PAKISTAN SUGAR JOURNAL - SSRIssri.pk/psj/PSJ apr-jun-2015.pdfDr. Muhammad Zubair Member Dr. Javed Iqbal Member Dr. Aamir Ali Member Mr. Aamir Shahazad Editor Subscription ... April-June

1 | P a g e

Editorial BoardMr. Altaf M. Saleem ChairmanDr. Shahid Afghan Editor-in-ChiefDr. Iftikhar Ahmed MemberDr. Muhammad Zubair MemberDr. Javed Iqbal MemberDr. Aamir Ali MemberMr. Aamir Shahazad Editor

SubscriptionAamir ShahzadShakarganj Sugar Research InstituteToba Road, JHANGPh: +92 47 763 1001-5 Ext. 603, 604Email: [email protected]

Subscription RatePakistan PKR 1,000/-OVERSEAS US$ 50/-

Recognized byHigher Education Commission (HEC) Pakistan

Cited byAsia Net Pakistan (Factiva International)Commonwealth Agriculture & Biology International(CABI-UK)

ISSN 1028-1193

Panel of RefereesDr. P. Jackson: Principal Scientist, CSIRO, AustraliaDr. Raul O. Castillo: Director General, ResearchStation EI Triunfo, EcuadorDr. Benjamin Legendre: Interim Director, AudubonSugar Institute, USADr. Yong-Bao Pan: Research Plant MolecularGeneticist, USDA-ARS, USADr. Jack C. Comstock: Research Leader, ARS USDA,Canal Point Florida, USADr. Sizuo Matsuoka: Director, Canavialis SA, BrazilDr. Niranjan Baisakh: Asstt. Professor, - SPESS, LSU USADr. Abdul Rauf: Prof. & Chairman Plant PathologyPMAS Arid Agriculture University, RawalpindiDr. Asif Tanvir: Professor, Dept. of Agronomy, UAFDr. Muhammad Bilal Chattha: Assistant Professor,Agriculture College, Punjab University

CONTENTS02

ENHANCING PLANT EFFICIENCY ANDPROFITABILITY THROUGH ENERGY SAVING

Mohammad Awais Qureshi Advisor Emeritus

06EFFECT OF NITROGEN AND POTASSIUM ONDRY MATTER PRODUCTION AND YIELD INTROPICAL SUGAR BEET IN BANGLADESH

M N Kashem, Q A Khaliq, M A Karim, A J M S Karimand M R Islam

17IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON SUGAR

INDUSTRY-AN OVERVIEW

Shahid Afghan and Muhammad Wajid Ijaz

24TO ASCERTAIN SUITABLE PLANTING METHOD

FOR SUGAR BEET ROOT YIELD AND SUGARRECOVERY IMPROVEMENT UNDER D.I.KHAN

CONDITIONS

Karim Bakhsh Malik, Asif Imran Shah and SobanQureshi

30SUGAR INDUSTRY ABSTRACTS

36WORLD SUGAR AND ADICTION (WSRO)

42INTERNATIONAL EVENTS CALENDAR

43STORY OF SWEETS

i. Shahi Tukrayii. Milk Burfi

44GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS

PAKISTAN SUGAR JOURNAL

April-June 2015 Vol. XXX, No.02

2 | P a g e

ENHANCING PLANT EFFICIENCY ANDPROFITABILITY THROUGH ENERGY SAVING

Mohammad Awais Qureshi Advisor EmeritusShakarganj Mills Limited, Jhang, Pakistan

INTRODUCTION

Top priorities of majorindustriesCost Reduction, QualityAssurance, EnergyOptimization, Customersatisfaction and AdaptingEco-Friendly ManufacturingMethods are the top prioritiesof major industries today. InProcessing Industries, Energycost is one of manufacturethe major component of theProduction. This can becontrolled through sensibleenergy use. Sugarcane is anenergy crop containing about4,500 MJ Energy per ton ofcane. 1,800 MJ is lost inboiler flue gases and 750MJis dissipated to atmospherethrough cooling tower /sprayponds etc. Energy Spent forthe production of sugar isabout three times of energycontained in sugar.

Two Major Energy Partnersin Sugar Mills

Power Plant for EnergyGeneration both Steam &Electricity from BagasseAttention of Engineers isinvited for efficient production/ use of steam and electricityduring operation thus theenergy save could be usedfor useful / profitable purpose.

Process plant consumptionof Steam & ElectricityThe Juice heaters,evaporators and vacuum

pans are the major users oflow pressure process steam.Commercially available / welldesigned equipments andappropriate use of energy doplay their role in savings.Controlling steam leaks twocould result in appreciablesavings.

Tips for Cost ReductionBoiler / Power Plant

Low Bagasse Moisture

01 point reduction in bagassemoisture improves boilerefficiency by about 0.6 point.Conventional Bagasse dryeror concentration of distilleryspent wash could beconsidered to trap thedissipated energy throughboilers stakes.

Low excess air of Boiler.20 Points reduction in excessair is equivalent to 01 pointimprovement in boilerefficiency.O

2analyzer can be installed

at the flue gas duct to monitorthe excess air.

Low Boiler Flue GasTemperature.Boiler efficiency increases byabout 01 point for every 15

oC

reduction in stack gastemperature.Economizer can be installedto reduce the flue gastemperature.

Feed Water Temperature.10

oC rise in feed water

temperature increases boilerefficiency by 1% Rise inDeaerator temperature aswell as of condensate canhelp to increase feed watertemperature.

Fouling of BoilerSoot layer of just 3 mm thickincreases fuel consumptionby 2.5% due to rise in stackgas temperature. Proper sootblower help to reduce thesoot from the external side ofboiler tubes.

Scaling of BoilerA Scale of 01 mm thicknessincreases fuel consumptionby 03 % in boiler firing.Proper chemical dozing,based on feed and boilerwater analysis help to reducescaling from inside oilertubes. If necessary chemicalcleaning could be adopted.

Air Heater temperatureRise of 20

oC air temperature

by air heater increases boilerefficiency by 1 %. Boiler F.Dfan suction temperature canbe raised by flue gas heatexchanger for increase of airtemperature.

High Pressure BoilerBoiler efficiency rises 10%after installing boiler of 65Barg at 500

oC instead of 25

Barg 300oC.


3 | P a g e

High Pressure TG-SetSteam consumption isreduced to 4Kg/kWh insteadof 6Kg/kWh on condensingmode of Turbine by raisingthe steam pressure 65 Barg,500

oC instead of 25 Barg

300oC.

Waste Heat RecoveryPower PlantsInstallation of Low PressureTG-Set in series with backpressure can generate extrapower from exhaust steam@11Kg/kWh.

Power Factor Improvement300 kWh can be saved from aPower generation of 5 MW byimproving the power factorfrom 0.85 to 0.90 at 11 KVGeneration.

Boiler Blow down WaterHeat RecoveryHeat of the Blow down watercan be extracted by placingheat exchanger in its path.Recovered energy can beused for Boiler Feed WaterHeating, about 2 to 5%energy saving can beaccomplished.

Biogas integrated gasifica-tion gas turbine

(BIGGT TECHNOLOGY)Potential exists to enhanceelectricity export from 115kwh / tc to 275 kwh/tc i.e anincrease of 19%. According toan estimate if total bagasse ofMarius and South Africa ispassed through aboveprocess 1600 gwh and 5900gwh respectively could beannually exported Researchwork in various Countries is inhand to overcome difficultiesin sugar industry. Lab level

studies were in hand at UETLahore a couple of year ago.Apart from power exportprocess steam consumptioncould be increase 54 to 66%

Sugar Mills & ProcessHouseMill DrivesReplacement of mill steamTurbines by Electric Motorssaves energy by 30%

Heat recovery of ProcessCondensate and VaporsTo conserve heat,condensate and vapor ofprocess house could are agood resource in savingenergy by 0.6% on cane.

Insulation of Bare hotSurfaces Thermalinsulation has low thermalconductivity. It delivers thefollowing benefits

Reduce energy consumptionOffers better process controlWorkers protection fromburnsInsulation is said to be poor if

the surface temperature is20

oC above the ambient

temperature.Insulation can reduce theenergy loss by 90%Insulation should be regularlysurveyed to replace andrepair well in time

Trend of reducing MillRollersInstallation of two rollers millby replacing conventional fouror six roller mills can help tosave 47% energy as claimedcommercially.

Automation of PlantAutomation of Mills, Boiler,Evaporators and Pans are a

logical approach to saveenergy resulting low steamconsumption on cane. Only invacuum pan 20 to 30% steamsaving can be done throughautomation and improvementin condensation system.

Turbines operation atdesigned back pressure

Approximately 5 % steamconsumption of the turbineincreases if back pressureexceed by 0.5bar from itsdesigned back pressure.

Installation of steam trapsEffective separation of steam/vapor from condensateimproves the efficiency ofthermal system by 0.5%.

Juice EvaporationThe evaporation of clear canejuice to syrup and ultimatecrystal sugar is a key factor insugar processing

Conventional Multiple effectarrangements (Tipple Quadand Quaint) deserved to bemodifiedFollowing film evaporatorswith syrup birx of 66 to 68degrees could be adopted toreduce the steam load at thevacuum pans / Availability ofrecently developed lowtemperature modules, in themarket could be interested

Switching bold to FineGrain SugarThe industry should insists onboiling fine grain sugar tosave an appreciable amountof energy.Steam consumption ofprocess house will reduce 6to 7% on cane by installationof falling film evaporators andeffective vapor bleeding


4 | P a g e

besides reducing the loads oncondensation system.

Plant Operation by Skilled /Competent Staff

Regular OperationOperating mills at thedesigned capacity withregularity in operation startingfrom cane feeding, automatedmilling control, Boilerinstrumentation, maintainedlive /exhaust steam pressure,controlled evaporation andcrystallization process do leadto enhance output at thereduce cost.

Basic EquipmentRequirementBalancing, aligning andregular check on vibration ofmoving equipment do help in

a big way in cost reduction,through reduced downtimeand low spare consumptions.

Training of Operation /Maintenance StaffThe attention must be madeto train operating andmaintenance staff to adoptthe latest technologiesavailable. Workshop/refreshercourses must be a regularfeature to polish theknowledge / skills of theoperating hands

Concluding RemarksThis talk is just a bird eyeview of Enhancing PlantEfficiency and ProfitabilityThrough Energy Saving

The purpose of the workshopcan only be achieved if the

experience of variousdelegates will shared in thisforum.

The clarity of subject can onlybe achieved when a chanceof thorough discussion isprovided both to thedelegates and speakers.

No question is a silly questionas there is always a hiddenlogic behind the question.Whatever comes to the mindmust be posted to thespeakers.

The questions must be crispand to the point. Unrelatedremarks are needed to beavoided.


5 | P a g e


6 | P a g e

EFFECT OF NITROGEN AND POTASSIUM ON DRYMATTER PRODUCTION AND YIELD IN TROPICAL

SUGAR BEET IN BANGLADESHM N Kashem*, Q A Khaliq**, M A Karim**, A J M S Karim** and M R Islam**

* Bangladesh Sugarcane Research Institute, Ishurdi, Pabna.** Professor, Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University.

ABSTRACT

A field experiment was conducted at the research farm of the Department of Agronomy, BangabandhuSheikh Mujibur Rahman Agricultural University, Gazipur, Bangladesh from November 2012 to April 2013with four levels of nitrogen viz. 0, 50, 100 and 150 kg ha-1 in combination with four levels of potassiumviz. 0, 60, 120 and 180 kg ha-1 to find out the optimum nitrogen and potassium requirement formaximum dry matter production and yield in tropical sugar beet in Bangladesh. Dry matters significantlyincreased with the increase in nitrogen level but the increase was not significant with increasedpotassium level. The combination of 150 kg N and 180 kg K ha-1 resulted the highest total dry matterproduction and its partitioning into root, petiole and leaf blade. Root weight per plant and root yield ha-1

significantly increased with the increase in nitrogen and potassium levels. Similarly, the highest rootweight per plant (1109.38 g) and the highest root yield (87.24 t ha-1) in tropical sugar beet were obtainedfrom the combination of 150 kg N and 180 kg K ha-1. For maximum yield of tropical sugar beet inBangladesh the nitrogen and potassium requirement of the crop seems to be more than 150 kg N and180 kg K ha-1.

Key words: Nitrogen, Potassium, Dry Matter, Yield, Tropical Sugarbeet

INTRODUCTION

Sugar beet ranks second next tosugarcane in terms of world'ssugar production. Due to its highsugar recovery and shortduration, time demands tointroduce it in Bangladesh.Fertilizer is considered as alimiting factor for obtaining highyield of sugar beet (Ouda,2002). Thus, application ofnitrogen and potassiumfertilizers is of immenseimportance for the production ofsugar beet. Under Egyptianconditions increasing nitrogenrate up to 150 kg ha-1 in sugarbeet increased root length androot diameter and root, top aswell as sugar yield ha-1 (Shariefand Eghbal, 1994). BangladeshAgricultural Research Institute(BARI) had evaluated the yield

performances of tropical sugarbeet genotypes and showed that115 kg N ha-1 was the best forgrowing beet at BARI farm(Islam et.al., 2010). An adequatesupply of N is essential foroptimum yield but excess of itmay result in an increase in yieldof roots with lower sucrosecontent and juice purity.Potassium is also another majorplant nutrient needed for sugarbeet and usually taken up earlierthan nitrogen and phosphorus.The highest potassium uptakeby beet plants exerts the highesteffect on yields of storage roots.The direct effect of K on yield isless than that of N. It is probablethat K uptake rate by beet plantsis a prerequisite for an efficientuptake and function of N.Excess of soil available K maylead to prolonged growth of tops

and in turn to lower yield ofroots. As a newly introducedcrop, optimization of fertilizerrates and other productionpackages is a prerequisite. Butthere is a scanty of research todevelop a fertilizerrecommendation with nitrogenand potassium for sugar beetproduction in Bangladeshcondition. Considering the abovefacts, the present research workwas undertaken to achieve thefollowing objective:

Determination of optimumdoses of nitrogen andpotassium fertilization formaximum dry matterproduction and yield intropical sugar beet underBangladesh condition.


