Misr J. Ag. Eng.

, 31 (3): 703 - 728 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF SMALL-

SCALE POWER WEEDER

R. A. Hegazy I. A. Abdelmotaleb Z. M. Imara M. H. Okasha

ABSTRACT
Small-scale power weeders are an important and challenging task in
many countries, where the farm size in hectare per capita is very low and
is declining over time. Therefore, the development of suitable mechanized
weeding methods is an imperative to meet the demand for farmers. An
economical mechanical power weeder that can be used as inter and
intra-row weeding method was developed and evaluated in triple hybrid
314 variety of maize. Developed power weeder consisted of engine,
blades assembly and transmission system. Modified vertical blades were
used with the weeder and mounted on a circular rotating element on its
horizontal side; the motion was transferred to blades units by amended
transmission system. The effect of weeder forward speeds, depth of
operation, number of blades and soil moisture content on fuel
consumption, plant damage, weeding index, effective field capacity, field
efficiency, energy required per unit area and total cost were studied.
Three levels of soil moisture content (7.73, 12.28 and 16.18 %), two
blades arrangements (two and four vertical blades for each unit), three
weeder forward speeds (1.8, 2.1 and 2.4 km/h) and two depths of
operation (from 0 to 20 and from 20 to 40 mm) have been chosen. The
results showed that, the minimum value of fuel consumption was 0.546
l/h and recorded by using two blades with 1.8 km/h weeder forward
speed at depth of operation ranged from 0-20 mm and soil moisture
content 16.18 %. The highest field efficiency was 89.88% by using two
blades with 1.8 km /h weeder forward speed at depth of operation ranged
from 0 to 20 mm and soil moisture content 16.18%. The minimum value
of effective field capacity was 0.198 fed/h by using four blades, weeder


Assistant Professor, Agric. Eng. Dept., Faculty of Agric., Kafrelsheikh University.

Professor, Agric. Eng. Dept., Faculty of Agric., Kafrelsheikh University.

Head Researcher, Agricultural Engineering Res. Inst. Dokki, Giza.

Engineer, Rice Mechanization Research Center, Meet El- Deeba, Kafrelsheikh, Egypt.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 703 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

forward speed 1.8 km/h, soil moisture content 7.73% and under depth of
operation ranged from 20-40 mm. The lower value of total cost was
55.09 L.E /fed and was obtained by using two blades with 2.4 km/h
weeder forward speed at depth of operation ranged from 0-20 mm and
soil moisture content 16.18 %.
Keywords: Mechanical weeding, small-scale, vertical blades, powered
weeder, weeding index.
INTRODUCTION

I
n Egypt, Maize is essential for livestock and human consumption
as an available source of carbohydrate, oil and slightly for protein,
where the production quantity of this crop in the year 2011 was
6876473 tonnes (FAO, 2011). Competition between maize and weeds is
still a serious challenge to crop production; weeds compete with maize
crop for nutrients, light, space and water, therefor weed control between
rows (inter-row) and within rows (intra-row) in maize plants are
necessary and important to achieve maximum productivity. Mechanical
weed control is effective in controlling weeds as well as it benefits the
crop by breaking up the surface crust, aeration of soil, stimulating the
activity of soil microflora, reducing the evaporation of soil moisture and
facilitating the infiltration of rainwater. Hemeda and Ismail (1992)
developed and evaluated a cultivator for inter-row cotton cultivation, the
idea was to construct and develop a combined sweep type tool to be used
extensively for grass and weed control. This type is considered highly
efficient in smoothing the soil surface, but it caused the drifting of weeds
without cutting. Two shares were added on both sides of the main sweep
at different angles (15, 20 and 25°) to improve the weed cutting
efficiency among rows. Pitoyo et al. (2000) reported that the
development of a power weeder for mechanical control of weeds in the
rice field. The machine is driven by two strokes engine 2HP/6500 rpm.
The machine performance was 15 hours/ha capacity at traveling speed
1.8 km/h. the mass of the machine was 24.5 kg. The pulverizing effect
caused by turning of hexagonal ratavator could destroy weed effectively.
(Singh, 2001) indicated that Mechanical cultivation is still the most
important method used in controlling weeds and still, generally, the most

