a review on the performances of weeding machines · pouring seasons when soil dampness is high and...

109 Adetola, A Review on the…

FUTOJNLS 2019 VOLUME- 5, ISSUE- 2. PP- 109 - 123

Futo Journal Series (FUTOJNLS)

e-ISSN : 2476-8456 p-ISSN : 2467-8325

Volume-5, Issue-2, pp- 109 - 123

www.futojnls.org

Research Paper December 2019

A Review on the Performances of Weeding Machines

Adetola, O. A.

Department of Agricultural Engineering, Federal University of Technology, Akure, Ondo

State, Nigeria.

Corresponding Author’s Email: [email protected]

Abstract

The higher aggressive nature of weeds contrasted with harvests is poising major danger to crop production. The invasion on Nigerian soils is very high particularly during the down-pouring seasons when soil dampness is high and plant development conditions are ideal. This review showed the highlights, prospects, performance evaluations and limitations of some weeding machines like ridge profile weeder, straddle-row rotary weeder, reciprocating weeder, garden row weeder, powered hand held weeder, rotary power weeder, row crop weeder, row-crop mechanical weeder, mechanical weeder, hand-pushed mechanical weeder, a wheeled long-handle weeder and multi-row power weeder, etc. Their unique advantages and operational parameters, for example, weeding efficiency, field capacity, depth of cut, operating speed and field efficiency were assessed. The weeding efficiency, field capacity, depth of cut, operating speed and field efficiency ranged from 63.50 – 95 %, 0.004 -0.2 ha/hr, 0.02 – 0.4 m, 0.04 – 0.85 m/s and 56.25 – 91.50 % respectively. As the operating speed of the weeding machine increased, the weeding efficiency, field capacity, depth of cut and field efficiency also increased. Automation of weeding process has the capability of empowering development in growth, greatest yield of harvest and improve the nature of farm produce. The item quality, handling effectiveness, least loss of homestead produces and expanded in ranch produce will be influenced by improved weeding process. Keywords: Automation, efficiency, field capacity, performance, weed, weeding machines,

1. Introduction

A weed is fundamentally any plant that develops in a spot where it is not required (Kumar,

Kumar & Kumar, 2017). Weeds are the bothersome plants which develop with wanted

harvest in the off-base spot and in wrong time and doing mischief to the ideal yields. Weeds

are undesirable and bothersome plants which meddle and contend with principle crop for

use of land, supplements, and daylight and water assets (Singh, Moses & Himanshu, 2015).

Weeding activity is one of the significant intercultural culturing tasks which control

undesirable plants between the columns which expend more manure and decrease the

harvest yield. Controlling weed is one of the major concerns of the ranchers. Weeds are

valueless wild plants that meddle with harvest plant development. Ranchers endeavour to

improve crop generation through more prominent harvest yield and quality, however, weeds

pose obstacle to these enhancements (Jiken, 2016). Weed control is one of the most

troublesome undertaking in farming. (Tejas, Raut & Wagh, 2019). Weeds are presumably,

the most ever-present class of harvest bothers and oversee checked misfortunes in yield



yields. Of the all-out misfortunes brought about by irritations, weeds have a noteworthy offer

of 30% (Mahilang, Swapnil, Naresh & Khilendra, 2017).

Weeding is one of the most significant ranch tasks in harvest creation framework. Weed

development is a noteworthy issue for wet land crops especially in oat harvests like rice and

wheat, causing an impressive lower yield (Rahman, Rabbani, Milufarzana, Jannat & Raju,

2012). Weed the board is one of the monotonous activities in horticultural creation. Due to

work costs, time and dullness, manual weeding is ominous (Mahilang et al., 2017). Weed

takes 30 to 40% of connected supplements bringing about yield decrease (Keshavalu et al.,

2017). Paddy creation in India during the years 2012 to 2013 is about 85.599 million tones

and causes 14.91% loss of rice yield due to invasion of weeds. In excess of 33% of the

expense brought about in development is occupied to weeding activities thereby diminishing

the benefit portion of ranchers (Keshavalu, Prasan, Raghavendra & Shafar, 2017). 33% cost

of development is spent on weeding alone when completed with the physical work. The

convoluted task of weeding is generally performed physically with the utilization of customary

hand apparatuses in upstanding bowing stance, prompting back agony for lion's share of

workers (Raut et al., 2013). Weeds cause 10 to 80% harvest yield misfortunes other than

disabling item quality and causing wellbeing and natural dangers (Kankal, 2013). Intrusive

outsider weeds are a noteworthy imperative to agribusiness, ranger service and sea-going

condition. Controlling weed is one of the major, issues looked by the ranchers. The decrease

in the yield because of weed alone is assessed 30 to 60% relying on the harvest and area,

and 33% of the expense of development is being spent for weeding alone (Kankal, 2013).

