Author:
Chaudhari A.K.1*, Shroff J.C.2, Patel Hardik3, Prajapati Mansi4 and Shah S.N.2
Journal Name: Biological Forum – An International Journal, 16(1): 265-270, 2024
Address:
1Gujarat Natural Farming Science University, Anand camp, Anand (Gujarat), India.
2Department of Agronomy, B.A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand (Gujarat), India.
3Department of Genetics and Plant Breeding, N.M. College of Agriculture, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari (Gujarat), India.
4Department of Plant Pathology, N.M. College of Agriculture, Navsari Agricultural University, Navsari (Gujarat), India.
(Corresponding author: Chaudhari A.K.*)
DOI: -
Organic Manures, Finger millet, Farm yard manure, Vermicompost, Jeevamrit, Vermiwash, Bio-NP Consortium, Nitrogen.
The global food system confronts multifaceted challenges, encompassing issues like hunger, malnutrition, diet-related diseases, the imperative to feed a growing global population with healthy food, the climate crisis, and the depletion of natural resources. Recognizing the tremendous potential of millets as an affordable and nutritious food source, IYM 2023 offers an opportunity to spotlight their benefits for better production, nutrition, environment, and overall well-being. Millets can play a pivotal role in global food systems, benefiting smallholder farmers, nutrition, and the environment. India, boasting a diverse range of millets, is a key contributor, with these grains now labeled as "Nutria-cereals" due to their high nutrient content. Millets, resilient in adverse climates, require fewer external inputs compared to major grains like rice, wheat, and maize, making them a valuable staple for both food and fodder.
Finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn), distinguished by its high productivity and rapid nutrient provision, stands out among millets. Native to India, it is locally known as Ragi or Bavto, named after its seed head resembling human fingers. Finger millet surpasses rice, maize, and sorghum in fat, protein, and mineral content, earning it the term "biologically complete" for its protein profile. In India, it constitutes nearly 85% of the total production of minor millets, primarily cultivated in states like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Orissa, Jharkhand, Uttaranchal, and Gujarat. With an output of 2.61 million tons and an average productivity of 1489 kg/ha, finger millet remains a significant crop.
The agricultural landscape faces a recent challenge in the scarcity of organic manure due to declining cattle numbers and the transformation of agricultural wastes into valuable byproducts. To address this, it becomes imperative to explore effective organic manurial sources utilizing on-farm available organic substrates. Integrating Vermicompost, Panchagavya, Jeevamrita, Beejamruta, Vermiwash, Mycorrhizae culture, and neem cake/neem seed extractants in organic farming becomes essential. Vermicompost, rich in nutrients like nitrates, exchangeable phosphorus, soluble potassium, calcium, and magnesium, provides easily absorbable forms for crops. Vermiwash, a liquid Vermicompost extract, contains micro and macronutrients, plant growth hormones, enzymes, and vitamins, promoting plant growth and productivity. Jeevamrit, an organic liquid manure with beneficial bacteria, serves as a source of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and natural carbon. The application of a bacterial consortium with various beneficial characteristics and microbial metabolites presents a simple, affordable, and sustainable approach to enhance the productivity, quality, and yield of finger millet. In conclusion, these organic farming techniques prove effective for optimizing the quality and output of finger millet.
The investigation took place during the Kharif season of the year 2022 at Plot Number 10, located at the College Agronomy Farm of B. A. College of Agriculture, Anand Agricultural University, Anand, Gujarat. Meteorological parameters were recorded by the meteorological observatory of Anand Agricultural University during the same Kharif season in 2022. The observations suggested that the weather conditions were conducive to the normal growth of finger millet crops. The experimental site exhibited an even topography with a moderate slope and efficient drainage. The soil in the area, locally known as "Goradu" soil, is characteristic of the region and falls under the order inceptisols, featuring a loamy sand texture. For the experiment, the finger millet variety chosen was Gujarat Nagali 8, and the treatments included Farm yard manure and Vermicompost as manure.
Table 1:Nitrogen content of various organic sources:
Organic sources | Nitrogen content (%) |
FYM | 0.69 |
Vermicompost | 1.58 |
Initial analysis of soil: Prior to crop planting, a composite soil sample was extracted from the experimental plot, delving to a depth of 15cm. Subsequently, this sample underwent analysis to ascertain the soil's physical and chemical attributes, with additional details available in Table 2.
