Planting Method and Timing Effects on Sugarcane Yield

Viator, Ryan P.; Garrison, D. D.; Dufrene, E. O.; Tew, T. L.; Richard, Edward P.

doi:10.1094/cm-2005-0621-02-rs

Cited by 15 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In order for sorghum to be utilized as a complimentary crop in the Louisiana's sugar belt, it would need to be harvested not later than mid-August, given that August and September are the optimum months of the year for planting sugarcane [13]. Given that ethanol yields of Dale, M81-E, Theis, and Topper were not appreciably higher at 138 DAP than at 119 DAP, planting these sorghums by mid-April, and harvesting them by mid-August would largely exploit their value as a bioenergy crop, while allowing sugarcane to be planted without undue delay.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluation of Sweet Sorghum and Sorghum × Sudangrass Hybrids as Feedstocks for Ethanol Production

2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Field studies were conducted at the USDA-ARS Sugarcane Research Laboratory in southeast Louisiana to evaluate the ethanol yield potential of five sweet sorghums (Dale, M81-E, Rio, Theis, and Topper) and two nonflowering sorghum × sudangrass forage hybrids (MMR 333/27 and MMR 333/47). The sorghums were planted in the spring and harvested at 85, 101, 119, and 138 days after planting (DAP). Theoretical sugar-based ethanol yield increased for the sweet sorghums (except Rio) from 85 through 119 days, but did not significantly increase further at 138 days. The forage sorghums did not show a similar increase, though the theoretical sugar-based ethanol yield of MMR 333/47 at 138 DAP was greater than at 85 DAP. Conversely, theoretical fiber-based ethanol yields increased two-fold in the two forage sorghums from 85 to 138 DAP; a significant increase in fiber-based ethanol yield was not observed in any of the sweet sorghums over the same period. At 138 DAP, sugar-based ethanol yield of Theis (6,060 L ha −1 ), was greater than that of Rio or either of the two forage hybrids. Fiber-based ethanol yield of MMR 333/ 47 (8,860 L ha −1 ) was greater than that of any other variety in the test. Theoretical ethanol yield from hexose sugar and fiber components averaged across varieties was 6,500, 7,720, 9,100, and 10,810 L ha −1 at 85, 101, 119 and 138 DAP, respectively. As a complementary crop for Louisiana's sugarcane growers, sorghum would need to be harvested not later than 120 DAP so as to not interfere with the planting of sugarcane in these fields. Both Theis and MMR 333/47 produced greater than 11,000 L ha −1 combined theoretical ethanol at 119 DAP, Theis, equally from sugar and fiber, MMR 333/47 about two-thirds from fiber. Choice of sorghum type would depend on the conversion process(s) being used at the biorefinery.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sugarcane rows (1.8-m wide raised beds) are reformed in the early spring. The fallow fields are cultivated and/or treated with glyphosate at frequent intervals to further deplete the soil of weed seed and vegetative propagules until the field is replanted in August and September [13].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Sweet Sorghum and Sorghum × Sudangrass Hybrids as Feedstocks for Ethanol Production

2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Stalks of mature seed-cane varying from 2 to 3 m in length were cut with a wholestalk harvester and transferred into 173-cm-wide rows. Two to five stalks were then placed side-by-side in a horizontal position in a planting furrow and covered with 2 to 3 in of soil following (Viator et al 2005).…”

Section: Treatments and Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of residue management on nitrogen losses in surface and sub-surface water from sugarcane fields

