Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. sp3 (2025): Advances in Plant Health Improvement for Sustainable Agriculture

Comparative evaluation of sugarcane settling transplanter and deep furrow sugarcane sett cutter planter

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.8245
Submitted
14 March 2025
Published
22-07-2025

Abstract

Sugarcane planting is a labor-intensive, time-consuming and tedious process done with standard tools and equipment, which increases operating costs and reduces growers' net profits. A study was undertaken to compare the performance of two types of sugarcane planters (CIAE-SBI tractor operated sugarcane settling transplanter and IISR tractor operated deep furrow sugarcane sett cutter planter) at Tamil Nadu Agricultural University (TNAU) research farm. The sugarcane settling transplanter consists of mainframe, standard three point hitch, ridger, furrow opener, furrow closer, adjustable row to row spacing for 900, 1200 and 1500 mm and indexing mechanism for metering the settlings with adjustable plant to plant spacing, varying of 300, 450 and 600 mm and sugarcane sett cutter planter consists of mainframe, standard three point hitch, deep furrow opener, sett cutting mechanism, adjustable row to row spacing of 750 or 900 mm and press wheel for covering with soil. From the results, it was found that, sugarcane settling transplanter operated with forward speed of 1.7 km hr-1, resulted in actual field capacity of 0.44 ha hr-1, field efficiency of 80 %, fuel consumption of 3.5 L hr-1 and sugarcane yield of 198 t ha-1 and sugarcane sett cutter planter operated with forward speed of 1.25 km hr-1, resulted in actual field capacity of 0.27 ha hr-1, field efficiency of 75 %, fuel consumption 4.20 L hr-1 and sugarcane yield of 222 t ha-1. The B/C ratio of settling transplanter and sett cutter planter was worked as 2.09 and 2.01 with cost saving of 74.0 % and 72.0 % respectively when compared with conventional planting. The results of this comparative study indicate that the sugarcane growth and yield attributes obtained using the two different sugarcane planters are on par with each other.

References

  1. 1. Anonymous. 2022. https://sugarcane.dac.gov.in/pdf/StatisticsAPY.pdf
  2. 2. Yadav RN, Yadav S, Tejra RK. Labour saving and cost reduction machinery for sugarcane cultivation. Sugar Tech. 2003;5:7–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02943757
  3. 3. Yadav R, Kavad A, Jakasania R, Nimesh P. Sugarcane planting technology in India. Journal of Ergonomics. 2020;10:270.
  4. 4. Singh S, Singh PR, Singh AK, Gupta R. Comparative performance evaluation of sugarcane cutter planters. Agricultural Engineering Today. 2017;41(3):16–20.
  5. 5. Singh PR, Singh Sukhbir, Gupta R. Mechanization of sugarcane cultivation—problems and prospects. In: Proceedings of 72nd Annual Convention of STAI, Lucknow; 2013;26–8.
  6. 6. Sunitha B, Ramana C, Kaleemullah S, Veera Prasad G, Sarala NV. Evaluation of sugarcane planters available in Andhra Pradesh. Andhra Pradesh Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 2016;2(4):267–73.
  7. 7. Singh AK, Singh PR. Development of a tractor operated sugarcane cutter planter for mechanisation of sugarcane planting in deep furrows. Sugar Tech. 2017;19(4):416–23. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-016-0471-9
  8. 8. Naik R, Annamalai SJ, Nair NV, Prasad NR. Studies on mechanisation of planting of sugarcane bud chip settlings raised in protrays. Sugar Tech. 2013;15:27–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12355-012-0187-4
  9. 9. Kumar S, Pal S, Khandai S, Kumar M, Tripathi A. Performance evaluation of sugarcane cutter planter using different parameters. International Journal of Agricultural Engineering. 2017;10(2):367–73. http://doi.org/10.15740/HAS/IJAE/10.2/367-373
  10. 10. Hase CP. Yield attributes and yields of sugarcane under monoculturing. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science. 2019;12(7):45–52. http://doi.org/10.9790/2380-1207014752
  11. 11. Abd El-Lattief EA. Yield and yield attributes of sugarcane as affected by some crop management treatments. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Applied Sciences. 2016;6(12):11–9.
  12. 12. Nalawade SM, Mehta AK, Sharma AK. Sugarcane planting techniques: a review. In: Proceedings of contemporary research in India: National Seminar Recent Trends in Plant Sciences and Agricultural Research (PSAR-2018); 2018. p. 98–104.
  13. 13. Anonymous. Settling Transplanting Technology (STT) – Future of Sugarcane Agriculture. Coimbatore: ICAR-Sugarcane Breeding Institute; 2019. p. 22.
  14. 14. Thorat DS, Sahoo PK, De D, Iquebal MA. Design and development of ridge profile power weeder. Journal of Agricultural Engineering. 2014;51(4):7–13. http://doi.org/10.52151/jae2014514.1560
  15. 15. Senthilkumar T, Chandel NS, Tiwari PS, Syed Imran S, Manikandan G. Development and evaluation of power weeder for narrow row crops. Pantnagar Journal of Research. 2022;20(1).
  16. 16. Srinivas I, Adake RV, Reddy BS, Korwar GR, Thyagaraj CR, Dange A, et al. Comparative performance of different power weeders in rainfed sweet sorghum crop. Indian Journal of Dryland Agricultural Research and Development. 2010;25(2):63–7.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.