Snags in Sugarcane Production in Pakistan

By Dr. Ali Muhammad Khushk & Aslam Memon

Sugarcane is an important cash crop of Pakistan. It ranks at the 5^th position in its acreage and production and almost 15^th position in sugar production in the world. Sugarcane is mainly grown for manufacturing sugar and other sweeteners (Shakar and Gur) and its by-products are used in chipboard and paper industries. It is an important source of income and employment for the farming community also. The share of sugarcane in total agricultural value added and GDP are 4.5% and 0.9%, respectively. Although both the sugarcane area and production were increased in past two decades, but in a cyclical fashion (Government of Pakistan, 2007). In sugarcane growing areas, about 64% of total area under this crop has been planted by farm sizes ranging from 1 to 10 hectares (Agricultural Census of Pakistan, 2000). Currently, there are 77 sugar mills in the country with a distribution of 41 mills in Punjab, 29 in Sindh and 7 in NWFP province. These mills crushed nearly 74% of total sugarcane produced in the country to produce 3.52 million tons of white sugar.

In Pakistan sugarcane is widely planted in Sindh, Punjab and NWFP provinces. The highest sugarcane production was recorded in Punjab with the average yield of 690mds/acre during the year 2007-08, while the lowest sugarcane yield was recorded for NWFP province with an average yield of 566mds/acre during the same year. The average yield of sugarcane during the last few years ranges between 45 to 50 ton/hectare. It is one of the poorest among 16 sugarcane producing countries as a major crop. The yield of sugarcane is quite low, 500-800 mds/acre, considerably less than the potential yields. The gap between potential and actual yield is very wide due to poor management practices and post-harvest losses. It is also found that sugarcane production system has passed down from previous generations and is dominant among the growers. The traditional methods are commonly used in sugarcane management and labor is an important input in the sugarcane production process. Production process is not mechanized and is mostly labor intensive. Majority of the growers do not follow modern practices like proper use of FYM, inter-culturing, fertilizer application, sprays and timely irrigation. The problems of post harvest losses include improper handling, harvesting and inadequate transport facilities. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the major factors affecting sugarcane production in Pakistan.

Sugarcane Production System

The aim of this analysis is to identify the major factors responsible for low sugarcane production and to explain various sugarcane production systems in Pakistan. The main concern is to help assess incentives for sugarcane producers given those incentives for any product play a key role in its development and the distribution of benefits from its production. The efforts have been made to describe the management practices, input use, sugarcane varieties, insect-pests and disease problems.

Land Preparation

Sugarcane is a deep rooted crop and proper land preparation plays an important role in the development of cane root system, for achieving optimal growth of the crop. Land should be prepared by deep ploughing at least after every subsequent year. While the main source of ploughing was tractor 62.5 per cent followed by tractor and animal was 34.9 per cent and 2.6 per cent animals. An average 1 hour of ploughings of cultivator and goble and 1.5 planking were applied by the farmers respectively. Generally it was found that number of cultivator and goble ploughing and planking were used for seedbed preparation.

Planting Seasons

Sugarcane planting usually carried out in spring and autumn season. Autumn planting is recognized as high yields and high sugar recovery, compared to spring planting. In fact, October planting of sugarcane gives very luxuriant growth, which is mostly vulnerable to lodging. The crop gives good appearance till June-July but is subject to lodging in July or even earlier if there is windstorm or excessive rains. It was investigated that 27 percent of growers planted sugarcane in February, 21 percent in October, 16 percent in March and 11 percent in September. While 25 per cent of the growers in the study area planted in spring (Feb-March) and in autumn (Sept-Nov) seasons respectively.

Planting Method

The most common method of sugar cane planting is “overlapping”, “end to end” and “double set” methods. The overall per acre cost for planting/sowing was recorded Rs.872 respectively. Furthermore, it was inspected that none of the sample respondents used seed treatment before planting of sugarcane.

Farm Yard Manure

Farmers generally use quantity of farmyard manure to sugarcane crop in order to restore soil fertility for better yield as compared with other kharif crops. Well rotten farmyard manure should be applied prior to land preparation press mud from the sugar industry is another excellent source of organic matter and nutrients. It was investigated that in NWFP sugarcane growers highly applied an average 3.7 tractor trolleys per acre of farmyard manure followed by Punjab 2.5 tractor trolleys per acre, whereas very low use of farm yard manure was seen in Sindh of about 0.3 trolleys per acre. Despite the fact that the overall average usage of farm yard manure were recorded 1.9 tractor trolleys per acre.