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 704 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

economical method, which is recommended from the standpoint of

pollution of the environment. As an example for required cost to operate
a rotary weeder, the cost of weeding was 63% more than wheel hand hoe
and 72% less than chemical control. Pannu et al. (2002) evaluated a self-
propelled, engine operated power weeder, which has a diesel engine of
3.8 hp (2600 rpm), as a power source, this weeder was found to be
suitable for weeding in wider row crops like maize, cotton, sugarcane etc.
The moisture content of the soil at the time of evaluation was 17-18 %;
the depth of operation ranged from 4-7 cm, the weeding efficiency of
88% was obtained. Victor and Verma (2003) designed and developed a
power operated rotary weeder for wetland paddy. A 0.5 hp petrol driven
engine was used for power weeder with a reduction gear box. The power
transmission from engine to traction wheel and to the cutting unit was
provided. They concluded that with 200 mm spacing, the field capacity
of the machine varied between 0.04-0.06 ha/h with field efficiency of 71
%. The weeding efficiency of the machine was 90.5%. Alexandrou et al.
(2003) evaluated the finger weeder and obtained weed efficiency results
of 61%. Manian and Arvinda (2004) developed and evaluated weeding
cum earthing equipment for cotton. The unit was evaluated for its
performance with the available weeder and conventional method of
weeding. Manual weeding using hand hoe registered the maximum
efficiency of 82.56 percent (wet basis). The weeding efficiency of tractor
drawn weeding cum earthing up equipment was 60.24 percent (wet
basis). (Cloutier et al., 2007) stated that mechanical weed control is
generally widespread and used by farmers who do not use herbicides and
recommendations always come to control weed during the early crop
stages because limited tractor and cultivator ground clearance and
machine-plant contact may potentially damage the crop foliage at later
growth stages.
To control weeds within the crop rows, mechanical intra-row weeder is
developed and accomplishes their goal using two different approaches
depending on the crop density. The first approach is to use selective
machines or add-on tools that can perform weed control close to the crop,
The second approach is to use machines that have weeding tools that
move sideways to conduct weed control around the crop canopy. The

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 705 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

finger weeder is a simple mechanical intra-row weeder that uses two sets
of steel cone wheels to which rubber spikes (fingers) are affixed.
Manuwa et al. (2009) designed and developed a power weeder with a
working width of 0.24 m for weeding in row crop planting. Effective
field capacity, fuel consumption and field efficiency of the machine were
0.53 ha/h, 0.7 l/h and 95%, respectively. Cordill and Grift (2011)
addressed the related problem of achieving mechanical intra-row weed
control in maize, and successfully design a machine to remove weed
within the row by enabling dual tine carriers to engage the soil whilst
circumventing the maize stalks. Bin Ahmad (2012) suggested that to
design an effective intra-row power operated weeder; the weeder should
be targeted for different scale crops production and to achieve intra-row
weed control efficiency of 80% or more. Also, the weeder should be able
to control weeds with minimal crop plant damage with low bulky overall
dimensions of the weeder.
In addition, different types of power operated weeders have been
developed and evaluated around the world;
Under Egyptian condition, the control of weeds and grasses has always
been one of the greatest time and labor consuming operation in the crop
production, in addition to that, farm sizes are gradually declining over
time due to the fragmentation of agricultural holdings. Therefore, the
present work has been planned with the following specific objectives:
1. To develop an economical small-scale power operated weeder
suitable for small farm holder in Egypt.
2. Study the performance of the weeder and its new designed vertically
rotating blades as new concept for mechanical weed control.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This part is including materials and methods adopted for the development
and field performance of small-scale power weeder. This study was
conducted in the Rice Mechanization Research Center (RMC), Meet El-
Deeba, Kafrelsheikh Governorate, Egypt during agriculture season 2012
for maize crop variety of triple hybrid 314.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 706 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

1. Development of power weeder:

The power operated weeder is developed to carry out the weeding
operations in the field, where, the weeder moves due to the thrust
provided by the soil engaged vertical blades. The major parts of the
power weeder are engine, blades assembly and transmission system.
1.1. Weeder engine:
Engine is mounted on the back side of the machine while sets of vertical
blades on the front side to provide stability and easy handling. The power
source of cultivating unit was taken from the prime mover of Kubota
AR120 rice and wheat reaper after separating the reaping unit. As the
main goal of the proposed research is to use minimum power required to
run the developed power weeder, the chosen engine was classified as
small engine size. The continuous rated output of the engine is 3.5 hp.
1.2. Designs of vertical rotating blades:
To develop and design the power weeder blade, functional requirement
and consideration were:
a) Blade should be able to cut the soil properly without causing
unnecessary damage to the sharpening edge.
b) The blades should be preferably designed, so that they do not enter the
soil at the same time, but gradually (this helps in reducing the impact of
the blades on the soil).
c) The speed of the blade and forward speed of machine should be
adjusted to cut sufficient uniform part every time with considering that
the bottom uniformity of the furrow is more or less.
So, locally manufactured vertical type blades were used in the study and
mounted on a circular rotating element on its horizontal side. The
available types of blades in markets were mostly rotary blades that can be
fixed around the main rotating shaft periphery in rotary weeders.
Therefore, the shape and dimensions of blades were determined as
modified L-shape with angled cutting edge (Figure 1). Different
parameters used in the study and have been in consideration to give safe
strength and bending values for manufactured blades during weeding
operation,

