J. Biosci. Agric. Res. | Volume 31, Issue 02, 2605-2610 | https://doi.org/10.18801/jbar.310223.314
Article type: Research article | Received: 15.08.2023; Revised: 15.12.2023; First published online: 30 December, 2023.
Article type: Research article | Received: 15.08.2023; Revised: 15.12.2023; First published online: 30 December, 2023.
Integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation in active Tista floodplain soils
Md. Ahasan Habib 1, Md. Mamunur Rashid 2, Md. Elmur Reza 3, Md. Rabiul Islam 4, Sharmin Sultana 5, Tanjina Alam 1 and Tasnima Husna 1
1 Physiology and sugar chemistry division, Bangladesh Sugarcrop Research Institute, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh.
2 Regional Sugarcrop Research Station, Thakurgaon, Bangladesh.
3 Entomology division, Bangladesh Sugarcrop Research Institute, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh.
4 On-Farm Research Division, Bangladesh Sugarcrop Research Institute, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh.
5 Pathology Division, Bangladesh Sugarcrop Research Institute, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh.
✉ Corresponding author: [email protected] (Habib, MA).
1 Physiology and sugar chemistry division, Bangladesh Sugarcrop Research Institute, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh.
2 Regional Sugarcrop Research Station, Thakurgaon, Bangladesh.
3 Entomology division, Bangladesh Sugarcrop Research Institute, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh.
4 On-Farm Research Division, Bangladesh Sugarcrop Research Institute, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh.
5 Pathology Division, Bangladesh Sugarcrop Research Institute, Ishurdi, Pabna, Bangladesh.
✉ Corresponding author: [email protected] (Habib, MA).
Abstract
An experiment was conducted in the farmers' field of two locations, one at Mahimaganj, Gaibandha and other at Shyampur, Rangpur, under active Tista floodplain (AEZ II) in Bangladesh during 2019-2020 cropping season to know the performance of sugarcane applying organic manure pressmud/poultry litter with inorganic fertilizer. There were eight treatment combinations in the study. The overall results under this study indicated that most of the observed parameters showed significant differences except brix (%) in both locations. Among all treatment combinations, 100% recommended organic fertilizer dose plus pressmud 10 tha-1 was given the highest cane yield (94.13 tha-1 and 83.33 tha-1) and benefit cost ratio (2.26 and 2.00) in both locations. Considering the total cost and economic return, different factors associated with production system and farmers’ liking of sugarcane cultivation might be a profitable package of integrated use of organic manure and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation at Active Tista Floodplain soils.
Key Words: Sugarcane, Manure, Fertilizer, Yield and Benefit cost ratio.
An experiment was conducted in the farmers' field of two locations, one at Mahimaganj, Gaibandha and other at Shyampur, Rangpur, under active Tista floodplain (AEZ II) in Bangladesh during 2019-2020 cropping season to know the performance of sugarcane applying organic manure pressmud/poultry litter with inorganic fertilizer. There were eight treatment combinations in the study. The overall results under this study indicated that most of the observed parameters showed significant differences except brix (%) in both locations. Among all treatment combinations, 100% recommended organic fertilizer dose plus pressmud 10 tha-1 was given the highest cane yield (94.13 tha-1 and 83.33 tha-1) and benefit cost ratio (2.26 and 2.00) in both locations. Considering the total cost and economic return, different factors associated with production system and farmers’ liking of sugarcane cultivation might be a profitable package of integrated use of organic manure and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation at Active Tista Floodplain soils.
Key Words: Sugarcane, Manure, Fertilizer, Yield and Benefit cost ratio.
Article Full-Text PDF:
| 314.31.02.23_integrated_use_of_organic_and_inorganic_fertilizer_for_sugarcane_cultivation_in_active_tista_floodplain_soils.pdf |
Article Metrics:
|
Share This Article:
|
|
I. Introduction
Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is a perennial crop that can be used for animal feed as well as sugar production. The individual and combined effects of certain management practices, such as planting date, row spacing, planting depth, fertilizer rate, pest control and irrigation, have a significant impact on the growth and yield of sugarcane. Most soils in Bangladesh are low in organic matter (OM), generally containing 1.5% OM, while 2.5 to 3.0% OM is necessary for sustainable crop production. Because of its large biomass yield and long growth period, sugarcane requires a considerable amount of plant nutrients for its vegetative growth and development. Due to significant depletion of soil nutrients, sugarcane soils become less fertile and fail to produce higher yields (Bokhtiar et al., 2015). Although chemical fertilizers have been claimed as the most important contributor to the increase in world agricultural productivity over the past decades (Smil, 2001) but long-term fertilization causes declines in soil quality and crop yield, hindering current agricultural development (Wang et al., 2019). Integrated nutrient management (INM) aims to maintain or adjust soil fertility and plant nutrient supply to an optimum level for sustaining the desired crop productivity through optimization of benefits from all possible sources of plant nutrients in an integrated manner (Kannan et al., 2013). Composting of pressmud and poultry litter with mineral fertilizers to improve their chemical and physical characteristics. (Chen and Jiang, 2014).
