The document presents the results of an experiment comparing the performance of different mechanical weeders to traditional manual weeding for row crops like chili, brinjal, and tomato. The mechanical weeders tested included wheel hand hoes from CIAE and AAI, as well as a traditional khurpi. The experiment found that the CIAE wheel hoe had the highest average weeding efficiency and field efficiency, while the AAI wheel hoe with three forks had the highest field capacity and lowest man hours per hectare. Overall, the mechanical weeders performed better than manual weeding and the CIAE and AAI wheel hoes were both effective options, with CIAE performing best for weeding percentage and AAI's

2. PRESENTED BY:
 Reg no: 2012AE/05B
DEPT.OF FARM MACHINARY AND
POWER
CAET .VNMKV, PARBHANI

4. INTRODUCTION
WEED CONTROL IMPORTANCE
 Production of food increased by four times from
independence i.e. 50 million tones to more than 200
million tones .
 Weed control is one of the most expensive operation
 The losses due to weeds ,were assessed as 33.8% of
the total population .

5.  In India 4.2 billion rupees required or lost in
weed controls.
 Reduction of yield by weed in major crops are
20 - 45%,depends on crops and locations.
 Weeds are affects the yield of crop by lowering
the quantity and quality of the crop produced.

6.  Weed controls operation by wheel hand hoe
have following benefits by Saves 70-75%
labour cost and operating time 5-8% increased
in yield compare to conventional methods of
weeding using khurpi.
 generally experiment conducted during rainy
seasons to study various mechanical weeding
method by using blade hoe ,3-tyne wheel hoe
,hand hoe ,sweep blade hoe etc.

7. EXPERIMENT
 Present study conducted at farmers field under row
vegetable cultivation in champatpur village near AAI.
 Objectives :to evaluate working performance and
comparison of CIAE.
{Central institute of agriculture engineering Bhopal }
and AAI {Allahabad agricultural institute }
made wheel hand hoes with local practices for
weeding of row vegetables crops having different weed
density for crops viz :chilly , brinjal , tomato.
 It was found that manual weeding was nearly 4-1/2
times costlier than wheel hand hoe .
Under same field conditions.

8. *Performance tested in the following terms for
chilly, brinjal and tomato
 Weeding index
 Field efficiency
 Man-h/ha
 Field capacity
 Ratio of man-h under three weeding
conditions

9. MATERIALS AND METHODS
MATERIALS .
1.CIAE wheel hand hoe with V-shape sweep blade .
2. AAI wheel hand hoe with sweep blade.
3. AAI Wheel hand hoe with rake 3-fork.
4. Khurpi.
Major weeds found are doob grass , bhangarai, motha,
bhatua ,congres grass ,satgathia ,krishneel.

10. CIAE WHEEL HAND HOE

11. AAI SWEEP BLADE HOE

12. AAI
WHEEL
HAND
HOE OF
THREE
FORK

13. 3-FORKS

14. KHURPI

15. 1.Chilli crop conditions :
o Grown at clay sand soil .
o Average moisture content 5.9% {d.b}.
o Average spacing b/w rows 67cm.
2. Brinjal crop conditions:
o Grown at sandy loam soil .
o Average moisture content 8.01%{d.b}.
o Average spacing b/w rows 107cm.
3.Tomato crop conditions :
o Grown at loamy sand soil.
o Average moisture content 4.26%{d.b}.
o Average spacing b/w rows 48cm.

