Effect of nutrient-management practices on yield, nutrient uptake and economics in finger millet (Eleusine coracana) and pearl millet (Cenchrus americanus)

Authors

  • KAMAL GARG
  • A.K. GUPTA
  • PINKY YADAV
  • SEEMA YADAV

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v65i3.2980

Keywords:

Finger millet, Grain yield, Nitrogen, Nutrients, Pearl millet, Phosphorus, Zinc

Abstract

A field experiment was conducted at Agronomy farm, S.K.N. College of Agriculture Jobner, Jaipur (Rajasthan) during the rainy (kharif) season of 2018, to study the comparative response of finger millet (Eleusine coracana Gaertn.) and pearl millet (Cenchurs americanus (L.) Morrone; syn Pennisetum glaucum (L.) R.Br.] to applied nutrients under semi-arid conditions of Rajasthan. The experiment, consisting of 8 fertilization levels (control, N, P, Zn, N+P, N+Zn, P+Zn and N+P+Zn), to each finger millet and pearl millet were tested in randomized block design with 3 replications. Results showed that the apparent values of yield-attributing characters of both the crops viz. effective tillers/plant, grains/ear and test weight, increased with application of plant nutrients either alone or in combination. Significantly higher values were obtained with combined application of N + P + Zn. The same treatment resulted in statistically higher yields of grain and stover as well as uptake of N, P and Zn in both the crops. It resulted in the grain and stover yields of 2006 and 3,304 kg/ha in finger millet and 2024 and 5,317 kg/ha in pearl millet, being 40 and 29% higher in finger millet and 69 and 46% higher in pearl millet over the control, respectively. However, the same treatment was found at par with that against N+P. The harvest index in grains remained unaffected due to application of any nutrient applied alone or in combination. Fertilization with N+P+Zn significantly improved the net returns from finger millet (`57,178/ha) and pearl millet (`48,717/ha) over rest of the treatments. A comparison between yield and economic from both the crops proved superiority of finger millet which gave approximately `8,400/ha higher than pearl millet. Finger millet proved to be more economic, as its benefit: cost ratio ranged between 2.59 and 3.26/` invested

References

DAC, MoA, 201617. Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture

and Farmers Welfare. Department of Agriculture, Coopera

tion and Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Economics and Sta

tistics. Agricultural Statistics at a Glance 2017. Dinesh, T.M., Suhasini, K., Rao, B.D., Rao, I.S. and Chary, D.S.

Analysis of growth and instability of jowar area and

production in Andhra Pradesh. The Journal of Research Pro

fessor Jayashankar Telangana State Agricultural University

(2): 4650.

Divyashree, U., Kumar, M. D. and Ganapathi. 2018. Effect of different fertilizer levels on nutrient uptake and yield of little millet (Panicum sumatrense Roth ex Roem. & Schult.). International Journal of Science and Nature 9(2): 201205.

Khinchi, V., Kumawat, S.M., Dotaniya, C.K. and Rakesh, S. 2017. Effect of nitrogen and zinc levels on yield and economics of fodder pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L.). International Journal of Pure and Applied Bio science 5(3): 426

Rani, Y.S., Triveni, U., Patro, T.S.S.K. and Anuradha, N. 2017. Effect of nutrient management on yield and quality of finger millet [Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn]. International Journal of Chemical Studies 5(6): 1,2111,216.

Singh, I.D. and Stoskopf, N.C. 1971. Harvest index in cereals. Agronomy Journal 63(2): 224226.

Singh, L., Sharma, P.K., Kumar, V. and Rai, A. 2017. Nutrient content, uptake and quality of pearl millet influenced by phosphorus and zinc fertilization (Pennisetum glaucum L.) under rainfed condition. International Journal of Chemical Studies 5(6): 1,2901,294.

Downloads

Published

2001-10-10

Issue

Section

Research Paper

How to Cite

KAMAL GARG, A.K. GUPTA, PINKY YADAV, & SEEMA YADAV. (2001). Effect of nutrient-management practices on yield, nutrient uptake and economics in finger millet (Eleusine coracana) and pearl millet (Cenchrus americanus) . Indian Journal of Agronomy, 65(3), 372-377. https://doi.org/10.59797/ija.v65i3.2980