Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)

Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and
Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of the degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE (AGRICULTURE)
In
AGRONOMY
By
SAHIL LEDHAN
2019-2021
DEPARTMENT OF AGRONOMY NAINI,
INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE FACULTY OF AGRICULTURE,
SAM HIGGINBOTTOM UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURE,
TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCES
PRAYAGRAJ-211 007 (U.P) India
ID No: 19MSAGRO60

THE CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE OF EVALUATION COMMITTE
“Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine
coracana L.)”, has been prepared and submitted by SAHIL LEDHAN (PID No.
19MSAGRO060) in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of degree of Master
of Science in Agriculture (Agronomy), of Naini Agricultural Institute, Faculty of Agriculture,
Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technologyand Sciences, Prayagraj (U.P) India.
Name and Designation Evaluation Signature
1. Dr. Vikram Singh
Associate Professor
Department of Agronomy
(Advisor)
Satisfactory/ Non
satisfactory ……………….
2. Dr. Satyendra Nath
Assistant Professor
Department of Environmental
Science and Natural
Resource Management
(Co-Advisor)
Satisfactory/ Non
3. Prof. (Dr.) Joy Dawson
Head of Department
(Member)
Satisfactory/ Non
4. Prof. (Dr.) Tarence Thomas
Head of Department
Department of Soil Science and
Agricultural Chemistry
(Member)
Satisfactory/ Non
This thesis is hereby accepted for the award of the degree of Master of Science in Agriculture
(Agronomy).
Place: Prayagraj (U. P)
Date: Dr. Ashwani Kumar
(Chairman)
Evaluation Committee

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINAL WORK
This is to certify that the study conducted by SAHIL LEDHAN (PID No. 19MSAGRO060)
during Kharif 2020-2021 as reported in the present thesis, was under my guidance and
supervision. The results reported by her is genuine and the candidate himself has written the
script. Her thesis entitled, Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry Manure on Growth and Yield
of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.) is therefore being forwarded for the acceptance in
partial fulfillment of the requirement for the award of the degree of Master of Science in
Agriculture (Agronomy), of Naini Agricultural Institute, Faculty of Agriculture, Sam
HigginbottomUniversity of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences, Prayagraj- 211007 (U.P)
India
Place: Prayagraj
Date:
Dr. Vikram Singh
Associate Professor
(Advisor)

SELF ATTESTATION
This is to certify that I (Sahil Ledhan , Id No. 19MSAGRO060) have personally worked on
the thesis entitled, “Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry Manure on Growth and Yield of
Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)” The data presented in this thesis have been obtained
during the work, were collected from the field and are genuine. None of the
findings/information pertaining to the work has been concealed. Any other data or
information in this thesis, which have been collected or borrowed from outside agency, has
been duly acknowledged. The results embodied in this thesis have not been submitted to any
other University or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.
Place: Prayagraj
Date:
SAHIL LEDHAN
19MSAGRO060

ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This endeavor is the result of two years of hard work, whereby I am highly indebted
to many people who directly and indirectly helped me for its successful completion.
First and foremost I would like to place on record my ineffable indebtedness to my
Advisor Dr. Vikram Singh., Associate Professor, Department of Agronomy, Naini
Agricultural Institute, SHUATS, Prayagraj, for his conscientious guidance and
constructive suggestions at every step during the thesis work. I thank him for his creative
criticism and valuable suggestions for improving the quality of this work.
I express my gratitude to the Chairman, Evaluation Committee, Dr. Ashwani
Kumar, Associate Professor Department of Entomology, SHUATS, Prayagraj for the
valuable suggestions.
I gratefully record my indebtedness to Dr. Satyendra Nath, Assistant Professor,
Department of Environmental Science and Natural Resource Management, SHUATS, my Co-
Advisor, for his constant encouragement and support.
I wish to express my deep sense of gratitude and appreciation to Prof. (Dr.) Joy
Dawson, Head of Department, Department of Agronomy, Naini Agricultural Institute,
SHUATS, Prayagraj, who has been a constant source of inspiration and strength. I am
indebted to her for excellent guidance, valuable suggestions, and close counsel.
I imbibed a lot of knowledge and valuable suggestions from Prof. (Dr.) Tarence
Thomas, Head of Department, Department of soil science and Agricultural Chemistry,
SHUATS, Prayagraj. I am grateful to her for correcting the draft of the thesis strenuously
and also in time.
I am grateful to all my teachers Prof. (Dr.) Gautam Ghosh, , Dr. Biswarup Mehra,
Dr.Rajesh Singh, Dr. Umesha C. and Dr. Shikha Singh for their cooperation and help
whichadded to the success of this work.

This record will be incomplete if I forget the valuable services extended to me by all
thestaff in the department, especially Mr. Vikas Vincent Williams, Mr. S. S. Ali, Mr.
Mustaq Ali, Mr. Vikas Saroj and Mr. Ram Murat.
I am also grateful to the field workers of Crop Research Farm, Department of
Agronomy, SHUATS, Prayagraj, especially Mr. Tulsi Ram, Mr. Shyam Babu, Mr.
Surendra, Mr Ajay fortheir help and support during my field work.
There are no words to express my feelings of adoration, love, respect and obligation
tomy beloved parents, who moulded me to what I am now. They taught me to lead an
obedient, trustworthy and well-planned life, which constantly guided me as a lighted lamp
towards my destination. My beloved father Mr. Surender Pal, mother Mrs. Beyant kour
and best friends Sahil , Dinesh, Aditya, and Daksh who always backed me throughout my
life and helped me in my education leading to post graduation, which includes this
research work too
I am fortunate to have seniors here. I am thankful for the emotional support from
my seniors Mr. Dhananjay Tiwari, Mr. Sachidanand Singh, Mr. Mayur Mishra and Mr.
Lalit Sanodiya Ph.D. Scholars, Department of Agronomy, NAI, SHUATS, Prayagraj.
I am fortunate to have Classmates here. I am thankful for the emotional support
from Rajat kumar, Vikram Nihal Diwedi, Santanu Moharana, Suman, Joy, Praveen,
Aman Singh, Naveena and Daksh Bishnoi and all my classmates.
Most of all, I thank Lord Almighty for the blessings showered and the benevolence
received, which enabled me to complete this thesis work.
Place: Prayagraj
Date:
SAHIL LEDHAN
19MSAGRO060

CONTENT
Chapter No. TITLES PageNo.
LIST OF TABLES i-ii
LIST OF FIGURES iii
LIST OF ABBREVATION iv-v
ABSTRACT vi
I INTRODUCTION 1-3
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 4-9
III MATERIALS AND METHODS 10-23
IV RESULT AND DISCUSSION 24-54
V SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 55-57
BIBLIOGRAPHY 58-60
APPENDIX i-vi

Page i
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE
NO.
PARTICULARS
PAGE
NO.
3.1
Agro Meteorological data during the months of July 2020 to
October 2019 2020
11
3.2
Physical and chemical properties of the soil of experimental field
(0-30 cm)
13
3.3 Cropping history of the experimental field 14
3.4 Treatment Combinations 16
3.5 Calendar of pre-sowing operations in the field 18
3.6 Skeleton of ANOVA (Analysis of variance): 23
4.1.1
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on plant height (cm) of
Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
26
4.1.2
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on leaf area (cm2
) of
29
4.1.3
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on leaf area index of
32
4.1.4
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Number of tillers of
35
4.1.5
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Plant dry weight (g
plant-1
) of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
38
4.1.6
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Crop Growth Rate
(CGR) (g/m2
/day) of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
41
4.1.7
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Relative Growth
Rate (RGR) (g/g/day) of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
44
4.8
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on yield and yield
attributes of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
48

Page ii
4.9
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Cost of cultivation
of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L)
51
4.10
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Cost of treatment of
52
4.11
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Economics of
53

Page iii
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE
NO.
PARTICULARS
PAGE
NO.
3.1
Agro Meteorological data during the months of July 2020 to
October 2020
12
3.2 Experimental Layout 17
4.1
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on plant height (cm) of
27
4.2
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on leaf area (cm2
) of
28
4.3
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on leaf area index of
33
4.4
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Number of tillers of
36
4.5
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Plant dry weight (g
plant-1
) of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
39
4.6
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Crop Growth Rate
(CGR) (g/m2
/day) of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
42
4.7
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Relative Growth
Rate (RGR) (g/g/day) of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
45
4.8
Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on yield and yield
attributes of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
49

Page iv
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
& : And
@ : At the rate of
/ or x-1
: Per
% : Per cent
°C : Degree Celsius
ANOVA : Analysis of Variance
Avg. : Average
B:C : Benefit Cost Ratio
CD : Critical Difference
CGR : Crop Growth Rate
cm : Centimeter
CRF : Crop Research Farm
d.f. : Degree of freedom
DAS : Days After Sowing
EC : Electrical Conductivity
EMSS : Error Mean Sum of Square
et al. : Co-workers
Fcal. : F calculated value
Ftab. : F table value
g : Gram
ha : Hectare
i.e. : That is
INR ha-1
: Indian Rupees per hectare
kg : Kilogram
Kg ha-1
: Kilogram per hectare
Km : Kilometer
m : Meter
m2
: Square meter
max. : Maximum
m ha : Million hectare
min. : Minimum
mlkg-1
: Milliliter per kilogram
mm : Millimeter

Page v
mt : Million Tones
N : Nitrogen
No. : Number
OC : Organic Carbon
P or P2O5 : Phosphorous
Ph
: Power of Hydrogen
r : Replication
RDF : Recommended Dose Fertilizer
RGR : Relative Growth Rate
RH : Relative Humidity
RSS : Sum of Squares due to Replication
SEd± : Standard error of difference
SE(m)± : Standard error of mean
SS : Sum of Square
SV : Source of Variation
t : Tones
t ha-1
: Tones per hectare
T : Treatment
Temp : Temperature
TrSS : Sum of Square due to Treatment
TSS : Total Sum of Square

Page vi
ABSTRACT
A field trail was carried out at Crop Research Farm, Naini Agricultural Institute,
Department of Agronomy, Sam Higginbottom University Agriculture, Technology and
Sciences, (SHUATS), Prayagraj, (U.P.) during kharif season 2020 to study. “Effect of Row
Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana
L.)”. The experiment was done in randomized block design (RBD) with nine treatment
replicated three times. The factor consist of Row Spacing (20× 10, 30×10, 40×10 cm.) and
three levels of Poultry manure (2.0, 2.5, 3.0 t/ha) were taken into use. The result which appeared
that application of T6 (30×10cm+3.0 t/ha poultry manure) recorded maximum plant height
(72.91cm), leaf area (526.37 cm2
), leaf area index (4.40), number of tillers/plant (7.20), plant
dry weight (14.27g), number of fingers/plant (6.07), test weight (3.65g), grain yield (3.04 t/ha),
stover yield (6.58 t/ha), biological yield (9.61 t/ha) and harvest index (31.89%). Whereas
maximum relative growth rate (0.044 g/g/day) and crop growth rate (0.396 g/m2
/day) was
recorded with application of T2 (20× 10+2.5 t/ha poultry manure). Maximum gross return
(121600), net return (84600), and B: C ratio (2.27) were recorded with application of T6 (30×10
cm+3.0 t/ha poultry manure).