Table 2:Physico-chemical properties of the soil (0-15cm) of experimental field.
Particulars | Values at soil depth 0-15 cm | Method of analysis employed |
A. Physical properties | ||
Coarse sand (%) | 0.55 | International Pipette Method (Piper, 1966) |
Fine sand (%) | 83.28 | |
Silt (%) | 10.23 | |
Clay (%) | 5.14 | |
Textural class | Loamy sand | |
B. Physico-chemical properties | ||
Soil pH (1:2.5) (Soil: Water) | 7.79 | Potentiometric method (Jackson, 1973) |
EC (dS/m) (1:2.5, Soil: Water at 25 0C) | 0.21 | Conductometric method (Jackson, 1973) |
C. Chemical properties | ||
Organic carbon (%) | 0.73 | Wet oxidation method (Walkley and Black 1934) |
Available N (kg/ha) | 210 | Alkaline KMnO4 method (Subbiah and Asija 1956) |
Available P2O5 (kg/ha) | 31 | Olsen’s method (Spectrophotometric) (Olsen et al., 1954) |
Available K2O (kg/ha) | 280 | Flame photometric method (Jackson, 1973) |
This study aimed to assess the impact of organic manures on the growth and yield attributes of finger millet through various treatments in a field experiment. The treatments included T1: Absolute control, T2: 100% nitrogen (N) through Farm Yard Manure (FYM), T3: 100% N through Vermicompost, T4: 50% N through FYM + 50% N through Vermicompost, T5: 25% N through FYM + 50% N through Vermicompost + Jeevamrit, T6: 25% N through FYM + 50% N through Vermicompost + Bio-NP Consortium, T7: 25% N through FYM + 50% N through Vermicompost + Vermiwash, T8: 50% N through FYM + 25% N through Vermicompost + Jeevamrit, T9: 50% N through FYM + 25% N through Vermicompost + Bio-NP Consortium, T10: 50% N through FYM + 25% N through Vermicompost + Vermiwash. Jeevamrit and Vermiwash were sprayed at 30 and 60 days after transplanting (DATP), respectively. The Bio-NP Consortium was applied at 1 L/ha near the plant base at 30 and 60 DATP through drenching. The recommended nitrogen dose was applied as per the treatment through organic manure on a nitrogen equivalent basis. Farm Yard Manure was incorporated ten days before transplanting, while Vermicompost was applied in furrow during transplanting. Jeevamrit was diluted in water (25 liters in 375 liters) and sprayed at 30 DATP, and (50 liters in 500 liters) sprayed at 60 DATP. Vermiwash (10%) was sprayed at 30 and 60 DATP, and Bio-NP Consortium was applied in 1-liter increments at 30 and 60 DATP through drenching.
Effect of treatments on growth & yield attributes. Table 3 illustrates the notable impact of different treatments on the growth and yield attributes of finger millet. The plant population per meter row length at the initial stage and at harvest did not show significant variations among the various organic treatments.
The presented data clearly indicates a progressive increase in the plant height of finger millet as the crop ages. Height displayed vigorous growth up to 60 days of crop development, after which it gradually slowed down until harvest. No significant differences were noted in plant height at 30 days after transplanting (DATP). Treatment T6 exhibited the highest plant height (101.52 cm) at 60 DATP, statistically comparable to treatments T5 and T7. At harvest, Treatment T6 resulted in a significantly taller plant height of 112.52 cm, on par with treatments T5, T7, and T9. The observed increase in plant height under Treatment T6 could be attributed to the combination of various organic sources providing essential nutrients for plant growth and development. The rapid mineralization of Vermicompost, particularly in supplying readily available nitrogen, likely played a significant role in promoting plant growth. The results are in conformity with the findings of Thimmaiah et al. (2016); Pradhan et al. (2018); Aparna et al. (2019); Patel et al. (2021a).
