evaluation of some new sugarcane varieties for cane ... - Paas.com.pk

Pakistan Journal of Science (Vol. 63 No. 1 March, 2011)EVALUATION OF SOME NEW SUGARCANE VARIETIES FOR CANE YIELD ANDQUALITY IN DIFFERENT AGRO-ECOLOGICAL ZONES OF SINDHA. H. Mari, R. N. Panhwar, G. M. Kaloi, G. S. Unar, S. Junejo, M. Chohan and A. W. Jagirani *National Sugar Crops Research Institute, PARC, Makli, Thatta * Technology Transfer Institute, PARC,Tando JamABSTRACT: A comparative study for cane yield and quality performance on five newlydeveloped sugarcane varieties namely, HoTh-401, HoTh-409, HoTh-420, HoTh-432 and HoTh-438against the standard variety Thatta-10 was conducted at three locations of Sindh viz., Matiari, Sangharand Tando Allahyar. All the varieties showed variable genetic behavior for cane yield, CCS% andsugar yield at different locations. The overall calculated average results for all three locations revealedthat HoTh-409 remained superior by producing maximum average cane yield against check varietyThatta-10. However, the variety HoTh-420 displayed almost equal performance for average cane yieldagainst the check variety. Likewise, the rest of the varieties like HoTh-438, HoTh-432 and HoTh-401exhibited comparable performance with regard to average cane yield but could not surpass the Thatta-10. The comparison of varietal means for commercial cane sugar percentage in all three locationsindicated that the varieties HoTh-401, HoTh-438 and HoTh-409 remained best by producingmaximum average CCS% against the Thatta-10. The comparison of varietals means for sugar yieldindicated that the variety HoTh-409 remained best by producing maximum average sugar yield. While,the check variety Thatta-10 and HoTh-420 remained almost similar to each other in terms of this trait.This one year’s study is not enough to judge the true potential of a variety. Therefore, it was suggestedthat the performance of these varieties should to be investigated under different agro-climaticconditions of Sindh for several years so as to extract the ample conclusions.Key words: Sugarcane, varieties, cane yield, quality, agro-ecological of Sindh.INTRODUCTIONSugarcane (Saccharum officinarum, L) is themajor cash and industrial crop of Pakistan (Junejo etal., 2009). It is a source of raw material to sugarindustry and generates employment for many people.Although, the survival of sugar industry in Pakistantotally depends upon cane cultivation (Junejo et al.,2010). The area under sugarcane cultivation in Pakistanhas increased manifold and now it is being grown onarea of 942,900 hectares with total annual production of49,372,900 tones (Annual Report PASMA-SZ, 2010).Although the domestic sugarcane production hassteadily increased during the last four decades (Bashirand Saeed, 2000) yet our national average cane yield is52.40 t ha -1 and average sugar recovery is 9.05%(Annual Report PASMA-SZ, 2010), which is muchlower than the production potential of 256 t ha -1 inexisting domestic varieties (Gill, 1995). Besides somany factors, yield and production has become stagnantfor last so many years due to our limited sources andother unfavorable factors (Jamil and Gopang, 2005),poor soil fertility, conventional sowing methods, lowseed rate, poor quality seed, poor agro management,low yielding varieties in tonnage and quality (Ahmed,1988) as well as their unsuitable behavior, which isdeteriorating rapidly with the passage of time.(Usmanikhali et al., 2005).The promising varieties adapted to differentclimatic conditions have been evolved from time to time.Such varieties have a large adoptability than others andhence, are grown more widely through out the area (Baker,1981 and Glaz, 1982). According to Fanguay andGiamalava (1973) out field test is the final stage of testing,carried out in several locations, with different soil types forselecting varieties with desirable characteristic. Miller(1971) and Freeman and Walker (1973) reported thatvarieties in selection stage-iv (final selection stage) areevaluated in the plant, first and second ratoon crop underdifferent agro-climatic conditions and the most suitable oneare considered for release for growers. Chattha et al. (2004)stressed to study the new genotypes under farmerscondition before final recommendations. Similarly,Chohan et al. (2007) tested seven newly developedsugarcane varieties for cane yield and quality at differentlocations. They reported variable genetic behavior for allvarieties under testing at different locations. Kaloi et al.