1. Improved agronomy: Option for raising the
interest of finger millet farmers in Nepal
Presented at the International Food Security Dialogue 2014
“Enhancing Food Production, Gender Equity and Nutritional Security
in a Changing World.”
Sponsored By: Hosted By:
Kamal Khadka, Asis Shrestha, Pashupati Chaudhary
Local Initiatives for Biodiversity, Research and Development (LI-BIRD), Nepal
Correspondence: PO Box 324, Pokhara, Nepal, Email: kkhadka@libird.org

2. • Finger millet is the fourth most important cereal crop of Nepal in
terms of area and production
• Despite having tremendous potential for food and nutrition
security finger millet is neglected by the National
• Interest among farmers on finger millet cultivation is declining
due to agronomic, social and cultural factors
• Realizing the value of the crop, through IDRC and DFATD funded
initiative “RESMISA”, we tried to identify the constraints and
potential of finger millet cultivation in Nepal
Background

3. • A survey named as “Sustainable Agriculture Kit survey” revealed
that raising nursery, transplanting, weeding and harvesting were
highly labour consuming
• The study also showed that women contributed to the majority of
work involved in finger millet cultivation
• We tested different on-farm experiments to identify the labour
reducing and women friendly agronomic interventions and also
tested different machineries
Background…

4. • Finger millet is relayed with Maize in high hills and as mono-crop
in the foot hills. We considered maize in the agronomic
interventions since the testing sites fall under maize-finger millet
relay cropping system.
• Varieties: Finger millet- Kabre Kodo 1, Maize- Manakamana 3
Experiments
• Direct seeding of finger millet
• Line sowing of maize and line sowing of finger millet
• Line sowing of maize and line transplanting of finger millet
• Line sowing of maize, line transplanting of finger millet and
intercropping of legume in finger millet
Methodology

5. • All the experiments were single replicated i.e one farmer as one
replication
• Each experiment had a single block with two plots i.e. one test
plot and the other control
• Maize spacing (75 cm x 25 cm) and finger millet (15cm x 10 cm)
• Farmers’ feedback collected through group discussions and
survey
Testing small machines/hand tools
• Auto-seeder tested in trials and a few farmers’ plots
Methodology

6. Studysites
Banke
Kapilbastu
Rupandehi
Nawalparasi
Parsa
Chitwan
Bardiya
Bara
Rautahat
Sarlahi
Mahottari
Dhanusa
Si
raha Sunsari
Kailalai
Dang
Kanchanpur
Jhapa
Saptari
Morang
Palpa Dolaka
Sindhupalchok
Rasuwa
Rhamechtap
Sindhuli
Taplejung
Dhading
Makwanpur
Manang
Mustang
Gorkha
Myagdi
Baglung
Gulmi
Arghakhanchi
Dolpa
Lamjung
Tanahu
Kaski
Parbat
Syangja
Kavrepalanchok
Bhaktapur
Lalitpur
Kathmandu
Nuwakot
Mugu
Humla
Jumla
Kalikot
Rukum
Sankhuwasabha
Solukhumbu
Panchthar
Ilam
Terhathum
Dhankuta
Bhojpur
Khotang
Okhaldhunga
Udayapur
Rolpa
Pyuthan
Salyan
JajarkotDailekh
Surkhet
Bajura
Bajhang
Darchula
AchhamDoti
Baitadi
Dadeldhura
Dhading district
Kaski district

7. • We expected direct seeding to reduce the labour requirement
and drudgery faced in raising finger millet nursery
Resultsofdirectseedingexperiments

8. • Yield of direct seeding of finger millet as relay crop in maize with
traditional method of maize finger millet relay cropping (N=15)
Directseedinginfingermillet,2012
SN Treatment/practice Mean yield
(kg/ha)
Test statistic
1 Direct seeding of finger
millet in line as relay crop
with maize
853.3 t = -5.14 on 14
d.f.;
Probability <
0.001
2 Traditional method of
transplanting of finger millet
as relay crop with maize
2,113.3

9. • Direct seeding as mono-crop was compared with direct seeding as
relay crop (N=7)
Testingdirectseedinginfingermillet,2012
SN Treatment/practice Mean yield
(kg/ha)
Test statistic
1 Direct seeding as mono-
cropping
2026.2 t = 4.35 on 6
d.f.;
Probability =
0.005
2 Direct seeding as relay
crop with maize
996.6

