Report on Impact Assessment Study of Sugarcane in Ghod

ITC limited

Viginia House37 J.L Nehru RoadKolkata 700 071India

[email protected]

Report on Impact Assessment Study of Sugarcanein Ghod River Basin

August 2020

© The copying, distribution and utilization of this document as well as the communication of its contents to others without expressed authorization is prohibited

Report on Impact Assessment Study of Sugarcane

August 2020

Report on:

Impact Assessment Study of Sugarcane

August 2020

Prepared for:

ITC Limited 7th Floor, ITC Center

37, J. L. Nehru Road , Kolkata

Prepared By:

Vasantdada Sugar Institute Manjri (Bk.),

Tal.: Haveli Dist.: Pune 412 307,

Maharashtra, India

Phone: 020 26902122, Fax: 020 26902244

Email: [email protected]

Visit us at: www.vsisugar.com

Executive summary 1

1. Background 3

2. Project at a glance 5

3 Objectives of study 6

4. Scope and limitation 7

5. Project Area 8

5.1 Cropping Pattern 9

5.2 Soil characteristics 10

5.3 Climate and Weather Condition 11

6 Study Methodology 12

6.1 Hypothesis 12

6.2 Methodology 12

6.2.1 Sample size 13

7 Results and Discussion 14

8 Conclusions 31

9 Annexure 33

9.1 Annexure I 33

9.2 Annexure II 44

9.3 Annexure III 52

Content

1

ITC Mission Sunehra Kal is working in Maharashtra from 2007 on Natural Resources Management, Sustainable Agriculture, Livestock development, Women Empowerment, Livelihood generation; Primary Education, Skill & Vocational Training, Health & Sanitation and Solid Waste Management aspects with support of partner NGOs. Since 2016, the ITC is implementing Water Stewardship Programme in Ghod River basin in five blocks namely Ambegaon, Junnar, Shirur blocks of Pune district and Parner, Shrigonda blocks of Ahmednagar district thru partner NGOs. Under Water Stewardship Programme ITC is working on water security of the basin by creating/recharging water storage structures as Supply side management and reducing water demand thru water efficient practices in agriculture as Demand side management. The Sugarcane is one of the prominent and highly water guzzling crop of the basin cultivated by many of farmers. The water requirement of the sugarcane is more than any other crop of the basin hence ITC has explored Water efficient practices to reduce the water demand of the crop. It is also necessary to increase the water productivity of Sugarcane without hampering the yield, hence through improved practices and technologies aligning to the reduction in cost of cultivation, increasing water use efficiency and increasing productivity was widely implemented in the basin. To ensure this ITC has implementing Climate Smart Village Programme in the basin which covers all the aspects of Agriculture and water productivity.

Vasantdada Sugar Institute has worked as technical partner to support the implementation of the programme by providing necessary training support to the farmers and capacity building of NGO partners thru transfer of knowledge, content and knowhow relating to sugarcane crop. The Study has been conducted to document the impact of ITCs intervention on water saving and productivity of Sugarcane. VSI has collected data from demo and replication plots thru extensive field visits by organizing FGDs, Personal Interviews with the farmers and various stakeholders. Total 590 farmers were selected for study on random basis. Out of these, 10 % plots i. e. 59 plots were finalized as a demonstration- control plot for impact assessment study with respect to the different interventions for water saving, increase in productivity, decrease in cost of cultivation and water use efficiency. In addition to this the data available from 2017-18 was also evolved for the study and explored some conclusions. As per the analysis of 2017-18 data and 2018-19 sowing data of farmers, it was observed that pre-germinated seedling plantation saves 2 to 3 irrigations (12-14%) over sett plantation and decreases the total crop period by 1 to 1.5 months. The total water saving due to pre-germinated nursery plantation is 2000 to 3000cu.m/ha. The productivity of sugarcane with seedling plantation is increased by 18-20% compared to sett plantation. Water use efficiency in seedling plantation was found 0.64 t/ha-cm, while in sett plantation 0.47 ton/ha-cm.

Executive Summary

Executive Summery

2

The drip irrigation resulted in efficient cultivation of sugarcane even in acute shortage of water and saved 40 to 50 % (11300 cu.m/ha) of water over conventional and productivity was increased by 31.13 % as compared to conventional method. The water use efficiency in drip irrigation was 1.27 t/ha-cm and it was higher than conventional irrigation. The productivity of sugarcane under wider spacing plantation (5 x 2 ft) was increased by 21.27 % than control plots (3ft and below plantation). The Water requirement of combine practices like Pre-germinated seedling plantation on wide spacing with drip irrigation was 123.78 cm (12378 cum/ha) over conventional 250 cm (25000 cum/ha) which saves 12622 cu. m/ha of water over conventional practices. The trash mulching practice saves 4 to 5 irrigations (3600 to 4500 cum /ha i.e 18 to 20 %) of water saving compared to no trash mulch and even sustain the sugarcane crop in water stress conditions also. The average cost of cultivation under drip method and wide spacing was reduced by 18.61 % and 16.50 % over conventional method respectively. The intercropping in sugarcane has found effective in terms of getting additional income to the farmers and utilization of space in initial growing period of sugarcane. Intercropping resulted in additional income of Rs. 30000/- to Rs. 300000/- per ha depending upon the crop type, season and market price. The training support of ITC and VSI had increases the awareness and adoption rate of SSI among the farmers which leads to sustainability of the Sugarcane. The overall ITCs intervention of Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative showed very effective impact on water saving, reduction in cost of cultivation and improvement in productivity which may increases the sustainability of the programme and profitability of the sugarcane farmers with water security.

3

ITC's Social Investments Programme aims to transform the lives of even the most marginalized amongst its stakeholder groups to live a life of dignity. Their way of grassroots empowerment, based on knowledge and technology transfer, confronts livelihood challenges of today and tomorrow through a holistic approach to create healthy, educated and skilled communities which look to the future with confidence and determination. ITC is working in 21 states of India with most of the states on Natural Resources Management, Sustainable Agriculture, Livestock development, Women Empowerment, Livelihood generation, Primary Education, Skill & Vocational Training, Health & Sanitation and Solid Waste Management aspects under “ITC MISSION SUNEHRA KAL” programmes.

ITC Mission Sunehra Kal is working in Maharashtra from 2007 on Natural Resources Management, Sustainable Agriculture, Livestock development, Women Empowerment, Livelihood generation; Primary Education, Skill & Vocational Training, Health & Sanitation and Solid Waste Management aspects with support of partner NGOs. Since 2016, the ITC has started Ghod River Basin Project under the Water Stewardship Programme in Pune and Ahmednagar districts for improving water security, water use efficiency, equity and sustainability of agriculture in command area of Ghod River Basin covering about approx. 71,500 hectare area. With the Supply side management to reduce soil erosion and subsurface flows thru soil and water conservation with ground water recharge and Demand Side Management to reduce water demand by crops thru various water efficient practices especially in water high guzzling crops like sugarcane and Onion without affecting the productivity of the crops.

ITC’s Water Stewardship Programme is closely aligned with the Government’s flagship mission, Jal Shakti Abhiyan, and other national initiatives like “More Crop Per Drop” and the National Water Mission. ITC continues to expand its interventions to achieve water security for all the stakeholders and is wholly committed to the national goal of securing a sustainable water future for India.

ITC is implementing Water Stewardship programme in Ghod river basin in five blocks namely Ambegaon, Junnar, Shirur blocks of Pune district and Parner, Shrigonda blocks of Ahmednagar district thru partner NGOs. ITC is focusing on participatory irrigation management and watershed based treatment approach as an initiative to conserve water from both sources surface and Ground. For judicious use of water conserved ITC had planned to initiate demand side management by promoting efficient water and other input management in agriculture. Looking at the agriculture profile of these areas, sugarcane is one of the prominent crops cultivated by farmers.

1. Background

Background

4

Fig.1 Ghod River Basin

It is targeted to enhance economic water productivity of Sugarcane through improved practices and technologies aligning to the following objective;

• Increasing water use efficiency

• Reduction in cost of cultivation

• Increasing productivity

With these three objectives ITC Mission Sunehra Kal has started working in whole Ghod Basin with key focus on water productivity by creating awareness thru extensive capacity building programmes of all the stakeholders thru Farmer Field Schools, extensive field trainings, SHG trainings, collaboration with sugar cooperatives for providing technical agronomic practices of sugarcane along with demonstration at the field level and arranging exposure of farmers to field for increasing adoption. The programme is also aligned to Climate Smart Village Programme of ITC with technical collaboration with CGIAR for focusing on holistic approach of mitigating climate risk and sustaining the productivity and net income of farmers.

Vasantdada Sugar Institute is a premier research and development organization for Sugarcane in Maharashtra. ITC has partnership with VSI for Technical support to farmers and assessment of ITC interventions in the basin. The purpose of this project was to demonstrate the water efficient techniques and practices in sugarcane across Ghod river basin catchment and to build capacity, transfer of knowledge, content and knowhow relating to sugarcane crop. The programme was implemented to support the farmers for scaling up the practices in sugarcane in Five blocks of Pune and Ahmednagar districts. ITCs ecosystem approach of covering large number of farmers thru Farmer Field Schools, Climate Smart Village, Cascading of Sugar Cooperatives and Promotion of ABCs/CHCs thru SHG for Women involvement for effective implementation of the programme.