Minimal effort of weeding is constantly ideal from the perspective of monetary thought

(Kanth, 2016).

In Nigeria presently, weeds are predominantly being controlled mainly by both manual and

chemical methods which had invariably slowed down large-scale production of crops and

caused environmental pollution (Olukunle and Oguntunde, 2006). There is therefore, the

need to review the existing weeders developed by researchers in order to recommend and

develop the more efficient and appropriate weeders for crop production; thereby eliminating

weeds during cultivation of crops and preventing 30% loss of crops caused by weeds as

reported by other researchers. This will in turn, boost agricultural production and make

farming business a lucrative venture for youths and the teeming populace.

2. Review of Mechanized Weeding Machines.

Olukunle and Oguntunde (2006) expressed that harvest foundation was important to

dispense with the impact of weeds, irritations and infection invasion and to give reasonable

conditions to ideal yield. Figure 1 showed the weeding machine developed by Olukunle and

Oguntunde (2006). Synthetic and manual weed control techniques are feasible choices,

though, natural effect of herbicides made compound strategy unsustainable, drudgery

restricts the size of ranch of a person in Sub-Saharan Africa. Presentation of a compelling

mechanical weeder is relied upon to urge subsistent ranchers prompting expanded creation

and henceforth diminishing destitution. To accomplish this target, a line crop weeder was

created in the Federal University of Technology, Akure, Nigeria. The weeder was planned,

manufactured, tried and observed to be exceptionally effective. The machine comprised of a

rough nail - brush mounted on a pole, transmission framework, a 5 Hp motor, casing and

wheels. The height of cut of the machine is customizable, consequently the machine works

as a trimmer when slicing stature is 2 cm to 4 cm over the ground level, however works

successfully as a weeder between 2 cm to 1 cm. The machine is basic, financially savvy and



helpful for little to medium scale ranch holders. It has a weeding effectiveness of 90% and

field limit of 0.075 ha/hr and speed of 0.5m/s. The expense of the model machine was

assessed at 500 US Dollars (₦65,000.00), while the expense of the business model was

evaluated at 300 US Dollars (₦39, 000.00). The machine is financially suitable with fuel

utilization constrained to 8 liters a day.

Fig. 1: A row crop weeder (Olukunle and Oguntunde, 2006)

Olaoye and Adekanye (2013) expressed that ranchers for the most part communicated their

anxiety for powerful weed control measures to capture the development and spread of

weeds and that compound technique for weed control is more noticeable than manual and

mechanical strategies yet its antagonistic impacts on the earth are making ranchers to

consider and acknowledge mechanical strategies for weed control. In Nigerian agriculture,

manual weeding is normal, it is the most broadly utilized weed control technique however it

is work concentrated.

The utilization of mechanical weeder will decrease drudgery and guarantee an agreeable

stance of the rancher or administrator during weeding. This will resultantly build generation.

It is against this foundation that a rotating power weeder (Figure 2) was created. The turning

weeder was structured and developed to be fueled by a 5 hp - oil motor and to be worked on

a three ground wheels (pneumatic). The after effects of the presentation assessment of the

created weeder demonstrated that the motor speed impacted the weeding effectiveness of

the rotational weeder and harsh weeding was seen at a higher speed of 3506 rpm. The

machine worked at the field limit of 0.079 ha/hr and the expense of weeding activity of one

hectare was evaluated to be ₦2,700.00 ($7.50) as against ₦12,000.00 ($33.33) by manual

weeding. It was found that the motor velocities of 1804 to 2261 rpm and forward paces of 0.4

to 0.5 m/s resulted to a yield of 54.98 to 59.05% weeding proficiency.



Fig. 2: Rotary weeder (Olaoye and Adekanye, 2013)

Kumar et al. (2017) reported that in India, the normal land is about 0.5 ha/rancher. The

utilization of intensity weeder was not practical. Furthermore, it was not valuable because

standing yield, there was need to keep up the line to push just as plant to plant separation.