Sugarcane varieties

The sugarcane varietal adoption in Sindh was analyzed and found that overall THATTA-10 was the dominant variety and accounted for about 51.3 percent during 2006-07 and slightly decreased 49 percent during 2007-08. The other major recommended varieties included BL-4 and SPSG-26; were grown on 13.18 and 4.5 percent in 2006-07, while BL-4 and SPSG-26 had an increasing trend in the next cropping year acquiring 15.96 and 6.60 percent respectively during 2007-08. The varieties BL-4 and THATTA-10 were being adopted because of high sucrose content, having more than (18%). The other varieties Gulabi-95, NIA-98, L-113, L-116 and PR-1000 were in the initial stages of adoption. About 23 and 22 percent of the sugarcane acreage was allocated to non-recommended varieties during 2006-07 and 2007-08 respectively. Sugarcane varieties TRITON and CP-20/72 were the non-recommended cultivars grown on an area of 16.94 and 4.04 percent during 2006. However, the farmers are continuing cultivation of these varieties on account of certain characteristic of these varieties, especially for quality of white colour Gur (molasses), etc.

Sugarcane varietial adoption in Punjab was analysed and found that overall HSF-240 was the leading variety and was planted on about 21.9 percent during 2006-07 and about 36.7 percent during 2007-08. The other major RSV included SPSG-79 and CPF-237; these are grown on 4.9 and 4.3 percent during year 2006-07, while these varieties had an increasing trend during 2007-08 acquiring 4.3 and 4.9 percent respectively. These varieties were mainly adopted because of high sucrose content. The varieties CP 43-33, CP 77-400, HSF-242, SPF-234, L-118, SPSG-26 and COJ-84 were released in the past and were in the stages of adoption. A large percent (60.8 and 44.7 percent) of the sugarcane acreage was planted under non-recommended varieties. While the figures illustrate a declining trend towards non-recommended varieties, the sugarcane varieties CPF-238 and CO-1148 were the main at non-recommended cultivars grown 56.4 and 3.9 percent during 2006, while in 2007 these varieties were prone and were growing on 37.7 and 3.9 percent area for CPF-238 and CP 77-400 respectively. However, the farmers were continuing cultivation of these varieties on account of certain characteristic of these varieties.

Sugarcane varietial adoption in NWFP was analysed and found that overall CP-77-400 was the leading variety and accounted for about 98 percent during 2006-07 and 2007-08 in the total sugarcane acreage in NWFP. A tiny area of almost 2 percent overall of the sugarcane acreage was allocated to non-recommended varieties. While the statistics illustrated that the trend was towards recommended varieties gradually.

Fertilizer

Fertilizer application is important for obtaining optimum yield of sugarcane. Most of the growers use only nitrogenous fertilizers while others use an unbalanced combination of N and P. The use of K is almost negligible in cane crop. It is very important to use proper doses of balanced fertilizers to obtain the maximum yield of cane crop. Department of Agriculture Sindh recommended the fertilizer doses of 200-300 kg, 100-125 kg P202 and 125-175 kg, K20 per hectares for various regions of the province. It was found that, sugarcane growers applied urea an average 5 bags per acre in Sindh followed by an average of 4 bags per acre in NWFP and 3 bags per acre in Punjab.

Weeding

Weeds in sugarcane restrict the light, nutrients and moisture to the crop and also serve as alternative hosts for many insect pests. These pests reduce the yield and adversely affect the cane quality. For proper weed control, Gesapax combi (80 WP) may be applied @ 1.4 kg per acre in medium textured soils and @ 1.8 kg per acre in heavy soils in 100 to 120 liters of water. The weedicide should be used with the device of the technical experts. It was investigated that averagely 3 weeding /hoeing was carried out each for manually, bullock and tractor in Sindh, similarly in Punjab 2 weeding /hoeing was carried out with tractor and bullock each, while in NWFP 4 weeding/ hoeing were carried out manually and 3 weeding/hoeing were carried out by tractor. Overall 3 weeding / hoeing were carried out in study area.