7 | P a g e

MATERIALS AND METHODSThe experimental site belongs toMadhupur Tract (AEZ 28) and ischaracterized by a sub-tropicalclimate. The experiment wascarried out from November 2012to April 2013.The experimental land wasprepared thoroughly. As sugarbeet prefers alkaline soildolomite was applied @ 1500 kgha-1 (Islam et al., 2010). Duringfinal land preparation cow dung@ 15 t ha-1 was incorporatedinto the soil. A fertilizer dose of120 kg N, 105 kg P2O5, 150 kgK2O, 18 kg S, 3.5 kg Zn and 1.2kg B ha-1 was applied in the formof urea, TSP, MOP, Gypsum,ZnSO4 and Boric acid,respectively. All fertilizers and1/3 of urea were applied duringfinal land preparation. Theremaining amount of urea wasapplied as two top dressings at55 and 90 DAS. The experimentwas laid out in a strip plot withthree replications. The unit plotsize was 3m × 2m.Treatments of the experiment:Factor A: Four levels of nitrogenviz. 0, 50, 100 and 150 kg ha-1

Factor B: Four levels ofpotassium viz. 0, 60, 120 and180 kg ha-1

Seeds of tropical sugar beetgenotype (Shubhra) were sownin lines on 01 November, 2012with the spacing of 50×20 cm.Light irrigation was doneimmediately after sowing toensure uniform emergence. Toensure optimum soil moistureirrigation was done twice in aweek up to maturity till April.Intercultural operations weredone uniformly in each plot toensure normal growth of thecrop. Weeding and mulchingwere done simultaneously in theexperimental plots at 20, 40 and60 DAS. Plant was thinned out

keeping one plant per hill duringthe second weeding. Earthtingup was done at 55 and 90 DASafter top dressing of nitrogen.Dithane M 45 @ 2.2 kg ha-1, Tilt1ml/L of water and Score 250EC 0.5 ml/L of water were usedto control damping off,sclerotium root rot andcercospora leaf spot diseases.Durshban @ 2.5 ml/L of waterwas applied for controlling cutwarm, tobacco caterpillar andarmy warm.Data regarding yield and yieldattributes like dry materpartitioning into root, leaf bladeand petiole, Root and Shootfresh weight, Root : Shoot ratioat 120 DAE to 165 DAE andRoot yield per m2 and perhectare were collected, analyzedand interpreted.Beets were harvested,calculated (kg m-2 and t ha-1) andstatistically analyzed with thehelp of MSTAT-C Program withLSD test at 5% level ofsignificance.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Total dry matterThe production of economicyield is greatly determined bythe production of total dry matterand its partitioning to theeconomic part (Singh et.al.,1998) .The highest total drymatter 2262.96 g m-2 wasproduced with 150 kg N ha-1

followed by 2113.69 g m-2 with100 kg N ha-1 (Fig.1). The drymatter production graduallydecreased with lower level ofnitrogen. Different levels ofpotassium did not show anysignificant influence on drymatter production. The Fig.2reveals that the highest level ofpotassium (180 kg K ha-1) usedin the experiment produced the

highest amount of total drymatter (1853.18 gm-2). Thehighest amount of total drymatter (2339.66 g m-2) wasproduced in the combination of150 kg N ha-1 and 180 kg K ha-1

(Table 1).

Root dry matterThe highest root dry matter(1942.91 g m-2) was found at165 DAE with 150 kg N ha-1

followed by (1837.95 g m-2) with100 kg N ha-1(Fig. 3) Potassiumlevels did not exert anysignificant influence on drymatter accumulation into root.The highest root dry matter(1604.7gm-2) was found at 165DAE with the potassium level of180 kg K ha-1 followed by(1584.71 g m-2) with 120 kg Kha-1(Fig.4). Combination ofnitrogen and potassiumsignificantly affected root dryweight from 60 to 165 DAE. Thehighest root dry matter (2012.53gm-2) was found at 165 DAEwith 150 kg N ha-1 and 180 kg Kha-1, followed by 150 kg N ha-1

and 120 kg K ha-1. The plantswithout fertilization gave thelowest root dry matter (937.39 gm-2) (Table 2).

Petiole and Leaf blade drymatterIrrespective of nitrogen levels,there was significant variation indry matter partitioning in petioleform 60 to 165 DAE. At 120 DAEthe highest petiole dry matter(167.20 g m-2) was produced inplants with 150 kg N ha-1,followed by 100 kg N ha-

1.Whereas the poorest (73.01 gm-2) was found at 120 DAE with0 kg N ha-1(Fig.5) Combinationof nitrogen and potassium levelsexerted significant influence onpetiole dry matter and leaf bladedry matter production from 60


8 | P a g e

DAE to 165 DAE. The highestpetiole dry matter (172.23 g m-2)was produced in combination of150 kg N ha-1 and 180 kg K ha-

1(Table 3).Dry matter accumulation intoleaf blade increased up to 120DAE and thereafter it declinedirrespective of nitrogen levels.Similar trend was also found insugar beet by Follet et al. (1970)and Terry (1968). It might besupported by translocation ofassimilates toward the root andshedding of older leaves. Theapplication of 150 kg N ha-1

produced the highest leaf bladedry matter (207.31 g m-2)throughout the growing seasonfollowed by 100 kg N ha-1. But incase of 0 kg N ha-1 the genotypeShubhra produced the lowestleaf blade dry matter (89.84 g m-

2) which was followed by 50 kgN ha-1 (131.96 gm-2) at 120DAE. The result shows that leafblade dry matter productiondecreased with low levels ofnitrogen (Fig. 6). The highestleaf blade dry matter (213.26 gm-2) was produced incombination of 150 kg N ha-1

and 180 kg K ha-1(Table 3).

Individual plant weightNitrogen and potassium levelsexerted significant effect onindividual plant fresh weight(Table 4). The highest amount ofwhole plant fresh weight1522.37 g plant-1 and 1500.22 gplant-1 were observed at 165DAE and at 150 DAE,respectively when nitrogen andpotassium combination levelwas 150 kg N ha-1 and 180 kg Kha-1. It might be due toincreased photosynthesisresulted by higher leaf area andthereby increased individualplant fresh weight production.The lowest amount of plant freshweight (575.68 g plant-1) was

found with the combinationlevels of 0 kg N ha-1 and 0 kg Kha-1, which is supported by thesmaller root size and lowershoot development. The presentresults are in line with thoseobtained by Geweifel and Aly(1996), Sarhan (1998) and EL-Hawary (1999).

Root fresh weight per plantNitrogen and potassium levelsexhibited significant influence onroot fresh weight per plant atmaturity stage (Table 4). Agradual increase was observedin root fresh weight as reason ofincreasing nitrogen andpotassium combination levelsfrom 0 kg N ha-1 and 0 kg K ha-1

to 150 kg N ha-1 and 180 kg Kha-1. The highest root freshweight (1109.38 g plant-1) wasrecorded with 150 kg N ha-1 and180 kg K ha-1, and the lowest(411.16 g plant-1) was in thetreatment of 0 kg N ha-1+0 kg Kha-1. Application of 100 kg N ha-1

and 180 kg K ha-1 occupied thesecond position. Such effect ofnitrogen and potassium on thischaracteristic may be attributedto their role in building upmetabolites and activation ofenzymes that associate withaccumulation of carbohydrates,which translocated from leavesto developing roots. The presentresults are in line with thoseobtained by Geweifel and Aly(1996), Sarhan (1998) and EL-Hawary (1999).

Root yieldNitrogen and potassium levelsexhibited significant influence onroot yield per hectare in tropicalsugar beet (Table 5). A gradualincrease in root yield wasobserved as a result ofincreasing nitrogen andpotassium combination levels.The highest root yield 87.24 tha-

1 in sugar beet was obtainedfrom the fertilizer combination of150 kg N ha-1 and 180 kg K ha-1.It was followed by application of150 kg N and 120 kg K ha-1, and100 kg N and 120-180 kg K ha-1.The combination of 0 kg N ha-

1and 0 kg K ha-1 gave the lowestroot yield (44.31 t ha-1). Theincrease in root yield due toapplication of nitrogen andpotassium fertilization can beexplained through the fact thatnitrogen and potassium has avital role in building upmetabolites, activating enzymesand carbohydrate accumulationwhich transferred from leaves todeveloping roots which in turnenhanced root length, diameteras well as root fresh weight andfinally root yield per unit area.Similar findings were reported byBadawi et al. (1995), Samia etal. (1998), EL-Shafai (2000), EL-Harriri et al. (2001). Theoptimum nitrogen level is 150 kgN ha-1 for high root and sugaryield. For optimum yield oftropical sugar beet potassiumdose may lie between 120 and180 kg ha-1. The highest rootyield in sugar beet was obtainedfrom the combination of nitrogenand potassium levels of 150 kgN ha-1 and 180 kg K ha-1.

Shoot yieldThe highest level of nitrogen andpotassium combination (150 kgN + 180 kg K ha-1) led to recordthe highest shoot yield of 41.29 tha-1. Whereas, the application of0 kg N ha-1 and 0 kg K ha-1

resulted in the lowest shoot yieldof 16.43 t ha-1 (Table 5). Additionof nitrogen and potassiumfertilizers stimulated the topgrowth resulting in higher shootyield. These findings are inaccordance with those reportedby EL-Hawary (1999), EL-Shafai


9 | P a g e

(2000) and EL-Harriri and Mirvat(2001).

Sugar yieldSucrose yield is the mostimportant quality parameter insugar beet. Combination ofnitrogen and potassium levelshad significant effect on sugaryield in tropical sugar beet(Table 5). Remarkable increasesin sugar yield were noticed as aresult of increased nitrogen andpotassium combination levelsfrom 0 kg N and 0 kg K ha-1to150 kg N and 180 kg K ha-1. Thenitrogen and potassiumcombination, which producedthe highest sugar yield (13.07 t

ha-1) was 150 kg N and 180 kg Kha-1, which was followed by 150kg N and 120 kg K ha-1 (12.74 tha-1), 100 kg N and 180 kg K ha-

1 (12.55 t ha-1) and 100 kg N and120 kg K ha-1 (12.49 t ha-1).However, excess nitrogenapplication might not bedesirable, because it reducesthe most quality parameters andsugar yield. The increase ingross sugar yield per unit areadue to application of nitrogenand potassium fertilizers can beexplained through the fact thatnitrogen and potassium play avital role in improving all growthattributes and root weight perplant as well as sucrose content

in root, consequently increasinggross sugar yield per unit area.These results agree with thosestated by Badawi et al. (1995),Samia et al. (1998), EL-Hawary(1999), Sultan et al. (1999) andEL-Zayat (2000).

Functional relationships betweenindividual total dry matter andleaf area index, root yield andleaf area index have beenshown in Fig.7 and 8,respectively. In both the casesrespective figure shows apositive strong linearrelationship.

REFERENCES

Attia, A.N., A.T. EL-Kassaby, M.A., Badawi and S.E.E. Seaadh. 1999. Yield, yield components andquality of sugar beet as affected by growth regulators, nitrogen fertilization and foliar nutritiontreatments. Proc. 1st Intern. Conf. on Sugar and Integrated Industries “Present & Future”, 15-18Feb. 1999, Luxor, Egypt, I: 236-256.

Badawi, M.A., M.A. EL-Agroudy and A.N. Attia. 1995. Effect of planting dates and NPK fertilization ongrowth and yield of sugar beet (Beta vulgaris. L.). J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 20(6): 2683-2689.

EL-Harriri, D.M. and Mirvat, E. Gobarh. 2001. Response of growth, yield and quality of sugar beet tonitrogen and potassium fertilizers under newly reclaimed sandy soil. J. Agric. Sci. MansouraUniv., 26(10): 5895-5907.

EL-Hawary, M.A. 1999. Influence of nitrogen, potassium and boron fertilizer levels on sugar beet undersaline soil conditions. J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 24(4): 1573-1581.

EL-Shafai, A.M.A. 2000. Effect of nitrogen and potassium fertilization on yield and quality of sugar beetin Sohag. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 78(2): 759-767.

EL-Zayat, M.M.T. 2000. Effect of irrigation regimes and fertilization on sugar beet. Ph. D. Thesis, inAgric. Sci. (Agron.), Fac. of Agric., Kafr EL-Sheikh, Tanta Univ.

Follett, R. F., W. R. Schmehl, and F. G. Viets, Jr. 1970. Seasonal leaf area, dry weight, and sucroseaccumulation by sugarbeets. J. Amer. Soc. Sugar Beet Techno1. 16:235-253.

