PLANTING GEOMETRY AND INTERCROPPING IN SUGARCANE

K.C. OMBASE¹, S.K. GHODKE²*, V.T. JADHAV³, K.D. MEVADA⁴, D.E. KADAM^5
1College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra 413722
²College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra 413722
³College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra 413722
⁴College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra 413722
⁵College of Agriculture, Pune, 411005, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra 413722
* Corresponding Author : ghodkesk18@gmail.com

Received : 19-08-2017     Accepted : 13-02-2018     Published : 15-02-2018
Volume : 10     Issue : 3       Pages : 5129 - 5133
Int J Agr Sci 10.3 (2018):5129-5133
DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.9735/0975-3710.10.3.5129-5133

Keywords : Sugarcane, Intercrop, Economics, Groundnut and Planting geometry
Academic Editor : Dr Mukesh Kumar, Dr Venkata Satish Kuchi, Dr Benukar Biswas, G Satish, Dr Aatish Kumar Sahu
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Author are thankful to Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri, Ahmednagar, Maharashtra 413722
Author Contribution : All author equally contributed

An attempt was made on “Planting geometry and intercropping of sugarcane” at Agronomy Farm, College of Agriculture, Pune, Dist Pune, Maharashtra during 2008 to 2009 to find out suitable planting patterns for sugarcane to minimize the cost of production, to study the performance of intercropping in sugarcane and to study the effect of planting geometry and intercropping on growth, yield and quality of sugarcane during Suru season. Four levels of planting distance viz.90 x 30 cm single row planting, 90-180 x 30 cm paired row planting, 180 x 30 cm single row planting and 120 cm single row planting with sugarcane planter in main plots and two treatment i.e., Sugarcane + groundnut and Sole sugarcane in sub plots laid out in strip plot design with three replications. The suru sugarcane planted in 90-180 x 30 cm paired row planting was recorded significantly the highest plant height (312.12 cm), number of leaves (7.69), millable cane height (276.70 cm), cane yield (131.95 t ha-1), CCS yield (19.21 t ha-1), cane equivalent yield (143.91 t ha-1) and number of millable cane (92.78 ‘000’-1) for 90 x 30 cm single row planting and it was found at par with 180 x 30 cm single row planting with respect to germination per cent, length of internodes per plant, cane weight and number millable cane for 90-180 x 30 cm paired row planting. Significantly the highest brix (22.25), Sucrose (20.61%) and CCS (14.56%) and non significant with respect to purity (%). The number of tillers, dry matter per plant, number of internodes, and girth of cane (cm) found to be non significant. The significantly higher interaction of cane equivalent yield was found in90-180 X 30 cm paired row (152.96 t ha-1) in sugarcane + groundnut intercrop than rest of treatment. The gross monetary returns (Rs 165496 ha-1), net monetary returns (Rs 112125 ha-1) and B:C ratio (3.10) significantly higher at paired planting of 90-180 x 30 cm spacing than rest of treatments. The sugarcane planted with groundnut registered significantly higher gross monetary returns (Rs 151354), net monetary returns (Rs 96092) and B:C (2.74) ratio than sole sugarcane. The significantly higher interaction of net monetary returns was found in90-180 X 30 cm paired row (120628 t ha-1) in sugarcane + groundnut intercrop than rest of treatment.

1. Anonymous (2009) Coop. Sugar, 34(4),325-326.
2. Mahadevaswamy M. (2001) Studies on intercropping of onion in wide spaced sugarcane. Ph.D. Thesis, Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, Coimbatore.
3. More S.M. (2003) Study on the effect of row spacing, planting system and intercropping on growth, yield, quality and economics of suru sugarcane (cv. Co 86032) and its ratoon under drip irrigation. Ph.D. Thesis, Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth, Rahuri.
4. Nagendran K.R. and Palanisamy P. (1997) Kisan World, 24 (3), 11-13.
5. Panse V.G. and Sukhatme P.V. (1967) Statistical methods for Agricultural Workers. IInd enlarged edn. I.C.A.R., New Delhi.
6. Parashar K.S., Arora P.N. and Sharma R.P. (1999) Indian sugarcane, 29(4), 217-223.
7. Roodagi L.I., Itnal C.J. and Khandagave R.B. (2000) Bharatiya Sugar, 25 (5), 21-26.
8. Shahi H.N. (2002) Sugarcane crushing prize cause concern. The Hindu, Survey of Indian agriculture, 119-124.