Organic waste such as pressmud or filter cake is a by-product of sugar factories which is utilized to provide a nutrient rich, high quality organic matter when applied to the soil as manure results in better sustainable yield. It is soft, spongy, amorphous and dark brown white material containing nitrogen, cellulose, lignin, protein, sugar fiber and coagulated colloids, including cane wax, albuminoids, inorganic salts and soil particles and all other carbon containing components available in the final product (Joshi and Sharma, 2010). It usually contains about 70% lime and 15-20% organic (Khattak and Khan, 2004). The organic fraction of PM is 15-30% fiber, 5-15% crude protein, 5-15% sugar, 5-15% crude wax and fats and 10-20% ash comprising oxides of Si, Ca, P, Mg and K (Partha and Sivasubramanian, 2006). It is reported to be a valuable resource of plant nutrients and affects physical, chemical and biological properties of soil (Muhammad and Khattak, 2009). Organic material such as poultry litter is a mixture of substrate, feces, feathers and feed scraps used in bedding of broiler sheds (Chen et al., 2013). It is usually recycled as an organic fertilizer or soil amendment to provide plant nutrients and organic matter to the soil required for growth and yield (Roy et al., 2015). Besides that, their use in agriculture as an alternative source of nutrients is important both to properly dispose of these products in order to avoid environmental pollution and to reduce high costs of synthetic fertilizers (Portugal et al., 2009). Sufficient and balanced application of organic and inorganic fertilizers is a significant component of integrated nutrient management (Srivastava et al., 2015). Integrated uses of chemical and organic fertilizers are found to be more beneficial for sustainable sugarcane production. The combined use of organic and inorganic fertilizers gave significantly higher sugarcane yield and economic benefits (Paul et al., 2007). Considering this fact, this study was undertaken to develop suitable packages of integrated use of organic manure and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation at active Tista Floodplain soils.
II. Materials and Methods
The experiment was conducted at farmers' fields at Mahimaganj, Gaibandha and Shyampur, Rangpur of Bangladesh, during 2019-2020 cropping season under irrigated conditions. The site represents the active Tista floodplain (Agro-Ecological Zone II) with medium-high land of typical sandy loam soil with a pH of 5.40. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. The unit plot size was 8m 6m with the following treatment combinations.
T1 : Control (no fertilizer and manure)
T2 : RFD (Recommendation Fertilizer Dose)
T3 : 100% RFD + Pressmud 10 t ha-1
T4 : 75 % RFD + Pressmud 10 t ha-1
T5 : 75 % RFD + Pressmud 10 t ha-1 + Poultry litter 5 t ha-1
T6 : 50 % RFD + Pressmud 10 t ha-1 + Poultry litter 5 t ha-1
T7 : 100 % RFD + Poultry litter 5 t ha-1
T8 : 75% RFD + Pressmud 5 t ha-1 + Poultry litter 5 t ha-1
Two budded setts of sugarcane variety Isd 39 were used as planting material and planted in rows 100cm apart with end to end placement. The setts were planted on 20th December, 2019 in both locations. The inter-row spacing between two cane rows was tilth well by spade and country plough. Fertilizers were applied as per recommended rate from fertilizer recommendation guide (BARC, 2012). Urea, TSP, MOP, Gypsum and ZnSO4 were applied at rates of 358, 275, 240, 188 and 7kg ha-1, respectively, for cane planting, with the entire quantity of TSP, Gypsum, ZnSO4 and a third of Urea and MoP placed in trench and mixed with soil prior to planting setts. In terms of treatment, organic manure of pressmud and poultry litter was integrated into the soil with basal fertilizer application. The second dose of Urea (1/3rd) and MoP (1/3rd) was applied as first top dressing (at 90 DAP) and final top dressing was done with the rest amount of Urea and MoP at 150 DAP. Fripronil 3% GR was applied between two ridges @ 33 kg/ha for controlling termite at planting time. Cabofuran 5 G @18 kg/ha was applied twice, 90 DAP and 150 DAP, during earthing up for controlling borer pest. A total of four irrigations were given. First irrigation was given 15 days after setts planting and other three irrigations were given 45 days interval. Necessary intercultural operations like weeding, mulching, gap filling, tying etc., were done accordingly. Pre-sowing irrigation was given to ensure the maximum germination percentage. Soil samples were collected from 0-15 cm dept before plantation and after sugarcane harvesting and analyzed following standard procedures. Tiller population was counted at 150 DAP. Millable cane, stalk height, stalk diameter and cane yield were counted at harvest time. The samples were collected from the area of 25 m2 of each plot, avoiding the border plants and then converted to hector. After harvested crop, only stalk were weighted by the weight machine. Brix (%) of cane was randomly recorded by refract meter from five canes in each plot at harvest time. Sugarcane was harvested in Mid December of 2020 in both locations. Fisher’s analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for statistical analysis of collected data and comparison of differences among treatment means. Least significant difference (LSD) test was used at 5% probability. Statistics 10 (Tallahassee FL 32317) was used to determine statistical deference.