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 707 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

Figure 1: Expected shape of designed blade for power weeder (1: was
considered as blade edge length, 2: was considered as blade
edge width).
The calculation and assumptions are based on standard handbook of
machine design were followed (Shigley et al., 2004). Assumption was
made as follows; Number of blades in one working set = 4; Length of
blade = 6 cm; Width of blade = 5 cm. to calculate the design strength of
blade, we considered; revolution per minute as engine output (N) = 1200
r.p.m; radius of engine output rotor (R) = 0.017 m. Therefore, speed of
engine output (u) will be:
u = 2 π R N = 2 π × 0.017 × 1200=128.2 m/min …………….. (1)
V 2πR
Moreover, expected Length of soil slice, L  U Z ………..…. (2)
Where; V = Average forward speed of the machine (35 m/min); U =
Peripheral velocity provided by engine (128.2 m/min at 1200 rpm); R =
50 mm as a maximum required depth of cut; and Z = Number of blades
so, L will be:
Maximum force required to cut the soil for each blade (P);
P = p A = 0.57 ×2.2 × 6 = 7.524 kg / each blade ……… (3)
Where; P = Specific resistance of soil = 0.57 kg/cm2 (for medium firm
soil); A = Area to be disturbed, A= a × length of soil slice; and a =

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 708 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

Assumed edge length of the blade. If we have maximum four blades but
only one can cut and disturb the soil, and 3 sets in the power rotor, so the
maximum force required to cut the soil by the weeder.
P max = 7.524 × 3 = 22.57 kg

Cutting force per unit length of blade (pa) = 22.57 = 3.76 kg/cm length of
6
blade.
Taking this as beam (cantilever) with uniformly distributed load, both
maximum bending load and moment of inertia can be calculates as
below:
p a a 2 3.76 6 2
Maximum bending load =  = 67.68 kg  cm .…. (4)
2 2
1 1
Moment of inertia = ed3   0.7  53  7.29cm4 …………..… (5)
12 12
Where; d is assumed width of blade edge, 0.05 m; and e is assumed
maximum thickness of blade edge, 0.007 m. To check for bending;
p a3
deflection for cantilever beam = , Where; E = 2.1 × 106 kg /cm2 for
3E I
high carbon steel. The value will be:
22.57  6 3
Deflection = = 1.06  10-4 cm ………………….… (6)
3  2.1 106  7.29

It is almost negligible and for safe design deflection should be < a/1200
(1.06 × 10-4 < 5 × 10-3), so, it is safe. The manufactured sets of blades are
shown in Figure 2.
1.3. Power transmission system:
In order to provide suitable, smooth and effective motion to the weeder
blades, a modified transmission system was used. A shaft transmits the
power from gearbox to the side drive (chain and sprocket). It is simply
supported over two bearings and is welded on one side to the gear. The
sprocket is keyed to the shaft with the help of a key. The shaft has a step
of 3.5 mm on the sprocket side to account for mounting of bearing and
sprocket. The motion from side drive transferred by using chains and

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 709 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

gears arrangements that transmit the power coming from the gearbox via
a main transmission shaft to the rotor shaft.

Figure 2: The manufactured modified L-shape blades type with cutting edge.
Figure 3 shows the transmission system used in power weeder. To
reverse the direction of motion that comes from the engine, a horizontal
shaft equipped with bevel gears has been chosen carefully and according
to Khurmi and Gupta (2005). According to calculations used to
determine the required diameter of the rotating shaft, the recommended
shaft diameter should not be less than 17 mm.

Figure 3: Plane view of transmission system used with power weeder.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 710 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

1.4. Assembling of power weeder:

After finalizing the dimensions of manufactured parts, assembling of all
parts together was done and located in suitable frame, which carry the
different units without baulking the performance of the engine and the
weeder .Tests done to judge the machine transmission mechanisms as
shown in Figure 4. Technical drawing of the machine is presented in
Figure 5. From an operator's safety point of view, the chain and sprocket
system was getting covered. Also, the rubber seal between the cover and
housing of the chain valves was incorporated to avoid dust accumulation.
Provision of check nuts on all the transmission shafts was provided.

Figure 4: Assembling of power weeder in the workshop and testing

the mechanism of motion.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 711 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

1.5. Depth of operation control arrangement:

In addition to the above mentioned arrangements done for the weeder, a
depth of operation control device was used with the weeder; this
arrangement makes the weeder working in a stable depth with minimum
variation as shown in Figure 6.

Figure 5: Technical drawing of developed power weeder.

