At Kuraz Sugar Project, South Omo Zone, Ethiopia

EFFECTS OF INTRA ROW SETTS SPACING ON LODGING, YIELD AND YIELD COMPONENTS OF SUGARCANE VARIETIES (Saccharum sp. hybrid) AT KURAZ SUGAR PROJECT, SOUTH OMO ZONE, ETHIOPIA

M.Sc. THESIS

TEREFE MUNTAZ MOLLA

SEPTEMBER, 2018

ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA EFFECTS OF INTRA ROW SETTS SPACING ON LODGING, YIELD AND YIELD COMPONENTS OF SUGARCANE VARIETIES (Saccharum sp. hybrid) AT KURAZ SUGAR PROJECT, SOUTH OMO ZONE, ETHIOPIA

TEREFE MUNTAZ MOLLA

A THESIS SUMITTED TO COLLEGE OF AGERICULITURE SCIENCS, DEPARTEMENT OF PLANT SCIENCES, SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES, ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

IN PARITIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGERE OF MASTER OF SUGARCANE PRODUCTION TECHNOLOGY

SEPTEMBER, 2018

ARBA MINCH

DECLARATION

I hereby declare that this M.Sc. specialty or equivalent thesis my original work and has not been presented for a Degree in any other University, and all source of material used for this thesis have been duly acknowledged.

Name: TEREFE MUNTAZ MOLLA

Signature:

Date:

iii

ADVISORS’ THESIS SUBMISSION APPROVAL SHEET

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “Effects of intra-row setts spacing on lodging, yield and yield component of sugar cane varieties (Saccharum sp. hybrid) at Kuraz Sugar Project, South Omo Zone, Ethiopia.” Submitted in partial Fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Master's with specialization in Agronomy of Sugarcane Production Technology, the Graduate program of the Department /School of Agriculture, Department of plant science/, and has been carried out by, and has been carried out by TEREFE MUNTAZ MOLLA, Id. No. R.MSc.162/2006, under our supervision. Therefore, we recommend that the student has fulfilled the requirements and hence hereby can submit the thesis to the department for defense.

Name of principal advisor Signature Date

A.Q. KHAN (Professor) ------

Name of co-advisor Signature Date

DEREJE TSEGAYE (PhD) ------

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I deem it my privilege in expressing my deep sense of gratitude and adoration to researcher Mr. Abiy Getaneh and Dr. Essayas from Wonji research center, Dr. Dereje Tsegaye and Professor A.Q. Khan, from Agricultural College, department of Plant science. They are advisory Committee for their learned counsel, inspiring guidance, patient hearing and sustained interest evinced during every phase of the present study and in the preparation of this thesis.

The financial assistance provided by the south Omo Zone Agricultural and natural resource main department in the form of stipend is sincerely acknowledged. I place my great owe to Mr. Alemayehu Bawidi, south Omo Zone Administrator and Mr. Akinaw Kawiza, former Manager of south Omo Zone Agricultural natural resource main department for their positive attitude toward financial support during my course of study.

I want to grateful to Wonji research center for material support and by giving research Technicians and Laboratory Technologists. And also, I give my great pleasure to Omo Kuraz Sugar Project research center manager Mr. Mohummed Ibrahim, researchers, field data collectors (Mr. Dejene Teshome, Getachew Lembossa, Abegaz Metekissa and Melikamu Feyera) and laboratory technicians (Mr. Kebed Feyera) who showed positive attitudes toward my research activities.

My deepest admiration and heartfelt thanks for my family, Zenebech Muntaz, Lemelem Muntaz and Gelanehe Gebere who have been a constant source of inspiration and moral support during the period of the present session, and I thank all my well-wishers and others not mentioned here, who helped me directly or indirectly for their kind co- operation and support rendered to me.

I extend my warmest thanks to Arba Minch University, College of Agricultural staffs, department of plant science, for their enormous patience and constant encouragement. I am very much grateful to my friend Semu Yitaferu for his helping how to analysis the data on SAS software.

Finally, I thank all my well-wishers and others not mentioned here, who helped me directly or indirectly for their kind co-operation and support rendered to me.

ACRONYMS/ABBREVATIONS

ANOVA Analysis of Variance

SBS Stalk Bending Strength

CCS Commercial Cane Sugar

CV Coefficient of Variation

DAP Di Ammonium Phosphate

DMA Dry Matter Accumulation

EIA Ethiopian Investment Agency

PPM Parts Per Million

FAO Food and Agricultural Organization

LSD Least Significant Difference m.a.s.l meter above sea level

MoFED Ministry of Finance and Economic Development

SAS Statistical Analysis Software

SNNPRS Southern Nations Nationalities and Peoples’ Regional State

LIST OF TABELS

TABLE No. PAGE No.

Table 1. Physical property of soil sampled from experimental field before planting operation, 2017. (Source: Wonji research center Laboratory) ...... 21

Table 2. Effect of variety and sett spacing on different growth and yield parameters grown during 2017/2018 cropping season ...... 24

Table 3. Effect of variety and sett spacing on different growth and yield parameters grown during 2017/2018 cropping season ...... 25

Table 4. Effect of variety and sett spacing on growth parameters of sugarcane varieties grown during 2017/2018 cropping season ...... 27

Table 5. Effect of variety and sett spacing on quality parameters (brix, pol and purity percent) grown during 2017 crop grown season...... 28

Table 6. Effect of variety and sett spacing on Estimated Cane Yield (t/ha), Estimated Recoverable Sugar (%) and Estimated Sugar Yield (t/ha) grown during 2017/ 2018 crop grown season...... 30

Table 7. Frequency distribution for physiological appearance of variety V1 (B52298) at different growth stage and sett spacing ...... 31

Table 8. Frequency distribution for physiological appearance of variety V2 (NCo 334) at different growth stage and sett spacing ...... 32

Table 9. Frequency distribution for physiological appearance of variety V3 (C86/112) at different growth stage and sett spacing ...... 32

vii

LIST OF FIGURE

FIGURE No. TITLE PAGE No.

Figure 3. 1 SNNPR ...... 14

Figure 3. 2 Map of Study Area-Kuraz, Salamago woreda ...... 14

viii

TABLES IN THE APPENDIX

Appendix 1 . Weather condition during the study period, 2017 ...... 39

Appendix 2. Soil chemical attributes in the surface (0-30 cm) and subsurface (30-60 cm layers), 3 days before planting. The data was analyzed at Wonji research station ...... 40

Appendix 3. Analysis of variance table for germination percentage in hectare ...... 41

Appendix 4. Analysis of variance table for number of first tiller in hectare ...... 41

Appendix 5. Analysis of variance table for number of second tiller in hectare...... 41

Appendix 6. Analysis of variance table for number of third tiller in hectare ...... 42

Appendix 7. Analysis of variance table for number of tiller in hectare ...... 42

Appendix 8. Analysis of variance table for cane forming stalk per hectare ...... 42

Appendix 9. Analysis of variance table for number of first millable cane per hectare .... 43

Appendix 10. Analysis of variance table for number of second millable cane per hectare ...... 43

Appendix 11. Analysis of variance table for number of millable cane (Mean) per hectare ...... 43

Appendix 12. Analysis of variance table for internodes per cane stalk in a given plot .... 44

Appendix 13. Analysis of variance table for cane weight in kilogram ...... 44

Appendix 14. Analysis of variance table for cane length in centimeter ...... 44

Appendix 15. Analysis of variance table for cane girth in centimeter ...... 45

Appendix 16. Analysis of variance table for brix percent of cane juice ...... 45

Appendix 17. Analysis of variance table for pol percent of cane juice ...... 45

Appendix 18. Analysis of variance table for purity percent of cane juice ...... 46

Appendix 19. Analysis of variance table for estimated cane yield tone per hectare ...... 46

Appendix 20. Analysis of variance table for estimated recoverable sugar percent ...... 46

Appendix 21. Analysis of variance table for estimated sugar yield in tone per hectare ... 47

Appendix 22. Summarized result on sprout and growth in variety ...... 47

Appendix 23. Summarized result on sprout and growth in spacing ...... 48

Appendix 24. Summarized result on growth, quality and yield parameters in variety ..... 49

Appendix 25. Summarized result on growth, quality and yield parameters in spacing .... 50

Appendix 26. Number of setts and buds of different sugarcane varieties used during planting time, 2017 ...... 52

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS DECLARATION ...... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... v ACRONYMS/ABBREVATIONS ...... vi LIST OF TABELS ...... vii LIST OF FIGURE...... viii TABLES IN THE APPENDIX ...... ix TABLE OF CONTENTS ...... xi ABSTRACT ...... xiii CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM ...... 3 1.3 OBJECTIVES ...... 3 1.3.1 General objective ...... 3 1.3.2 Specific objectives ...... 3 1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES ...... 4 1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY ...... 4 1.5 DELIMITATION OR SCOPE ...... 4 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ...... 5 2.1 Effects inter and intra row spacing on lodging, yield and yield components ...... 5 2.2 Effects of lodging on yield and yield components ...... 8 2.3 Factors affecting lodging ...... 10 2.3.1 Effects of depth of planting on lodging ...... 10 2.3.2 Effects of varietal characteristics on lodging ...... 11 2.4 Agronomic activities which promote lodging ...... 12 CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS ...... 14 3.1 Description of experimental Area ...... 14 3.1.1 Geographical location ...... 14 3.1.2. Climate...... 14 3.1.3. Soil Type...... 15 3.4 Materials of the study ...... 15 3.4.1 Selection of varieties ...... 15 3.4.2 Preparation of planting materials ...... 15

3.5 Methods ...... 15 3.5.1 Procedure, Experimental Design and Treatment ...... 15 3.5.2 Soil sampling and analysis ...... 16 3.5.3 Method of data collection ...... 16 3.5.4 Statistical analysis...... 19 CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...... 20 4.1 Soil Analysis ...... 20 4.2 Effects of intra row setts spacing on growth, yield and quality parameters...... 21 4.2.1 Plant population (germination percent, number of tillers, cane forming stalk and number of millable cane) dynamics ...... 21 4.2.2 On each stage of growth parameters (1st, 2nd and 3rd Tiller, cane forming stalk and 1st and 2nd cane stalks/NMC) ...... 21 4.2.3 Number of internodes, Cane weight, Cane length and Cane Girth ...... 25 4.2.4 Quality characteristics [Brix (%), Pol (%) and purity (%) of cane] ...... 28 4.2.5 Estimated cane yield, recoverable sugar and estimated sugar yield ...... 29 4.3. Effects of intra row setts spacing on cane lodging at different crop ages ...... 30 CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 34 REFERANCE ...... 36 APPENDIX ...... 39

xii

ABSTRACT Sugarcane production is affected by numerous factors which subsequently reduce cane and sugar yield. Among those constraints planting geometry is the most important one. To solve the problem, regarding to intra row setts spacing, research findings should be taken. However, research out puts concerning to this aspects is not available at Kuraz sugar project. Therefore, effects of intra row setts spacing on selected traits were carried out at this project with the objective of to determe the effecs of intra row setts spacing on lodging, cane and yield components of sugarcane varieties during the growing seasons of 2017/2018. The experiment was conducted in split plot design with four sugarcane varieties, B 52 298, N Co 334, C 86/112 and N 14 as main plots and four intra row setts spacing, 5cm overlapping of setts, end to end of setts, 10cm and 20cm space between three budded setts as sub plots, replicated five times. Plot size represented 4 rows of 5m length with inter- row distance of 1.45m. At closer intra- row spacing number of tillers, cane forming stalks, millable canes, number of internodes in cane, cane length and cane yield were recorded more than wider setts spacing. There were a significant differences (P<0.05) among varieties for these characters. Cane weight and cane girth was more at widest intra row sett spacing with significant difference for cane weight. Intra row setts spacing had no significant effect on quality characteristics, Brix, pol and purity % juice, recoverable sugar % cane and sugar yield. Variety, N Co 334 had higher Brix and pol % juice and sugar recovery % cane than other varieties. Varieties differed in cane and sugar yields with highest cane yield in variety, N14 and maximum sugar yield in obtained in varieties, N 14 and N Co 334. Intra-row setts spacing, except 8-month age of crop, had positive impact on cane lodging from 9 to 11 month. From the results it recommended that closer intra row sett spacing may be used for high cane and sugar yields at Kuraz sugar project, but alternatively it was recommended to use 10 cm between setts, without reducing cane and sugar yield. Cane lodging was more a varietal characteristic. Varieties with high cane and sugar yields and resistance to lodging may be planted at Kuraz sugar project.

Key words: Intra-row setts spacing, Sugarcane varieties, cane yield, cane juice, cane lodging.

xiii

xiv

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

Sugarcane, a giant member of the grass family, Poaceae (Gramineae) is the most important source of sugar or sucrose. Sugarcane belongs to the Genus, Saccharum of which cultivates species, Saccharum officinarum, called the noble cane is most important species which has been hybridized with other cultivated species (S. Barberi and S. sinense) and wild species (S. spontaneum) for the development of improved sugarcane varieties. The cultivated varieties of sugarcane, worldwide, are inter-species hybrids between the species of the Genus, Saccharum (Srivastava, 2009).

Sugarcane is responsible for the world production of more than 20 million tons of sugar annually and is widely grown as a plantation crop throughout the tropical and sub-tropical regions. Sugarcane is the world's largest crop by production quantity. It was cultivated on about 26.0 million hectares, in more than 90 countries, with a worldwide harvest of 1.83 billion tons. Brazil has the highest area, while Australia has the highest productivity tons/ha. Out of 121 sugarcane producing countries fifteen countries (Brazil, India, China, Thailand, Pakistan, Mexico, Cuba, Columbia, Australia, USA, Philippines, South Africa, Argentina, Myanmar, and Bangladesh) had 86% of area and 87.1% of production. Out of the total white crystal sugar production, approximately 70% comes from sugarcane and 30% from sugar beet (FAO, 2012).

Sugar production in Ethiopia started in 1954/55 when the Wonji Sugar Factory was commissioned and produced 15,843 tons of white sugar in the first campaign. The development of the sugarcane plantation was started on 5000 hectares in the upper reaches of the Awash basin, 100 km. South East of Addis Ababa. Currently, there are three large-scale sugar establishments in the country; two of them in the Awash Basin (Wonji /Showa and Metehara) and one (Finchaa) in the Blue Nile Basin. The present level of national production from the three-sugar estates is about 261,041 tons of sugar and 87,257 tons of molasses per annum respectively (EIA, 2012).

These three sugar factories have a production capacity of 280,000 tons of sugar annually. The total area developed by these factories is 23,769 hectares. With the presence of conducive condition for cane growing in Ethiopia, the Government has planned to increase sugar production to meet the current and future demand of the country and export surplus sugar abroad by the end of 2014 (MoFED, 2010).