The utilization of intensity weeder produced better yield . However, it was reported to be

exorbitant which the rancher could not manage. So, putting every one of the holes a

physically worked revolving weeder (Figure 3) was created by keeping view the expense is

low just as it gives better evacuation of weeds in vegetative harvests.

Fig. 3: Manually operated rotary weeder with the cutter designed (Kumar et al., 2017).



Rajashekar and Kumar (2015) revealed that deferral and carelessness in weeding task

influence the harvest yield and the misfortune in yields because of weeds in upland harvests

shifting from 40 to 60 % and much of the time cause total yield disappointment. At long last

approved Virtual Prototype Weeder model (Figure 4) is created and tried for field execution.

Its expense is $19.78, just and works at a profundity of 25 to 40 mm with field limit of 0.01 to

0.012 ha/hr. Thus, diminished weeding cost by 40% and work necessity by 48 percent when

contrasted with hand digger weeding.

Fig. 4: Weeder Model analysis on soil (Rajashekar and Kumar, 2015).

3. Contributors to the Development of Weeding Machines.

Many efforts have been put in place by different people and organization worldwide to

design and continue to improve the need of the effective weeding machine that the current

generation need. The summary of the work done by people on the improvement of weeding

machines are presented in Tables 1 and 2.



Table 1: Nigerian Authors and Their Contributions on Weeding Machine

S/N Namesof contributors/authors on

weeding machine.

Year Contribution made on the improvement of the weeding

machine.

1 Odigbo and Ahmed 1979 Developed a ridge profile weeder

2 Oni 1985 Developed an ox-drawn straddle-row rotary weeder

3 Oni 1990 Performed an analysis on a ridge profile weeder

4 Ademosun 1991 Designed a reciprocating weeder.

5 Kamal, Omisore & Onwualu 1996 Designed a manually operated ridge profile weeder.

6 Shiru 1991 Developed a manually powered garden row weeder.

7 Nganilwa, Makungu & Mpanduji 2003 Developed and assessed of an engine powered hand

held weeder.

8 Ademosun, Adewumi, Olukunle &

Adesina.

2003 Developed an indigenous machine for weeding and

grain harvesting

9 Adeleke 2005 Developed an indigenous rotary power weeder

10 Olukunle and Oguntunde 2006 Designed a row crop weeder

11 Manuwa, Odubanjo, Malumi &

Olofinkua

2009 Developed and did performance evaluation of a row-

crop mechanical weeder

12 Shiru 2011 Designed and fabricated a push–pull type of

mechanical weeder.

13 Ojomo, Ale & Ogundele 2012 Designed a motorized weeding machine and their

performance was determined.

14 Attanda, Muhammad & Shema 2013 Developed and evaluated a hand-pushed mechanical

weeder.

15 Olaoye and Adekanye 2013 Development and evaluation of a rotary power

weeder.

16 Silas and Abu 2015 Development and evaluation of a wheeled long-handle

weeder.



Table 2: Global Contributions of Authors on Weeding Machine.

S/N Names of contributors/authors on

weeding machine.

Year Contribution made on the improvement of the weeding machine.

1 Parida 2002 Developed and evaluated a weeder of 0.2 field capacity and have 80% weeding efficiency.

2 Victor and Ajayi 2003 Tested for the weeding efficiency thus developed rotary power weeder.

3 Victor and Ajayi 2003 Developed a powered operated rotary weeder for wetland paddy

4 Balachand 2006 Developed and evaluated an animal drawn weeder.

5 Gobor and Schulze 2006 Developed a self-propelled mechanical weeder (weeding robot) to reduce the use of chemicals

6 Padole 2007 Developed and conducted test on a weeding machine.

7 Yadav and pund 2007 Developed a mechanical weeder and conducted a test having 92% weeding efficiency.

8 Shekhar et al. 2010 Developed a weeding machine with as high as 89% weeding efficiency

9 Alizadeh 2011 Designed, developed and evaluated a rotary weeder.

10 Mohammed 2011 Developed a weeder and the weeding efficiency was taken to be 72.80%

11 Sabaji et al. 2012 Developed ridge profile weeder and conducted a performance evaluation on the field.

12 Anantachar et al. 2013 Developed a Conoweeder and evaluated it on a rice field condition.

13 Hossen et al. 2015 Developed a multi-row power weeder and conducted test to know the weeding efficiency.

14 Nkakini and Abu 2015 Developed a weeder with a workin g width of 40cm and had a result of 87% field efficiency.

15 Rajashekar 2015 Developed a mechanical weeder and conducted a test having 78% of weeding efficiency.

16 Shakya et al. 2016 Analyzed that the Japanees paddy weeder required more workers, thus fabricated a conoweeder with serrated blade and evaluated it

17 Sirmour 2016 Developed a single row power weeder; power source of 2.0 hp, 2-stroke petrol engine and evaluated the weeding efficiency.