5

Project Name Impact assessment of water use efficient practices promoted by ITC Mission Sunehra Kal programme in sugarcane through promotion of improved and sustainable technologies by strengthening of farmers capacity through extension services in Ghod river basin

Project Area 1. Ahmednagar district – Shrigonda and Parner block2. Pune district – Ambegaon, Junnar and Shirur block

Project period 2018-19 to 2019-20

Implementing agency Vasantdada Sugar Institute , Manjri Bk, Pune

Director General Mr. Shivajirao Deshmukh

Project coverage 1.Villages from Shrigonda and Parner blocks2. Villages from Ambegaon, Junnar and Shirur blocks

2. Project at Glance

Project at Glance

6

3. Objectives of study

The objectives of the study broadly confined with key focus on water productivity, reduction in cost of cultivation, increase in productivity and increase in awareness and adoption of the technologies as follows;

1. To study the impact of demand side work done by ITC on water use efficiency of each practice

2. To study the impact on reduction in cost of cultivation

3. To study the impact on productivity improvement

4. To study the impact on technology adoption by farmers

7

The Ghod river basin spread across Ambegaon, Junnar and Shirur blocks of Pune district and Parner and Shrigonda blocks of Ahmednagar district which is the major belt of sugarcane cultivation and had wide impact on basin water. As the sugarcane is highly water guzzling crop than any other crop of the basin hence the water demand is more in sugarcane. Hence the sugarcane crop was selected by the ITC to implement the water efficient practices as it can minimize the huge demand of water which ultimately effects on water security. Also there was five to six sugar cooperatives were located in the basin which also directly related to sugarcane farmers. Hence ITC has partenered with VSI for technical support and validation of practices promoted by ITC in sugarcane crop for sustainability of programme. The study aimed to access the impact of practices adopted by farmers on water use efficiency, in terms of increase in productivity and farm economics. VSI has covered aspects of sugarcane cultivation practices like; planting, season and variety of sugarcane, irrigation methods followed, mulching practices adopted and use of seedling plantlets in sugarcane cultivation by the farmers. The data pertaining to these factors was collected by the scientists of VSI with the ITC project team. The collected data was evaluated and analyzed for impact assessment study. This study will help to standardize water use efficiency of each practice and their impact on Sugarcane cultivation along with the reduction in cost of cultivation as well as improvement in productivity.

Limitations1. The outcome of the result may be affected due to adverse climatic conditions.

2. All the farmers not able to attend the training of VSI and ITC

3. Farmers may not adopt the technologies and package of practices which is disseminated during training programmes due to unavailability of resources

4. Scope and limitation

Scope and limitation

8

ITC is implementing Water Stewardship Programme in Ghod river basin with partner NGOs AFARM, DSC & BAIF in five blocks namely Ambegaon, Junnar and Shirur blocks of Pune district and Parner and Shrigonda blocks of Ahemdnagar district of Maharashtra State. These blocks are the prominent part of the district as the many of Industries are located in this block which widely depends on Ghod River for their water requirements. Also this blocks are cultivating maximum area of sugarcane

Table.1: Block wise Universe Sugarcane Area Ha

5. Project area

Sr.No Block Area ha.

1 Shirur 40000

2 Junnar 5047

3 Shrigonda 23988

4 Parner 3769

Total 72804

(Source: Agril Dept & Census 2011)

9

Junnar, Ambegaon and Shirur blocks in Pune District

Parner and Shrigonda blocks in Ahemednagar district

5.1. Cropping pattern

Cropping pattern of basin is widely differs from place to place due to variability of rainfall as the upper hilly areas receives high rainfall and cultivating traditional paddy and finger during the rainy season whereas those having access to ground water take wheat, pea and vegetables (limited) during winter season. The farmers having deep soils are taking gram & wheat on residual soil moisture to support their annual food requirement. During entire summer season agriculture activities are remain suspended due to non-availability of irrigation. Other area of the basin lies in lower part mainly falls under Parner and Shrigonda tehsils of Ahmednagar district. During rainy season kharif crops such as bajra, soybean, Black Gram, Groundnut and Green gram are taken on large scale whereas in winter Jowar and gram are cultivated on residual moisture and wheat, onion are taken as irrigated crops.

Fig. 2.Study area of Pune and Ahmednagar districts under Water Stewardship project


10

Farmers who have alternate sources of irrigation have started cultivation of pomegranate crops. The entire area falls under Kukadi irrigation network and which is dominated by sugarcane and vegetable crop cultivation. The cropping pattern is almost settled and crop choices may vary from water availability and market prices. The basin receives good quantity of rainfall and well connected to markets. The basin also witnesses good quality, well established animal husbandry system. Therefore, fodder crops such as maize, jowar and bajra are on preferred list. The wheat and bajra are subsistence crops cultivated during winter and summer season respectively.

The canal tail area is facing the same problems of water access as observed in all other irrigation projects. The irrigation requirement is supplemented through ground water. This area has comparatively good ground water resources. The cropping pattern is almost the same as earlier with sporadic presence of soybean and bajra rainfed crops. The bajra is also cultivated during the summer season to supplement food and fodder. The whole basin crop cultivation is dominated by use of extensive agriculture inputs like fertilizers, pesticides which affecting the soil fertility and hampering the biodiversity.

Table 2. Cropping Pattern of the Ghod basin

Sr. No

Agriculture Category Major Crops Grown

Rainy Winter Summer

1 Low Input Rainfed Agriculture in upper hilly areas

Paddy, Finger Millet. Wheat, Pea, Gram. -

2 Low Input Rainfed Agriculture in downstream areas

Bajra, Tur, Soybean, Urad, Moong, Peanut, Pomegranate

Jowar, Wheat, Gram, Onion.

-

3 Extensive Input Irrigated Agriculture in canal command areas

Sugarcane, Tomato, Maize, Vegetables, Grapes, Banana, Potato

Onion, Wheat, Turmeric, Ginger, Vegetables, Maize.

Vegetables, Fodder crops, Bajra.

4 Extensive Input Ground Water Based Irrigated Agriculture in tail areas of canal command

Sugarcane, Bajra, Soybean, Moong, Urad, Tomato, Maize, Vegetables,

Jowar, Wheat, Gram, Onion.

Vegetables, Fodder crops, Bajra.

5 Moderate Input Irrigated Agriculture in transition zone

Sugarcane, Paddy, Vegetables, Tomato, Floriculture

Onion, Pea, Maize, Wheat, Gram.

Vegetables, Fodder crops, Tomato.

5.2. Soil characteristics

The Ghod river basin falls under Western Ghat and Deccan Plateau with steep slopes of almost above 50% occur in small parts of hill ranges in the western ridge areas of Ambegaon and Junnar. Whereas, moderately steep slopes (15 to 30%) are located in foothills of Ambegaon and Junnar tehsils and also in parts of Shirur tehsil. The moderate slopes (8-15%) are scattered in the entire region more predominantly in eastern parts. The gently sloping areas are located in transition zones of Junnar tehsil.

Soil fertility is an important indicator of soil health. It also indicates soil capacity to supply nutrients for crop growth and crop yield. Post green revolution era has witnessed increased crop productivity but at the same time resulted in soil nutrient deficiency. It is utmost important to maintain nutrient balance in the soil by supplementing total nutrient required for a crop growth so net nutrient draft is kept minimum.

This requires knowledge of present soil nutrient status and crop nutrient demand. To know fertility status of the soil fertility indices such as pH, E.C., available organic carbon, available phosphorus, available Potash and some important micronutrients needs to be analyzed. Total 191 soil samples

11

collected from entire basin representing all soil groups and management practices available/adopted by farming community. The results indicate that 91% soils of the basin are of neutral pH, followed by 8% of acidic nature and reaming 1% are alkaline status.

The Electrical Conductivity (EC) is an important indicator that relates to available soluble salts in the soil. A saline soil contains sufficient soluble salts adversely affect crop growth & production measure therefore, it is necessary to know the amount of salt in the soil for further remedial measures. For healthy soil EC levels of the soil water is a good indication of the amount of nutrients available for crops to absorb. The table given below indicates about 99% of soils in the basin falls under the category of low Electrical Conductivity.

Another important soil health index is Organic Carbon (OC). The higher level of OC content is an indication that farmers are applying enough FYM to the soil. The table given below indicates about 47% percent of soil contains low Organic Carbon. This requires farmers to focus on applying good quality compost/FYM at the time of land preparation.

The available phosphorus and potash status of the basin shows that about 34% soils are found low in phosphorus and 54% percent soils are high in potash. Analysis clearly indicates that soils are rich in potash content. Whereas phosphorus content is at medium range and needs to be supplemented during crop growth.

Table 3. Soil nutritional analysis and health indices of study area

Sr. No Fertility indices Sub Category/level Percent area

1 Ph Acidic 8.06

Neutral 91.40

Sodic 0.54

2 E.C.(ds/m) Suitable 99.46

Suitable for sensitive crops 0.54

Harmful -

3 Organic Carbon (%) Low 47.31

Medium 32.26

High 20.46

4 Available Phosphorus (Kg/ha.) Low 3.76

5.3. Climate and weather conditions

The climate of the basin is dry except during monsoon, summer is moderately warm and temperature varies from 36oC to 46oC in May. The western region of basin is comparatively cool whereas eastern region covering Shirur, Parner and Shrigonda tehsils are hot and dry. The varied geographical conditions in the basin are responsible for uneven distribution of rainfall. According to rainfall pattern and slope conditions the entire basin can be divided into 5 zones, the north-western part (Bhimashankar ranges) of the basin is highly hills having dense forest cover responsible for high intensity heavy rainfall ranging from 3500-4000 mm. The second rainfall zone is the alignment of Dimbhe dam and Kukadi complex where topography is considerably undulating having moderate intensity rainfall ranging from 2000-2500 mm. The third zone is transition zone lies between Kukadi complex and Yedgaon dam - Narayangaon alignment with low to moderate intensity receiving average annual rainfall ranging from 1000-1200 mm. In this zone slopes are almost stabilized making land more fertile and less prone to erosion. The fourth zone is the area between Yedgaon - Narayagaon alignment and Ghod - Kukadi confluence having rainfall 800-1000 mm with minor undulations. The fifth zone is the entire area below Kukadi-Ghod confluence with lowest rainfall and dry to semi-arid climate receives annual rainfall of about 450-500 mm.


