ArticlePDF Available



Abstract and Figures

Organic manures and biofertilizers application in the nutrient management programme is inevitable for achieving sustainable sugarcane production. Application of farmyard manure, cane trash, pressmud, vermicompost. and biocompost in combination with recommended inorganic fertilizers have recorded increased cane yield over inorganic fertilizer alone, besides improving the soil fertility and economizing the cane prodUction. Intercropping and io<;orporation of green manures such as daincha, sunhemp and cowpea and pulses like greengram, blackgram, lentil and frenchbean have established beneficial effects of improving nitrogen use efficiency, cane yield and improving the physio-chemical properties of soil. Nitrogen fixing biofertilizers' are useful to economise the nitrogenous fertilizers and to increase the cane yield. Phosphorus solubilising biofertilizers solubilize the unavailable phosphorus to available P form and increase the P use efficiency. Inclusion of biofertilizers in the nutrient management programme has found to increase the yield of sugarcane by 5-10%, besides increasing the nutrient use efficiency.
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
... biofertilizers in ratoon crop sustained higher cane yield and sugar recovery (Soomro et al. 2013). This also improved soil health by enriching the organic carbon content of the soil (Stamford et al. 2006;Ramesh et al. 2004). ...
Full-text available
Sugarcane is a long-duration, huge biomass accumulating crop and requires a number of cultural and management operations from planting to harvesting. It is also a wonder crop where after harvesting of the main crop, the subsequent ratoon crop is generated through established root system. Adoption of green technologies is a viable option to improve sugarcane productivity and sustainability. Fine-tuning the green technologies, different methods/techniques of crop production, planting methods (cane node/STP technologies and planting through Cutter Planter), nutrient management strategies (intercropping, green manuring, press mud, bio-compost, bio-fertilizers, etc.), insect–pest and disease management options (cultural and physical methods, use of bio-agents, bio-pesticides, botanicals, light/pheromone or combo traps, etc.) and management of adverse climatic conditions (drought and flood) and/or crop residue recycling and trash management technologies may not only improve soil health and cane productivity but are also eco-friendly and environmentally safe. These green technological interventions are being applied in sugarcane and sugarcane-based production system in the country. Improvement in the crop productivity vis-a-vis sustaining natural resources is key components to be addressed through these technologies. Thus, reduction in cost of production, improvement in soil health, increased crop productivity and overall improvement in cane sugar productivity and farmers’ income would be possible through the adoption of green technologies. The established green technologies in sugarcane production system and pre- and post-harvest management have potential to improve cane yield and sugar recovery besides enhancing farmer’s income and sustainability. In this present paper, various aspects of increasing sugarcane and sugar yields, reducing cost of production and increasing farmers’ income through the adoption of green technologies have been discussed.
... Furthermore, Rouf et al. (2010) collected press mud from sugar mills situated in Punjab, India and analyzed macronutrients and micronutrients on % dry basis and reported that the digested slurry of press mud could be used as a fertilizer since it was rich in plant nutrients. Ramesh et al. (2004) emphasized and proved that a judicious combination of inorganic, organic and biofertilizers is a potential tool for sustaining the cane productivity as well as' soil fertility in sugarcane and sugarcane based cropping systems. Table I ...
In this research, characterization of press mud, a by-product of sugar industry in respect of its multi-elemental availability was taken into consideration to check its feasibility as an aqua-fertilizer. Eighteen elements including essential macro-elements, essential trace elements and non-essential toxic elements were quantitatively analyzed in sugar press mud by ICP-OES following protocols of AOAC from five randomly selected sugar mills situated in South Punjab, Pakistan. It was observed that the samples contained potential amounts of essential elements, while the toxic elements were present in low quantities. The results were statistically analyzed and compared for their significance and showed significantly higher quantities of Ca, Na, K, Fe, Mg followed by relatively lower quantities of Al, Mn and low quantities of Zn, Co, Ba, Li, Pb, Cu, Sr, Ni, Cr, La and Cd. It was concluded that this naturally fortified by-product of sugar industry can be beneficially employed as a valuable futuristic fertilizer in aquaculture processes.
Full-text available
he ability to take advantage of the natural resources is a major step towards economic prosperity for a country like India as usage of chemical fertilizers for crop production is expensive, mainly because of shortfall in availability and the problems of environmental pollution. Scientists are currently interested in developing alternative technology to minimize the dependence on chemical fertilizers and encourage the use of bio-fertilizers on a large scale by the farming communities. Sugarcane (Saccharum spp.) isa tropical and subtropical crop, which produces a large amount of biomass and requires substantial inputs of both water and nutrients to produce maximum yield. The soil fertility has also declined in many sugarcane growing areas due to improper and distorted fertilizer schedules adopted over the years under intensive cultivation of the crop. On average, sugarcane crop yielding 100 t/ha would remove 200-250 kg of N, 120-150 kg of Pand 175-225 kg of K from soil .
In: Annual Report. Sugarcane Breeding Institute (ICAR): 37-38. @BULLET 210 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS !I
  • B Sundara
Sundara, B. (2000). In: Annual Report. Sugarcane Breeding Institute (ICAR): 37-38. @BULLET 210 AGRICULTURAL REVIEWS !I
  • R L Yadav
Yadav, R.L. et al. (1987). Indian J. Agron., 32: 80-84.
  • A Sathyavelu
Sathyavelu. A. et al. (1999). Sugar J., 24: 29-30.
Extended Summaries: International Conference on Managing Natural Resources
  • R L Yadav
Yadav, R.L. et ai. (2000). Extended Summaries: International Conference on Managing Natural Resources. New Delhi, India. Feb. 14-18 th pp 928-931.
  • L Dixit
  • A Misra
Dixit, L. and Misra, A (1991). Indian. J. Agron., 36: 261-262.
  • G Kathiresan
  • A Ayyamperumal
Kathiresan, G. and Ayyamperumal, A (1996). Coop. Sug., 28: 126-128.
  • R L Sharma
Sharma, RL. et a1. (1999). Indian J. Agric. Chern., 32(1): 1-5.
  • D B Bhanavase
Bhanavase, D.B. et al. (1996). Indian Sug., 46: 411-413.
  • V Jayapal
Jayapal, V. et a1. (1989). Bharatiya Sug., 14(12): 53-55.
  • S Buragohain
  • Kr
Buragohain, S. Kr. (2000). Indian Sug., 50: 847-851.