Pakistan Society of Sugar Technologists Workshop on Agriculture

Pakistan Society of Sugar Technologists Workshop on Agriculture 8 July, 2019 Organic Fertilizers for Sugarcane Production by Karim Bakhsh Malik

Introduction • Sugarcane is a long duration crop, with a large biomass, covering the soil for 15 -18 months. • Its gross nutritional needs are: 1. 2 Kg N, 0. 46 Kg P 2 O 5 1. 49 Kg K 2 O • per ton of cane produced (Ahmed and Rashid, 2003). Generally, Growers make access use of N, apply half the requirements of P , while application of K fertilizer is altogether ignored. Soil is not rich enough to meet the needs of rest of the essential elements. /Our soils are being deprived of essential plant nutrients.

Main point of concern is that Our soils are deficient in OM • OM available in our soils -0. 4 to 0. 6 % • While in advance cane growing countries it is in the range of: 1. 5 -4 % • Lack of OM has lead to depletion of soil microorganism, that give life to the soil environment. In this way our soils are biologically dead. • The other aspect is high cost of fertilizer Which is 16 -20 % of the cost of cane production

• Infect fertility and productivity of cane fields is related to: soils of good physical, chemical and biological properties. And, such conditions can be provided by meeting soil and crop organo-nutritional demands by applying “Organic Fertilizers” in our soils.

• Benefits of Organic Fertilizers • Improve physical conditions of soil: • Give crumb structure to soil. • Thus increase soil porosity. • Improve water infiltration rate. • Organic matter absorbs and retain water better than nonorganic soils. • Increase water holding capacity of soil, thus sustain productivity under stress conditions. • We save 2 -3 irrigations with better management. • Make the soil loose which help increase tillering, and that make a heavy cane clump

• Improve biological conditions of soil • Encourage the build up of microorganism that help in biochemical changes in soil • It produces week acids that help in release of nutrients in soil • Has direct role in improving CEC of soil, as such is store house of soil nutrients and avoid leaching of nutrients Improve cane yields and due to carry over effect to next crop, reduce yield losses in successive ratoons.

Different types of organic fertilizers 1. Farm yard manures 2. Sugarcane press mud 3. Compost fertilizers 4. Crop residues- Sugarcane trash 5. Green manures 6. Legume crops as inter-crop 7. Bio-fertilizers 8. Use of distillery effluent/

1. FARM YARD MANURE

1. Farm Yard Mmanure • These include the manures collected from livestock and poultry sheds. FYM has been the main source of organic fertilizer in the past. • About 12 -15 tons FYM application could meet 50 % nitrogen requirements of cane crop. Thus 50% of fertilizer cost could be saved • Now with bringing more area under cane crop, FYM availability is far away from the crop demand. Now, this practice is mostly ignored. However. • Its integrated use with chemical fertilizer has shown good prospects.

Effect of NPK fertilizer with and without FYM on yield of sugarcane. Treatment N P 2 O 5 K 2 O Cane yield Tha-1 % increase over control Benefit Cost ratio Kg ha-1 T 1 0 0 0 141. 45 - - T 2 225 0 0 151. 72 7. 26 2. 0 T 3 225 84 0 160. 33 13. 34 2. 9 T 4 225 84 168 165. 90 17. 79 3. 2 T 5 T 4 + FYM 350 Kg ha-1 177. 00 25. 13 4. 1 Soil analysis TSS p. H OM N P 2 O 5 K 2 O T 1 0. 40 8. 30 1. 20 0. 07 3. 8 163 T 2 0. 40 8. 30 1. 27 0. 07 7. 0 160 T 3 0. 46 8. 28 1. 27 0. 08 8. 0 160 T 4 0. 46 8. 20 1. 30 0. 08 9. 5 180 T 5 0. 40 8. 18 1. 48 0. 08 11. 8 200 Sharif and Chaudhary, 1985

Effect of Farm yard manure on productivity of sugarcane Particulars Cane yield t ha-1 Without FYM With FYM 140. 67 149. 63 103. 20 Cane yield increase tha-1 % 9. 16 6. 50 17. 70 20. 70 Reference Shinde et. al. , 1992 Srinivas, 1996

2. SUGARCANE PRESS MUD

2. Sugarcane Press Mud/Filter Press cake (FPC) • In sugar factories FPC is derived during the process of clarification of cane juice. It constitutes suspended and dissolved impurities. • Suspended impurities: Dispersed soil, bagasse particles, wax, fats, proteins, gums, pectin's and coloring matter expressed from cane during milling • Dissolved impurities: Reducing sugars, inorganic salts, and some macro and micronutrients. FPC is a best source of organic matter containing major and minor micro nutrients.