12

6.1 Hypothesis

A. There would be increase in Water Productivity due to

a. Plantation of Pre-germinated seedling with Wide spacing

b. Application of Compost material

c. Use of Micro Irrigation systems.

d. Trash Mulching in Ratoon Crop

e. Following proper Irrigation scheduling

B. There would be decrease in cost of cultivation in Sugarcane due to

a. Plantation of Pre-germinated seedling with Wide spacing

b. Application of Compost material and Green Manuring

c. Trash Mulching during Ratoon Crop

C. There would be increase in overall income due to

a. Wide Spacing of Sugarcane

b. Intercropping

D. There would be increase in Awareness and Adoption of Practices due to

a. Farmer Field Schools formed and Training and exposure imparted by ITC thru its partners

b. Training imparted by VSI

c. Initiatives taken by Sugarcane Cooperative

6.2. MethodologyAs the study is very important in aspect to water security and Sugarcane cultivation, various technologies and methods have been followed for study the impact of interventions on water savings which initially involves methodology of conducting trainings, meetings of NGO staff and ITC managers for discussing on the Project and to understand the concepts of ITC for the study and also field experience of their partners. Based on the understanding VSI has developed a questionnaire for

6. Hypothesis and Methodology

13Hypothesis and Methodology

the collection of data for impact assessment study, which was also discussed with ITC and its team for further improvement and suggestions. After that VSI has trained NGO team for collection of accurate data and in the questionnaire. VSI has established demo plots under its extensive supervision and for collection of data and provide necessary technical guidance to team. VSI scientists have visited the field and demo plots to understand and collect information regarding followed practices in sugarcane cultivation promoted by ITC Mission Sunehra Kal through in-depth personal interviews, focused group dicussions based on structured questionnaires for demo and replication farmers (Annexure I & Annexure II). The sample selection from the identified demo plots implemented by the concerned NGO was done by VSI team for defining the sample size for study. The demo plots with control plot were finalized for impact assessment study with respect to the different interventions for water saving, increase in productivity, decrease in cost of cultivation and water use efficiency. During the field visit the necessary guidelines to the farmers and concerned NGO were also given for further collection of data and practices to be followed. VSI with help of detailed data collected by ITC Mission Sunehra Kal had studied and analyzed the effectiveness of various practices undertaken by farmers during the previous year.

ITC is currently working in whole Ghod basin on 71500 ha command area out of which 51393 ha of Sugarcane with holistic approach and plan to saturate basin with demand side management practices in Sugarcane and Onion.

6.2.1. Sample sizeThe randomized method of sample selection was followed for identifying sample plots for the study. Total 590 sample size is selected on the basis of following interventions

• Irrigation practices adoption

• Mulching practices followed in ratoon crop

• Sugarcane cultivation using Seedlings

Out of 590 farmer’s plots, 10 % plots i. e. 59 plots were selected as a demonstration Vs control plot for effective and accurate analysis of each intervention.

14

7. 1. Impact of interventions taken by ITC on productivity and water use efficiency based on data of 2017-18

ITC MSK is working from 2016 in whole Ghod Basin by implementing various water efficient practices Junnar, Parner, Shirur and Shrigonda blocks along with implementation partner’s viz. AFARM, BAIF and DSC. In 2017-18 ITC had established 167 demonstration plots with control in all of these four blocks with thousands of replication plots. ITC has promoted demand side management specifically in sugarcane with Climate Smart Agriculture interventions to ensure water security and to mitigate climatic risk in terms of net income. ITCs partner NGOs have collected very detailed data of Sugarcane and promoted climate smart interventions like Water, Nutrient, Seed, Weather and Knowledge level in agriculture and its effect on water use efficiency, cost of cultivation, productivity and net income. The details of the demonstration data with respect to block is given below.

Table 4.No.of demo plots with respect to blocks and implementing partner in 2017-18

7. Results and discussion

Sr. No. Block No. of demo plots NGO

1 Junnar 41 DSC

2 Shrigonda 21 AFARM

3 Shirur 84 AFARM

4 Parner 21 AFARM

Total 167

The interventions were categorized in to some sections to evaluate the impact of each intervention with respect to its objective as follows;

7.1.1 Practices influencing on water use efficiency

The main objective of intervention was to increase the water use efficiency in terms of water productivity. This involved following major practices.

a. Drip irrigation System

b. Pre-germinated Seedling Plantation

15Results and discussion

a. Drip irrigation system

VSI have analyzed the data of 2017-18 plots from all the blocks which revealed that out of 167 demo farmers, 43 farmers of Junnar block and two farmers of Shrigonda block adopted drip irrigation system with 4 Lph dripper discharge for irrigation and rest of them were irrigating their fields through flood irrigation which might be due to unavailability of resources. As per the data number of irrigations varies from 15 to 27 in flood irrigation during the crop period. The reason for low adoption rate is the higher cost of drip irrigation system and timely unavailability of subsidy component from Government of Maharashtra. ITC have built awareness among the farmers for the use of Micro irrigation systems for irrigation also the VSI have demonstrated the use of MIS in sugarcane to make the farmers aware and understand the importance of drip irrigation for cultivation of the crop during for better utilization of per drop.

Table 5. Block wise number of demo farmers adopted drip irrigation system (2017-18)

Sr. no

Block Nos. of Farmers

Drip irrigation system installed

1 Shirur 85 0

2 Shrigonda 21 2

3 Junnar 41 41

4 Parner 21 0

Average depth of irrigation water applied was 140 cm (14000 cu.m/ha). The water saving under drip irrigation was 44 % as compared to conventional irrigation 250 cm (25000 cum/ha) which shows that there was water saving of 9000 cum/ha due to MIS. The average sugarcane productivity under drip irrigation was 151 t/ha, while under conventional irrigation it was 124 t/ha It means the water use efficiency under drip irrigation was 1.07 t/ha- cm, and in conventional it was 0.50 t/ha-cm. The data was also analyzed to understand the impact on cost of cultivation which shows the average cost of cultivation under drip irrigation was Rs.96804/- per hectare which was less than conventional irrigation (Rs.156700/- per ha) which might be due to the Cost of fertilizer, irrigation, pest management and labor requirement is more in conventional plantation.

b. Pre-germinated seedling Plantation

VSI analyzed the data of demonstrated plots of all blocks for plantation method and revealed that farmers of all blocks widely using pre-germinated seedlings for sugarcane plantation. The various improved varieties of sugarcane were cultivated by farmers like Co86032, CoM0265, MS10001 and VSI08005. on am average 4500 seedlings were required for planation of one acre and the cost of plantation was Rs. 11250 per acre which is less than conventional plantation due to requirement of Sugarcane setts and increased cost of management in conventional as the pre-germinated seedling plantation reduces the crop duration by 1-1.5 months.

16

It was concluded from data that, on an average 30 irrigations were required to sett plantation, while seedling plantation required 27 irrigations which means that seedling plantation saved 2 to 3 irrigations (1800 to 2700 cu.m/ha) i.e 12 to 14 % of water saving over sett plantation (25000 cu.m/ha), also the duration of crop was reduced by 1 -1.5 month which had direct impact on cost saving. The average sugarcane productivity was reported in pre-germinated seedlings was 168 t/ha, while under sett plantation it was 124 t/ha. Water use efficiency of seedling plantation was 0.73 t/ha- cm, while it was 0.50 t/ha-cm under sett plantation.

The data was analyzed with various aspects to study the overall impact of each intervention with regards to its objective. The below figures shows the adoption rate of MIS and Pre-germinated seedling technology, the adoption depends on the availability of the resources like alternate irrigation sources, availability of water, easy access to schemes etc. The Junnar block receives comparatively

Sr. no Block Nos. of Farmers Pre-germinated seedling used

1 Shirur 85 85

2 Shrigonda 21 21

3 Junnar 41 41

4 Parner 21 21

Table 6. Block wise farmers -used pre-germinated seedling in sugarcane plantation

Low cost Sugarcane Nursery


more rainfall than other project blocks and hence there might be availability of the water which resulted into increased rate of adoption.

Fig.3. Block wise adoption of drip irrigation and pre germinated seedling plantation Impact of Training & Capacity building

ITC had started the intervention by creating awareness among the farmers thru establishing farmer field schools, extensive training programs, exposure visits and scheme convergence camps thru its partner NGOs. The programme was linked to Climate Smart Village programme to train and aware the farmers on various climate smart parameters like Water, Seed, Nutrient, Weather and Knowledge. Thru this various training programs were organized on different aspects like seed treatment, variety, germination, method of sowing, irrigation management, Nutrient management, pest management and post harvest practices. To disseminate the timely weather information to farmers they were connected to CSV whatsapp groups and registered them with KVK for timely guidance and also for on time weather information ICT insist the farmers to install the ‘Skymat’ app.

7.2. Report based on 2018-19 and 2019-20 demonstration- control and replication farmers

The sugarcane is very thirsty crop which requires more water for its growth and yield which also has political important, as the many of cooperatives depends on sugarcane and its cultivation in drought prone region it’s a burning issue for both policy makers and farmers. ITC is working in Ghod basin from 2016 for water security of all stakeholders thru supply and demand side management. Demand side management mainly confined to Sugarcane and Onion due to its high water requirement and hence ITC has implemented various water efficient practices in the basin. The impact assessment study of sugarcane will helps in defining the feasibility of each intervention in all sugarcane growing areas, which can becomes a mile stone in sugarcane cultivation in regards to water security. As per the MoA of ITC and VSI, for the impact assessment and study methodology, VSI with ITC and partner NGOs has established demonstration plots for analysis of impact on various aspects. Team of VSI along with ITC representatives and concerned NGO staff regularly visited and surveyed the

41

2 0 0

41

21

85

21

0

20

40

60

80

100

Junnar Shrigonda Shirur Parner

Adoption of drip irrigation

Planting with pre-germinated seedlings

Total farmers

41

2 0 0

41

21

85

21

0

20

40

60

80

100

Junnar Shrigonda Shirur Parner

Adoption of drip irrigation

Planting with pre-germinated seedlings

Total farmers

18

demonstration as well as replication plots of Junnar, Parner, Shirur and Shrigonda blocks. During the visit, the demo and replication plots were visited and verified the data recorded in questionnaire given to the NGOs representatives for collecting details. On the basis of study objectives following were the combinations of interventions were defined to study the impact with respect to water saving, productivity improvement and increase in water use efficiency, cost reduction etc. Along with combination, individual practice impacts were also analyzed to study the impact of solo practices on sugarcane cultivation with respect to defined objectives thru replication plots.