2. Field experimental treatments, technique and layout:
An area of 1.1 feddan of clay soil was used and divided into three parts
for weeder experiments; every part consists of (31×50 m2). Another part
was left for traditional manually weed control method as a control. Each
part of the field divided into 36 plots to cover the different variables with
three replications. Each plot had width from 0.7 to 1 m (average 0.85 m)
with fixed length for the field of 50 m.
Both independent and dependent variables used in the study were as
shown in Table 1.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 712 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

Figure 6: Arrangement done to control the depth of operation during

usage of weeder as inter-row method.

Table 1: Independent and dependent variables.

Independent variables and their levels
Soil moisture content 7.73, 12.28 and 16.18, % (dry basis)
Blades arrangement for each unit Two and four vertical blades

Forward speed 1.8, 2.1 and 2.4, km/h.

Depth of operation From 0 to 20 mm and from 20 to 40
mm
Dependent Variables:
Fuel consumption Weeding Index
Plant damage Effective field capacity
Field efficiency Total cost
Energy required per agricultural unit area

Standard tools, equations and methods have been used to measure all
required variable in laboratories as well as in the experimental field. the
split -split design was followed in the study. The experimental data was
analyzed statistically. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) used by using
XLSTAT package and the critical difference at 5% level of significance
was observed for testing the significance of difference between different
treatments and the standard deviation (S.D.) was generated too.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 713 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Results of the study undertaken regarding the influences of some
operational parameters have been presented and discussed in this part.
1 - Fuel consumption:
At soil moisture content 7.73 % the fuel consumption increased by 19.4
and 10.6 % when the depth of operation increased from 0-20 to 20-40
mm for 2.1 and 2.4 km/h and by using two blades respectively.
Moreover, the increasing percentages in fuel consumption were 14.6 and
3.7 % when the depth of operation increased from 0-20 to 20-40 mm for
2.1 and 2.4 km/h weeder forward speeds and by using four blades
respectively (Figure 7). Under different levels of soil moisture content,
the results cleared that, there was a reduction in fuel consumption by 14
% when the soil moisture content increased from 12.28 to 16.18 % by
using two blades with 1.8 km/h for weeder forward speed and depth of
operation ranged from 20-40 mm. The minimum value of fuel
consumption was 0.546 l/h and was recorded by using two blades with
1.8 km/h weeder forward speed at depth of operation ranged from 0-20
mm and soil moisture content 16.18 %. While, the maximum value of
fuel consumption was 0.936 l/h and was recorded by using four blades
with 2.4 km/h weeder forward speed at depth of operation ranged from
20-40 mm and soil moisture content 7.73 %. Modelling data by using
analysis of variance (ANOVA) in Table 4 showed that the two depths of
operation had significant effect on fuel consumption with standard
deviation (S.D.) 0.110.
2 - Effective field capacity:
Figure 8 shows that as the depth of operation increased, the effective
field capacity decreased. At 7.73% soil moisture content when the depth
of operation increased from 0-20 to 20-40 mm, the effective field
capacity decreased from 0.204 to 0.199 and from 0.200 to 0.198 fed/h
with 1.8 km/h weeder forward speed and by using two and four blades,
respectively. In addition, it was clear that the effective field capacity
increased with increasing weeder forward speed. Values of effective field
capacity increased from 0.204 to 0.222 and from 0.199 to 0.217 Fed/h
when the weeder forward speed increased from 1.8 to 2.1 km/h for two

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 714 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

Figure 7: Effect of weeder forward speed, number of blades and

depth of operation on fuel consumption at different soil
moisture contents.
depths of operation 0-20 and 20-40 mm and by using two blades,
respectively. At the different levels of soil moisture content 7.73, 12.28

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 715 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

and 16.18 % the values of effective field capacity were 0.204, 0.219 and
0.231 fed/h for 1.8 km/h weeder forward speed, 0-20 mm depth of
operation and by using two blades. The maximum value of effective field
capacity was 0.284 fed/h and achieved by using two blades with 2.4 km/h
weeder forward speed at depth of operation ranged from 0-20 mm and
soil moisture content 16.18 %. Modelling data by using analysis of
variance (ANOVA) in Table 4 showed that the soil moisture content and
forward speed had significant effects on effective field capacity with
standard deviation (S.D.) 0.023.
Table 2: Standard deviation and type III sum of squares analysis at 95%
confidence interval excluding values of interaction at 2 levels for
fuel consumption, effective field capacity, field efficiency and
weeding index.
Fuel Consumption : Std. deviation (0.110)
Source DF Sum of Mean squares F
Soil moisture content 2 squares
0.270 0.135 853.684
Depth of operation , mm 1 0.741 0.741 4680.037
Forward speed, km/h. 2 0.166 0.083 524.363
Blades arrangement 1 0.026 0.026 165.441
Replications 2 0.001 0.000 2.998
Effective Field Capacity : Std. deviation (0.023)
Soil moisture content 2 0.021 0.011 2038.107
Depth of operation , mm 1 0.002 0.002 300.398
Forward speed, km/h. 2 0.032 0.016 3044.266
Blades arrangement 1 0.001 0.001 135.131
Replications 2 0.000 0.000 0.063
Field Efficiency: Std. deviation (6.141)
Soil moisture content 2 2350.263 1175.132 2108.597
Depth of operation , mm 1 177.973 177.973 319.345
Forward speed, km/h. 2 1309.365 654.682 1174.729
Blades arrangement 1 75.334 75.334 135.175
Replications 2 0.109 0.055 0.098
Weeding Index: Std. deviation (4.838 )
Soil moisture content 2 1353.033 676.516 549.179
Depth of operation , mm 1 463.846 463.846 376.539
Forward speed, km/h. 2 35.946 17.973 14.590
Blades arrangement 1 384.956 384.956 312.497
Replications 2 27.156 13.578 11.022

