Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield attributes and yield of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.)

Introduction

A Worldwide Rebirth Driven by India, The United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) designated 2023 to be the International Year of Millets (IYOM) in response to a proposal by the Government of India backed by 72 countries, marking a significant step toward addressing global food security and nutrition concerns. This proclamation represents a turning point in agricultural policy, directing attention toward crops that are both naturally sustainable and nutrient-dense. IYOM's primary goal is to turn millets from a traditional, frequently disregarded staple into a "Superfood" that is known around the world. It seeks to promote sustainable production methods that open up new markets for both producers and consumers, as well as to increase knowledge of their enormous health advantages and appropriateness for cultivation in challenging and changing climatic circumstances. Millets, especially finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.), are positioned as a strategic option for nations looking to boost self-sufficiency and lessen dependency on imported cereal grains during this international celebration. United Nations. The General Assembly passed this resolution on March 3, 2021. India's Domination and Regional Differences. India is the world's top producer of finger millet. It is grown on over 1.18 million hectares in India, producing 1.8 million tons with an average productivity of 1747 kg/ha in 2024-2025 (ICAR-IIMR, Hyderabad, 2024). The state of finger millet in the Indo-Gangetic plains, especially in Uttar Pradesh, is a crucial area of research, as the text supplied highlights. The crop is "not grown on a large scale" in Uttar Pradesh, according to the text. In 2022-2023, 17.32 million tonnes of millets (Shree Anna) were produced. Pearl millet (21.95 lakh tonnes), tiny millet (0.41 lakh tonnes), and sorghum (4.62 lakh tonnes) were all produced in Uttar Pradesh area covered by small millet, sorghum millet, and pearl millet in 2023-2024 (2173 k/g, 1600 k/g, and 869 k/g, respectively) (2nd Advance Estimates, APEDA, 2023-24). This lack of information highlights the necessity for targeted studies in areas like western Uttar Pradesh to investigate the crop's potential for nutritional security and diversity. Adopting a sustainable intensification paradigm through Integrated Nutrient Management (INM) is the answer to this problem. INM is a comprehensive strategy that includes the effective and prudent use of all significant plant nutrient sources, not just the application of fertilizers. This involves the deliberate combination of inorganic fertilizers, organic sources (such as compost, green manure, and farmyard manure), and biofertilizers (a liquid consortium of helpful bacteria). Additionally, INM makes a substantial contribution to soil sustainability. Continuous use of chemical fertilizers alone may cause soil acidity, nutritional imbalances, or structural deterioration. Water-use efficiency rises as a result of this better soil health.

Materials and Methods

This chapter provides a description of the materials and methodology used in the study "Effect of Integrated Nutrient management on Growth, Yield attributes and Yield of Finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.)." At a latitude of 29.081833 North, longitude of 77.700589 East, and elevation of 237 meters above mean sea level, the field experiment was conducted at the Crop Research Center of Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture & Technology, Meerut (U.P.). Meerut has a subtropical climate and is located in the center of Western Uttar Pradesh. The geography of the trial field was uniform, and the drainage system was effective. The experimental field's soil had a sandy loam texture, low levels of accessible nitrogen and organic carbon, medium levels of available phosphorus and potassium, and a reaction that was almost neutral. VL MADUA 376 was sown on 23 August 2025. The experiment was laid out in a Randomized Block Design (RBD) with 9 treatments with 3 replications. Nine plots of gross plot size (5 m × 4 m) and net plot size (4 m x 3.2 m) were included in each replication.