Jeong

DeRamus

Wang

et al. 2013

Archives of Agronomy and Soil Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effect of three sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) residue-management plans on nitrogen losses in surface runoff and sub-surface leachate was studied for 3 years. The three management plans evaluated were conventional burning (CB), compost application with burning (COMB), and remaining green cane trash blanketing (GCTB) treatment. In the CB treatment, sugarcane residue was burned after harvest. The COMB treatment consisted of compost applied at 'off bar' with sugarcane residue burned immediately after harvest. Compost was applied in the amount of 13.4 Mg ha −1 annually. Surface runoff was collected with automatic refrigerated samplers and subsurface leachate was collected with pan lysimeters over a period of 3 years. Total nitrogen (TN), NO 3 /NO 2 -N, and NH 4 -N were measured. The mean losses of nitrogen (TN, NO 3 /NO 2 -N, and NH 4 -N) from the COMB treatment after the burning procedure (post-harvest, years 2 and 3) were on average 2.7 times higher than those before harvest and burning (pre-harvest, year 1). Mean leaching losses of NO 3 /NO 2 -N were 0.36, 0.82, and 0.10 kg ha −1 for the CB, COMB, and GCTB treatment, respectively. The losses of NO 3 /NO 2 -N from the GCTB treatment in surface runoff and sub-surface leachate were significantly reduced compared to the CB and COMB treatment.

show abstract

“…Stalks of mature seed cane varying from 2 to 3 m in length were cut with a whole-stalk harvester and transferred into 173-cm-wide rows. Two to five stalks were then placed side by side in a horizontal position in a planting furrow and covered with 5 to 8 cm of soil (Viator et al 2005). …”

Section: Treatments and Experimental Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

Surface and Subsurface Phosphorus Losses from Sugarcane Fields with Different Management Practices

Jeong

Weindorf

DeRamus

et al. 2010

Water Air Soil Pollut

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phosphorus losses in runoff from sugarcane fields can contribute to non-point source pollution of surface and subsurface waters. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of three different management practices on P losses in surface runoff and subsurface leaching from sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.) fields. Field experiments with treatments including conventional burning (CB), compost application with burning (COMB), and remaining green cane trash blanketing (GCTB) treatments were carried out to assess these management practice effects on P losses from sugarcane fields. In the CB treatment, sugarcane residue was burned after harvest. The COMB treatment consisted of compost applied at "off bar" with sugarcane residue burned immediately after harvest. Compost was applied in the amount of 13.4 Mg ha −1 annually, 8 weeks before planting. In the GCTB treatment, sugarcane residue was raked off from the row tops and remained in the wheel furrow after harvest. Surface runoff was collected with automatic refrigerated samplers, and subsurface leachate was collected with pan lysimeters over a period of 3 years. Measured concentrations of total P (TP), dissolved reactive P (DRP), and particulate P (PP) in surface runoff from the COMB treatment were significantly higher than concentrations from the CB and GCTB treatments. The mean losses of P (TP and DRP) after burning (postharvest, years 2 and 3) were significantly greater than the no-burn treatment (preharvest, year 1) in the CB, COMB, and CB/ COMB/GCTB combined options. Additionally, the mean losses of total suspended solid and total combustible solids in residue burning were, on average, 2.7 and 2.2 times higher than the no-burn practices, respectively (preharvest and GCTB treatment). Annual P losses from surface runoff in the third year of study were 12.90%, 6.86%, and 10.23% of applied P in CB, COMB, and GCTB treatments, respectively. However, the percent of annual DRP losses from applied P in COMB and GCTB treatments was similar magnitude, and their values were less than 50% compared to the value from CB treatment. In the leaching study, percent of monthly mean TP and DRP losses in the COMB and GCTB treatments were greatly reduced. Based on these results, the COMB and GCTB procedures were equally recommended as sugarcane management practices that improve water quality in both surface runoff and subsurface leachate.

show abstract

Planting Method and Timing Effects on Sugarcane Yield

Cited by 15 publications

References 4 publications

Evaluation of Sweet Sorghum and Sorghum × Sudangrass Hybrids as Feedstocks for Ethanol Production

Evaluation of Sweet Sorghum and Sorghum × Sudangrass Hybrids as Feedstocks for Ethanol Production

Effects of residue management on nitrogen losses in surface and sub-surface water from sugarcane fields

Surface and Subsurface Phosphorus Losses from Sugarcane Fields with Different Management Practices

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About