At present, additional three sugar plantations are being developed by the government. Tana Beles sugar project is developing on 50,000 hectares with a production capacity 484,000 tons, Kuraz sugar project is developing on 175,000 hectares with a production capacity of 556,000 tons, and Wolkayit sugar project is developing on 25,000 hectares with a production capacity of 242,000 tons (EIA, 2012).

Ethiopia ranked first in productivity (126.9 tons/ha), but it ranked 55th in area and contributes only 0.1% in the world sugar production (FAO, 2012). Sugar production in the country has to be increased to meet the sugar consumption demand of the country which is only 60 % of the consumption demand. The cost of production of sugar has also to be minimized to compete in the international market. Thus, it is imperative to search alternative options of minimizing cost of sugar production on the one hand and minimizing the cost of milling and sugar processing in the sugar mills on the other hand in the country (EIA, 2012).

Among the factors that affect yield and quality of cane, the intra-row spacing and placement of seed cane pieces or setts at the time of planting is very important. Hence, the initial plant stand and the proper anchorage to the plants depend on the intra-row spacing and the type of setts used for planting, which affect the cane yield components like number of millable canes, cane length, cane diameter, cane weight, erectness of cane stalks in the field yield and the cane quality parameters not only in the plant crop but also in the subsequent ratoon crops. Similarly, as indicated by Collins (2002) sugarcane planting density is a function of inter and intra-row spacing, in addition to varietal differences (Sundara, 2000) and environmental conditions (Amolo and Abayo, 2004).

Raskar and Bhoi (2003) suggested that wider inter-row spacing produced more dry matter and cane yield over close inter-row spacing but quality parameters remained similar with different row spacing.

In Ethiopia, the effects of Intra- row setts spacing has been studied by Netsanet Ayele et al. (2012, 2014a, 2014b and 2014c) at Wonji, Metahara and Finchaa. The result revealed that there were highly significant differences among varieties for stalk height, stalk girth, plant population, cane yield, sugar yield and significant difference for stalk weight, number of millable canes and recoverable sucrose percent. However, the four intra-row spacing’s didn’t show significant difference for cane yield and sucrose cane.

1.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Sugarcane crop faces many constraints during production, some of the factors are climate, availability of water/ irrigation, agronomic activities, planting time, type of varieties to be planted, type of soil and its fertility status, planting geometry, land preparation system, etc.. Among these factors, planting geometry (intra row and inter row planting spacing) is one of the factors which leads reduction in production and quality of sugarcane crop in commercial farm. On sugarcane plant geometry some studies has been conducted by some researchers, which were indicated below.

Wider inter-row spacing produced high quality cane and cane yield over close inter-row spacing (Osman, 2011). In case of intra row setts spacing, studied in Ethiopia (at Wonji, Metahara and Finchaa) by Netsanet Ayele et al. (2012, 2014a, 2014b and 2014c) indicated that, except varietal difference, different intra-row spacing’s didn’t show significant.

South Omo Kuraz Sugar Project being the new one, no study has been undertaken on the effect of intra row setts spacing on cane characteristics, cane quality and cane yield. In addition, this project area had cane lodging problem, so why intra row sett spacing to be selected for research study, that is, to see its effect on cane lodging. Therefore, the research could provide information to the project, for increasing cane yield and quality of sugarcane, and to contribute to sustainable development of sugarcane production. This experimental research was conducted at Kuraz sugar project from 2017-2018 with the following objectives.

1.3 OBJECTIVES

1.3.1 General objective

To evaluate the effect of intra-row setts spacing on cane lodging, yield and yield components of sugarcane varieties at Kuraz Sugar Project.

1.3.2 Specific objectives

 To evaluate the effects of intra-row setts spacing on yield components and cane yield of sugarcane varieties.  To evaluate the effects of intra row setts spacing on cane lodging in sugarcane varieties.

 To determine suitable intra-row setts spacing for maximum cane and sugar yields in sugarcane in the study area.

1.3 RESEARCH QUESTION AND HYPOTHESES

At the end of the research, the result was answering the following questions:

 What was the effect of intra row sett spacing on yield and yield components in sugarcane varieties at Kuraz Sugar Project?  Does an intra row setts spacing had any effect on quality parameters and cane lodging in sugarcane at Kuraz Sugar project?  Which could be the suitable intra row setts spacing for maximum cane and sugar yields in study area?

 Ho: Intra row setts spacing will not show significant effect on lodging, on yield and yield components of sugarcane varieties at Kuraz sugar project.  HA: Intra row setts spacing will show significant effect on lodging, on yield and yield components of sugarcane varieties at Kuraz sugar project.

1.4 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY

The significance of the study was to find suitable intra row setts spacing for sugarcane plantation to obtain high cane and sugar yields through reducing cane lodging. Hence, Kuraz Sugar project as well as sugarcane growers was benefit from the results of the study for adoption of suitable intra- row setts spacing for sugarcane plantation for high cane and sugar yields.

1.5 DELIMITATION OR SCOPE

The research findings had scope for adoption at south Omo Kuraz sugar estate farm for increasing sugarcane product

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) is an old energy source for human beings and, more recently, a replacement of fossil fuel for motor vehicles. It provides sugar, besides bio-fuel, fiber, fertilizer, rum, soda, and myriads of by- products. However, its production is affected by several factors namely, agro climatic conditions, spacing, depth of planting, planting time, insect pests, variety type, soil fertility status, irrigation frequency, land preparation condition, proper agronomic activity (Hunsigi, 2001).

2.1 Effects inter and intra row spacing on lodging, yield and yield components

Row spacing is an agronomical practice that determines the spatial distribution of the plants, which affects canopy structure, light interception and radiation use efficiency and consequently, biomass production. It is one of the detrimental factors like density planting and nutrient management on sugarcane yields.

Spacing of crop plants mainly depend upon the growing habits and mostly governed by the soil and climatic conditions of the regions. Planting geometry and spatial arrangement is the fundamental factor, which regulates the microclimate in immediate vicinity of crop plants. An increase in inter row spacing from 60 cm to 90 cm increased leaf area index of sugarcane (Singh and Singh, 1984).

Lal (1988) who found that plant height increased with increase in row spacing. Cheema et al. (2002) also reported significantly more plant height at 120 cm spaced rows than 60 cm spaced rows. The taller plants in narrow row spacing’s can be due to more inter plant competition because of higher plant population than recommended, cited in (Muhammad et al., 2007).

Row distance has special role in crop management against lodging. In narrow row spaces crop is tender and soft, but at wider row distance cane stalks are thick and stout due to aeration and light interception. The row distance should be suitable to facilitate earthing up of stools. The animal driven ridgers work well at 75m- 90cm row distance, but tractors operation requires somewhat wider spacing (Malik, 1991).

Tsehay Girma (1993) was conducted an experiment at Wonji-Shoa Sugar Estate using three varieties (B52-298, B41-227 and Nco-334) with five different sett spacing (10 cm overlapping, 5 cm overlapping, end-to-end, 5 and 10 cm spacing between setts) the result revealed that there were a significant (P ≤ 0.01) differences among the varieties in most of

5 the characters studied. However, none of the intra-row spacing of setts resulted in significant differences in cane and sugar yields.

Sidhu et al. (1994) and Mishra et al., 2004 reported that number of millable canes increased significantly with increase in row spacing from 60 cm to 75 cm, but decreased significantly with further increase in row spacing from 75 to 90 cm. Similarly, Mahadevaswamy, 1997 stated that higher density of planting at 75 cm resulted significantly higher shoot population and millable cane population compared to 90 cm under sandy loam soils at Sugarcane Breeding Institute, Coimbatore cited in (Jayaramudu, 2012).

A study conducted by Girma Welide (1997) at Finchaa Sugar Estate using four varieties (B41227, B52298, Co 449 and Nco 334) with different sett spacing (5cm overlapping, end-to-end, double and double + end-to-end alternatively) the result revealed that the four planting densities had non-significant (P ≥ 0.01) differences in the main sugarcane yield parameters and the ultimate sugar yield of the plant cane.

Muhammad et al., 2007 conducted an experiment to know the influence of planting spacing on growth and yield of spring planted sugarcane. The result revealed that Sugarcane germination percentage, tillers per m2, plant height in meters, millable canes per m2 and cane yield t ha-1 increased progressively with the increase in row spacing from 45 to 120 cm.

Netsanet Ayele (2009) conducted an experiment at Tendaho Sugar Estate plantation with the objective of determine the optimum intra row sett spacing (5cm overlapping, end to end, 10 cm and 20 cm of between setts) for some sugarcane varieties (Co 680, N14 and Co 740) and to found out the effect of bud number on germination, growth parameters, cane and sugar yield. The result revealed that there was a significance (p< 0.01) difference among varieties for mentioned traits, but not for intra row setts spacing.

Osman et al. (2011) conducted an experiment on performance of the three sugar cane varieties, G.98-28, G.99-160 and G.T.54-9 as plant cane under three row spacing of (80, 100 and 120 cm). The increasing row spacing up to 120 cm recorded the highest values of stalk height, diameter, brix (%), sucrose (%), purity (%), number of millable canes/plot, sugar recovery (%), cane and sugar yields/plot in the plant cane and 1st ratoon crops compared with the other two spacing.

Netsanet Ayele et al. (2012) conducted an experiment at Metahara Sugar Estate plantation from 2005-2010 with the objective of determining the effect of four intra-row sett spacing [10 cm between setts, 5 cm between setts, setts placed end-to-end, and setts placed ear-to-ear (5 cm overlapping)] on the performance of three sugarcane varieties (B52298, Nco 334 and B41227). The result indicated that sucrose percent of cane, cane yield, and estimated sugar yield did not show significant differences in response to spacing as well as due to the interaction effect of spacing and variety. However, the number of millable canes at harvest was significantly (P ≤ 0.01) affected by the main effect of spacing for the plant cane and mean of crops (plant cane and ratoons).

Omoto et al. (2014) conducted an experiment on effect of season, location, cultivar (CO 945, EAK 73-335 and KEN 83-737) and spacing (row spacing 1.2 m and 1.5 m) on yield and quality of sugarcane at Kenya. The result revealed that both row spacing 1.2 m and 1.5 m did not affect cane yields. However, Brix (%), Sucrose (%) and Purity (%) differed significantly between cultivars. The relationship between cane yield and stalk population was positive and significant, which indicated stalk population is a strong determinant of cane yield. The results also indicated that cane yield was significantly affected by location and cane quality by cultivars.

Netsanet Ayele et al. (2014) studied an experiment on the effect of four intra-row setts spacing [10 cm between setts, 5 cm between setts, setts placed end-to-end, and setts placed ear-to-ear (5 cm overlapping)] on the performance of three sugarcane varieties (B52/298, NCo334 and B41227) at Metahara sugar estate of Ethiopia. The result revealed that, sucrose percent of cane, cane yield, and estimated sugar yield did not show significant differences in response to spacing as well as due to the interaction effect of spacing and variety. However, the number of millable canes at harvest was significantly (P ≤ 0.01) affected by the main effect of spacing for the plant cane and mean of crops (plant cane and ratoons).

Netsanet Ayele et al. (2014) studied the influence of five intra-row row sett Spacings [10 cm between setts, 5 cm between setts, setts placed end to end, ear-to ear (5 cm overlapping of setts) and ear-to-ear (10 cm overlapping of setts)] on Yield and Yield Components of Some performance Sugarcane Varieties (B52/298, NCo 334 and B41227) at Finchaa Sugar Estate. The result revealed that, Spacing and its interaction with variety did not affect cane yield, cane sucrose content and estimated sugar yield.

Netsanet Ayele and Samuel Tegene (2014) were studied the effect of number of buds per sett and intra-row setts spacing / end to end of setts, 5cm overlapping of setts, 10 cm and 20cm between setts on yield and yield components of sugarcane at Tendaho sugar project. There were highly significant differences among varieties for stalk height, stalk girth, plant population, cane yield, sugar yield and significant difference for stalk weight, number of millable canes and recoverable sucrose percent. However, the four intra-row spacing’s didn’t show significant difference for cane yield and sucrose cane. The number of buds per sett also didn’t show significant difference for the characters measured.

EI-Lattief (2016) was conducted an experiment on two ratoon crops with the objective of evaluating the effects of three row spacing (100, 120, 140 cm) on yield and yield attributes of three sugarcane varieties (F 153, G. 85-37 and G.T. 54-9). The result revealed that, the narrow row spacing (100 cm) gave the highest values of, number of valid stalks per ha and cane yield per ha. On the other hand, the wide row spacing (140 cm) gave the highest values of stalk height, stalk thickness and stalk weight.

Endris Yesuf (2018) conducted an experiment at Metahara sugar state to determine optimum population density under different intra row spacing and to observe ethephon effect. The result revealed that the growth parameters yield and yield components of sugarcane were significantly affected by the varieties except sprout percent and sugar yield. Except tiller count and number of millable stalk all the parameters considered did not show significant variation under different intra-row set spacing. Ethephon application at planting does not increase sprout percent, tiller count and stalk heights. Sett spacing influenced neither cane yield nor sugar yield.

2.2 Effects of lodging on yield and yield components

Lodging had deleterious effect both on yield and quality of cane, and caused tremendous economic losses both to growers and sugar factory. Once the crop was lodged the grower and industry had to bear the losses, nevertheless, the losses could be minimized if lodged crop was harvested for crushing at the earliest. But severely lodged and badly damaged crop if mixed with normal healthy stalks, would depress the juice quality. The juice of a lodged crop was heavily contaminated with non- sugar forming bacteria that would deteriorate the juice during its clarification process. The overall effect of lodging was the decline in cane weight and increase in fiber, fall in juice quality and rise in invert sugars. Yield and quality losses steadily increased with time after lodging. Lodging also induced

8 buds to sprout and develop side shoots. The badly lodged crop did not give healthy sprouts from its stubbles. In case the crop was lodged much earlier in the harvested season, it was not likely to give good ratoon (Malik, 1991).

Cenicana (1982) reported that the amount of extraneous material increased in lodged canes, which in turn diminished the efficiency of juice extraction in milling process, which induced greater losses to sucrose by increased reducing sugars, cited in (Amayal et al., 1996).

Ahmad (1997) was reported that lodging caused about 30 % reduction in cane yield and 8.63 % in commercial cane sugar.

Singh et al. (1999) observed a significant impact of lodging in sugarcane on growth, biomass accumulation and sugar yield, as it affected a number of growths and yield attributes, including the rate of biomass accumulation, radiation use efficiency (RUE) and sugar concentration of the stalks. In their experiment they found 18% reduction in sugar yield due to lodging.

Berding and Hurney (2005) reported that lodging of sugarcane significantly decreased fresh cane yield and commercial cane sugar (CCS), increased suckering and stalks deterioration. Hence, the prevention of lodging in sugarcane could increase cane yield (11-15%), CCS (3-12%) and sugar yield (15-35%), cited in (Singkham et al., 2013).

