Development and Evaluation of a rotary power weeder

Olaoye, J. O. and T. A. Adekanye

Department of Agricultural and Biosysytems Engineering,

University of Ilorin, Ilorin
jolanoye@unilorin.edu.ng

Abstract

Weed control is one of the most difficult tasks in agriculture that accounts for a considerable
share of the cost involved in agricultural production. Farmers generally expressed their
concern for effective weed control measures to arrest the growth and propagation of weeds.
Chemical method of weed control is more prominent than manual and mechanical methods.
However, its adverse effects on the environment are making farmers to consider and accept
mechanical methods of weed control. Manual weeding is common in Nigerian agriculture. It
is the most widely used weed control method but it is labour intensive. The use of mechanical
weeder will reduce drudgery and ensure a comfortable posture of the farmer or operator
during weeding. This will resultantly increase production. It is against this background that a
rotary power weeder was developed. Results of field performance evaluation showed that the
field capacity and weeding efficiency of the rotary power weeder were 0.0712 ha/hr and
73%. The cost of operation with this weeder was estimated to be N 2,700.00 / ha as against N
12,000.00 / ha by manual weeding.

Keywords: Rotary weeder; weeding; field performance; tines; weed density

1. Introduction

A weed is essentially any plant which grows where it is unwanted. A weed can be thought of
as any plant growing in the wrong place at the wrong time and doing more harm than good
(Parish, 1990). It is a plant that competes with crops for water, nutrients and light. This can
reduce crop production. Some weeds have beneficial uses but not usually when they are
growing among crops. Weeds decrease the value of land, particularly perennial weeds which
tend to accumulate on long fallows; increase cost of cleaning and drying crops (where drying
is necessary). Weeds waste excessive proportions of farmers’ time, thereby acting as a brake
on development. Lavabre (1991).

Weeding is the removal of unwanted plants in the field crops. Mechanical weed control is
very effective as it helps to reduce drudgery involved in manual weeding, it kills the weeds
and also keeps the soil surface loose ensuring soil aeration and water intake capacity.

Weeding is an important but equally labour intensive agricultural unit operation. There is an
increasing interest in the use of mechanical intra-row weeders because of concern over
environmental degradation and a growing demand for organically produced food. Today the
agricultural sector requires non-chemical weed control that ensures food safety. Consumers
demand high quality food products and pay special attention to food safety. Through the
technical development of mechanisms for physical weed control, such as precise inter-and
intra-row weeders, it might be possible to control weeds in a way that meets consumer and
environmental demands. These mechanisms contribute significantly to safe food production

129
(Pullen & Cowell, 1997; Fogelberg & Kritz, 1999; Kurstjens & Perdok, 2000; Blasco et al.,
2002).

1.2 Weed Control Methods

Weed control is one of the most expensive field operations in crop production. Indeed, the
detrimental effects of weeds in agriculture in developing countries far exceed those of all
crop pests. Njoku (1996) reported that uncontrolled weeds growth reduces yield of the
principal crops while untimely weeding reduces the returns from the overall investments in
the production of crops. Igbeka (1984) reported that timeliness rather than frequency of
weeding is a major determinant of effective weed control.

Anyawu et al., (1976) reported that biological method of weed control involves the use of
parasites to control weeds that is killing weeds with their natural enemies. For this method to
succeed, the insects that can feed on the weed are isolated. These insects are made to survive
and reproduce in the environment where the weeds grow.

Anyawu et al., (1976) also reported that biological control of weeds includes the use of cover
crops and leguminous which are grown in association with the crops. The cover crops creep
on the land to cover the soil, thereby preventing development of weeds by chocking them out.
The use of mucuna mulch can be used as an effective supplement with mechanical weed
control. The effectiveness of supplementing mucuna mulching weed control must be
considered with appropriate hand-pulling of weed using a special V-shaped hoe and mowing
weeds with about a 2-kW engine mower.

The combination of two or more methods of weed control at low input levels should be
considered to reduce the weed competition to the possible minimum level; this was observed
as the most appropriate solution to the problem of weed control by Singh et al., (1985).
Buckingham (1976) asserted that a complete weed control programme must include primary
tillage and secondary tillage planting practices, cultivation of row crops and the use of
herbicides. Singh et al., (1981) claimed that herbicides can reduce the labour requirement
tremendously, but there was inconsistency in their performance. The inconsistency included
the cost of herbicides relative to labour, farmers’ lack of knowledge about the rate, time and
method of application. Also, unavailability of herbicides and sprayers are some of the major
factors that restrict the use of herbicides by small scale farmers. These limitations make
mechanical method of controlling weeds preferable to the use of herbicides. So many
researchers had worked on development and analysis of a ridge profile weeder (Odigbo and
Ahmed, 1979; Oni, 1990; Nganilwa et al., 2003).