Geweifel, H.G.M. and R.M. Aly. 1996. Effect of nitrogen and potassium fertilization treatments ongrowth, yield and quality of some fodder beet varieties. Ann. of Agri. Sci. Moshtohor, 34(2): 441-454.


10 | P a g e

Islam, M. S., S. Ahmad, M. A. Hoque and M. Y. Mian. 2010. Evaluation of tropical sugar beet genotypesunder Bangladesh condition. Annual Research Report on Vegetable Crops 2009-2010. HRC,BARI, Joydebpur, Gazipur, pp. 30-40.

Kandil, A.A., M.A. Badawi, S.A. El-Moursy and U.M.A. Abdou. 2002c. Effect of planting dates, nitrogenlevels and biofertilization treatments on: II- Yield, yield components and quality of sugar beet(Beta vulgaris, L.). J. Agric. Sci. Mansoura Univ., 27(11): 7257-7266.

Ouda, M.M.S., 2002. Effect of nitrogen and sulpher fertilization levels on sugar beet in newly cultivatedsandy soil. Zagazig J. Agric. Res., 29(1): 33-50.

Samia, S. EL-Maghraby, M. S. Mona and H. T. Yusreya. 1998. Effect of soil and foliar application ofnitrogen and potassium on sugar beet. Egypt. J. Agric. Res., 76(2): 665-678.

Sarhan, H.M. 1998. Macro-elements requirements of sugar beet. M. Sc. Thesis, Fac. of Agric.Mansoura Univ.

Sharief, A.E. and K. Eghba. 1994. Yield analysis of seven sugar beet varieties under different levels ofnitrogen in dry region of Egypt. Agribiol. Res., 47(3-4): 231-241.

Singh, V. P., D. S. Yadav and S. Sukla. 1998. Effect of irrigation, sources and levels of phosphorus onmoisture depletion pattern, consumptive use, water use efficiency and economics of chickpea.Indian J. Pulse Res. 11(2): 49-55.

Sultan, M.S., A.N. Attia, A.M. Salama, A.E. Sharief and E.H. Selim. 1999. Biological and mineralfertilization of sugar beet under weed control: I- Sugar beet productivity. Proc. 1st Intern. Conf. onSugar and Integrated Industries “Present & Future”, 15-18th Feb. 1999, Luxor, Egypt, I: 170-181.

Terry, N. 1968. Developmental physiology of the sugar beet. I. The influence of light and temperature ongrowth. J. Exp. Bot. 19:795-811.


11 | P a g e

Fig.1. Total dry matter (gm-2) in tropical sugarbeet over time as influenced bydifferent levels of nitrogen application.Vertical bar indicates LSD 0.05.

Fig.2. Total dry matter production (gm-2) intropical sugar beet over time asinfluenced by different levels ofpotassium application.

Fig.3. Root dry matter production (gm-2) intropical sugar beet over time asinfluenced by different levels ofnitrogen application. Vertical barindicates LSD 0.05.

Fig.4. Root dry matter production (g m-2) intropical sugar beet over time asinfluenced by different levels ofpotassium application.


12 | P a g e

Fig.5 Petiole dry matter production (gm-2) intropical sugar beet over time as influencedby different levels of nitrogen application.Vertical bar indicates LSD 0.05.

Fig.6 Leaf blade dry matter production (g m-2)in tropical sugar beet over time as influencedby different levels of nitrogen application.Vertical bar indicates LSD 0.05.

Fig.7. Relationship between leaf area indexand total dry matter in tropical sugarbeet.

Fig.8. Relationship between leaf area indexand root yield in tropical sugar beet.


13 | P a g e

Table-1 Combination effect of nitrogen and potassium levels on total dry matter production intropical sugar beet over time

Treatment(N×K)

Total dry matter production (g m-2)30 DAE 60 DAE 90 DAE 120 DAE 150 DAE 165 DAE

N0 K0 13.33 111.25 359.72 738.79 1068.38 1089.02N0 K60 13.83 113.16 367.70 736.53 1101.83 1164.29N0 K120 14.06 119.16 381.90 790.06 1148.77 1176.96N0 K180 14.61 118.83 379.23 790.50 1157.45 1176.23N50 K0 14.69 164.40 451.53 944.46 1658.10 1679.20N50 K60 14.87 167.03 456.00 964.33 1688.40 1699.73N50 K120 15.24 179.13 475.03 973.36 1700.80 1711.10N50 K180 15.37 180.83 479.13 973.50 1702.26 1723.23N100 K0 15.28 204.13 537.30 1190.03 1975.10 2054.84N100 K60 15.30 207.56 550.66 1203.83 2042.76 2083.96N100 K120 15.43 212.50 557.33 1272.40 2093.50 2142.35N100 K180 15.35 215.16 560.30 1327.10 2096.89 2173.62N150 K0 15.52 224.60 630.96 1389.36 2129.88 2181.31N150 K60 15.59 227.96 646.23 1456.16 2190.16 2239.25N150 K120 15.93 230.56 678.50 1603.60 2256.25 2291.63N150 K180 16.39 231.16 690.23 1605.53 2274.82 2339.66

LSD (0.05) ns 40.93 55.10 237.22 222.64 226.74CV (%) 8.65 13.51 6.45 12.67 7.55 7.52

Table-2 Combination effect of nitrogen and potassium levels on root dry matter production intropical sugar beet over time

Treatment(N×K)

Root dry matter production (g m-2)30 DAE 60 DAE 90 DAE 120 DAE 150 DAE 165 DAE

N0 K0 2.35 45.28 240.42 583.96 913.51 937.39N0 K60 2.31 47.30 245.50 577.50 943.50 1008.54N0 K120 2.29 49.56 256.80 622.06 989.10 1021.90N0 K180 2.34 48.96 254.50 620.93 992.65 1018.43N50 K0 2.35 62.96 300.36 710.70 1451.57 1476.93N50 K60 2.25 63.60 303.30 721.93 1468.03 1494.80N50 K120 2.36 66.13 319.36 729.83 1468.50 1492.13N50 K180 2.35 66.40 319.33 732.40 1471.63 1500.46N100 K0 2.36 71.86 341.36 903.43 1700.33 1792.53N100 K60 2.31 73.43 350.56 911.63 1758.46 1814.48N100 K120 2.42 75.46 354.73 961.10 1796.37 1857.42N100 K180 2.40 76.90 356.03 1013.73 1801.06 1887.38N150 K0 2.37 81.06 385.76 1033.40 1801.55 1867.74N150 K60 2.44 82.23 395.26 1084.63 1854.89 1923.98N150 K120 2.44 84.20 412.10 1218.50 1907.02 1967.39N150 K180 2.42 84.36 421.73 1220.03 1923.36 2012.53LSD(0.05) ns 15.62 35.87 218.21 199.75 217.44CV (%) 2.71 13.88 6.55 15.34 7.90 8.32


14 | P a g e

Table-3 Combination effect of nitrogen and potassium levels on petiole dry matter and leaf bladedry matter production in tropical sugar beet over time

Treatment(N×K)

Petiole dry matter production (g m-2) Leaf blade dry matter production (g m-2)60 DAE 90 DAE 120 DAE 150 DAE 165 DAE 60 DAE 90 DAE 120 DAE 150 DAE 165 DAE

N0 K0 24.30 47.36 70.53 70.93 69.53 41.667 71.93 84.30 83.93 82.10N0 K60 24.10 50.13 71.86 72.03 71.23 41.767 72.07 87.16 86.30 84.50N0 K120 25.86 51.96 74.03 72.76 71.93 43.733 73.13 93.96 86.90 83.13N0 K180 25.53 52.46 75.63 73.80 72.90 44.333 72.27 93.93 91.00 84.90N50 K0 36.86 63.00 102.43 88.23 86.16 64.567 88.17 131.33 118.30 116.10N50 K60 38.13 63.56 109.80 96.63 87.76 65.300 89.13 132.60 123.73 117.16N50 K120 39.03 64.06 111.16 103.93 98.03 73.967 91.60 132.36 128.36 120.93N50 K180 39.96 68.13 109.53 102.03 102.43 74.467 91.67 131.56 128.60 120.33N100 K0 47.96 81.03 129.56 121.70 116.13 84.30 114.90 157.03 153.06 145.33N100 K60 49.46 82.30 132.13 130.53 124.06 84.667 117.80 160.06 153.76 145.36N100 K120 51.66 84.16 138.53 135.86 131.56 85.367 118.43 172.76 161.26 153.36N100 K180 52.40 84.76 139.20 133.96 132.10 85.867 119.50 174.16 161.86 154.13N150 K0 53.50 101.80 158.20 152.03 147.90 90.033 143.40 197.76 176.30 165.66N150 K60 55.36 106.56 166.26 157.26 151.16 90.367 144.40 205.26 178.00 164.10N150 K120 55.56 113.80 172.13 163.40 155.43 90.80 152.60 212.96 185.56 168.80N150 K180 55.60 116.60 172.23 165.50 157.56 91.167 151.90 213.26 185.96 169.60LSD(0.05) 10.63 11.25 16.22 16.65 13.65 15.84 13.27 18.64 18.40 13.67CV (%) 10.10 8.76 8.05 8.68 7.38 13.19 7.44 7.51 8.04 6.32


15 | P a g e

Table-4 Combination effect of nitrogen and potassium levels on plant fresh weight and rootfresh weight in tropical sugar beet at 150 and 165 DAE

Treatment(N×K)

Plant fresh weight (g plant-1) Root fresh weight (g plant-1)150 DAE 165 DAE 150 DAE 165 DAE

N0 K0 573.97 575.48 404.05 411.16N0 K60 645.05 650.77 454.36 466.42N0 K120 626.36 632.62 441.69 452.32N0 K180 603.49 611.72 425.30 433.84N50 K0 880.98 892.26 628.51 638.82N50 K60 929.24 935.36 663.67 675.62N50 K120 942.45 930.37 671.36 673.13N50 K180 988.29 992.58 705.99 715.68N100 K0 1100.00 1119.68 792.46 814.72N100 K60 1205.01 1219.80 867.82 885.50N100 K120 1342.03 1353.52 964.46 984.44N100 K180 1374.06 1380.05 987.92 1001.57N150 K0 1123.84 1131.81 803.49 820.43N150 K60 1235.30 1246.72 889.12 907.40N150 K120 1341.74 1350.68 965.20 985.36N150 K180 1500.22 1522.37 1079.38 1109.38LSD( 0.05) 104.5 125.00 91.66 111.80CV (%) 6.11 7.25 7.49 8.96

Table-5 Combination effect of nitrogen and potassium levels on root, shoot and sugar yield intropical sugar beet at maturity

Treatment (N×K) Root (t ha-1) Shoot (t ha-1) Sugar (t ha-1)N0 K0 44.31 16.43 6.90N0 K60 48.94 18.10 7.63N0 K120 47.92 18.16 7.52N0 K180 47.77 18.02 7.52N50 K0 55.38 25.34 8.53N50 K60 61.30 25.97 9.47N50 K120 61.27 26.39 9.45N50 K180 61.64 27.69 9.44N100 K0 70.38 30.49 10.58N100 K60 73.41 33.43 11.14N100 K120 82.12 36.91 12.49N100 K180 82.58 37.85 12.55N150 K0 77.13 31.14 11.43N150 K60 81.41 33.93 12.17N150 K120 84.86 36.53 12.74N150 K180 87.24 41.29 13.07LSD (0.05) 10.23 3.69 1.60CV (%) 9.19 7.73 9.44


16 | P a g e


17 | P a g e

IMPACT OF CLIMATE CHANGE ON SUGARINDUSTRY-AN OVERVIEW

Shahid Afghan* and Muhammad Wajid Ijaz***Shakarganj Sugar Research Institute, Jhang **Environment Protection Agency, Punjab Pakistan

ABSTRACT

Climate variability has a major impact not only on sugar production but also on the national economy inPakistan. Therefore, it is essential to understand the impact of major changes in climate patterns thataffect sugar-cane and sugar yield of the sugar industry. Agriculture & climate change have three-foldrelationship that is “agriculture as a contributor, impacts of climate change on agriculture and agricultureas a potential moderator”. About 30% of total global anthropogenic emissions of green house gases(GHGs), ½ of total global emissions of methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (N2O) are from rice, livestockproduction, fertilizers, manure, land clearance by fire & burning of residues. Temperature andprecipitation data of decades from 2011 to 2090 has been given as future base line of different canegrowing districts in Pakistan. Also, unprecedented conditions due to climate change and future climateprojections were discussed. In addition, Impact on subsistence farming with general and localconstraints of eco-system sensitivity were out-lined. Expected combined effect on productivity ofsugarcane and other agriculture crops were described with vulnerable areas. Sugarcane and riceproduction will decline due to the increased water stress, arising from increasing temperature andreduction of rainy days. Yield of sugarcane is expected to decrease by 10% for every 1°C temperatureincrease. Most importantly, how to cope the climate change, main strategies, solutions, adaptations andrecommendations were formulated for future line of action. Increased capacity for utilizing climatepredictions in management decisions would be beneficial specifically to the sugar industry in Pakistan.

