Sugar Corporation

Research and Training

Metahara Research Station

Land Suitability Assessment of Selected Pocket Area for Sugarcane

Production at Metahara Sugar Estate

(Technical Report)

Tesfaye Fituma, Abera Degefa & Endris Yesuf

March, 2016
 1. Introduction

Sugarcane is an important commercial crop of the world and more than 100 countries produce
sugar, 78 percent of which is made from sugarcane grown primarily in the tropics and sub-
tropics, and the balance is from sugar beet which is grown mainly in the temperate (Anonymous,
2007). Sugarcane is grown in a wide diversity of soil types worldwide and has been proved to
very adaptable to different soil conditions. However, the ideal soil for sugarcane crop production
are medium to fine texture with bulk density of 1.1 to 1.4 g/cm3, deep (depth > 1 m), ground
water table of below 2.0 m, rich in organic matter status, well drained and pH between 6.5 to 8.0
(Vered and Rao, 2015). Soil reaction above/below the indicated ranges adversely affects the
availability of most essential nutrients and resulted in toxicity of certain elements. The crop is
sensitive to soil salinity and sodicity; but the crop does not suffer as long as the electrical
conductivity of saturation extract of soil (ECe) is up to 1.7 dS/m. However, in each dS/m
increase in ECe, decreased Brix% and Pol% by 0.6%, decreased apparent purity by 1.3%,
increased juice conductivity by 0.8 dS/m and increased cane fiber by 0.5% (Lingle and Wiegand,
1997). The most serious salinity problems are being faced in the irrigated arid and semi-arid
regions of the world and it is in these very regions that irrigation is essential to increase
agricultural production to satisfy food requirements (Abrol et al., 1988).

Generally, chemical constraints in soils such as low fertility, acidity, salinity and sodicity in most
cases can be corrected in short or long run depending on the availability of resources, like inputs,
pure irrigation water, availability of reclaiming material, facility of drainage structures in which
it should be supported by research trial.

Hence, this land suitability assessment was undertaken in order to evaluate whether the field fits
or not for sugarcane production following the request from jointly committee of Metahara
Agriculture Operation and Metahara Research Station after visiting the field which is located in
North Section of Sugarcane Plantation beside X21 field which was basically not yet cultivated.
 2. Methodology

Land suitability assessment for sugarcane crop was undertaken in field initially not yet cultivated
which is located in North Section of Metahara Sugar Plantation beside X21 field, which may be
estimated to 1.5 hectare. The field was surveyed by taking auger soil samples from five points in
X-shape sampling method which then composited to two representative soil samples that
partitioned into 0-30 and 30-60 cm depths. The soil samples were analyzed for physicochemical
properties such as, texture, pH (1:2.5), EC (1:5), OC and available P were determined following
the standard procedures outlined by Sahlemedhin and Taye (2000). Two representative pits were
also dug up to 180 cm depth in order to observe morphological characteristics of the profiles,
bulk density determination and observation of ground water.

During the execution of the assessment, the field was covered by salt resistant grasses.
Concomitant patchy spot also observed with white salt crusts and shiny black film of dry
colloidal particles on the surfaces indicating the presence of soil salinity and sodicity,
respectively. On the surface soil, tiny black layer is observed which might be the factory by
product waste dumped on the field. Ground water table is found at depth of 180 cm in both pits
which shows the presence of shallow ground water table.

Pictures depicting the presence of ground water at 1.8 m, surface morphological features of the
selected spot of the study site
 3. Results and Discussion
The analytical results of selected soil physicochemical properties of the study site are presented
in Table 1 below. The soil of the study site is dominated by clay loam and sandy clay loam
textural class on surface soil (0-30 cm) and in sub-surface soil (30-60 cm), respectively. Soil
bulk density ranged from 1.18-1.08 g/cm3, which was consistently decreasing from surface (0-
30) to sub-surface up to 90 cm depth. Booker Tate (2009) identified that bulk density of the soil
at Metahara Sugar Estate ranged from 1.1 to 1.6 g/cm3. According to Vered and Rao (2015) the
value of the bulk density is found within an acceptable range for cane growth. The average soil
pH is 10.26 at 0-30 cm and 9.96 at 30-60 cm soil depth. According to Tekalign (1991) the soil
having pH > 8.0 considered as strongly alkaline. The total soluble salt of saturated paste (ECe) of
the soils greatly varied along depths, in which the average salt concentration of 18.24 and 9.90
dS/m was recorded in 0-30 and 30-60 cm depth, respectively. According to USSLS (1954) the
soils of the study site are found in the rating of strongly saline to extremely saline.

Saline soils are those whose electric conductivity of the saturation extract is greater than 4.0
dS/m and the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) is less than 15%. Such salinity affected soil
is not usually suitable for growing cane before certain measures of reclamation have been
adopted to bring down the soil conductivity to below 2 dS/m, and the soil reaction to pH of 7.8-
8.3 (Peng, 1984). An average pH and EC of ground water from two pits is 8.09 and 0.39 dS/m,
respectively. According to Ayers and Westcot (1985) electrical conductivity of irrigation water
(Eci) < 0.7 dS/m and pH in the range of 6.5-8.4 are considered non saline and normal,
respectively. Thus, the source of ground water could be from improper irrigation and poor
drainage from nearby fields instead of Lake Beseka.

