Effect of nitrogen management on yield and yield attributes of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.)

Introduction

Finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) is a vital crop in India that is prized for its ability to withstand drought. It is widely grown in dryland and rainfed regions, particularly in red soil (Katre et al., 2026) [1] . Finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) is one of the most important millets grown in India for both grain and fodder. According to Michaelraj and Shanmugam (2013) [2] , finger millet, or ragi, has ten times more calcium than wheat or rice. Finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) is the most extensively grown crop among tiny millets. It is widely grown throughout East Africa and Southeast Asia, where it is regarded as a staple crop that provides energy and nutrients to a significant portion of the population, especially smallholders (Mukesh et al., 2024) [3] . The amount of carbohydrates in ragi is 72g/100g with 1.04% free sugars, and 11.5% non-starchy polysaccharides (Kandel et al., 2019) [4] . The composition of starch granules contains 80-85% of amylopectin along with 15-20% of amylase (ICMR 2010) [5] . Finger millet contains 7.16g of protein per 100g mostly all cereals and millets contain the lowest amount of lysine compared to legumes and animal proteins but finger millet is rich in amino acids, such as methionine, tryptophan and lysine (Shingote et al., 2021) [6] . India stands as the world's largest producer of finger millet. In India, finger millet was cultivated over approximately 1.27 million hectares, with a production of 2.27 million tonnes and an average productivity of 1792 kg ha⁻¹ during 2025-26 (Second Advance Estimates) (Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Government of India, 2025-26) [7] . The finger millet cultivation faces a formidable challenge such as soil degradation. Furthermore, its labor intensive nature, particularly for transplanting, weeding and harvesting, makes production costly and inefficient. These agronomic challenges are compounded by socioeconomic hurdles, including limited access to formal markets, a lack of affordable mechanization and competition from government-subsidized major cereals like rice and wheat which often make finger millet a less economically attractive option for farmers. Solution, Appropriate soil nutrient and crop management techniques can increase crop yield and quality (Pathak et al., 2012) [10] . It is necessary to apply organic sources, biofertilizers, and micronutrients sparingly in order to achieve optimal crop production management of nutrients (Ghaffari et al., 2011) [8] . For improved plant growth and development, use the right amount of nitrogenous fertilizer and apply nano urea topically. This improved soil health, in turn, increases water-use efficiency. Optimum nitrogen application increases the number and length of fingers on the ear head, dry matter production and vegetative development. It was crucial for the production of proteins, enzymes, chlorophyll and other metabolic processes (Bhatt et al., 2001) [9] .

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 10 treatments with 3 replications. Ten 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 1. Yield attributing characters

The yield-attributing characters, viz., effective tillers m⁻², finger length, ear weight, number of fingers ear-head⁻¹, number of grains ear-head⁻¹ and test weight (1000-grain weight), as influenced by Tables 1(a) and 1(b) show the various nitrogen management strategies.

Effective Tillers m⁻²

The data was given effective tillers m⁻² of finger millet at different crop growth as influenced by the different nitrogen management treatments. The heighest number of effective tillers m⁻² were recorded under 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ of (119.20), which was remained statistically at par with 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml/l at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 ha⁻¹ of 117.30. The lowest number of effective tillers m⁻² 60.90 under the control treatment.

The research findings regarding the finger length was significantly as influenced by the different nitrogen management treatments. The finger length maximum was recorded under 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ of (7.55 cm), which was remained statistically at par with 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml/l at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ of 7.50 cm. The minimum finger length 4.81 cm was recorded under the control treatment.

The analysis indicates that the ear weight was significantly as influenced by the different nitrogen management treatments. The ear weight higher was recorded under 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ of (7.54 g), which was continued to be statistically equivalent to 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml/l at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ 7.48g, but was noticeably greater than the other treatments. Under the control therapy, the lowest recorded ear weight was 4.52 g.

Number of Fingers Ear-head⁻¹

The study's findings showed that the various nitrogen management strategies had a substantial impact on the number of ear-head infections. The ear-head maximum no. of fingers is 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ (8.70), his was considerably greater than the other treatments but remained statistically comparable to 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml/l at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ of 8.30. The control plot had the fewest fingers ear-head⁻¹ 5.83.