18 Monalisha 2017 Developed a multipurpose weeding machine with different blade type and conducted test to evaluate the efficiency.

19 Thakur 2017 Developed a weeder and thus conducted evaluation of weeding and field efficiency.

20 Francis et al. 2017 Developed a weeding machine with vertical and horizontal distance adjustment and have cam shape shaft which transmit the power to the blade by using chain drive.

21 Keshavalu et al. 2017 Developed and conducted a test to know the field capacity.



4. Summary of Reviewed Developed Weeding Machines.

Tables 1 and 2 showed the summary of the weeding machines produced in Nigeria, and

globally while Table 3 and 4 summarized the outputs of some Nigerian, and Gobally

developed weeding machines. The effects of blade shapes on weeding efficiencies of

machines are given in Table 5 while Table 6 summarized the merits and demerits of

developed weeding machines. Adeleke et al. (2018) reported that mechanical weeding has

been distinguished as the most suitable strategy for weed control by espresso ranchers in

Nigeria due to its adequacy, prompt outcomes, drudgery decrease and improved soil

conditions, if it is created inside the setting of their generation level and supplemented with

at least one applicable option weeding strategies.

Fruitful and feasible reception additionally requires great research work and key data

dispersal. Legitimate usage of the correct weed control techniques, right planning and

arranging, including suitable generation methods of reasoning, for example, natural

horticulture will make espresso creation in Nigeria critical and manageable, with progress in

amount, quality and global market agreeableness.

Kumar et al. (2017) stated that effect of speed of operation on damaged plant percent at

different level of depth of operation increased with increase in speed of operation as well as

with increase in depth of operation. This was mainly due to the fact at high speed and depth,

maneuverability of weeder became difficult as a result the movement of weeder did not

remain a straight line but side ward also, resulting in damage of plants.

Table 3: Some Developed Nigerian Weeding Machines with Their Outputs.

S/No Author(s). Machine type Weeding efficiency. (%)

Field Capacity (ha/hr)

Depth of cut(m)

Operating speed (m/s).

1 Silas and Abu (2015)

Wheeled long- handle weeder

91.7 0.050 0.4 0.04

2 Ademosun (1991)

Reciprocating Weeder

80 0.0255

3 Shiru (1991) Manually powered garden row weeder

88.00 0.0166

4 Shiru (2011) Push-pull weeder 88 0.02 0.50

5 Olukunle and Oguntunde (2006)

Row crop weeder 90 0.075 0.02 0.5

6 Olaoye and Adekanye (2013)

Rotary power weeder

73 0.068-0.079 0.05 0.8474

7 Olukunle (2010)

Mechanical weeder 94 0.18 0.04 0.25-0.5

8 Manuwa et al. (2009)

Row-crop mechanical weeder

95 0.053 0.24

9 Attanda et al. (2013)

Hand-pushed weeder

75.17 0.028 0.186 0.092



Table 4: Some Global Developed Weeding Machines with Their Outputs.

S/No Author(s). Machine type Weeding

efficiency.

(%)

Field

Capacity

(ha/hr)

Depth of

cut(m)

Field

efficiency

(%)

1 Thakur (2017) Power weeder 63.5 0.04-0.15

0.15-0.25

66

2 Kumar et al. (2014)

Power weeder 0.035 71.25

3 Shekhar et al. (2010)

Power weeder 89.8 0.067 76.39

4 Bhavin et al. (2016)

Manual operated weeder

80.42 0.0285 0.04

5 Yadav and Pund (2007)

Wheeled hoe 92.5 0.048

6 Rajashekar and Kumar (2015)

Power weeder 78 0.01-0.02

0.25-0.4

7 Keshavalu et al. (2017)

Power weeder 93.72 0.15 0.4 56.25

8 Balachand (2006) Animal driven weeder

90.5 0.0759 73.87

9 Hossen et al. (2015)

Multi-row power weeder

81-91.38 0.0935

10 Victor et al. (2003) Rotary power weeder

90.5 0.04 71

11 Parida (2002) Conical weeder 80 0.2

11 Nkakini and Abu (2015)

Power weeder 0.05 0.4 87.5

12 Mohammed (2011)

Power weeder 72.80 0.082

13 Shakya et al. (2016)

Conoweeder 87.77 0.026

14 Anantachar et al. (2013)

Conoweeder 72 – 85 0.016 -0.019

59.23-62.07

Table 5: Contributions of Different Blade Shapes of Weeding Machine to Weeding

Efficiency, Field Efficiency and Field Capacity.