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 716 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

Figure 8: Effect of weeder forward speed, number of blades and

depth of operation on effective field capacity at different soil
moisture contents.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 717 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

using four blades, that was observed under all the different variables
used. The minimum value of field efficiency was 67.44% and was
recorded by using four blades with 2.4 km/h weeder forward speed for
20-40 mm depth of operation. The maximum value of field efficiency
was 89.88% and was recorded by using two blades with 1.8 km /h
weeder forward speed at depth of operation ranged from 0-20 mm and
soil moisture content 16.18%. Modelling data by using analysis of
variance (ANOVA) in Table 4 showed that the soil moisture content and
forward speed had significant effects on field efficiency with standard
deviation (S.D.) 6.141.
Table 3: Field efficiency as affected by various parameters.
Depth of Forward No of Field efficiency, %
operation, speed, Moisture content, %
blades /set
mm km/h. 7.73 12.28 16.18
1.8 2 79.37 85.05 89.88
1.8 4 77.94 83.52 88.71
2.1 2 73.77 82.44 86.55
0-20 2.1 4 72.77 80.33 84.88
2.4 2 71.42 75.41 82.79
2.4 4 69.18 73.07 80.36
Average 74.07 79.97 85.52
1.8 2 77.69 81.58 87.93
1.8 4 76.91 80.54 86.63
2.1 2 72.44 75.55 84.21
20-40 2.1 4 70.66 73.44 82.33
2.4 2 69.09 72.78 81.43
2.4 4 67.44 71.23 79.39
Average 72.37 75.85 83.65

4 - Weeding index:
The ratio between the numbers of weeds removed by weeder to the
number of weeds present before weeding in a unit area has been
calculated under different variable levels as weeding index. Figure 9
shows the effect of this variation on weeding index at 7.73, 12.28 and
16.18 % soil moisture content. At 7.73 %, it was clear that, as the depth
of operation increased, the weeding index increased. As the depth of

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 718 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

operation increased from 0-20 to 20-40 mm, the weeding index increased
from 71.83 to 75.01 % and from 74.52 to 77.08 % with 1.8 km/h weeder
forward speed and by using two and four blades, respectively. Also, it
was clear that the weeding index decreased with increasing in weeder
forward speed. Weeding index values decreased from 71.83 to 71.38%
and from 75.01 to 74.91% when the weeder forward speed increased
from 1.8 to 2.1 km/h for two depths of operation 0-20 and 20-40 mm and
by using two blades, respectively. The maximum value of weeding index
was 90.77 % and was obtained by using four blades with 1.8 km/h
weeder forward speed at depth of operation ranged from 20-40 mm and
16.18 % soil moisture content. Modelling data by using analysis of
variance (ANOVA) in Table 4 showed that the soil moisture content,
depth of operation and blades arrangement had significant effects on
weeding index with standard deviation (S.D.) 4.838.

5 - Plant damage:
The tillers, which were either cut by the blades or crushed beyond the
recovery, were considered as damaged. Total number of tillers for a
length of 5 m was counted before operation. The numbers of tillers
damaged were counted for the same stretch of five meter. The plant
damage was given by Plant damage percentages and calculated directly
after cultivation. From Table 4 as the depth of operation increased, the
plant damage percentage increased. However, it was observed that no
damage occurred (zero %) at 1.8 km/h weeder forward speed by using
two and four blades, when the soil moisture content was 7.73% and the
depth of operation ranged from 0-20 mm. The maximum value of plant
damage percentage was 1.93% and was recorded by using four blades
with 2.4 km/h weeder forward speed at depth of operation ranged from
20-40 mm and 7.73% soil moisture content. Modelling data by using
analysis of variance (ANOVA) in Table 7 showed that depth of operation
and forward speed had significant effects on plant damage with standard
deviation (S.D.) 0.501.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 719 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

Figure 9: Effect of weeder forward speed, number of blades and

depth of operation on weeding index at different soil
moisture contents.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 720 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

Table 4: Plant damage as affected by various parameters.