Kepner et al., (1978) claimed that mechanical method of weed control is the best with little or
no limitation because of its effectiveness. According to Kepner et al., (1978) and
Buckingham (1976), the primary objective of row crop cultivation is to enhance the use of
farm machinery for eliminating weeds from the crop land. The effect of this method is to
promote plant growth and better quality crops. However, the use of such machine is not
common and the availability of a mechanical weeder is scarce.

The objective of this study is to develop and evaluate the performance of a rotary power
weeder. The machine is conceived to meet the yearning needs of small farm holders.

2. Material and Method

130
2.1 Assumptions

The assumptions made in the design of the rotary weeder are presented in terms of field
conditions, machine capacity and energy requirement required to power it.

The machine is to be powered by a 5-hp internal combustion engine. Belt and Pulley
arrangement shall be employed for transmission of power. Engine speed is 3600 rpm,
diameter of pulley = 50 mm, diameter of pulley on shaft = 50  6 = 300 mm, pulley ratio =
1:6, shaft speed = 600 rpm, maximum soil resistance value = 1.05 kgf/cm2, coefficient of
friction = 0.1, efficiency of transmission system = 82%.

2.2 Design Process

Bainer et al. (1978) asserted that in designing row-crop weed control equipment, the age of
the weed must be taken into consideration. In the early stages of crop growth, implements
such as rotary hoe, the spring tine and spike arrows can be operated directly over the rows to
uproot small weeds from established crops.

According to Hunt (1983), cultivators are equipped with various types of tools depending on
the soil condition. Shovels are for deep working soil, throwing up rooting weeds. Sweepers
are shallow depth weed cutting tools.

Hunt (1983) asserted that, in the design of a rotary hoe, there must be uniform and adequate
penetration of the tools. This, he obtained by adding weights to the rotary hoe and to spike-
tooth harrow. In the design of a manually operated machine, the power supplied by man
working continuously should be taken into consideration. Liljedah et al. (1979), claimed that
human being as power units are limited to less than 0.1 kW output. This suggests that the
weight of the implement must be considered and made to bear in the selection of the
materials for construction.

2.2.1 Power requirement

The power requirement was calculated using the following equations:

(1)

where,

SR = soil resistance, kgf/cm2 ;

d = depth of cut, cm:
w = effective width of cut, cm:
v = linear velocity of the tine at the point of contact with the soil.

Hence, power requirement is estimated as

2.2.2 Total power required

131
The total power required is estimated as 4.23 hp as follows

where,

Pd = Power required to dig the soil:

η= Transmission efficiency.

Thus, a prime mover of 5 hp was required for this weeder.

2.2.3 Belt and shaft selection

The belt, pulley and shaft selection was based on Agricultural Machinery Management Data.
D230-4 (ASAE, 1986).

2.2.4 Weeding Tines

Each hoe consists of twelve tines of equal lengths determined as follows (Fig. 1).

Considering sector ABC, length of arc AB which forms the curved tines may be calculated as

(2)

= 138 mm

where,

r = 3R/5 = radius of curvature:

R = outer wheel radius, mm:
 = 900
1= outer wheel diameter, mm:
2= Disk hole diameter, mm
2.3 Machine Description

The weeder consists of the following components; a 5 hp-petrol engine, three ground wheels
(pneumatic), tool assembly, frame and handle. The weeder is pushed manually and the power
to the rotary hoe is supplied from the engine through belt and pulley arrangement (Fig. 2).
The weeding tines on a cylindrical discs were arranged radially at equidistance of 30mm
along the disc circumference. Each tine was made of steel rod of 12 mm diameter and has an
arc of 30mm. The rotary power weeder is to be powered by a 5-hp internal combustion
engine (ICE). Belt and pulley arrangement was adopted for transmission of power. The
maximum rating of the 5hp ICE was 3600 rpm fixed with a pulley diameter of 50 mm on the
shaft carrying the rotary tines. The various components of the machine were constructed
while other standard components, such as prime mover and transmission elements were
sourced locally and the parts were assembled at the fabrication workshop of the Department

132
of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, University of Ilorin, Ilorin. The front view and
the isometric view of the rotary weeder were shown as Figures 3 and 4.

3. Performance Evaluation and Experimental Analysis

The performance evaluation of the constructed rotary power weeder was conducted on the
experimental field of Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering, University of
Ilorin, ilorin Nigeria.The performance evaluations were conducted to investigate the effect of
weed density on performance of four weeding tools.

