Design of Weeder

Design, Development and Evaluation of a Push Type Manually Operated Cono Weeder
Presented by
Milufarzana (0805046) Jannat Yasmin (0805057) Md. Raju Ahmed (0805069)
Introduction
Bangladesh is an agricultural country. The future economic development of the country will depend largely on the progress made and goals achieved in the agricultural sector during last decades. Weeding is one of the most important farm operations in crop production system. In Bangladesh, this operation is mostly performed manually that requires higher labor input and also time consuming process. Weeding is generally done 15-20 days after sowing. Delay and negligence in weeding operation affect the crop yield. Timely weeding is very much essential for a good yield and this can only be achieved by using mechanical weeders.
Scope of the Study

At present, more than 15 different designs of weeders are available in Bangladesh. All these designs are locally made and region specific to meet the requirements of soil type, crop grown, cropping pattern and availability of local resources. These locally manufactured weeders do not maintain adequate design for minimum force requirement and either suffering with less penetrability or sinking in the soft soil. The proposed design of the weeder incorporate cone shaped with blades on either side will reduce force requirement and ensure proper penetration in the soil.
Objectives
Considering the problems stated before the following specific objectives were formulated to give proper direction of the study:
1. To design and develop a push type manually operated cono weeder. 2. To determine the technical performance of the weeder in the rice field. 3. To determine the economic performance of the weeder in the rice field.
Review of Literature
Islam et al (1991) designed a mechanical weeder for rice
which is reported to work better than the Japanese weeder in Bangladesh soil. It requires less power to operate than the Japanese weeder. It worked very well on wet soil and a field capacity of 0.35 hectare per hour. Haq and Islam (1985) have reported that in low land rice the cost of manual weeding was 21.6% of the total production cost. Dedatta (1981) reported that the yield loss due to weeds was 11.8% in Asia. Biswas (1990) reported that mechanical weed control not only uproots the weeds between the crop rows but also keeps the soil surface loose, ensuring better soil aeration and water intake capacity.
Materials and Methods

Materials Required
The following materials were used to fabricate a push type weeder
i. ii.
iii.
iv. v. vi. vii.
M.S. sheet (16 SWG) Steel pipe (1" & 1/2") Steel blade sheet (4'-4" 2) Bearing and bearing cover M.S. rod(1/2") M.S. bar Nuts and bolts

Major components Float: It was made of M.S. sheet and the length of the sheet was 31 cm and the width was 14 cm. Cone with blades: It was made of M.S. sheet (16 SWG) and the larger and smaller diameter of the cone was 14 cm and 6 cm respectively. The blades were made of steel blade sheet (4'-4"2). Main frame: It was made of steel pipe which diameter was 2.5 cm. The height of the main bar from the middle point of the float was 25 cm. Handle: It was made of square bar which was 2.5 cm and length was 165 cm.
Fig. Photographic view of Push type manually operated cono weeder
Fig. Isometric view of Push type manually operated cono weeder
Fig: Top view of float

Fig: Front view of float
Fig: Photographic view of float
Fig. Front view of cone with blades
Fig. Side view of cone with blades
Fig :Photographic view of cone with blades
Fig. Top view of main frame
Fig. Photographic view of main frame Fig. Front view of main frame
Fig. Top view of handle
Fig. Photographic view of handle

Weight Measurement: Weight of the weeder was measured at the workshop in the Department of Farm Power and Machinery by using balance and data were recorded.
Fig. Photographic view of weight measurement

Pushing Force Measurement: The force requirement of operation was determined in the field using spring balance and three person involved in the test.
Fig. Photographic view of pushing force measurement

Technical Efficiency of Cono Weeder i. Weeding efficiency: The weeding efficiency computed by using the following expression:
was
eff
Where,
Wr 100 % Wr Wu
eff= Weeding efficiency, % Wr= Number of weeds removed by the weeder/ m2 Wu= Number of weeds left in the field after weeding operation/ m2

ii.
Percent of Breakage: The percent of breakage of plants was computed by using the following expression:
b
P b 100 % P t
Where, b= % of breakage of plants Pb= Number of plants broken in the row after weeding operation Pt= Total number of plants in the row.

iii.
Field capacity: Field capacity of weeder was computed by using the following expression:
A E fc T
Where, Efc= Field capacity, ha/hr A= Average area covered by the weeder, ha; T= Total time taken for weeding operation, hr.