S/N Author Year Efficiency tested for (%)

Blade/machine type 1 (%)

Blade type 2/ machine (%)

Blade type 3/ machine (%)

1 Kumar et al

2014 Field efficiency (%) Khurpi =91.5 Power weeder= 71.25

Push cycle weeder= 85.4

Field capacity (ha/hr)

0.025 0.065 0.035

2 Mohanti and Mohanti

2015 Field capacity wheel finger weeder=0.031

Wheel hoe= 0.0149

Khurpi = 0.0038

3 Monalisha et al 2017 Multipurpose power weeder; Weeding efficiency

L-type= 71.03 C-type= 63.67 Hatchet type= 82.3



Table 6: Merits and Demerits of Some Developed Weeding Machines in Nigeria

S/No Machine

type.

Author(s) Merits Demerits

1 Row crop

weeder

Olukunle

and

Oguntunde

(2006)

High efficiency, good operation Low depth cut

2 Push-pull

weeder Shiru (1999 Effective, quite simple and

complete work in a reduce time

due to high working speed

It requires much human effort to

perform effectively due to it been

manually operated, and takes

3 Hand-

pushed

weeder

Attanda et

al (2013)

Higher forward speed and

effective actual field capacity also

it is easy to design

The field efficiency is low and

require more human efforts to

perform well.

4 wheeled

long-

handle

weeder

Silas et al

(2015)

Easy to design with adjustable

handle and has high efficiency.

The working speed is low

therefore time of job completion is

much and consume time/efforts

5 Rotary

power

weeder

Olaoye and

Adekanye

(2013)

The weeder is simple to develop

and can operate at high speed

thereby reduce the time of job

completion.

Low efficiency with respect to the

depth of cut.

6 Row crop

mechanical

weeder

Manuwa et

al. (2009)

High efficiency, and the machine

cut deep into the soil to remove

weed of big height.

Uses nternal combustion (IC),

require fueling with increased cost

of operation

7 Mechanical

weeder

Olukunle

(2010)

The machine is very effective,

easy to produce and can easily

be operated

The machine can impose

backache for anyone with tall

height and require fueling which

increase the cost of operation.



Table 7: Merits and Demerits of Some Weeding Machine Developed Weeding Machines

Weeding Machine.

S/No Machine type. Author(s) Merits Demerits

1 Multipurpose weeder

Monalisha et al. (2017)

It has different blade which can be changed at different soil condition to have high output and the weeding efficiency is high with each blade type.

The damage to crop is less with hatchet type due to high depth cut and that easily make it wear out during operation

2 Self-propelled mechanical weeder

Gobor and Schulze (2006)

It permits complete adaptation to dissimilar crop species, various plant intra-row spacing and plant growth stages.

Can be a little bit technical to build as it requires an expect to design. These tools require very precise steering for row tracking

3 Manually operated weeder

Rajashekar et al. (2014)

The weeder was found desirable for small scale farmer because it is cost effective despite high efficiency of 88%

It cannot perform heavy duty where the weed is obnoxious or too difficult to uproot on a large scale

4 Conoweeder Anantachar et al. (2013)

It can perform weeding operation where the crop height is as 38cm tall

It requires strength to operate and become difficult to operate for someone without much energy as the force require measures 14.4kg

5 Conoweeder Shakya et al. (2016)

It has high weeding efficiency and easy to operate; also have low clogging of soil and weed

Aeration to root zone and churning capacity was very poor

6 Power weeder Sam (2014) The energy expenditure was reducing up to 36% and operation was graded “moderate heavy” basis on mean energy expenditure.