Composition of sugarcane press mud* Contents Nutrients % Content Nutrients % p. H Total solids COD BOD Org. Carbon Org. matter 4. 95 27. 82 117. 6 22. 2 48. 8 84. 12 N P K Ca Na Sugars 1. 75 0. 65 0. 28 2. 70 0. 18 7. 92 Sulphates 1. 07 Wax & fat 4. 65 *Gupta and Tripathi(2011)

Effect of Filter press cake on the yield of sugarcane Particulars Filter press cake-15 tha-1 Cane yield increase With out FPC With FPC tha-1 % 61. 86 68. 68 7. 80 12. 60 158. 78 165. 30 6. 50 4. 10 Reference Ramaliangaswami et. al. , 1999 Nagaraju et. al. , 2000

• FPC production: 3 -4% on the weight of cane crushed • Total FPC production: in a factory of 10, 000 TDC: 54000 tons in 135 days of cane crushing. Using 10 tons FPC per acre, 5400 acres can be served each year. • FPC can further be nutritionally enriched as compost by treating the mud with • Distillery effluent/stillage water • Microorganism-Trichoderma viride • -T. harzianum

3. COMPOST FERTILIZER

• 3. Sugarcane Press Mud Composting • The SPM is treated with distillery effluent/stillage water and certain microorganisms, whereby it is further enriched with more nutrients and bio organisms, to convert it to rapidly available form for the plants. • The stillage water treatment. • The stillage water is sprayed on press mud and thoroughly pulverized. • The gradual mixing and stirring process continue for three weeks. • It becomes a stable compound after 3 -4 weeks. Composting process in Pakistan needs rectification • Present practice is obsolete, manual and sub standard • For its commercial preparation suitable equipment like aero-tiller, lifter and proper open space is to be managed. • Proper granulation, storage and appropriate moisture should be assured

Sugarcane Compost Turner https: //youtu. be/C_wqveel. YBk

Nutritional value of enriched FPC, FPC and FYM p. H Bio-compost FPC FYM 5. 90 Nutrient Kg % per ton 6. 21 6. 25 N% P 2 O 5 % K 2 O % Organic matter Afghan and Qureshi, 1994 1. 61 1. 45 3. 70 4. 83 4. 35 11. 10 70 % Nutrient % Kg per ton 1. 55 1. 25 0. 85 4. 65 3. 63 2. 55 74 % 0. 66 0. 35 0. 55 76 %

• Micro Organism Culture • Culture is developed by treatment of Bacteria like • Tricoderma viride and or • T, harzianum (Bukhtiar et. al. , 2015). • 15 cm thick layer of SPM is inter mixed with microbial bio inoculant. • One litter of bio inoculant is mixed with 20 litters of water to treat 2 tons of SPM. • The material is thoroughly mixed, heaped to 3 ft. Height • and then pulverized at 15 days interval. • Entire lot is left for 3 -4 weeks for complete decomposition.

Effect of bio-compost on nutritional values of soil and cane yield of plant crop Kg acre-1 N 0 P tha-1 K 0 Bio Compost Soil analysis p. H N P K OM Cane yield tha-1 % increase - 0 0 7. 60 0. 034 4. 8 120 0. 69 112. 10 50 0 7. 65 0. 035 5. 8 130 0. 70 115. 70 0 25 7. 50 0. 038 6. 0 166 0. 75 127. 40 10. 11 100 50 25 7. 54 0. 040 6. 5 172 0. 80 133. 80 15. 64 100 50 50 7. 50 0. 042 7. 8 185 0. 85 146. 60 26. 70 100 0 0 Nasir and Qureshi. 1999

Effect of bio compost on nutritional values of soil and cane yield of ratoon crop Kg acre-1 N P t ha-1 K Bio Compost Soil analysis p. H N P 150 150 0 0 0 0 Ratoon crop 7. 80 0. 034 4. 0 7. 85 0. 032 3. 0 7. 55 0. 033 5. 0 150 0 0 7. 56 0. 033 5. 1 7. 52 0. 035 5. 5 0 0 Nasir and Qureshi. 1999 K OM Cane yield tha-1 % increas e 115 116 145 0. 68 0. 65 0. 67 78. 56 70. 15 90. 28 28. 70 147 0. 67 91. 26 150 0. 70 93. 45 32. 70 33. 21

