Constraints faced by Sugarcane growers in adoption of integrated nutrient management practices and suggestions to overcome them: A study of Ahilyanagar district of Maharashtra

Introduction

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum Linn.), a member of the Poaceae family, is a globally recognized crop that has garnered significant attention as a source of food, biofuel, biomaterials, and alternative energy, particularly in rural economies (Singh et al., 2015; Aguilar-Rivera et al., 2012) [5,1] . India ranks as the world's second-largest producer of sugarcane, with cultivation spanning approximately 5.1 million hectares and an annual production exceeding 430 million tonnes. The crop plays a vital role in the nation's agricultural economy, contributing nearly 7.5 per cent to the agricultural gross domestic product (GDP) and supporting the livelihoods of over 50 million farmers and agricultural workers. Furthermore, sugarcane farming engages around 7.5 per cent of India's rural population (Solomon, 2016) [6] . In terms of regional distribution, tropical states-including Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Andhra Pradesh-account for about 51 per cent of India's total sugarcane production. The remaining 49 per cent is contributed by sub-tropical regions such as Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Uttarakhand, Punjab, and Haryana (GOI, 2016). As the second-largest agro-based sector after textiles, India's sugar industry is heavily dependent on sugarcane as a primary raw material. To meet increasing demand and sustain growth, it is crucial to increase sugarcane productivity to around 110 tons per hectare by 2030 within the existing cultivation area (Vision, 2030, Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore, India) [8] . The sugarcane sector's contribution to agricultural GDP has shown a consistent upward trend over the past two decades. Both sugarcane cultivation and the sugar industry serve as major sources of employment and livelihood, engaging more than 50 million farmers in cultivation and processing activities. Enhancing sugarcane yield has a direct positive impact on the economic well-being of these farmers (Powar et al., 2020) [3] .

International Journal of Agriculture and Food Science https://www.agriculturaljournals.com

Objective

Constraints faced by sugarcane growers in adoption of Integrated Nutrient Management Practices and suggestions to overcome these constraints.

Review of Literature

Sugarcane cultivation is associated with a wide range of constraints that hinder optimal productivity and profitability for growers. Several studies have investigated these challenges and offered suggestions to address them. Gurav et al. (2015) [2] reported that a substantial proportion of respondents encountered several challenges in sugarcane cultivation. The most prominent constraint was the high cost of production coupled with low market rates for sugarcane, reported by 38.88 per cent of the farmers. Additionally, 36.66 per cent of respondents noted that sugar factories showed a preference for other sugarcane varieties over CoM-0265. Labour scarcity was identified as a constraint by 30.00 per cent of the growers, while 24.44 per cent reported difficulty in accessing farmyard manure (FYM). Furthermore, 20.00 per cent of the respondents indicated that available micronutrients were expensive. Similarly, Shaikh et al. (2004) [4] found that sugarcane cultivators faced multiple challenges, with the non-availability of predators being the most prevalent constraint (82.26 per cent). Other significant problems included the non-utilization of sugarcane as fodder (77.42 per cent), expensive insecticides (73.39 per cent), difficulty in inter-culturing older crops (64.52 per cent), and inadequate technical knowledge about insecticide application (62.90 per cent). In terms of suggestions, Thorat et al. (2004) [7] concluded that the majority of respondents (89.44 per cent) recommended that farmers should be provided with technical information regarding the latest technologies. This was followed by the suggestion that demonstrations of improved varieties should be conducted on farmers' fields (57.22 per cent).

Additionally, 85.55 per cent of the respondents suggested that planting material of improved varieties should be made available, while 53.89 per cent recommended that the University should develop low-cost technology for sugarcane cultivation. Furthermore, 37.22 per cent emphasized the need for close linkages between scientists and farmers. These studies collectively highlight that sugarcane growers face significant economic, technical, and institutional constraints. The findings underscore the need for strengthened extension services, timely availability of inputs, and enhanced farmer-scientist linkages to promote sustainable sugarcane cultivation.

Methodology

The constraints faced by sugarcane growers in adopting Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) practices were identified through personal interviews conducted with farmers in Ahilyanagar district. Two talukas -Sangamner and Rahuriwere selected, and from each, three villages were chosen based on sugarcane area and production. Twenty sugarcane growers were randomly selected from each of the six villages, yielding a total sample of 120 respondents. Each respondent was asked to share how severe every constraint was in their own farming situation. They were then requested to rank these constraints from most to least severe based on their personal experience. The ranks given by the farmers were converted into Garrett scores using the standard Garrett conversion table. After this, the Garrett score for each constraint was calculated and the average (mean) Garrett score was worked out. The constraints were then arranged in descending order of their mean Garrett scores. The constraint with the highest mean score was placed at Rank I, showing it was the most serious problem faced by the growers. Suggestions to overcome these constraints were elicited separately and expressed as frequencies and percentages.

Results and Discussion

Conclusion and Implication

Given the focus on INM adoption, these constraint-andsuggestion patterns strongly support a case for developing farmer-led institutional mechanisms in Ahilyanagar district since collective bargaining for subsidized organic inputs, shared residue management equipment, and organized training programmes directly address the top ranked constraints (low net returns from organic manures, unawareness about optimal nutrient combinations, and irregular input availability) identified by the growers themselves. Such institutional arrangements can make INM economically viable, technically accessible, and practically feasible for sugarcane growers in the region.

References

1. Aguilar-Rivera N, Rodríguez LAD, Enríquez RV, Castillo MA, Herrera SA. The Mexican sugarcane industry: overview, constraints, current status and longterm trends. Sugar Tech. 2012;14(3):207-222. doi:10.1007/s12355-012-0151-3.
2. Gurav BS. Study of maintenance, knowledge and experiences of sugarcane growers about the drip irrigation system for sugarcane crop in Rahuri tahsil of Ahmednagar district [M.Sc. (Agri.) thesis]. Rahuri: Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2000.
3. Powar RV, Mehetre SA, Patil PR, Patil RV, Wagavekar VA, Turkewadkar SG, et al. Study on energy use efficiency for sugarcane crop production using the data envelopment analysis (DEA) technique. J Biosyst Eng. 2020;45(4):291-309.
4. Shaikh AM, Tarde VJ, Dalvi AD, Vedpathak AP, Ingawale SM, Jedhe TB. A study of knowledge and adoption level of woolly aphid control measures by sugarcane growers from Pune district. Research Review Committee Report. Rahuri: Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2004. p. 30-35.
5. Singh A, Lal UR, Mukhtar HM, Singh PS, Shah G, Dhawan RK. Phytochemical profile of sugarcane and its potential health aspects. Pharmacogn Rev. 2015;9(17):45-54. doi:10.4103/0973-7847.156340.
6. Solomon S. Sugarcane production and development of sugar industry in India. Sugar Tech. 2016;18(6):588602.
7. Thorat DR, Shirke VS, Bodhale DA, Jagdale UD, Patil PR. A study on technology of sugarcane cultivation generated by university considering attributes of the innovations as perceived by the farmers. Research Review Committee Report. Rahuri: Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth; 2004. p. 50-60.
8. Sugarcane Breeding Institute. Vision 2030: vision document. Coimbatore: Sugarcane Breeding Institute; 2011.