10. • Yield of direct seeded finger millet in line as relay crop with
maize was compared with traditional method of transplanting of
finger millet as a relay crop with maize (N=15)
Directseedinginfingermillet,2013
SN Treatment/practice Mean yield
(kg/ha)
Test statistic
1 Direct seeded finger millet
in line as relay crop with
maize
665.4 t = -10.26 on
14 d.f.;
Probability <
0.001
2 Transplanted finger millet
in traditional method as
relay crop with maize
2,110.3

11. • Difficult to maintain uniformity
while seeding
• Backache while seeding
• Not acceptable unless any
machine is available
• The result clearly indicated that
direct seeding is not appropriate
for maize millet relay cropping
Farmers’perceptionondirectseeding,2013

12. • We expected line transplanting of finger millet seedlings to
reduce the labour requirement and drudgery faced in weeding
Resultsoflinetransplantingoffingermillet

13. Linetransplantingoffingermillet,2013
SN Treatment/practice Mean yield
(kg/ha)
Test statistics
1 Line transplanting of
finger millet
1,174.2 t = 5.50 on 14 d.f.;
Probability < 0.001
2 Traditional practice of
transplanting finger
millet
1,949.4
Note: N= 15
• Nationally recommended spacing in finger millet not appropriate
in farmers’ condition since weed was one of the biggest
problems

14. Plantpopulationintestandcontrolplots,2013
SN Treatment/practice Mean plant
population/m2
Test statistics
1 Line transplanting of
finger millet
60.8 t = -19.60 on 4
d.f.
Probability <
0.001
2 Traditional practice of
transplanting finger
millet
190.6
• Plant population in the test plots was less than 3 times lower
than the farmers’ practice leading to low yield (N= 5)

15. Group discussions and survey
study showed that
• Line transplanting makes
weeding easy and requires less
• Maintenance of proper spacing
important to increase yield
• 45% women and 61% men
showed interest to try line
transplanting in the following
year
Farmersresponseonlinetransplanting

16. • We intended to demonstrate benefits of finger millet legume
inter crop over no intercrop
Resultsoffingermilletlegumeintercropping

17. • Cow pea was grown as inter crop just before the harvest of maize
• 44% more economic benefit was observed
• Cowpea not preferred as intercrop due to its growth habit
Intercroppinglegumeinfingermillet,2012
SN Treatment/practice Mean gross
benefit (NRs)
Test statistic
1 Gross benefit from maize
and millet only
104,678.4 t = -8.33 on 4 d.f.
Probability =
0.001
2 Gross benefit from maize,
millet and legume
150,683.5

18. • Black gram and soybean were intercropped
• 15% more economic benefit was observed
• farmers are willing to test in larger plots in the following year
Intercroppinglegumeinfingermillet,2013
SN Treatment/practice Mean gross
benefit (NRs)
Test statistic
1 Gross benefit from maize
and millet only
170,174 t = 2.47 on 15 d.f.
Probability = 0.0262 Gross benefit from
maize, millet and legume
195,745

19. • Maize auto-seeder was tested in 2013 to demonstrate line
transplanting in maize to facilitate line sowing and line
transplanting of finger millet
Resultsoftestingmaizeauto-seeder

20. Perceptionoffarmersonauto-seeder
• In 2014, More than 70 farmers have tried auto-seeder in their
plots ranging from almost from 300 m2 to 1500 m2.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Useful Not useful Will adopt it Not sure about
adoption
Nooffarmers
Perception
(Male=12, Female=13)
Male
Female

21. • It reduces the cost of labour
and draft power
• It can be handled by women
and children very easily
• Maize can be sown in line with
this machine
• The machine can be adjusted
and can be used for other
cereals
Generalfeedbackoffarmersonauto-seeder

22. • Direct seeding method in finger millet is appropriate in mono-
cropping conditions but not in relay crop with maize
• Line transplanting of finger millet seedlings as a relay crop to
maize appears more promising than traditional method of
transplanting
• Economic benefits clearly demonstrated benefit of intercropping
legumes in finger millet
• Maize auto-seeder helps line sowing of maize which in turn
facilitate line transplanting in finger millet leading to reduced
drudgery and efficiency in weeding
Conclusion

23. Thank You