INTRODUCTION

The climate of Pakistan leads tosignificant inter annual variabilityin the frequency of manyextreme weather types, such assub-tropical cyclones andassociated storm surge, floodsand droughts. Sugar- cane ismostly irrigated and partiallyrain-fed, climate variability has amajor impact not only on sugarproduction but also on thenational economy. Therefore, itis essential to understand theimpact of major changes inclimate patterns that affectsugar-cane and sugar yield.Sugarcane industries worldwideare exposed to climate relateduncertainties across anintegrated chain of industrysectors, including cane

cultivation, harvesting, transport,milling, marketing and shipping.There are feasible managementoptions such as introducingirrigation systems to mitigatesome of the adverse impacts ofclimatic variability (Agriculture &the environment)

As many decisions in the sugarindustry are affected by climate,advance knowledge of climate.Variations using climate-forecasting tools can thereforeenhance planning across eachof the sectors of the industry.This would reduce the adverseeffects on the social-economicsystem in rural areas. Increasedcapacity for utilizing climatepredictions in managementdecisions would be beneficial tothe sugar-cane industry in

Pakistan and needs to be furtherpursued, given the present andanticipated impacts of climatevariability on sugar-cane andother agricultural crops. Despitethis, the industry has survived,prospered and maintained itsdominant position in theeconomy, even though thesingle most important factorresponsible for production isclimate variability.

Climate is rarely considered asa valuable natural resourceavailable for economic andsocial growth until a major eventdisrupts the production ofenergy, agriculture or poses asa risk to the health of thepopulation. Recent awarenessof climate change has to someextent assisted in using this


18 | P a g e

important resource wisely.Recent studies have revealedthat countries have warmed onaverage between 0.3°C and0.8°C during the last century. Inthe past four decades of thiscentury have continued torecord higher-than-normaltemperatures, while the numberof hotter days and nights peryear have been increasing.State-of-the-art global climatemodel (GCM) projectionsindicate that, in average annualmean surface temperature riseby the end of this century isprojected to be between 2.5°Cand 4.5°C (Y. H. Fauzia, 2013).

This is a major concern forsugar production in Pakistan assucrose accumulation could be

affected with increasedminimum temperatureaccompanied by low frequencyof precipitation.

Recent impacts of climate onsugar-cane and sugarproduction

In view of the fact that the sugarindustry is mostly irrigated andpartially rain-fed, climatevariability has a major impactnot only on sugar-cane andsugar production but also on theeconomy of the nation. Thesugar-cane and sugar yieldshave fluctuated with extremeevents in Pakistan. Thus, it isessential to understand theimpact of major changes in theclimate patterns that are theimportant resource affecting

sugar-cane and sugar yields.Today, these models are able todemonstrate the capability y ofsimulating some aspects ofinter-annual and inter-decadalvariability in climate variableswhen forced by historical sea-surface temperatures. Effortsare also underway to gain abetter under standing ofmechanisms related toextremes in weather and climatein association with large-scalecirculations(Y. H. Fauzia, 2013).Adaptation and mitigationstrategies in agriculture: ananalysis of potential synergiesreported by F. N. Tubiellosduring 2007 in his findings aregiven in figure below as:

Effect of climate at variouslevels of the industry

Climate affects all levels of theindustry, even up to policy level.At the policy level, advancedknowledge of climatic conditionsfor the season helps informulating and planningpolicies associated with possibleextreme events. At the sellinglevel, an accurate estimate ofcrop size helps in makinggrowing, plantation andharvesting schedulearrangements and advancedselling and storage strategies.

Even the global supply-and-demand situation could bebetter understood by havingadvanced knowledge of climaticconditions in other countries.

At the factory level, goodforecast information has a majorimpact on managementdecisions. An accurate idea ofcrop size influences thebeginning of the crushingseason and the closure of themills. It also helps in planning forgeneral maintenance of the millsin the slack season. On theother hand, if the crop is small,

mill opening could be delayedso that the crop could achievehigh sugar levels. This ensuresbetter profit from a highpercentage of pure obtainablecane-sugar levels.

Advanced knowledge help s inplanning for dry or wet weatherdisruptions in cane growingareas. Most of the managementdecisions for the grower aredependent on weather andclimate forecasts from initialland preparation to planting,fertilization, herbicide spraying,weed management, cane


19 | P a g e

harvesting and shipping. Thus,the need for accurate forecastsis extremely important but this isnot appreciated by many peoplein most sectors until a majorcatastrophic weather eventoccurs.

Climate change taking placeelsewhere in the world-climatechange and sea-level rise, inaddition to natural andenvironmental disasters alreadyin place. The South East Asianregion have warmed on anaverage of 0.3°C and 0.8°Cduring the last century. The risecontinued to record higher-than-in annual mean surfacetempera- normal temperatures

between 1.5°C and 2.0°C in the2050s least the past 150 years.

A decline in summer rainfallover some Not only sugar-caneproductivity but is alsoprojected, leading to also that ofcassava and other root low soilmoisture and, hence, reducedcrops, which are important dailyfoods water availability foragriculture and for thecommunities in Pakistan, couldbe other domestic and industrialuses. adversely affected shouldthere be Future increases in thefrequency of a change in rainfallpattern and rise heavy rainfallevents (leading to more intemperature above a threshold.,

flash floods and landslides) andsugar-cane productivity wouldgradually decrease. Climate haschanged during the pastcentury, moderate variations ofthe climate mean within acropping season for somehybrid varieties. Changesbeyond these bands oftolerance (region-specific),however, may require shifts incultivars, new technologies andinfrastructure, or, perhaps,conversion to different land uses(D. T. Patterson, 2012).Prediction Data of Decadalmean temperatures for onehundred years of differentdistricts of Pakistan rich in sugarindustry are given below.


20 | P a g e

Combined Effect:

Yields of C3 crops (vegetable,wheat and grapevine) generallyincrease.

Yields of C4 crops and summercrops generally decrease, Inter-annual variability of crop yieldsincrease

Global and regional climates willcontinue to change in the futureif greenhouse gases fromanthropogenic sources continueto increase. The threat of globalwarming and likely changes inregional climate variability ingeneral and the intensity inparticular has added anotherdimension.

Climatic factors affectingcane and sugar production

Rainfall

Rainfall is the single mostimportant factor responsible forsugar-cane production in therain-fed sugar industry ofPakistan. As rainfall issignificantly affected by extremeevents. The annual rainfallaverages between 400 mm and700 mm, of which 90 per centfalls in summer monsoon

between July and August insugarcane growing locations.The winter rainfall comes fromMediterranean rains in winterless than 10 percent this lowrainfall has a major effect oncrop production (J. O. Niles,2013).

Radiation

Solar radiation is the mainsource of energy forphotosynthesis and is alsoresponsible for loss of waterfrom soil and plants. As radiationcannot be conserved, it isessential to have managementstrategies to intercept most ofthe radiation by appropriatetimes of planting and rowspacing.

Temperature

The rate of photosynthesis isdependent on temperature, asare many other biochemicalprocesses controllingmeristematic activity for leaf andbud development.Photosynthesis efficiency ofsugar-cane increases in a linearmanner with temperatures in therange of 8°C to a maximum of34°C. Cool nights and early

morning temperatures 14°C inwinter and 20°C in summersignificantly inhibitphotosynthesis. The stalkelongation of sugar-cane is alsosensitive to temperature, withgeneral acceptance that thepeak growth phase isterminated by onset of meanday temperatures less than21°C (Climate change andagriculture).

Temperature and percentageof pure obtainable cane-sugar

It is generally accepted that leafgrowth is constrained attemperatures less than 14°C-19°C. Cool night temperaturesand sunny days slow downgrowth rates and carbonconsumption, whilephotosynthesis may continue,thus enhancing sucroseaccumulation. The stalkelongation is more sensitive tolower temperatures than arephotosynthetic rates. Thus,accumulation of sucrose is notfavoured at high temperaturesas growth rate increases morethan photosynthetic rates (T.Gomiero, 2008). Decadal totalprecipitation during 100 years inPakistan is given below as:


21 | P a g e

Baseline climatic studiesTemperature and rainfall data forthe baseline period 2011 to2090 have been analyzed forcane growing areas in Pakistan,trends at all the cane growingareas during the period hasbeen a steady increase in theper decades with warmer night-time temperatures..

There are several feasiblemanagement options to mitigatesome of the impacts of climaticvariability. These would reducethe adverse effects on the socio-economic system in rural areas.The sugar industry has beentotally dependent on climatepatterns since its inception andas a result is vulnerable to

extreme events such asdroughts, tropical cyclones.climate variability. There is nosufficient data to evaluate theimpact of such climate eventson the production of sugar-canein Pakistan (Y. H. Fauzia, 2013).Precipitation intensity and drydays overall trend of the globe isgiven below:


22 | P a g e

Sugarcane and Riceproduction Decline Water stress Increasing temperature Reduction of rainy daysYield decrease 10% for every 1°C increase Irrigation demand 10% for an

increase in temp. of 1°CImpact of Climate Change onBiometry of Sugarcane cropLeaf growth of Sugarcane:Constrained at temperaturesless than 14°C-19°C. Cool nighttemperatures and sunny daysSlow down growth rates.Accumulation of sucrose notfavoured at high temperatures.Photo-respiration rate increasesand Photo-synthetic ratesdecreases.Related uncertainties and thesugar-cane industry is noexception. It affects all levels ofthe industry, from canecultivation to harvesting,transport, milling, marketing andshipping. Lack of accurateweather forecasts to developstrategies at grower level.Strongly link scientific knowledgeof the agro-climatic calendar(contingent on forecasts), to theannual cycle of decision making,especially where probabilisticinformation is being employed.There is a strong consensus inthe international and nationalcommunities that climate changeis occurring and that the impactsare already being felt in someregions, particularly in Asia (W.E. Easterling, 2012:). It is alsoimportant to note that, even afterintroducing significant measuresto reduce greenhouse gasemissions there would still be adegree of climate changeoccurring, which would have

economic, social andenvironmental impacts. Climateis an important resource foragricultural countries such asPakistan, where the contributionto global greenhouse emission isvery high but where the futureeffects of climate change areexpected to be significant.These impacts will be felt bymany future generationsbecause the country have lowadaptive capacity, highvulnerability y to natural hazardsand poor forecasting systemsand mitigating strategies(Climate change and agriculture,2012).A nation’s economic and socialwell-being are greatly influencedby food security, health andsustainability of its naturalresources, including climate,water, crops, forests, fish stockand reliability of transportationand health care system.Research into impacts andadaptation strategies suggeststhat the most significantchallenges would result fromincreases in the frequency andintensity of extreme climateevents, such as floods, droughtsand tropical cyclones. Extremeevents, as well as rapid climatechange, can cause criticalthresholds to be exceeded, oftenwith severe or catastrophicconsequences.More needs to be done by theinternational community toensure reliable and accurateforecasting systems that can beused by growers and whichdemonstrate to decision-makersat all levels the advantages ofusing seasonal forecasts.ConclusionsClimate Change affects all levelsof sugar industry, from cane

cultivation to harvesting,transport, milling, marketing andshipping. Accurate weatherforecasts to develop strategiesat grower level with strongscientific knowledge of the agro-climatic calendar. Climate is animportant resource foragricultural countries such asPakistan, where the contributionto global greenhouse emission isvery high but where the futureeffects of climate change areexpected to be significant.These impacts will be felt bymany future generationsbecause the country have lowadaptive capacity, highvulnerability y to natural hazardsand poor forecasting systemsand mitigating strategies.Significant challenges wouldresult from increases in thefrequency and intensity ofextreme climate events, such asfloods, droughts and tropicalcyclones. Reliable and accurateforecasting systems that can beused by growers as anadvantages of using seasonalforecasts.

Recommendations Developing new farming

systems. Developing alternative foods. Enhance information on

agricultural research andencourages informationexchange among farmers.

Promote the development ofagricultural weatherinformation systemsincluding the use of long-term weather forecasts.

Acknowledgments:Shakarganj Mills Limited, JhangDepartment of MeteorologyGovt. of Pakistan


23 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Agriculture & the environment: Changing pressures, solutions, and trade-offs. In: World Agriculture:Towards 2015/2030 – An FAO Perspective. Ed. Bruinsma, J.

Climate change and agriculture: physical and human dimensions. 2012. In: World Agriculture: Towards2015/2030 – An FAO Perspective. Ed. Bruinsma, J.

Easterling, W.E. (2012). Food, fibre and forest products. Climate Change 2012: Impacts, Adaptationand Vulnerability. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment Report.

Fauzia Y. H. (2013). DAAD-HEC International Summer School “Food Security in Times of ClimateChange” , Bringing Translational research from bench to field Nove2-5. Dept. of BiosciencesCOMSATS Institute of Information Technology (CIIT), Islamabad, Pakistan.

Gomiero. T. (2008). Energy and Environmental Issues in Organic and Conventional Agriculture, CriticalReviews in Plant Sciences,27(4),239-254.

Niles, J.O. (2013). Potential carbon mitigation and income in developing countries from changes in useand management of agricultural and forest lands. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. A, 360:1621-1639.

Patterson, D.T. (2012). Weeds, insects, and diseases. Climatic Change, 43: 711-727.

Tubiello. F. N. (2007). Adaptation and mitigation strategies in agriculture: an analysis of potentialsynergies. Mitig. Adapt. Strategies Global Change, 12, 855-873, doi:10.1007/s11027-007-9103-8.

Weber, C., & Matthew, H.S. (2013). Food-miles and the relative climate impacts of food choices in theUnited States. Environmental Science & Technology, 42: 3508-3513.


