Sustainable Food Production: Improved agronomy: Option for raising the interest of finger millet farmers in Nepal
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
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