Response of growth and yield performance of foxtail millet varieties under central dry zone of Karnataka

Introduction

Millets are a group of highly variable small seeded grass, widely grown around the world as a cereal or grain crops for human food and animal fodder. In recent years, there has been an increasing recognition of the importance of millets as a substitute for major cereal crops. Millets have the potentiality of contributing to increased food production both in developing and developed countries. Millets are known for their climate-resilient features including adaptation to a wide range of ecological conditions, less irrigational requirements, better growth and productivity in low nutrient input conditions, less reliance on synthetic fertilizers, and minimum vulnerability to environmental stresses (Kole et al., 2015) [5] . Also, millets are nutritionally superior to other major cereals as they are rich in dietary fibers, resistant starches, vitamins, essential amino acids, storage proteins. In India, it is mainly grown in Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Telangana, Rajasthan, Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, and in a small extent in the northeast states of India. Recent national initiatives (e.g. International year of millets 2023) have renewed interest in small millets for climate-resilient nutrition-sensitive farming. In India, foxtail millet is cultivated on 0.87 lakh hectares, producing approximately 0.66 lakh tones with an average yield of 762 kg/ha (India stats., 2024). Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, and Tamil Nadu account for 90% of foxtail millet cultivation, with Karnataka alone contributing 76% of the area. Among millets, foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) and its wild progenitor, green foxtail (Setaria viridis L.) areextensively studiedsince theyare considered as models for studying thetraits relatedto C4 photosynthesis, stress biology, and bioenergy characteristics as reported by (Nandhini and Sridhara, 2019) [6] . However the productivity of foxtail millet found to be very low as compared to that of finger milletdue to lack of suitable genotypes, as well as production packages. Crop production is greatly affected by climatic factors (rainfall and temperature), soil factors and cultural practices (e.g. sowing date, seed rate, plant spacing, sowing methods, weeding and harvesting methods). Among the various management factors contributing to growth and development of foxtail millet, non-monetary inputs like time of sowing, row spacing and selection of variety play vital role in increasing crop productivity thus there is a need to work out on suitable variety for higher productivity to central dry zone of Karnataka hence an On Farm Test (OFT) was conducted on suitable Foxtail millet genotype to Central Dry Zone of Karnataka at Koragere village of Chikkanayakanahalli Taluk of Tumkur District by ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Konehalli. The investigation onthis aspecthas clearly indicated that the different genotypes of foxtail millet showed different performance with respect to growth and yield attributes.

Materials and Methods

An On Farm Test (OFT) was conducted to evaluate the performance of foxtailmillet (Setaria italica L.) genotypes atCentral Dry Zone of Karnataka, Koragere village of Chikkanayakanahalli taluk of Tumkur District during Kharif 2024. Four foxtail millet genotypes viz., Local foxtail millet variety (Haalu Navane), GPUF-3 (UAS Bangalore, 2021), HN-46 (UAS Raichur, 2020) and SiA 3159 (AICRP small millets, Nandyal 2022) were grown at a spacing of 30 cm × 10 cm. The soil of experiment site was an red sandyloam soil with sand (60.6%), silt (19.4%) clay(20%). Experiment was laid out in Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) and replicated in five farmers plot. The sowing was carried out in respective plot in second week of July 2024 according to the treatments recommended fertilizer was applied in the seed furrows open manually and it was mixed thoroughly into the soil before sowing. Recommended dose of fertilizer 40:20:20 NPK kg per hectare was added to the well prepared land. Di-ammonium phosphate, Urea and Muriate of Potash were used as source of nutrients. Optimum plant population was maintained by thinning after15days of sowing. All other agronomic cultivation practices were followed. Observations on growth, yield and quality parameters were recorded at different crop growth stages and at harvest. Growth parameters like plant height was measured from base of the stem at ground level to the tip of the main shoot having fully opened top leaf and number of fully opened green leaves and number of tillers were recorded from the five healthy plants in each plot at 30, 60 days after sowing and at harvest. Yield parameters like Number of panicles per plant, panicle length, panicle weight, test weight and harvest index was recorded from the five randomly selected plants at the time of harvest. Panicle length was measured from the base of the Panicle to tip of the Panicle and expressed as Panicle length in centimeters (cm). A grain yield and straw yield of foxtail millet was obtained from net plot is computed for hectare and expressed in kilogram per hectare. Harvest index was determined by dividing the total grain yield by the total biological yield and expressed as percentage following Donald (1962) [1] .

Harvest Index = Economic Yield (kg/ha) Biological Yield (kg/ha)

Quality parameters

Crude protein content of grain is (%) nitrogen content in the grain was determined by Kjeldal Method as described and expressed in percentage. The crude protein content was worked out by multiplying the nitrogen percentage with factor 6.25 (Doubetz and Wells, 1968) [2] .

Crude protein (%) = N content in grain (%) × 6.25.

Results and Discussion

Data with respect to initial and final plant count of foxtail millet as influenced by genotypes is disclosed in [9] . On perusal of data the number of tillers per plant at different crop growth stages influenced significantly to different foxtail millet genotypes. The variety SiA 3159 recorded significantly maximum number of tillers per plant (7.20) at harvest which was followed by the variety GPUF-3 (5.61). The minimum number of tillers per plant at harvest was recorded with farmers practice-haalunavane variety (3.92).