• Some formulae have been developed to make compost of FPC. • The NFC Instt. of Engineering and Fertilizer Research, FSD has suggested the following formulae (Sardar et. al. , 2015): • Press mud: 87. 8 % Molasses: 0. 5 % • Rock Phosphate: 9. 5 % Sulphur mud: 0. 2 % • SSP: 0. 5 % Moisture: 50 -60 % Combination reported: FPC, FYM, Cane trash Fly ash, SSP, Rock phosphate Points to consideration: Standard formula, use equipment for thorough churning, mixing, uniform granules/pallets,

• This compost could further be improved by adding bacteria during the composting process. • Entire sugar world abroad utilizes FPC in cane fields to meet the nutritional needs of cane crop. • Unfortunately, proper attention has not been paid to this product by the industry; probably its value and importance has not been fully recognized; it is miss treated; Quiet a few factories utilize FPC in cane fields, mostly it is used elsewhere. Where? you all know.

4. CROP RESIDUE-SUGARCANE TRASH

• During harvesting of cane crop, cane trash is left on the field surface and growers get rid of this stock by burning; and this a usual phenomenon in our cane culture.

Trash Burning Losses A number of losses are noticed due to trash burning: • Smoke screen increase environmental pollution • Cane burning cause loss of organic matter • Trash nutrients are burnt to ashes and flown away. • Soil organisms near soil surface are destroyed • Cause damage to new tillers and cane sprouts • Parasites and predators are killed • If burning is avoided cane trash can re-cycle nutrients back into the soil

• Nutritional Value of Sugarcane Trash • In general one hectare of cane produces 7 -15 tons of trash (Robertson and Thorburn, 2000) and contain following nutrients (Shrivastava et. al. , 1992). • N: 0. 42%, P: 0. 15%, • Mg: 0. 12%, Fe: 2045 ppm, K: 0. 57%, Ca: 0. 48% Mn: 236 ppm, Zn: 25. 7 ppm • Cane trash on decomposition adds to the soil (Verma, 2002) • 5. 3 kg N per ton of trash • 1. 1 kg P “ • 5. 8 kg K “ • Cane trash reduced fertilizer dose by 50 % ( Vera, 2002) Incorporating 5 tones trash with just 75 kg N fertilizer, increased cane yield by 37. 5 % and thereby • Addition of cane trash substituted the N fertilizer need of 75 Kg ha-1 (Singh and Yadav, 1994).

Cane yield as influenced by trash mulching Treatment Cane yield t ha-1 Without mulch Cane trash 140. 67 57. 00 With mulch 153. 47 71. 50 Cane yield increase T ha-1 12. 80 14. 50 Reference % 9. 10 25. 40 Shinde et. al. , 1992 Rana et. al. , 200

Effect of trash mulch on cane yield, N use efficiency, soil carbon and bulk density* ‘N’ dose Cane yield t ha-1 Kg cane per Kg N applied Soil Carbon Bulk density g cm-1 Kg ha-1 No ‘N’ 50 100 150 200 250 No mulch Mulch 32. 4 43. 7 51. 2 58. 8 62. 3 63. 2 41. 6 54. 2 64. 5 70. 1 74. 6 75. 4 226 188 176 149 123 252 229 190 165 135 0. 59 0. 60 0. 61 0. 63 0. 65 0. 62 0. 65 0. 68 0. 70 0. 76 0. 80 1. 45 1. 44 1. 43 1. 41 1. 40 1. 39 1. 36 1. 35 *Yadav etal, 1994

• In countries having mechanized harvesting system cane trash is automatically placed in inter row spaces of sugarcane as GCTB and is later worked to incorporate in soil with disc ratooner. • In Brazil where trash farming is practiced, on an average 60 Kg ‘N’ is applied to cane per hectare (Mandoza et. al. , ). • Data is available to show that can trash increase yield of ratoons, increase soil reserves of N, P, K and soil carbon and reduce bulk density of soil.