Heerdena et al. (2015) studied the effect of standing cane and natural lodging in irrigated ratoon crop. In one treatment the cane in each plot was allowed to grow erect through support of bamboo frames that prevented lodging. In the other treatment, the cane was not supported and could lodge at any stage. The result of the experiment revealed that lodging resulted in decreased estimated recoverable cane sugar/ERC/ yields of up to 20.6 t/ha, ERC % up to 12.6%, cane yield 8.4 t/ha and yield components. Stalk length, stalk fresh mass, stalk diameter and internodes number per stalk decreased 10.3 cm, 20.3 g/stalk, 0.7 mm, 9.1, respectively.

Prevention of lodging increased cane yield by 11-15%, Commercial Cane Sugar/CCS/ by 3-12% and sugar yield by 15-35%, at the final harvest in August/ September, depending upon the extent and frequency of the lodging events. Apart from stalk death, lodging reduced the biomass and sugar content of the live stalks by reducing both the radiation interception and Radiation Use Efficiency/RUE/ of the crops. The economic losses from lodging were even greater due to the dilution effects from lower CCS of dead and rat

9 damaged cane. There was no evidence of any yield plateau or stalk loss when all the stalks, viz. live, dead and rat-damaged, were taken into account (Singh et al., 2002).

Lodging is known to reduce the productivity of sugarcane through lower biomass production and a reduction in cane quality (Muchow et al., 1995; Singh et al., 2002; Berding and Hurney, 2005). These effects are caused by a reduction in radiation interception, radiation use efficiency, stalk smothering, stalk death and stalk snapping in lodged crops (Muchow et al., 1995; Singh et al., 2002; Park et al., 2005). More labour input is also required to harvest lodged cane and reduced payloads of cane delivered to the mill are common. Mechanical harvesting of lodged cane also results in infield damage to disrupted stools, which causes gaps inside the cane rows (Singh et al., 2002), cited in (Heerdena et al., 2015).

2.3 Factors affecting lodging

2.3.1 Effects of depth of planting on lodging

Broadhead et al. (1963) found that deeper planting reduced lodging, although this work was done with conventional tillage. Hurney et al. (2007) compared lodging between double disc opener and conventionally planted cane and found no difference; however, the cane growth was impaired due to unusually dry conditions, cited in Sarwar et al. (2000).

Conventional growers try to avoid lodging and reduction in yield by burying billets 12–15 cm deep prior to closure of the crop canopy. This also protects the stool from damage during the harvesting operation. However, double disc opener (DDO) direct drilled billets are intentionally planted shallow (5–7 cm) as the low soil temperatures in deeper soil would inhibit shoot development. Sufficient soil moisture is often closer to the surface in prepared beds at shallow depth, cited in (Nv Halpin and AjDougall, 2008).

Rajkumara (2008) was studied the effect of two depth of planting, 120 mm and 260 mm depth on lodging. The results revealed that root anchorage by planting setts at 260 mm depth had a very low lodging while planting at 120 mm depth was prone to lodging.

Trench planting may be convenient and efficient planting system in saving irrigation water and reducing lodging due to easiness in inter-culture and earthing-up operations (Malik et al., 1996).

2.3.2 Effects of varietal characteristics on lodging

Malik (1991) was reported that some of sugarcane varieties were tolerate lodging while others were prone to lodging. Lodging tolerance is an inherent capability of varieties having hard rind, well-developed root system, tapering cane stalks with light weight growing tops. Varieties having compact stool with erect growth habit are preferred than the varieties with loose scattered stalks and bent position..

Skinner (1960), and Berding and Hurney (2005) suggested that stalk morphological traits such as weight and length were not determining factors for lodging. Rather, it is more likely that deeper rooting varieties were less likely to lodge in crops viz., sugarcane (Kumar et al., 2002), maize (Ennos et al., 1993) and wheat (Crook and Ennos, 1993), cited in (NvHalpin and AjDougall, 2008).

Amayal et al. (1996) studied on characterization of lodging in sugarcanes. They found significant correlation between lodging and plant height (r = 0.53**); but not between lodging and fiber, diameter or cane production. Nevertheless, the lodging that occurred in this experiment was intermediate and that could be the reason for the low or non-existent relationship between cane production and lodging.

Sharma and Khan (1984) studied lodging in sugarcane. The results revealed that lodging in sugarcane increased typically with increasing stalk height. High correlation was observed between lodging and stalk height. They suggested that resistance to lodging was conferred by short sugarcane stalks. The result also showed that, stalk weight and stalk thickness (diameter) at the top of the stalk aggravated lodging, cited in (Heerdena et al., 2015).

Singh et al. (2002) reported that better grown crop of sugarcane were more lodged than that poorly grown crops. Therefore, the selection for lodging resistance lines should use indirect selection under normal crop growth. The better understanding of the traits related to lodging resistance in sugarcane and genetic diversity for it will be useful for selection of lodging resistance in sugarcane, cited in (Rajkumara, 2008).

White et al. (2006) stated that rind hardness played an important role in developing resistance against various a-biotic and biotic stresses all over the world in sugarcane. One difficult factor associated with releasing sugarcane borer-resistant cultivars is the positive relationship between resistance and high fiber content. Selection of sugarcane borer-

11 resistant clones increases the frequency of ide-types with high fiber, pith, tight leaf sheaths and increased rind hardness of immature internodes, cited in (Singh et al., 2013).

Singh et al. (2013) also reported that rind hardness was an important trait and showed significant positive correlation with sugar yield and sugar content. The study also revealed that with the reduction in rind hardness, sugar recovery might increase. The finding also indicated that the rind hardness could play as a key role in the selection of elite genotype in breeding program to develop high sugar, high yielding, erect, non- lodging, disease and insect resistant varieties.

2.4 Agronomic activities which promote lodging

Pinthus (1973) reported that entire application of nitrogen at planting time resulted in lodging, irrespective of nitrogen status of the soil. Application at early booting or at first irrigation was ideal to have lower percentage of lodging. Similarly, Hobbs et al. (1998) studied the effect of nitrogen rate on lodging. The high rates of nitrogen application increased lodging by making plants taller, which ranged from 2.3% to 10%. Heavy nitrogen reduced the strength of stem base and the anchorage system, stem diameter and stem wall width. In general, its effect on root growth was less than on shoot growth and therefore, increased N- supply will always resulted in an increased shoot: root ratio, which was conducive to lodging, cited in (Rajkumara, 2008).

Frequent irrigation in the early stages of crop development the root system developed in upper surface. To promote roots growth to deeper layers, a slight moisture stress should be allowed in early plant growth stage. Heavy irrigation application to a well grown crop was one of the main causes of lodging. Care had to be exercised while irrigating the crop. Heavy irrigation caused loosening of the root mass and crop was more prone to lodging at higher wind speed. Light frequent irrigation was better than heavy irrigation. The soil must not remain wet; it should be intermittently kept wet and dry with better support to root system (Malik, 1991).

Malik (1991) was reported that very fertile soil produce vigorous heavy crop which has more tendencies to lodging compared to a weak crop. Heavy soils need very judicious application of fertilizer at right time. Late application makes the crop more succulent, which is more prone to lodging.

Malik (1991) stated that, deep ploughing helps the roots to penetrate to deeper layers. Well-established deep root system gives better anchorage to cane plant, against lodging. Similarly, other agricultural activities like, earthing up, gives anchorage and additional support to the stool as an aid in keeping cane stalks erect. Propping (Tying) also, wrapped with dried twisted leaves, without breaking and cane stalks are tied together which used for small cultivation area to break wind speed.

CHAPTER THREE: MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Description of experimental Area

3.1.1 Geographical location

The Kuraz Sugar Development Project command area is located between 508’18”– 6016’59” N latitude and 35043’37”- 36013’54”E longitude about 918 km south west of Addis Ababa. It covers areas of Selamago and Nyangatom woredas of South Omo Zone, Minit Shasha and Maji woredas of Bench-Maji Zone and Decha woreda of Kafa Zone. The project is in Omo-Gibe River Basin .The topography of the area is flat with a slope of less than 2% in most places. Its elevation ranges from 370 - 400 m.a.s.l (Dereje, 2014). The area have a mean annual total rainfall of 400 mm (EIA, 2012).The experiment was conducted from 2017-2018 cropping seasons using plant cane crops.

Figure 3. 1 SNNPR Figure 3. 2 Map of Study Area-Kuraz, Salamago woreda

3.1.2. Climate

The current study area experiences typically a sub-tropical semi-arid climate (Kolla agro- climate) according to (EIA, 2012). The mean maximum and minimum monthly temperature of the command area were 36.490C to 260C, respectively. However, the maximum temperature ranges between 270C in November to 40.180C in March and the minimum temperature ranges between 32.720C in June to 60C in October. The mean monthly rainfall varied between 317.79 mm in April to 263.8 mm in February, with total

14 annual rainfall of 1132.69 mm. The monthly relative humidity varied between 96 % from August-December and 64.54 % in January with the annual average of 87.68 % maximum and 39.97 % minimum. Mean daily pan evaporation is 2.71mm/day. Mean daily Sunshine hours were 5.84. Mean wind speed measured at 2m height was 1.88 m/s (Source: Omo Kuraz metrological station, 2017-2018). Thus weather conditions during experiment period from February, 2017 - February, 2018 were quite suitable for sugarcane growth and development. Furthermore, metrological datas during the experimental period has been presented in Appendix 1.

3.1.3. Soil Type

The most of the soils of the area were Sandy with some loams and vertisols associated with alluvial fans (EIA, 2012). However, the experimental area predominantly characterized by silt, sand and clay texture class typically clays.

3.4 Materials of the study

3.4.1 Selection of varieties

The materials for the study represented four sugarcane varieties, namely; B52298, NCo334, C 86/112 and N14.

3.4.2 Preparation of planting materials

Planting materials represented three budded setts prepared from 8-month age healthy plant crop. The cane setts were made from top one - third to one - half of cane stalks of the varieties at Omo Kuraz Sugar project. These were treated with Ethiozeb (Mancozeb) 80% WP 1gm/lit water for 5 minutes to avoid the effects of disease and insect pests. The knife cutters were dipped in ethanol for disinfection at the time of making setts from the cane stalks. The treated setts were planted on next day to avoid moisture loss before planting.

3.5 Methods

3.5.1 Procedure, Experimental Design and Treatment

The treatments consisted of four varieties (V1: B 52298, V2: NCo 334, V3: C 86/112 and

V4: N14) and four types of intra-row setts spacing (S1: 5 cm overlapping of setts, S2: end to end of setts, S3: 10 cm space between setts, and S4: 20 cm space between setts). The penultimate spacing mentioned here was used as a check. The sugar cane varieties were

15 selected based on their high yielding potential and area coverage at the Omo Kuraz Sugar project.

The experiment was conducted in Split plot design with five replications. The total number of treatment was 16 (4-varieties and 4-intra-row setts spacing). Four sugarcane varieties represented as main plot and four intra-row setts spacing as sub-plots. The plot size was represented 4 rows of 5 m length drawn at the distance of 1.45 m. Area of each experimental plot was 29.00 m2 [4 x 1.45m x 5m]. The distance between adjacent plots and replications was 1.50 and 2.90 meters, respectively.

The setts were placed in the furrow in four intra-row setts spacing: 5 cm overlapping of setts (S1), end to end of setts (S2), 10 cm (S3), and 20 cm (S4) space between setts horizontally on 9 February, 2017. In each intra row sett spacing recommended number of, three budded setts with healthy buds was planted in a row (Appendix 23). After placing the setts in furrow, they were covered with a layer of 5 cm soil. Thereafter, light irrigation was provided into the furrows. All the agronomic practices were kept uniform in all treatments. All recommended other cultural practices including fertilization (52.5 kg DAP /Diammonium phosphate and UREA 87.5 kg for 0.35 ha of experimental area used) and irrigation application, earthing up and weeding (using post emergency Herbicide) were done based followed at the Kuraz sugar project.

3.5.2 Soil sampling and analysis

The soil samples were taken from 0-30 cm and 30-60 cm depth of the experimental field using Auger, in order to determine the soil physical and chemical properties. The soil analysis was done by following procedure for soil and plant analysis (Sahlemedihn and Taye, 2000) at Wonji sugar project.

3.5.3 Method of data collection

All the required data were collected based on the following procedure described below: Number of sprouts or emerging seedlings: Data on germinated buds from middle two rows of net plot (excluding border rows) was recorded at 20 days and 35 days after planting. Then, germination percent was calculated based on number of sprouted buds out of total number of buds planted times one hundred, using the formula (ISTA, 1999).

( )

Tillers and cane forming stalks: The data on tiller formation was recorded from middle two rows of net plot at 60, 75 and 90 days. Similarly, cane forming stalks were at 120 days after planting. Then, average number of each character in hectare was used for statistical analysis.

Number of millable canes: The data on number of cane stalks/ Number of millable cane (> 1.0 meter length of stem with visible nodes and internodes)/ were recorded 7 and 8 months from middle two rows of net plot. The average number of millable cane in hectare was used for statistical analysis.

Posture of cane stalks: Visual observed data on posture of cane stalks (A-erect, B- partially lodged and C-fully lodged) was recorded at 8, 9, 10 and 11months.

Cane Characteristics: The data on cane characteristics, stalk length, stalk thickness, stripped cane weight and number of internodes were recorded from random sample of 10 cane stalk per plot at 13-month. Stalk height was measured by using meter tape from bottom part to top dewlap point of the cane stalk. Measurement of stalk thickness was done at the point 25 cm above the base of the stalk: 25 cm below the top most nodes and from the middle of the stalk and then averaged. The stripped cane weight measurement was done using beam balance and others were measured using measuring tape. The number of internodes per stalk was counted for each collected sample of the cane stalks.

Juice Quality characters: Data on Juice quality characters, Brix percent, sucrose /pol percent/, juice purity, recoverable sugar were obtained from the random sample of 5 cane stalks per plot at 13-month aged cane following standard procedures followed at Ethiopian Sugar Corporation, Wonji-Shoa. Fresh 5 cane stalk sample of each variety was crashed using JEFFCO machine /small mill/. The crushed mixed cane sample was taken to Hydraulic press machine in order to extract the juice. Finally, the direct extracted juice from cane stalk allowed for clarification process in laboratory by adding 1-2 gm (for 100 mm cane Juice) basic Lead acetate and filtrated using filter paper (Whatman no: 91). Finally, Brix and Pol percent were recorded on automatic Refractometer (Made in USA- 2000) and Saccarometer-881(Made in Germany), respectively. Purity percent was calculated using Pol and Brix percent reading result. Recoverable sucrose percent and estimated sugar yield was calculated using Winter Carp indirect method of cane juice analysis.

Brix (%): Percent of total soluble solids present in solution (Juice). It is the percentage by mass of dissolved solids in the solution determined by temperature corrected Refractometer (Hunsigi, 2001).

Pol (%) cane: Percentage of sucrose content in whole cane. It is the apparent sucrose content of sugarcane by mass and determined by a direct polarization (Hunsigi, 2001) and expressed a percentage for statistical analysis.

Purity (%): It is the percentage ratio of pol to the total soluble solids (or Brix) in sugar product. The purity of juice sample was determined by the percentage ratio of pol in juice to brix in juice (Hunsigi, 2001).

Purity (%): Percent of pure sucrose in dray matter = (pol %/brix %) * 100

Where:

Pol = percentage of sucrose content in whole cane (pol %).

Brix = Percentage of total soluble solids percent in solution (Juice).

Estimated recoverable sugar: Estimated recoverable sugar/sucrose (rendiment) was calculated using Winter Carp indirect method of cane juice analysis (Ayele, et al., 2012).

ERS (%) = [pol %-( Brix%-pol %)*NSF] CF

Pol (%) = percent of sucrose content in whole cane.

Brix (%) = Percentage of total soluble solids percent in solution (Juice).

NSF = non sugar factor =0.70

CF = cane factor = 0.75

Where; ERS = estimated recoverable sugar percent

Cane yield: Cane yield (t/ha) was estimated from the middle two rows and was calculated on a hectare basis by multiplying number of millable cane stalk and average stalk weight.

Cane yield (ton/ha) = number of millable canes/ha * stalk weight (kg)

Estimated sugar yield: Estimated sugar yield (ESY) tone per hectare was calculated as follows;

ESY (t / ha) = CYH (t / ha) x ERS (%) Where; ESY = estimated sugar yield CYH = cane yield per hectare ERS% = Estimated recoverable sugar percent

3.5.4 Statistical analysis

The data was subjected to analysis of variance in split plot design using SAS software (SAS Institute Inc. 2002, U.S.A), version 9.00. The comparison means was done using least significant difference (LSD) at 5 % probability level. However, the collected visually observed data on Physical appearance of the canes were presented based on percentage in frequency distribution, using different character class (A- erect cane, B- partial lodged canes and C-fully lodged canes), from the total 80 plots within five replications.

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Soil Analysis

Soil samples were collected on experimental field in diagonal way, at 0-30 and 30-60 cm depths and the composite sample used for physical and chemical characteristics analysis of soil. The result of soil laboratory analysis before planting was presented in Appendix 2. The analysis indicated that the soil textural class contains sand 12 (%), silt 12 (%) and clay 76 (%) for both 0-30 cm and 30-60 cm and found to be clay (Table 1). The soil reaction (pH) of the experimental site was 8.37 and 8.56 at 1:5 soil water ratios (Appendix 2). On the basis of the proportions of soil particles and the pH, the soil was rated as clay alkaline soils for both 0-30 cm and 30-60 cm, respectively (Kiya and Sharma, 2016). Maximum nutrient availability occurs when pH is optimal for the soil nutrient. The optimum range for sugar cane ranges from 4.5-8.5 pH range (EIA, 2012). Therefore, a soil fertility state of the experimental area was suitable for planting sugar cane crops.

The average organic carbon percent of soil was low (0.87) and total nitrogen percent was 0.16 % which (Appendix 2) indicated that the soil had good potential of N-mineralization. Phosphorus was low (2.91 ppm) showing high pH-value and high P-fixation in soil. Potassium was 206 ppm, which could be categorized into medium and electric conductivity/EC/ was 0.41 ds/m at 1:5 (Appendix 2). In accordance with the EC rating, the soil of the study area was non saline. The exchangeable bases/ or cation exchange capacity (CEC) of sampled soil had 71.6 meg/100gm with the amounts of cations as N+5.26, K+2.34 and Ca+53.20, Mg2+10.80 (Appendix 2). The cations indicated that, there were greater proportions of 2:1 clay mineral with more nutrient reserves and low leaching of cations (Kiya & Sharma, 2016). Therefore, on the basis of physico-chemical properties, the soil of the experimental field, except low availability of phosphorus, was suitable for growing sugarcane.

Table 1. Physical property of soil sampled from experimental field before planting operation, 2017. (Source: Wonji research center Laboratory)

Depth of composite sample Physical characteristics 0-30 cm 30-60cm Soil textural class Sand (%) 12 12 Silt (%) 12 12 Clay (%) 76 76

4.2 Effects of intra row setts spacing on growth, yield and quality parameters

4.2.1 Plant population (germination percent, number of tillers, cane forming stalk and number of millable cane) dynamics

Germination percentage

Mean comparison for varieties and intra row sett spacings on germination percent was presented in Table 2. Varieties did not show significance difference (p≤ 0.05) for germination percent. However, intra row sett spacings, shown significant difference at the same probability level. Hence, spacing S2 (end to end of setts) had significantly higher germination than rest of sett spacings with lowest S4 (20 cm between setts). There was no significance difference between setts spacing, S1 (5cm over lapping of setts) and S3 (10 cm between setts). The interaction between variety and intra row sett spacings were non- significance different at p<0.05 (Appendix 3). This indicated that germination in varieties was not affected by different intra row sett spacings. This result was in agreement with the finding of (Netsanet Ayele et al., 2014) and (Feyissa Tadesse et al., 2008), who found that germination potential of a given variety depends on its heredity character for such trait, but not sett spacings effects.

4.2.2 On each stage of growth parameters (1st, 2nd and 3rd Tiller, cane forming stalk and 1st and 2nd cane stalks/NMC)

1st, 2nd and 3rd Tiller

Based on mean comparison (Table 3), there were highly significance difference (p<0.05) among varieties and all sett spacing at each stages of tiller (Appendix 4, 5 & 6). Thus, in the first tiller V1 and V4 had highest score and were on par. Similarly, V2 and V3 were statistically on par. In case of secondary tillers, V1 and V2 were significantly on par, with

21 high value, whereas in intra row sett spacings there were statistically significance difference among all setts spacing with high value in S1. For third tiller, variety V4 scored high followed by V1, and in intra row sett spacing S1 scored the highest value. This result indicated that plant population affected by intra row sett spacing and variety heredity characters for high tiller production. This result was in agreement with (Netsanet Ayele et al., 2014; Netsanet Ayele and Samuel Tegene 2014) who found that plant population was a function of varieties and sett spacing effect.

Generally, from the data of different varieties on tillers production, tillers were affected by both varieties and setts spacing. Hence, each phase of tillers (1st, 2nd and 3rd tiller) had 25 % incremental from first to second to third. This indicated that each variety had high tillering capacity with regard to spacing effect and time (age).

Number of tillers (Mean of all stages of tillers)

There were highly significant difference (p<0.05) among varieties for number of tillers

(Appendix 7). Varieties, V1 (B 52298) and V4 (N 14) had formed significantly higher tillers than varieties, V2 (N Co 334) and V3 (C 86/112). However, tiller numbers in V1 and V4 were statistically on par. Similarly, tiller numbers in V2 and V3 were on par. The result indicated each sugarcane varieties had different tiller formation capacity (Table 2).

Similarly, there were highly significant differences (p<0.05) among intra row sett spacings for number of tillers (Appendix 7). Sett spacing S1 (5cm overlapping of setts) had formed highest and significantly higher number of tillers than other spacings. The next significantly higher tillers were formed in spacing S2 (end to end of setts) than S3 (10 cm between setts) and S4 (20 cm between setts). Sett spacing S3 formed significantly higher tillers that in spacing S4 (Table 2). This indicated that intra row sett spacing had an effect on formation of tiller numbers. The closer the sett spacing, the greater the number of tillers or in other words wider the sett spacing in arrow the lower the number of tillers. It was obvious from the result that both varieties and sett spacings affected the tiller numbers. This result was in agreement with that of (Netsanet Ayele et al., 2014; Feyissa Tadesse et al., 2008). They observed that, plant population per hectare significantly reduced as the intra-row spacing increased.

Cane forming stalks

There were highly significant differences (p<0.05) among varieties and setts spacing for cane forming stalks (Appendix 8). The maximum and significantly higher number cane forming were recorded in variety V4 (N 14) followed by V1 (B 52298), V2 (NCo 334) and

V3 (C 86/112), respectively (Table 2). This indicted that cane forming stalk population was affected by varietal characteristic (or depends on genetic potential of the varieties). Cane forming stalks also highly differed significantly among intra row sett spacings. The maximum and significantly higher stalks were formed at sett spacing S1 (5cm over lapping of settts) followed by at S2 (end to end of setts), S3 (10 cm between setts) and S4 (20 cm between setts) forming the lowest number of stalks (Table 2). This indicated that the closer the setts spacing the greater the cane stalk population or higher the number of buds planted in the row, the greater the formation of cane forming stalks. Moreover, the interaction between varieties and intra row setts spacing was significance (p<0.05) difference (Appendix 8). The result indicated that varieties and sett spacings both had effect on formation cane forming stalks. This result was inconformity with those of (Netsanet Ayele and Samuel Tegene, 2014), who found that plant population was a function of varieties and sett spacing effect.

1st and 2nd cane stalks/NMC/

As indicated in mean comparison table of first and second cane forming stalk (Table 3), there were highly significance difference (p< 0.05) among varieties and intra row setts spacing (Appendix 9 & 10). However, for both phase of growth, first and second millable cane, the highest scored obtained in V4 and S4. This showed that cane yield affected by varieties hereditary characters and intra row sett spacing. The interaction between variety and intra row sett spacing were significance (p< 0.05) difference (Appendix 9 & 10). This indicated that varieties were affected by intra row sett spacing. The present result in agreement with Netsanet Ayele et al. (2014) who found that, cane yield was affected by variety heredity character and intra row sett spacing.

Number of millable canes (Mean of the first and second millable canes)

There were a highly significance difference (p<0.05) among varieties and setts spacing (Appendix 11). Thus, with maximum and significantly higher millable canes were recorded in variety V4 (N 14) than others. Next high millable canes were in V1 (B 52298) and V2 (NCo 334) which was on par. Variety V3 (C86/112) had significantly lower

23 number of millable canes (Table 2). Similarly, there were a highly significance differences (p<0.05) among intra row sett spacings (Appendix 11). Maximum and significantly higher millable canes were in sett spacing S1 (5cm over lapping of setts) followed by S2 (end to end of setts), S3 (10 cm between setts) and S4 (20 cm between setts), respectively. Millable canes in S2 were significantly higher than S3 and S3 had higher than in S4 (Table 2). This indicated that the closer the sett spacings the higher the millable canes. The interaction effect between variety and intra row sett spacings was significantly different (Appendix 11). This showed that millable canes production in each variety was affected by intra row setts spacing. This result was inconformity with the finding of (Feyissa Tadesse et al., 2008; Netsanet Ayele et al., 2012; Netsanet Ayele et al., 2014) who reported that the high density planting rates result in higher number of millable canes then low density planting of sett per buds.

Table 2. Effect of variety and sett spacing on different growth and yield parameters grown during 2017/2018 cropping season

Treatment Characters

Variety Germination No. of Cane Number of (%/) Tiller/ha forming Millable stalk/ha Cane/ha V1 (B52298) 81.48 147973.02a 132819.38b 104942.99b V2 (NCo 334) 81.03 114575.16b 118436.64c 104202.37b V3 (C86/112) 80.35 109835.64b 106020.74d 90831.00c V4 (N14) 81.47 154121.58a 145982.88a 123462.04a Grand Mean 81.08 131626.35 125814.91 105859.60 SE (±) 0.7095 870.88 1224.02 1157.21 LSD (at 5%) NS 1897.65 2667.14 2521.56 Spacing

S1 (5cm overlapping) 81.58ab 162505.98a 144634.39a 121144.10a S2 (End to end) 83.77a 139914.68b 131215.86b 110484.56b S3 (10 cm) 81.70ab 123634.97c 120808.72c 102520.25c S4 (20 cm) 78.73b 100449.77d 106600.66d 89289.49d Grand Mean 81.45 131626.35 125814.91 105859.60 SE (±) 0.2637 729.12 414.52 379.45 LSD (at 5%) 0.53 1473.6 837.8 2454.5 CV(%) 4.58 7.83 4.66 5.13 Means which have no letter are not significantly different at P< 0.05 level of significance NMC= Number of millable cane, NS = Non significance SE (±) = Standard error, LSD = Least significance difference, CV= Coefficient of variation.

Table 3. Effect of variety and sett spacing on different growth and yield parameters grown during 2017/2018 cropping season

Treatment Growth parameters in hectare Variety 1st 2nd 3rd Cane 1st cane 2nd cane Tiller/ha Tiller/ha Tiller/ha forming stalk/ha stalk/ ha stalk/ha (NMC) (NMC)

V1 (B52298) 112735a 143723a 187461b 132819b 107914b 101972b V2 (NCo-334) 77206b 106307a 160212c 118437c 107949b 100456b V3 (C86/112) 79896b 106657b 142954d 106021d 93766c 87896c V4 (N14) 108613a 148544b 205208a 145983a 126779a 120145a Grand Mean 94612.5 126307.75 173958.75 125815 109102 102617 SE (±) 1101.92 867.26 1516 1224 1164 1156.82 LSD (at 5%) 2401 1889.75 3303.53 2667.14 2536.37 2520.7 Spacing

S1 (5cm overlapping) 124718a 157801a 204999a 144634a 124508a 117780a S2 (End to end) 100543b 134500b 184701b 131216b 114133b 106836b S3 (10 cm) 86115c 117906c 166884c 120809c 105434c 99607c S4 (20 cm) 67075d 95023d 139251d 106601d 92333d 86246d Grand Mean 94612.75 126307.5 173958.75 125815 109102 102617 SE (±) 1017.34 980.3 846.35 414.52 383.99 397.27 LSD (at 5%) 2043.83 1969.43 1700.32 832.77 771.44 798.12 CV (%) 15.24 10.87 6.88 4.66 4.97 5.47 Means which have no letter are not significantly different at P< 0.05 level of significance using LSD Test. NMC= Number of millable cane SE (±)= standard error, LSD = least significance difference, CV= coefficient of variation.

4.2.3 Number of internodes, Cane weight, Cane length and Cane Girth

Number of internodes

The mean comparison of cane characteristics were presented in Table 4. Varieties were highly significantly (P<0.05) differed for number of internodes in cane with highest value in variety V1 (B52298) and lowest in V4 (N14) (Appendix 12). The result showed that the number of internodes in cane was a varietal characteristic. Internodes number in cane also differed significantly (p<0.05) in setts spacing with high number at closer spacings, S1 (5 cm over lapping of setts) and S2 (end to end of setts) than at wider sett spacings, S3 (10 cm between setts) and S4, (20 cm between setts) with the lowest being in S4 (20 cm between setts). The results showed closed intra row sett spacing increased number of internodes in cane. Because of inter specific computation of plants to resource. This result was in agreement with (Raskar and Bhoi, 2003 and Netsanet Ayele et al., 2014) who observed that number of internodes increased with length of thin cane under narrow spacings.

