Rice is a main field crop in Fogera rain fed lowland ecosystem as stable food and straw is mainly used for cattle feed. Weed is a major constraint for rice production causing a subsequent drastic reduction of yield. Manual weeding method is extremely labor intensive and time consuming which conveys to high cost of production. The study ambition was to test different mechanical weeders with farmers to acquire their preference. Pertaining to this, four prototype mechanical weeders were developed and evaluated under rainfed lowland rice production ecosystem at Fogera. The recommended planting space of rice in the experimental area was 20cm between rows and mechanical weeders were developed 18cm wide. The rice was sown in rice field with 20cm row spacing which allows for the use of manual weeders. On the first day, one representative farmers field was identified for evaluation. The researchers together with DA’s went to the village and selected 30 farmers who had willing to participate in the evaluation practice in the following day. Before selection, farmers were asked generally whether they are volunteer to participate in this weeder evaluation activity in their own rice field or not. Based on this information, the targeted number of women and men were selected. Rotary weeder, star rotary weeder, finger-push weeder and push weeder were developed and gauged to get farmers preference. Selected weeders were gender sensitive and equal number of men and women were participated in the evaluation of mechanical weeders. Data on cropping system, crop establishment method, weed infestation and type, weeding efficiency, effective field capacity and damaged plants were collected. From this evaluation activity, two mechanical hand weeders rotary weeder and finger-push weeder were selected and distributed to farmers for future use. Women were selected finger push weeder while men have selected rotary weeder. The maximum weeding efficiency (90.2%) was observed from the rotary weeder whereas the weeding efficiency of finger-push weeder was (82.8%). However, push weeder had provided (51.3%) weeding efficiency while star rotary weeders brought (42%) of weeding efficiency. The least cost but high-cost reduction amongst the mechanical hand weeders were found from the rotary weeder while the highest cost and minimum cost reduction were attained from the push weeder. Rotary weeder and finger-push weeder generate to decrease the total cost and express very effective weeding technologies in the clay soil and ponded water level for aquatic and grass weeds in the testing sites.
| Published in | Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries (Volume 11, Issue 6) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.aff.20221106.13 |
| Page(s) | 214-219 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Mechanical Weeder, Weeding Efficiency, Farmer’s Preference, Low Land Rice Ecosystem, Weed Type
| [1] | Anonymous (2015). Eleusine coracana, from wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eleusine coracana. |
| [2] | Chauhan, B. S., Awan, T. H., Abugho, S. B., Evengelista, G. and Sudhir Y. (2015). Effect of crop establishment methods and weed control treatments on weed management, and rice yield. Field Crops Research 172: 72–84. Cross Ref Google Scholar. |
| [3] | De Datta SK. (1986). Technology development and the spread of direct seeded flooded rice in South East Asia. Experimental Agriculture. 22, 417-426. |
| [4] | Dubey P K, Jha R K, Singh V P and Kumar S. (2013). Effectiveness of different weedicides on weed biomass. |
| [5] | Dubey P K, Jha R K, Singh V P and Kumar S. (2013). Effectiveness of different weedicides on weed biomass, nutrient uptake and yield of rice. J Krishi Vigyan 2 (1): 19-22. |
| [6] | Hasanuzzaman M, Ali MH, Alam MM, Akhtar M, Fakhrul Alam K. (2009). Evaluation of pre-emergence herbicide and hand weeding on the weed control efficiency and performance of transplanted rice. American-Eurasian J. Agron., 2 (3): 138-143. |
| [7] | Hegazy, R. A., Abdelmotaleb, I. A., Imara, Z. M. and Okasha, M. H. (2014). Development and evaluation of small-scale power weeder. Misr. J. Ag. Eng. 31 (3): 703-728. |
| [8] | Henri gbakatchetche, George k. acheampong, Ralph k. bam, Oladele s. bakare, Alain kalisa, Elie r. gasore, Sékou ani, Komlan ablede and Kazuki Saito (2018). Farmers’ perceptions on mechanical weeders for rice production in Sub-Saharan Africa. |
| [9] | Jean-martial johnson, Jonne rodenburg, Atsuko tanaka, Kalimuthu senthilkumar, Kokou ahouanton, Ibnou dieng, Agossou klotoe, Cyriaque akakpo, Zacharie segda, Louis p. yameogo, (2018). Farmers’ perceptions on mechanical weeders for rice production in sub-saharan Africa. Expl Agric.: page 1-15. doi: 10.1017/S001447971700059. |
| [10] | Jonne Rodenburg, D. E. Johnson (2009). Weed management in rice-based cropping system in Africa. Advances in Agronomy 103-149. DOI: 10.1016/S0065-113(09)03004-1. |