The following sets of combination were defined to study the results:

1. Drip Irrigation Vs Conventional Irrigation

2. Seedling Plantation Vs Sett plantation

3. Trash Mulching Vs No Trash Mulching

ITC Mission Sunehra Kal Programme had implemented a detailed Package of Practices for sugarcane in Climate Smart Agriculture framework. Under the framework five smart indicators were promoted namely Water smart, Nutrient Smart, Seed Smart, Weather and Knowledge. Under water smart practice, various factors like drip irrigation, pre-germinated seedling plantation, irrigation scheduling, trash mulching in ratoon crop was demonstrated. The major limitation observed by VSI with respect to study the impact of one intervention on other intervention affecting on productivity, cost of cultivation and water use efficiency could not be assessed as the farmers have implemented all the set of packages of practices, in demonstration plots. To assess the impact of individual activity, VSI has prepared following set combinations and selected demonstration plots accordingly for the study, So that the influence of one practice to other practices can be assessed and one can quantify the effect of individual practice on productivity, cost of cultivation and water use efficiency. The replication Plots were selected on random basis to study the impact.

Table 6a. Combination wise number of demonstration plots

Sr. No. Combinations Demo plots Control Plots

1 Drip Irrigation Vs Conventional Irrigation 32 32

2 Seedling Plantation Vs Sett Plantation 8 8

4 Trash Mulching Vs No Trash Mulching 19 19

Total 59 59

Table 6b. Component wise number of replication plots

Sr. No. Components of study No. of replication plots

1 Drip irrigation 67

2 Seedling planting 285

3 Sett planting 83

4 Trash Mulching 96

Total 531


Fig.4a. Component wise total number of demonstration-control plots

Fig.4b. Component wise total number of replication plots

ITC had demonstrated more than 100 demo plots for promoting the Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative practices, as the some demonstrations as well as replication plots could not sustained in summer season due to water scarcity/ stress conditions. Hence total 590 (59 demo plots + 531 replication plots) plots were randomly selected for impact assessment study and data collection.

32

8

19

Drip irrigation Vs Conventional Irrigation

Seedling planting Vs Sett planting

Trash Mulching Vs No Trash mulching

Demonstration plots

32

8

19

Drip irrigation Vs Conventional Irrigation

Seedling planting Vs Sett planting

Trash Mulching Vs No Trash mulching

Demonstration plots

67

285

83

96

Drip irrigation Seedling planting Sett planting Trash Mulching

Replication plots

67

285

83

96

Drip irrigation Seedling planting Sett planting Trash Mulching

Replication plots

20

Out of 59 demo plots, 32 plots were under drip irrigation, 8 plots were under seedling plantation and 19 plots were under trash mulching. Out of 531 replication plots, 67 plots were under drip irrigation, 285 plots were under seedling plantation, 83 plots were under sett plantation and 102 plots were under trash mulching. Based on above combination and interventions the impact was studied as per hypothesis as follows;

7.2.1 Increase in water productivity due to

7.2.1a. Plantation of Pre-germinated seedlings with wide spacing

It was observed from the survey and data analysis of 8 demo plots and 285 replication plots from all blocks, farmers who used seedlings for plantation, required 1500 to 2200 liter (1.5 to 2.2 cu.m) of water for the preparation of seedlings required for 1 acre area. In seedling plantation, the age of seedling at the time of plantation varies from 25 to 45 days. The total crop period of crop in seedling plantation was reduced by 1 to 1.5 month than sett plantation in field. In replication as well as demonstration plots, Farmers gave an average 30 numbers of irrigations to sett plantation and saves 2 to 3 irrigations in seedling plantation. The water saving under seedling plantation was 12 to 14 % than sett plantation. Water requirement in sett plantation was found to be 254 cm (25400 cu.m/ha), where in the seedling plantation it was 224 cm (22400 cu.m/ha). Hence the water saving observed due to seedling plantation is 3000 cu.m/ha over sett plantation.

Wider spaced (5x2 ft) planting under conventional irrigation required 20422 cu.m/ha water while conventional planting required 22229 cu.m /ha water in total growing period, which shows that 8.13 % water saving was observed in wider spaced planting under conventional irrigation (Ref.: trial conducted at VSI in 2018-19).

Water requirement of sugarcane by adopting combined practices i.e pre-germinated seedling plantation with wide spacing under drip irrigation was 123.78 cm (12378 cu.m/ha). The water saving due to adoption of these combine practices was 12622 cu. m/ha over control 250 cm (25000 cu.m/ha). The Mortality percentage of seedling in nursery is only 5-10 % but the growth and quality of the seedlings was superior.

In demonstration plots, the productivity of sugarcane with seedling plantation was 142.89 t/ha, where in sett plantation it was 118.86 t/ha. The productivity is increased by 18-20 % in seedling plantation than the sett plantation. Water use efficiency in seedling plantation was 0.64 t/ha-cm, while in sett plantation 0.47 t/ha-cm. In replication plots, the productivity and water use efficiency of sugarcane with seedling plantation were 146.40 t/ha and 0.64 t/ha-cm respectively.

Plate 1 & Plate 2 . Seedling preparation in sugarcane seed nursery


7.2.1b. Application of compost material and green manuring

Some farmers applied compost in demo plots as well as replication plots and some of them had followed green manuring with sunhemp. In demonstration plots, average productivity of compost application and green manuring in sugarcane was 152.75 t/ha as against 125.94 t/ha in control plots. Productivity was increased by 21.28 % than control condition. In replication plots, it was 145.19 t/ha. Water requirement of compost applied plot was 221.93 cm (22193 cu.m/ha) and it was 231.21 cm (23121 cu.m/ha) in control plots it shows that the application of compost saves 4.08 % water due to increase in moisture holding capacity of soil (Ref.: trial conducted at VSI in 2018-19).

Plate 3 & Plate 4. Seedling preparation in sugarcane seed nursery

Plate 5 & Plate 6. Green manuring in sugarcane crop

7.2.1c. Implementation of micro irrigation systems

Out of 590 demo and replication plots, 32 demo plots and 67 replication plots were under drip irrigation from all the blocks which was randomly selected for study. Farmers, who have used drip irrigation systems, were able to get sustain their sugarcane plots in summer season and dry spell. Some farmers removed drip irrigation systems in summer and irrigated their field through flood irrigation to meet the increased water demand of the crop due to heat waves. The plots under conventional irrigation (flooding) were not sustained due to water scarcity and unavailability of irrigation water. The farmers not irrigated their fields in good monsoon season or normal rainfall pattern.

22

As per the study and data analyzed from demonstration plots, total water requirement of sugarcane crop under drip irrigation was found 137 cm (13700 cu.m/ha) and water requirement under conventional irrigation was 250 cm (25000 cu.m/ha). The water saving under drip irrigation was 40 to 50 % as compared to conventional irrigation. That means 11300 cu.m /ha water saving was observed under drip irrigation over conventional irrigation.

Productivity of sugarcane was 174.41 t/ha under drip irrigation and it was increased by 31.13 % as compared to conventional irrigation (133.01 t/ha). The water use efficiency in drip irrigation was 1.27 t/ha-cm.

In the same manner the data analyzed for replication plots, the water requirement under drip irrigation was 131 cm (13100 cu.m/ha). The sugarcane productivity and water use efficiency under drip irrigation was 181.59 t/ha and 1.39 t/ha-cm respectively.

It was also observed that sugarcane crop sustained only due to drip irrigation during water stress and scarcity condition and prolonged monsoon. The cost of cultivation under drip irrigation was Rs. 74053/- per ha while under conventional it was Rs.90984/- per ha. From the study it was revealed that, the average cost of cultivation under drip irrigation was reduced by 18.61 % than conventional irrigation due to extra labor charges of irrigation, fertilizer application and weeding operations in conventional irrigation.

The effect of combine practices was also analyzed during the study and it was revealed from study that the combine practices like pre-germinated seedling Plantation on wide spacing with drip effectively reduces the water consumption and saves average 12622 cu.m/ha over conventional practices (25000 cu.m/ha). The water use efficiency was found more in the above practices as compared to conventional.

7.2.1d. Trash mulching in ratoon crop

Total 19 demonstrations and 96 replication plots of ratoon crop were under trash mulching practices was studied. The Water requirement of sugarcane with trash mulching practices was 207.50 cm (20750 cu.m/ha) in demo plots and 208.3 cm (20830 cu.m/ha) in replication plots, where water requirement of no trash mulched crop was 25400 cu.m/ha.The total water saving in trash mulching practices was 4610 cu.m/ha i.e. 18 to 20 % as compared to no trash mulching practices. Trash mulching plots saves 4 to 5 numbers of irrigation over no trash mulch i.e. 3600 to 4500 cu.m/ha.

Plate 7 & Plate 8. Sugarcane crop under drip irrigation


The farmers incorporated shredded trash with the help of mulcher provided by ITC supported women ABCs on rent as all the famers cannot buy the trash mulcher with their own. The farmers were not able to irrigate their fields during summer season due to drought and water scarcity conditions. In such a situation, trash mulching helped the farmers to sustain their crop by conserving the moisture due to increased organic matter in the soil. This also increased the irrigation interval by 2 to 3 days as compared to no trash mulched field. In the opposite to that plots without trash mulching could not sustained in summer season due to increased temperature and scarcity of moisture in the soil as well shortage of water for irrigation.

Plate 9 & Plate 10. Trash mulching in ratoon sugarcane crop

In demonstration plots, yield obtained due to trash mulching was 128.39 t/ha as against 96.33 t/ha without trash mulching plots. The water use efficiency of sugarcane with trash mulching practices was 0.62 t/ha-cm.

In replication plots, productivity and water use efficiency of sugarcane with trash mulching practices were 129.60 t/ha and 0.63 t/ha-cm respectively.