24 | P a g e

TO ASCERTAIN SUITABLE PLANTING METHODFOR SUGAR BEET ROOT YIELD AND SUGARRECOVERY IMPROVEMENT UNDER D.I.KHAN

CONDITIONSKarim Bakhsh Malik, Asif Imran Shah and Soban Qureshi

ABSTRACT

Sugar beet introduced during 2005-06, is a new crop for D.I. Khan. To ascertain a suitable plantingmethod for sugar beet cultivation in the area, three years studies were initiated during 2008-09 at theresearch area of Almoiz Industries. The experiment comprised five treatments viz: Dual row planting at75cm row distance by a sugar beet drill (locally manufactured) and manual labor, single row planting ontop of the ridges at 45cm and 75cm row distances and planting on flat at 45cm row spaces in wattarconditions. The experiment was laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design with three replications.The consolidated beet root yield data for three years and the data for 2010-11 show significantdifferences in the means of different treatments. The single row top seeding at 45cm row spaces gavethe highest yield of 89.93 tha-1. This treatment gave 14 % and 21% higher yield over dual row plantingand single row top seeding at 75cm inter row spaces, respectively. The data on sugar recovery do notshow significant differences in their means; however single row spacing’s on top of the ridges recordedrelatively higher sugar recovery than dual row spacing’s. The better yield and recovery in top seeding onridges at 45cm inter row spaces was due to less plant competition and better exposure to light.

INTRODUCTIONSugar beet is quite a new cropfor D.I. Khan, first introduced innewly established AlmoizIndustries, during 2006. To startwith growers were not aware ofsugar beet crop agronomy. Assuch to achieve a success in itscultivation on commercial scale,a number of studies includingplanting method were carried outin the area.

Row to plant space has greatimportance with respect tointerception of light through leafcanopy, plants competition andbeet root yields. A suitable lightinterception gives potentialenergy for plant growth anddevelopment. To have apotential yield the row to plantspaces have to be adjusted for asuitable leaf canopy for a proper

ground cover and interplant lightinterception.With a very few exceptionsaround the world, row space formaximum yield of sugar beet are50 cm or less and row to plantspaces of 50 x 20 cm isconsidered ideal{ Draycott,2006). According to Draycott(2006), single row planting at 50cm row spaces ensure mostsuitable light interception to givepotential energy for plant growthand development. Much closerspace gives canopy cover toshadow the plants that checkphotosynthesis. Since all theplants do not establish incommercial population, 70 % ofthe plants established isconsidered enough to give areasonable yield. However,surviving plants must show rapidgrowth to achieve the required

soil cover to surpass the ill effectof environments if any.

The standard practice ofgrowers has been to grow sugarbeet at wider row space of76cm. The data tends to showadvantage in better cropproduction by reduction in rowwidth from 71-76 cm apart to 56cm (Theurer and Saunders,1995).

The ridge, bed and flat plantingat 35, 56, 76, and 97 cm spaceswere compared for various yieldparameters. The root yield wasthe highest on ridge sowing at56 cm apart (Zahoor et al,2007). Similar results werereported by Yonts and Smith(1997) who obtained highersugar yield from 56 cm rowspaces than from wider rowspaces of 76 and 97 cm row


25 | P a g e

spaces. The studies carried outby Cattanach and Schroeder(1980) indicated that narrowrows of 46 to 56cm producedgreater average yield comparedto wider rows of 68 to 76cm.Similar observations wererecorded by Fornstron andJackson (1983) and Marryetal.(2008).

The root yield for sugar beetgrown in intra-plant to rowspaces of 25 x 40 cm producedhigher yield than sugar beetgrown in 15 x 56 cm spacing.Sugar contents of beet grown informer spacing were higher by15.55% than from later spacing(Ransom et al. ( 1998).

Intra–row to plant spaces of 45 x15-20 cm produced higher rootyield than planting at 35 cmspacing and a population of75000 plants ha-1 is theminimum required for amaximum sugar yield (Sogotand Arioglu, 2004). Shah etal(2000) recorded a maximumyield and Pol value at apopulation of 75,000 plants ha-1;the value decreased with furtherincrease in plant population.

In Peshawar valley of Pakistansugar beet has been undercultivation for the last fivedecades. Manual sowing on topof the ridges at the inter rowspace of 45–50cm has been theusual practice of planting sugarbeet. Under the D.I. KhanConditions planting is planned tobe done with a tractor drawnsugar beet planter (imported)and sugar beet drill (local) andby manual labor. Studies weretherefore planned to ascertainthe suitable row distance andplanting method to be adoptedfor profitable production in thisregion.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The studies were conducted inthe research area of AlmoizIndustries, D.I.Khan. The studieswere carried out for three years,commencing during 2008 – 09,under the financial assistance ofPakistan Agriculture ResearchCouncil Project. The treatmentdetails are given as under.

T1: Dual row planting tworows on sides of ridges at 35cminter row spaces within 75 cminter row distance ridging andsowing by a tractor drawn drill.

T2: Dual row planting tworows on sides of ridges at 35cminter row spaces within 75 cminter row distance, manualsowing.

T3: Ridges by a tractor drawnridger at 75 cm inter rowdistance; single row seeding ontop of the ridges (manual).

T4: Ridges at 45 cm inter rowdistance, single row seeding ontop of the ridges (manual)

T5: Wattar planting on flat at45 cm inter row distance(manual dibbling).

The experiment was laid out in arandomized complete blockdesign with four replications in aplot size of 3.75m x 6m. Plantingwas done in the month ofOctober each year. The plot with75 cm inter row spacescomprised five rows, while theplots with 45 cm inter-rowspaces comprised eight rows. Inthe treatment No.2 and 3, seedwas dibbled on both sides of theflattened ridges having 35 cmspace between plant rows. Inthe treatments No.3 and 4 seedwas manually dibbled as one

row on top of the ridges. Theinter plant space was kept at 20cm between plants.

The land was deep preparedand well pulverized to attaingood tilth. Two bags of DAP andone bag of SOP were appliedafter seedbed preparation priorto planting. Planting was doneas per treatments, followed byirrigation. As the field came inmoist stage it was sprayed withan herbicide “Dual Gold”. Inlatter stages weeds werecontrolled by manual weeding asand when required. The 75 Kg ofUrea was applied in two splitdoses, first one applied fourweeks after sowing and the lastdose applied eight weeks ofsowing. The irrigations wereapplied as and when needed.

At the time of harvesting, fivebeet roots of almost uniform sizewere randomly picked from eachplot and sent to the sugar millslaboratory for sugar analysistests. Beet roots of central threerows of each plot in treatmentsNo.1, 2, and 3 and four rows intreatments No 4 and 5, weremanually dug, leaves with crownsection were cleaned off andbeet roots counted for plantdensity and weighed for beetroot yield data. The beet rootyield and recovery data were gotstatistically analyzed and thedata are discussed in thefollowing sections.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Cane yieldThe data on beet root yield forthe year 2011-12 and the meansfor 2008-12 period showsignificant differences in themeans of different treatments(Table-1). During 2010-11,


26 | P a g e

Single row top seeding on ridgesat 45cm row distance gave thehighest yield of 94.22 tha-1;followed by top seeding onridges at 75cm rows (85.22 tha-

1). The dual row planting at75cm and the flat planting wereat par. Though the data shownon- significant differences intheir means during 2008-09 and2009-10 but the yield trends arethe same as for the year 2010-11. The significant yielddifferences in the compositedata for 2008–11 confirm thesuperiority of top seeding onridges at 45cm row spaces. Thehigher yield at 45 cm spaces is

quite in line with findings ofDraycott (2006), Theurer andSaunders (1995) and Sogot andArioglu (2004). Significantly thehighest yield at 45 cm is alsoconfirmed from the studies ofZahoor etal (2007) and Ransom(1995). Most of the researchdata negate the beet root yieldperformance at 76cm (Theurer,1998), Zahoor et al (2007) andCattanach and Schroeder(1980).

The higher yields on single rowridges are due to optimum plantpopulation well fed andnourished with maximum light

exposure. The lower beet rootyield in dual row planting is dueto more plants competitionamong two rows within 75cmrow space. Closer leavescanopy in dual row plantingoverlap the adjoining plants andthere is lesser light interception.This is against the philosophy ofmaximum leaf exposure to lightreferred by Draycott (2006). Asfor plants on flat at 45cm,germination was not uniform andwas rather delayed in somepockets due to variation in soilmoisture. As such data do notshow consistent trend.

Table-1 Sugar beet roots yield affected by different planting methods

Sr.No. Treatments

Beet root yield tha-1

Period Mean2008-09 2009-10 2010-11* 2008-11*

1 Dual row planting on sides of the ridgesat 75cm row spaces(Beet planter) 78.32 79.62 78.25ab 78.73b

2 Dual row planting on sides of the ridgesat 75cm row spaces (manual) 82.22 75.36 76.20c 77.93b

3 Single row top seeding at 75cm rowspaces (manual) 78.17 70.09 85.22b 73.83b

4 Single row top seeding at 45cm rowspaces (manual) 89.72 85.85 94.22a 89.93a

5 Planting on flat at 45cm row spaces inmoist seedbed 80’85 85.12 74.55c 80.17b

LSD0.05 NS NS 8.28 7.84*Treatments having same letters do not show significant differences amongst their means.

Plant density and beet rootweight.

The mean data in Table-2 showthat two closer beet rows within75cm gave the largest plantdensity having a beet root countof 96,012 and 83,795 perhectare for treatments No.1 and2, respectively. The single rowtop seeding at 75 cm rowspaces produced the lowestnumber of beet roots 47,941 per

hectare. The beet roots densityin 45 cm row spaces intreatment No.4 and 5 recorded abeet roots number of 78,885 and71,580, respectively. The plantdensity has a great effect on theper beet root weight. The dualrow planting at 75 cm having twocloser rows at 35 cm inter plantrow spaces gave beet rootweight of less than 1 kg i e 0.82and 0.93 kg per plant, intreatment No. 1 & 2,

respectively. The low beet rootweight in these treatments wasdue to more inter plantcompetition in lesser rowspaces. On the other hand thesingle row planting at wider rowof 75 cm spaced ridges gave theper beet root weight of 1.54 kg.The beet planted at 45 cm rowspaces recorded a beet rootweight of 1.14 and 1.12 kg intreatment No, 4 and 5,respectively.


27 | P a g e

Table-2 Plants density and per beet root weight as affected by different planting methods

Sr.No. Treatments

Period MeanCharacter 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2008-11

1

Dual row planting on sides ofthe ridges at 75cm rowspaces (Beet planter)

Plants ha-1 96691 93670 96604 96012

Beet rootweight(kg) 0.81 0.85 0.81 0.82

2Dual row planting on sides of

the ridges at 75cm rowspaces (manual)

Plants ha-1 86547 81913 81935 83795

Beet root weight(kg) 0.95 0.92 0.93 0.93

3 Single row top seeding at75cm row spaces (manual)

Plants ha-1 51091 46935 53597 47941

Beet root weight(kg) 1.53 1.51 1.59 1.54

4 Single row top seeding at45cm row spaces (manual)

Plants ha-1 78701 76652 81224 78885Beet root weight

(kg) 1.14 1.12 1.16 1.14

5 Planting on flat at 45cm rowspaces in moist seedbed

Plants ha-1 72837 74666 62772 71580Beet root weight

(kg) 1.11 1.14 1.09 1.11

The data in Table-2 indicate thatthe treatments with higher plantdensity considerably reducedthe beet root weight, while thetreatments with low plant densityhave produced more vigorousand heavier beet roots. Thehigher plant density overshadowed the adjoining plantswhich reduced the growth andbeet root weight. Neverthelesssingle row top seeding on ridgesappear to give a reasonableplant stand of 78,885 and

71,580 plants per hectare fortreat ment No.4 and 5,respectively with beet rootweight of around 1kg. Thesedata correspond to the findingsof Shah et al (2000) and Sogotand Arioglu (2004) for anaccepted crop stand.

Sugar recovery and sugaryieldThe sugar recovery data (Table-3) show non- significantdifferences in the means of

different treatments. However,sugar beet in single row topseeding on ridges at 45 cm rowwidth has shown the highestsugar contents of 11.4%followed by top seeding at 75cm(11.40%). Sugar recovery innarrow row spaces within 75cmrow distance was relatively low.The data on sugar yield inTable-4 indicate that single rowtop seeding produced thehighest sugar yield of 10.08 tonsbeet root (Treatment No.4) andwas 16.32% higher than narrowrow width in treatment No.1.