A view of Green cane trash blanket in an Australian cane field

Cane production technology involved in trash mulching

N: P: K contents of different crop residues* Crop residue Wheat straw Rice straw Cotton sticks Banana leaves/trunks Sugarcane *Ahmed and Rashid (2003) Nutrients % N P 2 O 5 K 2 O 0. 49 0. 58 0. 88 0. 61 0. 35 0. 11 0. 10 0. 15 0. 12 0. 04 1. 06 1. 38 1. 45 1. 00 0. 50

Benefits of cane trash mulching • Thick cane trash blanket- about 10 cm thick. • Increase soil temperature in winter. • Decrease in soil temperature in summer. • Application of SPM and Urea spray (5 -10%) accelerate rotting. • Soil microbial activities increased • Incorporation in soil improves nutritional status of soil • K requirements reduced by 25 -30 Kg/ha • N requirement reduced by 50 -60 Kg/ha • Conservation of soil moisture, Saves crop from stress. • Suppress weeds growth. • Trash conserve parasites and predators

5. GREEN MANURE

5. Green Manure Crops • In a fallow period of crop rotation green manure crops incorporate organic matter in the soil. • Any crop residue can serve as green manure. • But a legume crop help provide more ‘N’. • A number of crops are available that can be grown as green manure. • Spring season: Jantar, sunhemp, guara, mong, mash, cowpeas, arhar • Autumn seasons. Berseem, shaftal, senji, metha, lentil, green gram

Nitrogen derived from different green manure crops Spring legumes ‘N’ % Winter legumes ‘N’ % Dhaincha ( Susbenia eculata) Sunhemp (Crotolaria juncea) Guara (Cyamopsis tetragonolobus) Mung (Vigna radiata) Mash (V. mungo) Cowpeas (V. ungiculata) Arhar (Cojanus medicus) 0. 52 0. 43 0. 62 0. 53 0. 41 0. 49 0. 66 Berseem (Trifolium alexandrium) Shaftal (Trifolium resupinatum) Lentil (Lens culinaris) Metha (Trigonella foenum) Green gram (Cicer arietinum) 0. 43 0. 51 0. 33

6. LEGUME INTER-CROPPING IN SUGARCANE

6. Inter-cropping legume crops in cane • Sugarcane is a long duration crop (15 -18 months). • After cane planting, germination and tillering stage provide ample inter row space vacant for 100 and 150 days for spring and autumn cane crop, respectively • A short duration crop can be successes fully accommodated within inter-row spaces • Incorporation of inter-crop residue in soil, on decomposition add organic matter in soil • The legume inter-crop, has the advantages of N fixation in the soil. • ‘N’ fertilizer application is substantially reduced • The main advantage is the carry over effect on to subsequent

Effect of different legume inter-crops 0 n productivity of sugarcane Inter-crops grown Dhaincha Sunhemp Cowpeas Green gram Lentil French beans Ramesh et. al. , 2004 Cane yield t ha-1 Cane yield increase Reference Without intercrop With intercrop T ha-1 % 115. 20 128. 12 135. 30 155. 00 92. 60 80. 50 76. 25 155. 00 120. 76 148. 40 181. 00 106. 30 92. 40 78. 80 182. 00 5. 54 14. 90 13. 10 26. 00 13. 70 11. 90 2. 55 22. 00 4. 81 11. 70 9. 68 16. 77 14. 70 14. 78 3. 33 17. 42 Ramesh, 2001 Jayapal et. al. , 2001 Nasir Ahmed, 1999 Shankariah et. al. , 1999 Verma et. al. , 1999 G Verma et. al. , 1999 Menhilal et. al. , 2000 Shankariah et. al. , 1999

Cane yield as influenced by legume intercroppingin Autumn Treatment Cane alone Cane + berseem Cane + lucerne Cane + Metha Cane + Senji LSD 5% Aslam et. al. , 1999 Cane yield t ha-1 % yield increase 107. 46 118. 88 114. 50 109. 96 2. 15 10. 63 6. 62 2. 32

Cane production technology involved in inter cropping green manure crop

Better management for raising a profitable intercrops

Better management for raising a profitable intercrops

7. BIO-FERTILIZER

7. Bio-fertilizers They are the products of microorganisms, • They mobilize essential major and minor elements from non-usable to usable form through biological process. • They are microbial inoculant of bacteria, algea and fungi. • They augment the availability of nutrients to plants. They are categorized into: • Nitrogen fixing bacteria • Rhizobia: They colonize as nodules and fix atmospheric ’N’ symbiocally. • Azotobacter: Free living ‘N’ fixing bacteria, present in soils for non-legume crops. • Azospirillum: Loose associative ‘N’ fixing bacteria, respond more to grasses, maize, millets, sorghum, wheat.