INTRODUCTION Page 1
CHAPTER-I
INTRODUCTION
Among various millets, finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) provides staple food in
relatively short period and has a pride of place in having the highest productivity among millets
Patel and Shroff (2020).It is the third most widely cultivated millets after pearl millet and
foxtail millet in the semi-arid tropical and subtropical regions of the world. In India, finger
millet is cultivated mainly in the states like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Odisha,
Jharkhand, Uttaranchal, Maharashtra, and Gujarat in an area of 1.2 million ha with an annual
production of 2.06 million tonnes with an average productivity of 1700 kg/ha In Gujarat, it is
prominently cultivated with an area of 0.2 lakh ha producing 0.16 lakh tones with average
productivity of 800 kg/ha.
Finger millet is highly valued by traditional farmers as a low fertilizer input crop,
however, it suffers from lower yields as they are mostly cultivated in resource poor soils
deficient in macro and micronutrients, mainly due to continuous cropping, low use of mineral
fertilizer and low rates of organic matter application and faulty methods of cultivation etc,. The
modern agronomic approaches like suitable planting and fertilizer application were imperative
in boosting the yields. Crop geometry is a very important factor to achieve higher production
by better utilization of moisture and nutrients from the soil and above ground by harvesting
maximum possible solar radiation and in turn better photosynthesis (Uphoff et al. 2011). The
unbalanced use of chemical fertilizers in intensive cropping system causes deterioration of soil
health, multi-nutrient deficiencies, low productivity and environmental hazards. In order to
explore better yields optimizing crop geometry and nutrient management practices were
important.
In India, finger millet is cultivated in an area of 1.14m ha with a production of 1.69 m
tand an average productivity of 1483 kg/ha. In Andhra Pradesh, it covers an area of 0.42 lakh
ha with a production of 0.50 lakh t at an average productivity of 1179 kg/ha (Department of
Agriculture and Cooperation, 2014).
The striking feature of finger millet is its ability to adjust to different agro-climatic
conditions, easy cultivation, free from major pests and diseases and drought tolerance, effective
in suppressing weed growth, and able to grow on marginal lands with poor soil fertility have
made this crop an indispensable component of dry farming system. Though finger millet is

INTRODUCTION Page 2
valued by traditional farmers as a low fertilizer input crop, under these conditions, it suffers
from low yields. Most of the soils in the semi-arid tropics, where finger millet is grown, are
deficient in major and micronutrients, mainly due to continuous cropping, low use of mineral
fertilizer, poor recycling of crop residues, and low rates of organic matter application which
can limit yield potential Prakasha et al., (2018).
The rice eater is weightless like a bird; the one who eats Jowar is strong like a wolf:
one who eats Raagi remains ‘nirogi’ [illness free] throughout his life - An old Kannada saying.
Finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) is an important food grain crop of semi-arid tropics
particularly of India. It requires minimum rainfall of around 350-400 mm for successful
cultivation but can be grown successfully in the areas receiving rainfall up to
1000 mm. It can be grown on a wide range of soils from very poor to very fertile. However,
well drained loam or clay loam soils are best for finger millet cultivation. The grain content
9.2% proteins, 1.29% fats, 76.32% carbohydrates, 2.2% mineral, 3.90% ash, 0.33% calcium.
Vitamin A, B and phosphorus are also present in smaller quantity, iodine content in finger
millet is reported to be the highest among food grain. Finger millet taste better than most other
cereals. It has no major pest problem and so can be stored cheaply for a long time. It makes
good fodder and contain up to 61% of total digestible nutrients (Upadhyaya 2006). The
demand of finger millet is in increasing trend due to its nutritional value besides it is also used
as a staple food grain in some parts of India.
Although the current gap is partly bridged by sources other than fertilizers like organic
sources of nutrients. Organic Farming aims at production of quality and safe agricultural
Products, which contain no chemical residues following eco-friendly production methods and
farming systems that restore and maintain soil fertility. The soil is loosing its productivity over
year making the farming more miserable. In order to bring back the productivity of soil, it needs
to improve physical, chemical and biological properties of soil. Organic farming is being
advocated as an alternate farming system for sustainable agriculture. A stage has reached that
supplementary and complementary role of organic materials is being felt once again for
sustainable agriculture and to keep the soil health. In the past, research on fertilizer use in our
country was mainly confirmed to the nutritional requirement of individual crops through
chemical farming. But recently, there has been a shift in research priority from individual crops
to cropping system and organic farming. Among the millets Finger millet (Eleusine coracara
L.) is one of the major staple food crop of Karnataka grown in an area of 10.5 lakh ha, with an
annual production of 15.7 lakh tonnes and productivity of 1889 kg ha -1. In India it accounting

INTRODUCTION Page 3
for 54 per cent area and 44.9 per cent production Krishne Gowda et al., (2007). The
information on sustainable productivity of finger millet with use of organic manures viz.,
Poultry manure, FYM, urban garbage compost, sewage sludge and vermi compost in finger
millet is essential.
The negative changes due to mineral fertilizer usage calls for reviving the use of organic
fertilizers such as poultry manure because poultry manure have been found to be richer in
nitrogen than other livestock wastes Hirzel et al., (2007). Poultry manure alongside other
organics serves as organic amendment of soils and as well provides crop with nutrients Sigh et
al., (2004). The current study aimed at determining the appropriate rate of poultry manure for
the growth of finger millet.
The productivity of finger millet can be increased by applying judicious combination
of organic and inorganic fertilizers which helps to improve the soil health as well as the
productivity of finger millet. Finger millet agronomy plays a great role in increasing and
sustaining the crop production and productivity. Soil nutrient application rates, schedule of
nitrogen fertilizer application and spacing are among the major agronomic practice which
requires due to attention. The optimum density of plant population per unit areas under
appropriate spacing to obtain maximum yield.
Hence an attempt was made forthe present investigation entitled “Effect of Row
Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana
L.)” is planned undertaken to find out the specific objectives given as below:
Objectives:
1. To study the effect of row Spacing and poultry manure on Growth and Yield of finger
millet.
2. Evaluate the economics of finger millet.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE Page 4
CHAPTER-II
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Shinggu et al., (2009) conduct a field experiment at Samaru Zaria, Northern Guinea
Savanna of Nigeria to evaluate narrow spacing 10-15 cm and high seed rate 25-30 kg/ha could
be adopted as an alternative for the control of weeds . Higher seed rate and narrow spacing had
strong and negative effect on weed biomass and positive effect on crop biomass and higher
grain yield in finger millet.
Jagadeesha et al., (2010) studied the response of Ragi + Redgram intercropping system
under protective irrigation. Application of either sewage sludge or poultry manure compost
produced significantly higher grain yield (2498 and 2475 kg ha-1, respectively) and straw yield
of finger millet (4065 and 4009 kg ha-1, respectively) and redgram grain and stalk yield (370
and 355 kg ha-1, respectively). The study clearly revealed that sewage sludge and poultry
manure compost application at equivalent recommended nitrogen dose could be successfully
used for fingermillet and redgram intercropping system to substitute the chemical fertilizers
and found to be sustainable.
Shinggu and Gani (2012) the study, planting finger millet by dibbling and planting the
crop on the 25 June and 9 July at a spacing of 10 and 15cm gave heavier unthreshed panicleswith
consequent higher grain yield.
Mamanet al., (2013) conduct a field experiment on poultry manure and inorganic
fertilizer to improve Finger millet yield and observe that highest plant height , stover yield ,
grain yield recorded in poultry manure
Nouri and Stephen (2013) response to applications of poultry manure in combination
with inorganic fertilizer. On-farm studies conducted in 2004 through 2006 indicated that
application of 2 t ha-1 poultry manure increased pearl millet grain yield by 56% and stover
yield by 53%. Poultry manure plus 40 kg ha-1 of 15-15-15 (6 kg N ha-1 6kg ha-1 P2O5 6 kg
K2O ha-1 ) dry fertilizer increased grain yield by 117% and stover yield by 94%. The cost/value
ratio was 3.59 for poultry manure alone and 3.92 when the inorganic fertilizer was added.
Onstation experiments in 2005 and 2006 examined the effects of adding 10, 20 and 30 kg P ha-
1 to the 2 t ha-1 of poultry manure, no further increase in yield was found, likely due to
relatively high P concentration in the poultry manure. These studies indicate that 2 t ha-1 of