Among the various treatments, Treatment T6 showed a significantly higher number of effective tillers per meter row length (25.25), remaining on par with Treatments T5, T7, and T9. The establishment of an optimal crop geometry contributes to effective tillering, playing a crucial role in canopy development and efficient resource utilization, ultimately influencing grain yield. Treatment T6 exhibited an increased count of effective tillers per meter row length. This enhancement can be attributed to the readily available nitrogen supply from organic fertilizer sources, coupled with the mineralization process of Vermicompost, leading to improved crop nutrition and creating a favorable soil environment. These findings align with the research conducted by Saunshi et al. (2014); Thimmaiah et al. (2016); Aparna et al. (2019).
Table 3: Effect of different treatments on growth.
Treatments | Plant Population/m2 | Plant height (cm) | Effective number of tillers per meter row length | Number of fingers per ear head | Length of finger (cm) | |||
At initial | After harvest | At 30 DATP | At 60 DATP | At harvest | ||||
T1 | 10.00 | 9.50 | 52.57 | 74.41 | 81.91 | 16.25 | 6.31 | 5.93 |
T2 | 10.25 | 10.25 | 58.39 | 81.88 | 90.96 | 19.75 | 7.30 | 7.00 |
T3 | 11.00 | 10.00 | 59.66 | 85.74 | 95.57 | 21.75 | 7.63 | 7.60 |
T4 | 10.50 | 9.75 | 58.58 | 83.93 | 93.73 | 21.50 | 7.28 | 7.53 |
T5 | 11.00 | 10.75 | 57.06 | 96.77 | 107.27 | 24.50 | 7.93 | 8.98 |
T6 | 10.75 | 10.25 | 57.39 | 101.52 | 112.52 | 25.25 | 8.05 | 9.75 |
T7 | 10.75 | 10.00 | 56.13 | 98.35 | 108.85 | 24.75 | 7.90 | 9.43 |
T8 | 11.00 | 10.75 | 54.86 | 87.69 | 97.69 | 22.00 | 7.30 | 7.65 |
T9 | 10.75 | 10.25 | 54.91 | 91.03 | 104.68 | 23.75 | 7.85 | 8.88 |
T10 | 11.00 | 10.50 | 55.73 | 90.45 | 100.45 | 22.25 | 7.28 | 8.13 |
S. Em.± | 0.38 | 0.33 | 2.01 | 3.24 | 3.89 | 1.02 | 0.23 | 0.34 |
C.D.(P=0.05) | NS | NS | NS | 9.41 | 11.29 | 2.97 | 0.67 | 0.99 |
C. V.(%) | 7.01 | 6.40 | 7.12 | 7.27 | 7.83 | 9.22 | 6.17 | 8.45 |
Number of fingers per ear head was recorded higher under treatment T6 which was statistically at par with treatments T5, T7, T9 and T3. The results are in conformity with the findings of Mahapatra (2017); Prashanth et al. (2019).
Determining the grain yield of finger millet crop relies on the length of the fingers, which is a crucial factor contributing to the overall yield. A longer finger length often corresponds to a higher number of grains per ear head, resulting in an increased grain yield.
The data presented in Table 3 proves that the length of fingers was significantly influenced by various treatments. Treatment T6 recorded significantly higher finger length (9.75 cm). However, it was at par with T7, T5 and T9.The increase in the length of fingers observed under treatment T6 can be attributed to the nitrogen content, which stimulates meristematic and physiological activities that support increased photosynthetic rates. This can be possible due to the production of sufficient photosynthates that are subsequently transported to various sinks, leading to an increase in length of fingers.
Table 4: Effect of different treatments on yield and its attributes.
Treatments | Grain yield (kg/ha) | Straw yield (kg/ha) | Harvest index (%) | Test weight (g) |
T1 | 1809 | 4048 | 30.91 | 2.18 |
T2 | 2331 | 4403 | 34.68 | 2.41 |
T3 | 2758 | 4792 | 36.55 | 2.46 |
T4 | 2507 | 4684 | 34.92 | 2.44 |
T5 | 2734 | 5463 | 33.34 | 2.61 |
T6 | 3032 | 5862 | 34.03 | 2.76 |
T7 | 2865 | 5647 | 33.74 | 2.65 |
T8 | 2665 | 4893 | 35.27 | 2.49 |
T9 | 2696 | 5290 | 33.87 | 2.54 |
T10 | 2671 | 4932 | 35.20 | 2.50 |
S. Em.± | 118 | 219 | 1.17 | 0.09 |
C.D.(P=0.05) | 342 | 634 | NS | 0.25 |
C. V. (%) | 9.04 | 8.73 | 6.83 | 6.92 |
Data presented in Table 4 shows noteworthy variations in grain yield (kg/ha), straw yield (kg/ha), harvest index (%) and test weight (g) resulting from distinct nitrogen management treatments.