No of Plant damage percentages, %
Depth of Forward Moisture content, %
blades
operation, mm speed, km/h.
/set 7.73 12.28 16.18
1.8 2 0 0 0
1.8 4 0 0 0
2.1 2 0.816 0.733 0.633
0-20 2.1 4 0.966 0.866 0.750
2.4 2 1.116 0.983 0.883
2.4 4 1.400 1.150 1.016
Average 0.716 0.622 0.547
1.8 2 0.683 0.583 0.516
1.8 4 0.800 0.683 0.616
2.1 2 1.080 0.900 0.750
20-40 2.1 4 1.416 1.066 0.916
2.4 2 1.700 1.416 1.166
2.4 4 1.933 1.633 1.400
Average 1.268 1.046 0.894

6 - Energy required per agricultural unit area:

Based on engine brake power and effective field capacity, the energy
required per agricultural unit area was calculated. Figure 10 presents the
effect of weeder forward speed, blades arrangements, soil moisture
content and depth of operation on energy required per agricultural unit
area. The energy required per agricultural unit area decreased from 6.423
to 5.661 kW.h/fed when the soil moisture content increased from 7.73 to
12.28 % by using two blades with 1.8 km/h weeder forward speed and
depth of operation ranged from 0-20 mm. While, at the highest soil
moisture content 16.18 % the value of energy required per agricultural
unit area decreased to 4.429 kW.h/fed at the same operating conditions.
The minimum value of energy required per agricultural unit area was
4.246 kW.h/fed and was obtained at soil moisture content 16.18 % by
using two blades with 2.1 km/h forward speed of the weeder and depth of
operation ranged from 0-20 mm. The maximum value of energy required
per agricultural unit area was 8.634 kW.h/fed and was obtained at soil
moisture content 7.73 % by using four blades with 1.8 km/h forward
speed of the weeder and depth of operation ranged from 20-40 mm.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 721 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

Figure 10: Effect of weeder forward speed, number of blades and

depth of operation on energy required per agricultural unit
area at different soil moisture contents.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 722 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

Table 5: Standard deviation and type III sum of squares analysis at

95% confidence interval excluding values of interaction at 2
levels for plant damage, energy required per agricultural unit
area and total cost.
Plant damage : Std. deviation ( 0.501 )
Source DF Sum of Mean squares F
Soil moisture content 2 squares
1.346 0.673 285.056
Depth of operation , mm 1 5.267 5.267 2231.268
Forward speed, km/h. 2 17.938 8.969 3799.546
Blades arrangement 1 0.585 0.585 247.919
Replications 2 0.034 0.017 7.129
Energy required per agricultural unit area : Std. deviation ( 0.070 )
Soil moisture content 2 0.002 0.001 11.630
Depth of operation , mm 1 0.160 0.160 1874.945
Forward speed, km/h. 2 0.320 0.160 1869.632
Blades arrangement 1 0.002 0.002 20.097
Replications 2 0.000 0.000 2.341
Total cost : Std. deviation (6.681)
Soil moisture content 2 1903.814 951.907 2217.948
Depth of operation , mm 1 238.402 238.402 555.478
Forward speed, km/h. 2 2479.863 1239.932 2889.048
Blades arrangement 1 66.207 66.207 154.263
Replications 2 0.048 0.024 0.056

7 - Total cost:
Table 6 presents total cost values obtained under different variables.
When the depth of operation increased from 0-20 to 20-40 mm, the total
cost increased from 76.84 to 79.58 and from 78.37 to 80.41 L.E/fed at 1.8
km/h weeder forward speed by using two and four blades respectively,
and soil moisture content 7.73%. The percentages of total cost were
increased from 3.75 and 2.76 % when the depth of operation increased
from 0-20 to 20-40 mm for 2.1 and 2.4 km/h weeder forward speeds,
respectively, by using four blades. However, it was clear that the total
cost decreased with increasing in weeder forward speed. The values
decreased from 76.48 to 71.01 and from 79.58 to 73.17 L.E/fed when the

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 723 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

weeder forward speed increased from 1.8 to 2.1 km/h for two depths of
operation 0-20 and 20-40 mm, respectively by using two blades. The
minimum value of total cost was 55.09 L.E/fed and was recorded by
using two blades with 2.4 km/h weeder forward speed under depth of
operation ranged from 0-20 mm and soil moisture content 16.18 %. The
maximum value of total cost was 80.4 L.E/fed and was recorded by using
four blades with 1.8 km/h weeder forward speed under depth of operation
ranged from 20-40 mm and soil moisture content 7.73 %.

