CAUSES OF LOW SUGAR CANE BY SUGAR CANE ADVISOR - cane  · causes of low sugar cane productivity in…

  • Published on
    17-Nov-2018

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Transcript

  • CAUSES OF LOW SUGAR CANEPRODUCTIVITY IN SINDH. A CASE

    STUDY OF SHAHMURAD AREABY

    DR: HAJI KHAN KEERIOSUGAR CANE ADVISOR

    CAUSES OF LOW SUGAR CANEPRODUCTIVITY IN SINDH. A CASE

    STUDY OF SHAHMURAD AREABY

    DR: HAJI KHAN KEERIOSUGAR CANE ADVISOR

  • INTRODUCTIONSOIL

    WATERVARIETIES

    FERTILIZERCONCLUSION

    INTRODUCTIONSOIL

    WATERVARIETIES

    FERTILIZERCONCLUSION

  • Yield of sugarcane and sugar recovery inmain sugarcane growing countries of the

    world:

    Country Cane yield(t/ha)

    Sugarrecovery

    (%)

    Sugar yield(t/ha)

    Australia 100.4 13.8 13.85Egypt 110.8 11.5 12.74

    Australia 100.4 13.8 13.85Egypt 110.8 11.5 12.74Brazil 68.4 14.5 9.91U.S.A. 80.2 11.7 9.38

    Colombia 80.5 11.5 9.26Mexico 79.5 11.6 9.22India 66.9 9.9 6.62

    Pakistan 50.3 9.2 4.63World Avg. 64.4 10.6 6.82

  • Yield of sugarcane and sugar recovery inmain sugarcane growing countries of the

    world:

    Country Cane yield(t/ha)

    Sugarrecovery

    (%)

    Sugar yield(t/ha)

    Australia 100.4 13.8 13.85Egypt 110.8 11.5 12.74

    Australia 100.4 13.8 13.85Egypt 110.8 11.5 12.74Brazil 68.4 14.5 9.91U.S.A. 80.2 11.7 9.38

    Colombia 80.5 11.5 9.26Mexico 79.5 11.6 9.22India 66.9 9.9 6.62

    Pakistan 50.3 9.2 4.63World Avg. 64.4 10.6 6.82

  • AVERAGE, YIELD OF SUGARCANE TONNESPER HECTARE 1994-1995 TO 2010-2011

    Years Punjab Sindh K.P.K Balochistan

    Pakistan INDIA

    1994-95 43 57.3 44.7 55.8 46.7 71.31995-96 44.4 54 44.7 49.2 47 67.81996-97 39.7 52.2 44.7 51.4 43.5 66.51997-98 46.9 61.2 45.6 53.6 50.3 71.11998-99 42.6 63 45.7 54.4 47.8 71.21998-99 42.6 63 45.7 54.4 47.8 71.2

    1999-2000 40.3 62 46.3 54.4 45.9 70.92000-2001 43.3 52.2 46.3 51.9 45.9 68.62001-2002 47 48.6 45.2 83.7 47.2 67.42002-2003 45.1 53.3 48.1 48.6 47.3 64.62003-2004 48.5 56.2 45.2 50 50.1 59.42004-2005 51.24 43.52 45.43 56.25 48.89 64.82005-2006 46.3 61.38 41.58 56.25 48.84 66.92006-2007 52.74 58.4 45.11 56.25 53.12 692007-2008 46.21 60.86 45.73 56.2 51.49 68.92008-2009 48.5 50 45 47.4 48.64 64.62009-2010 51.6 57.7 44.7 50.9 52.18 702010-2011 55.75 60.79 45.6 51 56 68.6

  • Long & Short Term Changes in Yield ofSugar Cane

    Provinces

    Long-Term(1999-2009)

    Short -Term Changes(2008-09 over2007-08

    %2007-08 2008-09 Change

    Tonnes per Hectare %Provinces % Tonnes per Hectare %Pakistan (+)1.0 51.5 48.8 (-)5.1Punjab (+)1.7 48.7 47.2 (-)3.0Sindh (-)0.1 60.9 54.2 (-)10.9K.P.K (-)0.2 45.7 45.6 (-)0.2

    Balochistan (-)1.3 56.2 49.2 (-)12.4

  • Circle wise average Soil Report of the Project Area

    S.NoName ofCircle No.of Sample pH

    EcdS/m

    OrganicMatter %

    Nitrogen%

    Phosphorusppm

    Potassiumppm

    1 Jhoke Shareef 32 8.2 1.11 0.75 0.04 3.19 1592 Bathoro 20 8.2 2.12 1.08 0.06 2.55 2393 Darro 45 7.9 1.65 0.84 0.05 3.11 1714 Amra 24 7.8 3.02 1.08 0.06 4.33 3125 Shah Kareem 72 8.2 0.99 0.87 0.05 2.69 1795 Shah Kareem 72 8.2 0.99 0.87 0.05 2.69 1796 Ditta Wah 43 8.2 0.73 1.12 0.18 3.58 2187 Pinyari 88 8.1 1.52 0.83 0.05 3.98 254