Fig. 5. Increase in productivity due to adoption of practices

142.89152.75

174.41

128.39118.86 125.94 133.01

96.33

0

40

80

120

160

200

Pre-germinatedseedlings

Application ofcompost material

Micro irrigationsystem

Trash mulching inratoon crops

Prod

ucti

vity

of s

ugar

cane

, t/h

a

Demonstartion plots

Control plots

Increase in productivity of sugarcane due to adoption of practices

24

7.2.1e. Irrigation scheduling

ITC has trained farmers through its partner NGOs on irrigation scheduling and critical stages for irrigation, which can helps in increasing the water efficiency and ultimately the productivity of the sugarcane. As per observation it was found that conventional plots were given 1 or 2 irrigations from planting to June 2019 due to shortage of water. The farmers operated drip system for 5-7 hours in a week. From July to October 2019, both drip as well conventional plots were not irrigated either by drip or conventional irrigation due to heavy rainfall scattered during that period. The farmers who adopted pre germinated seedling plantation gave average 27 to 28 number of irrigation i. e saving of 2 to 3 number of irrigation (2000 to 3000 cu. m/ha water quantity) than sett plantation. Again trash mulching practices in ratoon crops saved 4 to 5 irrigations (3600 to 4500 cu. m/ha). Sugarcane crop sustained due to adoption of these practices.

7.2.2 Decrease in cost of cultivation due to

7.2.2a. Plantation of Pre-germinated seedlings with wide spacing

From the survey of 8 demo plots and 285 replication plots from all blocks, it was observed that the farmers averagely used 4500 to 5000 seedlings of sugarcane for plantation of one acre area and cost of seedlings varies from Rs.10,000 to 12,000 per acre. In seedling planting, the age of seedling at the time of plantation varies from 25 to 45 days. Some farmers used seedlings from private nurseries while some farmers prepared low cost nursery at their own fields. Farmers used 10000 to 12000 single eye bud setts/acre for plantation.

The data analysis of both demonstration and replication plots showed that 400 to 500 kg sugarcane (one eye bud) is required to prepare nursery for 1 acre plantation, while in direct sett plantation 800 to 1000 kg sugarcane (two eye bud) is required. The cost of setts in nursery plantation was Rs. 3000 to 4000, while in direct sett plantation was Rs. 6000 to 7000 Which shows that there is cost saving of Rs. Rs. 2000 to 3000/- per acre in nursery seedling plantation over sett plantation. The Mortality rate in Nursery is only 5-10 % while in Sett plantation it is up to 30-35 %. Also it was observed that the cost can be more if farmer purchase seedling form private nurseries, hence the Low cost Sugarcane Nursery is the best option to reduce the cost and better and trusted seedlings.

In demonstration plots, total cost of cultivation of seedling plantation was Rs. 74507/- per hectare and cost of cultivation of sett plantation was Rs 93950/- per ha, which was found 20.69 % less than sett plantation it might be due to more sett requirement, additional cost of transport, planting cost, extra water application and other field operation charges of labors in sett plantation for initial 1 or 2 months. Because the pre-germinated seedling remains in nursery for 25 to 40 days which reduces the crop duration by 1 to 1.5 month in the field than sett plantation and saves the additional cost.

7.2.2b. Application of compost material

Some farmers applied compost in demo as well as replication plots. Some of them had taken sunhemp as a green manuring crop. Farmers applied average 7 to 8 tons of compost per acre and the cost was Rs.14000 to 16000/- per acre. Green manuring of sunhemp required 30 kg seed for 1 acre area and cost of seed was Rs. 1920/- per acre. The yield of sugarcane in compost applied plots was 145.67 t/ha and it was Rs 120.10 t/ha in control plots. That means application of compost and green manuring in sugarcane resulted in increase in cane yield by 21.28 % than control plots.


7.2.2c. Trash mulching in ratoon crop

Total 19 demo plots and 96 replication plots of ratoon crops were observed under trash mulching practices. In demonstration plots, the cost of cultivation of trash mulching plots was Rs. 34780 /- per hectare and cost of cultivation in no trash mulched was Rs. 36971/- per ha. It was increased in no trash mulch plots by 6.29 % due to more labour charges in weeding operation and irrigation charges. In replication plots, the cost of cultivation of trash mulching plots was Rs. 35325 /- per hectare.

Fig. 6.Decrease in cost of cultivation due to adoption of practices

7.2.3 Increase in overall income due to

7.2.3a Wide spacing of sugarcane

Data analysis of demonstration and replication plots shows that distance between two rows of sugarcane was 5 ft and plant to plant distance was 2 ft in demo plots and it was observed 3ft and below in control plots. Also the proper plant to plant distance was not maintained in control plots due to sett plantation.

The productivity of sugarcane was 153.49 t/ha under wider spacing plantation (5 x 2 ft) as against 126.58 t/ha in control plots. Productivity was increased by 21.27 % under wider spacing plantation. Hence the overall income was also increased due to increased yield. The cost of cultivation of 5 ft spacing was Rs. 75925/- per hectare which was reduced by 16.50 % than the control plots. The net income of wide spacing field is Rs. 323149 /-per ha. and Rs. 238184 /-per ha in control field. The higher BC ratio (4.26) was observed in wider spaced plantation than control plot.

74507 75925 74053

34780

93950 90924 90984

36971

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

Pre-germinatedseedlings

wide spacing Micro irrigationsystem

Trash mulching inratoon crops

Cost

of c

ultiv

atio

n, R

s/ha

Demo plots

Control plots

Decrease in cost of cultivation due to adoption of practices

26

Table 7. Cost of cultivation, net income and B:C ratio in wider spacing plantation

Wider spacing practices Demo plots Control plots

Cost of cultivation (Rs/ha) 75925 90924

yield (t/ha) 153.49 126.58

Gross income (Rs/ha) 399074 329108

Net income (Rs/ha) 323149 238184

B:C ratio 4.26 2.62

7.2.3b Intercropping

Wide spacing field allows space for the cultivation of various short duration crops which can give an additional income to the farmers. It was observed that farmers has taken onion, cauliflower, chickpea and marigold as intercrop in sugarcane, the average yield of onion was found 15 t/ha and income was Rs. 2,00,000 to 3,00,000/- per hectare depending on market price. Some farmers done intercropping of cauliflower and they got 12 to 20 t/ha yield and income of Rs. 1,50,000 to 2,00,000/- per hectare. Some farmers have done intercropping of chickpea and marigold. The yield of chickpea and marigold was 0.5 t/ha and 2.5 t/ha respectively. The income from chickpea and marigold intercropping was Rs. 30,000/- and 75,000/- per hectare respectively. The cost of cultivation of sugarcane might be increased due to intercropping but the additional income from intercrops increased the total profit to the farmers.

The conclusion is that the Intercropping in sugarcane is more profitable depending on market price and crop. Intercropping might be increases cost of cultivation by 5000 - 20000 thousand but it can gives and additional income of Rs. 30000 – 300000 depending on crop and market price. It was observed from some plots that farmers intercropped Cabbage with Sugarcane and earned income of Rs 150000-200000 that means the total average net income of Sugarcane and Cabbage was Rs. 4,73,149 / ha.

Table 8. Yield (t/ha) and income (Rs./ha) obtained from intercropping in sugarcane

Intercrop Yield (t/ha) Income (Rs./ha)

Onion 15 200000 to 300000

Cauliflower/cabbage 12 to 20 150000 to 200000

Chickpea 0.5 30000

Marigold 2.5 75000

Plate 11 & 12. Intercropping of Onion and Cauliflower and Marigold in sugarcane


7.2.4. Adoption of practices due to

7.2.4a. Training imparted by VSI

VSI organized three farmers training programs during 2017-18 & 2018-19 regarding sugarcane cultivation, water management and ratoon management practices as schedule given below

Table 9. Number of trainings imparted by VSI

Plate 13. Intercropping of onion, cabbage and marigold in sugarcane

Sr. No

Period No. of farmers trained

1 22-24 January, 2018 124

2 25-27 February, 2019 180

3 1-3 March,2019 195

Total 499

Fig.7. Technology adoption by farmers due to training imparted by VSI

275

20 22

376

99 115

050

100150200250300350400

Pre-germinated seedlings Micro irrigation system Trash mulching in ratooncrops

No.

of f

arm

ers

Components

Trained by VSITotal farmers

Technology adoption due to training imparted by VSI

28

Out of 590 selected demonstration and replication plots, 317 farmers attended training given by VSI on package of practices of sugarcane cultivation, irrigation water management and ratoon management. Total 20 farmers adopted drip irrigation system and their yield increased by 12.83 %. Adoption of drip irrigation saved 40 to 50 % of water as compared to conventional irrigation. Total 275 farmers adopted pre germinated seedling technologies and resulted in higher cane yield. Total 22 farmers adopted trash mulching in ratoon crops. Trash mulching in ratoon crops saved 18 to 20 % of water than without trash mulching practices. Trash mulching resulted in sustaining of sugarcane crop in water shortage conditions in the summer season.

Apart from that the farmers got aware on various efficient practices and technologies; they also promoted it among their friends and other farmers. The farmers get connected with VSI thru ITC MSK, and asking for improved varieties, organic products and seeking information thru direct contact to scientist, which is great milestone of the training which is also replicating in their field.

Plate 14 & Plate 15 Training imparted by VSI

7.2.4b. Initiatives taken by Sugar cooperatives

ITC and NGOs were in contact with nearby 5 sugar cooperatives in Ghod river basin for implementation of Sustainable Sugarcane Initiative program thru the cascading of cooperatives staff. In this Regards ITC has developed easy to understand stage wise training module and get approved from Vasantdada Sugarcane Institute. ITC has planned to train the cane officers as a master trainer who will train their farmers further on SSI. As a part of this ITC signed a MoU with three sugar cooperatives at NGO level and the master training has been completed for the same cooperatives. This program increased productivity in nearby area of the factory, which can fulfill the demand of cane and reduces the transportation cost occurred to factories. Also due to increased productivity and water saving sugar

Plate 16 & Plate 17. Field practical’s during training program at VSI


cultivation get sustain further and farmer’s interest will be remained positive. The Vighnahar sugar cooperative started their field training through their cane development officer on sugarcane. The sugar cooperatives were taken into confidence for implementation of ITC programme in their sugar mill operational area. The field staffs of sugar cooperatives were involved in the programme through their field staff network to reach to the farmers and also for disposal of cane to respective sugar cooperative.