Benefit cost ratio indicated whether the cultivation was profitable or not, which was calculated as follows (CIMMYT, 1988):
BCR = Gross return (Tk.ha-1)Cost of production (Tk.ha-1)
Gross return = Value of cane
Cost of production = Sum of the cost of the resources.
III. Results and Discussion
Tiller population
Tillering potentiality of sugarcane ultimately affects cane yield positively (Table 01). The maximum tiller population of 166.62 × 103 ha-1 and 198.74 × 103 ha-1 was found from the treatment T7 at Gaibandha and Rangpur locations, respectively. The minimum number of tillers 98.12 × 103 ha-1 and 116.31 × 103 ha-1 was found from the treatment T1 at Gaibandha and Rangpur locations, respectively. A similar result was observed by Hossain et al. (2009). They observed maximum tiller production (183.1 62x 103) from recommended fertilizer with pressmud @ 5 t ha-1.
Table 01. Performance of tiller, millable cane and Brix (%) of sugarcane at both locations (See in pdf)
Millable cane
The number of millable cane directly influences cane yield. The highest number of millable cane of 87.43 × 103 ha-1 was found from the treatment T8 at Gaibandha location. At Rangpur, highest number of millable cane of 87.50 × 103 ha-1 was found from the treatment T6. The lowest number of millable cane of 66.25 x 103 ha-1 and 57.13 x 103 ha-1 were found from T1 at Gaibandha and Rangpur locations, respectively (Table 01). A similar result was observed by Bokhtiar et al. (2015).
Brix (%)
Brix readings obtained from all the treatments were not significantly affected but were numerically different (Table 01). The range of the Brix % (22.30 – 21.60) was found at Gaibandha location. At Rangpur location, brix (%) was found (21.50 – 20.30). A similar result was in agreement with Hossain et al. (2009). They found that brix (%) of sugarcane did not significantly differ by the combined application of organic fertilizer with inorganic fertilizer.
Stalk height
Environmental factors and genetic characteristics of plants play an important role in determining the plant height. The highest Stalk height 3.40 m and 3.34 m were found from the treatment T3 in both locations. The lowest cane stalk heights 2.77 m and 2.73 m were found from the T1 in both locations (Table 02). The findings confirm with the results of Bokhtiar et al. (2015). They found that combined application of pressmud with chemical fertilizers improved the application of pressmud 7.5 t ha-1 with inorganic fertilizer had some beneficial effects on cane length and the effect was also statistically significant. Application of 7.5 t ha-1 pressmud plus 100% RFD produced the tallest cane (3.897 m).
Stalk diameter
The highest Stalk diameters 2.23 cm and 2.21 cm were found from the treatment T3 in both locations. The lowest cane Stalk diameters 1.73 cm and 1.68 cm were found from the T1 in both locations (Table 02). Similar findings were in agreement with Bokhtiar et al. (2015). They found that cane girth was significantly affected by combined application of pressmud with chemical fertilizers among different treatments.
Cane yield
The highest cane yield 96.21 t ha-1 and 83.25 t ha-1 were found from the treatment T3 in both locations. The lowest cane yield was 51.17 t ha-1 and 45.10 t ha-1 found from T1 in both locations (Table 02). A similar result was in agreement with Bokhtiar et al. (2015). They showed that combined application of pressmud with chemical fertilizers improved the cane yield and the effect was more pronounced at higher fertilizer levels (100% RFD).
Table 02. Performance of stalk height, diameter and cane yield of sugarcane at both locations (See in pdf)
Economics
The economic analysis of the experiment under different treatment combinations are presented in Table 03. Among the different treatments, the highest gross return (235325.00 Tk.ha¬-1) and (208325.00 Tk.ha¬-1) were achieved from T3 in both locations. The lowest gross return of 125000.00 Tk.ha¬-1 and 107500.00 Tk.ha¬-1 were calculated from the treatment T1 in both locations. The highest net return (131325.00 Tk.ha¬-1) and (104325.00 Tk.ha¬-1) were achieved from T3 in both locations. The lowest net return of 38080.00 Tk.ha¬-1 and 20580.00 Tk.ha¬-1 was found from the treatment T1 in both locations. The treatment T3 was given the highest BCR of 2.26 and 2.00 in both locations and the lowest BCR of 1.44 and 1.24 were given the treatment T1 in both locations. A similar result was observed by Hossain et al. (2009). They observed that recommend dose with pressmud @5 t ha-1 give the highest gross margin (112593.00 Tk.) and BCR 2.92.