(2007) conducted experiments on the performance ofdifferent sugar cane under agro-climatic conditions ofMatiari, Sindh.The old varieties are getting absolute, thusevaluation of new prodigious sugarcane varietiespossessing higher cane and sugar yield potential is the32

Pakistan Journal of Science (Vol. 63 No. 1 March, 2011)necessity of the time for the betterment of growers andmillers. Keeping in view the basic and most importantaspects of grower and millers, the study was conductedto evaluate the best suitable sugarcane varieties frocommercial cultivation in Sindh.MATERIALS AND METDODSThis experiment was conducted at threelocations of Sindh viz. Matiari, Tando Allahyar andJhol district Sanghar during 2006-07 to study the caneyield and quality performance of five newly developedsugarcane varieties namely; HoTh-401, HoTh-409,HoTh-420, HoTh-432 and HoTh-438 against thestandard variety Thatta-10. At each location thevarieties were planted in 8 meters long, three rows atone meter row to row distance under randomizedcomplete block design with three replications. Fertilizerand insect pest and disease control measures were takenas per recommendations (Junejo et al., 2009). All threerows from each plot were harvested for the record ofcane yield data. Five harvested canes were then utilizedfor the record of data on commercial cane sugarpercentage (CCS %) according to following formulagiven by Meade and Chen (1977).3PCCS % =2⎛ F + 5 ⎞⎜1−⎟ −⎝ 100 ⎠B2⎛ F + 3⎞⎜1−⎟⎝ 100 ⎠Where, “P” indicates Pol% in Juice, “B” Brix% in juice and“F” Fiber% in cane.Sugar Yield was calculated asSugar Yield = Cane yield X CCS%100The data collected was subjected to statistical analysisusing ANOVA through MSTAT-C (1991) microcomputer statistical programme, Michigan StateUniversity, USA.RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONAnalysis of variance for individual trials ateach location revealed that there were highly significant(P < 0.01%) differences among the sugarcane varietiesfor cane yield in all locations (Table-1).Means of cane yield of all varieties at eachlocation in Table-2 revealed that all the varietiesperformed variably under new set of agro-climaticconditions. The variety HoTh-409 remained superior byproducing statistically highest cane yield in all threelocations. While, cane yield in HoTh-420 and HoTh-438 varieties remained almost matching with checkvariety at Ferozuddin Shah agricultural farm. Moreover,the varieties HoTh-420 and HoTh-438 showedsatisfactory performance at Muhammad Hassan Keerioagricultural farm and remained statistically on par withcheck variety in terms of cane yield. In case of Anwar AliBachani agricultural farm, the yield performance of varietyHoTh-402 remained better against the check variety, while,the varieties HoTh-432 and HoTh-438 were statistically onpar with check variety in terms of cane yield.The analysis of variance regarding comparison ofmeans for cane yield in all three locations revealed thatthere were highly significant (P < 0.01%) for cane yield.The interaction of locations and varieties (AxB) remainednon significant (Table-1). The comparison of varietalmeans for cane yield in all three locations (Fig-2) indicatedthat the variety HoTh-409 gave 143.77 t ha -1 average caneyield relative to check variety Thatta-10 (118.55 t ha -1 ).While, the varieties HoTh-420 and HoTh-438 by producingstatistically on par average cane yield of 117.96 and 112.88t