Plate 18 & Plate 19. Field training taken by sugar cooperative

7.5c. Training Imparted by partner NGO

Table 10. Trainings taken by partner NGO

Block (NGO) No of trainings organized by NGO

Topics covered

Junnar (DSC) 45 Pre sowing: Low cost sugarcane nursery, Soil testing, compost & green manuring. Importance of drip & convergence with Govt. schemes

After sowing : Intercultural practices in sugarcane, fertilizer management, pest and disease management

Ratoon Management : Trash mulching

Shirgonda (AFARM) 23

Parner (AFARM) 16

Parner (BAIF) 8

Shirur (AFARM) 36

ITC is very keen to deliver PoPs and improved technologies to farmers regularly with the technical support from VSI and KVKs. ITC through its partner NGOs is regularly training the farmers on various aspects of sugarcane by establishing farmer field schools and tracking their data on adoption level and productivity, cost of cultivation. Farmer field schools are very much effective way to train the farmers, where demonstration, exposure, expert advice, weather forecast is regularly getting to farmers. In 2018-19 Partner NGOs team has taken village vise trainings as under

30

As a result of trainings imparted by ITC partner team the awareness has increased on water saving, improved package of practices, reduction in cost of cultivation and other climate smart interventions. The adoption of drip and pre germinated seedling plantation has drastically increased due to awareness and trainings programmes, farmers started doing trash mulching, green manuring to increase the soil health. Thru Climate Smart Agriculture programmes ITC has done wall paintings on PoPs, slogans for water saving, arranged folk arts for awareness generation, weather forecasting on notice board of the village, farmers have installed skymate app for weather information, provided sugarcane calendars to farmers for timely activity of sugarcane, prepared and distributed various leaflets on plant care, nursery management, trash mulching etc.

Plate 20 & Plate 21. Training organized by partner NGO

Plate 22 & Plate 23. Field Day in presence of VSI scientists

31

8.1 The practices promoted by ITC MSK for increasing water use efficiency was found helpful in water saving without hampering the yield of Sugarcane.

8.2 The pre-germinated nursery preparation is an innovative practice promoted by ITC results in increased area under seedling plantation, water saving and reduces cost of cultivation.

8.3 The pre-germinated seedling plantation saves 2 to 3 irrigations (12-14%) over sett plantation and decreases the total crop period by 1 to 1.5 months. The total water saving due to pre-germinated nursery plantation is 2000 to 3000 cu.m/ha.

8.4 Wider Spaced (5 x 2 ft) plantation of sugarcane under conventional irrigation resulted in 8.13 % water saving than the conventional planting methods. i.e water requirement in wider spaced plantation under conventional irrigation was 204.22 cm (20422 cu.m/ha) in total growing period.

8.5 The drip irrigation resulted in cultivation of sugarcane crop even in acute shortage of irrigation water and saved 40 to 50 % of water than conventional irrigation. The total water requirement of sugarcane crop under drip irrigation was 137 cm (13700 cu.m/ha) and 250 cm (25000 cu.m /ha) in flood or conventional which shows 11300 cu.m /ha water saving was observed due to drip irrigation.

8.6 The trash mulching saved 4 to 5 no. of irrigations i. e 3600 to 4500 cu.m /ha. (18 to 20 %) of water than without trash mulching and sustain the sugarcane crop in water stress conditions. The trash mulching requires 22 to 24 number of irrigation while no trash mulch requires 27 to 29 irrigations. The trash mulcher machines provided by ITC supported ABCs resulted in increasing area under mulching in ratoon crops.

8.7 The combine practices like pre-germinated seedling plantation on wide spacing with drip saves 12622 cu.m/ha over conventional practices (25000 cu.m/ha) which leads to better sustainability of sugarcane cultivation with increased water use efficiency.

8.8 The sugarcane productivity in drip irrigation was increased by 31.13 % as compared to conventional irrigation. The water use efficiency in drip irrigation was 1.27 t/ha-cm and it was higher than conventional irrigation. The average cost of cultivation under drip irrigation was reduced by 18.61 % than conventional irrigation due to extra labor charges for irrigation,

8. Conclusions

Conclusions

32

fertilizer application and weeding operations in conventional irrigation. The proper irrigation scheduling of drip irrigation with daily/ alternate day operation resulted in better impact of micro irrigation system. .

8.9 To reduce the cost of seedlings, the farmers should prepare their own seed nursery, however the seed source needs to be closely monitored. The use of seedling technology resulted saving in cost of cultivation by Rs. 50664/- per ha.

8.10 The productivity of sugarcane under wider spaced plantation (5 x 2 ft) was increased by 21.27 % than control plots (3ft and below plantation). The cost of cultivation in wider spaced plantation was reduced by 16.50 % than the control plots and net income increased by Rs.84965/- per ha

8.11 The intercropping in sugarcane resulted in getting additional income to the farmers and utilization of space in initial growing period of sugarcane. The additional income due to inter crop was Rs. 30000/- to Rs. 300000/- per ha depending upon the crop type, season and market price.

8.12 The average productivity of sugarcane was 142.89 t/ha in seedling plantation, 174.41 ton/ha in wider spaced plantation with drip and 128.39 ton/ha in trash mulching which was 20.22%, 31.13 % and 33.28 % more than conventional practices respectively.

8.13 Due to compost application and green manuring in sugarcane productivity was increased by 21.28 % than control plots with additional benefit to soil health.

8.14 The average cost of cultivation of sugarcane was Rs. 74828/- per ha in demonstration plot and Rs.91952/- per ha in control plot with net income of Rs. 333190/- per ha and Rs. 236037/- per ha respectively.

8.15 The training imparted by VSI, efforts taken by ITC and their NGO partners, the initiative taken by sugar co-operatives, resulted in providing opportunity to the farmers getting acquainted with new technologies of sugarcane cultivation with minimum use of water and reducing the cost of cultivation and improving their income level with minimum use of precious commodity like water.

8.16 As ITC MSK is working in whole Ghod Basin with great coverage and effective water saving in sugarcane, Vasantdada Sugar Institute recommending to ITC for continuing this activity of promotion of technologies on wider scale to overcome the low water productivity and bring sustainability of sugarcane productivity in other Sugarcane growing areas.

33

9. Annexure

Annexure I

Questionnaire for survey of demonstration-control plots (Plantation and ratoon plots)

Annexure I

34

1

gd}jUmMr àûZmdbr

nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q>

eoVH$è¶mMo Zm§d : ------------------- eoVH$è¶mMo Zm§d : --------------------------

nÎmm : ------------------------ nÎmm :---------------------------------

---------------------- -------------------------------

‘mo~mB©b Z§ : ------------------- ‘mo~mB©b Z§ : -----------------------------

bmJU nrH$ nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q> 1. bmJU Ho$ë¶mMr VmarI

2. bmJdS>rMo joÌ (EH$a)

3. CgmMr OmV

4. XmoZ gè¶m§Vrb A§Va

5. bmJdS> amono bmJdS>/~oUo bmJdS>

amono bmJdS>/~oUo bmJdS>

6. amono V¶ma H$aÊ¶mMm H$mbmdYr

7. amono V¶ma H$aÊ¶mgmR>r bmJUmao nmUr

8. bmJUrÀ¶m doir amonm§Mo d¶

9. XmoZ amonm§‘Yrb A§Va

10. joÌ bmJdS>rgmR>r bmJUmar amono (ómoV)

11. amonm§Mr CnbãYVm H$moRy>Z Ho$br

12. amonm§Mm IM©

13. amon bmJdS>rMm IM©

14. joÌ bmJdS>rgmR>r bmJUmao ~oUo (ómoV)

35Annexure I

2

bmJU nrH$ nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q> 15. ~oÊ¶mMr CnbãYVm H$moRy>Z Ho$br

16. ~oÊ¶mMm IM©

17. ~oUo bmJdS>rMm IM©

18. ‘mVr narjU Ho$bo Amho H$m§? Ho$bo Agë¶mg àV XoUo

hmo¶ / Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

19. H$moUË¶m H§$nmoñQ> IVmMm dmna Ho$bm?

20. H$moUË¶m {hadirÀ¶m IVmMm dmna Ho$bm?

21. H$moUVr Am§Va{nHo$ KoVbr?

22. CËnÞ {H$Vr {‘imbo?

23. Am{W©H$ ’$m¶Xm {H$Vr Pmbm?

36

3

qgMZ ì¶dñWmnZ nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q> 24. {nH$mg nmUr H$go {Xbo OmVo {R>~H$ / nmQ>nmUr {R>~H$ / nmQ>nmUr

25. nma§nm[aH$ nÕVr H$moUVr bm§~gar / H$Q>dm’o$ / OmoS>Amoi

bm§~gar / H$Q>dm’o$ / OmoS>Amoi

26. nma§nm[aH$ nÕVrZo nmQ>nmUr XoVmZm n§n {H$Vr doi MmbdVmV. (àdmh- ) (n§n Aœeº$s(HP) )

{hdmim {hdmim nmdgmim nmdgmim

CÝhmim CÝhmim

27. nmÊ¶mÀ¶m XmoZ nmù¶mVrb A§Va {hdmim {hdmim nmdgmim nmdgmim CÝhmim CÝhmim

28. nma§nm[aH$ nÕVr‘Ü¶o IVo H$moUVr dmnaVmV

29. IVm§Mr ‘mÌm {H$Vrç ({H$.J«°.)

30. amon bmJdS>rZ§Va nmÊ¶mÀ¶m {H$Vr nmù¶m {Xë¶m?

31. ~oUo bmJdS>rZ§Va nmÊ¶mÀ¶m {H$Vr nmù¶m {Xë¶m?