Table 03. Total cost of production, gross return, net return and benefit cost ratio of sugarcane in both locations. (See in pdf)
Soil nutrient status
Table 04 shows that the soil pH, organic C and S contents increased slightly over initial value in the plot of all treatments except treatment T1 (no fertilizer and manure) at both locations. N improved slightly over initial soil except for T8, T7 and T1 at Gaibandha. On the other hand, N slightly increased in treatments T6, T3 and T2 but decreased in the treatment T8, T7, T6 and T2 at Rangpur location. P and K content in the soil slightly increased after sugarcane harvest compared to the initial soil in all treatments except T1 at both locations. A similar result was reported by Haque et al. (2011). They reported that applying different treatments with organic and inorganic fertilizers slightly improved soil nutrient soil pH, OC %, P, K, S except for N contents of soils after sugarcane harvesting.
Table 04. Nutrient status of initial and post harvest soil of the experimental site as affected by different fertilizer management options for sugarcane at both locations (See in pdf)
IV. Conclusion
The overall result of this experiment shows that The overall result revealed that among eight treatments, 100% RFD + Pressmud 10 t ha-1 was given highest plant height, stalk height, salk diameter, highest cane yield (94.13 tha-1 and 83.33 tha-1) and benefit cost ratio (2.26 and 2.00) in both locations. Considering yield and BCR were achieved from 100% recommended organic fertilizer dose plus pressmud 10 tha-1 applying in sugarcane cultivation. So, it can be concluded that applying 100% of the recommended organic fertilizer dose plus pressmud ten tha-1 for sugarcane cultivation might be recommended at Active Tista Floodplain soils.
Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is a perennial crop that can be used for animal feed as well as sugar production. The individual and combined effects of certain management practices, such as planting date, row spacing, planting depth, fertilizer rate, pest control and irrigation, have a significant impact on the growth and yield of sugarcane. Most soils in Bangladesh are low in organic matter (OM), generally containing 1.5% OM, while 2.5 to 3.0% OM is necessary for sustainable crop production. Because of its large biomass yield and long growth period, sugarcane requires a considerable amount of plant nutrients for its vegetative growth and development. Due to significant depletion of soil nutrients, sugarcane soils become less fertile and fail to produce higher yields (Bokhtiar et al., 2015). Although chemical fertilizers have been claimed as the most important contributor to the increase in world agricultural productivity over the past decades (Smil, 2001) but long-term fertilization causes declines in soil quality and crop yield, hindering current agricultural development (Wang et al., 2019). Integrated nutrient management (INM) aims to maintain or adjust soil fertility and plant nutrient supply to an optimum level for sustaining the desired crop productivity through optimization of benefits from all possible sources of plant nutrients in an integrated manner (Kannan et al., 2013). Composting of pressmud and poultry litter with mineral fertilizers to improve their chemical and physical characteristics. (Chen and Jiang, 2014).
Organic waste such as pressmud or filter cake is a by-product of sugar factories which is utilized to provide a nutrient rich, high quality organic matter when applied to the soil as manure results in better sustainable yield. It is soft, spongy, amorphous and dark brown white material containing nitrogen, cellulose, lignin, protein, sugar fiber and coagulated colloids, including cane wax, albuminoids, inorganic salts and soil particles and all other carbon containing components available in the final product (Joshi and Sharma, 2010). It usually contains about 70% lime and 15-20% organic (Khattak and Khan, 2004). The organic fraction of PM is 15-30% fiber, 5-15% crude protein, 5-15% sugar, 5-15% crude wax and fats and 10-20% ash comprising oxides of Si, Ca, P, Mg and K (Partha and Sivasubramanian, 2006). It is reported to be a valuable resource of plant nutrients and affects physical, chemical and biological properties of soil (Muhammad and Khattak, 2009). Organic material such as poultry litter is a mixture of substrate, feces, feathers and feed scraps used in bedding of broiler sheds (Chen et al., 2013). It is usually recycled as an organic fertilizer or soil amendment to provide plant nutrients and organic matter to the soil required for growth and yield (Roy et al., 2015). Besides that, their use in agriculture as an alternative source of nutrients is important both to properly dispose of these products in order to avoid environmental pollution and to reduce high costs of synthetic fertilizers (Portugal et al., 2009). Sufficient and balanced application of organic and inorganic fertilizers is a significant component of integrated nutrient management (Srivastava et al., 2015). Integrated uses of chemical and organic fertilizers are found to be more beneficial for sustainable sugarcane production. The combined use of organic and inorganic fertilizers gave significantly higher sugarcane yield and economic benefits (Paul et al., 2007). Considering this fact, this study was undertaken to develop suitable packages of integrated use of organic manure and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation at active Tista Floodplain soils.
II. Materials and Methods
The experiment was conducted at farmers' fields at Mahimaganj, Gaibandha and Shyampur, Rangpur of Bangladesh, during 2019-2020 cropping season under irrigated conditions. The site represents the active Tista floodplain (Agro-Ecological Zone II) with medium-high land of typical sandy loam soil with a pH of 5.40. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications. The unit plot size was 8m 6m with the following treatment combinations.