16. PARAMETERS
used to judge performance
1.Weeding percentage /weeding index
• It is ratio b/w the no . of weeds removed by weeder to
the number of weeds present in a unit area before
weeding.
• Express in percentage
• 1.sq .m area for sampling
• 𝑤. 𝑖 =
𝑤𝑏𝑤−𝑤𝑎𝑤
𝑤𝑏𝑤
*100
2.Man-h/ha,
• It is required labours –time per hectare
• 𝑚𝑎𝑛 − ℎ𝑟 =
𝑛𝑜.𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑒𝑛𝑔𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑑 ∗ 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛 𝑡𝑜 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑚 𝑜𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑑

17. 3.Field capacity
 Definition :area covered per unit time
𝑓. 𝑐
ℎ𝑎
ℎ𝑟
=
𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑒𝑑 ℎ𝑎
𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑡𝑎𝑘𝑒𝑛(ℎ𝑟)
4. field efficiency
Definition :it is ratio of actual time for
weeding to the total time taken
including time of rest or turning
 𝑓. 𝑒 =
𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑎
𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑡𝑖𝑚𝑒 𝑝𝑒𝑟 ℎ𝑎
∗ 100

18. 6.Time loss
 Total time loss during operation .
 e.g. for rest ,for turning etc.
7.Soil moisture contents
 It is the percentage weight of water present in
the unit dry weight of soil.
 Calculate on dry basis.
 S.m.c calculated because force required to
operate the implement is different at different
moisture contents.

19. Specifications of twin wheel hand
hoe (CIAE)
 1. Total length, 1.68m
 2. Length of handle, 1.4m
 3. Handle width, 0.58m
 4. Wheel diameter, 0.20m
 5. Wheel width, 0.12m
 6. Length of blade, 0.20m

20.  7. Width of blade, 0.03m
 8. Angle of blade, 140⁰.
9. Diameter of conduct pipe, Ø 2.50cm
 10. Depth adjustment, 15.00cm
 11- Total weight, 4.00kg

21. Specification of A.A.I. wheel hand
hoe
 1. Total length, 1.53m
 2. Length of handle, 1.48m
 3. Handle width, 0.60m
 4. Wheel diameter, 0.60m
 5. Wheel width, 0.30m

22. 6. Length of blade, 0.20m
7. Width of blade, 0.22 m
8.Angle of blade, 60⁰
9.Diameter of conduct pipe Ø 2.6cm
10.Depth adjustment , 15 cm
11.Total weight, 6.5kg

23. Specification of Khurpi
1 . Working width of blade, - 8.00 to
10.00cm
2. Length of blade,- 12.00 to 20.00cm
3. Length of Handle,- 15.00 to 20.00cm

24. PROCEDURE
Select three plots of above three crops .
Size of each plot is 40m X 10m,
Each plot can sub divided into 4 subplots of 10m X
10m.
Two soil samples at 5cm and 10 cm from each plot
can be taken.
Count the weed from area of size 1m X 1m from each
plot .

25. .
Weeds picked out after weeding and also count
remaining unaffected weeds.
Total time of weeding and time losses during weeding
were recorded.
Soil moisture content on d.b calculated by gravimetric
method.
Weeding efficiency ,field efficiency ,man-h/ha ,field
capacity and ratio of man-h were calculated for all
possible conditions .

26. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

27. AVERAGE TEST RESULT FOR CHILLI CROP
SR
.NO
PARTICULARS WEEDING IMPLEMENTS
CIAE
SWEEP
BLADE
HOE
AAI
SWEEP
BLADE
HOE
AAI RAKE
OF 3-
FORKS
HOE
KHURI
(CURVED
HANDLE )
1 Weeding
percentage(%)
91.32 87.41 87.29 95.88
2 Field efficiency(%) 83.37 78.50 77.09 83.57
3 Field capacity(ha/h) 5.22x 10-3 5.63 x 10-3 5.93x 10-3 2.24x 10-3
4 Man h/ha 208 192 178 428
5 Ratio of man-h 1:2.06 1:2.23 1:2.40 1:1

28. AVERAGE TEST RESUL FOR BRINJAL CROP
SR
.NO
PARTICULARS WEEDING IMPLEMENTS
CIAE
SWEEP
BLADE
HOE
AAI
SWEEP
BLADE
HOE
AAI RAKE
OF 3-
FORKS
HOE
KHURI
(CURVED
HANDLE )
1 Weeding
percentage(%)
93.73 94.33 93.07 98.16
2 Field efficiency(%) 86.93 82.67 78.27 81.03
3 Field capacity(ha/h) 8.47x 10-3 7.83x 10-3 10.9x 10-3 4.54x 10-3
4 Man h/ha 119 129 93 223
5 Ratio of man-h 1:1.87 1:1.73 1:2.40 1:1