Table 6: Total cost as affected by various parameters.

Total cost, L.E /fed
Depth of Forward speed, No of Moisture content, %
operation, mm km/h. blades /set
7.73 12.28 16.18
1.8 2 76.84 71.50 67.17
1.8 4 78.37 73.00 68.21
2.1 2 71.01 63.42 59.92
0-20 2.1 4 72.21 65.28 61.33
2.4 2 64.55 60.94 55.09
2.4 4 66.92 63.15 56.99
Average 71.65 66.22 61.45
1.8 2 79.58 75.59 69.64
1.8 4 80.41 76.63 70.91
2.1 2 73.17 70.02 62.57
20-40 2.1 4 75.03 72.06 64.14
2.4 2 67.15 63.62 56.75
2.4 4 68.82 65.02 58.25
Average 74.03 70.49 63.71

CONCLUSIONS
Using such developed small powered mechanical weeder under different
variables and conditions can lead to finalize suitable operating
parameters to fit farmers need. Using four blades with forward speed 2.4
km/h and depth of operation ranged from 20-40 lead to higher fuel
consumption, higher value of plant damage and more power required
from engine to operate the weeder. The minimum value of effective field

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 724 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

capacity was 0.198 fed/h and was obtained by using four blades, weeder
forward speed 1.8 km/h, soil moisture content 7.73% and under depth of
operation ranged from 20-40 mm. reducing the number of blades to two
is a good option while using the machine at higher moisture content with
1.8 km/h forward speed with depth of operation up to 20 mm, in such
condition the field efficiency was 89.88%. To minimize the total cost to
be 55.09 L.E/fed using two blades with 2.4 km/h weeder forward speed
at depth of operation ranged from 0-20 mm and soil moisture content
16.18 % is recommended. Weeding index was increased by increasing
the depth of operation, soil moisture content, number of blades in every
set and by decreasing weeder forward speed. Whereas, the maximum
value of weeding index was 90.77 % and was recorded at the highest soil
moisture content 16.18 % by using four blades with 1.8 km/h weeder
forward speed and depth of operation ranged from 20-40 mm.
REFERENCES
Alexandrou, A., D. Stinner, and M. Peart (2003). Evaluation of in-row
weed cultivators in organic soybeans and corn. A report written
for the Organic Farming Research Foundation, Santa Cruz,
California.

Bin Ahmad, M. T. (2012). Development of an Automated Mechanical

Intra Row Weeder for Vegetable Crops. Un-Published Thesis,
Digital Repository, Graduate College, Iowa State University,
USA.pp:32-38.

Cloutier, D .C. R. Y. V. D. Weide, A. Peruzzi, and M. L. Leblanc (2007).

Mechanical weed management. In Non-Chemical Weed
Management; principles, concepts and technology. Edited by
Upadhyaya M.K and R E Blackshaw, ed.111-134. CAB
International: 111-134. Available at www.Cabi.org.

Cordill, C., and T.E. Grift (2011). Design and testing of an intra-row
mechanical weeding machine for corn. Biosystems engineering,
V. 110, P: 247-252.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 725 -

 FARM MACHINERY AND POWER

FAO (2011). http://faostat.fao.org/site/339/default.aspx.

Hemeda, M. N., and Z. E. Ismail (1992). Developing a cultivator for

inter- row cotton cultivation. Misr J. Ag. Eng., 9 (4) P: 575-587.

Khurmi, R.S., J.K. Gupta (2005). Text Book of Machine Design. ; 25th
edition. Chand (S.) Co. Ltd, India. Chapter 14, p: 4-7.

Manian, R., and R. Arvinda (2004) Development and evaluation weeding

cum earthing up equipment for cotton. Agric Mech in Asia,
Africa and Latin America 35(2) P: 21-25.

Manuwa, S.I., O.O. Odubanjo, B.O. Malumi, and S.G. Olofinkua (2009).
Development and performance evaluation of a row-crop
mechanical weeder. J. Eng. Appl. Sci., 4(4): 236-239.

Pannu C.J.S., A. Dixit, I.L. Garg, B. Dogra (2002). Feasibility evaluation

of rotary power weeder on wider row crops like cotton, maize,
sunflower, soybean etc. Annual Report, Punjab Agricultural
University, Ludhiana.p: 18-26. PAU, India.

Pitoyo J., and T.M. Handaka (2000). Development of a power weeder for
mechanical control of weeds in the nee field. Proceedings of the
International Agricultural Engineering Conference Bangkok,
Thailand. December 4-7.

Shigley, J. E., R.M. Charles, and T .H. Brown (2004). Standard

handbook of machine design, 3rd edition. McGraw-Hill. New
York, USA.