T1 : Control (no fertilizer and manure)
T2 : RFD (Recommendation Fertilizer Dose)
T3 : 100% RFD + Pressmud 10 t ha-1
T4 : 75 % RFD + Pressmud 10 t ha-1
T5 : 75 % RFD + Pressmud 10 t ha-1 + Poultry litter 5 t ha-1
T6 : 50 % RFD + Pressmud 10 t ha-1 + Poultry litter 5 t ha-1
T7 : 100 % RFD + Poultry litter 5 t ha-1
T8 : 75% RFD + Pressmud 5 t ha-1 + Poultry litter 5 t ha-1
Two budded setts of sugarcane variety Isd 39 were used as planting material and planted in rows 100cm apart with end to end placement. The setts were planted on 20th December, 2019 in both locations. The inter-row spacing between two cane rows was tilth well by spade and country plough. Fertilizers were applied as per recommended rate from fertilizer recommendation guide (BARC, 2012). Urea, TSP, MOP, Gypsum and ZnSO4 were applied at rates of 358, 275, 240, 188 and 7kg ha-1, respectively, for cane planting, with the entire quantity of TSP, Gypsum, ZnSO4 and a third of Urea and MoP placed in trench and mixed with soil prior to planting setts. In terms of treatment, organic manure of pressmud and poultry litter was integrated into the soil with basal fertilizer application. The second dose of Urea (1/3rd) and MoP (1/3rd) was applied as first top dressing (at 90 DAP) and final top dressing was done with the rest amount of Urea and MoP at 150 DAP. Fripronil 3% GR was applied between two ridges @ 33 kg/ha for controlling termite at planting time. Cabofuran 5 G @18 kg/ha was applied twice, 90 DAP and 150 DAP, during earthing up for controlling borer pest. A total of four irrigations were given. First irrigation was given 15 days after setts planting and other three irrigations were given 45 days interval. Necessary intercultural operations like weeding, mulching, gap filling, tying etc., were done accordingly. Pre-sowing irrigation was given to ensure the maximum germination percentage. Soil samples were collected from 0-15 cm dept before plantation and after sugarcane harvesting and analyzed following standard procedures. Tiller population was counted at 150 DAP. Millable cane, stalk height, stalk diameter and cane yield were counted at harvest time. The samples were collected from the area of 25 m2 of each plot, avoiding the border plants and then converted to hector. After harvested crop, only stalk were weighted by the weight machine. Brix (%) of cane was randomly recorded by refract meter from five canes in each plot at harvest time. Sugarcane was harvested in Mid December of 2020 in both locations. Fisher’s analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for statistical analysis of collected data and comparison of differences among treatment means. Least significant difference (LSD) test was used at 5% probability. Statistics 10 (Tallahassee FL 32317) was used to determine statistical deference.
Benefit cost ratio indicated whether the cultivation was profitable or not, which was calculated as follows (CIMMYT, 1988):
BCR = Gross return (Tk.ha-1)Cost of production (Tk.ha-1)
Gross return = Value of cane
Cost of production = Sum of the cost of the resources.
III. Results and Discussion
Tiller population
Tillering potentiality of sugarcane ultimately affects cane yield positively (Table 01). The maximum tiller population of 166.62 × 103 ha-1 and 198.74 × 103 ha-1 was found from the treatment T7 at Gaibandha and Rangpur locations, respectively. The minimum number of tillers 98.12 × 103 ha-1 and 116.31 × 103 ha-1 was found from the treatment T1 at Gaibandha and Rangpur locations, respectively. A similar result was observed by Hossain et al. (2009). They observed maximum tiller production (183.1 62x 103) from recommended fertilizer with pressmud @ 5 t ha-1.
Table 01. Performance of tiller, millable cane and Brix (%) of sugarcane at both locations (See in pdf)
Millable cane
The number of millable cane directly influences cane yield. The highest number of millable cane of 87.43 × 103 ha-1 was found from the treatment T8 at Gaibandha location. At Rangpur, highest number of millable cane of 87.50 × 103 ha-1 was found from the treatment T6. The lowest number of millable cane of 66.25 x 103 ha-1 and 57.13 x 103 ha-1 were found from T1 at Gaibandha and Rangpur locations, respectively (Table 01). A similar result was observed by Bokhtiar et al. (2015).
Brix (%)
Brix readings obtained from all the treatments were not significantly affected but were numerically different (Table 01). The range of the Brix % (22.30 – 21.60) was found at Gaibandha location. At Rangpur location, brix (%) was found (21.50 – 20.30). A similar result was in agreement with Hossain et al. (2009). They found that brix (%) of sugarcane did not significantly differ by the combined application of organic fertilizer with inorganic fertilizer.
Stalk height
Environmental factors and genetic characteristics of plants play an important role in determining the plant height. The highest Stalk height 3.40 m and 3.34 m were found from the treatment T3 in both locations. The lowest cane stalk heights 2.77 m and 2.73 m were found from the T1 in both locations (Table 02). The findings confirm with the results of Bokhtiar et al. (2015). They found that combined application of pressmud with chemical fertilizers improved the application of pressmud 7.5 t ha-1 with inorganic fertilizer had some beneficial effects on cane length and the effect was also statistically significant. Application of 7.5 t ha-1 pressmud plus 100% RFD produced the tallest cane (3.897 m).
Stalk diameter
The highest Stalk diameters 2.23 cm and 2.21 cm were found from the treatment T3 in both locations. The lowest cane Stalk diameters 1.73 cm and 1.68 cm were found from the T1 in both locations (Table 02). Similar findings were in agreement with Bokhtiar et al. (2015). They found that cane girth was significantly affected by combined application of pressmud with chemical fertilizers among different treatments.
Cane yield
The highest cane yield 96.21 t ha-1 and 83.25 t ha-1 were found from the treatment T3 in both locations. The lowest cane yield was 51.17 t ha-1 and 45.10 t ha-1 found from T1 in both locations (Table 02). A similar result was in agreement with Bokhtiar et al. (2015). They showed that combined application of pressmud with chemical fertilizers improved the cane yield and the effect was more pronounced at higher fertilizer levels (100% RFD).
Table 02. Performance of stalk height, diameter and cane yield of sugarcane at both locations (See in pdf)
Economics
The economic analysis of the experiment under different treatment combinations are presented in Table 03. Among the different treatments, the highest gross return (235325.00 Tk.ha¬-1) and (208325.00 Tk.ha¬-1) were achieved from T3 in both locations. The lowest gross return of 125000.00 Tk.ha¬-1 and 107500.00 Tk.ha¬-1 were calculated from the treatment T1 in both locations. The highest net return (131325.00 Tk.ha¬-1) and (104325.00 Tk.ha¬-1) were achieved from T3 in both locations. The lowest net return of 38080.00 Tk.ha¬-1 and 20580.00 Tk.ha¬-1 was found from the treatment T1 in both locations. The treatment T3 was given the highest BCR of 2.26 and 2.00 in both locations and the lowest BCR of 1.44 and 1.24 were given the treatment T1 in both locations. A similar result was observed by Hossain et al. (2009). They observed that recommend dose with pressmud @5 t ha-1 give the highest gross margin (112593.00 Tk.) and BCR 2.92.
Table 03. Total cost of production, gross return, net return and benefit cost ratio of sugarcane in both locations. (See in pdf)
Soil nutrient status
Table 04 shows that the soil pH, organic C and S contents increased slightly over initial value in the plot of all treatments except treatment T1 (no fertilizer and manure) at both locations. N improved slightly over initial soil except for T8, T7 and T1 at Gaibandha. On the other hand, N slightly increased in treatments T6, T3 and T2 but decreased in the treatment T8, T7, T6 and T2 at Rangpur location. P and K content in the soil slightly increased after sugarcane harvest compared to the initial soil in all treatments except T1 at both locations. A similar result was reported by Haque et al. (2011). They reported that applying different treatments with organic and inorganic fertilizers slightly improved soil nutrient soil pH, OC %, P, K, S except for N contents of soils after sugarcane harvesting.
Table 04. Nutrient status of initial and post harvest soil of the experimental site as affected by different fertilizer management options for sugarcane at both locations (See in pdf)
IV. Conclusion
The overall result of this experiment shows that The overall result revealed that among eight treatments, 100% RFD + Pressmud 10 t ha-1 was given highest plant height, stalk height, salk diameter, highest cane yield (94.13 tha-1 and 83.33 tha-1) and benefit cost ratio (2.26 and 2.00) in both locations. Considering yield and BCR were achieved from 100% recommended organic fertilizer dose plus pressmud 10 tha-1 applying in sugarcane cultivation. So, it can be concluded that applying 100% of the recommended organic fertilizer dose plus pressmud ten tha-1 for sugarcane cultivation might be recommended at Active Tista Floodplain soils.
Article Citations:
Habib, M. A. “Integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation in active Tista floodplain soils”. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research, 31(02), (2023): 2605-2610.
APA
Habib, M. A., Rashid, M. M., Reza, M. E., Islam, M. R., Sultana, S., Alam, T. and Turna, K. R. (2023). Integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation in active Tista floodplain soils. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research, 31(02), 2605-2610.
Chicago
Habib, M. A., Rashid, M. M., Reza, M. E., Islam, M. R., Sultana, S., Alam, T. and Turna, K. R. “Integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation in active Tista floodplain soils”. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research, 31(02), (2023): 2605-2610.
Harvard
Habib, M. A., Rashid, M. M., Reza, M. E., Islam, M. R., Sultana, S., Alam, T. and Turna, K. R. 2023. Integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation in active Tista floodplain soils. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research, 31(02), pp. 2605-2610.
Vancouver
Habib, MA, Rashid, MM, Reza, ME, Islam, MR, Sultana, S, Alam, T and Turna, KR. Integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation in active Tista floodplain soils. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research, 2023 December, 31(02): 2605-2610.
APA
Habib, M. A., Rashid, M. M., Reza, M. E., Islam, M. R., Sultana, S., Alam, T. and Turna, K. R. (2023). Integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation in active Tista floodplain soils. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research, 31(02), 2605-2610.
Chicago
Habib, M. A., Rashid, M. M., Reza, M. E., Islam, M. R., Sultana, S., Alam, T. and Turna, K. R. “Integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation in active Tista floodplain soils”. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research, 31(02), (2023): 2605-2610.
Harvard
Habib, M. A., Rashid, M. M., Reza, M. E., Islam, M. R., Sultana, S., Alam, T. and Turna, K. R. 2023. Integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation in active Tista floodplain soils. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research, 31(02), pp. 2605-2610.
Vancouver
Habib, MA, Rashid, MM, Reza, ME, Islam, MR, Sultana, S, Alam, T and Turna, KR. Integrated use of organic and inorganic fertilizer for sugarcane cultivation in active Tista floodplain soils. Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research, 2023 December, 31(02): 2605-2610.
References:
[1]. BARC (Bangladesh Agricultural Research Council), (2012). Fertilizer Recommendation Guide. Bangladesh Agri. Res. Coun., New Airport Road, Farm gate, Dhaka-1225. pp.191.
[2]. Bokhtiar, S. M., Roksana, S. and Moslehuddin, A. Z. M. (2015). Soil fertility and productivity of sugarcane influenced by enriched pressmud compost with chemical fertilizers. SAARC Journal of Agriculture, 13(2), 183-197. https://doi.org/10.3329/sja.v13i2.26579
[3]. Chen, Z. and Jiang, X. (2014). Microbiological safety of chicken litter or chicken litter-based organic fertilizers: Review of Agriculture, 4(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture4010001
[4]. Chen, Z., Diao, J., Dharmasena, M., Ionita, C., Jiang, X. and Rieck, J. (2013). Thermal inactivation of desiccation-adapted Salmonella spp. in aged chicken litter. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 79(22), 7013-7020. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01969-13
[5]. CIMMYT. (1988). From Agronomic Data to Farmers Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual. Completely revised edition. Mexico. D.F.pp. 31-45.
[6]. Haque, M. A., Paul, G. C., Bokhtiar, S. M., Hossain, G. M. A., Alam, K. M. and Islam, M. S. (2011). Combined Application of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizer for Sustainable Sugarcane Production. Bangladesh Journal of Sugarcane, 32, 44-48.
[7]. Hossain, G. M. A., Boktiar, S. M., Alam, K. M., Poul, G. C. and Kabir, M. L. (2009). Contribution of rice mill ash and pressmud with inorganic fertilizers on the productivity of sugarcane. Bangladesh Journal of Sugarcane, 31, 18-24.
[8]. Joshi, N. and Sharma, S. (2010). Physico-chemical characterization of sulphidation pressmud composted press mud and vermicomposted pressmud. Report and Opinion, 2(3), 79–82.
[9]. Kannan, R., Lalith and Dhivya, M. (2013). Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil fertility and productivity in maize. Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences, 2(8), 61–67.
[10]. Khattak, R. A. and Khan, M. J. (2004). Evaluation reclamation and management of saline sodic soils in Kohat division. Final Report. Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, NWFP Agriculture University Peshawar. National Drainage Programme (NDP), Govt. of Pakistan.
[11]. Muhammad, D. and Khattak, R. A. (2009). Growth and nutrient concentrations of maize in pressmud treated salinesodic soils. Soil & Environment, 28(2), 145-155.
[12]. Partha, N. and Sivasubramanian, V. (2006). Recovery of chemicals from pressmud of sugar industry waste. Indian Chemical Engineer Section A, 48(3), 160–163.
[13]. Paul, G. C., Bokhtiar, S. M., Rashed, M. A. and Mannan, M. A. (2007). Integrated nutrient management for sustainable sugarcane production in different agro-ecological zones of Bangladesh. Planter, 83(977), 529-538.
[14]. Portugal, A. F., Ribeiro, D. O., Carballal, M. R., Vilela, L. A. F., Araújo, E. J. And Gontijo, M. F. D. (2009). Efeitos da utilização de diferentes doses de cama de frangopordoisanos consecutivosnacondiçãoquímica do solo e obtenção de matériasecaem Brachiariabrizantha cv. Marandú. In: Anais Florianópolis: EMBRAPA sunos eaves p. 137-142.
[15]. Roy, M., Das, R., Kundu, A., Karmakar, S., Das, S., Sen, P. K., Debsarcar, A. and Mukherjee, J. (2015). Organic Cultivation of Tomato in India with Recycled Slaughterhouse Wastes: Evaluation of Fertilizer and Fruit Safety. Agriculture, 5, 826-856. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture5030826
[16]. Smil, V. (2001). Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2767.001.0001
[17]. Srivastava, S., Chopra, A. K. and Kumar, V. (2015). Agro fertilization response of sugar mill effluent and synthetic fertilizer (DAP) on the agronomy of crop Vigna unguiculata L. Walp in two seasons. Research Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science, 2(3), 5–17.