Number of Grains Ear-head⁻¹

The data presented in the number of grains ear-head⁻¹ significantaly affected by the different nitrogen management treatments. The number of grains ear-head⁻¹ 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ of (1230.00), which was remaining statistically at par with 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml/l at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ of 1220.30, but was significantly higher than rest of the treatments. The lowest number of grains ear-head⁻¹ of 710.00 was recorded in the control plot.

The test weight (g) was significantly impacted by the various nitrogen control strategies. The test weight maximum was 3.52 g under 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹. This was significantly higher than the other treatments, but statistically comparable to 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ 3.39 g. The control plot had the lowest test weight, 3.02 g. This ensures that the grains grow larger and denser, confirming the findings of Patel et al., (2021) [12] and Ullasa et al., (2020) [13] . Hatti et al., (2018) [11] .

The highest grain yield was found in 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ (28.60 q ha⁻¹), which was statistically comparable to 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 & 60 DAS Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ (27.60 q ha⁻¹). Grain yield increased by 50.5% and 45.3%, respectively, under 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ and 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹. At 19.00 q ha⁻¹, the lowest grain yield was recorded in the control treatment. These field results match the conclusions of Feyanbule et al., (2022) [14] and Kumar et al., (2023) [15] .

The highest straw yield was found in 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ (58.60 q ha⁻¹), which was significantly higher than the other treatments but statistically comparable to 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ (56.99 q ha⁻¹). Under 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ and 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹, the mean increase in straw yield over the control treatment was 34.6 and 30.9%, respectively. The lowest straw yield (43.55 q ha⁻¹) was recorded in the control plot.

The heighest biological yield was recorded under 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ which remined statistically at par with 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ of (84.58 q ha⁻¹), but significantly superior than rest of the treatments. Over the control treatment the mean increase in biological yield was 39.4 and 35.2 per cent under 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ and 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹, respectively. The lowest biological yield (62.56 q ha⁻¹) was found in the control treatment. Confirming the findings of Harika et al., (2020) [16] .

The maximum harvest index was observed under in 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ of (32.84%), which was remained statistically at par with (75% RDN + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ of 32.45%), (50% RDN + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ + Azospirillum of (32.33%), (75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml/l at 30 & 60 DAS of 32.69%), (75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml/l at 30 & 60 DAS + Azospirillum of (32.32%) and 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ (32.61%), but was significantly higher than rest of the treatments. The minimum harvest index was recorded in the control treatment (30.15%). Supporting the observations of Reddy et al., (2024) [17] .

Nitrogen content and uptake 3.1 Nitrogen Content

The table 3 give data on the nitrogen content of grain and straw, as well as how different nitrogen management methods affected the finger millet crop's uptake of those nutrients. Appendix XII discusses statistical analysis of variance. An appraisal of the results reaveals indicate the grain (1.37%) and straw (0.52%) had the highest nitrogen content under 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹. These results were statistically comparable to 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ of 1.34% and 0.50%. The control treatment had the lowest nitrogen level in both grain and straw (1.15% and 0.36%, respectively). Matching the trends reported by Prabhakar et al., (2023) [18] .

The study found that the under in 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹, the maximum nitrogen uptake by grain and straw was recorded at 39.09 kg ha⁻¹ and 30.47 kg ha⁻¹. This was statistically comparable to 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 36.98 and 28.68 kg ha⁻¹, respectively, but significantly higher than the other treatments.

Similarly, the highest total nitrogen uptake was measured under 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 DAS and 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ (69.56 kg ha⁻¹), which was significantly higher than the other treatments but statistically comparable to 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml L⁻¹ at 30 & 60 DAS + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹ (65.66 kg ha⁻¹). The control treatment had the lowest nitrogen uptake in grain, straw, and totles (21.87, 15.68, and 37.55 kg ha⁻¹). Harika et al., (2020) [16] and Sinchana et al., (2025) [20] also observed this multi-nutrient improvement, proving that a balanced nitrogen supply accelerates the uptake of both phosphorus and potassium.