Entangling of weeds in the blade was affecting the weeding efficiency and increased the labour requirements

7 Manual weeder

Yadav and Pund (2007)

It is easy to operate because the arrangement is made to adjust the angle and height of the handle because of the comfort of the operator

The resting time of 14 min is required by the subjects to come to the normal working rate and waste time for dense grass infested field and heavy work.

5. Conclusions

The significant point of this work is to have a proper understanding of the trend/evolution of a

weeder/weeding equipment, different aspects or constraints of weeders as well as

different weeding techniques in use to reduce the efforts which were put in by farmers in

terms of money, labour, time, physical efforts for economical weeding operation and

cultivation. Also, to review the work that has been done both in Nigeria and globally with the



outputs in terms of weeding efficiency, speed of machine, field capacity, and well as the

disadvantages and advantages with their future prospect.

Based upon the reviews shown above, the following conclusions were taken;

i. Different types of weeds cause genuine misfortunes in harvest creation all through

the entire world and the endeavors of various supporters had yielded bring about

taking care of the issues with increment in the weeding effectiveness as the day

passes by and the new technique been embraced and enhanced.

ii. In request to control weeds, different weed control strategies are there, for example,

manual evacuating strategy, substance control, natural control, mechanical control

and so forth

iii. Out of all the weed control strategies, mechanical techniques are the most attainable

one and have enormous outcomes.

iv. Mechanical weeding technique incorporates hardware’s which are controlled by

creature power or human power or by tractor worked power utilizing diesel for ignition

and in this manner upgrade velocity.

v. The human worked types of gear are shabby, simple to work and are moderate by

everything except the outcome is poor contrast and the machine.

vi. The forward speed augmentation influences the harvests during weeding activity

along these lines causing decrease in the yield yet there's an addition in the field limit

and weeding proficiency.

vii. Manual worked weeder is one sort of mechanical weeder, which gives better

weeding effectiveness, and is not much relentless.

viii. Most of the weeder does not devour much fuel and still perform incredibly.

ix. Having investigated the machines, it is imperative to build up a mechanical weeder,

thinking about light weighted, conservative, causes least plant harm, can be worked

by a solitary administrator and furthermore take out drudgery and weakness.

6. Recommendations

For advancement of automation in weeding, numerous things have been considered. The

new created weeders will function admirably on field absent much by way of harming the

plants; have long life and cost of activity will likewise be less and for further structure of the

weeding machine to build the effectiveness and diminish the weight on the administrator with

mean to improve the machine parts. Thus, the following under-listed are recommended for

further study and development.

i. Should be made all climate evidence and tough.

ii. Should be straightforward in structure with the goal that it tends to be produced

locally and sold at a moderate cost.

iii. Should have some game plan to maintain a strategic distance from mud stalling out

between the teeth/cutting edges.

iv. Needs to have worked in customizability to change the width of working.

v. Recommended that further research work ought to be completed on weed control

taking into need the mechanical technique for weeding and a greater amount of the

enthusiasm of the harvest harm ought to be considered while structuring the

machine.



References

Adeleke, S. A. (2005). Design and construction of a manual rotary weeder for row crops.

PGD Thesis, Federal University of Technology Akure, Ondo State, Nigeria.

Adeleke, S. A., Idrisu, M. & Abdul-karim, I. F. (2018). Status of weed control in coffee farms

in Nigeria: A need for improved technologies. International Journal of Advanced

Agricultural Research, 6,59-68.

Ademosun, O. C. (1991). Design and Performance of a Reciprocating Weeder. The Nigerian

Society of Engineer, 25 (2), 77-84.

Ademosun, O. C., Adewumi, B. A., Olukunle, O. J. & Adesina, A. A. (2003). Development of

Indigenous Machines for weeding and Grain Harvesting: FUTA Experience.

FUTAJEET, 3(2), 77-84.

Alizadeh, M. R. (2011). Field performance evaluation of mechanical weeders in the paddy

field Scientific Research and Essays, 6(25), 5427-5434.

Anantachar, M., Sushilendra, L., Sunil, S. A. & Ragha, V. (2013). Performance evaluation of

conoweeder for paddy in farmer’s field. Engineering and Technology in India, 4 (1),

14 -16.

Attanda, M. L., Muhammad, A. I. & Shema, A. (2013). Development and performance

evaluation of a hand-pushed weeder. Journal of Engineering and Technology (JET),

8(1), 61-69.

Balachand, C. H. (2006). Design, development and evaluation of animal drawn weeder

suitable for non-descript bullock of C.G. region. Unpublished Master of Technology

Thesis, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwa Vidyalaya, Raipur.