Results and Discussion

Yield attributing characters

The yield attributes were observed and the mean values are shown in table 1.1a & 1.1b. To assess the impact of integrated nutrient management on crop productivity, observations on yield attributes-namely, the number of fingers per earhead, the number of grains per finger, and the 1000-grain weight (g)-were made and compared amongst various treatments. T 3 (100% RDF) produced 9.2 fingers per earhead, 166 grains per finger, and a 1000-grain weight of 3.67 g, the greatest values for all yield parameters for all treatments. The balanced and sufficient nutrient supply may have contributed to T 3 's superior performance by improving flowering, grain setting, assimilate translocation, and grain filling, all of which improved yield components. The treatments T 8 (75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹) and T 5 (75% RDF + FYM @ 2 t ha⁻¹) were statistically at par and rated next after T 3 . T 5 generated 8.5 fingers per earhead, 157 grains per finger, and a test weight of 3.56 g, whereas T 8 recorded 8.8 fingers per earhead, 162 grains per finger, and a test weight of 3.59 g. T 1 (Absolute Control), on the other hand, had the lowest values-5.4 fingers per earhead, 119 grains per finger, and a 1000-grain weight of 3.18 g. The yield parameters, namely number of fingers per earhead, number of grains per finger, and 1000-grain weight, were recorded to determine the effect of integrated nutrition management on crop productivity. With 9.2 fingers per earhead, 166 grains per finger, and 3.67 g test weight, T 3 (100% RDF) had the highest numbers. T 8 (75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹) and T 5 (75% RDF + FYM @ 2 t ha⁻¹) recorded 8.8, 162, 3.59 g and 8.5, 157, 3.56 g, respectively, and were statistically equivalent. T 1 (Absolute Control) recorded the lowest numbers (5.4 fingers, 119 grains per finger, and 3.18 g). T 5 and T 8 greatly exceeded the other therapies, while T 3 was the most successful overall.

Yield

The yield attributes was observed and the mean values are shown in table 2.1. To assess the impact of integrated nutrient management on crop production, measurements were made on grain yield, straw yield, biological yield, and harvest index. There were notable variations amongst the treatments. Grain yield (31.23 q ha⁻¹), straw yield (61.42 q ha⁻¹), biological yield (92.65 q ha⁻¹), and harvest index (33.70%) were all highest in T 3 (100% RDF). The balanced and sufficient nutrient supply, which encouraged improved crop development, dry matter production, and effective transfer of photosynthates to the grains, may be responsible for T 3 's excellent performance. The treatments T 8 (75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹) and T 5 (75% RDF + FYM @ 2 t ha⁻¹) were statistically at par and rated next after T 3 . T 8 recorded 30.45 q ha⁻¹ grain yield, 59.92 q ha⁻¹ straw yield, 91.59 q ha⁻¹ biological yield, and 33.10% harvest index, while T 5 recorded 29.12 q ha⁻¹, 57.12 q ha⁻¹, 87.80 q ha⁻¹, and 33.16%, respectively. In comparison, T 1 (Absolute Control) had the lowest values, with 15.13 q ha⁻¹ grain yield, 41.85 q ha⁻¹ straw yield, 56.98 q ha⁻¹ biological yield, and 26.55% harvest index.

Conclusion

On the basis of the results obtained during the present investigation, it may be concluded that INM improve yield attributes, yield and economics of ragi. Treatment T 3 100% RDF recorded highest productivity and profitability among all. Treatment T 8 , 75% RDF + Vermicompost @ 1 t/ha produced grain yield and net return comparable to 100% RDF, indicate that a portion of chemical fertilizers can be successfully substituted with organic nutrient source without compromising crop performance.

Acknowledgement

The authors express sincere gratitude to the Hon'ble Vice Chancellor and Director of Research, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel University of Agriculture and Technology, Meerut, India (250110), for providing necessary facilities to carry out this study. The authors are also thankful to the Head (my chairperson), Department of Agronomy, and advisory committee for their guidance and support throughout the research work. Sincere thanks are extended to the faculty members and technical staff to the Crop Research Centre for their assistance during field experiment.