The experimental area was infested mostly with weeds like Trifolium repens (clover),
cryperus eragrotis (umbrella sledge), cyperus rotumdus (Nut grass), cynodon dactrylon
(couch grass), cynosures echinatus (Dog’s Tail), phyllanthus amarus (Petty spurge), Lactuca
taracifolia (Wild lettuce), Sida acuta (broom weed), Imperata cylindrical (logongrass),
Amarantus spinosus (thorny pig weed) and Eleusine indicae (goose grass).

Prior to each weeding schedule, weed density in each experimental unit was determined by
laying-out a squared grid (0.3m  0.3m) in the plot and weeds in the grid were counted. Three
such determinations were made for each experimental unit

3.1 Experimental Factors

Experimental factors used in the field evaluation of the constructed rotary power weeder were
five (5) levels of speeds in three blocks. The weeding speeds evaluated were 1804 rpm, 2004
rpm, 2435 rpm, 2261 rpm and 3506 rpm

3.2 Performance Indicators

Performance indicators used for this experiment includes the following:

3.2.1 Weeding Index

Weeding index is a ratio between the number of weeds removed by a weeder and the number
present in a unit area and is expressed as a percentage (Rangasamy, et al., 1993).

Nine plots of 27m x 2m each were marked out of the main plot for sampling. Weeds in each
plot were counted before and after weeding using the constructed rotary weeder. The time
taken to perform this operation were noted. Equation 3 was used to calculate weeding index.

(3)

where,
W1 = weeds before weeding
W2 = weeds after weeding

3.2.2 Weeding Efficiency

The weeder was tested on the plots described in 4.2.1 to determine weeding efficiency. The
weeding efficiency was evaluated by using equation 4.

133
 (4)

where,

W1 = number of weeds before weeding,

W2 = number of weeds after weeding,

 = weeding efficiency

3.2.3 Field Capacity

The weeding tools were tested on the same plots to determine the field capacity of each of
them. Field capacity is the amount of area that a weeding tool can cover per unit time as
shown in equation 5.

Field Capacity (ha/h) (5)

where,

A = Area covered (m2),

t = Time taken in minutes

4. Results and Discussion

4.1 Weeding Efficiency

This was determined by counting the number of weeds before and after using the developed
weeder on the 3 blocks (replicated three times). Detail records are presented in Table 1 and 2.
Table 1 shows that higher engine speed leads to higher weeding efficiency. However, Table 2
shows the relationship between forward speed and weeding efficiency, it was observed that
operating the weeder at higher speeds above 0.8 m/s was characterized with rough weeding.
2261 rpm is ideal speed for this weeder as shown in Figure 5.

4.2 Effect of Engine Speed on Weed Density

Table 1 shows the number of unremoved weeds after weeding trials at different levels of
engine speed. It shows that engine speed has a proportional effect on iron rod tine, i.e. engine
speed influenced the efficiency of the weeder.

4.3 Field Capacity

The field capacity of the power weeder at various levels of speed was observed to range from
0.068 ha/hr and 0.079 ha/hr as shown in Figure 6.

134
5. CONCLUSIONS

A rotary weeder was designed and constructed to be powered by a 5 hp-petrol engine and to
be operated on a three ground wheels (pneumatic).

The results of the performance evaluation of the developed weeder indicated that the engine
speed influenced the weeding efficiency of the rotary weeder and rough weeding was
observed at a higher speed of 3506 rpm.

The forward speeds of 0.4 m/s to 0.5 m/s and engine speeds of 1804 rpm to 2261 rpm
resulted in weeding efficiency of 54.98% to 59.05%.

The machine operated at the field capacity of 0.079 ha/hr and the cost of weeding operation
of one hectare was estimated to be N 2,700.00 as against N 12,000.00 by manual weeding.