Cane weight

Cane weight in varieties was significantly different between variety V3 (C 86/112), which had higher cane weight and others /V1 (B52298), V2 (NCo 334) and V4 (N14)/, which were on par (Tale 4). However, cane weight differed significantly (P<0.05) among all intra row sett sepacings, with maximum and significantly higher weight recorded in setts spacing S4 (20 cm between setts) (Appendix 13). The next significantly higher cane weight was in S3 (10 cm between setts) followed by in S2 (end to end of setts) and S1 (5 cm overlapping of setts). This indicated that as the sett spacing increased there was increase in cane weight. It could be due to availability more space for nutrition and light interception at wider spacing than at narrow spacing. This result was in agreement with Netsanet Ayele et al. (2014). Basically, cane weight is a function of stalk thickness, stalk height and stalk density.

Cane length

Cane length in varieties was not significantly different (Appendix 14). However, there were significance difference (p< 0.05) between sett spacing S4 (20 cm between setts), had less height and the rest of sett spacings, S1 (5 cm overlapping of setts), S2 (end to end of setts) and S3 (10 cm between setts) which were statistically on par (Table 4). The decrease in cane length at wider sett spacing could be due to less competition for light and nutrition as compared to more competition for light and nutrition at closer spacings resulting in increased cane length or cane height. The result was in agreement with the observation of Netsanet Ayele et al. (2014). Who found that mean stalk height increased with a increase in intra row spacing and decreased with an increase in intra-row spacing, suggesting the existence of intra row competition for light under high plant population. However, the interaction effect between varieties and setts spacing was significantly different (P<0.05), which could be due to differential response of varieties for cane length at different intra row spacing (Appendix 14).

Cane Girth

There were no significant differences (P<0.05) among sugarcane varieties for cane girth or cane thickness (Table 4. 3). However, cane girth differed significantly at intra row sett spacings (Appendix 15). Maximum and significantly higher stalk thickness was recorded at widest sett spacing, S4 (20 cm between setts spacing) than other lesser spacings. The next higher cane thickness was found at spacing S3 (10 cm between setts) which was more than that at closer spacings S2 (end to end of setts) and S1 (5 cm overlapping of setts). Cane thickness in S2 and S1 was statistically on par. The results indicated that as the intra row sett spacing increased there was increase in cane thickness or vice versa. It could due to availability of more space for nutrition and light interception at wider spacing that at lower sett spacing. This finding related with the observation of Netsanet Ayele et al. (2014a, 2014b and 2014c). They stated that cane girth increased with intra row sett spacing increase and vice versa.

Table 4. Effect of variety and sett spacing on growth parameters of sugarcane varieties grown during 2017/2018 cropping season

Treatment Characters Number of Cane weight Cane Cane Variety internodes (kg)/cane length girth /cane stalk stalk in plot (cm) (cm) in plot V1 (B52298) 25.93a 1.49b 271.05 2.46 V2 (NCo 334) 25.36b 1.52b 268.44 2.49 V3 (C86/112) 25.05c 1.60a 261.81 2.53 V4 (N14) 24.62d 1.51b 245.92 2.54 Grand Mean 25.24 1.53 261.81 2.51 SE (±) 0.0388 0.0101 0.0145 0.0145 LSD (at 5%) 0.0845 0.022 NS NS Spacing

S1 (5cm overlapping) 25.38a 1.38d 286.86a 2.33c S2 (End to end) 25.31a 1.46c 277.14a 2.42c S3 (10 cm) 25.20b 1.57b 258.65a 2.55b S4 (20 cm) 25.06c 1.70a 224.58b 2.72a Grand Mean 25.24 1.53 261.81 2.51 SE (±) 0.0084 0.0058 2.7000 0.0092 LSD (at 5%) 0.0169 0.0117 5.32 0.0186 CV (%) 0.470 5.390 14.590 5.190 Means which have no letter are not significantly different at P< 0.05 level of significance using LSD Test. NMC= Number of millable cane, NS = Non significance SE (±) = standard error, LSD = least significance difference, CV= coefficient of variation.

4.2.4 Quality characteristics [Brix (%), Pol (%) and purity (%) of cane]

The mean comparison for sugarcane quality characteristics was presented in Table 5. The brix and pol percent in cane juice in varieties significantly different (p< 0.05) between variety V2 (NCo 334) and with the reset verities /V1 (B52298), V3 (C86/112) and V4 (N14) / which were statistically on par. This indicated that brix and pol per cent of juice was a varietal characteristic. However, purity percent juice did not differ significantly (p< 0.05) among varieties. This indicated the varieties matured about the same time. There were no significant differences (p<0.05) among intra row setts spacing for brix, pole and purity percent on cane quality characteristics. This indicated that varieties were not affected by intra row setts spacing. The result was in agreement with the finding of Netsanet Ayele et al. (2012, 2014a, 2014b and 2014c), who stated that intra row setts spacing did not affect the quality parameters of varieties.

Table 5. Effect of variety and sett spacing on quality parameters (brix, pol and purity percent) grown during 2017 crop grown season.

Treatment Characters Variety Brix (%) Pol (%) Purity (%) V1 (B52298) 17.98ab 14.84ab 82.53 V2 (NCo 334) 18.41a 15.56a 84.53 V3 (C86/112) 17.25b 14.25b 82.46 V4 (N14) 17.25b 14.21b 82.30 Grand Mean 17.72 14.72 82.96 SE (±) 0.196 0.2515 0.8895 LSD (at 5%) 0.3395 0.4502 NS Spacing

S1 (5cm overlapping) 18.12 14.88 82.84 S2 (End to end) 17.71 14.65 83.83 S3 (10 cm) 17.65 14.60 82.50 S4 (20 cm) 17.40 14.75 82.66 Grand Mean 17.72 14.72 82.96 SE (±) 0.0620 0.0795 0.2813 LSD (at 5%) NS NS NS CV (%) 4.95 7.64 4.79 Means which have no letter are not significantly different at P< 0.05 level of significance. NMC= Number of millable cane, NS = Non significance, SE (±) = standard error, LSD = least significance difference, CV= coefficient of variation.

4.2.5 Estimated cane yield, recoverable sugar and estimated sugar yield

Estimated cane yield

The comparison of means of varieties and sett spacings for estimated cane yield ECY (t/ha) was presented in Table 6. Varieties were highly significantly (p<0.05) differed for cane yield (Appendix 19). Maximum and significantly higher cane yield was recorded in variety V4 (N14) than other varieties. Next high yield was in V1 (B52-298) and V2

(NCo334) which were on par but yielded significantly more than V3 (C 86/112). Cane yield at intra row sett spacings differed significantly at (p< 0.05). It was recorded significantly higher at closest sett spacing, S1 (5cm overlapping of setts) than at widest sett spacing, S4 (20 cm between setts). However, cane yield at sett spacings, S2 (end to end of setts) and S3 (10 cm between setts) were statistically on par with each other, and had relatively similarity in significance value with setts spacing S1 (Table 5). This showed that sett spacing of 5cm overlapping, end to end and 10cm sett spacing gave the same cane yield. The results suggested that the quantity of seed can be saved by maintaining a sett spacing of up to 10 cm between setts in a row. The results were inconformity with those of Tsehay Girma (1993), Girma Welide (1997) and Netsanet Ayele et al. (2014 a, 2014b, 2014c), they were found that narrow distance between setts lead to high cane yield but the differences in closer sett spacings were not significantly different.

Estimated Recoverable Sugar

Recoverable sugar was estimated significantly higher in variety V2 (NCo 334) than varieties V3 (C86/112) and V4 (N14), but it was on par with variety V1 (B52/298) (Table 6). This showed that varieties significantly differed (p< 0.05) in sugar recovery percent cane (Appendix 20), that is, sugar recovery was a varietal characteristic. However, sugar recovery at different sett spacings was statistically on par which indicated that intra row sett spacings had no effect sugar recovery (Appendix 20). The result was in agreement with Tsehay Girma (1993), Girma Welide (1997) and Netsanet Ayele et al. (2014a, 2014b and 2014c) they found that intra row sett spacing did not affect recoverable sugar, but it was varietal character.

Eestimated sugar yield

Varieties differed in estimated sugar yield (Table 6). As for cane yield, maximum and significantly higher sugar yield was estimated in variety, N14 than varieties, B52/298 and C86/112 but was on par with variety, NCo 334. Sugar yield in varieties, B52298 and

C86/112 was on par (Table 6). However, sugar yield at sett spacings were not significantly different (p< 0.05) which indicated that intra row sett spacings did not have effect on the sugar yield. The interaction effect between varieties and sett spacings for sugar yield was not significantly different (Appendix 21). These results were in agreement with the finding of Tsehay Girma (1993), Girma Welide (1997) and Netsanet Ayele et al. (2014a, 2014b and 2014c) they stated that there was no response of sett spacings on estimated sugar yield.

Table 6. Effect of variety and sett spacing on Estimated Cane Yield (t/ha), Estimated Recoverable Sugar (%) and Estimated Sugar Yield (t/ha) grown during 2017/ 2018 crop grown season.

Treatment Characters Variety ECY (t/ha) ERS (%) ESY (t/ha) V1 (B52298) 154.69b 9.49ab 14.77bc V2 (NCo 334) 156.92b 10.18a 15.99ab V3 (C86/112) 144.01c 9.12b 13.03c V4 (N14) 184.89a 9.06b 16.85a Grand Mean 160.13 9.46 15.16 SE (±) 2.41 0.2098 0.4184 LSD (at 5%) 5.2576 0.4572 0.912 Spacing

S1 (5cm overlapping) 167.27a 9.55 16.04 S2 (End to end) 161.17ab 9.52 15.41 S3 (10 cm) 160.54ab 9.33 14.96 S4 (20 cm) 151.55b 9.45 14.23 Grand Mean 160.13 NS NS SE (±) 3.9300 0.0771 0.1571 LSD (at5%) 7.9425 NS NS CV (%) 7.48 11.52 14.65 Means which have no letter are not significantly different at P< 0.05 level of significance. NMC= Number of millable cane, NS = Non significance, SE (±) = standard error, LSD = least significance difference, CV= coefficient of variation, ECY= Estimated cane yield, ERS (%) = Estimated recoverable sugar percent, ESY = Estimated cane yield

4.3. Effects of intra row setts spacing on cane lodging at different crop ages

Visual observation of data on lodging of different sugarcane varieties (B52298, NCo-334, C86/112 and N14) were collected during experimental period, starting from 8-month after planting up to 11-month within 15 days of interval. This visually observed data were collected from 80- plots, within 5- replication, based on by assigning the physical

30 appearance of the cane as: A- erect cane, B-partial lodged cane and C-fully lodged cane, and the result presented in frequency distribution.

Physical appearances of variety V1 (B52298) at different sett spacing

Frequency distribution of data for variety V1 (B52298) was presented in Table 7. Thus, this variety when planted in end to end, it was characterized by the phenotypic class erect across 8-11 month growth stage where 100, 80 and 80 percent of the individuals belong to this class in 8, 9 and 10 month, respectively. It was observed that when the intra row spacing increased there was a trend for the variety to show partial lodging property. This was evidence by the frequency distribution where as the spacing increased from end to end to 10 and 20 cm the percentage of individual plants of the variety showed 60, 40 and 20 percent lodging in that order. This was especially true when the growing stage of the variety increased in number of months.

Table 7. Frequency distribution for physical appearance of variety V1 (B52298) at different growth stage and sett spacing

Variety-1 (B52298) Months Spacing 1 (5cm overlapping) 2 (End to end) 3 (10 cm) 4 (20 cm) Character class A B C A B C A B C A B C 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 0.8 0.2 0 0.4 0.6 0 0.6 0.4 0 0.8 0.2 0 10 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0.2 0 11 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0 0.2 0.8 0 0.2 0.8 0 0.2

Physical appearances of variety V2 (NCo 334) at different sett spacing

As indicated in frequency distribution table (Table 8), variety V2 (NCo 334) showed lodging appearance during its growth stages. Thus, except in 8-month age, in each growth stages and sett spacing there were lodged canes of this variety. That is, from end to end to 10 cm and 20 cm sett spacing 60, 40 and 20 percent lodging occurred, respectively. Therefore, this indicated that even though there were fewer score in sett spacings, sett spacing had positive impact or contribution to lodging of cane.

Table 8. Frequency distribution for physical appearance of variety V2 (NCo 334) at different growth stage and sett spacing

Variety-2 (NCo 334) `1 Spacing 1 (5cm overlapping) 2 (End to end) 3 (10 cm) 4 (20 cm) Character class A B C A B C A B C A B C 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0.2 0 10 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0.2 0 11 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0 0.2 0.8 0 0.2

Physical appearances of variety V3 (C86/112) at different sett spacing

From frequency distribution data of variety V3 (C86/112) (Table 9), except 8-month age, starting from end to end to 10 cm and 20 cm there was an indication of lodging occurrence. Thus, at 9-month age 100 and 60 percent partial lodged cane obtained at end to end and 10 cm sett spacing respectively. However, in the rest month’s high percentage (80 %) were erect cane observed. This result indicated that each setts spacing had positive impact or contribution to lodging of cane.

Table 9. Frequency distribution for physiological appearance of variety V3 (C86/112) at different growth stage and sett spacing

Variety-3 (C86/112) Months Spacing 1 (5cm overlapping) 2 (End to end) 3 (10 cm) 4 (20 cm) Character class A B C A B C A B C A B C 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.4 0.6 0 0.8 0.2 0 10 0.8 0.2 0 1 0 0 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0.2 0 11 0.8 0.2 0 1 0 0 0.8 0.2 0 0.8 0.2 0

Physical appearances of variety V4 (N14) at different sett spacing

As indicated in frequency distribution table (Table 10) for variety V4 (N14), there was occurrence of lodging of cane in each setts spacing. Thus, except 8-month age of crop growth, in all other months and setts spacing type there were lodged canes of this variety. However, occurrence of lodging was varying from 60 to 20 percent. This indicated that spacing had positive contribution for lodging of canes.

Table10. Frequency distribution for physical appearance of variety V4 (N14) at different growth stage and sett spacing

Variety-4 (N14) Months Spacing 1 (5cm overlapping) 2 (End to end) 3 (10 cm) 4 (20 cm) Character class A B C A B C A B C A B C 8 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 9 0.8 0.2 0 0.4 0.6 0 0.6 0.4 0 0.8 0.2 0 10 0.6 0.4 0 0.6 0.4 0 0.6 0.4 0 0.6 0.4 0 11 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.6 0.2 0.2 Generally, from the result of visual observation of data, there was occurrence of lodging in different month of the crop age, setts spacing type and varieties with varying percentage of scoring. Therefore, setts spacing had positive impact to lodging of cane.

