Abstract
A field experiment was conducted to study the effect of organics viz., biocompost and enriched pressmud on yield and quality of sugarcane variety Co 8021 at the Research Farm of Rajshree Sugars and Chemicals Ltd., Vaigai dam, Theni. The soil of the experimental field was sandy loam with neutral soil reaction and free of harmful salts. The soil was low in organic carbon, available nitrogen and phosphorus but well supplied with potassium. The treatment consisted of 50%, 75% and 100% recommended dose of NPK as chemical fertilizers and combination of 50% and 75% NPK with biocompost (10 t/ha), enriched pressmud withPleurotus sp. (10 t/ha), enriched pressmud withTrichoderma viride (10 t/ha) andAcetobactor and phosphobacterium (each 10 kg/ha). Juice quality was not affected by the treatments but the treatments had significant influence on cane and sugar yield. The highest cane yield of 86.7 t/ha was recorded in the treatment 75% NPK + enriched pressmud withPleurotus sp. followed by 75% NPK + biocompost, 75% NPK + enriched pressmud withT. viride, 100% NPK andAcetobactor and phosphobacterium. The lowest cane yield of 46.7 t/ha was recorded in 50% NPK treatment. Combined application of organic or biofertilizers with chemical fertilizers improved the cane yield and the effect was more pronounced at lower fertilizer level (50% NPK) than at higher level (75% NPK). Application of biocompost or enriched pressmud or biofertilizers along with 50% NPK or 75% NPK recorded yields at par with 75% NPK and 100% NPK as chemical fertilizers, respectively. Addition of organics improved soil organic carbon and available NPK status and had no adverse effect on soil pH and EC. This study indicated that through the application of 10 tonnes of biocompost or enriched pressmud orAcetobactor + phosphobacterium (each 10kg), 25% chemical fertilizers could be saved without loosing yield and quality besides improving soil fertility.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Jwarkar, A.S., Deshbhratar, P.B., Bal, S.A., Shinde, A., Jwarkar, A., Jwarkar, Asha and Bal, A.S. (1993). Pressmud application to soils, effects on soil and crops. J. Indus.Pollution Control,9(1): 21–26.
Nema, G.K., Vaidya, M.S. and Bangar, K.S. (1995). Response of sugarcane to fertilizer nitrogen and organic manure in black calcareous soils of Madhya Pradesh. J. Soils and Crops,5(2): 129–132.
Paneque, V.M. and Martinez, M.A. (1992). Filtercake as a substitute for chemical fertilizers for sugarcane grown in a yellowish ferralitic soil. Cultivos Tropicales,13(2–3): 69–73.
Rakkiyappan, P., Navaneethakrishnan, M.V. and Tripathi, B.K. (1999). Effect of enriched pressmud, bioearth and biofertilizers on sugarcane. Proc. Second International Conference on Soil Contaminants in the Soil Environment in the Australasia-Pacific Region, Dec. 12–17, 1999. New Delhi pp 41–42.
Rakkiyappan, P., Padmanaban, P. and Thangavelu, S. (2000). Effect of organic manure made out of pressmud and distillery effluent on sugarcane. Proc. International Conference on Managing Natural Resource for Sustainable Agricultural Production in the 21st Century, Feb. 14–18, 2000. New Delhi pp 247–248.
Singh, K.D.N., Prasad, C.R. and Singh, Y.P. (1986). Comparitive study of pyrites and sulphitation pressmud on soil properties, yield, quality of sugarcane in calcareous saline sodic soil of Bihar. J. Indian. Soc. Soil Sci.,34(1): 152–154.
Yaduvanshi, N.P.S. and Yadav, D.V. (1990). Economy in fertilizer nitrogen by its integrated application with sulphitation filter cake on sugarcane. Biological Wastes.32(1): 75–79.
Zende, N.A., Joshi, S.S., Deshmukh, B.A., Patil, A.A. and Magdum, B.R. (1991). Effect of pressmud compost and green manure on soil fertility and sugarcane yield. DSTA.41st Ann. Conv., A183–A186.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rakkiyappan, P., Thangavelu, S., Malathi, R. et al. Effect of biocompost and enriched pressmud on sugarcane yield and quality. Sugar Tech 3, 92–96 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03014569
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03014569