Variation in number of tillers per plant among varieties may be due to the presence of genetic diversity for this feature. Similar results were noted by Srikanya et al., 2020 [9] . Number of functional leaves per plant was influenced significantly due to different varieties. The variety SiA 3159 recorded significantly maximum number of functional leaves per plant (8.40) at harvest. However it was at par with the variety GPUF-3 (7.71) whereas farmer's practice-haalu navane variety produced significantly minimum number of functional leaves per plant (4.78) at harvest. Difference in their parental origins may have created variations in their genetic inheritance, which in turn may have contributed to the variance in leaf count among various varieties. These findings were confirmed with Nandhini and Sridhara 2019 [6] . The data pertaining to number of panicle per plant influenced by different foxtail millet genotypes are presented in Table 1. Number of panicles per plant was influenced significantly due to different varieties. The variety SiA 3159 recorded significantly maximum number of panicles per plant (4.69) at harvest and this was at par with GPUF-3 (4.13) whereas, the minimum number of panicle per plant was recorded with the variety Haalu Navane (3.20). The difference in panicle number among varieties might be due to variation in genetic makeup. The present findings were confirmed with Jyothi et al., 2016 [3] and Nandhini and Sridhara, 2019 [7] . The results revealed that the panicle length (cm) was influenced significantly due to different varieties. The variety SiA 3159 recorded significantly maximum panicle length (20.09 cm) and the minimum panicle length was recorded in farmers practice (12.32 cm). Variations observed in panicle length might be related to difference in varietal features and dry matter partitioning. These findings were verified by Jyothi etal., 2016 [3] and Nandhini and Sridhara, 2019 [7] . On perusal of data panicle weight per plant was influenced significantly due to different varieties. SiA 3159 produced significantly higher panicle weight per plant (4.31 g) and the variety with farmers practice produced lowest panicle weight (2.83 g). This might be due to higher number of panicles per plant and panicle length which inturn was caused by genetic potential of foxtail millet cultivars. These results were confirmed with Jyothi et al., 2016 [3] and Srikanya et al., 2020 [9] . The test weight (g) of foxtail millet was influenced significantly with different varieties. The variety SiA 3159 recorded significantly higher test weight (5.01 g) and was found to be at par with GPUF-3 (3.89 g), whereas haalu navane recorded minimum test weight (2.57 g). The difference in feature of cultivars might be the reason for fluctuation in test weight. These results are close to the findings of Srikanya et al., 2020 [9] . Among the four genotypes SiA 3159 recorded significantly higher grain yield and straw yield (2210 and 3330 kg per hectare, respectively) followed by the variety GPUF-3 (1947 and 3180 kg per hectare, respectively) and the lowest grain yield and straw yield was recorded with farmers practice-haalu navane variety (1651 and 2850 kg per hectare, respectively) ( [4] in pearl millet. The data presented in Table 2. indicated that the harvest index among different genotypes of foxtail millet did not have significant effect however highest harvest index was recorded with the variety SiA 3159 (34.25) followed by GPUF-3 (33.85) and the lowest harvest index was recorded with haalu navane (32.21) the harvest index among the varieties was found to be nonsignificant was also reported by Sanyukta et al., 2024 [8] . Among different foxtail millet genotype SiA 3159 recorded significantly higher protein content (8.54 per cent) and was followed by the genotype GPUF-3 (8.23 per cent) and the lowest protein content was found with the genotype haalu navane (7.54 per cent).

Economics of foxtail millet

The calculated monetary data were presented in Table 3, which showed that varieties showed significant difference. Higher amount of gross and net returns was recorded with the variety SiA 3159 (Rs. 88,000/-and 43,312/-respectively) and was followed by the variety GPUF-3 (Rs. 77,400/-and 32,212/respectively). The lowest gross and net returns was recorded with farmers practice-Haalu navane (Rs. 66,200/-and 21,825/respectively). Similarly highest benefit cost ratio was recorded with the variety SiA 3159 (1.96) followed by GPUF-3 (1.73) and the lowest benefit cost ratio was recorded with haalu navane (1.49).

References

1. Donald CM. Competition among crop and pasture plants. Advances in Agronomy. 1962;15:1-114.
2. Doubetz S, Wells SA. Relation of barley varieties to nitrogen fertilization. Journal of Agricultural Science. 1968;70(1):253-256.
3. Jyothi KN, Sumathi V, Sunitha N. Productivity, nutrient balance and profitability of foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.) varieties as influenced by levels of nitrogen. IOSR Journal of Agriculture and Veterinary Science. 2016;9:18-22.
4. Khafi HR, Ramani BB, Mehta AC, Pethani KV. Effects of different levels of nitrogen, phosphorus and spacing on yield and economics of hybrid bajra. Crop Research. 2000;20(3):411-414.
5. Kole C, Muthamilarasan M, Henry R, Edwards D, Sharma R, Abberton M, et al. Application of genomics-assisted breeding for generation of climate resilient crops: progress and prospects. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2015;6:563.
6. Nandhini KM, Sridhara S. Response of growth, yield and quality parameters of foxtail millet genotypes to different planting density. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2019;8(2):1765-1773.
7. Nandhini KM, Sridhara S. Performance of foxtail millet genotypes to sowing dates in southern transition zone of Karnataka. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2019;8(1):2109-2112.
8. Sanyukta P, Bagade SV, Sonawane DA, Pranay AS. Effect of foxtail millet cultivars on yield and yield attributes under different sowing windows. Journal of Scientific Research and Reports. 2024;30(6):277-288.
9. Srikanya B, Revathi P, Malla Reddy M, Chandrashekar K. Effect of sowing dates on growth and yield of foxtail millet (Setaria italica L.). International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2020;9(4):3243-3251.