The document summarizes a seminar on evaluating the performance of different weeders in cotton. It introduces the objectives to evaluate hand khurpi, peg type dry land weeder, animal drawn blade hoe, and power weeder. Field tests were conducted to determine parameters like theoretical and effective field capacity, field efficiency, weeding index, soil properties, and cost. The results found the animal drawn blade hoe had the highest field capacity and lowest cost per hectare, providing the highest savings in both cost and time compared to manual weeding. The hand khurpi was the least effective with the highest man-hours and operation costs.

1. WELCOME

2. Seminar on
“Performance evaluation of weeders in Cotton”
By
Bhalerao A.G.
2012AE/04B
Seminar incharge
Dr.R.T.Ramteke
DEPARTMENT OF FARM MACHINERY AND POWER
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY
VASANTRAO NAIK MARATHWADA AGRICUTURAL UNIVERSITY
PARBHANI 431402

3. INTRODUCTION
 Cotton is the one of the major commercial crop
cultivated under both irrigated and rain fed conditions in
many states under large area.
 The total area under cotton in India is about 8.87million
ha. with the production of 3.72 million tonnes of lint
cotton.
 Weeds are a serious threat to all crops
 Losses caused by weeds in cotton ranges from 40 - 75
per cent depending upon nature and intensity of weeds.

4.  In India, farmers mainly follow the hand weeding
though chemical weeding is slowly becoming popular,
in spite of it being costly.
 As different methods of intercultivation are practiced in
the region for cotton crop
o manual weeding,
o weeding with peg type dry land weeder,
o weeding by animal drawn blade hoe
o Weeding with a power weeder.
 One third of the cost of cultivation is spent on weeding
alone when carried out with the manual labour.

5. OBJECTIVES
 To evaluate the performance of different
weeders namely hand khurpi, peg type dry
land weeder, animal drawn blade hoe and
power weeder.

6. MATERIAL AND METHODS
HAND KHURPI –
•consists of a curved mild steel blade and a wooden
handle.
•The blade has cutting edge on its outer surface and
tong at the end.
•It is a manual push type of implement.
•to be operated in the bending or sitting posture.
•Can be fabricated by the local village artisans.

7. PEG TYPE DRY LAND WEEDER –
•Push type weeder consisting of roller with
pegs, handle and blade.
•V-shaped sweep blade is fixed on the tyne
and a long handle with a curved grip.
•It has to be operated in the standing
posture.
•peg roller loosens the soil and the blade
removes the weeds.

8. ANIMAL DRAWN BLADE HOE –
• consists of a wooden head piece to which a mild
steel blade is fixed.
•A wooden beam is fitted to the head piece at one
end and a yoke is fitted at the other end of the
beam.
• length of the blade is 600 mm.
•It is operated by a pair of bullocks.

9. POWER WEEDER –
• consists of the following components namely
• weeding unit, power transmission system, main
clutch, tiller clutch, turning clutch, hitch frame,
safety cover etc.

10.  The field tests were carried out to ascertain the following
performance parameters.
 Theoretical field capacity –It is defined as the rate of
field coverage of the tool, implement or machine, based
on 100 percent of time at the rated speed and covering
100 per cent of its rated width. It is given by, (ha/h)
=
Width (m) X speed (km/h)
10
 Effective field capacity – It is the actual area covered by
the
tool, implement or machine, based on its total time
consumed and its width.
It is given by, (ha/h)
A where, A =Area
covered,ha
(Tp+Ti) Tp = productive time,h

11.  Field efficiency – It is the ratio of effective field capacity to
the theoretical field capacity expressed in percent. It is
given by
= Effective field capacity X 100
Theoretical field capacity
 Soil moisture content (per cent) on dry weight basis.
Soil moisture =
Weight of wet soil sample - Weight of oven dry soil sample X100
Weight of oven dry soil sample

12.  Bulk density is the mass after oven drying of soil of a unit
volume.
 The bulk density of soil sample was determined by
using following expression.
Bulk density of soil sample = M/V
Where,
M = mass of oven dried core soil sample, gm
V = volume of cylindrical core sample, cc
 Cone index is an indication of soil hardness.(kg/cm2
)
 Cone index in the soil varies with cone apex angle and
area of cone bottom. A standard cone penetrometer was
used to determine the cone index.