Grain yield (3032 kg/ha) was recorded significantly higher under treatment T6 which was statistically equivalent to that of treatment T7, T3, T5 and T9. As results the overall effect of application of organic manures and liquid organic fertilizer supplied nitrogen in balanced quantity enabled finger millet plants to assimilate sufficient photosynthetic products. With increased dry matter and photosynthetic products, coupled with efficient translocation, plant produced higher ears with increased test weight and ultimately higher grain yield. Thus, from all the measurable sources evaluated in the present study it is proved that and results were in close concurrence with Chaudhari et al. (2011); Shivakumar et al. (2011); Dhanpal and Verma (2013); Pavankumar et al. (2016); Hatti et al. (2017), Ullasa et al. (2017); Upenranaik et al. (2018); Naveena et al. (2019); Prashanth et al. (2019); Kaur (2021).
Significantly higher straw yield was obtained under treatment T6 which was at par with treatmentsT5, T7& T9. The adequate nitrogen supply from FYM and Vermicompost, combined with the presence of the bio-fertilizer, enhanced the photosynthetic activity and increased biomass production. Consequently, this led to a higher straw yield. These results were in close agreement with Govindappa et al. (2009); Chaudhari et al. (2011); Dhanpal and Verma (2013); Hatti et al. (2017); Ullasa et al. (2017); Aparna et al. (2019); Chowdary et al. (2019); Harika et al. (2019); Naveena et al. (2019) ; Prashanth et al. (2019).
Based on the information presented in Table 4 indicated that the various treatments did not have any significant impact on the harvest index of finger millet.
Table: 5 Effect of various treatment on finger millet grain protein and nutritional quality.
Treatment | Protein content (%) | N (%) | P (%) | K (%) | Ca (%) | Mg (%) | S (%) | Fe (ppm) | Mn (ppm) | Zn (ppm) |
T1 | 5.45 | 0.872 | 0.273 | 0.555 | 0.445 | 0.205 | 0.514 | 31.18 | 24.04 | 9.29 |
T2 | 5.50 | 0.881 | 0.275 | 0.558 | 0.448 | 0.203 | 0.596 | 31.23 | 24.48 | 9.39 |
T3 | 5.57 | 0.892 | 0.277 | 0.570 | 0.450 | 0.223 | 0.608 | 31.73 | 25.19 | 9.45 |
T4 | 5.55 | 0.889 | 0.278 | 0.564 | 0.447 | 0.213 | 0.599 | 31.53 | 24.96 | 9.43 |
T5 | 6.14 | 0.983 | 0.280 | 0.582 | 0.452 | 0.213 | 0.643 | 32.68 | 25.50 | 9.59 |
T6 | 6.41 | 1.026 | 0.282 | 0.576 | 0.454 | 0.215 | 0.682 | 33.58 | 27.55 | 10.15 |
T7 | 6.25 | 1.000 | 0.281 | 0.578 | 0.450 | 0.213 | 0.647 | 33.18 | 27.04 | 9.79 |
T8 | 5.69 | 0.910 | 0.279 | 0.572 | 0.454 | 0.215 | 0.610 | 31.78 | 25.20 | 9.49 |
T9 | 5.85 | 0.936 | 0.280 | 0.574 | 0.451 | 0.220 | 0.624 | 32.49 | 25.48 | 9.54 |
T10 | 5.75 | 0.920 | 0.279 | 0.573 | 0.454 | 0.213 | 0.618 | 31.99 | 25.46 | 9.53 |
S. Em.± | 0.12 | 0.019 | 0.004 | 0.007 | 0.005 | 0.006 | 0.015 | 0.71 | 0.86 | 0.20 |
C.D.(P=0.05) | 0.34 | 0.055 | NS | NS | NS | NS | 0.043 | NS | NS | NS |
C. V. (%) | 4.07 | 4.071 | 2.709 | 2.473 | 2.315 | 5.366 | 4.852 | 4.40 | 6.73 | 4.25 |
As per the data shown in Table 4 test weight was recorded significantly higher (2.76 g) under treatment T6, which was remained at par with treatments T5, T7 & T9. The potential explanation for the increase in test weight could be the availability of an ample amount of nitrogen through organic sources and the use of liquid organic fertilizers enhanced productive efficiency by facilitating concurrent photosynthesis and efficient translocation of assimilates from source to sink during the grain filling stage. This ultimately led to a higher 1000 grain weight. Additionally, liquid organic fertilizers helped to increased availability of nutrients from organic sources, resulting in the production of a greater number of grains, which was reflected in the test weight. The results corroborate those achieved by Mahapatra (2017) ; Prashanth et al. (2019).