Conclusion

The best nitrogen management technique for finger millet was the application of 75% RDN + Nano urea spray @ 5 ml l⁻¹ at 30 & 60 DAS + Azospirillum + Vermicompost @ 1 t ha⁻¹, which greatly improved growth, yield attributes, yield, protein content, nutrient uptake, nutrient use efficiency and profitability. Although integrated nitrogen management control raised cultivation costs, the highest grain yield was achieved (28.60 q ha⁻¹), protein yield (244.29 kg ha⁻¹), net returns (₹112534 ha⁻¹) and benefit-cost ratio (3.51), making it the most profitable

References

1. Katre SM, Rana L, Kumar N, Pramanick B, Sow S, Kumar A, et al. Effects of nutrient sources and weed management on yield and weed suppression in finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.). 2026.
2. Michaelraj PSJ, Shanmugam A. A study on millets-based cultivation and consumption in India. International Journal of Marketing, Financial Services & Management Research. 2013;2(4):49-58.
3. Mukesh G, Sairam M, Maitra S, Gaikwad DJ, Sagar L, Ray S. Agrometeorological indices, physiological growth parameters and performance of finger millet as influenced by different cultivars under hot and sub-humid region of Odisha. International Journal of Experimental Research and Review. 2024;42:148-161.
4. Kandel M, Dhami NB, Bastola A, Sudedi NR, Shrestha J. Field evaluation and nutritional benefits of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.). International Journal of Global Science Research. 2019;6(1):711-722.
5. Indian Council of Medical Research. Nutrient requirements and recommended dietary allowances for Indians: a report of the Expert Group of the Indian Council of Medical Research. New Delhi: Indian Council of Medical Research; 2010.
6. Shingote AB, Sadawarte SK, Pawar VS, Gaikwad KK. Studies on chemical and mineral evaluation of raw rice, sorghum, ragi and green gram. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2021;10(5):337-340.
7. Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare. Second advance estimates of area and production of agricultural crops 2025-26. New Delhi: Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India; 2026.
8. Ghaffari A, Ali A, Tahir M, Waseem M, Ayub M. Influence of integrated nutrients on growth, yield and quality of maize (Zea mays L.). American Journal of Plant Science. 2011;2:63-69.
9. Bhatt BP, Singh R, Rana DS. Effect of nitrogen and harvest indices on growth and yield of finger millet (Eleusine coracana). Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2001;46(2):362364.
10. Pathak GC, Gupta B, Pandey N. Improving reproductive efficiency of chickpea by foliar application of zinc. Brazilian Journal of Plant Physiology. 2012;24(3):173-180.
11. Hatti VRBK, Ramachandrappa BK, Sathish A, Thimmegowda MN. Soil properties and productivity of rainfed finger millet under conservation tillage and nutrient management in Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka. Journal of Environmental Biology. 2018;39(5):612-624.
12. Patel HH, Shroff JC, Shah SN. Effect of nitrogen management on yield and quality of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn). International Journal of Farm Sciences. 2021;11(3):17-20.
13. Ullasa MY, Pradeep S, Sridhar S, Sunil C, Divya M. Longterm effect of different organic nutrient management practices on growth, yield of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) and soil properties. Journal of Farm Sciences. 2020;33(3):342-347.
14. Feyanbule MM, Ashagre H, Abraham T. Integrated effect of vermicompost and inorganic fertilizer rates on yield and yield components of finger millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.] in Gobu-Sayo District. Asian Journal of Research in Agriculture and Forestry. 2022;8(4):179-191.
15. Kumar RSA, Sharmili K, Balaganesh B, Manuel RI. Comparative evaluation of neem-coated urea and nano urea on the growth and physiological attributes of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn). International Journal of Environment and Climate Change. 2023;13(8):785-792.
16. Harika JV, Duvvada SK, Maitra S, Shankar T. Energetics of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn) cultivation as influenced by integrated nutrient management. International Journal of Biotechnology. 2020;13(2):227-230.
17. Gaertn) cultivars. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2024;26(4):731-738.
18. Prabhakar M, Gopinath KA, Sai Sravan U, Srasvan Kumar G, Thirupathi M, Samba Siva G, et al. Potential for yield and soil fertility improvement with integration of organics in nutrient management for finger millet under rainfed Alfisols of Southern India. Frontiers in Nutrition. 2023;10:1095449.
19. Chander GB, Nagabhushanam U, Ronanki S, Reddy KP. Effect of crop establishment and nutrient management practices on growth attributes of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.). 2025;25(2).
20. Sinchana MA, Murthy RK, Bhavya N, Govinda K, Shivakumara MN. Evaluation of different approaches of fertilizer recommendations on yield, nutrient uptake, and use efficiency of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L. Gaertn). Madras Agricultural Journal. 2025;(1):94-102.