# Strategies to Reduce Yield Gap through Better Management Practices in Sugarcane Farming System in Bihar

Shiva Pujan Singh, Md. Minnatullah, Ajeet Kumar, C. K. Jha, Aniruddha Roy

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Shiva Pujan Singh, Md. Minnatullah, Ajeet Kumar, C. K. Jha, Aniruddha Roy. Strategies to Reduce Yield Gap through Better Management Practices in Sugarcane Farming System in Bihar. 2021, pp.3 (7): 130-132. hal-05460253

HAL Id: hal-05460253

https://hal.science/hal-05460253v1

Submitted on 15 Jan 2026

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access archive for the deposit and dissemination of scientific research documents, whether they are published or not. The documents may come from teaching and research institutions in France or abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 - Attribution - International License
# Strategies to Reduce Yield Gap through Better Management Practices in Sugarcane Farming System in Bihar

Article ID: 11344

Shiva Pujan Singh<fnref n="1" />, Minnatullah<fnref n="1" />, Ajeet Kumar<fnref n="1" />, C. K Jha<fnref n="1" />, Aniruddha Roy<fnref n="2" />

Dr. Rajendra Prasad Central Agricultural University, Pusa (Samastipur) Bihar-848125.

## Abstract

Sugarcane is commercially cultivated in Bihar province on more than 3.0 lakh hectares under fully irrigated systems. It provides not only main stay of sugar industries, but also provides raw materials to many allied industries (alcohol, power, paper, and compost) etc and other bio-based product. It is the source of employment directly or indirectly to the peoples of the state. The present investigation was attempted to examine the input use and output level, to estimate the yield along with factors responsible for the yield gap and the constraints in cultivation of sugarcane.

The study revealed that farmer's field productivity obtained were considerably lower (71.18 t/ha), than those recorded in the demonstration plots (92 t/ha), and research station/trials (150 t/ha) respectively. The study has shown that the yield gap between the demonstration plot and actual farmers field (yield gap-II) was observed to be highest 42.72 per cent in the marginal farms and the lowest 2.72 per cent in large farm, hence due to better economic conditions of large farmers which adopt recommended sugarcane production technology.

The most important constraints in sugarcane cultivation were shortage of labour during crucial operation. More than 70 percent of sample farmers opined that the incidence of red rot grassy shoot borer, leaf blight prevented them from achieving greater farm yield in sugarcane crop. Therefore, the study suggests, that the farmers should be motivated through visit of sugarcane research institute, demonstration trials, attend in problem-based training programme by KVK, Govt. of Bihar and other communication means to optimal and sustainable use of resource inputs to enhance the productivity of sugarcane with a view to minimize the yield gap.

## Introduction

Sugarcane in an important industrial crop of India cultivated in 5.22 million ha area, with a cane production of 400.38 million tons (2018-19) with an average productivity of 77.99 tonnes per hectare. The sugarcane cultivation in the state was 2.74 m ha with production of 18.28 million tonnes and average yield of 60.15 tonnes per hectare (2018-19). The rate of compound growth rate in terms of area and production was increased significantly 2.74 per cent and 5.36 per cent respectively in the state of Bihar. The productivity of the crop depends on the extents of resource use and adoption of recommended technology. Most of the sugarcane growers are not using the recommended level of input, this leads to gap between production and productivity of sugarcane.

The concept of yield gaps in crops originated from different constraints carried out by International Rice Research Institute (IRRI) during seventies, particularly more emphasis in given to yield gap-II. The yield gap comprises two components. The first component yield gap-I is the difference of between experiment/research station yield (potential yield) and the demonstration/progressive farmers farm yield. The potential yield in only hypothesized and cannot be exploitable and narrowed and cannot be directly translated on farmer's field. The second component is yield gap-II is the difference between the demonstration yield and the actual average farm yield. Alam (2006). The yield gap-II is exploitable and was the focus of the study. The yield gap reflects mainly difference in management practices (for example the amount of fertilizer used). However, proper resource mix and appropriate cultivation practices become prerequisite for the adoption and success of new farm technology.

