Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 2021; 10(1): 1928-1930

E-ISSN: 2278-4136 P-ISSN: 2349-8234 www.phytojournal.com Study of pre released sugarcane genotypes for JPP 2021; 10(1): 1928-1930 Received: 13-11-2020 agronomic traits and sugar yield Accepted: 16-12-2020

Firdoz Shahana Firdoz Shahana, Dr. Y Bharathi, Dr. T Prabhakar Reddy and Dr. B Professor, Jayashankar Joseph State Agricultural University, Regional Sugarcane and Rice Research Station, Abstract Rudrur, , Study pertaining to agronomic evaluation of ten pre released sugarcane genotypes was conducted at Telangana, RS&RRS, Rudrur, PJTSAU, Telangana state during rabi 2016-17.Genotypes 2009 R 74, 2010 R 854, 2011 R 274, 2011 R 24, 97 R 401, 2011 R 1, 2011 R 305, 2011 R 327, 2011 R 47, and 2010 R 175 were Dr. Y Bharathi studied for yield attributes, cane yield and sugar yield in comparison to popular variety 93 V 297. Professor, Jayashankar Experiment was conducted in randomized block design with genotypes as treatments replicated thrice. Telangana State Agricultural Genotypes 2011 R 274 recorded higher cane length (323.3 cm) cane girth (1.4 cm) single cane weight University, Regional Sugarcane (2.0 kg) and higher number of total internodes (22nos) and was significantly superior over 93V297. Due and Rice Research Station, Rudrur, Nizamabad District, to higher yield attributes significantly higher cane yield of 168 tons/ha was recorded with 2011 R 274, Telangana, India while 93V297 recorded cane yield of 101 tons/ha. Sucrose % and CCS yield was also superior with 2011 R 274 with 21.9% sucrose and 25.78 t/ha sugar yield. Dr. T Prabhakar Reddy Professor, Jayashankar Keywords: cane yield, sucrose %, sugar yield and CCS yield Telangana State Agricultural University, Regional Sugarcane Introduction and Rice Research Station, Sugarcane is an important commercial crop of the country occupying around 3.8 million Rudrur, Nizamabad District, Telangana, India hectares of land with an annual cane production of around 270 million tonnes. That is, it occupies about 2.8% of the cultivated land area and contributes about 7.5 % to the agricultural Dr. B Joseph production in the country. About 35 million farmers grow and depend on sugarcane for their Professor, Jayashankar livelihood. And an equal number of agricultural labourers earn their living by working in Telangana State Agricultural sugarcane farms. It contributes significantly to the socio economic development of the nation. University, Regional Sugarcane and Rice Research Station, The yield gap in sugarcane varies from region to region and technology to technology and Rudrur, Nizamabad District, ranges from 13.95 to 201.95 t/ha in Tropical region and from 4.95 to 53.45 t/ha in sub-tropical Telangana, India region(Status paper on sugarcane) Hence improving productivity of sugarcane is most needed concern in present context of sugarcane cultivation. Assessment and refinement of agro- techniques for sustainable farming system and management of sugarcane under late planting

situation is most important factor for enhancing sugarcane productivity. In addition to other factors contributing to increased sugarcane production, use of high yielding varieties plays a remarkable role (Ahmad, 1990) [1]. Adoption of improved varieties not only increases cane tonnage per hectare but also enhances sugar production. Since yield potential of varieties in hand is deteriorating day by day due to segregation, susceptibility to

diseases, insects admixture and changes in edaphic and climatic environments, it is essential to select the varieties with high yield potential and wide range of adaptability. The present day sugar cane varieties (S. officinarum) have been the subject of many improvements. The original S. spontaneum and S. robustum were replaced by S. barberi and S. sinense, but were themselves ousted later by S. officinarum or noble cane (Terry, 2000) [7]. Generally, sugarcane

is a tall perennial crop that tillers at the base, grows three to four meters tall and about five cm in diameter (Singh, 2003). However, selection for high yield is made difficult because yield per unit area is the end product of the combined effects of several characters, which are polygenic in inheritance and thus are highly influenced by environment. Therefore, only little progress could be made over along span of time through direct selection for yield (Ford, 1964) [2] . This selection criterion takes into account the information on interrelationship among Corresponding Author: agronomic characters, their relationship with yield as well as their direct influence on sugar Firdoz Shahana yield. Development of the varieties capable of giving higher cane yield, sugar recovery along Professor, Jayashankar with field stability help bringing out enhancement in sugarcane productivity Telangana State Agricultural University, Regional Sugarcane and Rice Research Station, Materials and Methods Rudrur, Nizamabad District, The proposed study was conducted on a sandy-clay loam soil at Regional Sugarcane and Rice Telangana, India Research Station- Rudrur, Nizamabad, Professor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural ~ 1928 ~ Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry http://www.phytojournal.com