As in the present study, Malik (1991) reported that some varieties tolerate lodging while others are prone to lodging. Varieties with resistance to lodging are most desirable (Breaux, 1971). Therefore, the selection for lodging resistance lines should use indirect selection under normal crop growth. Rind hardness played an important role in developing resistance against various a-biotic and biotic stresses to sugarcane (Singh et al. (2013). Rind hardness showed significant positive correlation with sugar yield and sugar content. It played an important role to develop high sugar, high yielding, erect, non- lodging, disease and insect resistant varieties (Singh et al., 2013).

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

From the result of study the following conclusions and recommendations were drawn:

 Generally, number of tillers, cane forming stalks and number of millabe canes were recorded higher at closer intra row sett spacings of 5 cm overlapping of setts and end to end of setts than wider spacing of 10 cm and 20 cm spacing between setts. Variety, N14 recorded higher value for the above characters than other varieties.  Number of internodes in cane and cane length were obtained higher at closer sett spacings than at wider sett spacings. Number of internodes in cane was more in varieties, N14 and B52298, whereas cane length in varieties was on par.  Cane weight and cane girth were recorded highest at widest spacing of 20 cm between setts. Cane weight was Maximum in variety, C86/112 but the cane girth in the varieties was on par.  Brix and pol percent juice were higher in variety, NCo 334 than other varieties but juice purity percent in varieties was on par. Intra row sett spacing had no effect on these cane quality characters.  Cane yield was recorded highest in variety, N14 followed by B52298 and NCo 334. Cane yield at closest sett spacing of 5 cm overlapping was higher than at widest sett spacing 20cm between setts.  Recoverable sugar percent was highest in variety, NCo 334 than other varieties. Intra row sett spacing had no effect on sugar recovery percent cane.  Sugar yield was recorded maximum in varieties, N14 and NCo 334. Intra row sett spacing had no effect on sugar yield. Conclusions: (i) In closer intra row sett spacing high number of tillers and millable canes were formed. There were differences in the varieties for these characters. (ii) In closer intra row sett spacing number of internodes in cane and cane length was more. Varieties differed for number of internodes but were not for cane length. (iii) At widest sett spacing cane weight and cane girth was more with difference in varieties for cane weight but no difference in cane girth. (iv) Intra row sett spacing had no effect on quality characteristic. Variety, NCo 334 had better Brix and pol in juice than other varieties. (v) In closer intra row spacing cane yield was more with maximum yield in variety N14.

(vi) Intra row spacing had no effect on sugar recovery percent, cane and sugar yield. Sugar recovery was more in Variety NCo 334 while sugar yield was more in N14 and NCo 334. (vii) Cane lodging was occurred in each variety and sett spacing at different age of the varieties. However, its occurrence varying in each setts spacing and varietal character class. Therefore, intra row setts spacing had appositive impact on cane lodging.

Recommendations (i) Intra row sett spacing of end to end may be recommended for obtaining high cane yield at Omo Kuraz Sugar Project area. Because, it gives high yield. (ii) Alternatively, space between setts up to 10 cm may be used for saving the amount of seed canes, <16 % from conventional method (end to end) Appendix 27, for good cane yield without compromising recoverable sugar and sugar yield. (iii) Even if intra row sett spacing had contribution to lodging of canes, varietal characteristic was a primary focus for lodging resistance. Thus varieties resistant to lodging may be identified with tapering cane thickness and light growing top with deep rooting system. (iv) Cane lodging only occurs on different varieties (B 52298, NCo 334, C86/112 and N14) and setts spacing. However, varieties which are not susceptible to lodging, without reducing cane and sugar yield, should be planted to solve cane lodging problem in the area. This selection of varieties and other Agronomic activities, which had direct relation to lodging of cane (like improper irrigation and fertilization, less insect pest control) should be supported by research finding.

REFERANCE

Ahmad, R. (1997). Deterioration in cane yield and quality characterstics due to lodging in sugarcane. India: Proc.59th Ann. Conv. Sug. Tech. Association. Amayal A.L.Gomezz, J.T., Buitrago, C.A. (1996). Affecting cane and sugar yield, what do we know of their control mechanisms and how do we manage them. Field crop research , 92, 261-275. Amolo, R. A. and Abayo, GO. ND. (2004). Effect of plant population and planting patterns on sugarcane productivity in Kenya. Kisumu, Kenya: Kenya Sugar Research Foundation. Breaux, R. (1971). Selection for erectness in sugarcane in Louisiana. ISSCT , 286-296. Collins, J. (2002). Investigation of the limits to high density planting. Serlanka: SRDC Project. (www. srdc.gov.au/icms-docs/129061-BSS263) (Accessed on 10-7-2017). Dereje Bishaw and Solomon Mulugeta. (2014). Determination of irrigation scheduling for furrow irrigation for Kuraz sugar development project. Sugar corporation research and Training, Wonji. Advisory note. Dr. Gururaj Hunsigi. (2001). Sugarcane in Agriculture and industry. Prism book Pvt Ltd, Bangalore, India. EIA/ Ethiopia Investiment Agency/. (2012). Investment Opportunity for sugarcane plantation and processing in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopa: Ethiopian Investment Agency. EI-Lattief, E. A. (2016). Yield and Yield attributes of sugarcane as affected by some crop managements. Inernational Journal of Research in Engineering and Applied Science (IJREAS) , 6, 11-19. Endris Yesuf . (2018). Effect of Intra row sett spacing on Growth and Yield of Early Maturing Sugarcane Varieties (Cuba Origin-2003 Entry) as Influenced by Ethephon at Metahara Sugar Estate, Ethiopia. Ethiopian sugar corporation research and development center. International Journal of Advanced Research in Biological Sciences, 5(6), 67-78. Feyissa Tadesse, Tadesse Negi and Aregaw Assefa. (2008). Preliminary study on Sugarcane Variety performance at Tendaho sugar estate project. Proc. Ethiopia sugar Ind. Bienn. Conferance , 1, 156-165. Girma Welide. (1997). Effect of planting density on yield of four sugarcane cultivers (B41227, B52-298, Co449 and Nco-334) at Fincha sugar Estate. Fincha, Westrn Ethiopia: Fincha sugar Industry project, Agricultur Resarch and services. Hunsigi, G. (2011). Potassium management strategies to realize high yielding and quality of sugarcane. Department of Agronomy, University of Agricultural Sciences, India , 24(1), 45-47. Hunsigi, D. G. (2001). Sugarcane in Agricultural and Industry. Sameerwadi, Bagalkot: Kamataka Institute of Applird Research (KIAAR). ISTA. (1999). International rules for seed testing (ISTA). Seed Science Technology, 31, 1-52.

Jayaramudu, M. (2012). Effects of spacing and nutrients on sugarcane for seed cane production. Hyderadad: Master of science in Agriculture Rajendranagar University. Karimbakhsh Malik (1991).Cane and sugar production.Punjab Agricultural Research Board. (Accessed on 13/10/2017). Kiya Adare Tadesse and Sharma, P. D. (2016). Characterization of soils of cotton growing areas of Arba Minch Zuria Woreda, Gamo Gofa Zone, Southern Ethiopia. International Journal of Current Research. Department of Plant Sciences, Arba Minch University, 8, 40118-40123. Malik K., M. (1991). Cane and sugar production. India: Punjab Agricultural Research Board. Malik KB., Ali FG, Khaliq A. (1996). Effect of plant population and row spacing on cane yield of spring planted cane. Journal of Agricultural Research , 34, 389-395. MoFED/ Ministry of Finance and Economic Development/.(2010). Growth Transformation Plan (GTP). Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Muhammad Umer Chattha, Asghar Ali and Muhammad. (2007). Influence of planting techniques on growth and yield of spring planted sugarcane (Succharum Officinarum L.). Faisalabad, Pakistan: Bilal Departement of Agronomy, University of Agriculture. Netsanet Ayele. (2009). The influence of number of buds per sett and intra row sett spacings on germination, yield and yield components of sugarcane. In partial fulfillment of the requirement for the Degree of Master of Science in Agriculture (Agronomy). MSc Thesis. Haramay University, Dre Dawa, Ethiopia. Netsanet Ayele and Abiy Getaneh, Tadesse Negi and Nigussie Dechassa. (2012). Influence of Intra row sett spacing on Yield and Yield components of sugarcane varieties at Metahara sugar Estate. East AfricanJournal of Science, 6(2), 117-124. Netsanet Ayele, Abiy Getaneh, Tadsse Negi. (2014a). Effect of planting density on Yield and Yield components of sugarcane at Wonji-Shoa. Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science , 4(1), 583-586. Netsane Ayele and Samuel Tegene. (2014b). Effects of buds per sett and intra-row spacing of setts on yield and yield components of sugarcane. International Journal of Agricultural Science and Natural Resources. 1(5): 115-121. Netsanet Ayele, Abyi Getaneh and Tadesse Negi. (2014c). Infiluenceof intra-row setts spacingon Yield and Yield components of some sugarcane varieties at Finchaa sugar Estate. ARPN Journal of Science and Technology, 4(1). NvHalpin and AjDougall. (2008). The influence of depth and method of cane planting on stool tipping and yield on a red ferrosol at Bundaberg. Bundaberg: Queensland Departement of primery industries and Fisheries. FAO (Food Agricultural Organization). (2012). Statistical Yearbook. Africa Food and agriculture organization of the United Nations Regional office for Africa Accra. (Accessed on 14/3/2011).

Omoto George, AumaElmada, Opile Wilson Reuben. (2014). Effects of Season, Location, Cultivar and Spacing on Yield and Quality of sugarcane in Western Kenya. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology , 4, 755-761. Osman M.S.H., A. Z. (2011). Assessing the optimum inter-row spacing (80 cm, 100cm and 120 cm) and number of sloughing for two promising sugarcane varieties (G.95-19 and G.95-21). Egypt Journal Agricultural Research , 89(1). P.D.R. van Heerdena, A. Singelsa, A. Paraskevopoulosa and R. Rosslera. (2015). Negative effects of lodging on irrigated sugarcane productivity- an experimental and crop modeling assessment. Field crop research Journal , 2015. Raskar, Sand Bhoi, PG. (2003). Yield attributes of sugarcane as influenced by intra row spacings, fertilizer levels and planting materials. Indian Sugar research international Journal , 53 (5) 327-331. S.Rajkumara. (2008). Lodging in Cereals- a review. India: Water management research center, Karnataka. Sahlemedihn Sertsu and Ta`ye Bekele. (2000). Producedure for soil and plant analysis. Addis Ababa: Technical paper No. 74 National Soil Research Center, EARO, Adis Ababa. Sarwar, M., M. Afzal., M. A. Iqbal and A. A. Chattha. (2000). Effects of proper nutrition and agro management practices on lodging, cane yield and juice quality of a sugarcane genotype CP.77-400. Pakistan sugar Journal , 15(06), 135-139. Singh R.P and Singh P.P. 1984. Quality of juice and commercial cane sugar as influenced by crop canopy in sugar cane. Indian-Sugar, 21-28. Singh G. S.C. Chapman, P.A. Jackson and R.J. Lawn. (2002). Lodging reduces sucrose accumulation of sugarcane in the wet and dry tropics. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research , 53, 1183-1195. Singh G. S.C. Chapman, P.A. Jackson and R.J. Lawn.(1999). Yield accumulation in sugarcane under wet tropical conditions effect of lodging and crop age. Australia: Tropical Agricultural. SujeetPratap Singh, Amrita Nigam and Ram Kushal Singh. (2013). Influence of rind hardness on sugarcane quality. American Journal of plant science , 4, 45-52. Singkham, N. A. (2013). Diversity of characteristics associated with lodging resistance in sugarcane germplasm. Thailand: Department of plant science and Agricultural resources, KhonKaen University. Srivastava, S. (2009). Cytogenetics of sugarcane: petrospect and prospects, in sugarcane crop production of improvement . Houston Texas, USA: Singh, Rao, Solomon and Gopolasundam Studium press LLC. Sundara, B. (2000). Sugarcane cultivation . New Delhi, India: VIKAS Publishing House Pvt. Ltd. SAS (Statistical Analysis System). (2002). Institute of Applied Statistics and SAS programming Language Version 9. Cary, North Carolina USA. Tsehay Girma. (1993). Yield and Yield attributes of sugarcane as affected by different cane varieties and planting rates grown on two soil types at Wonji-Shoa sugar Estate. Alemaya, Ethiopia: Alemaya University of Agricultur.

APPENDIX

Appendix 1 . Weather condition during the study period, 2017

Air Temprature Wind speed Relative ◦C (1.5 M) Rain fall Eto m/s Humidity % Soil Temp. ˚C Month Max Min mm/day mm/day Day Night Max Min At (0.05)mAt (0.1)m January 39.65 26.6 0 6.13 1.45 0.89 64.54 23.06 37.75 32.13 February 39.48 23.68 11.4 7.48 1.68 1.07 68 24.82 38.64 33.31 March 40.18 26.35 123.6 5.88 1.83 1.65 78.51 32.19 38.18 33.91 April 34.03 25.89 317.79 3.97 1.32 0.95 95.13 58.23 30.28 29.5 May 34.86 31.42 99.1 4 1.48 0.77 93 55.77 33.25 31.21 June 36.46 32.72 44.2 5.1 1.96 0.89 82 43.5 35.38 31.54 July 34.87 32.69 71.3 0 1.31 0.9 90.93 50.03 29.97 28.97 August 38 25.2 37.8 0 2.72 0.48 96 37 52 22.4 September 36.6 22.6 120.6 0 2.96 0.08 96 42 41 21.6 October 37.4 6 115.1 0 2.31 0.66 96 52 40.4 21.8 November 27 24 76.7 0 1.79 0.11 96 39 45.8 20.6 December 39.4 14 115.1 0 1.75 0.22 96 22 45.8 17 Total 437.9 291.15 1132.69 32.56 22.6 8.67 1052.1 479.6 468.45 323.97 Mean 36.49 24.26 94.39 2.71 1.88 0.72 87.68 39.97 39.04 27

Weather condition during the study period, 2018

Air Wind speed Relative Temprature ◦C Rain fall Eto m/s Humidity % Soil Temp. ˚C Month Max Min mm/day mm/day Day Night Max Min At (0.05)m At (0.1)m January 41.2 20.4 - - 1.6 - 96 22 49 31.2 February 41.4 16.4 26.6 - 12.37 - 92 20 51.8 40.2 Total 82.6 36.8 26.6 - 13.97 - 188 42 100.8 71.4 Mean 41.3 18.4 13.3 - 6.99 - 94 21 50.4 35.7 (Source: Omo Kuraz sugar project Metrological station monthly recorded data, 2017/2018).