Irrigation

The recommended number of irrigation were 26-33 for autumn crop and 21- 26 for spring crop. Results shows that 62 percent used canal water followed by canal and tube-well 35 and only 8 percent used tube well for irrigation purpose. Whereas the average availability of canal water per 6^th turn was for 15 hours, while 80 percent annual, 12 percent seasonal availability of canal water.

Harvesting

Sugarcane harvesting is done by hand, which employ labor intensively. On average, one person can harvest 25 mds (10000 kg) of cane in a day. The right time for harvesting sugarcane is when the crop is 12-14 months old. The sugarcane is cut as sticks from the ground level using a special type of knife. When the cane is harvested, it has a sugar content of about 10 percent. The roots are left in the ground as they will eventually sprout and grow to form the next crop. After cutting, the cane is stripped, topped and bound in bundles of 10-15 kg for loading. Harvested cane should be sent to the mill within 24-48 hours of cutting, since later transportation will result in sugar loss. A high average per acre yield of sugarcane crop in Punjab was recorded 690 mds followed by Sindh 598 mds and apparently low in N.W.F.P was 566 mds. While overall average per acre yield was recorded 632 mds respectively in the study area.

Snags in Sugarcane Production

Sugarcane production is a complex process and can be conceived as a function of several variables. The knowledge of the relative importance of the resource inputs influencing sugarcane production is essential for the sugarcane growers for introducing desirable changes in their operation at the micro level, and for the policy makers for formulating plans for improvements in agricultural sector productivity based on sound economic principles at the macro level. Production practices such as, soil type, planting time, varieties, inputs use and availability of irrigation water; they all have considerable impact on sugarcane production. While analyzing the input costs and net returns relationship of sugarcane production, the important inputs such as, chemical fertilizer, FYM, irrigation and use of labour were considered.

The following factors were highly significant at 5% level for the sugarcane production i.e. cost of DAP, Urea, land preparation, irrigation, FYM, seed and its application and weeding are set in the econometric model.

Cost of DAP

The regression coefficient of cost of DAP was positive (0.22510), which implied that 1% increase in the use of DAP would increase the returns by 0.2% holding other factors constant. This co-efficient was significant indicating that revenue increased significantly due to moderate use of DAP increased the profit effecting incline in the revenue shown in Table 5. The estimated co-efficient was significant, indicating that the cost of DAP significantly influenced the sugarcane revenue due to moderate use of DAP.

Cost of Urea

The regression coefficient of cost of urea was positive (1.93717), which implied that 1% increase in the use of fertilizer would increase the returns by 1.9% holding other factors constant. This co-efficient was significant indicating that revenue increased significantly due to moderate use of urea increased the production effecting incline in the revenue (table 1). The estimated co-efficient was significant, indicating that the cost of urea significantly influenced the sugarcane revenue due to moderate use of urea.

Cost of land preparation

The regression coefficient of the variable of cost of land preparation was positive (0.86008) at 5% level of significance, which is some how significant indicating that the cost of land preparation should be reduced as it has positive impact on sugarcane revenue and returns.

Cost of Irrigation

The regression coefficient of cost of irrigation was positive (0.08484) and significant at 5% level of significance, which implied that 1% increase in use of irrigation would change in the cost of irrigation would be favourable for the production cost by 0.08%, keeping the other factors constant. Decreasing the cost of irrigation would decrease the cost of production causing a growth in the returns.

FYM application

The regression coefficient of cost of FYM application was negative (-0.07020) and significant at 5% level of significance, which implied that 1% increase in the cost of FYM would benefit the returns by -0.07%, keeping the other factors constant. Increasing use of FYM it would increase production towards organic farming causing a strong crop and enrich the soil overall.

Cost of Seed and Application

The regression coefficient of the variable cost of seed and application was negative (-0.08420), which was non-significant, which implied that 1% increase in the use of seed and application would decrease the returns by 0.08%, indicating that the cost of seed and application must be improved as it has positive impact on sugarcane production and revenue.