Bhavin, R., Khardiwar, M. S., Shailendra, K. & Solanki, B. P. (2016). Performance evaluation

of manual operated single row weeder for groundnut crop Engineering and

Technology in India, 7(1), 45-52.

Francis, Albert A., Aravindh, R., Ajith, M. & Barath, K. M. (2017). Weed removing machine

for Agriculture. International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research

Technology,6(5), 226-230. doi:10.5281/zenodo.573642.

Gobor, Z. & Schulze, L. P. (2006). Concept and virtual prototype of a rotary hoe for intra-row

weed control in row crops. UDK, 631.312.4.

Hossen, M. A., Alam, M. A., Paul, S. & Hossain, M. A. (2015). Modification and evaluation of

a power weeder for Bangladesh condition. Eco-friendly Agril. J.,8(3), 37-46.

Jiken, J. B. J. (2016). Experimental approach to determine the efficacy of a tine mechanism

for auto weeding machine. Iowa State University Capstones Graduate Theses and

Dissertations 15942.

Kamal, A. R., Omisore, J. K. & Onwualu, A. P. (1996). Performance evaluation of selected

low-cost hand operated weeders. Agrimech, 1, 14 – 20.

Kankal, U. S. (2013). Design and development of self-propelled weeder for field crops.

International Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 6(2), 304–310.

Kanth, B. K. (2016). Design & Development of Self-propelled Unit for Wet-land Rotary

Weeders. Unpublished Master of Technology Thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi

Vishwa Vidyalaya Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh.

Keshavalu, B., Prasan, P.,Raghavendra, V & Shafat, K. (2017). Performance Evaluation of

Wet Land Power Weeder for Paddy. Asian Journal of Agricultural Extension,

Economics & Sociology, 18(3): 1-8.



Kumar, S., Kumar, A. & Kumar, S. (2017). Performance Evaluation of Developed Manually

Operated Rotary Weeder for Vegetable Crops. International Journal of Current

Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 6(11), 4012-4019.

Kumar, T. N., Kumar, A. S., Nayak, M. & Ramya, V. (2014). Performance evaluation of

weeders. International Journal of Science, Environ. Tech. 3(6), 2160 – 2165.

Mahilang, K. K. S., Swapnil, C., Naresh, V. M. & Khilendra, K. S. (2017). Design and

development of power operated rotary weeder for rice. Current Journal of Applied

Science and Technology,24(5), 1-7; Article no. CJAST.37844.

Manuwa, S. I., Odubanjo, O. O., Malumi, B. O. & Olofinkua, S. G. (2009). Development and

performance evaluation of a row-crop mechanical weeder. Journal of Engineering &

Applied Sciences (JEAS), 4(4), 236-239.

Mohammad, R. A. (2011). Field performance evaluation of mechanical weeders in the paddy

field. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(25), 5427-5434.

Mohanty, S. K, Prerana, P. J. & Mishra, J. N. (2016). Development of Dry land Weeders

with Ergonomic Principles for Higher Efficiency. International Journal of Innovative

Science, Engineering & Technology, 3(3), 340-348.

Monalisha, S. A. K. (2017). Development of a Multipurpose Power Weeder.The International

Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Invention 4(6), 3527-3531. DOI:

10.18535/ijsshi/v4i6.01.

Nganilwa, Z. M., Makungu, P. J. & Mpanduji, S. M. (2003). Development and Assessment of

an Engine Powered hand held weeder in Tanzania. International Conference on

Industrial Design Engineering, UDSM, Dare salam.

Nkakini, S. O. & Abu, H. (2015). Development and evaluation of wheeled long-handle

weeder. The West Indian Journal of Engineering, 37(2), 37-44.

Odigboh, E. U. & Ahmed, S. F. (1979). Development of a Ridge Profile Weeder. AMA.

21(1), 43-48.

Ojomo, A. O., Ale, M. O. & Ogundele, J. O. (2012). Effect of Moisture content on the

performance of a motorized weeding machine. Journal of Engineering IOSR, 2, 49-

53.

Olaoye J. O. & Adekanye T. A. (2013). Development and evaluation of a rotary power

weeder. In: Tillage for agricultural productivity and environmental sustainability

conference held in Ilorin, Nigeria, 129-141.