| [11] | Melander B, Niels Holst, IIse Rasmusen (2012). Direct control of perennial weeds between crops Implications for organic farming. Crop protection 40: 36-42. DOI: 10.1016/j.cropro.2012.04.029. |
| [12] | MoANR (2010) National Rice Research and Development Strategy, Addis Ababa: Ministry of Agriculture and Natural Resources. |
| [13] | Mohammed Reza Alizadeh (2011). Field performance evaluation of mechanical weeders in the paddy field. Scientific Research and Essays Vol. 6 (25), pp. 5427-5434, 30. DOI: 10.5897/SRE11.1412 ISSN 1992-2248. |
| [14] | Muhammed A. I, Attanda M. L (2012). Development of hand push mechanical weeder. Proceedings of the Nigerian Institution of Agricultural Engineers, Vol. 33. |
| [15] | Nagesh Kumar T, Sujay Kumar A, Nayak M and Ramya V. (2014). Performance evaluation of weeders. Int J Sci Env & Tech 3 (6): 2160-2165. |
| [16] | Ratnaweera, A. C., Rajapakse, N. N., Ranasinghe, C. J., Thennakoon, T. M. S., Kumara, R. S., Balasooriya, C. P. and Bandara, M. A. (2010). Design of power weeder for low land paddy cultivation. International Conference on Sustainable Built Environment, held on December 13-14, Kandy. |
| [17] | Remesan, R., Roopesh, M. S., Remya, N., & Preman, P. S. (2007). Wet land paddy weeding: a comprehensive comparative study from South India. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal. Manuscript PM 07 011. Vol. IX. Available at: http://www.cigrjournal.org/index.php/Ejounral/article/view/930 |
| [18] | Shrinivasa DJ, Shashikumar and Murukannappa (2017). Development and Evaluation of Mechanical Weeder for Finger Millet Crop. International Journal of Agriculture, Environment and Biotechnology. DOI: 10.5958/2230-732X.2017.00025.0. |
| [19] | Tajuddin A. (2009). Development of a power weeder for low land rice. IE (I), 90: 15-17. |
| [20] | Tasawar Abbas, Robert J. Kremer (2018). Limitations of existing weed control practices necessitate development of alternative techniques based on biological approaches. Advance in agronomy. |
| [21] | Tilahun Tadesse, Zelalem Tadesse, Habtamu Asega, Christian Tafere (2020). Optimum Nitrogen and Phosphors Fertilizer Rates for Upland Rice Production in North Western Ethiopia. J. |
APA Style
Christian Tafere, Habtamu Assega, Betelehem Asrat, Zelalem Taddesse, Bayuh Belay. (2022). Participatory Evaluation of Mechanical Hand Weeders in Rain-Fed Lowland Rice Production Ecosystems in North Western Ethiopia. Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries, 11(6), 214-219. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20221106.13
ACS Style
Christian Tafere; Habtamu Assega; Betelehem Asrat; Zelalem Taddesse; Bayuh Belay. Participatory Evaluation of Mechanical Hand Weeders in Rain-Fed Lowland Rice Production Ecosystems in North Western Ethiopia. Agric. For. Fish. 2022, 11(6), 214-219. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20221106.13
AMA Style
Christian Tafere, Habtamu Assega, Betelehem Asrat, Zelalem Taddesse, Bayuh Belay. Participatory Evaluation of Mechanical Hand Weeders in Rain-Fed Lowland Rice Production Ecosystems in North Western Ethiopia. Agric For Fish. 2022;11(6):214-219. doi: 10.11648/j.aff.20221106.13
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.aff.20221106.13,
author = {Christian Tafere and Habtamu Assega and Betelehem Asrat and Zelalem Taddesse and Bayuh Belay},
title = {Participatory Evaluation of Mechanical Hand Weeders in Rain-Fed Lowland Rice Production Ecosystems in North Western Ethiopia},
journal = {Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries},
volume = {11},
number = {6},
pages = {214-219},
doi = {10.11648/j.aff.20221106.13},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20221106.13},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.aff.20221106.13},
abstract = {Rice is a main field crop in Fogera rain fed lowland ecosystem as stable food and straw is mainly used for cattle feed. Weed is a major constraint for rice production causing a subsequent drastic reduction of yield. Manual weeding method is extremely labor intensive and time consuming which conveys to high cost of production. The study ambition was to test different mechanical weeders with farmers to acquire their preference. Pertaining to this, four prototype mechanical weeders were developed and evaluated under rainfed lowland rice production ecosystem at Fogera. The recommended planting space of rice in the experimental area was 20cm between rows and mechanical weeders were developed 18cm wide. The rice was sown in rice field with 20cm row spacing which allows for the use of manual weeders. On the first day, one representative farmers field was identified for evaluation. The researchers together with DA’s went to the village and selected 30 farmers who had willing to participate in the evaluation practice in the following day. Before selection, farmers were