[18]. Wang, M., Zhang, D. Q., Dong, J. W. and Tan, S. K. (2017). Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in cold climate-a review. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 57, 293-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2016.05.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2016.12.019
[2]. Bokhtiar, S. M., Roksana, S. and Moslehuddin, A. Z. M. (2015). Soil fertility and productivity of sugarcane influenced by enriched pressmud compost with chemical fertilizers. SAARC Journal of Agriculture, 13(2), 183-197. https://doi.org/10.3329/sja.v13i2.26579
[3]. Chen, Z. and Jiang, X. (2014). Microbiological safety of chicken litter or chicken litter-based organic fertilizers: Review of Agriculture, 4(1), 1-29. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture4010001
[4]. Chen, Z., Diao, J., Dharmasena, M., Ionita, C., Jiang, X. and Rieck, J. (2013). Thermal inactivation of desiccation-adapted Salmonella spp. in aged chicken litter. Applied and Environmental Microbiology, 79(22), 7013-7020. https://doi.org/10.1128/AEM.01969-13
[5]. CIMMYT. (1988). From Agronomic Data to Farmers Recommendations: An Economics Training Manual. Completely revised edition. Mexico. D.F.pp. 31-45.
[6]. Haque, M. A., Paul, G. C., Bokhtiar, S. M., Hossain, G. M. A., Alam, K. M. and Islam, M. S. (2011). Combined Application of Organic and Inorganic Fertilizer for Sustainable Sugarcane Production. Bangladesh Journal of Sugarcane, 32, 44-48.
[7]. Hossain, G. M. A., Boktiar, S. M., Alam, K. M., Poul, G. C. and Kabir, M. L. (2009). Contribution of rice mill ash and pressmud with inorganic fertilizers on the productivity of sugarcane. Bangladesh Journal of Sugarcane, 31, 18-24.
[8]. Joshi, N. and Sharma, S. (2010). Physico-chemical characterization of sulphidation pressmud composted press mud and vermicomposted pressmud. Report and Opinion, 2(3), 79–82.
[9]. Kannan, R., Lalith and Dhivya, M. (2013). Effect of integrated nutrient management on soil fertility and productivity in maize. Bulletin of Environment, Pharmacology and Life Sciences, 2(8), 61–67.
[10]. Khattak, R. A. and Khan, M. J. (2004). Evaluation reclamation and management of saline sodic soils in Kohat division. Final Report. Department of Soil and Environmental Sciences, NWFP Agriculture University Peshawar. National Drainage Programme (NDP), Govt. of Pakistan.
[11]. Muhammad, D. and Khattak, R. A. (2009). Growth and nutrient concentrations of maize in pressmud treated salinesodic soils. Soil & Environment, 28(2), 145-155.
[12]. Partha, N. and Sivasubramanian, V. (2006). Recovery of chemicals from pressmud of sugar industry waste. Indian Chemical Engineer Section A, 48(3), 160–163.
[13]. Paul, G. C., Bokhtiar, S. M., Rashed, M. A. and Mannan, M. A. (2007). Integrated nutrient management for sustainable sugarcane production in different agro-ecological zones of Bangladesh. Planter, 83(977), 529-538.
[14]. Portugal, A. F., Ribeiro, D. O., Carballal, M. R., Vilela, L. A. F., Araújo, E. J. And Gontijo, M. F. D. (2009). Efeitos da utilização de diferentes doses de cama de frangopordoisanos consecutivosnacondiçãoquímica do solo e obtenção de matériasecaem Brachiariabrizantha cv. Marandú. In: Anais Florianópolis: EMBRAPA sunos eaves p. 137-142.
[15]. Roy, M., Das, R., Kundu, A., Karmakar, S., Das, S., Sen, P. K., Debsarcar, A. and Mukherjee, J. (2015). Organic Cultivation of Tomato in India with Recycled Slaughterhouse Wastes: Evaluation of Fertilizer and Fruit Safety. Agriculture, 5, 826-856. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture5030826
[16]. Smil, V. (2001). Enriching the Earth: Fritz Haber, Carl Bosch, and the Transformation of World Food Production. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/2767.001.0001
[17]. Srivastava, S., Chopra, A. K. and Kumar, V. (2015). Agro fertilization response of sugar mill effluent and synthetic fertilizer (DAP) on the agronomy of crop Vigna unguiculata L. Walp in two seasons. Research Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Science, 2(3), 5–17.
[18]. Wang, M., Zhang, D. Q., Dong, J. W. and Tan, S. K. (2017). Constructed wetlands for wastewater treatment in cold climate-a review. Journal of Environmental Sciences, 57, 293-311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2016.05.017 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jes.2016.12.019
© 2023 The Authors. This article is freely available for anyone to read, share, download, print, permitted for unrestricted use and build upon, provided that the original author(s) and publisher are given due credit. All Published articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Journal of Bioscience and Agriculture Research EISSN 2312-7945.