poultry manure is recommended for pearl millet production. Further research on the application
of N fertilizer in combination with poultry manure is merited.
Bitew and Fekremariam (2014) on the other hand, row spacing significantly affect
lodging and grain yield of finger millet. Thus, due to relative increment in yield components
and reduction of lodging and blast diseases infestation, highest grain yield was recorded when
finger millet was planted at 30 cm row spacing. Planting finger millet at the lowest seed rate
(10kg/ha) at 30 cm row spacing gave the optimum grain yield of finger millet. However, when
the farmers consider the straw yield as business, partial budget analysis showed that at the
current cost of the grain and straw yield of finger millet, planting 25 kg/ha and 20 kg/ha seed
rate of finger millet in 30 cm row spacing gave the first and second highest net benefit.
Yoseph et al., (2014) result showed that all phenological and growth parameters except
fingerlength per plant were significantly affected by inter row spacing. As the inter row spacing
widerthere was increment on both plant height and tiller number per plant. Grain yield, 1000
seeds weight, total biomass and harvest index were very highly significantly affected by inter
row spacing while number of fingers per ear was not significantly influenced by inter row
spacing.The grain yield obtained from the inter row spacing of 45 cm (2.2488 t/ha ) was higher
by 35.39% compared to the inter row spacing of 75 cm (1.4528 t/ha ). Seed rate had
significantlyaffected all the growth and phenological parameters except days to maturity. The
maximum number of tillers per plant and the highest finger length were noted from the seed
rate of 5 kg/ha. Seed rate had significantly affected yield components except number of fingers
per ear.Seed rate had significant affected harvest index but it did not affect significantly total
biomass.The highest grain yield (2.4693 t/ha ) and the highest harvest index (0.367), obtained
from theseed rate of 10 kg/ha were 42.64% and 41.47% increase over the seed rate of 15 kg/ha
, respectively. There was significant interaction observed between inter row spacing and seed
rate for all the studied parameters except number of fingers per ear. Therefore, it can be
concluded from this result that the inter row spacing of 45 cm or the seed rate of 10 kg/ha is
advisable and could be appropriate for finger millet production in the test area even though
further testing is required to put the recommendation on a strong basis.
Damar et al., (2016) conduct a experiment at NIPSS kuru, Nigeria and observe that
poultry manure of 8 to 10 tonnes/ha give maximum plant height , No. of tillers and take less
day for maturity as compaired to the 4 tonnes/ha of poultry manure and to the control plot.

Dereje and Anbessa (2016) the magnitude of increase in grain yield over the broadcast
due to application of 15 kg seed per hectare & 40 cm spacing between rows were 22.2 % (427.5
kg/ha) .Therefore, it can be concluded that the row spacing of 40 cm and the seed rate of 15
kg/ha is advisable and could be appropriate for finger millet production in the test area even
though further testing is required to put the recommendation on a strong basis.
Derejeet al., (2016) conduct a field experiment on finger miller observed that the higher
the plant height, number of fingers per ear and maximum grain yield (1926.8 kg/ha) obtained
from 40 cm spacing between rows and application of 15 kg/ha seeds.
Pallavi et al., (2017) reported that the growth attributes viz plant height, dry matter
production and number of tillers/m2 were significantly influenced by the application ofT5
(75% RDN + 25% N poultry manure) and was on par with application of recommended dose
of NPK fertilizers. Significant increase in yield components viz number of fingers per earhead,
finger length and 1000-grain weight was noticed in T5. The highest grain (2681 kg/ha) and
strawyield (5063 kg/ha) resulted with sole crop on par with T5(2405 and 4733 kg/ha
respectively) and T2 (2393 and 4745 kg/ha respectively). The lowest grain (1583 kg/ha) and
straw yield (3402 kg/ha) was found in T1 (control) ie farmers’ practice. From the present
investigations it can be inferred that among nutrient management practices tested 75 per cent
RDN + 25 per cent N poultry manure and 100 per cent RDF in agri-silvi culture system were
better for realizing higher grain yield, straw yield and economic returns apart from sustaining
better soil nutrient status on sandy loam soils of southern Telangana region.
Ramdev et al., (2017) results indicated that application of Vermicompost @ 2.5 t/ha +
½ RDF, FYM @ 6 t/ha + ½ RDF and Poultry Manure @ 2 t/ha + ½ RDF remaining at par with
each other and significantly increased plant height, dry matter accumulation, total number of
tillers, chlorophyll content effective tillers, ear length, grains/ear, test weight, grain, stover and
biological yield, protein content over control. Nitrogen and potassium content in grain were
significantly increased due to application of poultry manure @ 2 t/ha + ½ RDF. However
phosphorus content in grain was significantly increased due to application of vermicompost @
2.5 t/ha + ½ RDF and nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium content in stover and their uptake
were significantly increased due to application of vermicompost @ 2.5 t/ha + ½ RDF.
Application of poultry manure @ 2 t/ha + ½ RDF gave highest net returns of ` 34898/ha.
Jagadeesha et al., (2018) results indicated that application of sewage sludge recorded
higher nutrient uptake (40.5, 8.8 and 31.5 kg of N, P and K/ha, respectively) and its availability

after harvesting (258.7 63.7 and 269.2 kg of N, P and K/ha, respectively) and was on par with
poultry manure compost. Highest grain yield (1870 kg/ha ) and straw yield (3105 kg/ha ) of
finger millet was recorded with application of sewage sludge followed by poultry manure
compost (1833 and 3052 kg/ha , respectively) over all other treatments. The study clearly
indicated that use of sewage sludge and poultry manure compost application at equivalent
recommended nitrogen dose could be successfully used for Finger millet to substitute the
chemical fertilizers are found to be sustainable.
Nigus and Melese (2018) conduct a field experiment at Merblekhe district at central
zone of Tigray, Ethiopia, substation of Axum agricultural Research center reveals that the
appropriate inter row and seed rate for the production of finger millet was 30 cm spacing15
kg/ha seed rate gave higher grain yield. However the longest plant height and number of
productive tillers obtain from the interaction of 50cm with 20 kg/ha of seed rate.
Prakash et al.(2018). Field experiment was conducted during kharif 2006 and 2007 at
Zonal Agricultural Research Station, Mandya to study the effect of different establishment
methods and organic nutrient sources on productivity of finger millet. Soil of the experimental
site was red sandy loam in texture, low in organic carbon (0.43%) and available nitrogen
(270.60kg/ha), medium in available P2 O5 (32.25kg/h) and K2 O (149.80kg/ha). Treatment
consisted of 12 treatment combinations two main plot treatments of methods of cultivations
(puddled and aerobic soil condition), six nutrient sources in sub plot. . Among the different
organic nutrient sources application of poultry manure 125kg N equivalent+25% of
recommended N equivalent poultry manure a top dressing recorded significantly higher grain
yield (3484kg/ha), straw yield (6574kg/ha), yield parameters, net returns (Rs.16229 and
Rs.1822 1akh/ha) and B: C ratio (1.06 and 1.19) in both puddled and aerobic condition and
which was on par with application of sewage sludge 125kg N equivalent+25% of recommended
N equivalent poultry manure at top dressing
Prakash et al., (2018) conduct a field experimentat Zonal Agriculture Research station,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bengaluru on red sandy loam soil reveals that spacing of
60x60 cm 100% RDF significantly increases the plant height, leaf area and number of leaves
per plant recorded higher, wider spacing and adequate supply of plant nutrient helps in better
photosynthesis and growth of finger millet which helps in higher grain yield.
Thomas and Maniaji (2018) reported that the results indicated that plant density and
phosphorus levels had significant effects on finger millet seed weight, number of fertile tillers,

plant height and percentage lodging. It was established that spacing and phosphorus levels
affected the growth of finger millet in terms of tillering ability, lodging, height, And Head
length. The interaction between spacing and fertilizer levels in season one had a significant
effect on finger millet height. The contribution of phosphorus to the size of the head length of
finger millet appeared to be higher than that of plant density in both seasons.
Kumar et al., (2019) had observed that the yield attributes such as number of
productive tillers, number of ear per head and number of fingers per earhead were higher under
30 x 10 cm+66spacing with two hand weeding at 15 and 30 DAT. The maximum grain yield,
straw yield, HI, gross return, net return was also recorded high under 30 x 10 cm spacing with
two hand weeding at 15 and 30 DAT.
Natarajan et al., (2019) concluded that the highest grain yield (3.7 t/ha) was recorded
with 100% RDF and at par with 75% RDF + 25% Poultry manure, while 100% Poultry manure
resulted in the lowest yield of 2.1 t/ha. Interaction effect being significant, the grain yield was
maximum with 30cm x 30cm and 75% RDF + 25% Poultry manure (4.4 t/ha) and the lowest
was grain yield of 1.4 t/ha was recorded with 20cm x 20cm and 100% Poultry manure. The
highest benefit: cost ratio of 3.0 was recorded with 75% RDF + 25% Poultry manure and it was
same with 100% RDF.
Mulualem et al., (2020) The highest yield performance for two consecutive years i.e.
2012 and 2013 was recorded by treatment 20 cm × 10 cm with a yield of 6.67 ton/ha and 7.47
ton/ha respectively. Hence, the experiment was done in one location using one finger millet
variety, so that further experiment using more than one location and finger millet variety is
recommended to approve the result and used for future finger millet production.
Maobe et al., (2020) showed that tiller and panicle numbers per m² increased with use
of closer spacing giving higher plant densities. Densities ranging from 111,111 hills ha (30 cm
× 30 cm) to 1,000,000 hills 1 ha (20 cm × 5 cm or 10 cm ×10 cm) showed non-significant
(p=0.5) influence on panicle weight and grain 1 weight per panicle. At densities of more than
1,000,000 hills ha (100 hills m ²), panicle weight and grain weight 1 per panicle showed a
decreasing trend with increase in plant density, without significant influence on 1,000- grain
weight. Densities ranging from 333,333 (30 cm x 10 cm) to 4,000,000 hills ha (5 cm × 5 cm)
gave grain 1 yields that were not significantly different. Densities lower than 333,333 hills ha
(33 hills m ²) caused 1 significant reduction in grain yield. Therefore, the use of closer plant
spacing than 30 cm × 10 cm, with plant densities higher than 333,333 hills ha in the cultivation

of finger millet is strongly recommended if high grain 1 yield (more than 3000 kg/ ha ) is to be
expected.

MATERIALS AND METHODS Page 10
CHAPTER-III
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A field experiment entitled, “Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and
Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)”, was conducted during Kharif season of
2020.The materials used and the methods adopted in the present investigation with a brief
description of site of the experiment, soil properties, climatic conditions prevalent in the
locality where the experiment was conducted, experimental details and the design of
experiment adopted, Statistical analysis, Particulars of treatments, planting material used and
sampling techniques adopted are dealt in this chapter.
Location:
The experiment was conducted at the Crop Research Farm, Department of Agronomy,
Naini Agricultural Institute, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology &
Sciences, Prayagraj, and Uttar Pradesh, India. During kharif season.
Climate and weather conditions:
Prayagraj is situated at an elevation of 98 m above mean sea level at 25.570 North
longitudes and 81.50 East longitudes. Allahabad has a sub-tropical and semi-arid climate
prevailing in the North-East part of U.P having both extremes of winter and summer, with rains
mostly occurring during the months of November-April. Meteorological data recorded at the
Departmental Observatory Unit, College of Forestry, covering the cropping period are
presented in the table 3.1 below.

Table 3.1 Agro Meteorological data during the months of July 2020 to October 2019 2020
Week/month
Temperature (oC) Relative humidity (%)
Rainfall(mm
)
Max. Min. Max. Min.
July
2020
1st week 37.86 28.74 79.14 42.00 2.49
2nd week 38.03 28.86 84.29 43.14 18.86
3rd week 36.03 28.34 83.71 49.43 3.20
4th week 31.31 27.57 90.43 69.57 8.71
August
20
1st week 31.97 26.69 93.57 74.43 21.03
2nd week 32.71 26.71 91.57 66.71 22.06
3rd week 34.97 27.46 91.57 64.29 2.26
4th week 33.66 26.54 92.29 69.43 7.11
September
2020
1st week 32.94 26.03 92.29 68.71 4.14
2nd week 34.31 26.00 90.43 58.43 2.89
3rd week 36.29 25.74 89.57 54.00 0.00
4th week 34.89 25.91 89.14 60.57 1.11
October
2020
1st week 36.03 25.49 88.00 55.71 0.03
2nd week 36.80 23.54 89.00 51.43 0.00
3rd week 34.66 19.83 90.71 55.71 0.00
4th week 33.86 19.91 91.57 58.00 0.00
Source: Meteorological Observatory Unit, School of Forestry and Environment, SHUATS,
Prayagra.

Tem. (0C) Max. Tem. (0C) Min. R. H. (%) Max. R. H. (%) Min. Rainfall (mm)
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
Jul-20 20-Aug Sep-20 Oct-20
Fig. 3.1 Agro Meteorological data during the months of July 2020 to October 2020

Soil:
The soil of the experimental field was sandy loam in texture, medium in organic carbon
and available nitrogen low in phosphorus and medium in potassium. The physico-chemical
properties of the soil of the experimental field are presented in table 3.2.
Soil analysis:
Soil samples were taken before the experiment. A representative soil sample of the field was
obtained by mixing the soil samples collected from the different parts of the field and was used for
initial analysis. The initial analysis was done for mechanical composition, organic carbon,available
nitrogen, available phosphorus, available potassium, pH and EC. The methods followedfor the
analysis of the soil physical and chemical properties and the record results are given in table3.2.
Table 3.2 Physical and chemical properties of the soil of experimental field (0-30 cm)
Constituents Value Method and references
Physical properties
International pipette method
(Piper, 1950)
Sand (%)
Silt (%)
Clay (%)
Textural class
59.60
25.27
15.13
Sandy loam
Chemical properties
Alkaline permanganate method
(Subbaiah and Asija, 1956)
Available nitrogen 100.30 kg/ha
Available phosphorus 31.78 kg/ha
Olsens method
(Olsen et al., 1954)
Available Potassium 253.14 kg/ha
NH4OAC - Leaching
(Jackson, 1973)
Organic carbon (%) 0.72 Walkey and Black method (Jackson, 1973)
pH 6.7 Glass electrode pH meter (Jackson, 1973)
EC (dms-1) 0.29
Method No.4 USDA Hand Book No 16
(Richards, 1954)

Cropping history:
Different crops grown in different season in the experiment was recorded for the last 4 years
to get an idea about the different species grown. Cropping history of the experimental field for
the last five years is presented in table 3.3
Table 3.3 Cropping history of the experimental field
Years
Cropping season
Kharif Rabi Zaid
2016-17
Maize Wheat Mungbean
2017-18
Rice Wheat Fallow
2018-19
Rice Mustard + Gram Ground nut
2019-2020
Fallow
Maize (experimental
crop)
Maize
Experimental design:
The experiment was conducted in Randomized Block Design (RBD). Each treatment was
replicated three times. Treatments were randomly arranged in each replication, divided in nine
plots. The particulars of the treatments and treatment combinations are presented respectively.

3.6.2 EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS:
Design : Randomized Block Design (RBD)
Total number of treatments : 9
Total number of replications : 3
Total number of plots : 27
Size of each plot : 3×3 = 9 m2
Width of main irrigation channel : 1.0m
Width of sub irrigation channel : 0.5m
Width of bunds : 0.3m
Total length of experimental field : 30 m
Total width of experimental field : 11.3 m
Gross cultivated area : 339 m2
Net cultivated area : 243 m2

TREATMENT DETAILS
Factor-1 (Spacing)
1. S1- 20× 10 cm.
2. S2- 30×10 cm.
3. S3- 40×10 cm.
Factor-2 (Poultry Manure)
1 2.0t/ha
2 2.5t/ha
3 3.0t/ha
Table 3.4 TREATMENT COMBINATIONS
S.No. Treatment No. Treatment Combination
1. T1 20×10 cm+ 2.0t/ha poultry manure
2. T2 20×10 cm + 2.5t/ha poultry manure
5. T5 30×10 cm+2.5t/ha poultry manure
7. T7 40× 10 cm + 2.0t/ha poultry manure

3.0
m
LAYOUT OF EXPERIMENTAL FIELD:
R1 R2 R3
11.3 m
Fig: 3.2 Experimental Layout
Main
irrigation
channel
1.0m
30
m
3.0 m
T2
0.5m
Sub
Irrigation
Channel
T6 T4
T7 T1 T9
T5 T9 T3
T8 T2 T6
T6 T5 T1
T3 T4 T8
T4 T7 T5
T9 T8 T2
T1 T3 T7

Pre-sowing operations:
Preparation of the field:
The land was deep ploughed followed by two harrowing. Stubble and weeds were picked
up from the field and the land was leveled with the help of rake and the plots were demarcated
according to layout. The preparation of land and the operations carried out in the field before
sowing during the year are given in table
Table 3.5 Calendar of pre-sowing operations in the field
Date Operation Process
16/07/2020 Preparatory cultivation
Tractor drawn disc harrow cultivator
and planking
17/07/2020
Removal of weeds, crop
residues and field leveling
Manually
17/07/2020 Layout
21/07/202
Application of Poultry manure
and seed sowing
Sowing of seeds:
Seeds were sown on well prepared beds in shallow furrows at a depth of 5-6 cm, row to row
distance was maintained at 45 cm and plant to plant space was maintained at 25 cm one to two
seeds were planted at each hill and covered with soil.
Post-sowing operations:
Post sowing operations carried out during the course of investigation in the experiment are
summarized below in the table
Cultural operations:
Gap filling:
In certain plots seedling emergence was not satisfactory, hence gap filling was carried out
by selective re-sowing to maintain an optimum plant population.

Irrigation:
Finger millet is a drought tolerant crop which normally belongs to c4 family grown in
kharif and Rabi season. Rabi season crop needs residual soil moisture and hence only three or four
irrigations were provided at the critical condition of crop growth i.e. Knee stage and tassel
development stages and cob formation.
Weeding:
Weed competition in the beginning of crop growth stage was little bit high but, after the
growth of maize crop, weeds were dominated by the crop canopy. However, they were controlled
by hand weeding at proper intervals. First hand weeding was done at 20 DAS and second at 45
DAS.
Thinning:
Thinning of the young plants was done at 20 DAS to maintain a single plant at a point and
spaced at 10 cm to avoid competition among them.
Plant protection measure:
As a cow urean and neem oil were applied to control stem borers during the starting growth
period of crop at 20DAS.
Harvesting:
The crops were harvested at maturity as per the sowing date, finger from each plot were
collected and yield/plot was recorded in t/ha
Observations recorded:
During the course of the experiment, random sampling technique was adopted for
recording the observations on various morphological characters of the plant. Five plants from the
inner rows of each plot were selected randomly and tagged. The parameters for each stage was
recorded and computed. The frequency of observations and the parameter on which the
observations were taken are divided into pre and post-harvest observations.

Pre harvest observations at 20, 40, 60, 80 DAS (Days after Sowing)
Plant height (cm)
Plant height (cm) was measured from the base of the plant to the tip of the top most of leaf
20, 40, 60 and 80 days, whereas upto the finger at harvest and was expressed in cm.
Leaf Area Index
Leaf area from five destructively sampled plants was estimated by using LI-COR model,
LT-30 portable leaf area meter with transparent conveyor belt and electronic display. Leaf area
index was calculated by dividing leaf area with the corresponding land area as suggested by
Watson (1952).
LAI
Leaf area
Ground area
No. of tillers
The number of tillers were counted from randomly tagged plants at 20, 40, 60 and 80 days
and at harvest in net plot area and averaged to compute number of tillers.
Plant dry weight (g/plant)
Five randomly selected plants from the border rows leaving the extreme row were
destructively sampled at 20, 40, 60 and 80 days and at harvest for estimation of dry matter of crop.
Crop growth rate:
It represents dry weight gained by a unit area of crop in a unit time and expressed as g m-2
day-1 and from the dry weight of plants at 20, 40, 60, 80 DAS, Crop Growth Rate was calculated
based on the following formula (Brown, 1984)
W2 – W1
CGR (g m-2day-1) =
t2 – t1
Where, W1 = Initial weight of the plants
W2 = weight of the plants (g) after a time of interval‘t’
t1 = Initial time (days)
t2 = Time of certain interval (days)

Relative growth rate:
The relative growth rate of the plants was determined from the dry weight of the plant
taken at 20, 40, 60, 80 DAS by using the following formula (Radford, 1967).
logeW2 – logeW1
RGR (mg/g/day) =
t2 – t1
Where,
Log W1 = Natural log of initial weight of the plants
Log W2 = natural log of weight of the plants (g) after a time of interval ‘t’
t1 = Initial time (days)
t2 = Time of certain interval (days)
Post harvest observations
No. of fingers
No of fingers were counted from each plot ot the regular interval of 20, 40, 60, 80 DAS
Harvest Index (%)
The harvest Index was calculated on plant basis from the following formula as suggested
by Donald and Hamblin (1976)
Economical yield (Grain yield)
Harvest Index (%) = X 100
Biological yield
Test weight (gm)
It was measured by taking one thousand sun-dried seeds as sample and was weighted on
electronic balance to record test weight in gram.
Biological yield (t/ha)

Biological yield represented a total weight of the grain and total dry weight of the plant
excluding root.
3.9.2.4 Grain yield (t/ha)
Grain yield of five randomly selected plants was recorded in grams separately, and
averaged for each replication after threshing.
Economics:
The economics regarding the cultivation of the crop were calculated separately for all the
treatments on per hectare basis.
Cost of cultivation:
The cost of cultivation for each treatment was calculated separately taking into considerations
of all the cultural practices followed in the cultivation.
Gross returns:
The gross returns from each treatment were calculated taking into the consideration of
all the cost of cultivation and the market price of the produce.
Benefit cost ratio:
The benefit cost ratio for each treatment was calculated by using the following formulae.
B: C ratio = Net Return /cost of cultivation
3.12 Statistical analysis
To study this experiment details, randomized block design was used. The analysis of variance
technique was applied for drawing conclusion from the data. The calculated values must be
compared with tabulated value.
Table-3.6 Skeleton of ANOVA (Analysis of variance):

2x MSSE / r
Source of
Variation
d.f. S.S. M.S.S. F-Cal
F-Tab
at 5%
Due to treatments t-1 Tr.SS TSS / (t-1)
MSST/
MSSE
-
Due to replication r-1 RSS RSS / (r-1)
MSSR/
MSSE
Due to error
(r-1)
(t-1)
ESS ESS / (r-1) (t-1) - -
Total (rt -1) TSS -
Standard error (S.E.) and critical difference (C.D.) values are calculated by using the following
formula-
CD=SE (m) × (t) error d.f. at 5%
S.Em () =
t = Treatment
r = Replication
d.f. = Degree of freedom
S.E. = Standard error
SS = Sum of square
TSS = Treatment sum of square
RSS = Replication sum of square
TSS = Total sum of square
M.S.S. = Mean sum of squares
MSSR = Mean sum of square (Replication)
MSST = Mean sum of square (Treatment)
MSSE = Mean sum of square (Error)
F-Tab = Tabulated value of F
F-Cal = Calculated F value

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Page 24
CHAPTER-IV
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The findings of the present experiment entitled, “Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry
manure on Growth and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)” are being presented and
discussed in the following pages under appropriate headings. Data on pre-harvest (pertaining to
growth attributes) and post- harvest (relating to yield and yield attributes) observations were
analyzed and discussion on experiment findings in the light of scientific reasoning has been stated.
OBSERVATION RECORDED:
Pre harvest observation at 20, 40, 60 and 80 DAS
Plant height (cm).
Leaf area (cm2
)
Leaf area index
Number of tillers/plant
Plant dry weight (g plant-1
)
Crop growth rate (g m-2
day-1
)
Relative growth rate (g g-1
day-1
)
Post-harvest observations
No. of fingers/plant
Harvest Index (%)
Test weight (g)
Biological yield (t ha-1
)
Grain yield (t ha-1
)
Stover yield (t ha-1
)
Economic analysis
Cost of cultivation /ha-1
Gross return `/ha-1
Net return `/ha-1
Benefit: cost ratio.

A. Pre – harvest observations:
Plant height (cm)
The observations for plant height are being presented in the table 4.1.
A perusal of this table reveals that there was a steady increase in the plant height from 20
to 40 DAS. At 60 and 80 DAS significant influence was observed in plant height due to different
treatments, while at 20 and 40 DAS the effect of the treatments were non-significant.
At 20 DAS, there was non-significant difference between the treatments and maximum
plant height (9.11cm) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure),
whereas the lowest value (6.79cm) was observed in treatment T7 (40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry
manure).
plant height (17.73cm) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry
manure), whereas the lowest value (15.60cm) was observed in treatment T7 (40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-
1
poultry manure).
At 60 DAS, there was significant difference between the treatments and maximum plant
height (39.07cm) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure),
poultry
manure).
height (72.91cm) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure),
poultry
manure).
The increase in plant height and dry matter could be due to application of poultry manure as it an
important supplier of nitrogen and phosphorus. Wider spacing resulted in less competition between
plants which helps in improve plant height and growth. The result are similar to the findings of
Sridhar and Ashwini (2006) and Eltilib et al., (2006) .

Table 4.1: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on plant height (cm) of Finger Millet
(Eleusine coracana L.)
Treatment Treatments Combination
Plant height (cm)
No.
20 DAS
40
DAS
60
DAS
80
DAS
T1 20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 7.49 16.00 35.70 64.20
T2 20×10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 8.29 16.47 36.93 66.14
T3 20×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 8.77 17.37 38.17 69.86
T4 30×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 8.45 16.67 36.93 66.67
T5 30×10 cm+2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 8.56 17.17 36.83 67.92
T6 30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 9.11 17.73 39.07 72.91
T7
40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry
manure
T8
40× 10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry
manure
T9
40× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry
manure
6.79 15.60 34.77 62.80
7.77 16.17 36.63 65.23
8.87 17.53 38.60 70.93
F- test NS NS S S
S. Em (±) 0.53 0.66 0.39 0.56
CD. (P = 0.05) - - 1.15 1.68
.

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
T7 T8 T9
Fig: 4.1: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on plant height (cm) of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
Plant
height
(cm)

Leaf area (cm2)
Observations regarding the response of row spacing and levels of poultry different on leaf
area (cm2
) of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) are given in table 4.2.
It was noticed that successive stage there was an incremental trend. At 40, 60 and 80 DAS
were significant influence in leaf area (cm2
) due to different treatments. At 20 days were non-
significant in leaf area (cm2
) due to different treatments.
At 20 DAS, there was non-significant difference between the treatments and maximum leaf
area (99.81cm2
) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure),
whereas the lowest value of leaf area (86.33cm2
) was observed in treatment T7 (40× 10 cm + 2.0t
ha-1
poultry manure).
At 40 DAS, there was significant difference between the treatments and maximum leaf
area (188.57cm2
poultry manure),
whereas the lowest value leaf area (165.21cm2
ha-1
poultry manure).
area (289.90cm2
poultry manure),
ha-1
poultry manure).
area (526.37cm2
poultry manure),
ha-1
poultry manure).
Increased cell number and elongation may have resulted in increased leaf area. Wider spacing
produced robust and healthy plants produced more number of leaves due to less competition
between plants for solar radiation light, space, water and increased the nutrient availability finally
helped to get more leaf area. The results are in confirmative with the findings of Daisy et al .,
(2002) and kalaraju et al ., (2009).

Table 4.2 Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on leaf area (cm2) of Finger Millet
Treatment
No.
Leaf area (cm2)
Treatments Combination
20
DAS
40
DAS
60
DAS
80
DAS
T1 20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 88.25 168.13 273.00 468.53
T2 20×10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 90.27 171.53 279.50 499.60
T3 20×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 93.87 181.42 286.13 512.70
T4 30×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 90.63 175.09 281.13 507.97
T5 30×10 cm+2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 92.53 177.27 283.77 510.97
T6 30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 99.81 188.57 289.90 526.37
T7 40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 86.33 165.21 275.63 456.53
T8 40× 10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 89.33 171.17 276.63 487.67
T9 40× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 95.32 184.37 288.47 515.37
F- test NS S S S
S. Em. (±) 6.41 1.30 2.18 5.85
CD. (P = 0.05) - 3.90 6.55 17.54

Leaf
area
(cm
2
)
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
T7 T8 T9
Fig 4.2: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on leaf area (cm2) of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)

Leaf area index
Observations regarding the response of row spacing and levels of poultry different on leaf
area index of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) are given in table 4.3.
It was noticed that successive stage there was an incremental trend. At 60 and 80 DAS
were significant influence in leaf area index due to different treatments. At 20 and 40 days were
non-significant in leaf area index due to different treatments.
area index (1.08) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure),
whereas the lowest value leaf area index (0.91) was observed in treatment T7 (40× 10 cm + 2.0t
ha-1
poultry manure).
poultry manure),
ha-1
poultry manure).
poultry manure),
ha-1
poultry manure).
poultry manure),
ha-1
poultry manure).