<footnote n="1">¹Sugarcane Research Institute,</footnote>

<footnote n="2">²Department of Agricultural Economics,</footnote>
## Results and Discussion

East Champaran is the second highest sugarcane growing districts of the state. Sugarcane is grown up as a major crop by majority of the farmers in the district. Therefore, this district was purposively selected for the study. The primary data was collected from sample sugarcane grower by the survey method with the contacted individually for collection of required information. The information on research station yield and yield of field level demonstration plot were obtained from the Sugarcane Research Institute, RPCAU, Pusa (Samastipur) Bihar. The study was confined to a sample of 60 sugarcane farmers from the selected district. In each selected village farmers were classified into three size groups viz. marginal (<1.0 ha), small (1-2 ha) and medium – large (> 2.0 ha) categories based on their operated land holding size.

Among the different source contributing to the yield gap, the difference the production between demonstration field and farmer's field (Actual yield) yield gap -II was observed to be highest 41.79 per cent in the marginal farms and the lowest 2.72 per cent in large farmers (Table -2), hence due to better economic conditions, large farmers adopts timely crop management practice and improved technology like, sowing spacing, irrigation and application of recommended dose of plant nutrients and plant protection chemicals.

Various constraints operating of the farm level may be partially responsible for this yield gap. Hence the opinion of sample farmers on the difficulties in realizing farmer field yield was collected and presented in table - 3. Shortage of hired labour during planting of cane, weeding and harvesting was a major problem as expressed by three – fourth of the respondents.

<table><caption>Table 1: Yield gap in sugarcane on sample farmers in East Champaran district:</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Sl No.</th><th rowspan="2">Particulars</th><th colspan="4">Size groups</th></tr><tr><th>Marginal (N* = 20)</th><th>Small (N* = 20)</th><th>Large (N* = 20)</th><th>Overall (N* = 60)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Potential yield (Yp)</td><td>150</td><td>150</td><td>150</td><td>150</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Demonstration Yield (Yd)</td><td>92</td><td>92</td><td>92</td><td>92</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Actual/farmer field yield (Ya)</td><td>52.70</td><td>71.20</td><td>89.50</td><td>71.18</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>Yield gap-I (Yp-Yd)</td><td>58</td><td>58</td><td>58</td><td>58</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>Yield gap -II (Yd-Ya)</td><td>39.30 (42.72)</td><td>20.80 (22.60)</td><td>2.50 (2.72)</td><td>20.82 (22.63)</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Yield gap - III (Yp-Ya)</td><td>97.30 (64.86)</td><td>78.80 (52.53)</td><td>60.50 (40.33)</td><td>78.82 (52.54)</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: figures in the parentheses indicate gap percentage.

<table><caption>Table 2: Different sources contributing to yield gaps in sugarcane cultivation:</caption><thead><tr><th rowspan="2">Sl No.</th><th rowspan="2">Source of yield gap</th><th colspan="4">Size groups</th></tr><tr><th>(&lt;1.0)<br>(N* = 20)</th><th>1.0-2.0<br>(N* = 20)</th><th>(&gt;2.0)<br>(N* = 20)</th><th>Overall<br>(N* = 20)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Total difference in output<br>(Yield gap - II)</td><td>42.72</td><td>22.60</td><td>2.72</td><td>22.63</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6">2</td><td>Source of contribution Input<br>use gap</td><td></td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td>(a) Seed</td><td>8.55</td><td>1.82</td><td>-11.83</td><td>-1.17</td></tr><tr><td>(b) Nitrogen</td><td>29.94</td><td>15.16</td><td>-57.26</td><td>-19.36</td></tr><tr><td>(c) Phosphorus</td><td>-11.47</td><td>-21.18</td><td>-70.59</td><td>-34.36</td></tr><tr><td>(d) Potassium</td><td>-17.03</td><td>-13.12</td><td>-75.10</td><td>-32.10</td></tr><tr><td>(e) Plant Protection</td><td>55.94</td><td>48.70</td><td>28.84</td><td>44.91</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>(f) Irrigation</td><td>57.36</td><td>55.99</td><td>51.04</td><td>45.20</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Total estimated gap from all<br>inputs</td><td>123.30</td><td>87.37</td><td>134.42</td><td>2.72</td></tr></tbody></table>

Note: 1. Negative sign indicates excess use of inputs.