• Phosphate solubilizing microorganisms(PSM): • They include several soil bacteria and fungi notably species of bacillus, penicillium, aspergilustic. • They secrete organic acid and lower the p. H in their vicinity, they bring about dissolution of bound phosphorus in soil/ • Plant growth promoting Rhizobacter (PGPR) • A group of bacteria colonize roots rhizosphere in soil. They inoculate and promote growth by suppression of certain diseases(Bio protectant), and also promote nutrient acquisition (Bio -stimulant). • Applied aspect • During composting the media is treated with ‘N’ fixing bacteria and P solubilizer to accelerate the process.

Amounts of nutrients fixed by bio-fertilizers Microorganism Nutrients fixed. Kg ha-1 year-1 Rhizobia 50 - 300 Kg N Beneficiary crops Azotobacter 2 - 20 Kg N Azospirillum 10 – 20 Kg N Azolla 90 Kg N Cottom, wheat, rice, barley, sunflower, vegetables Sugarcane, maize, millets, fodders, rice, wheat Rice Phosphate solubilizer Solubilize 50 -60 % of All crops fixed phosphorus in soil Different legume crops Kumar, R. N. and R. S. V. Kumawat (2017). Role of bio fertilizer in Agriculture. Popular Kheti. 5(4).

Effect of different bio-fertilizers on sugarcane productivity Microorganism used Cane yield t ha-1 Cane yield increase Reference Un-treated Treated tha-1 % Azotobacter 113. 8 118. 0 4. 2 3. 1 Dural, 1996 113. 2 118. 5 8. 2 4. 9 7. 8 4. 3 Snehal and Zinde, 1998 Azospirillum 105. 0 113. 6 105. 0 115. 5 10. 0 Snehal and Zinde, 1998 147. 0 160. 0 13. 0 8. 8 Kumarasamy, et. al. , 1992 94. 8 103. 1 8. 2 8. 6 Nasir Ahmad et. al. , 1997 Phosphatic solubilizers *Ramesh et. al. , 2004 Manoharan et. al. ,

• 8. SPENT WASH/ DISTILLERY EFFLUENT

Spent wash • A waste product of distilleries. • In its original form it is very toxic and lethal for aquatic life. • Its disposal is problem some, unless properly treated. • For agricultural purposes it is very valuable as fertilizer and as soil amendment for reclamation of alkali soils. • It is a rich source of potash, Ca, Mg, Chlorides and sulphates and organic matter, moderate source of Nitrogen, phosphorus and micronutrients.

Composition of spentwash Character p. H EC TSS BOD COD Org. carbon N P K Na Contents 3. 80 43 mg/l 2650 ” 43000 ” 95000 ” 3. 7 % 1460 mg/[ 326 ” 14300 ” 356 ” Chhaya and Kumar (2014) Character Contents Ca 6800 mg/l Mg 4384 ” Chlorides 10650 ” Cu 2. 8 ” Mn 9. 2 ” Fe 24. 6 ” Zn 7. 8 ” Bicarbonates 1530 ” Carbonates -

• For its proper use spent wash has to be treated to lower down its concentration of salts and oxygen. • For its treatment two methods are in vogue: • Bio methenation process • Repeated filtration in lagoons • For its utilization, no systematic work has been reported in Pakistan. • Usual method is spray application of spent wash on SPM for composting. • Sprinkling spent wash on flat vacant field before cane planting. • Fertigation in cane crop in 1: 20 ratio of spentwash and water

Composition of treated spentwash Character Contents p. H 7. 37 EC 17. 32 mg/l BOD 7200 “ COD 18032 ” Bicarbonates 3. 9 ” Chlorides 3266 ” N 748 ” P 112 ” Kamble et. al. , 2017 Character Contents K Na Ca Mg Zn Fe Mn Cu 6213 mg/l 234 ” 521 ” 233 ” 8. 34 ” 21. 25 ” 4. 35 ” 6. 55 ”

Spentwash spreading in field: pre-planting treatment in HSM area