ha -1 , respectively, remained almost equal to check variety.In case of commercial cane sugar percentage theanalysis of variance for individual trials at each locationrevealed that the differences in varietal treatments couldnot reach the level of significance at Ferozuddin Shahagricultural farm and Muhammad Hassan Keerioagricultural farm. While, the differences with regard toCCS% were highly significant (P < 0.01%) at Anwar AliBachani agricultural farm (Table-1).Means of CCS% of all varieties at each location inTable-2 revealed that at Ferozuddin Shah agricultural farmthe trend of increased results for CCS% was observed bydifferent varieties except HoTh-432, which remainedalmost equal to check variety Thatta-10 in terms of thistrait. While, at Muhammad Hassan Keerio agriculturalfarm the CCS% of varieties was almost satisfactory andcomparable to check variety. Moreover, the varietiesHoTh-401, HoTh-409, HoTh-432 and HoTh-438 producedstatistically maximum CCS% against the check variety atAnwar Ali Bachani agricultural farm, while at the samelocation the variety HoTh-420 was statistically at par withcheck variety in terms of CCS%.The analysis of variance regarding comparison ofmeans for CCS% in all three locations revealed that nonsignificant differences were observed amongst the varietaltreatments for this trait. The interaction of locations andvarieties (AxB) remained non significant (Table-1).The comparison of varietal means for commercialcane sugar percentage in all three locations (Fig-2)indicated that the variety HoTh-401 remained on top withthe average CCS of 14.13% followed by HoTh-438 andHoTh-409 with average CCS of 13.86 and 13.84%,respectively; against the check variety Thatta-10 whichgave average CCS of 13.74%. While, rest of the varietiesHoTh-420 and HoTh-432 displayed satisfactory resultswith average CCS of 13.63 and 13.48%, respectively; butcould not beat Thatta-10.The higher cane yield and sugar content in thevarieties might be due to the heavy bearing tendency ofthese varieties and their adoptability to agro-climaticconditions of the area. In addition to that, the inherent33

Pakistan Journal of Science (Vol. 63 No. 1 March, 2011)genetic make up of a variety might have contributedtowards higher and lower cane yield and sugar content.Genetically improved varieties might have ability toproduce satisfactory results for per hectare yield andsugar percentage under given set of environmentalconditions. EL-Geddway, et al. (2002) stated thatsugarcane varieties are greatly affected by genetic makeup. According to Keerio, et al, (2003) unless the geneticpotentialities of a variety are high, mere provisions ofgrowing conditions such as manuring, irrigation etc.will not lead to appreciable improvement in cane orsugar content. The results are in agreement with thefinding of Chohan et al. (2007) and Kaloi et al. (2007)who reported variable genetic behavior of differentpromising sugar cane varieties for cane yield andquality performance at different location of Sindh.As regards the sugar yield the analysis ofvariance for individual trials at each location in Table-1revealed that there were highly significant (P < 0.01%)differences among the sugarcane varieties for sugaryield at Ferozuddin Shah agricultural farm and AnwarAli Bachani agricultural farm. While, significant (P

Pakistan Journal of Science (Vol. 63 No. 1 March, 2011)Table-2 Performance of different promising sugarcane varieties at different locations of Sindh.VarietyCaneyield(t ha -1 )Ferozuddin Shahagricultural farm,MatiariCCS(%)SugarYield(t ha -1 )Hassan Keerioagricultural farm, Jhole,district SangharCaneyield(t ha -1 )CCS(%)SugarYield(t ha -1 )Anwar Ali Bachani agriculturalfarm, Tando AllahyarCaneyield(t ha -1 )CCS(%)SugarYield(t ha -1 )HoTh-401 98.00 d 13.84 13.56 b 100.33 bc 13.75 13.79 bc 109.00 c 14.81 a 16.14 bHoTh-409 143.00 a 13.82 19.76 a 133.33 a 13.55 18.06 a 155.00 a 14.16 ab 21.94 aHoTh-420 117.33 bc 13.95 16.36 b 111.55 b 