28 | P a g e

Table-3 Sugar recovery% of sugar beet as affected by different planting methodsSr.No Treatments

Period – Sugar Rec.%

2008-09 2009-10

2010-11

Mean2008-11

1 Dual row planting on sides of the ridges at 75cm rowspaces (Beet planter) 11.75 10.76 10.53 11.01

2 Dual row planting on sides of the ridges at 75cm rowspaces (manual) 10.93 9.53 10.88 10.44

3 Single row top seeding at 75cm row spaces (manual) 11.30 10.48 12.43 11.404 Single row top seeding at 45cm row spaces (manual) 12.35 10.47 11.43 11.45

5 Planting on flat at 45cm row spaces in moistseedbed(manual) 11.51 9.50 11.83 10.94

Table-4 Beet sugar yields as affected by different planting methods

Sr.No. Treatments

Period2008-

09 2009-10 2010-11

Mean2008-11

1 Dual row planting on sides of the ridges at 75cm rowspaces (Beet planter) 9.20 8.56 8.24 8.67

2 Dual row planting on sides of the ridges at 75cm rowspaces (manual) 9.00 7.18 8.29 8.16

3 Single row top seeding at 75cm row spaces (manual) 9.83 7.34 10.59 9.254 Single row top seeding at 45cm row spaces (manual) 11.08 8.99 10.77 10.08

5 Planting on flat at 45cm row spaces in moist seedbed 9.30 8.09 8.82 8.74

The better sugar recoveries andsugar yields in single row topseeding appear logical. Againstthe dual row planting on narrowrow spaces, plants leaves on onsingle rows are more exposed tosun light for sugar synthesis,and plant root weight is ideal.The plants in narrow row spacesat 75cm, compete each other fornutrients and light as such donot synthesize better sugar inleaves. This is quite inagreement with the findings ofDraycott (2006). This impact ofsugar recovery is morepronounced in sugar yield. Thetop seeding on 45 cm produced10.08 tons of beet sugar and thisyield was 13 to 19 percenthigher than the narrow row width

in the treatments No 1. Topseeding at 75cm row spaceswas still better in sugar yieldthan dual row spacesCONCLUSIONFive planting methods werecompared using Dual rowplanting – using two rows onsides of ridges at 35cm inter rowspaces within 75cm inter rowdistance(by tractor drawn drilland manual labor), single rowseeding on tops of ridges at75cm inter row distance and45cm inter row distance andwattar planting at 45cm rowdistances. Three years studies,conducted during 2008 – 11period, reveal that the single rowtop seeding on ridges at 45cm

inter row spaces gave thehighest yield of 89.93 tha-1 andwas 15 and 21 percent higherthan dual row planting and singlrow top seeding at 75cm. Thelower yields in dual row plantingwere due to higher plant densitycausing more plant competitionand lower beet root weight.Single row planting at 45 cmalso gave higher sugar recoveryand higher sugar yield over dualrow planting. Lower recovery indual row planting was due toover lapping leaves causingpoor light interception than insingle row planting. The singlerow top seeding at 45cmsurpased in yield and recoveryover dual row planting as well assingle row planting at 75cminters row spaces.


29 | P a g e

REFERENCES

Amin.M.; G. Ahmed and M. Khan (1982). Sugar beet root yield and quality as affected by differentplanting dates. Proc. Pak. Soc. Sugar Tech. 169-173.

Cattanach, A. and G. Schroeder (1980).A comparison of 22 vs 30 inch row spacing at equal plantpopulation. Sugar beet res. and Extention Rep. 11:198-203.

Dracott, A. P. (2006). Sugar Beet. World Agriculture Series. Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Oxford,

Fornstron,K.J. and G. Jackson (1983). Sugar beet planted to stand in 56cm and 76cm rows. J. Am. Soc.Sugar Beet Techn. 22 (2):108-118.

Marry,S.A., R.M. Kholief and W.A. Gad (2008). Development of planter for minimizing row space andmaximizing the sugar beet yield.Misr. J. Agri. Eng. 25(4):1112-1130.

Rafay, Y.A. (2010). Root yield and quality traits of three sugar beet varieties in relation to sowing dateand stand densities. World J. Agri. Sci. 6(5): 589-594.

Ransom, C.V.; C.J. Guza and J. Ishida (1998).Row spacing and plant population in Roundup resistantsugarbeets.(Bulletin). Malheur Expt. Sta,,Oregan State Univ. Ontario, Or.

Robinson, F.A. and G.F. Worker (1969). Plant density and yield of sugar beet in an aridenvironment.Agron. J. 61:441-443.

Shah, I.H., N. Khan, G. Rasul and N. Saeed (2000 ). Effect of sowing time and plant population on rootyield and accumulation of sugar in sugar beet. Pak Jiur. Bio. Science. 3 (12):205-07).

Shah, I. H., N. Khan, G. Rasul and N. Saeed (2000). Effect of sowing time and plant population on rootyield and accumulation of sugar in sugar beet. Pak Jiur. Bio.Science. 3 (12):205-07).

Sogot, T. and H. Arioglu (2004). Plant density and sowing dates effect on sugar beet yield andquality.Jour. Agronomy 3(3):215-218.

Theurer, J. C. and J. W. Saunders (1995). Row spacing and plant density effects on smooth root sugarbeets.Jour. Sugar beet Research. 32 (2 & 3):69-78.

Yonts, C.D. and J.A. Smith (1997).Effect of plant population and row width on yield of sugar beet. Am.Soc. Sugar beet Tech. 34(1-2): 21-30.

Yonts, C. D.; and J. A. Smith (1997). Effect of plant population and row width on yield of sugar beet.Jour. Sugar beet Res. 34(1-2): 21-29.

Zahoor, A.; Faridullah.; S. Paigham; K.M. Kakar; B.Sanaullah; H. El-Sharkawi; T. Honna and S.Yamamoto (2007). Sugar beet response to different planting methods and row geometries. I. Effect onplant growth and yield: Archieves of Agronomy and Soil Sci, 53(1): 49-61.


30 | P a g e

SUGAR INDUSTRY ABSTRACTS

NEONICOTINOID INSECTICIDES PROVIDE NO PRACTICAL CONTROL OF SOLDIER FLY

PR SAMSONProc. Aust. Soc Sugar Cane Technol. Vol 37 2015

Thiame thoxam, imidacloprid and clothianidin were evaluated for their efficacy against sugarcane soldierfly, Inopus rubriceps (Diptera: Stratiomyidae), in field trials. Thiamethoxam was not effective when appliedusing coulters in a ratoon crop in the one trial conducted. Imidacloprid was not effective as either a liquidform applied using coulters in ratoons (three trials) or a controlled-release formulation applied in plantcane (one trial), despite application rates several times greater than used successfully against canegrubs.Clothianidin significantly reduced numbers of soldier fly larvae when applied using coulters in ratoons inone of two trials, but only at an application rate more than double the rate registered against canegrubs.None of these insecticides from the neonicotinoid group is likely to have any practical use for soldier flymanagement.

BARRIERS TO ADOPTION OF RECOMMENDED FERTILISER PRACTICES BY SUGARCANEGROWERS IN THE WET TROPICSKAREN E BENNProc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 37 2015The dominant scientific paradigm holds sugarcane growers’ cultivation practices responsible for thegreatest amount of soil and nutrient run-off flowing from the Wet Tropics coast to the Great Barrier Reef(GBR) lagoon. Strong encouragement from governmental agencies, coupled with proposed gains fromreduced costs and increased levels of sugar content after reducing fertiliser use, led to marked reductionin the use of N and P fertiliser. However sugarcane growers have been reluctant to further alter theirfertiliser practices to suit environmental targets—a situation that puzzles Reef Protection scientists. Thisqualitative study involved 82 in-depth interviews during 2007–2010 with sugar industry representatives inthe Wet Tropics region and other stakeholders interested in the industry’s environmental performance.Participants’ values, interests and beliefs were interrogated regarding their actions and views on fertiliserusage. Ecological Modernisation Theory (EMT) provided a conceptual framing for understanding eachindustry sector response to the recommended environmental practice. Through this EMT lens importanteconomic, social and environmental issues emerged that suggested that the proposed benefits of thescientific innovation were fraught with problems. Moreover, knowledge disputes about the validity andcontested nature of the dominant science became an important component of the analysis, especially asthese highlighted the power relations of different stakeholders. Foucault’s notion of the knowledge/powernexus and associated debates about eco-governmentality provided an additional framing of thegovernance of the sugar industry. This combined analysis of growers’ reasons for not always adoptingrecommended fertiliser practices provided insights into the problems associated with the reliance urbanbureaucrats place on scientific expertise to inform natural resource management (NRM) policy withoutconsulting rural peoples’ knowledge. Granting more credence for rural people’s knowledge would lead tomore sustainable NRM policy that ultimately affects the livelihoods of farmers, and better ways of workingwith farmers on issues of environmental management.


31 | P a g e

MICROARTHROPODS AS PREDATORS OF NEMATODE PESTS IN SUGARCANE SOILS:LITERATURE REVIEW AND PRELIMINARY STUDIES

M MANWARING, D WALTER, GR STIRLINGProc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 37 2015Soil microarthropods (PRIMARILY springtails and mites) are integral components of the decomposersubsystem, but are essentially unstudied in Australian sugarcane soils. Many of these tiny arthropods arebeneficial, as they help regulate the rate of decomposition and nutrient cycling through their feedingprocesses and by dispersing microbial propagules. Some are also known to feed on nematodes, includingthose that are significant pests of crops. Herein we review what is known about nematophagous soilmicroarthropods and present preliminary results from a survey of mineral soil in Queensland cane fields.Densities ranged from 89–529 per 600 mL soil and were dominated by springtails and oribatid mites,indicating a fungus-dominated system. Additionally, about two dozen species of predatory mesostigmaticmites were identified, including many that are known to feed on nematodes. We conclude that sugarcanesoils contain a soil microarthropod community with the potential to contribute to the suppression ofnematode pests.

IMPACT OF NITROGEN INPUTS TO A SUGARCANE SOIL ON PLANT-PARASITIC NEMATODESAND THEIR NATURAL ENEMIES

GR STIRLING, AM STIRLING, S SCHMIDT, N ROBINSONProc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 37 2015

A field trial in central Queensland in which high and low rates of N fertiliser (160 and 40 kg N/ha,respectively) had been applied to sugarcane for three years was sampled to assess the impact of N inputson plant-parasitic nematodes and some of their natural enemies. The soil under five sugarcaneaccessions was collected immediately after the second ratoon crop was harvested and nematodepopulations were assessed; nematode- trapping fungi were quantified; and an assay in which the numberof Radopholus similis recovered 10 days after being added to heated and unheated soil was used toindicate the level of suppressiveness to plant-parasitic nematodes. Nematode analyses indicated thatnumbers of lesion nematode (Pratylenchus zeae) and total numbers of plant-parasitic nematodes weresignificantly higher in the high than the low N treatment. Total numbers of free-living nematodes tended tobe lower in the high N treatment and the proportion of bacterial to fungal-feeding nematodes was higher,indicating that with high N, bacteria rather than fungi were the dominant component of the detritus foodweb. There were also negative effects of N on beneficial omnivorous and predatory nematodes, and a

trend towards lower populations of a nematode-trapping fungus (Arthrobotrys thaumasia) with high Ninputs. The bioassay with R. similis showed that the level of suppressiveness to the nematode was 39.4%in soil fertilised with 40 kg N/ha and only 18.5% in the 160 kg N/ha treatment, indicating that the soil withhigher N inputs was less suppressive to plant-parasitic nematodes than soil from the low N treatment.Collectively, these results indicate that high inputs of N fertiliser are detrimental to some natural enemiesof plant-parasitic nematodes. Thus, the fertilisation practices used in sugarcane may be one of thereasons that pest nematodes dominate the nematode community in cane-growing soils.


32 | P a g e

FATE OF GRANULAR VERSUS LIQUID FERTILISERS APPLIED TO SOIL LEACHING COLUMNS

P PITTAWAY, A MELLAND, G CELOTTO, J DOWIE, G SHANNON, L DI BELLAProc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 37 2015Anecdotal reports from cane growers using a liquid fertiliser formulation at planting in North Queensland,

indicate plant establishment is improved relative to granular products. However, some growers perceiveliquid formulations are more prone to leaching, with insufficient residual fertiliser available to meet plantdemand over the first 12 to 16 weeks prior to re-application. Soil from one of three plant cane field trialsestablished in the Herbert and Tully regions in 2014 was selected for a glasshouse leaching trial tocompare the fate of N, P and K in commercial fertilisers applied in liquid or granular formulations on Day 1and 18 weeks later. The high concentration of muriate of potash in the granular formulation applied atplanting inhibited emergence at two field sites, and inhibited nitrification in the leaching columns.Phosphorus and nitrate in the first liquid formulation were more immediately available, which may havestimulated emergence in the field. The lower concentration of N, P and K in the liquid formulation applied tothe field trials at planting was sufficient to sustain plant cane for the first 12 to 16 weeks. Contrary to growerperception, the risk of nitrate leaching was greatest for the granular fertiliser treatments. This may be dueto the higher concentration of N, P and K applied in the second liquid formulation, and the microbialslow release (immobilisation) of fertiliser N induced by the inclusion of molasses in the formulation.

EFFECT OF SUGARCANE MULCH THICKNESS ON EMERGENCE OF FOUR VINE SPECIES:

RESULTS OF A POT TRIAL

EMILIE FILLOLS, TIM STAIERProc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 37 2015

THE IMPACT OF different thicknesses of cane trash blanket on the emergence of four common vinespecies in sugarcane fields (pink convolvulus – Ipomoea triloba, red convolvulus – I. hederifolia, siratro –Macroptilium atropurpureum and centro – Centrosema molle) was investigated in a pot trial in Mackay,Queensland. The experiment also compared the effect of trash blanket versus inert mulch to assess ifallelopathic compounds impact on vine germination. A high level of trash (equivalent to 18 t/ha) reducedthe final number of emerged vine seedlings by 66% on average compared to a low level of trash (6 t/ha)and bare soil. A medium level of trash (12 t/ha) reduced seedling emergence by 32% on averagecompared to bare soil whereas a low level of trash did not reduce vine emergence. Mulching affected theemergence of the tested vine species differently. With 78% emergence, siratro was less impacted by themulch treatments than red convolvulus and centro (60 and 66% emergence respectively). Hypocotyls wereproportionally longer with increase in trash level. Hypocotyl elongation/ trash level ratio was higher forIpomoeas than legumes, suggesting a higher plasticity of Ipomoeas that would allow them to grow througheven thicker trash. This experiment was unable to confirm the hypothesis of an allelopathic effect of canetrash on the tested vine species and seemed to indicate the physical barrier of the trash was thepredominant parameter that impeded on vine emergence.