The average organic carbon content of the soil at 0-30 cm and 30-60 cm depth was 0.33 and 0.30
%, respectively. According to Tekalign (1991) OC content rating scale, the soil below 0.50 is
very low. The low OC content of the soil might be attributed to the low turnover of plant
residues, as the soil is highly saline or saline-sodic in which few salt tolerant grasses are
sustained with low biomass yield accumulation. Besides this, in the presence of high ESP the soil
organic matter becomes dispersed. Though total nitrogen content was not indicated here similar
scenario as OC is expected since nitrogen content is highly correlated with organic matter
content.
Table 1. Selected Soil Physicochemical Properties of the Study Site

Ground
Bulk
Sample Depth Particle size distribution Textural pH Ece % Available density water
No (cm) class (1:2.5) (dS/m) OC P (ppm) (g/cm3) quality
Sand (%) Clay (%) Silt (%) pH EC
0-30 39.20 28.40 32.40 CL 10.40 18.88 0.34 13.45 1.32 8.09 0.39
1 30-60 36.20 31.40 32.40 CL 10.20 12.45 0.22 8.55 1.19 - -
60-90 - - - - - - - - 1.15 - -
0-30 34.20 30.40 35.40 CL 10.12 17.60 0.32 11.50 1.03 - -
2 30-60 54.20 27.40 18.40 SCL 9.72 7.36 0.38 5.39 1.01 - -
60-90 - - - - - - - - 1.01 - -
0-30 36.70 29.40 33.90 CL 10.26 18.24 0.33 12.48 1.18 - -
Average 30-60 45.20 29.40 25.40 SCL 9.96 9.90 0.30 6.97 1.10 - -
60-90 - - - - - - - - 1.08 - -
CL: Clay Loam, SCL: Sandy Clay Loam, depth @ 60-90 represents for bulk density only which
was taken from the pit

Moreover, the results showed that the average value of available P at 0-30 and 30-60 cm soil
depth is 12.48 and 6.97 ppm, respectively. According to Cottenie (1980) available P of the soil
deemed as low to medium. However, Booker Tate (2009) reported low available phosphorus in
the estate because of high P precipitation. Perhaps this moderate available P as compared to the
previous result might be due to the presence of Na2CO3 which resulted in the formation of
soluble sodium phosphates at higher pH as a result ESP (Chhabra et al., 1980).
 4. Conclusion and Recommendations

The soil of the study site was dominated by clay loam textural class with strongly alkaline in soil
reaction and highly saline to extremely saline electrical conductivity (ECe). It had also very low
amounts of organic carbon content and low to medium available P, having shallow ground water
table with non saline and normal pH in water quality aspect.

Generally, most of the constraints are salinity/sodicty posed problems. To overcome this problem
there are two options; leaching excess soluble salts (for saline soil) and gypsum amendment
followed by leaching (for saline-sodic soil). However, reclaiming saline soils in a sugarcane field
requires good quality water, large irrigation water, appropriate means of application and an
effective drainage system. In case of saline-sodic soils, it needs a soil amendment to replace
exchangeable sodium (Na+) prior to the leaching process which requires large amount gypsum
and the process is slow.The very thing is that both have to be approved by research trial before
any implementation.

Nonetheless, study conducted to reclaim saline soil was not satisfactory and gypsum amendment
for saline-sodic soil was discontinued at Metahara Sugar Estate due to drainage problem.
So,unless these basic research gaps are alleviated it is not valid to treat salinity or sodicity of the
soil of the site. Hence, due to the aforementioned problems currently the field is not suitable for
sugarcane production.
 5. Reference

Abrol, I.P., Yadav, JSP and Massoud, FI. 1988. Salt-Affected Soils and their Management: FAO
Soil Resources Management and Conservation Service, FAO Land and Water Development
Division, Soils Bulletin 39. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Rome.
Anonymous. 2007. http//:www.worldsugarstat.com
Ayers, RS. and Westcot, DW. 1985. Water quality for agriculture. Irrigation and Drainage Paper
29.Rev. 1. FAO, Rome. 174 p.
Booker Tate. 2009. Re-Evaluation of Plantation Soils at Metahara Sugar Factory, Final Report,
Volume. 1.
Chhabra, R., Singh, A and Abrol, IP. 1980. Fluorine in sodic soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 44: 33-
36.
Cottenie, A. 1980. Soil and plant testing as a basis of fertilizer recommendations.FAO soil
bulletin 38/2.Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome.
Lingle, SE and Wiegand, CL. 1997. Soil salinity and sugarcane juice quality. Weslaco, TX
78596, USA. Field Crops Res. 54 (2-3): 259-268.
Peng, SY. 1984. The Biology and Control of Weeds in Sugarcane. Vol. 4, Pp 16-17 Elsevier
Science Publishing Company B.V. Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Sahlemedin Serstu and Taye Bekele. 2000. Procedure for soil and plant analysis.National Soil
Research Center, EARO, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Tekalign Tadese. 1991. Soil, plant, water, fertilizer, animal manure and compost analysis.
Working Document No. 13. International Livestock Research Center for Africa, Addis
Ababa
USSLS (United State Salinity Laboratory Staff). 1954. Diagnosis and improvement of saline and
alkali soils. USDA Agri. Handbook. No. 60. 160p
Vered, E. and Rao, VP. 2015. Sugarcane Crop. Netafim's Agriculture Department, Isreal, Tel
Aviv. http://www.sugarcanecrops.com/soil_requirement/
Maro GP. 2001.The salt affected soils of TPC estate and efforts to reclaim them. Proceedings of
the TSSCT Agricultural.Workshop, March 1-2, 2001, TPC estate, Moshi, Tanzania.
Roy A. 1999. Salinity yield response functions of barley genotypes assed with a triple line source
sprinkler system. Plant and Soil, 209: 9-20.