Appendix 2. Soil chemical attributes in the surface (0-30 cm) and subsurface (30-60 cm layers), 3 days before planting. The data was analyzed at Wonji research station

Ec Exchangeable bases Depth PH OC Ava.P Ava.K S/N ds/m TN (%) (meg/100gm) (%) (cm) (1:5) (1:5) (ppm) (ppm) Na+ K+ Ca+ Mg2+ 1 0-30 8.37 0.3 0.96 0.154 4.18 202 5.5 2.66 48.8 12 2 30-60 8.56 0.51 0.78 0.165 1.64 210 5.01 2.02 57.6 9.6 Total 16.93 0.81 1.74 0.319 5.82 412 10.51 4.68 106.4 21.6 Mean 8.465 0.405 0.87 0.1595 2.91 206 5.255 2.34 53.2 10.8

Appendix 3. Analysis of variance table for germination percentage in hectare

Dependant variable: Germination percent (ha-1) The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Standard Root Source DF squares Mean squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD MSE Mean Replication 4 3.05 0.76 0.05 0.9942 Variety 3 44.47 14.82 1.07 0.3726 NS Error(a) 12 1208.40 100.70 0.6996 4.58 (a) 0.7095 3.73 81.44 spacing 3 257.45 85.82 6.17 0.0012 * Var*spa 9 42.03 4.67 0.34 0.9585 (b) 0.2637 NS Error(b) 48 667.87 13.91 Correted Total 79 2223.28

Appendix 4. Analysis of variance table for number of first tiller in hectare

Dependant variable: First Tiller number (ha-1) The ANOVA Procedure Mean Standard Source DF Sum of squares squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD Root MSE Mean

Replication 4 1800633754 450158439 2.17 0.086 Variety 3 20879695643 6959898548 33.62 <.0001 ** Error(a) 12 2914127371 242843948 a) 1101.92 a) 2401 spacing 3 35440446819 11813482273 57.07 <.0001 0.86386 15.21 ** 14387.47 94612.71 Var*spa 9 2013950846 223772316 1.08 0.3939 NS Error(b) 48 9935961937 206999207 b) 1017.34 Correted Total 79 72984816370

Appendix 5. Analysis of variance table for number of second tiller in hectare

Dependant variable: Second Tiller number (ha-1) The ANOVA Procedure Mean Standard Source DF Sum of squares squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD Root MSE Mean

Replication 4 9031092765 2257773191 11.75 <.0001 Variety 3 31678036637 10559345546 54.94 <.0001 ** Error(a) 12 1805125026 150427086 0.90386 10.97 a) 867.26 a) 1889.75 13863.55 126307.5 spacing 3 42165546247 14055182082 73.13 <.0001 ** Var*spa 9 2054585870 228287319 1.19 0.3244 Error(b) 48 9225511123 192198148 b) 980.30 NS Correted Total 79 95959897667

Appendix 6. Analysis of variance table for number of third tiller in hectare

Dependant variable: Third Tiller number (ha-1) The ANOVA Procedure Mean Standard Source DF Sum of squares squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD Root MSE Mean Replication 4 3940639215 985159804 6.88 0.0002 Variety 3 46182256374 15394085458 107.45 <.0001 ** Error(a) 12 5516367665 459697305 a) 1516 a) 3303.53 spacing 3 46671072700 15557024233 108.59 <.0001 0.93772 6.88 ** 11969.21 173958.8 Var*spa 9 1217305453 135256161 0.94 0.4967 Error(b) 48 6876576104 143262002 b) 846.35 NS Correted Total 79 1.10404E+11

Appendix 7. Analysis of variance table for number of tiller in hectare Dependant variable: Number of Tiller (ha-1) The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Standard Root Source DF squares Mean squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD MSE Mean Replication 4 921013069 230253267 2.17 0.0871 Variety 3 30776537953 10258845984 96.49 <.0001 ** Error(a) 12 1820224757 151685396 0.936884 7.83 (a) 870.88 (a) 1897.65 10311.1 131626.3 spacing 3 41161778923 13720592974 129.05 <.0001 ** Var*spa 9 1073490517 119276724 1.12 0.3661 (b) 729.12 NS Error(b) 48 5103342902 106319644 Correted Total 79 80856388122

Appendix 8. Analysis of variance table for cane forming stalk per hectare

Dependant variable: Cane forming satalk (ha-1) The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Standard Root Source DF squares Mean squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD MSE Mean Replication 4 1158269885 289567471 8.43 <.0001 Variety 3 18041158080 6013719360 174.99 <.0001 ** Error(a) 12 3595736655 299644721 0.959214 4.66 (a) 1224.02 (a)2667.14 5862.19 125814.9 spacing 3 15551851297 5183950432 150.85 <.0001 ** Var*spa 9 446915692 49657299 1.44 0.1961 (b) 414.52 NS Error(b) 48 1649533222 34365275 Correted Total 79 40443464832

Appendix 9. Analysis of variance table for number of first millable cane per hectare

Dependant variable: Number of first stalk/NMC/ (ha-1) The ANOVA Procedure Standard Source DF Sum of squares Mean squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD Root MSE Mean

Replication 4 303929716 75982429 2.58 0.0492 Variety 3 11008545928 3669515309 124.43 <.0001 ** Error(a) 12 3251790442 270982537 0.948388 4.97 a) 1164 a) 2536.37 5430.492 109102 spacing 3 11146213164 3715404388 125.99 <.0001 ** Var*spa 9 300134103 33348234 1.13 0.3602 NS Error(b) 48 1415531628 29490242 b) 383.99 Correted Total 79 27426144981

Appendix 10. Analysis of variance table for number of second millable cane per hectare

Dependant variable: Number of second stalk/NMC/ (ha-1) The ANOVA Procedure Mean Standard Source DF Sum of squares squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD Root MSE Mean

Replication 4 633680931 158420233 5.02 0.0018 Variety 3 10580231968 3526743989 111.73 <.0001 ** Error(a) 12 3211735288 267644607 a) 1156.82 a) 2520.70 spacing 3 10495902476 3498634159 110.84 <.0001 0.94322 5.47 ** 5618.254 102617.2 Var*spa 9 244975219 27219469 0.86 0.5644 NS Error(b) 48 1515109118 31564773 b) 397.27 Correted Total 79 26681634999

Appendix 11. Analysis of variance table for number of millable cane (Mean) per hectare

Dependant variable: Number of millable cane (ha-1) The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Standard Root Source DF squares Mean squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD MSE Mean Replication 4 444523765 111130941 3.77 0.0096 Variety 3 10785823668 3595274556 121.88 <.0001 ** Error(a) 12 3213899951 267824996 0.947428 5.13 (a) 1157.21 (a) 2521.56 5431.36 105859.6 spacing 3 10814517092 3604839031 122.2 <.0001 ** Var*spa 9 259174594 28797177 0.98 0.4714 (b) 379.45 NS Error(b) 48 1415982950 29499645 Correted Total 79 26933922020

Appendix 12. Analysis of variance table for internodes per cane stalk in a given plot

Dependant variable: Number of Internodes/cane stalk The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Standard Root Source DF squares Mean squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD MSE Mean Replication 4 391.62925 97.9073125 6972.63 <.0001 Variety 3 18.096375 6.032125 429.59 <.0001 ** Error(a) 12 3.61675 0.3013958 (a) 0.0388 (a) 0.0845 0.1185 25.23625 spacing 3 1.155375 0.385125 27.43 <.0001 0.998377 0.47 ** Var*spa 9 0.073125 0.008125 0.58 0.8079 (b) 0.0084 NS Error(b) 48 0.674 0.0140417 Correted Total 79 415.244875

Appendix 13. Analysis of variance table for cane weight in kilogram

Dependant variable: Cane weight (kg) The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Standard Root Source DF squares Mean squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD MSE Mean

Replication 4 0.22925 0.0573125 8.46 <.0001 Variety 3 0.132375 0.044125 6.52 0.0009 * Error(a) 12 0.24575 0.02047917 0.847766 5.39 (a) 0.0101 (a) 0.0220 0.08229 1.52625 spacing 3 1.123375 0.37445833 55.3 <.0001 ** Var*spa 9 0.079125 0.00879167 1.3 0.2626 (b) 0.0058 NS Error(b) 48 0.325 0.006771 Correted Total 79 2.134875

Appendix 14. Analysis of variance table for cane length in centimeter

Dependant variable: Cane length(cm) The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Standard Root Source DF squares Mean squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD MSE Mean Replication 4 11107.88075 2776.97019 1.9 0.1251 Variety 3 7639.7065 2546.56883 1.75 0.1702 NS Error (a) 12 21626.01225 1802.16769 0.589662 14.59 (a) 3.00 38.1946 261.8025 spacing 3 45171.3975 15057.1325 10.32 <.0001 ** Var*spa 9 15080.2595 1675.58439 1.15 0.3488 (b) 2.70 NS Error (b) 48 70023.763 1458.8284 Correted Total 79 170649.0195

Appendix 15. Analysis of variance table for cane girth in centimeter

Dependant variable: Cane girth (cm) The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Standard Root Source DF squares Mean squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV(%) error LSD MSE Mean Replication 4 0.0853175 0.02132937 1.26 0.2985 Variety 3 0.08866375 0.02955458 1.75 0.1701 NS Error(a) 12 0.5031425 0.04192854 0.75259 5.19 a) 0.0145 0.13009 2.5035 spacing 3 1.70686375 0.56895458 33.62 <.0001 ** Var*spa 9 0.08680125 0.00964458 0.57 0.8148 b) 0.0092 NS Error (b) 48 0.81226 0.01692208 Correted Total 79 3.28304875

Appendix 16. Analysis of variance table for brix percent of cane juice

Dependant variable: Birx percent The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Mean Standard Source DF squares squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV error LSD Root MSE Mean Replication 4 8.1191 2.029775 2.64 0.0453 Variety 3 19.626314 6.54210458 8.5 0.0001 ** Error (a) 12 58.32118 4.86009833 0.728626 4.95 (a) 0.1558 spacing 3 5.3150438 1.77168125 2.3 0.089 NS 0.877378 17.72188 Var*spa 9 7.8271813 0.86968681 1.13 0.3609 (b) 0.0620 NS Error (b) 48 36.95 0.7697917 Correted Total 79 136.15882

Appendix 17. Analysis of variance table for pol percent of cane juice

Dependant variable: Pol percent The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Mean Standard Source DF squares squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV error LSD Root MSE Mean Replication 4 9.74672 2.43668 1.93 0.1212 Variety 3 24.089794 8.0299312 6.35 0.001 * Error(a) 12 102.44405 8.5370042 0.70951 7.64 a) 0.2066 a) 0.4502 1.1246 spacing 3 0.9059138 0.3019713 0.24 0.8689 NS 14.71713 Var*spa 9 11.087571 1.2319524 0.97 0.473 (b) 0.0795 NS Error(b) 48 60.70679 1.2647248 Correted Total 79 208.98084

Appendix 18. Analysis of variance table for purity percent of cane juice

Dependant variable: Purity percent The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Mean Standard Source DF squares squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV error LSD Root MSE Mean Replication 4 166.07795 41.519488 2.62 0.0461 Variety 3 67.514194 22.504731 1.42 0.2478 NS Error(a) 12 1490.3247 124.193725 0.709695 4.79 (a) 0.7880 spacing 3 21.504794 7.168265 0.45 0.7164 NS 3.977934 82.95813 Var*spa 9 111.41271 12.37919 0.78 0.6335 (b) 0.2813 NS Error(b) 48 759.54987 15.823956 Correted Total 79 2616.3842

Appendix 19. Analysis of variance table for estimated cane yield tone per hectare

Dependant variable: Estemated cane yield (t/ha) The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Mean Standard Source DF squares squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV error LSD Root MSE Mean Replication 4 4862.8713 1215.71782 8.48 <.0001 Variety 3 18257.802 6085.93413 42.46 <.0001 ** Error(a) 12 13972.319 1164.35988 0.857783 7.48 (a) 2.41 (a) 5.2576 spacing 3 2515.1925 838.39748 5.85 0.0017 * 11.97208 160.1299 Var*spa 9 1887.9758 209.77509 1.46 0.1888 (b) 3.93 NS Error(b) 48 147901.32 3081.2775 Correted Total 79 48376.034

Appendix 20. Analysis of variance table for estimated recoverable sugar percent

Dependant variable: Estemated recoverable sugar (%) The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Mean Standard Source DF squares squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV error LSD Root MSE Mean Replication 4 9.7691375 2.4422844 2.05 0.1016 Variety 3 15.921094 5.3070313 4.46 0.0076 * Error(a) 12 105.65351 8.8044594 (a) 0.2098 (a) 0.4572 spacing 3 0.5434137 0.1811379 0.15 0.9277 0.713311 11.52 NS 1.090324 9.460625 Var*spa 9 10.090441 1.1211601 0.94 0.4976 (b) 0.0771 NS Error(b) 48 57.06267 1.1888056 Correted Total 79 199.04027

Appendix 21. Analysis of variance table for estimated sugar yield in tone per hectare

Dependant variable: Estemated sugar yield (ha-1)

The ANOVA Procedure Sum of Mean Standard Source DF squares squares F-value Pr>F R-Square CV error LSD Root MSE Mean Replication 4 140.80431 35.2010769 7.13 0.0001 Variety 3 164.55063 54.8502083 11.11 <.0001 ** Error(a) 12 420.25706 35.0214219 0.767359 14.65 (a) 0.4184 (a) 0.912 2.221569 15.16025 spacing 3 34.970935 11.6569783 2.36 0.083 NS Var*spa 9 20.818395 2.313155 0.47 0.8883 (b) 0.1571 NS Error(b) 48 236.89767 4.935368 Correted Total 79 1018.299