33 | P a g e

MAXI INTEL FOR EXTENDED CONTROL OF GREYBACK CANEGRUB IN SUGARCANE

GR TUCKER, KJ CHANDLER, JK STRINGER, L DERBY, A EATON A CRADDOCK, S WATKINSProc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 37 2015

THIS PAPER SUMMARISES efficacy data collected to satisfy requirements to register the granularcontrolled-release insecticide suSCon 1® Maxi Intel (50 g imidacloprid/kg) to control damage by greybackcanegrub (Dermolepida albohirtum) to the root-mass of sugarcane crops in central and north Queenslandfor up to 3 years. We outline collaborative research and development (R&D) to improve products suited tothe sugarcane industry’s needs, following a similar process to register suSCon® Maxi for 2-year control ofgreyback canegrub. suSCon Maxi Intel granules released less imidacloprid than granules of suSCon Maxiduring the first 3 months after application, and were able to sustain larger amounts of imidacloprid in thesoil around granules at 21 and 27 months after application. Greyback canegrub populations weresignificantly reduced in plant, first and second ratoon crops by treatment with 10 or 15 kg/ha of productapplied into the planting furrow at the drill fill-in stage. Cane yield in treated plots was 9–10 t/ha greaterthan in untreated plots. suSCon Maxi Intel reduced grub populations further and supported slightly morecane production than suSCon Maxi. These data support submissions to register suSCon Maxi Intel forcontrol greyback canegrub up to second ratoon.

DOES IMIDACLOPRID PROVIDE ABIOTIC BENEFITS TO SUGARCANE IN THE ABSENCE OFCANEGRUBS?

GR TUCKER, KJ CHANDLER, JK STRINGER, L DERBY, A EATON, J JENNINGS, N MATTHEWSProc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 37 2015

SRA AND CROP CARE AUSTRALASIA sampled 16 field-trials in sugarcane, commencing in 2012 toexamine any positive abiotic (non-insecticidal) effects that the imidacloprid products suSCon maxi® andSenator® WG might have on crop growth in the absence of canegrubs or other insect pests. Plant cropsfrom the first set of trials established in 2012, and the second set established in 2013, have shown nopositive growth responses in the absence of canegrub infestation. Plots re-treated with Senator WG ascoulter applications into the young first ratoon crop gave some inconsistent effects in terms of increasedcane yield or ratoon shoot growth in some of the trials, but in all cases these could have been due to low-level presence of canegrubs in the first ratoon crops.


34 | P a g e

EFFICACY OF NEW CHEMICALS TO CONTROL PINEAPPLE SETT ROT OF SUGARCANE

PRIYANKA WICKRAMASINGHE, SHAMSUL A BHUIYAN, BARRY J CROFTProc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 37 2015

Pineapple sett rot, caused by Ceratocystis paradoxa, is an economically important disease of sugarcaneworldwide. It causes germination failures of seedcane or setts leading to poor crop establishment. Amongthe registered fungicides in Australia, the organomercury fungicide Shirtan® (methoxy ethyl mercuricchloride) is the most popular because it may stimulate germination of setts in addition to controllingpineapple sett rot. However, the organomercury fungicides have greater health and environmental impactsthan other fungicides in use due to the presence of mercury. Two glasshouse experiments and a fieldexperiment were undertaken at Sugar Research Australia, Woodford, aiming to assess the efficacy offungicides Vibrance®, Dynasty® and Mirador® against pineapple sett rot of sugarcane compared to tworegistered chemicals, Sinker® and Shirtan®, and to assess their ability to stimulate sett germination. Theresults of these experiments clearly indicate that Dynasty® and Vibrance® can be effectively used tocontrol pineapple sett rot of sugarcane in glasshouse conditions with similar effectiveness to Sinker® andeither better or similar effectiveness to Shirtan®. More research is needed to further evaluate the efficacyof fludioxonil (one of the component chemicals of Dynasty®) and Vibrance® in controlling pineapple settrot under field conditions, and for the control of other important fungal diseases such as sugarcane smut.

EFFICACY OF FLUTRIAFOL COMPARED TO OTHER TRIAZOLE FUNGICIDES FOR THE CONTROLOF SUGARCANE SMUTSHAMSUL A BHUIYAN, BARRY J CROFT, GLEN R TUCKER, REBECCA JAMESProc Aust Soc Sugar Cane Technol Vol 37 2015

Smut is AN important disease of sugarcane, caused by the fungus Sporisorium scitamineum. Twofungicides, propiconazole and triadimefon can be applied as a 5 min dip to protect the buds from smutinfection. This 5 min dip of 1–2 tonne bundles of seed cane has some practical problems. The treatmentrequires a separate, large 5 000–10 000 L tank and disposal of the waste fungicide by an environmentallyacceptable method is difficult and costly. The aim of this research was to evaluate the potential of flutriafolfor control of smut by methods that will be more practical for field application. Two pot experiments wereundertaken to: (i) determine whether flutriafol mixed with fertiliser can be taken up by sugarcane roots insufficient concentration to protect plants from smut infection; and (ii) compare the efficacy of flutriafol withother triazole fungicides, propiconazole and triadimefon, when mixed with fertiliser or used as a dip. Thepot trials also tested methods of inoculation with smut that could be used in larger-scale field trials of thefungicide. Results indicated that flutriafol is effective in significantly reducing sugarcane smut infectionwhen applied at rates of 100–400 g a.i./ha mixed with fertiliser and at rates of 12.5 g a.i./100 L and abovewhen applied as a 10-minute dip of setts. There were significant relationships between application rate offlutriafol and smut suppression when the fungicide was applied mixed with fertiliser. The 10-minute dipapplications of the three triazole fungicides were more effective than the fungicide/fertiliser mix.Propiconazole and triadimefon were equally effective when applied as a dip, but they were less effectivethan flutriafol when mixed with fertiliser. Control was achieved when the smut was injected into the buds orapplied by a dip of the setts at planting. Results suggest that flutriafol can kill smut fungus after it hasestablished within the plant. Dipping setts in a suspension of smut spores is a practical method ofinoculation that can be used for future field trials of flutriafol.


35 | P a g e


36 | P a g e

WSRO POSITION STATEMENT

Sugar and Addiction

Written August 2012

Background

A number of scientific studieshave suggested thatconsumption of certain foods,such as those containingsugars, engage similar nervepathways in the brain (thoseassociated with pleasure) asdrugs of abuse, andconsequently, should beconsidered addictivesubstances

1. It is further argued thataddiction of this type leads tobinge-eating and that this isresponsible for the currentlyhigh prevalence of obesity inmany countries

2 Each of these threehypotheses has beenquestioned

3, 4, 5. It is thereforeimportant to examineseparately the evidence foreach of them, sinceacceptance of the first doesnot necessarily imply that thetwo dependent hypothesesare also valid

4. It is also necessary tocritically examine thesuggestion that the addictionmodel provides useful

insights into reasonablepublic policy approaches tothe obesity issue

4. The problems of rationalinterpretation of the conflictingevidence in these areas arecompounded by doubts as tothe meaning of the term“addiction” and its usefulnessin clinical practice and publichealth discussion

3, 4, 6. Most researchers inthis field rely on the term“substance dependence” asdefined in the psychologicalliterature

9 which may not be relevant

5 or helpful

4 in the context of behaviourtowards foods. Sinceconsumption of calorific foodis essential to survival, it isunsurprising that the humanbrain is programmed to findsuch consumptionpleasurable

5. However, key features ofsubstance dependenceinclude tolerance (increasingamounts of the substance arerequired to produce thedesired effect) and theexperience of seriouswithdrawal symptoms whenintake is stopped. Neither hasbeen observed in humansubjects with respect to food

3. Evidence for sugar“addiction” comes mainly froma limited number of animalmodel experiments

7 in which “binge eating” ofsugar has been observedafter the availability of sugaris limited to certain times ofthe day. Withdrawalsymptoms are induced byremoval of that limited access

7 but this may not be uniqueto sugar

3. Studies like these rely onfeeding regimens that involvedepriving rats of access tosugar for prolonged periods ofthe day. The symptomsattributed to “addiction” inthese animals are not seenwhen they are given unlimitedaccess to sugar

8, suggesting that thebehaviour is, at least partly,dependent on fooddeprivation rather than thenature of the food itself.Additionally, there isinsufficient evidence on othermacronutrients

3 to determine whether this“binging” behaviour is specificto sugar or to palatable foodsgenerally. Furthermore, it isnoteworthy that these ratswho are described as“binging” on sugar do not


37 | P a g e

become obese, since theyreduce their consumption ofother food

7. Comparable observationsto this rat model have notbeen made in humans

3 and no evidence oftolerance or of withdrawalsymptoms have beenreported in relation to sugarconsumption

3. # The rat studies alsoinclude studies of brainactivation patterns, and thesehave been reported to besimilar to those activated bycertain drugs of abuse. This isunsurprising, since the drugsof abuse are known to mimicthe effects of foodconsumption in the brain

4, 5. There are differences,however

3, 4 and attempts to replicatethese findings in humanstudies have yielded widelyconflicting results

4 both in normal weight andobese subjects

4. Given the lack of consistentevidence to suggest thataddiction to sugar is a validconcept to describe thebehaviour of even a smallproportion of the humanpopulation, it could be arguedthat it can have no relevanceto the widespread problem ofobesity. In addition, there arelines of evidence from humanpopulation studies that further

weaken the hypothesis thatsugar addiction is commonlyresponsible for obesity, andthese merit rehearsal

4. First, the vast majority ofoverweight individuals do notshow a convincingbehavioural or neurobiologicalprofile that might be seen toresemble addiction

4. Second, those people whocan be defined clinically assuffering from Binge EatingDisorder

9 are not always obese nordo the vast majority of obeseindividuals exhibit BingeEating Disorder

4. Third, if sugar addictiondoes exist within the humanpopulation further researchwill be needed to delineatethis aberrant behaviour fromthe normal. But at present,the available evidenceoverwhelmingly conflicts withthe notion that sugaraddiction exists at all, letalone that it is a major driverof the current prevalence ofhuman obesity.

In summary, the currentevidence does not supportthe idea that human addictionto sugar is a valid concept 3,4, 5 or that it is acharacteristic of individualswho are obese 3, 4

References

1. Ifland JR, Preuss HG,Marcus MT, et al. (2009)Refined food addiction: aclassic substance usedisorder. Medical Hypotheses72(5): 518-526.

2. Gearhardt AN, Grilo CM,Dileone RJ, Brownell KD,Potenza MN (2011) Canfoods be addictive ? Publichealth and policy implications.Addiction 106: 1208-1212.

3. Benton D (2010) Theplausibility of sugar addictionand its role in obesity andeating disorders Clin. Nutr.29:288-303.

4. Ziauddeen H, Farooqi IS,Fletcher PC (2012) Obesityand the brain: how convincingis the addiction model?Nature Reviews Neuro-science 13: 279- 285.

5. World Health Organization(2004) Neuroscience ofpsychoactive substance useand dependence. WHO,Geneva 2004.

6. Akers RL (1991) Addiction:the troublesome concept. TheJournal of Drug Issues 21:777-793.

7. Avena NM, Rada P,Hoebel BG (2008) Evidencefor sugar addiction:behavioral and neurochemicaleffects of intermittent,excessive sugar intake.Neuroscience BiobehaviorReviews 32: 20-39.


38 | P a g e

8. Corwin RL, Grigson PS(2009) Symposium overview– Food addiction, factorfiction? J.Nutr. 139: 617-619.#

9. American PsychiatricAssociation. Diagnostic andStatistical Manual of MentalDisorders 4th Edition.American PsychiatricAssociation. Washington DC2000.

Sugars and MicronutrientDilution

Written January 2012

Background

A diet that is high in sugars isoften assumed to reduceintake of essentialmicronutrients. The termemployed to describe such aneffect is ‘micronutrientdilution’. However, thisassumption is anoversimplified view of acomplicated subject which isfraught with inconsistenciesand limitations in the availableevidence. There are twomain considerationssurrounding the issue ofsugars and micronutrientdilution, as described byRuxton et al., (2010). Thefirst is whether dietscontaining higher amounts ofsugars indeed contain lowerlevels of micronutrients (adilution effect). The second,and possibly more important

consideration, is whethersuch diets still achieverecommended dietary intakelevels of micronutrients.

Limitations in the evidence

Any review of the evidence onmicronutrient dilution needs toaddress the contradictions inthe scientific literature.Livingstone and Rennie(2009) discussed the issuesthat account for theinconsistent findings acrossstudies. These include: Variations in the definition of‘sugars’. The terms usedrange from “total sugars”, to“added” or “free sugars”, tothe UK definition of “non-milkextrinsic sugars” (NMES).The categorisation cansubstantially affect theobserved relationshipbetween sugars andmicronutrient intake. Forexample, unsweetened fruitjuice is conventionallyincluded in the categories oftotal and NMES sugars, butmay not be included in ‘addedsugars’. As a result, thechoice of sugarscategorisation cansignificantly affect therelationship betweenestimates of sugars andVitamin C intake.