Operating cost of Cono Weeder Machinery cost consists of: (a) fixed cost-Depreciation, interest, taxes and insurance; (b) variable cost- labor and repair and maintenance.
Fixed cost Fixed costs are fixed in total, but decline per ha, as the annual use of machine is increased (Barnard & Nix, 1979). Variable cost The variable cost is one, which changes when the level of output alters. Operating cost:
Operating costs in, Tk/ha= Fixed cost + Variable cost
For determining operating cost (Tk/ha) of manual operation only the number of man-days and labor rates were considered
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Weight and Pushing force required for the weeder

The weight of the push type cono weeder was found 8.61 kg. The average pushing force of weeder was 56.24 N.
Obs. No
1. 2. 3. 4.
Pulling force (kg)

5 6 7 6.5
Pulling angle
300 300 300 300
Pushing angle
250 250 250 250
Pushing force, N
46.87 56.24 65.62 60.45
Average Pushing force
56.24

Weeding Efficiency : Average weeding efficiency was calculated from six replications . The average weeding of weeder was found 63.41%
Obs. No Row Spacing, (cm) Effective width coverage, (cm) Weed population (W1)/m2 before weeding Weed population (W2)/m2 after weeding Weeding efficiency Average weeding efficiency %
1 2 3 4 5 6
18 18 18 18 18 18
13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5
84 80 78 74 80 75
31 30 28 25 28 30
63 62.5 64 66 65 60 63.41

Percent of breakage : Average percent of breakage was calculated from six observations. The average percent of breakage after weeding operation was found 5.04%.
Obs. No. Total no. of plants in 1m row before weeding No. of plants broken in 1 m row after weeding Percent of breakage Average percent of breakage
1 2 3 4 5 6
378 360 350 355 375 345
19 15 18 20 23 14
5.02 4.2 5.14 5.63 6.13 4.1 5.04

Field capacity : The length and width of the field strip was 10 m and 10 m respectively. Time taken to cover the whole area was 5.08 min. The average field capacity of the weeder was found 0.012 ha/hr.
Obs. No. Length of the field strip, (m) Width of the field strip, (m) Time taken, (min) Field capacity, ha/hr
10
10
5.08
0.012

Cost Comparison: The operating cost of weeder was 2145 Tk/ha where manually weeding cost was 8000 Tk/ha Figure indicates that weeder is the best in terms of cost of operation and it is more economical than manual operation.
9000 8000 7000
Cost, Tk/ha
6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 Push type Cono Weeder Manually Weeding
Fig. The cost operation of Weeder in comparison with manual operation
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings and their interpretation the following conclusions are drawn The weight of the push type cono weeder was found 8.61 kg. The pushing force required for push type cono weeder was found 56.24N The weeding efficiency of weeder was found 63.41%. The percent of breakage after weeding operation was found 5.04%. The field capacity of the weeder was found 0.012 ha/hr. The operating cost of the weeder was found 2145 Tk/ha. Recommendations:
Weight of the weeder should be reduced. It should be necessary to change the shape and arrangement of blade.

Design of Weeder

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Weeder

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design of Weeder

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design, Development and Evaluation of a Push Type Manually Operated Cono Weeder

Scope of the Study

Materials and Methods

Materials and Methods

Materials and Methods

Fig. Photographic view of Push type manually operated cono weeder

Materials and Methods

Fig. Isometric view of Push type manually operated cono weeder

Materials and Methods

Fig: Top view of float

Fig: Photographic view of float

Materials and Methods

Fig. Front view of cone with blades

Fig. Side view of cone with blades

Fig :Photographic view of cone with blades

Materials and Methods

Fig. Top view of main frame

Materials and Methods

Fig. Top view of handle

Fig. Photographic view of handle

Materials and Methods

Fig. Photographic view of weight measurement

Materials and Methods

Fig. Photographic view of pushing force measurement

Materials and Methods

Materials and Methods

Materials and Methods

Materials and Methods

Operating costs in, Tk/ha= Fixed cost + Variable cost

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Pulling force (kg)

Average Pushing force

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

378 360 350 355 375 345

5.02 4.2 5.14 5.63 6.13 4.1 5.04

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Fig. The cost operation of Weeder in comparison with manual operation

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

You might also like