2. N* - Number of sample farms.
<table><caption>Table 3: Production constraints of sugarcane in East Champaran district:</caption><thead><tr><td>Sl No.</td><td>Constraints</td><td>Mean scores</td><td>Garrett ranking</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1</td><td>Shortage of hired labour during peak period</td><td>82.63</td><td>I</td></tr><tr><td>2</td><td>Infestation of pests and disease</td><td>77.10</td><td>II</td></tr><tr><td>3</td><td>Unavailability of loan properly</td><td>68.51</td><td>III</td></tr><tr><td>4</td><td>High cost of chemical fertilizers</td><td>66.43</td><td>IV</td></tr><tr><td>5</td><td>High cost of plant protection chemicals</td><td>61.00</td><td>V</td></tr><tr><td>6</td><td>Poor management of family labour</td><td>57.22</td><td>VI</td></tr></tbody></table>

The second most significant constraints on the basis of Garrett's ranking technique were infestation of pest and disease (77.10) identified. The other constraints were unavailability of loan properly (68.51), high cost of chemical fertilizers (66.43) and least constraints were poor management of family labour (57.22) respectively.

## Conclusion and Policy Implication for Minimizing the Yield Gap

From the study it is seen that several location specific factors had kept the productivity of sugarcane was low thereby increase the yield gaps. Therefore, the following observation can be accounted for policy planning suitable this region.

1. Sugarcane being a vegetative propagated crop, there is need to change the seed after every 3 to 4 years to maintain purity of the varieties and to avoid the disease and pest spread through the disease.

2. Bio compositing of press mud should be applied after once in three years.

3. Inters with sugarcane controls weeds up to 60 % in the initial stage, help in optimum utilization of land and provide extra income to farmers.

4. The human labour cost constitutes more than 50 % for labour intensive sugarcane crop use of sugarcane planter and interculture implements reduce the labour cost by fifty percent.

5. Sugarcane ratoon crop occupies more than 47.60 per cent of the total sugarcane area. However, contribution to total cane production is only 25-30% reason of low yield due to poo management practices of ratoon crop, with improved ratoon management more ratoon crop can be taken by strengthening of sugarcane production in productivity in the study area.

6. There is an urgent need to strengthen the extension, mechanism by establishing strong linkage between research institutions. Sugar mills and farmers for efficient tractor of improved technologies in sugarcane farming.

## References

1. Gaddi, G.M. Mundinamani, S.M and Patil, S.A. (2002), yield gaps, constraints and potential in cotton production in Northern Karnataka: An econometric analysis. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 57(4): 722-34.

2. Gavali, A.V. Deokate, T.B. Clhoudhary, R.B. choudhary R.B. and Kamble, B.H. (2011): yield gap analysis of Jowar in Maharashtra. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 24(2): 339-343.

3. Mondal M.H. (2011). Causes of yield gap and strategies for minimizing the gap in different crops in Bangladesh. Journal of Agricultural Research, 36(3): 469-476.

4. Rama Rao, I.V.Y. (2012), Efficiency, yield gap and constraints analysis in irrigated vis-à-vis rainfed sugarcane in North coastal zone of Andra Pradesh. Agricultural Economics Research Review, 25(1): 167-171.

5. Van Ittersum, M.K., cassman K.G, Grassini. P., Wolf J. Hoch man (2013). Yield gap analysis with local to global relevance a review field crops, Res, 143: 4-17.

6. Singh, Shiva Pujan, Singh, H.P. and Tewari, Harshita (2015). An analysis of yield gap in sugarcane production in Bihar. Vaicharika-a multidiscipline referred International Research Journal, Vol.(5), June, 77-85.

7. Singh, Shiva Pujan, Minnatullah, M.D., Kumari, Meera and Saw, Bipan (2020). Economics, Input use efficiency yield gap and constraints analysis of sugarcane farming in West Champaran district of Bihar-micro perspective. International Journal of current Microbiology and applied Sciences (10): ISSN-2319-7706, PP-1-10.