Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 13 No. sp3 (2026): Climate-Weed Nexus: Innovations for Sustainable Farming (CWIS 2025)

Efficacy evaluation of two-row paddy power weeder and brush cutter attached rotor with manual rotary weeder for paddy cultivation in Thiruvananthapuram district

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.13458
Submitted
30 December 2025
Published
30-04-2026

Abstract

Paddy farmers in Thiruvananthapuram district predominantly rely on manual weeding for weed management in paddy fields. The commonly observed weed flora in the region includes Digitaria ciliaris (Retz.) Koeler, Cyperus difformis L., Eleocharis spp. and Monochoria vaginalis (Burm.f.) C.Presl ex Kunth, the efficacy of mechanical weeding for Eichhornia crassipes (Mart.) Solms is critically dependent on the total extraction of all plant tissues, as incomplete removal triggers rapid clonal expansion through vegetative propagation. To evaluate the effectiveness of different weeding methods, Krishi Vigyan Kendra (KVK) conducted field trials at 30 days after transplanting (30 DAT) over a 1.5 ha paddy field at Varkala, a suburb of Thiruvananthapuram district, Kerala. The treatments comprised the manual paddy finger-type rotary weeder (T1- Technology option 1), brush cutter-attached rotor (STIHL) (T2- Technology option 2) and two-row paddy power weeder (TNAU model- Tamil Nadu Agricultural University) (T3 - Technology option 3). Mechanised transplanting was adopted with a spacing of 21 cm between plants and 30 cm between rows to facilitate efficient operation of mechanical weeders between crop rows. The 21 × 30 cm spacing used with the Kubota transplanter is optimal because the 30 cm row width exactly matches the mechanical weeder's rotors, preventing crop damage and facilitating efficient inter-row weeding. Among the tested implements, the brush cutter was found to be cumbersome, as it had to be carried on the operator’s shoulders, making its operation difficult under puddled field conditions. In contrast, the two-row paddy power weeder (T3) exhibited superior performance, recording a field capacity of 0.067 ha hr-1, weeding efficiency of 81.5 % and field efficiency of 95.71 %. The implement (two-row paddy power weeder powered by a four-stroke engine) at 0.55 L hr-1 also demonstrated lower fuel consumption (0.55 L hr-1) and reduced labour requirement (15 man-hr ha-1), while causing minimal crop damage (2 %). The grain yield obtained was 79.24 q ha-1, with a benefit-cost ratio of 2.12. Overall, the two-row paddy power weeder proved to be highly effective in covering larger areas with minimal inputs, leading to significant improvements in productivity and farmers’ income.