13.  WEEDING INDEX – It is the ratio between the number of
weeds removed by a weeder to the number of which was
present in one unit area before starting operation. It is
given by
W1 – W2 X 100
Weeding index = W1
Where, W1 = Number of weeds before weeding
W2 = Number of weeds after weeding
Based on the field data, the cost of weeding using different
weeders were computed in terms of Rs/h and Rs/ha. The
cost and time saved by different weeders were compared
and analyzed.

14. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
 The field performance evaluation trials of different
weeders were carried out in the farmers fields in
Yeklaspur village of Raichur district.
 The field trials were conducted as per RNAM and BIS
test codes and procedures.
 The following treatments were selected for conducting
field evaluation trials.

15.  Field observations like operational speed, width of
operation, number of labourers required for weeding
operation, soil moisture content, bulk density and cone
index were recorded .
 The data collected during field evaluation trails were
analyzed to determine the actual field capacity , field
efficiency, weeding index.
T1 = Weeding operation with hand khurpi
T2 = Weeding operation with peg type dry land weeder
T3 = Weeding operation animal drawn blade hoe
T4 = Weeding operation with power weeder

16. Sr
no
Particulars HAND
KHURPI
PEG TYPE DRY
LAND WEEDER
ANIMAL
DRAWN
BLADE HOE
POWER
WEEDER
1 Soil moisture content, % (db) 14.00 14.48 14.20 13.8
2 Bulk density before operation,
gm/cc
1.30 1.33 1.32 1.28
3 Bulk density after operation,
gm/cc
1.29 1.31 1.24 1.20
4 Cone index before operation,
Kg/cm2
1.24 1.20 1.22 1.29
5 Cone index after operation,
Kg/cm2
1.12 1.10 1.03 1.05
6 Width of operation, mm 150 200 600 500
7 Speed of operation ,km/h - - 3.00 2.00
8 Average field capacity, ha/h 0.005 0.009 0.092 0.07
9 Man/Women-hrs required to
complete weeding operation in
one ha area, women-hrs/h
200
( women)
111.11
(Men)
- ---
11 Field efficiency,% - - 51.11 60.00
12 Weeding index, % 98.00 95.00 94.00 92.50
Field Performance of Different weeders

17. Particulars T1 T2 T3 T4
Cost of operation ,Rs/h
8.33 11.67 36.67 67.29
Cost of operation ,Rs/ha
1666.00 1296.65 398.60 961.57
Savings in cost when
compared to treatment T1, %
- 22.17 76.07 42.28
Savings in time when
compared to treatment T1, %
- 44.45 94.57 92.86
Cost Economics of Different weeders -
Where, T1 = Weeding operation with hand khurpi,T2 = Weeding operation with
peg type dry land weeder,T3 = Weeding operation animal drawn blade hoe,T4 =
Weeding operation with power weeder.

18. CONCLUSIONS
 The animal drawn blade hoe recorded maximum values of
average actual field capacity and minimum number of
manhrs requirement.
 maximum values of savings in cost and time of 76.07 per
cent and 94.57 per cent, respectively compared to
operation by hand khurpi.
 maximum value of weeding index and man-hrs
requirement were observed for weeding operation by
hand khurpi.
 maximum value of cost of operation of Rs1666.00/ha was
observed with hand khurpi while the animal drawn blade
hoe recorded minimum value of Rs. 398.60/ha.

19. Topic open for discussion

20. o References -
o Anonymous, 2001, Weed management in cotton. J.
Indian Society for Cotton Improving, 26(3):150-156.
o Biswas,. H. S. and Yadav, G. C., 2004, Animal drawn
weeding tools for weeding and interculture in black
soils. Agri. Engg. Today, 28(1-2): 47-53.
o Guruswamy,T., 1985, Field performance of some
improved intercultivation Implements- a case study.
Agric. Engg., 22.18-24.
o Guruswamy,T. and Belgaumi.M.I., 1991, Evaluation of
sweep and blade hoe –A case study. Curr. Res.,
20(6):114 –115.
Performance evaluation of weeders in
cotton
M. VEERANGOUDA, ER. SUSHILENDRA AND M. ANANTACHAR

21. Thank youThank you