Table 4.3: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on leaf area index of Finger Millet
Treatment
No.
Leaf area index
20
DAS
40
DAS
60
DAS
80
DAS
T1 20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 0.94 1.49 3.14 4.18
T2 20×10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 0.96 1.50 3.17 4.27
T3 20×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 1.02 2.01 3.23 4.28
T4 30×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 0.97 1.95 3.18 4.25
T5 30×10 cm+2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 1.01 1.94 3.21 4.29
T6 30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 1.08 2.06 3.36 4.40
T7 40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 0.91 1.49 3.13 4.12
T8 40× 10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 0.94 1.48 3.16 4.17
T9 40× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 1.04 2.03 3.30 4.30
F- test NS NS S S
S. Em. (±) 0.10 0.21 0.03 0.03
CD. (P = 0.05) - - 0.09 0.10

Leaf
area
index
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9
Treatments
Table 4.3: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on leaf area index of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana

Number of tillers
Observations regarding the response of row spacing and levels of poultry different on
number of tillers of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) are given in table 4.4.
It was noticed that successive stage there was an incremental trend. At 40, 60 and 80 DAS
were significant influence in number of tillers due to different treatments.
number of tillers(3.54) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry
manure), whereas the lowest value number of tillers(2.80) was observed in treatment T1 (20×10
cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
At 60 DAS, there was significant difference between the treatments and maximum number
of tillers(5.67) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure),
whereas the lowest value number of tillers(4.27) was observed in treatment T1(20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-
1
poultry manure).
At 80 DAS, there was significant difference between the treatments and maximum number
of tillers(7.20) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure),
whereas the lowest value number of tillers(5.73) was observed in treatment T1(20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-
1
poultry manure).
The higher number of tillers at wider spacing intercepted more of solar radiation, water and
increased nutrient availability helped to produce significantly higher number of tillers. Again less
competition between plants due to wider space allowed the individual plants to develop massive
root system. Better aeration at wider spacing resulted in healthy plant growth with more tillers.
These results are in conformity with the findings of Narasimhamurthy and Hedge, (2009).The
observed increased in tiller number might have been due to released nutrients in the poultry manure
and its import into the plant resulting in increased growth through increased cell number and tiller.
Bajpai et al., (2002)

Table 4.4: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Number of tillers of Finger Millet
Number of tillers
Treatment No. Treatments Combination
40 DAS
60
DAS
80
DAS
T1 20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 2.80 4.47 5.73
T2 20×10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
T3 20×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
T4 30×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
T5 30×10 cm+2.5t ha-1
T6 30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
T7 40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
T8 40× 10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
T9 40× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
F- test S S S
S. Em. (±) 0.06 0.12 0.07
CD. (P = 0.05) 0.18 0.37 0.20

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
T7 T8 T9
Table 4.4: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Number of tillers of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
Number
of
tillers

Plant dry weight (g plant-1)
Observations regarding the response of row spacing and levels of poultry different on plant
dry weight (g plant-1
) of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.) are given in table 4.5.
It was noticed that successive stage there was an incremental trend. At 60 and 80 DAS
were significant influence in plant dry weight (g plant-1
) due to different treatments. At 20 and 40
days were non-significant in plant dry weight (g plant-1
) due to different treatments.
plant dry weight (0.97g) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry
manure), whereas the lowest value plant dry weight (0.63g) was observed in treatment T7 (40×10
cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
plant dry weight (1.65g) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry
manure), whereas the lowest value plant dry weight (1.16g) was observed in treatment T7 (40×10
cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
dry weight (7.17g) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure),
whereas the lowest value plant dry weight (4.97g) was observed in treatment T7(40×10 cm + 2.0t
ha-1
poultry manure).
dry weight (14.27g) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure),
whereas the lowest value plant dry weight (11.97g) was observed in treatment T7(40×10 cm + 2.0t
ha-1
poultry manure).
The dry matter production is the result of cumulative and complementary effect of plant
height, number of leaves, leaf area, root weight. Dry matter production differed due to different
spacing. Among the different treatments higher dry matter accumulation was rerecorded at a
spacing of T6 (30 x 30 cm + 3.0 t/ha poultry manure).

Table 4.5: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Plant dry weight (g plant-1) of
Treatment
No.
20
DAS
40
DAS
60
DAS
80
DAS
T1 20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 0.54 1.15 5.40 12.70
T2 20×10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 0.75 1.23 5.53 13.47
T3 20×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 0.88 1.34 6.18 13.73
T4 30×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 0.82 1.20 5.67 13.43
T5 30×10 cm+2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 0.85 1.45 5.93 13.57
T6 30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 0.97 1.65 7.17 14.27
T7 40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 0.63 1.16 4.97 11.97
T8 40× 10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 0.75 1.19 5.50 12.87
T9 40× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 0.93 1.47 6.51 14.00
F- test NS NS S S
S. Em. (±) 0.11 0.17 0.10 0.16
CD. (P = 0.05) - - 0.31 0.47

16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7
Treatments
T8 T9
Table 4.5: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Plant dry weight (g plant-1) of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
Plant
dry
weight
(g
plant
-1
)

Crop Growth Rate (CGR) (g/m2/day)
Observations regarding the response of row spacing and levels of poultry different on Crop
Growth Rate (CGR) (g/m2
/day) of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
It was noticed that successive stage there was an incremental trend. At 20-40 and 60-80
DAS were non-significant influence where as 40-60 DAS was significant in Crop Growth Rate
(CGR) (g/m2
/day) due to different treatments.
At 20-40 DAS, there was non-significant difference between the treatments and maximum
Crop Growth Rate (CGR) (g/m2
/day) (0.034) was observed with applications of T1 (20×10 cm +
2.0t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value Crop Growth Rate (CGR) (g/m2
/day) (0.019)
was observed in treatment T4 (30×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
At 40-60 DAS, there was significant difference between the treatments and maximum Crop
Growth Rate (CGR) (g/m2
/day) (0.275) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-
1
/day) (0.190) was
observed in treatment T7(40×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
Crop Growth Rate (CGR) (g/m2
/day) (0.396) was observed with applications of T2 (20×10 cm +
2.5 t ha-1
/day) (0.350)
was observed in treatment T7 (40×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).

Table 4.6: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Crop Growth Rate (CGR)
(g/m2/day) of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
Treatment
No.
Crop Growth Rate
(CGR) (g/m2/day)
20-40
DAS
40-60
DAS
60-80
DAS
T1 20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
T2 20×10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
T3 20×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
T4 30×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
T5 30×10 cm+2.5t ha-1
T6 30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
T7 40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
T8 40× 10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
T9 40× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
F- test NS S NS
S. Em. (±) 0.007 0.007 0.012
CD. (P = 0.05) - 0.023 -

0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
T7 T8 T9
Table 4.6: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Crop Growth Rate (CGR) (g/m2/day) of Finger Millet (Eleusine
coracana L.)
Crop
Growth
Rate
(CGR)
(g/m
2
/day)

Relative Growth Rate (RGR) (g/g/day)
Observations regarding the response of row spacing and levels of poultry different on
Relative Growth Rate (RGR) (g/g/day) of finger millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
It was noticed that successive stage there was an incremental trend. At 60-80 significant
influence in Relative Growth Rate (RGR) (g/g/day) due to different treatments. Where as 20-40
and 40-60 days were non-significant in Relative Growth Rate (RGR) (g/g/day) due to different
treatments.
Relative Growth Rate (RGR) (g/g/day) (0.062) was observed with applications of T1 (20×10 cm +
2.0t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value Relative Growth Rate (RGR) (g/g/day) (0.019)
was observed in treatment T4 (30× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
At 40-60 DAS, there was significant difference between the treatments and maximum
2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
2.5 t ha-1
poultry manure).

Table 4.7: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Relative Growth Rate (RGR)
(g/g/day) of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
Treatment No. Treatments Combination
Relative Growth Rate
(RGR) (g/g/day)
20-40
DAS
40-60
DAS
60-80
DAS
T1 20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
T2 20×10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
T3 20×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
T4 30×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
T5 30×10 cm+2.5t ha-1
T6 30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
T7 40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
T8 40× 10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
T9 40× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
F- test NS NS S
S. Em. (±) 0.009 0.003 0.001
CD. (P = 0.05) - _ 0.003

0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6
Treatments
T7 T8 T9
Table 4.7: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Crop Growth Rate (CGR) (g/m2/day) of Finger Millet (Eleusine
coracana L.)
Relative
Growth
Rate
(RGR)
(g/g/day)

Yield and yield attributes :
Observations regarding the response of row spacing and different levels of poultry manures
on yield and yield attributes of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.).
Number of fingers
The results revealed that there was significant difference between the treatments and
maximum number of fingers (6.07) was observed with application of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value number of ear head (4.33) observed in treatment
T1(20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
Harvest index (%)
The results revealed that there was non-significant difference between the treatments and
maximum harvest index (31.89%) was observed with application of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value harvest index (30.45) was observed in treatment
T1(20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
Test weight (g)
maximum test weight (3.65) was observed with application of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0 t ha-1
poultry
manure), whereas the lowest value test weight (3.24) was observed in treatment T7 (40× 10 cm +
2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
Biological yield (t ha-1)
maximum Biological yield (9.61 t ha-1
) was observed with application of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-
1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value Biological yield (7.46 t ha-1
) was observed in
treatment T1(20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).

Stover yield (t ha-1)
maximum stover yield (6.58t ha-1
) was observed with application of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value stover yield (5.21 t ha-1
) was observed in treatment T1
(20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
Grain yield (t ha-1)
maximum grain yield (3.04t ha-1
) was observed with application of T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry
manure), whereas the lowest value grain yield (2.25 t ha-1
) was observed in treatment T1(20×10
cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).