Effect of treatments on grain quality parameter: Data presented in Table 5 shows variations in grain Protein content (%), Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium, Calcium, Magnesium, Sulphur, Iron, Manganese and Zinc resulting from distinct nitrogen management treatments.
Protein content of finger millet grain was significantly affected by different treatments. Maximum protein content was recorded under treatment T6 however; it was statistically at par with treatment T5 & T7. Combination of FYM, Vermicompost and Bio NP consortium enhances the photosynthetic activity of the plant, facilitating efficient production of organic compounds required for protein synthesis. Additionally, the presence of sufficient nitrogen, which is a fundamental component of protein, aids in the easy translocation and supply of nitrogen to the growing plant parts. These findings corroborate the observations of Mane et al. (2019).
Treatment T6 (25% N through FYM + 50% N through Vermicompost + Bio-NP Consortium) yielded a notably higher nitrogen content (1.026%). The incorporation of liquid manure played a role in expediting the mineralization process of farm yard manure (FYM). This accelerated mineralization made nitrogen readily available for the plants, and it is plausible that some of this nitrogen was transported from the source (e.g., roots) to the sink (e.g., developing seeds). These results were in accordance with those achieved by Negi (2017).
The content of P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Mn, and Zn in finger millet grain remained unaffected by the diverse nutrient management treatments. These results suggest that the use of various organic fertilizers facilitates the availability of various micro and secondary nutrient elements, balancing the plant's needs, yet not leading to an increase in their content in the grain.
Treatment T6 (25% N through FYM + 50% N through Vermicompost + Bio-NP Consortium) showed a significantly higher sulfur content (0.648%) in the finger millet grain, comparable to treatments T5 and T7.
The future of farming may see a shift towards these organic and bio-nutrient management strategies, fostering a more sustainable and environmentally friendly approach to crop cultivation. Farmers could potentially witness increased net realization by adopting these practices, encouraging a broader adoption of organic and bio-based fertilizers. As we move forward, the agricultural community might embrace these findings to strike a balance between maximizing yield, ensuring crop quality, and maintaining economic viability, ultimately contributing to a more resilient and sustainable agricultural landscape.
Agricultural Statistics as a Glance (2017). Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Economics and Statistics www.agricoop.nic.in
Aparna, K., Rekha, K. B., Vani, K. P., and Prakash, T. R. (2019). Growth and yield of finger millet as influenced by crop residue composting. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 8(4), 1108-1111.
Chaudhari, P. P., Patel, D. A., Virdia, H. M., and Patel, B. M. (2011). Nutrient management in finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn) on hilly area of south Gujarat Green farming, 2(6), 658-660.
Chowdary, K. A., and Patra, B. C. (2019). Effect of micronutrient application with different sources of NPK on growth and yield of finger millet crop in red laterite zone. Journal of Agricultural Science and Technology, (9) 403-416.
Dhanpal, G. N., and Verma, S. K. (2013). Effect of long term FYM application with fertilizer on productivity of finger millet. Bio infole - A Quarterly Journal of Life Science, 10, 507-509.
Govindappa, M., Vishwanath, A. P., Harsha, K. N., Thimmegowda, P., andJnanesh, A. C. (2009). Response of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn) to organic and inorganic sources of nutrients under rainfed condition, Journal of Crop and Weed, 5(1), 291-293.