References

  1. 1. Basila Y. Weed management for upland rice [Ph.D. dissertation]. Department of Agronomy, College of Horticulture, Vellanikkara, India; 2020.
  2. 2. Langsenkamp F, Sellmann F, Kohlbrecher M, Kielhorn A, Strothmann W, Michaels A, et al. Tube stamp for mechanical intra-row individual plant weed control. Proceedings of the 18th World Congress of CIGR, Beijing, China. 2014;16–9.
  3. 3. Paul S, Nath BC, Huda MD, Bhuiyan MGK, Paul H. Assessment of mechanical weeders in paddy fields: A study on operational effectiveness in Bangladesh. Heliyon. 2025;11(4):e42639. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2025.e42639
  4. 4. Anuradha P, Rejimon PM. Paddy cultivation in Kerala: Trends in area, production and productivity. Int J Soc Sci Econ Res. 2025;10:1–11. https://doi.org/10.46609/IJSSER.2025.v10i04.019
  5. 5. Department of Economics & Statistics. Report on cost of cultivation of important crops in Kerala 2022–23. Kerala; 2025;10.
  6. 6. Mubshar H, Shahid F, Charles M, Khawar J. Mechanical weed control. In: Non-chemical weed control. Academic Press; 2018. p.133–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809881-3.00008-5
  7. 7. Kadam DM, Shrivastava AK, Ghanshyam D, Avinash K, Chethan CR, Yalaka N, et al. Evaluation of power weeder and comparative study of power weeder with manually operated rotary weeders and manual weeding method. J Pharmacogn Phytochem. 2019;8:2528–33.
  8. 8. Senthilkumar T, Duraisamy VM, Asokan D. Evaluation of power weeders for mechanized weeding in pulse crop cultivation. Madras Agric J. 2012;99:394–6. https://doi.org/10.29321/MAJ.10.100096
  9. 9. Ghanshyam D, Tiwari RK. Impact of weeders for weed management in system of rice intensification (SRI). Indian J Weed Sci. 2011;43:243–4.
  10. 10. Musthafa K, Jayan PR, Abraham CT. Development and testing of self-propelled cono-weeder for mechanized rice cultivation. Indian J Weed Sci. 2016;48:25–8. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2016.00005.8
  11. 11. Singh SK, Kumar A, Sarkar B, Mishra PK. Mechanized weed management to enhance productivity and profitability in system of rice intensification. Indian J Weed Sci. 2019;51:232–5. https://doi.org/10.5958/0974-8164.2019.00049.2
  12. 12. Chaiya J, Watcharachan S, Prathuang U, Pawin T, Wanrat A. Development and performance test of a mechanical rice weeder attached to a narrow steel-wheeled tractor. Int J Agric Biol Eng. 2025;18:165–8. https://doi.org/10.25165/j.ijabe.20251802.8309
  13. 13. Ragesh KT, Jogdand SV, Victor VM, Mahilang KKS, Pradan P. Development of power weeder for line sown paddy crop. Int J Agric Environ Biotechnol. 2019;12:261–5. https://doi.org/10.30954/0974-1712.08.2019.9
  14. 14. Guru PK, Patel SP, Nayak AK, Anjani K, Lal B, Gautam P. Development and evaluation of power operated weeder in rice. An Int J Rice. 2018;55:317–23. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-5266.2018.00039.5
  15. 15. Sapunii S, Karuna K. Study on comparative performances of selected paddy weeders developed in India. J Agric Eng. 2022;59. https://doi.org/10.52151/jae2022594.1786
  16. 16. Rajesh KT, Jogdand SV, Victor VM. Power weeders are useful for reducing labour costs & increasing yield. Curr J Res. 2018;6.
  17. 17. Amiama C, Bueno J, Pereira JM. Prediction of effective field capacity in forage harvesting and disk harrowing operations. Trans ASABE. 2010;53(6):1739–45. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.35797
  18. 18. Mengiste Z, Gosaye C, Hailu A. Evaluation and determination of farm machinery field capacity and work rate at Tendaho Sugar Factory. Afr J Agric Sci Technol. 2016;4(1):574–9.
  19. 19. Collado FJ. Quick evaluation of the annual heliostat field efficiency. Solar Energy. 2008;82(4):379–84. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.solener.2007.10.007
  20. 20. Mirza Hasanuzzaman MH, Islam MO, Bapari MS. Efficacy of different herbicides over manual weeding in controlling weeds in transplanted rice. Aust J Crop Sci. 2008;2(1):18–24.
  21. 21. Czepak MP, Sornberger V, Santana WD, Falcão Rosa LV, Oliveira VD, Santos KT, et al. Mechanical damage in the tillering, development and productivity of wheat. Int J Plant Soil Sci. 2019;27(6):1–7. https://doi.org/10.9734/ijpss/2019/v27i630092
  22. 22. Karparvarfard SH, Rahmanian-Koushkaki H. Development of a fuel consumption equation: Test case for a tractor chisel-ploughing in a clay loam soil. Biosyst Eng. 2015;130:23–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biosystemseng.2014.11.015
  23. 23. Bhagwan SN, Tiwari KB, Prateek S. Performance evaluation of different manual operated weeding equipment for paddy crop in vertisols. Ecol Environ Conserv. 2016;357–63.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.