Table 4.8: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on yield and yield attributes of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
Yield and yield attributes
Treatment
No.
No. of
fingers
Test
Weight
(g)
Grain
Yield
(t/ha)
Biological
yield
(q/ha)
Stover
yield
(q/ha)
Harvest
Index (g %)
T1 20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 4.33 3.29 2.25 7.46 5.21 30.45
T2 20×10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 5.47 3.30 2.47 8.01 5.55 30.98
T3 20×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 5.87 3.59 2.70 8.84 6.15 30.72
T4 30×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 5.33 3.25 2.40 7.82 5.42 30.94
T5 30×10 cm+2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 4.67 3.25 2.28 7.97 5.69 28.70
T6 30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 6.07 3.65 3.04 9.61 6.58 31.89
T7 40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 4.87 3.24 2.31 7.60 5.29 30.73
T8 40× 10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 5.00 3.24 2.39 7.77 5.38 30.84
T9 40× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 5.67 3.53 2.59 8.34 5.75 31.15
F- test S S S S S NS
S. Em. (±) 0.11 0.05 0.05 0.19 0.17 0.67
CD. (P = 0.05) 0.34 0.14 0.16 0.56 0.51 _

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9
Treatments
Table 4.8: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on yield and yield attributes of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
Yield
and
Yield
attributes

4.3. Economics of treatment:
Observations regarding the response of rows spacing and different levels of poultry
manures on economics of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)
Gross return ( ha-1) :
Maximum gross return ( 121600ha-1
) was recorded in treatment T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t
ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value ( 90000 ha-1
) was observed in treatment T1
(20×10 cm+2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
Net return ( ha-1) :
Maximum net return ( 84600 ha-1
) was recorded in treatmentT6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha- 1
)
poultry manure, whereas the lowest value ( 55700 ha-1
) was observed in treatment T5 (30×10
cm+2.5t ha-1
poultry manure).
Benefit cost ratio (B:C) :
Maximum benefit cost ratio (2.27) was recorded in treatmentT6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value (1.57) was observed in treatment T5 (30×10 cm+2.5t
ha-1
poultry manure).

Table 4.9: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Cost of cultivation of Finger
Millet (Eleusine coracana):
S.
No.
Particulars Unit Quantity Rupees
( )
Cost
( ha-1)
A. Land preparation
1 Ploughing Hours 3 650 1950
2 Disc harrowing Hours 3 650 1950
3 Layout preparation Labours 8 350 2800
4. Seed Kg 10 ha-1
100 1000
5. Sowing Labour 10 350 3500
6. Thinning & Gap Filling Labour 4 350 1400
B Irrigation
1. Tube well (Irrigation) Hours 3 100 300
2. Weeding Labour 4*2 350 2800
C. Protection
1. Neem Oil Litre 3*2 300 900
2. Spraying Labour 3*2 350 2100
D Harvesting & Packing
1. Cutting Labour 8 350 2800
2. Threshing Labour 10 350 3500
E Rental value of Land Month 3 1000 3000
Total cost of cultivation ( ha-1) 28000

Table 4.10: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Cost of treatment of Finger
Millet (Eleusine coracana L.):
Treatments
No
Treatment combinations
Poultry
manure
( t ha-1)
Poultry
manures
( kg-1)
Amount
( t ha-
1)
T1 20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 2.0t ha-1
3kg-1
6000
T2 20×10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
3kg 7500
T3 20×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
3kg 9000
T4 30×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
3kg 6000
T5 30×10 cm+2.5t ha-1
3kg 7500
T6 30×10 cm + 3.0tha-1
3kg 9000
T7 40×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
3kg 6000
T8 40× 10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
3kg 7500
T9 40× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
3kg 9000

Table 4.11: Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Economics of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.):
Treatments
No
Treatment combinations
Grain yield
(t ha-1)
Cost of
Cultivation
( ha-1)
Gross
return (
ha-1)
Net Return
( ha-1)
B:C ratio
T1 20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 2.25 34000 90000 56000.00 1.65
T2 20×10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 2.47 35500 98800 63300.00 1.78
T3 20×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 2.70 37000 108000 71000.00 1.92
T4 30×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 2.40 34000 96000 62000.00 1.82
T5 30×10 cm+2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 2.28 35500 91200 55700.00 1.57
T6 30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 3.04 37000 121600 84600.00 2.29
T7 40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure 2.31 34000 92400 58400.00 1.72
T8 40× 10 cm + 2.5t ha-1
poultry manure 2.39 35500 95600 60100.00 1.69
T9 40× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure 2.59 37000 100800 63800.00 1.72
Sale price of grain 40 kg-1

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION Page 54
CHAPTER-V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
An experiment entitled “Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and
Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)”, was carried out at Crop Research Farm,
Department of Agronomy, Sam Higginbottom University agriculture Technology and
Sciences, Prayagraj , during the kharif season of 2020, laid out in Randomized Block Design,
having nine treatments and three replications. The experiment was conducted to, “Effect of
Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana
L.). The experimental findings based on parameters are summarized below.
The maximum plant height (72.91cm) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm
+ 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value (62.80cm) was observed in treatment T7
(40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
The maximum leaf area (526.37cm2
) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm +
3.0t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value leaf area (456.53cm2
) was observed in
treatment T7 (40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
The maximum leaf area index (4.40) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm +
3.0t ha-1
poultry manure, whereas the lowest value leaf area index (4.12) was observed in
treatment T7 (40× 10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
The maximum number of tillers(7.20) was observed with applications of T6 (30×10 cm
+ 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value number of tillers(5.73) was observed in
treatment T1 (20×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
The maximum plant dry weight (g plant-1
) (14.27) was observed with applications of T6
(30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest valueplant dry weight (g plant-1
)
(11.97) was observed in treatment T7(40×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure).
The maximum Crop Growth Rate (CGR) (g/m2
/day)(0.396) was observed with
applications of T2 (20×10 cm + 2.5 t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value Crop Growth
Rate (CGR) (g/m2
/day) (0.350) was observed in treatment T7 (40×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry
manure).
The maximum Relative Growth Rate (RGR) (g/g/day) (0.044) was observed with
applications of T2 (20×10 cm + 2.5 t ha-1
poultry manure), whereas the lowest value Relative

Growth Rate (RGR) (g/g/day) (0.034) was observed in treatment T6 (30× 10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry
manure).
The maximum number of fingers (6.07) was observed by with application of T6 30×10
cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure, whereas the lowest value number of fingers (4.33) was observed
in treatment T120×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure.
The maximum harvest index (31.89%) was observed by with application of T6 30×10
cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure, whereas the lowest value harvest index (30.45) was observed in
treatment T120×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure.
The maximum test weight (3.65) was observed with application of T6 30×10 cm + 3.0t
ha-1
poultry manure, whereas the lowest value test weight (2.31) was observed in treatment T740×
10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure.
The maximum Biological yield (9.61t ha-1
) was observed with application of T6 30×10
cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure, whereas the lowest value Biological yield (7.46 t ha-1
) was
observed in treatment T120×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure.
The maximum stover yield (6.58t ha-1
) was observed by with application of T6 30×10
cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure, whereas the lowest value stover yield (5.21 t ha-1
) was observed
in treatment T120×10 cm+ 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure.
The maximum grain yield (3.04t ha-1
) was observed with application of T6 30×10 cm +
3.0t ha-1
poultry manure, whereas the lowest value grain yield (2.25 t ha-1
) was observed in
treatment T120×10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure.
The highest protein content (7.74%) was recorded in treatment T6 30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure, whereas the lowest value protein content (7.03%) observed in treatment T740×
10 cm + 2.0t ha-1
poultry manure.

CONCLUSION
It can be concluded that treatment T6 (30×10 cm + 3.0t ha-1
poultry manure) was found to be
the best treatment for obtaining higher grain yield (3.04 t ha-1
), stover yield (6.58 t ha-1
),
biological yield (9.61 t ha-1
), gross return( 121600ha-1
),net return ( 84600 ha-1
) and benefit:
cost ratio (2:27) was obtained with finger millet. Since the results in based on one season
experiment, further trials may be done to confirm the findings.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Page 57
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bitew Y. and Asargew F. (2014). Determination of Seed Rate and Inter Row Spacing for
Finger Millet Production (Eleusine coracana L.) in North Western Ethiopia. 1(4): 1-
7.
Chekole N. and Birhanu M. (2018). Effect of Inter Row Spacing and Seed Rate on Finger
Millet (Eleusine coracana L.) Production in Merblekhe District – Ethiopia. American
Journal of Research Communication 6(8): 1-10.
Damar, W.K., Garba, A., Russom, Z., Ibrahim, S. A., Haggai, P.T. and Dikwahal. Effect
of Poultry Manure on Growth and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine Coracana L.)
12(1): 173-180.
Dereje G. and Anbessa T. and Adisu B. (2016). Influence of Row Spacing and SeedRate on
Yield and Yield Components of Finger Millet at Assosa Zone in Benshagul Gumuze
Region of Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 6(5): 42-45.
Getahun D., Tigist A. and Bekele A. (2016).Influence of Row Spacing and SeedRate on Yield
and Yield Components of Finger Millet at Assosa Zone in Benshagul Gumuze Region
of IN Ethiopia. Journal of Biology, Agriculture and Healthcare 6(5):2224-3208.
Jagadeesha, N., Ravikumar, B., Rathnakar, M., Shet, Umesh, MR and Reddy, V.C.
(2018).Impact of different sources of organic nutrients on uptake, availability of
nutrients, growth and yield of Finger Millet under rainfed condition. International
Journal of Chemical Studies 6(5): 1598-1601.
Jagadeesha, N., Reddy, V.C., Krishnamurthy, N., and Sheshadri, T. (2010). Effect of
organic manures on productivity of finger millet and redgram inter cropping system
under protective irrigation. International Journal of Agricultural Sciences 6(2): 453-
455.
Maobe S.N., Nyang’au Martha K., Basweti E.A., Getabu A., Mwangi T.J. and Ondicho
A.R. (2014). Effect of Plant Density on Growth and Grain Yield of Finger Millet
(Eleusine coracana L.) under High Potential Conditions of Southwest Kenya. World
Journal of Agricultural Sciences 10(6): 261-268.