Cost of Weeding

The regression coefficient of cost of weeding was negative (-0.16364) and significant at 5% level of significance, which implied that 1% increase in cost of weeding in sugarcane crop would decrease returns by -0.16%, and would be helpful, keeping the other factors constant. Increasing use of weedicide would help in decreasing weeds and shrubs from the sugarcane crop increasing the revenue and returns overall.

The coefficient of multiple determinations R² was 0.9249, which indicated that 92% variation in the input production cost was explained by all of the explanatory variables and the adjusted R² is 92%. The F-value was 666.94 and was highly significant at 5% level of significance, indicating that the regression model of production function fitted very well.

Table 1. Estimated value of coefficient in Production function of sugarcane

Variables	Coefficient	Std Error	T Ratio	P
Cost of Urea	1.93717*	0.28503	6.80	0.0000
Cost of DAP	0.22510*	0.02658	8.47	0.0000
Cost of land preparation	0.86008*	0.03899	22.06	0.0000
Cost of Irrigation	0.08484*	0.01507	5.63	0.0000
Cost of FYM	-0.07020*	0.02047	-3.43	0.0007
Cost of Seed	-0.08420ns	0.07874	-1.07	0.2856
Cost of Weedings	-0.16364*	0.03288	-4.98	0.0000

* = 5% level of significance

The marginal value of products and allocative efficiency parameters (K) below shows that all major input cost in sugarcane production are under utilized by the growers. It appears that cost of, DAP, FYM, and land preparation were poorly utilized and cost of urea, weeding and irrigation were over utilized in the sugarcane production. Results also suggest that there are opportunities to cut sugarcane production cost by decreasing major costs of inputs and management practices (table 2).

Table 2. Marginal value of Product and Ratio in Sugarcane Production.

Variables	Coefficient	MVP	Ratio of (MVP) ‘K’
Cost of Urea	1.93717	5.19	0.61
Cost of DAP	0.2251	44.69	5.98
Cost of FYM	0.86008	11.70	3.67
Cost of Land Preparation	0.08484	118.58	14.23
Cost of Weedings	-0.0842	-119.48	-22.71
Cost of Irrigation	-0.16364	-61.48	-11.37

Problems and constraints of sugarcane production

The major constraints in sugarcane production were asked from the growers. Further they were divided in three categories, such as economic, technical, and social problems.

The economic problems and constraints were related to the financial difficulties, which were lack of capital, high prices of input, low price of output, and late payments etc. All farmers reported that a high price of inputs was an acute problem in the way of practicing the production of sugarcane. High procurement problems were another major problem for the growers in the study area. Lack of resources was also important problem sugarcane growers’ and low price of output. Technical constraints were related to production techniques and technologies, such as lack of scientific knowledge, land preparation, seeds, pesticides and insecticides, inadequate irrigation, and natural calamities, etc. Social problems were related to theft of sugarcane, cutting tops, most of the farmers reported that the villagers were habituated to cut the tops of sugarcane for using it as cattle feed. Sugarcane is an attractive and tasty crop, people; especially children are generally attracted to it. Chewing of cane was third social problems reported by sugarcane growers in the study area.

Conclusion

The present research was undertaken to identify the factors affecting sugarcane production in Pakistan. Data were collected from 387 sugarcane growers of Sindh, Punjab and NWFP province. Data were collected during the period 2007-08. The study reveals that the input costs of sugarcane i.e. urea, DAP, FYM, land preparation, seed and its application, weeding and cost of irrigation were the important factors which influenced the returns of sugarcane growers. Technical efficiency was examined by using the Cobb-Douglas production function; MVP and allocative efficiency were calculated. The coefficient of multiple determinations R² was 0.9249, and the adjusted R² was 0.9235. The F-value was 666.94 and was highly significant at 5% level of significance. It appears that cost of, DAP, FYM, and land preparation were poorly utilized and cost of urea, weeding and irrigation were over utilized in the sugarcane production. High prices of inputs, procurement problem, and low price of output and lack of scientific knowledge were the major problems in sugarcane production cost.

Recommendations

In order to enhance the productivity of sugarcane, government and other related organizations must solve the identified problems of the growers to enhance the sugarcane production in order to earn higher net return. Results also suggest that there are opportunities to reduce the cost of sugarcane production by decreasing the major inputs costs and management practices.