29. AVERAGE TEST RESULT FOR TOMATO CROP
SR
.NO
PARTICULARS WEEDING IMPLEMENTS
CIAE
SWEEP
BLADE
HOE
AAI
SWEEP
BLADE
HOE
AAI RAKE
OF 3-
FORKS
HOE
KHURI
(CURVED
HANDLE )
1 Weeding
percentage(%)
98.20 97.90 97.90 99.2
2 Field efficiency(%) 85.77 81.43 80.6 76.00
3 Field capacity(ha/h) 6.91x 10-3 7.83x 10-3 8.25x 10-3 4.02x 10-3
4 Man h/ha 148 135 124 253
5 Ratio of man-h 1:1.72 1:1.82 1:2.04 1:1

30. Average weeding efficiency for khurpi was maximum
97.74%.
Because it covers more area near to plant roots
After that wedding efficiency more for CIAE wheel
hand hoe 94.41%.
Average field efficiency was maximum for CIAE
wheel hand hoe 85.46%.
Average field capacity maximum for 8.36*10-3(ha/h)
for,
AAI wheel hand hoe with three forks.

31. Average ratio of man-h was min for AAI wheel
hand hoe three forks 1:2.28 .
Average cost of weeding per ha was
Minimum-for AAI wheel hand hoe of three fork
Rs: 687.3.
Maximum for khurpi Rs 1473.33 .

32. CONCLUSIONS
1. All wheel hand hoes performs satisfactory weeding operations.
2. Average wedding efficiency for CIAE wheel hand hoe was
94.41% where as 93.40% ,92.75%,97.74% for AAI wheel hand
hoe with sweep blade and rake with three forks and khurpi
respectively.
3. Average field efficiency for CIAE wheel hand hoe was 85.46%
where as that of AAI wheel hand hoe with sweep blade and rake
with three forks and khurpi was 80.90%,78.65%,and 80.20%
respectively.

33.  4. average field capacity for CIAE wheel hand hoe was
6.87*10^-3 ha/h where as it was 7.01*10^-
3ha/h,8.36*10^-3ha/h and 3.60*10^-3ha/hr for AAI wheel
hand hoe with sweep blade and rake with three forks and
khurpi respectively.
 5.average ratio of man-h for CIAE wheel hand hoe was
1:1.88 where as 1:1.94 and 1:1.28 for AAI wheel hand
hoe with sweep blade and rake with three forks
respectively.


34. Above results shows that
 Mechanical weeding gave better performance
than local practices.
 use CIAE hoe for better weeding percentage
and field efficiency.
 AAI hoe of 3-fork gave better performance for
field capacity and ratio of man-h .

35. REFERANCES
 1. Haq, K.A. and Islam, M.S. 1983. Performance of
indigenous hand weeders in Bangladesh. XVI; (4), AMA
pp. 47-50.
 2. Patel, A.S. 1998. Demonstration and popularization of
twin wheel hand hoe for weeding of crops and vegetables.
Investiga tión no. 5. CAEIFIM/JNKVV/94-4, Annual
report of AI-I India coordinated Scheme on farm
implements and machines. CAE. Jabalpur Centre, India.

36.  3. Rangasamy, K. M., Subramanian, Bala and Swami
Nathan, K.R. 1993. Evaluation of power weeder
performance, AMA 24 (4): 16-18.
 4. Singh, S.R. 1976. Mechanical weeding in direct sown
rice. Indian Journal of Agricultural SCiences, 46(11):
507-509.
 5. Srivastava, A.K. 1997. Performance evaluation of
different weeding methods and economic viability for
soybean crop. Agricultural Engineering Today, 21 (1-4):

37. THANK YOU
.

38. TOPIC OPEN FOR DISCUSSION