Matinde T. W. and Benson M. (2018). Growth response of finger millet on phosphorous
fertilizer and plant density in kuria west district. Int. J. Adv. Res. 6(11): 328-339
Mulualem, T., Abera, N., Damtie, Y., Abebe D. (2020) Effect of Population Density and Row
Spacing on Yield and Yield Components of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.) in
Northwestern Ethiopia. Adv Crop Sci Tech 8: 456.
Natarajan, S., Ganapathy, M., Arivazhagan, K., and Srinivasu, V. (2019). Effect of spacing
and nutrient sources on system of finger millet intensification. Indian Journal of
Agronomy 64(1): 98-102.
Nouri M. and Stephen M. Poultrymanure and inorganic fertilizer to improve fingermillet yield
in Niger. African Journal of Poultry Farming 1(1): 015-021.
Pallavi, C.H., Joseph, B., Khan, M.A., Aariff and Hemalatha, S. (2017). Effect of organic
fertilizers and biofertilizers on yield and yield attributing traits of direct sown rainfed
finger millet, Eleusine coracana L. International Journal of Farm Science 7(3): 101-
105.
Patel, H., and Shroff, J.C. (2020).Growth, Yield and Economics of Finger millet [Eleusine
Coracana (L.) Gaertn] as Influenced by Integrated Nutrient Management.
International journal of microbial science 7(11): 724-729
Patel, H., and Shroff, C. (2020).Growth, Yield and Economics of Finger millet [Eleusine
Coracana (L.) Gaertn] as Influenced by Integrated Nutrient Management.
Int.J.Curr.Microbiol.App.Sci (2020) Special Issue-11: 724-729
Prakash, P., Sharanappa and Nagaraju Effect of Different Establishment Methods and
Organic Nutrient Sources on Yield, Yield Attributes and Economics of Finger Millet
(Eleusine coracana L.) International journal of environmental sciences and natural
resources; 12 (3):2572-1119.
Prakasha G., Kalyana M., Prathima, A.S. and Rohani N. M. (2018). Effect ofSpacing and
Nutrient Levels on Growth Attributes and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana
L. Gaertn) Cultivated under Guni Planting Method in Red Sandy Loamy Soil of
Karnataka, India international journal of microbial science,(2018) 7(5):1337-1343.

Praveen, A. K., Parasuraman, P.,Sivagamy, K. and Sivakumar B. (2019). Growth, yield
and economics of irrigated finger millet as influenced by system of finger millet
intensification (SFI) practices in north eastern zone of Tamil Naidu. Journal of
Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry;8(3): 660-663.
Ramdev, T., Yadav, L.R., Choudhary, S.L. and Shisuvinahalli, G.V. (2017). Effect of
Integrated Use of Fertilizer and Manures on Growth, Yield and Quality of Finger
Millet. International journal of microbial science 6(8): 2510-2516.
Shinggu, C.P., Dadari, S.A., Shebayan, J.A., Adekpe, D.I., Mahadi, M.A., Mukhtar, A.
and Asala, S.W. (2009). Influence of Spacing and Seed Rate on Weed Suppressionin
Finger Millet (Eleusine carocana L.). Journal of Scientific Research 4(4): 267-270.
Shinggu, C.P. and Gani, M. (2012). Effects of planting methods, sowing dates and spacing
onweed and the productivity of finger millet (Eleusine corocana L.) in the northern
guinea savanna of nigeria. Global Journal Bio-Science Biotechnology 1(2): 160-162.
Yoseph, T. (2014). Determination of Inter Row Spacing and Seed Rate on Productivity of
Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.), At Jinka, Southern Ethiopia. International
Journal of Research in Agricultural Sciences 1(3): 172-176.

APPENDIX Page i
APPENDIX
Plant height (cm)
20DAS
Source D.F. SS MSS Cal. F TAB F(5%) TAB F(1%)
Treatment 8 13.39 1.67 1.97 NS NS
Replication 2 3.54 1.77 2.09 NS NS
Error 16 13.57 0.85
TOTAL 26 30.50
40DAS
Treatment 8 13.35 1.698 1.28 NS NS
Replication 2 64.91 31.95 24.58 S S
Error 16 20.80 1.30
TOTAL 26 98.06
60DAS
Treatment 8 44.99 5.62 12.63 S S
Error 16 7.12 0.45
TOTAL 26 52.76
80DAS
Treatment 8 262.07 32.76 34.94 S S
Replication 2 56.25 28.12 30.00 S S
Error 16 15.00 0.94
TOTAL 26 333.32
Leaf area (cm2)
20 DAS
Treatment 8 400.92 50.12 0.41 NS NS
Error 16 1972.97 123.31
TOTAL 26 2638.31

APPENDIX Page ii
40 DAS
Treatment 8 1444.16 180.52 35.50 S S
Replication 2 140.71 70.35 13.84 S S
Error 16 81.36 5.09
TOTAL 26 1666.23
60 DAS
Treatment 8 840.41 105.05 7.35 S S
Replication 2 1031.65 515.82 36.07 S S
Error 16 228.79 14.30
TOTAL 26 2100.85
80 DAS
Treatment 8 12857.37 1607.17 15.66 S S
Replication 2 856.54 428.27 4.17 S NS
Error 16 1642.12 102.63
TOTAL 26 15356.03
Leaf area index
20 DAS
Treatment 8 0.07 0.01 0.30 NS NS
Error 16 0.47 0.03
TOTAL 26 0.63
40 DAS
Replication 2 2.07 1.03 7.92 S S
Error 16 2.09 0.13
TOTAL 26 5.91
60 DAS
Treatment 8 0.15 0.02 7.20 S S
Replication 2 0.17 0.08 32.96 S S
Error 16 0.04 0.003
TOTAL 26 0.35

APPENDIX Page iii
80 DAS
Treatment 8 0.17 0.02 6.19 S S
Error 16 0.05 0.003
TOTAL 26 0.28
Number of tillers
40 DAS
D.F. SS MSS Cal. F TAB F(5%) TAB F(1%)
Treatment 8 1.17 0.15 14.07 S S
Error 16 0.17 0.01
TOTAL 26 1.51
60 DAS
Treatment 8 5.33 0.67 14.86 S S
Replication 2 0.48 0.24 5.39 S NS
Error 16 0.72 0.04
TOTAL 26 6.53
80 DAS
Treatment 8 5.39 0.67 49.97 S S
Error 16 0.22 0.01
TOTAL 26 5.62
20 DAS
Error 16 0.56 0.03
TOTAL 26 1.36

APPENDIX Page iv
40 DAS
Error 16 0.68 0.04
TOTAL 26 1.60
60 DAS
Treatment 8 10.55 1.32 41.98 S S
Replication 2 1.16 0.58 18.50 S S
Error 16 0.50 0.03
TOTAL 26 12.22
80 DAS
Treatment 8 12.12 1.52 20.15 S S
Replication 2 11.78 5.89 78.32 S S
Error 16 1.20 0.08
TOTAL 26 25.11
Crop Growth Rate (CGR) (g/m2/day)
20-40 DAS
Treatment 8 0.001 0.000 0.57 NS NS
Replication 2 0.001 0.001 7.03 S S
Error 16 0.001 0.000
TOTAL 26 0.001
40-60 DAS
Treatment 8 0.001 0.001 9.66 S S
Error 16 0.00 0.001
TOTAL 26 0.02
60-80 DAS
Treatment 8 0.01 0.002 2.42 NS NS
Replication 2 0.05 0.02 80.89 S S
Error 16 0.00 0.001
TOTAL 26 0.06

APPENDIX Page v
Relative Growth Rate (RGR) (g/g//day)
20-40 DAS
Treatment 8 0.001 0.000 1.96 NS NS
Error 16 0.001 0.000
TOTAL 26 0.01
40-60 DAS
Treatment 8 0.001 0.000 0.30 NS NS
Error 16 0.000 0.000
TOTAL 26 0.001
60-80 DAS
Treatment 8 0.000 0.000 10.73 S S
Replication 2 0.000 0.000 73.37 S S
Error 16 0.000 0.000
TOTAL 26 0.001
No. of fingers
Treatment 8 7.99 1.00 26.58 S S
Error 16 0.60 0.04
TOTAL 26 8.61
Harvest Index (%)
Treatment 8 17.53 2.19 1.62 S S
Error 16 21.66 1.35
TOTAL 26 216.80
Test Weight (g)
Treatment 8 0.68 0.08 13.18 S S
Error 16 0.10 0.01
TOTAL 26 0.80

APPENDIX Page vi
Biological yield(t ha-1)
Treatment 8 11.23 1.40 13.62 S S
Replication 2 11.00 5.50 53.34 S S
Error 16 1.65 0.10
TOTAL 26 23.87
Stover yield (t ha-1)
Treatment 8 4.72 0.59 6.90 S S
Replication 2 11.69 5.84 68.24 S S
Error 16 1.37 0.09
TOTAL 26 17.78
Grain yield (t ha-1)
Treatment 8 1.51 0.19 21.80 S S
Error 16 0.14 0.01
TOTAL 26 1.69

Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)

Similar to Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.) (20)

More from Suman Dey

More from Suman Dey (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Effect of Row Spacing and Poultry manure on Growth and Yield of Finger Millet (Eleusine coracana L.)