University, Telangana during rabi 2016. Genotypes 2009 R No. of millable canes per unit area is the major yield 74, 2010 R 854, 2011 R 274, 2011 R 24, 93 V 297, 97 R 401, component of sugarcane and contributes 70% towards cane 2011 R 1, 2011 R 305, 2011 R 327, 2011 R 47 2010 R 175 & yield. Genotypes 2011R274 recorded significantly higher 85R186 were studied. The experiment was laid out in number of millable canes 94‘000 ha1 by 2010R175‘000 ha1. Randomized Block Design replicated thrice. Experimental These two genotypes were on par with each other and area consisted of 20 rows of 20m length of each variety. Main significantly superior over other genotypes objective of the study was to compare sugarcane genotypes for cane and sugar yield with popular variety 93V297 most Cane length: In sugarcane, cane length is important yield popular among farming community in Telangana state. contributing factor and is controlled by both genetic and Genotypes were planted at spacing of 150 cm between rows. environmental factors. It is a good predictor of plant biomass Recommended dose of fertilizer was applied uniformly to all at all stages of growth.. Among the varieties studied, treatments. All other agronomic practices were kept uniform significantly higher cane length was recorded with 2011R274 for all the treatments throughout the growing period. For data (323.3 cm) followed by 2009R74 (281 cm). These two collection, 10 normal plants from each treatment were varieties were statistically similar and significantly higher selected for various parameters, number of millable cane, over other varieties. Least cane length was recorded with cane length (m), cane girth(cm), number of inter-nodes per 2011R 47 (208.3 cm) cane & single cane weight (kg).The shoot population i.e., number of millable canes were counted at harvest and were Cane girth: Genotypes 2011R 274, 2011R24 & 2011R1 expressed in thousands per hectare (‘000 ha1). Plant height produced thicker canes with significantly higher cane girth was measured from the base of the plant to the top fully value of 1.4cm. They were significantly superior to other opened leaf of the main shoot at harvest. Number of nodes on genotypes. the main shoot was counted at harvest. Measurements were taken from the main shoots and average node number per Single cane weight: Among all genotypes studied, 2011R274 plant was expressed. Cane girth was determined using vernier recorded significantly higher single cane weight of 2.0 kg calipers. followed by 2011R24. Least single cane weight was recorded The soil of the experimental site was sandy clay loam with with 2009R74 (1.1kg) and 93V 297 (1.3kg) low in nitrogen, high in phosphorus and potassium availability. Total inter node number: Total number of internodes were Brix refers to the total solids content present in the juice higher with 2011R274, 93V297 and 2011R1 (22nos) followed expressed in percentage. Brix includes sugars as well as non- by 2010R854, 2011R24 and 2011R305 (21nos).These sugars. It was taken by measuring the brix (total soluble genotypes were at par with each other and superior to other solids) in the cane in laboratory using a hydrometer. Five genotypes. canes per samples were obtained for estimation of brix percentage. Both brix and temperature reading were noted. Cane & sugar (ccs) yield: Sugarcane yield is a function of Then, corrected brix % was calculated using a Schmitz table the number and the weight of individual millable stalks. Cane for a particular temperature. yield was significantly influenced by genotypes. Genotypes Sucrose (%) is the actual sugar present in the juice. 2011R274 recorded significantly higher cane yield of 168 t/ha Polarimeter is used for its determining. Cane juice was followed by 2010R175 (164 t/ha). These two genotypes were augmented with 1.5 g lead acetate and filtered. The filtered on par with each other The higher number of millable canes juice was then placed in a tube in a polarimeter. The reading with these genotypes should have resulted in a more taken was polarized sugar % yield (t ha-1), sucrose content pronounced difference in cane yield. Similar trend was (%) & sugaryield were recorded. observed for sugar yield 2011R274 (25.78 t/ha) & 2010R175 Cane yield (t ha-1) data was taken by weighing the cane (23.73 t/ha) followed by 2011R24 (22.1 t/ha).Higher sugar without trash per plot in kilograms and converting into yield recorded with this variety is attributed to higher sucrose tons/ha by the following formula. % recorded with these varieties. Sucrose% recorded with these genotypes was 2011R274 (21.9%), 2010R175 (20.9%), Cane yield = (x × 1000/plot size × 1000) 2011R24 (20.7%). These results are in confirmation with Sundhara (2000) who reported that sugar yield is a function of Where “x” is the yield in kg per plot cane yield and sucrose% The data collected was analyzed statistically by using Fisher’s The higher number of millable stalks with dual row planting analysis of variance technique and treatment means was should have resulted in a more pronounced difference in cane compared by using LSD test at 0.05 probability level (Steel yield and Torrie, 1984). Conclusion Results & Discussion Pre released sugarcane genotypes 2011R274 and 2010R175 Number of tillers, an important yield contributing factor is maintained higher yield potential with yield advantage of controlled by genetic cum environmental factors. Data (Table- more than 60% due higher number of millable canes and 1) revealed that numberof tillers increased as growth single cane weight over popular variety 93V97which is advanced up to 120DAP and decreased later. The average no. widely cultivated by farmers. Hence these genotypes are of tillers) were statistically similar in genotypes 2011R 274 amicable for replacing existing variety (99), (99), 2009R 74 (97), 2011R24 (96) and 2011R 305 (95) and significantly higher than other genotypes.