32. {R>~H$ qgMZ nÕVr dmnaV Agë¶mg H$moUVr nÕV dmnaVm

n¥ð>^mJmdarb / n¥ð>^mJmImbrb


33. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§M H$moUË¶m H§$nZrMm Amho. Am¶EgAm¶/Zm°Z Am¶EgAm¶

Am¶EgAm¶/Zm°Z Am¶EgAm¶

34. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§M ~g{dÊ¶mgmR>r {H$Vr IM© bmJbm

35. g~{gS>r {‘iVo H$m§? hmo¶/Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

36. g~{gS>r {‘iV Agë¶mg {H$Vr?

37. qgMZmgmR>r bmJUmè¶m nmÊ¶mMr CnbãYVm {dhra / ~moAadob / H°$Zm°b / eoVVio

{dhra / ~moAadob / H°$Zm°b / eoVVio

37

4

qgMZ ì¶dñWmnZ nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q> 38. qgMZmgmR>r dmnaÊ¶mV ¶oUmè¶m nmÊ¶mMr VnmgUr H$ê$Z KoVbr H$m¶? KoVbr Agë¶mg àV XoUo.


39. qgMZmgmR>r dmnaÊ¶mV ¶oUmè¶m n§nMm àdmh d Aœeº$s (HP)

40. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§M Mmb{dÊ¶mMm H$mbmdYr (EHy$U Vmg)

CÝhmim CÝhmim {hdmim {hdmim nmdgmim nmdgmim

41. H$moUVm {’$ëQ>a ~g{dbm Amho g°ÝS> /ñH«$sZ/{S>ñH / ~g{dbm Zmhr$

g°ÝS>/ñH«$sZ /{S>ñH$/ ~g{dbm Zmhr

42. {’$ëQ>a {H$Vr {XdgmVyZ gm’$ Ho$bo OmVmV?

43. XmoZ CnZù¶mVrb A§Va {H$Vr?

44. CnZù¶m {H$Vr {XdgmVyZ gm’$ Ho$ë¶m OmVmV?

45. {S>ńg©Mm àdmh {H$Vr?

46. XmoZ {S>ńg©‘Yrb A§Va {H$Vr?

47. ‘w»¶ dm{hZr d Cn‘w»¶dm{hZr {H$Vr {XdgmVyZ gm’$ Ho$ë¶m OmVmV

48. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§Mmda Xm~‘mnH$ ~g{dbm Amho H$m§?


49. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§MmÛmao IVo XoVmV H$m¶? hmo¶ / Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

50. {R>~H$Ûmao H$moUVr IVo XoVmV? ‘mÌm {H$Vr ({H$.J«°.)

51. Amåb à{H«$¶m H$aVm H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

52. ³bmoarZ à{H«$¶m H$aVm H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

38 Annexure I

5

qgMZ ì¶dñWmnZ nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q> 53. bmJdS>rMm EHy$U IM©

‘emJVrMm EHy$U IM© ~oUo à{H«$¶m IM© IVm§Mm IM© qgMZmMm IM© nrH$ g§ajU IM©

54. ìhrEgAm¶ ‘Ü¶o à{ejU KoVbo H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

eoVH$è¶mMr ghr : -------------

39

6

gd}jUmMr àûZmdbr nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q>

eoVH$è¶mMo Zm§d : ------------------- eoVH$è¶mMo Zm§d : --------------------------

nÎmm : ------------------------ nÎmm :---------------------------------

---------------------- -------------------------------

‘mo~mB©b Z§ : ------------------- ‘mo~mB©b Z§ : -----------------------------

ImoS>dm nrH$ nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q> 1. ImoS>dm R>odë¶mMr VmarI

2. ImoS>ì¶mMo joÌ (EH$a)

3. CgmMr OmV

4. XmoZ garVrb A§Va

5. CgmMm ImoS>dm KoVmZm nmMQ> AmÀN>mXZ Ho$bo H$m?


6. nmMQ> AmÀN>mXZm‘wio nmÊ¶mÀ¶m {H$Vr nmù¶m H$‘r Pmë¶m?

7. nmMQ> Hw$Q>r H$emÀ¶m gmhmæ¶mZo Ho$br?

8. nmMQ> AmÀN>mXZm‘wio VUm§Mm àmXþ©^md H$‘r Pmbm H$m?

9. ImoS>ì¶mV Zm§½¶m âë¶m H$m?

10. ImoS>dm R>odVmZm ~wS>»¶m N>mQ>ë¶m H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

11. nmMQ> AmÀN>mXZmV ¶oUmè¶m AS>MUr

12. nma§nm[aH$ [g§MZmImbr {H$Vr ImoS>do KoVbo.

40 Annexure I

7

ImoS>dm nrH$ nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q> 13. {R>~H$ qgMZmImbr {H$Vr ImoS>do KoVbo.

14. ImoS>dm {nH$mgmR>r nmMQ> Hw$O{dUmao OrdmUy§Mm

dmna Ho$bm H$m?

15. ‘mVr n[ajU Ho$bo Amho H$m§?

Ho$bo Agë¶mg àV XoUo.


41

8

qgMZ ì¶dñWmnZ nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q> 16. {nH$mg nmUr H$go {Xbo OmVo {R>~H$ / nmQ>nmUr {R>~H$ / nmQ>nmUr

17. nma§nm[aH$ nÕVr H$moUVr bm§~gar / H$Q>dm’o$ / OmoS>Amoi

bm§~gar / H$Q>dm’o$ / OmoS>Amoi


{hdmim {hdmim nmdgmim nmdgmim

CÝhmim CÝhmim

19. nmÊ¶mÀ¶m XmoZ nmù¶mVrb A§Va {hdmim {hdmim nmdgmim nmdgmim CÝhmim CÝhmim


21. IVm§Mr ‘mÌm {H$Vr? ({H$.J«°.)

22. ImoS>ì¶mg nmÊ¶mÀ¶m {H$Vr nmù¶m {Xë¶m?

23. {R>~H$ qgMZ nÕVr dmnaV Agë¶mg H$moUVr nÕV dmnaVm?



24. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§M H$moUË¶m H§$nZrMm Amho. Am¶EgAm¶/Zm°Z Am¶EgAm¶



26. g~{gS>r {‘iVo H$m§? hmo¶/Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

27. g~{gS>r {‘iV Agë¶mg {H$Vr?

28. qgMZmgmR>r bmJUmè¶m nmÊ¶mMr CnbãYVm {dhra / ~moAadob / H°$Zm°b / eoVVio

{dhra / ~moAadob / H°$Zm°b / eoVVio

42

9

qgMZ ì¶dñWmnZ nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q> 29. qgMZmgmR>r dmnaÊ¶mV ¶oUmè¶m nmÊ¶mMr VnmgUr H$ê$Z KoVbr H$m¶? KoVbr Agë¶mg àV XoUo.


30. qgMZmgmR>r dmnaÊ¶mV ¶oUmè¶m n§nMm àdmh d Aœeº$s (HP)


CÝhmim CÝhmim {hdmim {hdmim nmdgmim nmdgmim

32. H$moUVm {’$ëQ>a ~g{dbm Amho g°ÝS> /ñH«$sZ/{S>ñH / ~g{dbm Zmhr$

g°ÝS>/ñH«$sZ /{S>ñH$/ ~g{dbm Zmhr




36. {S>ńg©Mm àdmh {H$Vr?



39. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§Mmda Xm~‘mnH$ ~g{dbm Amho H$m§?


40. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§MmÛmao IVo XoVmV H$m¶? hmo¶ / Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

41. {R>~H$Ûmao H$moUVr IVo XoVmV? ‘mÌm {H$Vr ({H$.J«°.)

42. Amåb à{H«$¶m H$aVm H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

43. ³bmoarZ à{H«$¶m H$aVm H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

43

10

qgMZ ì¶dñWmnZ nWXe©H$ ßbm°Q> nma§nm[aH$ ßbm°Q> 44. ImoS>ì¶mMm EHy$U IM©

‘emJVrMm EHy$U IM© nmMQ> AmÀN>mXZmMm IM© ~wS>»¶m N>mQ>Ê¶mMm IM© Zm§½¶m âÊ¶mMm IM© IVm§Mm IM© qgMZmMm IM© nrH$ g§ajU IM©

45. ìhrEgAm¶ ‘Ü¶o à{ejU KoVbo H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr hmo¶ / Zmhr

eoVH$è¶mMr ghr : -------------

44

Annexure II

Questionnaire for survey of replication plots (Plantation and ratoon plots)

1

gd}jUmMr àûZmdbr

eoVH$è¶mMo Zm§d : --------------------------------------------------

nÎmm : ---------------------------------------------------------

‘mo~mB©b Z§ : -------------------

bmJU nrH$

1. bmJU Ho$ë¶mMr VmarI 2. bmJdS>rMo joÌ (EH$a) 3. CgmMr OmV 4. XmoZ gè¶m§Vrb A§Va 5. bmJdS> amono bmJdS>/~oUo bmJdS> 6. amono V¶ma H$aÊ¶mMm H$mbmdYr

7. amono V¶ma H$aÊ¶mgmR>r bmJUmao nmUr

8. bmJUrÀ¶m doir amonm§Mo d¶

9. XmoZ amonm§‘Yrb A§Va

10. joÌ bmJdS>rgmR>r bmJbobr amono

11. amonm§Mr CnbãYVm H$moRy>Z Ho$br

12. amonm§Mm ‘yi ómoV

13. amonm§Mm IM©

14. amon bmJdS>rMm IM©

15. joÌ bmJdS>rgmR>r bmJbooboo ~oUo

16. ~oÊ¶mMr CnbãYVm H$moRy>Z Ho$br

17. ~oÊ¶mMm ‘yi ómoV

18. ~oÊ¶mMm IM©

45Annexure II

2

19. ~oUo bmJdS>rMm IM©

20. ‘mVr narjU Ho$bo Amho H$m§? Ho$bo Agë¶mg àV XoUo. hmo¶/Zmhr

21. H$moUË¶m H§$nmoñQ> IVmMm dmna Ho$bm?

22. H$moUË¶m {hadirÀ¶m IVmMm dmna Ho$bm?

23. H$moUVr Am§Va{nHo$ KoVbr?

24. Am§Va{nH$mMo CËnÞ {H$Vr {‘imbo?

25. Am§Va{nH$mMm Am{W©H$ ’$m¶Xm {H$Vr Pmbm?

26. D$g {nH$mg nmUr H$go {Xbo? {R>~H$ / nmQ>nmUr

27. nma§nm[aH$ (nmQ>nmUr) nÕVr H$moUVr ? bm§~gar / H$Q>dm’o$ / OmoS>Amoi


{hdmim nmdgmim

CÝhmim

29. nmÊ¶mÀ¶m XmoZ nmù¶mVrb A§Va {hdmim nmdgmim CÝhmim


31. nma§nm[aH$ nÕVrV IVm§Mr ‘mÌm {H$Vr? ({H$.J«°.)

32. amon bmJdS>rZ§Va nmÊ¶mÀ¶m {H$Vr nmù¶m {Xë¶m?

33. ~oUo bmJdS>rZ§Va nmÊ¶mÀ¶m {H$Vr nmù¶m {Xë¶m?



35. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§M H$moUË¶m H§$nZrMm Amho? 36. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§M Am¶EgAm¶ qH$dm Zm°Z Am¶EgAm¶

Amho. Am¶EgAm¶/Zm°Z Am¶EgAm¶

46

3


38. g~{gS>r {‘imbr H$m§? hmo¶/Zmhr

39. g~{gS>r {‘imbr Agë¶mg {H$Vr?

40. {R>~H$ qgMZmgmR>r bmJUmè¶m nmÊ¶mMr CnbãYVm {dhra / ~moAadob / H°$Zm°b / eoVVio

41. [R>~H$ qgMZmgmR>r dmnaÊ¶mV ¶oUmè¶m nmÊ¶mMr VnmgUr H$ê$Z KoVbr H$m¶? KoVbr Agë¶mg àV XoUo.

hmo¶ / Zmhr

42. {R>~H$ qgMZmgmR>r dmnaÊ¶mV ¶oUmè¶m n§nMm àdmh d Aœeº$s (HP)


CÝhmim {hdmim nmdgmim

44. {R>~H$gmR>r H$moUVm {’$ëQ>a ~g{dbm Amho g°ÝS> /ñH«$sZ/{S>ñH / ~g{dbm Zmhr$



47. CnZù¶m {H$Vr {XdgmVyZ gm’$ Ho$ë¶m OmVmV? 48. {S>ńg©Mm Vmer àdmh {H$Vr?



51. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§Mmda Xm~‘mnH$ ~g{dbm Amho H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr 52. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§MmÛmao IVo XoVmV H$m¶? hmo¶ / Zmhr

53. {R>~H$Ûmao H$moUVr IVo XoVmV? EHy$U ‘mÌm {H$Vr ({H$.J«°.)?

47Annexure II

4

54. {R>~H$Ûmao {H$Vr {Xdgm§À¶m A§VamZo IVo {Xbr / XoVmV?

55. Amåb à{H«$¶m H$aVm H$m§? {H$Vr {XdgmVyZ? hmo¶ / Zmhr

56. ³bmoarZ à{H«$¶m H$aVm H$m§? {H$Vr {XdgmVyZ? hmo¶ / Zmhr

57. bmJdS>rMm EHy$U IM© O‘rZ ‘emJVrMm IM© ~oUo à{H«$¶m IM© IVm§Mm IM© qgMZmMm IM© nrH$ g§ajU IM©

BVa IM© EHy$U ‘emJVrMm IM©

58. ìhrEgAm¶ ‘Ü¶o à{ejU KoVbo H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr

eoVH$è¶mMr ghr : -------------

48

5

gd}jUmMr àûZmdbr eoVH$è¶mMo Zm§d : --------------------------------------------------

nÎmm : ---------------------------------------------------------

‘mo~mB©b Z§ : -------------------

ImoS>dm nrH$

1. ImoS>dm R>odë¶mMr VmarI

2. ImoS>ì¶mMo joÌ (EH$a)

3. CgmMr OmV

4. XmoZ garVrb A§Va

5. CgmMm ImoS>dm KoVmZm nmMQ> AmÀN>mXZ Ho$bo H$m? hmo¶ / Zmhr

6. nmMQ> AmÀN>mXZm‘wio nmÊ¶mÀ¶m {H$Vr nmù¶m H$‘r Pmë¶m?

7. nmMQ> Hw$Q>r Ho$br Amho H$m§? Ho$br Agë¶mg H$emÀ¶m gmhmæ¶mZo Ho$br?

hmo¶ / Zmhr

8. nmMQ> AmÀN>mXZm‘wio VUm§Mm àmXþ©^md H$‘r Pmbm H$m? hmo¶ / Zmhr

9. ImoS>ì¶mV Zm§½¶m âë¶m H$m? hmo¶ / Zmhr

10. ImoS>dm R>odVmZm ~wS>»¶m N>mQ>ë¶m H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr

11. nmMQ> AmÀN>mXZmV ¶oUmè¶m AS>MUr

49Annexure II

6

12. nma§nm[aH$ [g§MZmImbr {H$Vr ImoS>do KoVbo.

13. {R>~H$ qgMZmImbr {H$Vr ImoS>do KoVbo.

14. ImoS>dm {nH$mgmR>r nmMQ> Hw$O{dUmao OrdmUy§Mm dmna Ho$bm H$m?

15. ‘mVr n[ajU Ho$bo Amho H$m§? Ho$bo Agë¶mg àV XoUo. hmo¶ / Zmhr

16. ImoS>dm {nH$mg nmUr H$go {Xbo? {R>~H$ / nmQ>nmUr

17. nma§nm[aH$ (nmQ>nmUr) nÕVr H$moUVr bm§~gar / H$Q>dm’o$ / OmoS>Amoi


{hdmim nmdgmim

CÝhmim

19. nmÊ¶mÀ¶m XmoZ nmù¶mVrb A§Va {hdmim nmdgmim CÝhmim


21. nma§nm[aH$ nÕVrV IVm§Mr ‘mÌm {H$Vr? ({H$.J«°.)

22. ImoS>ì¶mg nmÊ¶mÀ¶m {H$Vr nmù¶m {Xë¶m?



24. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§M H$moUË¶m H§$nZrMm Amho.

25. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§M Am¶EgAm¶ qH$dm Zm°Z Am¶EgAm¶ Amho.



50

7

27. g~{gS>r {‘imbr H$m§? hmo¶/Zmhr

28. g~{gS>r {‘imbr Agë¶mg {H$Vr?

29. {R>~H$ qgMZmgmR>r bmJUmè¶m nmÊ¶mMr CnbãYVm {dhra / ~moAadob / H°$Zm°b / eoVVio

30. {R>~H$ qgMZmgmR>r dmnaÊ¶mV ¶oUmè¶m nmÊ¶mMr VnmgUr H$ê$Z KoVbr H$m¶? KoVbr Agë¶mg àV XoUo.

hmo¶ / Zmhr

31. {R>~H$ qgMZmgmR>r dmnaÊ¶mV ¶oUmè¶m n§nMm àdmh d

Aœeº$s (HP)

32. [R>~H$ qgMZ g§M Mmb{dÊ¶mMm H$mbmdYr (EHy$U Vmg) CÝhmim {hdmim

nmdgmim

33. {R>~H$gmR>r H$moUVm {’$ëQ>a ~g{dbm Amho g°ÝS> /ñH«$sZ/{S>ñH / ~g{dbm Zmhr$




37. {S>ńg©Mm Vmer àdmh {H$Vr?


39. ‘w»¶ dm{hZr d Cn‘w»¶dm{hZr {H$Vr [XdgmVyZ gm’$ Ho$ë¶m

OmVmV

40. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§Mmda Xm~‘mnH$ ~g{dbm Amho H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr

51Annexure II

8

41. {R>~H$ qgMZ g§MmÛmao IVo XoVmV H$m¶? hmo¶ / Zmhr

42. {R>~H$Ûmao H$moUVr IVo XoVmV? Am{U EHy$U ‘mÌm {H$Vr

({H$.J«°.)

43. {R>~H$Ûmao {H$Vr {Xdgm§À¶m A§VamZo IVo {Xbr / XoVmV?

44. Amåb à{H«$¶m H$aVm H$m§? {H$Vr {Xdgm§VyZ? hmo¶ / Zmhr

45. ³bmoarZ à{H«$¶m H$aVm H$m§? {H$Vr {Xdgm§VyZ? hmo¶ / Zmhr

46. ImoS>ì¶mMm EHy$U IM©

nmMQ> AmÀN>mXZmMm IM©

~wS>»¶m N>mQ>Ê¶mMm IM©

Zm§½¶m âÊ¶mMm IM©

IVm§Mm IM©

Am§Va‘emJVrMm IM©

qgMZmMm IM©

nrH$ g§ajU IM©

BVa IM©

EHy$U ‘emJVrMm IM©

47. ìhrEgAm¶ ‘Ü¶o à{ejU KoVbo H$m§? hmo¶ / Zmhr

eoVH$è¶mMr ghr : -------------

52

Annexure III

Glimpses of visit and surveys of demo and replication plots

Glimpses of visit of VSI scientists to farmers demo plots

53Annexure III

Adoption of drip irrigation practices in sugarcane plantation

54

Adoption of pre-germinated seedlings for sugarcane plantation

55Annexure III

Trash mulching practices in ratoon crop

56

Harvesting of Sugarcane

57

Awareness Programs

Annexure III

ITC limited

Virginia House37 J.L Nehru RoadKolkata 700 071India

[email protected]

@ ITCCorpComwww.itcportal.com

Report on Impact Assessment Study of Sugarcanein Ghod River Basin

August 2020

Documents

Report on Impact Assessment Study of Sugarcane in Ghod