Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Design and Development of an e-Powered Inter Row Weeder for Small Farm Mechanization


Affiliations
1 ICAR- Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal 462 038, Madhya Pradesh, India
2 College of Technology and Engineering, MPUAT, Udaipur 313 001, Rajasthan, India
 

Mechanical weed control has become a more efficient and economical method over the past few years. This study presents the concept of an e-power source and a weeding mechanism to carry out the weeding operations in crop rows with a spacing of 30 cm. An e-powered mechanical inter-row weeder was designed, developed, and evaluated for sandy loam soil conditions. The result indicates that the speed of operation and weeding drum diameter significantly affected the power consumption and weeding efficiency at 1% and 5% significance levels. The average weeding efficiency, field capacity, field efficiency, and plant damage were observed as 91.68%, 0.049 ha/h, and 3.18% at the operating speed of 3 km/h. The average power consumption of the weeder was observed as 189 W. The field capacity of the developed weeder was observed to be 3–4 times more than the wheel hoe, leading to a reduction in the required manpower and cost of operations. The weeding mechanism with a combination of drum and tool reduces the chances of weed escape and enhances the weeding efficiency. Moreover, the e-drive system of the weeder significantly reduces vibration leading to improved work efficiency of the operator. Overall, the developed e-powered weeder has the potential to be an effective tool for small-scale farmers to carry out their weeding operations with less drudgery and higher efficiency.

Keywords

Eco-Friendly, Field Capacity, Mechanical Weed Control, Plant Damage, Weeding Efficiency.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Rao A N, Singh R G, Gulshan M & Wani S P, Weed research issues, challenges, and opportunities in India, Crop Prot, 134 (2020) 44–51, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2018.02.003.

  • Chaudhari B M, Patel S M & Patel S A, Effect of crop weed competition period on weed dynamics and yield of cumin, Int J Seed Spices, 9 (2019) 39–43.

  • Biswas H S, Weed Control Technology, ICAR-CIAE, Bhopal, 1984, 17–33.

  • Datta A, Ullah H, Tursun N, Pornprom T, Knezevic S Z & Chauhan B S, Managing weeds using crop competition in soybean, Crop Prot, 95 (2017) 60–68.

  • Shrinivasa D J & Kumar S, Development and evaluation of mechanical weeder for finger millet crop, Int J Agric Environ Biotechnol, 10 (2017) 217–221.

  • Brodie G, The use of Physics in Weed Control: Non-Chemical Weed Control (Academc Press, USA) 2018, 33–59.

  • Yadav R & Pund S, Development and ergonomic evaluation of manual weeder, Agric Eng Int: The CIGR E J, 9 (2007) 1–9.

  • Singh G, Development and fabrication of improved grubber, Agric Mech Asia Africa Latin America, AMA, 19 (1988) 42–46.

  • Tewari V K, Kumar A A, Nare B, Prakash S & Tyagi A, Microcontroller based roller contact type herbicide applicator for weed control under row crops, Comput Electron Agric, 104 (2014) 40–45.

  • Chandel A K, Tewari V K, Kumar S, Nare B & Agarwal A, On-the-go position sensing and controller predicated contact type weed eradicator, Curr Sci, 114 (2018) 1485–1494, doi: 10.18520/cs/v114/i07/1485-1494.

  • Pannacci E & Tei F, Effects of mechanical and chemical methods on weed control, weed seed rain and crop yield in maize, sunflower and soyabean, Crop Prot, 64 (2014) 51–59, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2014.06.001.

  • Pannacci E, Lattanzi B & Tei F, Non-chemical weed management strategies in minor crops: A review, Crop Prot, 96 (2017) 44–58, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cropro.2017.01.012.

  • Singh M K, Singh S P, Singh M K & Utpal E, Battery assisted four-wheel weeder for reducing the drudgery of farmers, Indian J Agric Sci, 89 (2019) 1434–1438, https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v89i9.93483.

  • Goel A K, Behra D, Behra K, Mohanty S K & Nanda S K, Development and ergonomic evaluation of manually operated weeder, Agric Eng Int: The CIGR E J, 10 (2008) 1–11.

  • Singh S P, Singh Mukesh K, Ekka U & Singh M K, Ergonomics principles for designing women-friendly tools and equipment, in 30th NCAE (GBPUAT, Pantnagar) 27–28 February, 2017.

  • Heidary B, Hassan Beygi S R & Ghobadian B, Investigating operator vibration exposure time of power tiller fuelled by diesel and biodiesel blends, Res in Agric Eng, 60 (2014) 134–141.

  • Kathirvel K, Ramesh D, Thambidurai S & Jesudas M, Vibration characteristics of self-propelled power weeders, Agric Mech Asia Africa Latin America, AMA, 41 (2010) 34–39.