~ 1929 ~ Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry http://www.phytojournal.com

Table 1: Tiller count and shoot population of sugarcane genotypes

Tiller count (‘000 ha1) NMC (‘000 ha1) S No. Treatment/Genotype 90 DAP 120 DAP 210 DAP at harvest 1 2010R854 94 103 92 87 2 2010R175 97 103 99 92 3 93V297© 91 96 83 78 4 2009R74 94 102 97 88 5 97R401 98 96 91 82 6 2011R274 101 104 99 94 7 2011R24 97 102 96 90 8 2011R327 96 98 94 89 9 2011R42 83 88 86 83 10 2011R1 90 96 91 88 11 2011R305 93 101 95 90 C.D. N/A N/A 8.95 7.68 S.E.(m) 5.23 15.91 2.97 2.24

Table 2: Cane characters of promising sugarcane genotypes

Sl. No. Treatment/Genotype Cane Length (cm) Cane Girth (cm) Single cane weight (kg) Total Internode Number 1 2010R854 251.0 1.3 1.8 21 2 93V297© 267.0 1.2 1.3 22 3 2010R175 243.3 1.3 1.9 18 4 2009R74 281.0 1.2 1.1 17 5 97R401 256.7 1.2 1.5 18 6 2011R274 323.3 1.4 2.0 22 7 2011R24 261.7 1.4 1.9 21 8 2011R327 224.3 1.2 1.0 17 9 2011R47 208.3 1.2 1.5 18 10 2011R1 265.0 1.4 1.5 22 11 2011R305 246.7 1.2 1.7 21 C.D. 52.171 0.154 0.323 2.602 S.E.(m) 17.674 0.052 0.112 0.881

Table 3: Sucrose % and CCS yield of different sugarcane genotypes

S. No. Treatment/Genotype Brix Sucrose% Cane Yield (t/ha) CCS% CCS yield (t/ha) 1 2010R854 21.9 19.8 156.6 13.84 21.67 2 93V297 19.0 18.8 101.4 13.67 13.86 3 2010R175 22.3 20.9 164.1 14.03 23.73 4 2009R74 22.6 20.2 96.8 14.05 13.60 5 97R401 16.3 14.0 123.0 9.55 11.74 6 2011R274 24.1 21.9 168.0 15.34 25.78 7 2011R24 23.1 20.7 152.0 14.61 22.21 8 2011R327 23.1 20.5 85.0 14.61 12.42 9 2011R47 20.7 19.7 124.5 14.09 17.54 10 2011R1 23.6 21.4 133.5 14.98 20.00 11 2011R305 22.7 19.6 153.0 13.40 20.51 C.D. 1.602 1.293 13.06 1.351 2.093 S.E.(m) 0.543 0.438 4.424 0.458 0.709

References 6. Singh SB. Sugarcane Crop Management. Rainbow 1. Ahmad I. Study on comparative ratooning performance processors and printers, New Delhi, India 2003. of some new and old varieties of sugarcane. M.Sc. 7. Terry B. The sugarcane plant. Manual 2000,71p. Thesis, Department of Agronomy, University Agriculture, Faisalabad, Pakistan 1990. 2. Ford JH. The influence of time of flowering on seed development of flax. Crop Sci 1964;4:52-54 3. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedure for agricultural research (2nd) ed. John Wiley and Sons Inc., New York 1984. 4. Mohammadi SA, Prasana BM, Singh NN. Sequential path model for determining interrelationships among grain yield and related characters in maize. Crop sci 2003;43:1690-1697. 5. Panse VG, Sukhatme PV. Statistical methods for agricultural workers". Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi 1978,191p.

~ 1930 ~