References

Anyawu, A. C., Anyawu, B. O. and Anyawu, A. A. 1976. Agriculture for school certificate.
Africana Education Publication (Nig.) in association with FEP Int. Ltd.
ASAE, 1986. Agricultural Machinery Management Data. D230-4. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers. Pp. 159-163
Bainer, R., Barger, E. L. and Kepner, R. A. (1978). Principles of Farm Machinery. Avi
publication Co. Inc. Westport, Connecticus. 3rd Edition.
Blasco J., Aleixos N., Roger J., Rabatel E. & Molto E. (2002) Robotic weed control using
machine vision. Biosystems Engineering, 83 (2), 149-157.
Buckingham, F. 1976. Fundamentals of machine Operation. John Deere Service Publication,
Moline, Iowa, USA
Fogelberg F. & Kritz G. (1999) Intra-row weeding with brushes on vertical Axes-factors
influencing in-row soil height. Soil & Tillage Research, 50, 149-157.
Hunt, D. (1983). Farm Power and Machinery Management. 8th Edition. Iowa State
University Press. AMES. Iowa USA.
Igbeka, J. C. 1984. Development in Rice Production Mechanization. AMA. 10(1). 27-32.
Kepner, R. A., Bainer, R. and Barger, E. L. 1978. Principles of farm machinery, 3rd edition,
AVI publication Co., INC., Westport, Connecticut .
Kurstjens D., Perdok U. & Goense D. (2000) Selective uprooting by weed harrowing on
sandy soils. Weed research, 40, 431-447.
Kurstjens D. A. G. & Perdok U. D. (2000) The selective soil covering mechanism of weed
harrows on sandy soils. Soil & Tillage Research, (55), 193-206.
Lavabre, E. M. (1991). Weed Control. Macmillian Education Ltd., London
Liljedah, J. B., Carleton, P. K. and Smith, D. W. (1979). Tractor and their Power Units. 3 rd
Edition. John Wiley and Sons. New York.

135
Nganilwa, Z. M., Makungu, P. J. and Mpanduji, S. M. 2003. Development and Assessment of
an Engine Powered hand held weeder in Tanzania. International Conference on
Industrial Design Engineering, UDSM, Dare salam.
Njoku, P. C. 1996. The Role of Universities of Agriculturei Appropriate Manpower
Development for Weed Management in Agriculture. Nigerian Journal of Weed
Science. Vol. 9, 65.
Odigboh, E. U. and Ahmed, S. F. 1979. Development of a Ridge Profile Weeder. AMA.
21(1): 43-48
Oni, K. C. (1990). Performance Analysis of a Ridge Profile Weeder. Proceeding of Nigerian
Society of Agricultural Engineers. 3: 189-199.
Parish S. (1990) A review of non-chemical weed control techniques. Biological Agriculture
and Horticulture, 7, 117-137.
Pullen D. & Cowell P. (1997) An evaluation of the performance of mechanical Weeding
mechanisms for use in high speed inter-row weeding for Arable Crops. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering Research, 67, 27-34.
Rangasamy, K., Balasubramanian, M. and Swaminuthan, K. R. 1993. Evaluation of Power
Weeder Performance. AMA. 24(4): 16-18.
Singh, C. M., Moodey, J. and Cho, S. C. 1981. The Efficiency of the Rolling Weeder in
Controlling Weeds in Dry-Seeded Rainfall Rice. Paper presented at the cropping
system seminar. International Rice Res. Institute. Los Banos, Phillipines, Feb.24.
Singh, C. M., Moodey, J. and Cho, S. C. 1985. Weed Control through Inter-Row Cultivation
in Upland Rice. AMA. 16(3): 34-40.

136
Table 1: Number of weeds removed and efficiencies at various engine speeds (Rod tine
weeder)
Engine Blocks Weed Density Number of Efficiency
speed Before After weeds removed (%)
(rpm) weeding weeding
1804 1 520 242 279 53.7
2 554 242 312 56.4
3 603 278 325 54.9
2004 1 578 246 332 58.5
2 616 266 350 57.8
3 668 291 377 57.5
2261 1 652 275 377 58.9
2 695 292 403 59.1
3 754 316 438 59.1
2435 1 703 262 441 63.7
2 746 277 468 63.8
3 812 303 509 63.7
3506 1 1012 257 755 75.6
2 1075 311 764 72.1
3 1169 335 834 72.4

137
 Table 2: Time taken, speed and efficiencies for various engine speeds (Rod tine weeder)
Engine Distance Time taken (Seconds) Forward Speed (m/s) Efficiency (%)
speed moved Block Block Block Mean Block Block Block Means Block Block Block Mean
(rpm) (m) 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3
1804 27 55.09 52.33 52.88 53.35 0.4901 0.4551 0.5102 0.4851 53.67 56.37 54.89 54.98

2004 27 51.00 51.44 52.44 51.63 0.5294 0.5249 0.5149 0.5231 58.48 57.81 57.52 57.94

2261 27 47.35 46.23 46.75 46.78 0.5702 0.5840 0.5775 0.5772 58.87 59.11 59.18 59.05

2435 27 45.48 45.41 45.49 45.46 0.5937 0.5946 0.5935 0.5939 63.73 63.79 63.71 63.74

3506 27 31.74 32.00 31.85 31.86 0.8507 0.8438 0.8477 0.8474 75.62 72.10 72.41 73.37

138
 Fig. 1: Sketch of a disk with tines

Fig. 2: Shematic illustration of Rotary Power Weeder

139
Fig. 3: Front View of the Rotary Weeder

Fig. 4: Rotary Power Weeder

140
141