Use of differentbenchmarks to assessadequacy of micronutrientintake

Direct estimates ofmicronutrient status are rarelyused. Instead, estimates ofrequirement, in the form ofdietary reference values(DRV), are compared withestimates of habitual dietaryintake, in order to assessadequacy of intake. Bothestimates are prone touncertainties, and the choiceof DRV can substantially alterthe results of suchcomparisons. The DRV usedcan vary from the level ofintake that is estimated to beinadequate for the vastmajority (97.5%) of thepopulation (Lower NutrientReference Intake: LNRI) tothe level of intake that isjudged to be adequate for thevast majority (again

97.5%) of the population(Reference Nutrient Intake:RNI). Between theseextremes lies the estimatedaverage requirement (EAR)for a particular micronutrient.Comparison with the EAR iscurrently proposed to form themethodological basis forassessing adequacy ofmicronutrient intake(WHO/FAO, 2004). With allDRVs, comparison of anestimated individual or groupmean micronutrient intakewith a DRV, withoutconfirmatory biochemical orclinical measures, does notprove suboptimal nutritionalstatus.#2


39 | P a g e

Evidence arising fromobservational studies that relyon self-reported dietaryintake. Underreporting is anaccepted limitation of self-reported dietary surveys(Livingstone and Black, 2003)and, as a consequence, theproportion of peopleestimated to have aninadequate intake ofmicronutrients isexaggerated. Some studieshave tried to correct forunderreporting by excludingdata from subjects whosedietary records showimplausibly low total energyintake. This still leavessubjects who may havereported plausible energyintakes but have,nonetheless, not fullyreported all their food anddrink consumption.

An inconsistent approach toadjusting for energy intake.Since total food energy intakeappears to be the mostimportant predictor ofmicronutrient intake (DoH,1989, Gibson, 2001), oneneeds to control or adjust forenergy intake to determineany independent effect ofsugars intake. Most studiesattempt to adjust for energyintake by reporting sugarsintake as %energy.

However, this variable is itselfaffected by intake of othermacronutrients. Forshee andStorey (2001) employed anenergy partitioning approach

to try to isolate theassociation of added sugarswith micronutrient intake fromthat of energy in the diets ofAmerican children andadolescents. The authorsconcluded that theassociation with sugars intakewas inconsistent and variedwith age group, and rangedfrom no association, tostatistically positive andnegative associations.Furthermore, they determinedthat the impact of addedsugars was too small to haveany clinically significant effecton diet quality.

Reviews of the evidence

A number of recent reviewshave focussed on the topic ofsugars and micronutrientdilution (Gibson, 2007,Livingstone and Rennie,2009), while Ruxton et al.,(2010) evaluated the topicwithin a broad range of healthissues related to sugarsconsumption. Most evidenceemanates fromepidemiological studies withno intervention studiesspecifically changing only thesugar content of the diet withthe primary purpose ofexamining changes inmicronutrient intake.However, some interventionstudies have examinedaspects of micronutrientintake while altering thesugars, or refined or simplecarbohydrate levels, of thediet. These studies show

either no impact, or only aminor impact, on nutrientadequacy (Gibson, 2007,Ruxton et al., 2010). Onreviewing all availableevidence, both Gibson (2007)and Ruxton et al. (2010)considered that someevidence existed for a dilutioneffect at high consumptionlevels of sugars. Gibson(2007), in a systematicreview, concluded that therewas some evidence that adiet containing a highproportion of added sugars(above 20% energy) waslikely to be marginally lowerin micronutrients than a dietcontaining a proportion ofadded sugars closer to themean intake of thepopulations studied. Theoptimal micronutrient intakesappeared within diets whichcontained moderate levels ofsugars, since manyassociations were n-shaped,with lower intakes at bothhigh and low intakes ofsugars. Ruxton et al., (2010)also reported that a dilutioneffect was apparent fromcross-sectional studies, butwith fairly consistent evidencethat most diets wereadequate in micronutrients.Nutrient adequacy in thepresence of a high sugarintake may reflect the sourcesof sugar in the diet, sincefortified breakfast cereals,sweetened dairy products,and juices are also importantsources of micronutrients. In


40 | P a g e

contrast, Livingstone andRennie (2009) determinedthat the totality of evidencedid not provide convincingevidence to either support orrefute the notion that addedsugars result in a dilutioneffect within the range ofintakes commonly seen.

Guidelines from Interna-tional Agencies

The US Dietary GuidelinesAdvisory Committee(USDA/HHS, 2010), whilstunable to set an uppertolerable intake level forcarbohydrates in general,suggested a maximal intakelevel of 25% energy fromadded sugars based on datawhich suggested somemicronutrient dilution effectsat or above this level ofintake. This suggestedmaximal level undoubtedlyreflects the findings of theInstitute of Medicine (IOM,2002) which reported lowerintakes of somemicronutrients in somepopulation sub-groups atintakes exceeding 25%energy. Added sugars intakeis reportedly falling in the US,with the most recentestimates of mean intake at14.6% energy for US children(≥2 y) and adults (Welsh etal., 2011). The UKDepartment of HealthCommittee on MedicalAspects of Food Policy (DoH,

1989) concluded that peoplewith higher energy intake tendto eat more of all nutrients,with sugars intake being aweaker predictor ofmicronutrient intakes thantotal energy consumption.However, at any level ofenergy intake a higher sugarsintake was associated withlower micronutrient intake.The European food SafetyAuthority (EFSA, 2010) feltunable to set an upper limitfor (added) sugar intake andsuggested that any negativeassociations between addedsugar intake andmicronutrient density wererelated to patterns of intake offoods from which addedsugars are derived.

CONCLUSION

The associations betweenreported intakes of sugarsand micronutrients areinconsistent betweenmicronutrients and betweenage-groups and genders. Inaddition a clear examinationof the literature is hamperedby different categorisations ofsugars, inconsistent use ofDRVs, underreporting andinconsistent correction forenergy intake. Correction forenergy intake is crucial fordetermining the independenteffect of sugars intake onmicronutrient dilution. Even ifa dilution effect is observed,the effect is considered to be

small, and this is reflected bythe lack of upper limits, orrelatively high upper limits,with respect to some publichealth recommendations. It isnot known whether a reducedconsumption of sugars wouldreduce the proportion ofpeople with apparentlyinadequate micronutrientintakes. Although somestudies have reported higherconsumers of sugars to ingestlower amounts of what areconsidered to be nutritiousfoods, cause and effect hasnot been ascertained. Inaddition, a reduction ofsugars intake might result inunpredictable and possiblyundesirable consequences forpublic health if, for example, itwere to lead to avoidance offortified or micronutrient-richfoods that contain sugar.

STATEMENT

WSRO concurs with anumber of recent reviewsexamining the associationbetween sugars intake andmicronutrient intake. Thesereviews suggest that althougha micronutrient dilution effectmay exist at very high intakesof sugars, micronutrientintake is usually adequate,with sugars consumptionhaving a relatively minorimpact on diet qualitycompared with total energyintake. There is no evidencethat reducing the sugars


41 | P a g e

intake in the diet wouldincrease micronutrient intakein any section of thepopulation or reduce theproportion of people withinadequate nutrient intakes.#

References

DoH (1989) Dietary Sugarsand Human Disease.Committee on MedicalAspects of Food Policy.Report on Health & SocialSubjects No 37. London,HMSO.

EFSA (2010) ScientificOpinion on Dietary ReferenceValues for carbohydrates anddietary fibre. EFSA Journal, 8,1462.

Forshee, R. A. & Storey, M. L.(2001) The role of addedsugars in the diet quality ofchildren and adolescents. JAm Coll Nutr, 20, 32-43.

Gibson, S. (2001) Dietarysugars and micronutrientdilution in normal adults aged65 years and over. PublicHealth Nutr, 4, 1235-44.

Gibson, S. A. (2007) Dietarysugars intake andmicronutrient adequacy: asystematic review of theevidence. Nutr Res Rev, 20,121-31.

IOM (2002) Dietary referenceintakes for energy,carbohydrate, fiber, fat, fattyacids, cholesterol, proteins,and amino acids

Livingstone, M. B. & Black, A.E. (2003) Markers of thevalidity of reported energyintake. J Nutr, 133 Suppl 3,895S-920S.

Livingstone, M. B. & Rennie,K. L. (2009) Added sugarsand micronutrient dilution.Obes Rev, 10 Suppl 1, 34-40.

Ruxton, C. H., Gardner, E. J.& McNulty, H. M. (2010) Issugar consumptiondetrimental to health? Areview of the evidence 1995-2006. Crit Rev Food Sci Nutr,50, 1-19.

USDA/HHS (2010) Report ofthe Dietary GuidelinesAdvisory Committee on theDietary Guidelines forAmericans, 2010.

Welsh, J. A., Sharma, A. J.,Grellinger, L., et al. (2011)Consumption of added sugarsis decreasing in the UnitedStates. Am J Clin Nutr, 94,726-34.

WHO/FAO (2004) Vitaminand mineral requirements inhuman nutrition. 2nd editioned.


42 | P a g e

INTERNATIONAL EVENTS CALENDAR

February 1 3ASBF Annual Meetng Long Beach, CA USA ASBF

February 2-4Louisiana Division of ASSCT, Lafayette, LA USA ASSCT

May 17-20Sugar Industry Technologists Annual Meeting Osaka, Japan SIT

February 23 26ASSBT Clearwater, FL USA ASSBT

June 22 24Florida and Louisiana Joint Division of ASSCT New Orleans, LA USA ASSCT

October 19-24Latin American Sugar Technologist Meeting (ATALAC), Olinda, Pernambucco, Brazil


43 | P a g e

STORY OF SWEETS

Shahi TukdayIngredients

3 bread slices (cut the edges)1 1/2 cup water1/2 cup sugar1 cup milk1 tablespoon nuts and raisins2 teaspoon butter (melted)

◦ MMethod

Apply butter on both sides of the bread and toast it on a pan. (you can use a toaster, make sure u applybutter once toaste)add 1 cup water and 1/2 cup sugar in a sauce pan and let it boil until water gets thicker and brownmeantime, add half cup water to one cup milk and bring to boil on a panonce boiled let it simmer (keep stirring)cut the toast into small squares.Soak them in the sugar syrup one after the other, and dip them into the milk. Put aside in the servingdish.Mix the remaining milk and sugar syrup and the nuts and simmer until the mixture thickens.Pour the mixture into the serving bowl as a topping.Garnish with crushed pistachio or crushed cardamom. (optional)

Milk Burfi

Ingredients:

Milk and Sugar are the main ingredients of thisdelicious dessert

◦

Method

In the powdered milk add enough evaporated milk to knead it into a hard dough. Roll it up into a hardball and keep it in the freezer for 15-20 minutes. Then take it out and grate it with a corase grater.In apot heat the oil and add the illaichi seeds, grated milk, sugar and water and cook on low heat and keepstirring till the water has dried and it starts to come together and leaves the sides of the pot. Add a fewdrops of kevera essence(optional) and set in a flat dish. When cool cut into pieces.


44 | P a g e

GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORS

Dear Fellow Author(s),

Pakistan Sugar Journal (PSJ) offers research, analysis, and reviews to keep its local andinternational readership up to date with latest developments in the sugar industry. PSJ takes intoaccount the application of research and focuses on areas in agriculture related to sugar, millingand processing.

In order to have your articles published in the PSJ, you are requested to adhere to the belowinstructions and prerequisites to enable timely review of your submissions by the editorial board:

I. Write the title of your article in CAPITAL LETTERS in the center of the page.II. Write the complete name of all authors with their addresses – it is compulsory in the text.

References should be cited by author and years as, for one, two or more authors(Hammer, 1994, Hammer and Rouf, 1995; Hammer et al., 1993), respectively.

III. Write HEADINGS in bold letters and in the center of the page.IV. Type your article only in TIMES NEW ROMAN format.V. Send TABLES and FIGURES on separate page with bold title and mark its numbers

correctly.VI. Observe the following rule for REFERENCE, for one author: Hussain, K. 1991 for two

authors; Khan, M. and A. Habib 1995, for more than two; Ali, K., A.Hussain and S. Nasir, 1990.

VII. Always send two soft copies and one hard copy of CD. Please do not use FLOPPY DISKfor this purpose.

VIII. Send copies on an A-4 size page, preferable LASER PRINT in word documentIX. Papers published in the PSJ are free of charges (for authors).X. Send your papers to following address by mail or email:

Dr. Shahid AfghanEditor-in-Chief, Pakistan Sugar JournalShakarganj Sugar Research Institute, Jhang (Pakistan)Phone: +92 47 763 1001-5 | Ext. 602, 603Mobile: +92 347 654 2858Email: [email protected]

Documents

PAKISTAN SUGAR JOURNAL - SSRIssri.pk/psj/PSJ apr-jun-2015.pdfDr. Muhammad Zubair Member Dr. Javed Iqbal Member Dr. Aamir Ali Member Mr. Aamir Shahazad Editor Subscription ... April-June