Upload
ifsd14
View
398
Download
2
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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: [email protected]
• 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
• 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 labourreducing and women friendly agronomic interventions and also tested different machineries
Background…
• 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
• 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
Study sites
Banke
Kapilbastu
RupandehiNawalparasi
ParsaChitwan
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
KaskiParbat
Syangja
Kavrepalanchok
Bhaktapur
Lalitpur
Kathmandu
Nuwakot
Mugu
Humla
JumlaKalikot
Rukum
Sankhuwasabha
Solukhumbu
Panchthar
Ilam
Terhathum
DhankutaBhojpur
KhotangOkhaldhunga
Udayapur
Rolpa
Pyuthan
Salyan
JajarkotDailekh
Surkhet
Bajura
Bajhang
Darchula
AchhamDoti
Baitadi
Dadeldhura
Dhading district
Kaski district
• We expected direct seeding to reduce the labour requirement and drudgery faced in raising finger millet nursery
Results of direct seeding experiments
• Yield of direct seeding of finger millet as relay crop in maize with traditional method of maize finger millet relay cropping (N=15)
Direct seeding in finger millet, 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
• Direct seeding as mono-crop was compared with direct seeding as relay crop (N=7)
Testing direct seeding in finger millet, 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 relaycrop with maize
996.6
• 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)
Direct seeding in finger millet, 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
• 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’ perception on direct seeding, 2013
• We expected line transplanting of finger millet seedlings to reduce the labour requirement and drudgery faced in weeding
Results of line transplanting of finger millet
Line transplanting of finger millet, 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
Plant population in test and control plots, 2013
SN Treatment/practice Mean plantpopulation/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)
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
Farmers response on line transplanting
• We intended to demonstrate benefits of finger millet legume inter crop over no intercrop
Results of finger millet legume intercropping
• 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
Intercropping legume in finger millet, 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
• Black gram and soybean were intercropped
• 15% more economic benefit was observed
• farmers are willing to test in larger plots in the following year
Intercropping legume in finger millet, 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
• Maize auto-seeder was tested in 2013 to demonstrate line transplanting in maize to facilitate line sowing and line transplanting of finger millet
Results of testing maize auto-seeder
Perception of farmers on auto-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
No
of
farm
ers
Perception
(Male=12, Female=13)
Male
Female
• It reduces the cost of labourand 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
General feedback of farmers on auto-seeder
• 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
Thank You