Hatti, V., Ramachandrappa, B. K., Mudalagiriyappa, Sathish, A., and Thimmegowda, M. N. (2017). Soil properties and productivity of rainfed finger millet under conservation tillage and nutrient management in eastern dry zone of Karnataka. Journal of Environmental Biology, 39, 612-624.9
Jackson, M. L. (1973). Soil chemical analysis. Prentice Hall India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi, 183-192.
Kaur, P. (2021). Optimization of jeevamrit doses and application time for enhancing productivity of wheat under natural farming system. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry, 10(1), 405-408.
Mane, M. J., Mahadkar, U. V., Sagavekar, V. V., Jagtap, D. N., and Dhekale, J. S. (2019). Economics of finger millet (Eleusine Coracana (L.) Gaertn) as influenced by land situations, various planting geometry and levels of fertilizer under lateritic soil of Konkan region. International Journal of Chemical Studies, 7(6), 838-847.
Mahapatra, S., S. (2017). Nutrient management through organics for sustained productivity of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University Andhra Pradesh.
Naveena, M., Sujith G. M., and Devakumar, N. (2019). Growth and yield of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn) as influenced by liquid organic manures. International Journal of Advanced Biological Research, 9(2), 157-160.
Negi, M. S. (2017). Integrated nutrient management in rainfed finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn.). M.Sc. (Ag.) Thesis, G.B Pant University of Agriculture and Technology, Pantnagar, Uttarakhand.
Olsen, S. R., Cole, C. V., Watanabe, F. S., and Dean, L. A. (1954). Estimation of available phosphorus in soil by extraction by sodium bi-carbonate. United States Department of Agriculture, 937.
Patel, H. H., Shroff, J. C., and Shah, S. N. (2021a). Effect of nitrogen management on yield and quality of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn). International Journal of Farm Sciences, 11(3), 17-20.
Pavankumar, G., Ramachandrappa, B. K., Thimmegowda, M. N., and Mudaligiriyappa, L. (2016). Influence of rotation, use of organic and inorganic sources of nutrients on yield, nutrient uptake and economics of finger millet. Ecology, Environment and Conservation, 22, 39-46.
Piper, C. S. (1966). Soil and Plant Analysis. The University of Adelade, Academic press, New York, Australia.
Pradhan, A., Sao, A., and Nag, S. K. (2018). Sustainable nutrient management in aerobic finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn) under Rainfed Agriculture. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International, 22 (6) 1-5.
Prashanth, D. V., Krishnamurthy, D. V., Naveen, L., Anandkumar, B. R., Harsha S., and Savitha, M. (2019). Long term effect of integrated nutrient management on growth and yield of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn) in eastern dry zone of Karnataka, India. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Science, 8, 2362-2367.
Saunshi, S., Reddy, V., Mallikarjun, K., and Rawal, R. (2014). Influence of enriched bio-digester liquid manure on growth and yield of finger millet. The bioscan, 9(2), 613-616.
Shivakumar, B. C., Girish, A. C., Gowda, B., Kumar, G. V., Gowda, A. M., andThimmegowda, M. N. (2011). Influence of pongamia, mahua and neem cakes on finger millet productivity and soil fertility. Journal of Applied and Natural Science, 3(2), 274-276.
Subbiah, B. V., and Asija, G. L. (1956). A rapid procedure for the estimation of available nitrogen in soil. Current Science, 25, 259-260.
Thimmaiah, M., Dineshkumar, M., Nandish, M. S., and Veeranna, H. K. (2016). Effect of integrated nutrient management on growth, yield and economics of rainfed finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.) Gaertn). Green Farming, 7, 875-879.
Ullasa, M., Pradeep, S., Shrikantha, C. D., and Sridhara, S. (2017). Effect of different organic nutrient management practices on growth, yield and economics of finger millet (Eleusine coracana (L.)). International Journal of Farm Sciences, 7(2), 10-14.
Chaudhari A.K., Shroff J.C., Patel Hardik, Prajapati Mansi and Shah S.N. (2024). Effect of Organic Manures on Growth and Yield Attributes of Finger Millet. Biological Forum – An International Journal, 16(1): 265-270.