Olukunle, O. J. (2010). Development and performance evaluation of a weeder for a peasant

farmer, Journal of Sustainable Technology, 1(1), 120-130.

Olukunle, O. J. & Oguntunde, P. G. (2006). Development of a row crop weeder. Proceedings

of the International Conference on Prosperity and Poverty in a Globalized World:

Challenges for agricultural research. Deutscher Tropentag, Bonn, Germany.

http://www.tropentag.de/abstracts/full/313.pdf

Oni, K. C. (1990). Performance Analysis of a Ridge Profile Weeder. Proceeding of Nigerian

Society of Agricultural Engineers, 3, 189-199.

Oni, K. C. (1985). An Ox- Drawn Straddle Row Rotary Weeder. Samaru, Journal of

Agricultural Research, 3(1&2), 96-104.

Padole, Y. B. (2007). Performance evaluation of rotary power weeder. Agricultural

Engineering Today, 31(3 & 4), 30-33.

Parida, B. C. (2002). Development and evaluation of star-cum conoweeder for rice. Agric.

Mechanization in Asia, Africa Latin America, 33(3), 21-22.

Rahman, A., Rabbani, M. A., Milufarzana, Jannat, Y. & Raju, A. (2012). Development and

evaluation of a push type manually operated weeder for wet lands. In: Proceedings of



the 6th International Mechanical Engineering Conference & 14th Annual Paper Meet

(6IMEC&14APM) 28-29 September 2012, Dhaka, Bangladesh IMEC&APM-AM-17.

Rajashekar, M. & Kumar S. M. (2015). Virtual Design, Analysis and Development of Single

Row Weeder, International Journal on Emerging Technologies 6(1), 125-129.

Raut, V. D., Deshmukh, B. D. & Dinesh, D. (2013). Review paper on “Various aspects of

Weeders for Economical Cultivation’’. International Journal of Modern Engineering

Research (IJMER), 3(5), 3296-3299.

Sabaji, T. D., Sahoo, P. K. & Iquebal, D. D. (2014). Design and development of ridge profile

power weeder. Journal of Agricultural Engineering, 51,4-11.

Sam, B. (2014). Ergonomic evaluation of rice harvester and thresher with farm women,

International Journal of Science and Research, 3(11), 1644-1648.

Shakya, H. B., Parmar, M. R., Kumpavat, M. T. & Swarnkar, R. (2016). Development and

Performance Evaluation of Manually Operated Cono-Weeder for Paddy Crop.

International Refereed Journal of Engineering and Science, 5, 2319-2326.

Shekhar, S., Chandra, S. & Roy, D. K. (2010). Performance evaluation of different weeding

tools in maize Indian Journal of Weed Science , 42 (1&2), 95-97.

Shiru, J. J. (1991). Design and fabrication of a portable manually powered garden row

Weeder. B. Eng. Thesis, Federal University of Technology Minna, Niger State,

Nigeria.

Shiru, J. J. (2011). Design and development of a push–pull mechanical weeder for farmers’

use, The Nigerian Academic Forum, 21(1), 129-137.

Silas, O. N. & Abu, H. (2015). Development and evaluation of wheeled long-handle weeder.

The West Indian Journal of Engineering,37(2), 37-44.

Singh, G., Moses, S, C & Himanshu, D. (2015). Study of low land rice weeder and

development of fine cutting attachments. International Journal of Agricultural Science

and Research (IJASR), 5(4), 315-322.

Sirmour, A. (2016). Design and development of single row power weeder for rice.

Unpublished Master Technology, Thesis, Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya

Raipur (Chhattisgarh).

Technical Learning College, United State(2016). Weed Identification and control course;

professional development continuing education course. United State (866) 557-1746

9.

Tejas, B., Raut, S. P. & Wagh, G. V. G. (2019). Review Paper on Power Weeder.

International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR), 4(3),375-377.

Thakur, K. (2016). Modification of power operated single row rice weeder for dry field

condition. M.Tech. Thesis. IGKV, Raipur.

Victor, M. &Ajay, V. (2003). Design and development of power operated rotary weeder for

wetland paddy. Agric Mech in Asia, Africa and Latin America, 34 (4), 27-29.

Yadav, R. & Pund, S. (2007). Development and ergonomic evaluation of manual weeder,

Agricultural Engineering, CIGR E-Journal, 9, 5-7.

a review on the performances of weeding machines · pouring seasons when soil dampness is high and...

Documents