13.62 15.19 b 125.00 b 13.34 b 16.67 bHoTh-432 108.66 cd 13.32 14.47 b 89.33 c 13.04 11.64 c 117.33 bc 14.08 ab 16.52 bHoTh-438 120.33 bc 13.97 16.81 ab 104.33 b 13.77 14.36 b 114.00 bc 13.84 ab 15.77 bThatta-10 123.66 b 13.56 16.76 ab 114.0 b 13.78 15.70 ab 118.00 bc 13.90 b 16.40 bCV %LSD-0.05%LSD-0.01%6.7014.4420.542.65 NS 11.083.284.667.2714.4020.486.80 NS 9.182.47NS5.3511.9817.053.330.851.21Note: Means followed by the same letter in a column do not differ significantly at 0.05% level of probability.6.311.972.81REFERENCESAnnual Report Pakistan Sugar Mills Association-SindhZone (2010).P-26 & 35.Ahmed, R., M. Salim and M. S. Nazir, Autumn ratooningpotential of five sugarcane varieties. Pakistan J.Agric. Res., 13: 26-29 (1991).Baker, K. M., Variety review. Jamica 1980. Tech. Bull.(GEPLACEA), 20: 5 (1981).Bashir, S. and M. Saeed. Effect of planting pattern andseedling density on yield, weed mass productionand crop lodging in sugarcane cultivar SPSG-26Pakistan Sugar J. 15(4): 22-25 (2000).Chattha, A. A., M. A. Iqbal, F. Ahmed and M. U. Chattha.CPF-243 an early maturing, high yielding andhigh sugar variety. Pakistan Sugar J. 14: 25-27(2004).Chohan, M., R. N. Panhwar., D. B. Panhwar., M. A.Memon., G. S. Unar and A. H. Mari. Performanceof some new sugarcane varieties for cane yield35

Pakistan Journal of Science (Vol. 63 No. 1 March, 2011)and quality under different agro-climaticconditions of Sindh. Pakistan J. Sci. Res. 59(1-2): 28-33 (2007).EL-Geddaway, I. H., D. G. Darwesh., A.A. El-Sherbiny., E. Eldin and A. El- Hadi (2002).Effect of row spacing and number ofbuds/seed setts on growth characters of ratooncrops for some sugarcane varieties. PakistanSugar J. 17: 7-14.Fanguay, H. P., and M. J. Giamalva. Sugarcane varietytesting at the out field level in Louisiana. Proc.ASSCT. 2: 71-72 (1973).Freeman, C. E., and R. L. Walker. The sugarcanedevelopment programme at the AgriculturalResearch and Education Centre, Belle Glade.Proc. ASSCT 2: 17-178 (1973).Gill, M. B., Physio agronomic studies on flat verses pitplantarion of autumn and spring sugarcane(Saccharum officinarum, L.). M.Sc. Thesisdepartment of Agronomy, University ofAgriculture, Faisalabad. P. 49-89 (1995).Galz, B., Sugarcane variety census. Sugar Azucar.76(12): 37-40 (1982).Kaloi, G. M., D. B. Panhwar., R. N. Panhwar, G. S.Unar., A. H. Mari and M. A. Bhutto. Geneticbehavior of different promising sugarcanevarieties for yield and yield contributingcharacters under agro-climatic conditions ofMatiari, Sindh. Pakistan Sugar J. 22(6): 7-77(2007).Keerio, H. K., R. N. Panhwar, Y. M. Memon, M. Y.Araien, M. Chohan and B. R. Qazi. Qualitativeand quantitative performance of some promisingand commercial sugarcane varieties under agroclimaticconditions of Thatta. Pakistan J. AppliedSci, 3 (10-12): 670-673 (2003).Jamil, A. and A. D. Gopang. Sugarcane traveling seminarreport 2004. Coordinated Sugar Crops Program,NARC Islamabad. P. 6 (2005).Junejo, S., G. M. Kaloi, R.N. Panhwar, M. Chohan, A.A.Junejo and A.F. Soomro. Performance of somenewly developed sugar cane genotypes for somequantitative and qualitative traits under Thattaconditions. The J. Anim. Plan Sci. 20(1): 40-43(2010).Miller, J. D., USDA. Sugarcane selection programme inFlorida. Proc. ASSCT. Vol. 1: 145-149 (1971).MSTAT-C, Manual. Micro statistical programme,Michigan State University, USA (1991).Meade, G. P. and J.C.P. Chen. Cane Sugar Hand Book, 10 thEdn. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New Yark. pp. 947(1997).Usmanikhaili, M. U., H. I. Majeedano, N. Keerio, G. M.Kakar and S. Shahani. Growth and yieldperformance of promising sugarcane varieties incomparison with the commercial variety. Indus J.of Plant Sci. 4(1): 45-50 (2005).Unejo, S., M. Chohan, A.A. Junejo, G.M. Kaloi, R.N.Panhwar and M. Y. Arain. Comparativeperformance of elite sugarcane genotypes in 4 thcycle for cane yield, yield components, qualityand borer complex infestation. The J. Anim. PlantSci., 19(4): 197-201 (2009).36