  • Heisel T, Christensen A & Christensen S, Sugarbeet yield response to competition from Sinapis arvensis or Lolium perenne growing at three different distances from the beet and removed at various times during early growth, Weed Res, 42 (2002) 406–413, doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3180.2002.00301.x.

  • Carballido J, Rodríguez L A, Agüera V J & Perez R M, Field sprayer for inter-and intra-row weed control: performance and labor savings, Spanish J Agric Res, 11 (2013) 642–651.

  • Mousazadeh H, Keyhani A, Mobli H, Bardi U, Lombardi G & Amsar T, Environmental assessment of multi-purpose electric vehicle compared to a conventional combustion engine vehicle, J Clean Prod, 17 (2009) 781–790, doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2009.01.004.

  • Ekka U, Singh S P & Singh M K, Comparative field performance evaluation of different type of Pusaelectric power units, Indian J Agric Sci, 6 (2022) 747–751, https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v92i6.115808.

  • Kepner R A, Bainer R & Barger E L, Principles of Farm Machinery (CBS Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi) 2005.

  • Ratnaweera A C, Rajapakse N N, Ranasinghe C J, Thennakoon T M S, Kumara R S , Balasooriya C P, Bandara M A, Design of power weeder for low land paddy cultivation, in Int Conf Sust Built Environ, 13–14 December, 2010.

  • Sharma D N & Jain M, Farm Machinery Design: Principles and Problems (Jain Brothers, New Delhi) 2008.

  • Srivastava A K, Carroll E, Rohrbach R P & Buckmaster R, Engineering Principles of Agricultural Machines, 2ndedn, edited by Peg McCann, ASABE, 2006, 169–229.

  • Singh S P, Singh M K & Solanki R C, Design and development of four-wheel weeder, Ind J of Agric Sci, 86 (2016) 42–49.

  • Ferdous J, Soni P, Gholkar M & Keen A, The rolling resistance and tractive performance of a small agricultural tractor with different surface and moisture conditions on Bangkok clay soil, Proc Int Conf ISTVS, 2014, 1–11.

  • Zhang X, Design theory and performance analysis of electric tractor drive system, Int J Eng Res Tech, 6 (2017) 235–238, doi:10.17577/ijertv6is100066.

  • Singh M U, Performance evaluation of manually operated weeders used in Jhum cultivation in hill regions of Arunachal Pradesh, Indian J Hill Farm, 30 (2017) 268–274.

  • Hunt D, Farm Power and Machinery Management (Iowa State University Press, USA) 1995.

  • Singh S, Farm Machinery: Principle and Applications (ICAR, New Delhi) 2007.

  • Ramani R P, Mohanty S K, Goel A K & Behera D, Effect of hand arm vibration on operator during power weeder operation in paddy field, Int J Chem Stud, 7 (2019) 920–926.


Abstract Views: 52

PDF Views: 55




  • Design and Development of an e-Powered Inter Row Weeder for Small Farm Mechanization

Abstract Views: 52  |  PDF Views: 55

Authors

H S Pandey
ICAR- Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Bhopal 462 038, Madhya Pradesh, India
G S Tiwari
College of Technology and Engineering, MPUAT, Udaipur 313 001, Rajasthan, India
A K Sharma
College of Technology and Engineering, MPUAT, Udaipur 313 001, Rajasthan, India

Abstract


Mechanical weed control has become a more efficient and economical method over the past few years. This study presents the concept of an e-power source and a weeding mechanism to carry out the weeding operations in crop rows with a spacing of 30 cm. An e-powered mechanical inter-row weeder was designed, developed, and evaluated for sandy loam soil conditions. The result indicates that the speed of operation and weeding drum diameter significantly affected the power consumption and weeding efficiency at 1% and 5% significance levels. The average weeding efficiency, field capacity, field efficiency, and plant damage were observed as 91.68%, 0.049 ha/h, and 3.18% at the operating speed of 3 km/h. The average power consumption of the weeder was observed as 189 W. The field capacity of the developed weeder was observed to be 3–4 times more than the wheel hoe, leading to a reduction in the required manpower and cost of operations. The weeding mechanism with a combination of drum and tool reduces the chances of weed escape and enhances the weeding efficiency. Moreover, the e-drive system of the weeder significantly reduces vibration leading to improved work efficiency of the operator. Overall, the developed e-powered weeder has the potential to be an effective tool for small-scale farmers to carry out their weeding operations with less drudgery and higher efficiency.

Keywords


Eco-Friendly, Field Capacity, Mechanical Weed Control, Plant Damage, Weeding Efficiency.

References