asked generally whether they are volunteer to participate in this weeder evaluation activity in their own rice field or not. Based on this information, the targeted number of women and men were selected. Rotary weeder, star rotary weeder, finger-push weeder and push weeder were developed and gauged to get farmers preference. Selected weeders were gender sensitive and equal number of men and women were participated in the evaluation of mechanical weeders. Data on cropping system, crop establishment method, weed infestation and type, weeding efficiency, effective field capacity and damaged plants were collected. From this evaluation activity, two mechanical hand weeders rotary weeder and finger-push weeder were selected and distributed to farmers for future use. Women were selected finger push weeder while men have selected rotary weeder. The maximum weeding efficiency (90.2%) was observed from the rotary weeder whereas the weeding efficiency of finger-push weeder was (82.8%). However, push weeder had provided (51.3%) weeding efficiency while star rotary weeders brought (42%) of weeding efficiency. The least cost but high-cost reduction amongst the mechanical hand weeders were found from the rotary weeder while the highest cost and minimum cost reduction were attained from the push weeder. Rotary weeder and finger-push weeder generate to decrease the total cost and express very effective weeding technologies in the clay soil and ponded water level for aquatic and grass weeds in the testing sites.},
year = {2022}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Participatory Evaluation of Mechanical Hand Weeders in Rain-Fed Lowland Rice Production Ecosystems in North Western Ethiopia AU - Christian Tafere AU - Habtamu Assega AU - Betelehem Asrat AU - Zelalem Taddesse AU - Bayuh Belay Y1 - 2022/12/28 PY - 2022 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20221106.13 DO - 10.11648/j.aff.20221106.13 T2 - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries JF - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries JO - Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries SP - 214 EP - 219 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2328-5648 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.aff.20221106.13 AB - Rice is a main field crop in Fogera rain fed lowland ecosystem as stable food and straw is mainly used for cattle feed. Weed is a major constraint for rice production causing a subsequent drastic reduction of yield. Manual weeding method is extremely labor intensive and time consuming which conveys to high cost of production. The study ambition was to test different mechanical weeders with farmers to acquire their preference. Pertaining to this, four prototype mechanical weeders were developed and evaluated under rainfed lowland rice production ecosystem at Fogera. The recommended planting space of rice in the experimental area was 20cm between rows and mechanical weeders were developed 18cm wide. The rice was sown in rice field with 20cm row spacing which allows for the use of manual weeders. On the first day, one representative farmers field was identified for evaluation. The researchers together with DA’s went to the village and selected 30 farmers who had willing to participate in the evaluation practice in the following day. Before selection, farmers were asked generally whether they are volunteer to participate in this weeder evaluation activity in their own rice field or not. Based on this information, the targeted number of women and men were selected. Rotary weeder, star rotary weeder, finger-push weeder and push weeder were developed and gauged to get farmers preference. Selected weeders were gender sensitive and equal number of men and women were participated in the evaluation of mechanical weeders. Data on cropping system, crop establishment method, weed infestation and type, weeding efficiency, effective field capacity and damaged plants were collected. From this evaluation activity, two mechanical hand weeders rotary weeder and finger-push weeder were selected and distributed to farmers for future use. Women were selected finger push weeder while men have selected rotary weeder. The maximum weeding efficiency (90.2%) was observed from the rotary weeder whereas the weeding efficiency of finger-push weeder was (82.8%). However, push weeder had provided (51.3%) weeding efficiency while star rotary weeders brought (42%) of weeding efficiency. The least cost but high-cost reduction amongst the mechanical hand weeders were found from the rotary weeder while the highest cost and minimum cost reduction were attained from the push weeder. Rotary weeder and finger-push weeder generate to decrease the total cost and express very effective weeding technologies in the clay soil and ponded water level for aquatic and grass weeds in the testing sites. VL - 11 IS - 6 ER -
Email: