Study on Comparative Performances of Selected Paddy Weeders Developed in India
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52151/jae2022594.1786Keywords:
Field capacity, intrarow, rotary weeder, weeding efficiency, wetland weederAbstract
Various types of paddy weeders, for dry as well as wet-land conditions, have been developed and used in India. The commonly used wetland paddy weeders under Indian conditions are rotary power weeder, cono-weeder, and Ambika weeder; whereas, hoe-type weeders are mostly used under dry-land conditions. The common and effective type of weeder is two-row power-operated rotary type of 0.0793 ha.h-1 field capacity. The average cost of operation and weeding efficiency of existing paddy weeder is 1,169.59 `.ha-1 and 79.92%, respectively. A review undertaken on different types of paddy weeders developed by researchers in India indicated that most of the developed weeders are designed for the use in inter-row cultivation, and limited research has been conducted for intra-row weeding. Thus, research should focus on developing inter-cum-intra-row weeders which could increase weeding efficiency and crop yield.
References
Alba O S; Syrovy L D; Duddu H S; Shirtliffe S J. 2020. Increased seeding rate and multiple methods of mechanical weed control reduce weed biomass in a poorly competitive organic crop. Field Crops Res., 245, 107648. doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2019.107648.
Alizadeh M R. 2011. Field performance evaluation of mechanical weeders in the paddy field. Sci. Res. Essays, 6, 5427-5434.
Anon. 2019. Annual Report 2019−2020. Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and Farmer’s Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, 4. Basavaraj. 2015. Design and development of rideon type paddy weeder. Unpublished M.Tech. Thesis, TNAU, Coimbatore.
Behera B K; Swain S; Mohanty S K. 2007. Ergonomic evaluation of push-pull type weeders with women operators. J. Agric. Eng., 44(3), 39-43.
Bowman G. 1997. Steel in The Field: A Farmer’s Guide to Weed Management Tools. Beltsville, Maryland. Sustainable Agriculture Network Handbook, Series 2, 58-59.
Chandel N S; Tripathi H; Tewari V K. 2015. Evaluation and adoption scope of rotary power weeder for weed management in vegetable crops. Int. J. Bio. Res. Stress Manage., 6, 534-538.
Cloutier D C; Weide R Y V D; Peruzzi A; Leblanc M L. 2007. Mechanical weed management. In: Upadhyaya M K; Blackshaw R E (Eds.) Non-Chemical Weed Management, CAB International, England, 111- 134.
Datta A; Ullah H; Tursun N; Pornprom T; Knezevic S Z; Chauhan B S. 2017. Managing weeds using crop competition in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.]. Crop Prot., 95, 60-68.
Gharde Y; Singh P K; Dubey R P; Gupta P K. 2018. Assessment of yield and economic losses in agriculture due to weeds in India. Crop Prot., 107, 12-18.
Gupta C P. 1981. Report on Weeders. Regional Network for Agriculture Machinery, Manila, Philippines.
Kanth B K; Shrivastava A K; Bairwa J. 2020. Design and development of self-propelled unit for conoweeder. Current J. Appl. Sci. Technol., 39(47), 11-20.
Kepner R A; Bainer R; Barger E L. 1978.Principles of Farm Machinery. CBS Publications and Distributors, New Delhi, 3rd edition, 25-26.
Kunnathadi M; Jayan P R; Abraham C T. 2016. Development and testing of self-propelled cono-weeder for mechanized rice cultivation. Indian J. Weed Sci., 48(1), 25-28.
Moody K. 1991. Weed management in rice. In: (Ed. Pimental D), Handbook of Pest Management in Agriculture, CRC Press, Florida. 301-328.
Narwariya B S; Tiwari K B; Shrivastava P. 2016. Performance evaluation of different manual operated weeding equipment for paddy crop in Vertisols. Ecol. Environ. Conserv. Paper, 22, S357-S363.
Netam A; Mahilang K K S. 2018. Comparative performance of different types of weeder for wetland rice in Chhattisgarh Region. Int. J. Pure Appl. Biosci.,6, 243-245.
Ningthoujam B; Shrivastava A K. 2018. Development and evaluation of self-propelled conoweeder for rice cultivation in Vertisol. Indian J. Hill Farming, 31, 307-313.
Pannacci E; Tei F. 2014. Effects of mechanical and chemical methods on weed control, weed seed rain and crop yield in maize, sunflower and soybean. Crop Prot., 64, 51-59.
Prakash J; Babu A; Reddy A; Ramana C. 2016. Field performance of different weed control practices in puddled field drum seeded rice. Int. J. Agric. Sci., 8, 3222-3226.
Ragesh K T; Jogdand S V; Victor V M. 2018. Field performance evaluation of power weeder for paddy crop. Current Agric. Res. J., 6(3), 441-448. Rangasamy K; Balasubramanian M; Swaminuthan K R. 1993. Evaluation of power weeder performance. Agric. Mech. Asia Afr. Latin Am., 24, 16-18.
Remesan R; Roopesh M S; Remya N; Preman P S. 2007. Wet land paddy weeding - A comprehensive comparative study from south India. Agric. Eng. Int.: CIGREj., IX, Manuscript PM 07 011.
Shakya H B; Dabhi K L; Parmar S D; Swarnkar R. 2016.Performance evaluation of Japanese paddy weeder and TNAU Conoweeder in SRI Paddy. In: Proc. National Conference on Harmony with Nature in Context of Resource Conservation and Climate Change, Special Issue IX, 47-51.
Singh K K. 2017. Modification of power operated single row rice weeder for dry field condition. Unpublished M. Tech. (Agril.Eng.) Thesis, IGKV, Raipur. Sirmour A; Verma A. 2018. Design and development of single row power weeder for rice. J. Crop Weed, 14,163-169.
Tayade N H. 2016. Performance evaluation of Ambika paddy weeder for paddy in farmer’s field. J. Crop Weed, 12, 178-179.
Tewari V K; Kumar A A; Nare B; Prakash S; Tyagi A. 2014. Microcontroller based roller contact type herbicide applicator for weed control under row crops. Comp. Elect. Agric., 104, 40-45.
Weide R Y V D; Bleeker V T J M; Achten L A P; Lotz F; Fogelberg; Melander B. 2008. Innovation in mechanical weed control in crop rows.Weed Res., 48, 215-224.
Yadav R; Pund S. 2007.Development and ergonomic evaluation of manual weeder. Agric. Eng. Int.: CIGREj., IX October, Manuscript PM 07 022.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
How to Cite