Appendix 22. Summarized result on sprout and growth in variety

2nd 1st 2nd Mean of Cane Forming 1st 2nd Mean of Spacing Relication 1st Sprout/ha Sprout/ha Tiller/ha Tiller/ha 3rd Tiller/ha Tiller/ha Stalk/ha NMC/ha NMC/ha NMC/ha 1 207513.90 266204.70 491884.80 647694.90 806998.50 648859.40 576497.37 519134.10 502015.96 510575.03 2 167688.00 214920.12 405944.70 579921.00 723853.20 569906.30 516199.56 457648.50 436373.09 447010.80 I 3 137643.90 178447.98 356337.00 508653.60 645598.80 503529.80 475744.83 432495.30 412617.29 422556.30 4 118080.30 152316.60 282973.50 429001.80 584113.20 432029.50 422643.63 377996.70 361437.51 369717.11 Mean 157731.53 202972.35 384285.00 541317.83 690140.93 538581.25 497771.35 446818.65 428110.96 437464.81 1 206815.20 265506.00 519832.80 688918.20 792325.80 667025.60 555955.59 490487.40 465264.33 477875.87 2 177469.80 216317.52 396861.60 584113.20 731538.90 570837.90 522138.51 459045.90 429979.99 444512.94 II 3 142534.80 180544.08 387778.50 549876.90 651188.40 529614.60 477701.19 438084.90 419115.20 428600.05 4 108997.20 151617.90 294152.70 398259.00 548479.50 413630.40 418800.78 383586.30 358363.23 370974.77 Mean 158954.25 203496.38 399656.40 555291.83 680883.15 545277.13 493649.02 442801.13 418180.69 430490.91 1 208212.60 267602.10 528915.90 651188.40 783242.70 654449.00 548269.89 504461.40 474661.85 474190.23 2 174675.00 211426.62 396861.60 549876.90 701494.80 549411.10 506906.85 447866.70 413805.08 430835.89 III 3 142534.80 177330.06 345157.80 468827.70 651887.10 488624.20 467709.78 405944.70 373559.96 389752.33 4 110394.60 153015.30 285768.30 404547.30 480705.60 390340.40 413909.88 364721.40 333279.90 349000.65 Mean 158954.25 202343.52 389175.90 518610.08 654332.55 520706.18 484199.10 430748.55 398826.70 410944.78 1 203321.70 267602.10 438783.60 570139.20 863593.20 624172.00 604515.24 486993.90 456705.26 471849.58 2 176771.10 212824.02 399656.40 484199.10 773460.90 552438.80 544496.91 463936.80 431028.03 447482.42 IV 3 153015.30 177330.06 299043.60 408739.50 702193.50 469992.20 507465.81 418521.30 393996.94 406259.12 4 106901.10 153015.30 238256.70 331882.50 584113.20 384750.80 451569.81 375900.60 349070.52 362485.56 Mean 160002.30 202692.87 343935.08 448740.08 730840.20 507838.45 527011.94 436338.15 407700.19 422019.17 1 207513.90 269698.20 514941.90 598087.20 853811.40 655613.50 607449.78 489090.00 456949.80 473019.90 2 184456.80 218413.62 411534.30 491884.80 763679.10 555699.40 534575.37 454155.00 425543.24 439849.12 V 3 137643.90 175653.18 333978.60 422014.80 686822.10 480938.50 487552.86 413630.40 392844.08 403237.24 4 109695.90 150919.20 240352.80 336773.40 587606.70 388244.30 425089.08 344459.10 322764.47 333611.79 Mean 159827.63 203671.05 375201.90 462190.05 722979.83 520123.93 513666.77 425333.63 399525.40 412429.51

Appendix 23. Summarized result on sprout and growth in spacing

. Cane 2nd 1st 2nd Mean of Forming 1st 2nd Mean of Spacing Relication 1st Sprout/ha Sprout/ha Tiller/ha Tiller/ha 3rd Tiller/ha Tiller/ha Stalk/ha NMC/ha NMC/ha NMC/ha 1 207513.90 266204.70 491884.80 647694.90 806998.50 648859.40 576497.37 519134.10 502015.96 510575.03 2 167688.00 214920.12 405944.70 579921.00 723853.20 569906.30 516199.56 457648.50 436373.09 447010.80 I 3 137643.90 178447.98 356337.00 508653.60 645598.80 503529.80 475744.83 432495.30 412617.29 422556.30 4 118080.30 152316.60 282973.50 429001.80 584113.20 432029.50 422643.63 377996.70 361437.51 369717.11 Mean 157731.53 202972.35 384285.00 541317.83 690140.93 538581.25 497771.35 446818.65 428110.96 437464.81 1 206815.20 265506.00 519832.80 688918.20 792325.80 667025.60 555955.59 490487.40 465264.33 477875.87 2 177469.80 216317.52 396861.60 584113.20 731538.90 570837.90 522138.51 459045.90 429979.99 444512.94 II 3 142534.80 180544.08 387778.50 549876.90 651188.40 529614.60 477701.19 438084.90 419115.20 428600.05 4 108997.20 151617.90 294152.70 398259.00 548479.50 413630.40 418800.78 383586.30 358363.23 370974.77 Mean 158954.25 203496.38 399656.40 555291.83 680883.15 545277.13 493649.02 442801.13 418180.69 430490.91 1 208212.60 267602.10 528915.90 651188.40 783242.70 654449.00 548269.89 504461.40 474661.85 474190.23 2 174675.00 211426.62 396861.60 549876.90 701494.80 549411.10 506906.85 447866.70 413805.08 430835.89 III 3 142534.80 177330.06 345157.80 468827.70 651887.10 488624.20 467709.78 405944.70 373559.96 389752.33 4 110394.60 153015.30 285768.30 404547.30 480705.60 390340.40 413909.88 364721.40 333279.90 349000.65 Mean 158954.25 202343.52 389175.90 518610.08 654332.55 520706.18 484199.10 430748.55 398826.70 410944.78 1 203321.70 267602.10 438783.60 570139.20 863593.20 624172.00 604515.24 486993.90 456705.26 471849.58 2 176771.10 212824.02 399656.40 484199.10 773460.90 552438.80 544496.91 463936.80 431028.03 447482.42 IV 3 153015.30 177330.06 299043.60 408739.50 702193.50 469992.20 507465.81 418521.30 393996.94 406259.12 4 106901.10 153015.30 238256.70 331882.50 584113.20 384750.80 451569.81 375900.60 349070.52 362485.56 Mean 160002.30 202692.87 343935.08 448740.08 730840.20 507838.45 527011.94 436338.15 407700.19 422019.17 1 207513.90 269698.20 514941.90 598087.20 853811.40 655613.50 607449.78 489090.00 456949.80 473019.90 2 184456.80 218413.62 411534.30 491884.80 763679.10 555699.40 534575.37 454155.00 425543.24 439849.12 V 3 137643.90 175653.18 333978.60 422014.80 686822.10 480938.50 487552.86 413630.40 392844.08 403237.24 4 109695.90 150919.20 240352.80 336773.40 587606.70 388244.30 425089.08 344459.10 322764.47 333611.79 Mean 159827.63 203671.05 375201.90 462190.05 722979.83 520123.93 513666.77 425333.63 399525.40 412429.51 Where; NMC= No. of millable cane

Appendix 24. Summarized result on growth, quality and yield parameters in variety

Var Rep Germ.(%) Tiller/ha CFS/ha NMC/ha NInt/cane CW(kg) CL(cm) CG (cm) Birx(%) Pol(%) Purity(%)ECY(t/ha)ERS(%) ESY(t/ha) 1 1 81.51 141836.10 119460.23 98547.27 29.65 1.53 291.45 2.49 17.84 14.17 79.45 147.70 8.71 12.87 2 86.44 154238.03 123984.32 109403.32 27.10 1.48 278.90 2.38 18.02 15.61 86.60 159.62 10.44 16.68 3 74.96 143175.28 130377.42 105573.57 25.65 1.35 269.80 2.40 18.13 13.35 73.36 141.93 7.50 10.55 4 82.27 145271.38 140002.01 99045.09 24.35 1.53 260.10 2.60 17.18 15.10 87.90 149.83 10.24 15.34 5 82.25 155344.30 150272.90 112145.72 22.88 1.58 255.00 2.43 18.73 15.99 85.34 174.39 10.55 18.41 Mean 81.48 147973.02 132819.38 104942.99 25.93 1.49 271.05 2.46 17.98 14.84 82.53 154.69 9.49 14.77 2 1 85.87 120991.55 121626.20 113717.79 28.55 1.60 282.58 2.37 18.77 16.42 87.64 181.15 11.08 20.13 2 74.95 120118.18 123495.23 108560.51 26.80 1.50 260.83 2.63 18.71 16.07 85.85 161.65 10.67 17.21 3 81.75 116450.00 108944.80 101486.18 25.10 1.43 286.38 2.45 18.29 15.37 83.99 143.15 10.00 14.19 4 75.61 113655.20 132001.90 113228.70 24.03 1.55 253.40 2.51 18.59 14.84 79.72 173.45 9.16 15.85 5 86.94 101660.85 106115.06 84018.68 22.30 1.50 259.03 2.47 17.69 15.12 85.52 125.20 10.00 12.58 Mean 81.03 114575.16 118436.64 104202.37 25.36 1.52 268.44 2.49 18.41 15.56 84.54 156.92 10.18 15.99 3 1 75.61 111209.75 107355.26 96542.87 28.10 1.70 268.30 2.48 18.15 15.86 87.52 162.15 10.69 17.24 2 82.67 114936.15 102464.36 93564.66 26.38 1.68 266.83 2.58 17.59 12.87 73.21 156.17 7.17 11.17 3 81.88 107366.90 102429.42 83319.98 25.00 1.45 253.63 2.46 19.32 16.78 86.86 119.24 11.25 13.40 4 86.11 103116.48 105591.04 87743.62 23.95 1.48 261.38 2.53 14.61 11.98 81.73 128.41 7.61 9.75 5 75.50 112548.93 112263.62 92983.87 21.80 1.68 258.90 2.63 16.60 13.78 82.97 154.10 8.86 13.59 Mean 80.35 109835.64 106020.74 90831.00 25.05 1.60 261.81 2.53 17.25 14.25 82.46 144.01 9.12 13.03 4 1 81.87 164543.85 149329.66 128656.87 27.63 1.58 281.08 2.52 16.95 14.88 87.47 200.46 10.08 20.31 2 81.95 155984.78 143705.12 118962.41 26.13 1.43 263.08 2.40 17.05 14.01 82.11 168.57 8.92 15.02 3 86.26 153714.00 142447.46 124407.90 24.73 1.53 185.93 2.61 16.71 13.83 82.76 189.42 8.86 16.82 4 75.50 145795.40 149417.00 122001.75 23.63 1.53 225.98 2.46 18.48 15.71 85.01 185.37 10.33 19.13 5 81.77 150569.85 145015.19 123281.25 21.00 1.48 273.53 2.70 17.06 12.62 74.18 180.66 7.14 12.96 Mean 81.47 154121.58 145982.88 123462.04 24.62 1.51 245.92 2.54 17.25 14.21 82.30 184.89 9.06 16.85

Where; S pa= Spacing (cm), Rep= replication, Germ.(%) = Germination CFS = Cane formin g stalk , NMC= Number of millable cane, NInt = Number of internodes, CW = Cane weight, CL = Cane length, CG = Cane girth, ECY = Estimated cane yield, ERS = Estimated recover able sugar , ESY = Estimated sugar yield.

Appendix 25. Summarized result on growth, quality and yield parameters in spacing

Spa Rep Germ.(%) Tiller/ha CFS/ha NMC/ha NInt/plotCW(kg) CL(cm) CG (cm) Birx(%) Pol(%) Purity(%)ECY(t/ha)ERS(%) ESY(t/ha) 1 1 81.60 162214.85 144124.34 127643.76 28.75 1.43 273.73 2.29 18.42 15.83 85.46 181.88 10.46 19.45 2 81.17 166756.40 138988.90 119468.97 26.75 1.38 284.88 2.28 17.83 14.91 83.77 163.09 9.68 15.86 3 81.81 163612.25 137067.47 122390.41 25.20 1.35 290.10 2.33 18.85 14.06 80.02 166.24 8.73 14.44 4 81.11 156043.00 151128.81 117962.39 24.08 1.35 298.38 2.39 17.38 14.80 83.44 159.56 9.54 15.23 5 82.19 163903.38 151862.45 118254.98 22.13 1.40 287.20 2.37 18.12 14.78 81.52 165.56 9.34 15.23 81.58 162505.98 144634.39 121144.10 25.38 1.38 286.86 2.33 18.12 14.88 82.84 167.27 9.55 16.04 2 1 81.93 142476.58 129049.89 111752.70 28.60 1.50 279.10 2.37 17.56 15.41 89.02 168.14 10.56 17.80 2 84.41 142709.48 130534.63 111128.24 26.68 1.45 278.83 2.43 17.91 14.17 81.11 160.79 8.92 14.45 3 82.71 137352.78 126726.71 107708.97 25.15 1.40 271.45 2.45 18.20 15.33 82.65 151.19 9.81 14.78 4 83.39 138109.70 136124.23 111870.60 24.03 1.45 281.35 2.42 17.49 13.94 82.89 162.33 9.00 14.98 5 86.40 138924.85 133643.84 109962.28 22.08 1.50 274.95 2.43 17.41 14.40 83.49 163.37 9.32 15.06 83.77 139914.68 131215.86 110484.56 25.31 1.46 277.14 2.42 17.71 14.65 83.83 161.17 9.52 15.41 3 1 80.54 125882.45 118936.21 105639.07 28.43 1.63 285.60 2.49 17.87 15.40 84.50 170.58 10.09 17.29 2 82.36 132403.65 119425.30 107150.01 26.58 1.55 253.50 2.60 17.73 14.42 79.96 164.85 8.92 14.68 3 81.65 122156.05 116927.45 97438.08 25.08 1.45 251.08 2.52 17.96 15.29 82.76 141.06 9.81 13.61 4 84.08 117498.05 126866.45 101564.78 23.98 1.60 249.73 2.57 17.08 13.81 82.31 162.62 8.79 14.34 5 79.87 120234.63 121888.22 100809.31 21.95 1.63 253.33 2.58 17.63 14.07 82.98 163.57 9.06 14.86 81.70 123634.97 120808.72 102520.25 25.20 1.57 258.65 2.55 17.65 14.60 82.50 160.54 9.33 14.96 4 1 80.79 108007.38 105660.91 92429.28 28.15 1.85 284.98 2.71 17.85 14.69 83.10 170.85 9.45 16.02 2 78.07 103407.60 104700.20 92743.69 26.40 1.70 252.43 2.68 17.89 15.06 82.94 157.27 9.68 15.09 3 78.68 97585.10 103477.47 87250.16 25.05 1.55 183.10 2.62 17.45 14.64 81.54 135.24 9.27 12.12 4 78.10 96187.70 112892.45 90621.39 23.88 1.68 171.40 2.72 16.91 15.08 85.71 152.56 10.00 15.53 5 78.00 97061.08 106272.27 83402.95 21.83 1.70 230.98 2.86 16.91 14.27 80.01 141.84 8.83 12.39 78.73 100449.77 106600.66 89289.49 25.06 1.70 224.58 2.72 17.40 14.75 82.66 151.55 9.45 14.23

Appendix 26. Number of setts and buds of different sugarcane varieties used during planting time, 2017

Setts spacing Variety No. of No. of Setts/10 m Buds/10m V1 (B 52 298) 34 102

S1 V2 (N Co 334) 30 90 (5cm overlapping) V3 (C 86/112) 44 132 V4 (N 14) 32 96 Total 140 420 Mean 35 105

V1 28 84 V2 24 72 S (End to end) 2 V3 30 90 V4 30 90 Total 112 336 Mean 28 84

V1 22 66 V2 22 66 S (10 cm) 3 V3 28 84 V4 22 66 Total 94 282 Mean 23 70

V1 18 54 V2 20 60 S (20 cm) 4 V3 24 72 V4 18 54 Total 80 240

Mean 20 60 Note that; from conventional method, end to end of sett spacing, the amount of planting materials increased for S1 by 25 %, and reduced by 16 & 29 % for S3 and S4, respectively.