy is required. Priorities include:

1. Custom Hiring Centres (CHCs): Establish villagelevel CHCs equipped with heavy-duty shredders, zerotill seed drills, and trash incorporation machinery to eliminate capital barriers for smallholders.

Mobile Soil Testing Labs and SHC Reinforcement:

Expand soil testing accessibility via mobile units and digital Soil Health Card integration to enable precision nutrient management. 3. Biochar Decentralization: Provide subsidized mobile pyrolysis kilns to sugar mills and farmer producer organizations (FPOs) to transform post-harvest trash into valuable biochar. 4. Carbon Credit Incentivization: Establish transparent voluntary carbon market mechanisms that directly reward smallholders for quantified SOC gains resulting from micro-irrigation and trash mulching.

Conclusion

Sugarcane production systems possess substantial potential for carbon sequestration, yet current practice adoption remains highly fragmented. While basic organic inputs (FYM, compost) and traditional intercropping enjoy widespread compliance, advanced technical interventions such as biochar conversion, zero-till intercropping, microirrigation, and precision soil testing face severe structural, economic, and knowledge barriers. Overcoming these deficits requires synchronized investments in machinery sharing models, localized technical extension, solar energy subsidies, and financial carbon offsets. Bridging these adoption gaps is vital for transforming sugarcane fields into resilient, high capacity carbon sinks.

References

1. Devinder T, Manjit K, Dhaliwal RK. Constraints faced by the practicing farmers in adoption of zero tillage technology in Punjab. Indian Journal of Extension Education. 2010;46(1):101-105.
2. Hossain MM, Islam S, Ali MI, Rahimi M. Assessing the potential and limitations of organic farming for sustainable agriculture in Bangladesh. Environmental Challenges. 2025;21:101346.
3. Hossain MS, Rashid MM, Sohel AK, Islam MR, Islam MS. Effect of row orientation on productivity of sugarcane with potato as intercrop. Bangladesh Agronomy Journal. 2024;26(2):7-15.
4. Jadhav SS, Sonawane HP, Kolgane BT. Farmers knowledge on soil health management practices: a case of sugarcane growers in Kolhapur district, Maharashtra. International Journal of Agriculture Extension and Social Development. 2025;8(8):764-767.
5. Luis FGP, Marcos SB, Gerd S. Feasibility of cultivation of sugarcane in agroforestry system. Scientia Agricola. 2003;60(3):489-493.
6. Manisha D, Srinivasarao M, Ramadevi M, Srinivasulu KN. Study on constraints faced by farmers in utilizing the Soil Health Card and suggestions to overcome these constraints in Odisha. The Andhra Agric Journal. 2024;1(3):358-361.
7. Nikita BM, Kapse PS, Rutvi Kadam. Constraints faced and suggestions given by beneficiary of PM-KUSUM scheme. International Journal of Research in Agronomy. 2024;7(10):786-788.
8. Rajula ST, Gurumurthy D, Sarvanan L. Trash management practices in sugarcane cultivation: a socioeconomic analysis. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2020;20(4):1-8.
9. Rajula ST, Patil KS, Chauhan JK. Intercropping in sugarcane by growers of Kolhapur district, Maharashtra: a performance analysis. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education. 2023;23(4):126-133.
10. Shete DS, Khandre AV, Ekale JV. Constraints faced by sugarcane growers in adoption of management practices of drip irrigation system. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(5):1673-1674.