    Total / Avg 324 8.1 1.59 0.94 0.07 3.35 219Normal values 8 1 2.3 - 20 200

  • 10

    20

    30

    40

    50

    60

    70

    80

    Jhok Sharif

    Number of irrigation Applied by the Growers

    0

    10

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    -

    20.00

    40.00

    60.00

    80.00

    100.00

    120.00

    140.00

    160.00

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    Bathoro

  • -

    50.00

    100.00

    150.00

    200.00

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    Darro

    Number of irrigation Applied by the Growers

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    -

    20.00

    40.00

    60.00

    80.00

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    Bannu

  • -

    20.00

    40.00

    60.00

    80.00

    100.00

    120.00

    Amra

    Number of irrigation Applied by the Growers

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    -

    20.00

    40.00

    60.00

    80.00

    100.00

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    Bulri

  • -5.0010.0015.0020.0025.0030.0035.0040.0045.00

    Ditta Wah

    Number of irrigation Applied by the Growers

    -

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    0.00

    10.00

    20.00

    30.00

    40.00

    50.00

    60.00

    70.00

    1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

    TOTAL:

  • THT-1019% SPF-234

    5%CPF-2372%

    CPF-24614%Triton

    46%

    SPF-23810%

    B-43-604%

    Jhok Sharif

    Percentage of Growers HavingDifferent varieties

    THT-2018%

    SPF-2342%

    CPF-2373%

    CPF-2469%

    Triton54%

    SPF-2383%

    B-43-6011%

    Bathoro

  • THT-109% SPF-234

    2% CPF-2377%

    CPF-24611%

    Triton61%

    spf-2381%

    B-43-609%

    Darro

    Percentage of Growers HavingDifferent verities (contd)

    THT-109%

    SPF-2341%

    CPF-2374%

    CPF-2468%

    Triton70%

    SPF-2388%

    B-43-600%

    Bannu

  • THT-102%

    SPF-2340%

    CPF-23711%

    CPF-2461%

    Triton64%

    SPF-2384%

    B-43-6018%

    Amrra

    Percentage of Growers HavingDifferent varieties (contd)

    THT-104% SPF-2348%

    SPF-2379%

    CPF-24613%

    Triton37%

    SPF-23825%

    B-43-604%

    Bulri

  • THT-102%

    SPF-23414%

    CPF-23715%

    CPF-24610%

    Triton48%

    SPF-23811%

    B-43-600%

    DittaWah

    Percentage of Growers HavingDifferent varieties (contd)

    THT-105%

    SPF-23416% CPF-237

    6%

    CPF-2467%

    Triton60%

    SPF-2382%

    B-43-604%

    Pinyari

  • FERTILIZER APPLIED BY THE GROWERS OF DIFFERENTCIRCLES TO SUGARCANE UPTO JUNE 2012

    Fertilizer Applied

    No.ofGrowers

    DAP(AV:)

    Urea(AV:)

    UreaFuture(AV:)

    TotalUrea

    AverageSno. SectorNo.of

    GrowersDAP(AV:)

    Urea(AV:)

    UreaFuture(AV:)

    TotalUrea

    Average Remarks1 Jhok Sharif 178 0.95 1.53 1.64 3.172 Bathoro 594 0.99 2.8 1.03 3.833 Darro 488 0.83 2.75 1.17 3.924 Bannu 250 1.64 2.1 1.75 3.855 Amra 304 0.29 1.07 0.37 1.446 Bulri 219 0.63 1.89 1.48 3.377 Ditta Wah 78 0.66 2.77 2.86 5.63

    TOTAL: 2111 0.86 2.13 1.47 3.60

  • 1. Soil analysis showed higher pH & Ec in most of the samples. The soil wasslightly saline and poor organic matter. Soil was also deficient in nitrogenphosphorus.

    2. The irrigation water was abundant in most of the circles where majority offarmers applied more than four irrigations. However, shortage of irrigationwas observed in Jhoke , Bulrri and Dita Wah circles.

    3. The inferior variety Triton was dominant in all the circles followed by aninferior variety SPF-238. The variety composition varied between thecircles.

    4. Only one bag DAP fertilizer was applied on an average against therecommended doze of 2 bags per acres. Application of urea fertilizer wassatisfactory except Amrra circle.

    Conclusions

    1. Soil analysis showed higher pH & Ec in most of the samples. The soil wasslightly saline and poor organic matter. Soil was also deficient in nitrogenphosphorus.

    2. The irrigation water was abundant in most of the circles where majority offarmers applied more than four irrigations. However, shortage of irrigationwas observed in Jhoke , Bulrri and Dita Wah circles.

    3. The inferior variety Triton was dominant in all the circles followed by aninferior variety SPF-238. The variety composition varied between thecircles.

    4. Only one bag DAP fertilizer was applied on an average against therecommended doze of 2 bags per acres. Application of urea fertilizer wassatisfactory except Amrra circle.

  • Slide14CAUSES OF LOW SUGAR CANE PRODUCTIVITY IN SINDH. A CASE STUDY OF SHAHMURAD AREA BY DR: HAJI KHAN KEERIO SUGAR CANE ADVISORINTRODUCTION SOIL WATER VARIETIES FERTILIZER CONCLUSIONSlide11Slide22Slide13Slide3Slide4Slide5Slide6Slide7Slide8Slide9Slide10Slide15Slide16Slide18Slide19Slide20