References

1. Chowdary KR, Rani YA, Padmaja G, Kumari MB. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and nutrient uptake of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.). Int J Curr Microbiol Appl Sci. 2019;8(3):1234-1242.
2. Dass A, Sudhishri S, Lenka NK, Patnaik US. Integrated nutrient management for sustainable finger millet production under rainfed conditions. Indian J Agron. 2013;58(4):545550.
3. Giribabu M, Reddy DS, Sagar GK, Rao PV. Response of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) to integrated nutrient management. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7(5):88-92.
4. Harika M, Swain SK, Paikaray RK, Sethi D. Effect of integrated nutrient management on yield attributes, productivity and nutrient uptake of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) under south Odisha conditions. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8(4):1415-1419.
5. Hatti V, Sridhara S, Patil SB, Ramesh T. Effect of tillage and nutrient management practices on growth and yield of finger millet. Int J Pure Appl Biosci. 2018;6(4):102-108.
6. Jyothsna G, Bhave MHV, Reddy DM, Reddy KV. Correlation and path analysis studies in finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.). Int J Agric Sci. 2016;8(56):30453048.
7. Krishnamurthy R, Suresh S, Nagaraju MS, Sridhara S. Longterm effect of integrated nutrient management on macronutrient status in soil and plant under finger millet mono-cropping system. Int J Chem Stud. 2020;8(4):21562161.
8. Kumar R, Basavaraj P, Sridhara S, Ramesh T. Integrated nutrient management for sustainable finger millet production in Karnataka. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2023;35(2):112-120.
9. Louhar G, Singh P, Kumar A, Meena RN. Role of integrated nutrient management in rainfed millet systems for ecological sustainability. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2020;9(6):12451249.
10. Mahapatra S, Yadav PK, Singh DP, Singh AK. Organic nutrient management practices for higher yield and economics of finger millet. Int J Chem Stud. 2020;8(5):17891793.
11. Maitra S, Pal D, Dhara S, Panda S. Integrated nutrient management in finger millet: A review. Int J Bio-Resour Stress Manag. 2020;11(3):245-254.
12. Meena RK, Singh M, Meena VS, Dotaniya ML. Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and productivity of maize. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2021;10(1):1234-1240.
13. Mohanty S, Swain DK, Roul PK. Residual effect of green manuring with Sesbania aculeata on nitrogen use efficiency in finger millet. J Crop Weed. 2022;18(1):112-118.
14. Ojha G, Singh VP, Kumar A, Singh R. Response of finger millet to integrated nutrient management under rainfed conditions. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2018;7(3):2874-2878.
15. Paramasivan M, Somasundaram E, Balasubramanian P. Impact of organic nutrient management on soil health in transplanted finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.). Asian J Soil Sci. 2022;17(1):45-52.
16. Patil SB, Hatti V, Sridhara S, Ramesh T. Germination and growth response of finger millet to integrated nutrient sources. Int J Pure Appl Biosci. 2018;6(5):456-462.
17. Prabudoss V, Stalin P, Kumar S. Integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of kodo millet. Madras Agric J. 2018;105(4-6):148-152.
18. Pradhan AK, Mishra SP, Sahu S. Customization of agronomic practices for finger millet production system in Koraput. J Agrometeorol. 2019;21(2):156-162.
19. Raundal PU, Patil SV, Rathod TH. Response of little millet varieties to different levels of fertilizers. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2017;6(6):2450-2454.
20. Reddy BM, Rao PS, Sagar GK, Kumar R. Effect of spacing and phosphorus levels on growth, economics and yield of finger millet. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2021;10(3):567573.
21. Roja M, Reddy MD, Rao AS, Reddy RV. Nutrient management in finger millet and foxtail millet in red sandy loam to clay soils. Int J Chem Stud. 2020;8(6):1456-1462.
22. Saravanane P, Kumar R, Singh AK. Long-term effect of fertilizer application through organic sources on finger millet. Environ Ecol. 2011;29(4):2289-2293.
23. Saxena R, Kumar S, Singh P. Effect of Aspergillus niger and press mud on growth and yield of finger millet. J Environ Biol. 2021;42(5):1342-1348.
24. Sharanappa, Srinivas C, Gowda R. Effect of customized fertilizer doses on finger millet yield and economics. Karnataka J Agric Sci. 2003;16(3):456-460.
25. Sharma A, Devi R. Long-term effects of INM on soil carbon fractions and sustainable yield index in finger millet. J Soil Sci Plant Nutr. 2024;24(1):156-165.
26. Somasundaram E, Paramasivan M, Balasubramanian P. Developing organic nutrient package for finger millet (Ragi). Madras Agric J. 2020;107(1-3):45-52.
27. Swapna G, Brahmaprakash GP. Effect of microbial consortium on growth and nutrient content of finger millet. J Agric Sci. 2013;5(8):112-120.
28. Ulasa KR, Patil SV, Rathod TH. Organic nutrient management strategies for finger millet growth and production. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2017;6(4):18921897.
29. Umanath M, Balasubramanian R, Senthil K. Functional relationship between household characters and millet consumption. Agric Econ Res Rev. 2017;30(2):245-253.