Singh, R. (2001). Studies on rotary weeder in wheat crop. M. Tech thesis,

Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.

Victor, M. and Ajay Verma (2003). Design and development of power

operated rotary weeder for wetland paddy. Agric Mech in Asia,
Africa and Latin America 34 (4): 27-29.

Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014 - 726 -

 ‫‪FARM MACHINERY AND POWER‬‬

‫الولخص العربي‬

‫تطىير وتقيين آلت عسيق هيكانيكيت للمساحات الصغيرة‬

‫****‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬ ‫‪‬‬
‫م‪ .‬هحوىد عكاشت‬ ‫أ‪.‬د‪ .‬زكريا عوارة‬ ‫أ‪.‬د‪ .‬اضواعيل عبذ الوطلب‬ ‫د‪ .‬رشاد حجازي‬

‫اٌهذف اٌشئيسي ٌٍبحذ هى حطىيش وحمييُ وحذة ػضيك صغيشة حسخخذَ ٌٍؼضيك بيٓ اٌصفىف‬
‫وداخٍها وحالءَ احخياجاث وِخطٍباث اٌّضاسػيٓ إلجشاء ػٍّيت اٌؼضيك خصىصا فً اٌّضاسع‬
‫اٌصغيشة واٌّخىسطت اٌحجُ‪ .‬وأجشي رٌه باسخغالي ِصذس اٌمذسة آلٌت اٌحصاد اٌيابأيت‬
‫‪ KUBOTA REAPER AR 120‬حيذ حّج ػٍّياث اٌخطىيش واٌخصٕيغ واالخخباساث‬
‫األوٌيت ٌٍّٕىرج األوًٌ ٌىحذة اٌؼضيك فً وسشت وِضسػت ِشوض ِيىٕت األسصبّيج اٌذيبت – ِؼهذ‬
‫بحىد اٌهٕذست اٌضساػيت‪ -‬وفش اٌشيخ ػًٍ ِحصىي اٌزسة اٌشاِيت (هجيٓ رالرً ‪ )314‬في ِىسُ‬
‫صيفي ‪ ٢١٠٢‬ػًٍ ِساحت ‪ 1,1‬فذاْ حمشيبا‪ .‬حيذ حُ حصٕيغ ‪ِ ٣‬جّىػاث ػضيك ساسيت حُ‬
‫حشويبها ػًٍ ‪ Reaper‬وحُ حؼذيً ٔظاَ ٔمً اٌحشوت ِٓ صٕذوق اٌخشوط وححىيٍها ِٓ حشوت‬
‫حشدديت إًٌ حشوت ساسيت‪.‬‬

‫وحُ دساست حـأريش وً ِٓ اٌّحخىي اٌشطىبً ٌٍخشبت (‪ ٪16,18 ،12,28 ،7,73‬ػًٍ اساط‬
‫جاف)‪ ،‬ػذد األسٍحت في وحذة اٌؼضيك (‪ 2‬و‪ 4‬أسٍحت)‪ ،‬اٌسشػت األِاِيت ٌٍؼضالت (‪،2,1 ،1,8‬‬
‫‪ 2,4‬وُ‪/‬ساػت) وػّك اٌؼضيك (صفش اًٌ ‪ ُِ20‬وِٓ ‪ )ُِ40-20‬ػًٍ اسخهالن اٌىلىد‪ ،‬اٌسؼت‬
‫اٌحمٍيت‪ ،‬اٌىفاءة اٌحمٍيت‪ٔ ،‬سبت اٌخٍف في إٌباحاث‪ِ ،‬ؼاًِ اٌؼضيك‪ ،‬اٌطالت اٌّطٍىبت ٌىحذة اٌّساحت‬
‫واٌخىاٌيف اٌىٍيت‪.‬‬

‫وقذ أوضحت النتائج اى‪:‬‬

‫أػًٍ ليّت السخهالن اٌىلىد هي ‪ٌ ١,936‬خش‪/‬ساػت ورٌه ػٕذ الً ِحخىي سطىبً ‪٪ 7,73‬‬ ‫‪‬‬
‫وأوبش ػّك ٌٍؼضيك ‪ ُِ٤١ –٢١‬وأيضا ػٕذ أػًٍ سشػت أِاِيت ٌٍؼضالت ‪ 2,4‬وُ‪/‬ساػت وأوبش‬
‫ػذد ِٓ األسٍحت ‪٤‬اسٍحت ٌىً وحذة ػضيك‪.‬‬

‫‪ ‬هذرش الهنذضت السراعيت – كليت السراعت – جاهعت كفر الشيخ‪.‬‬

‫‪ ‬أضتار الهنذضت السراعيت – كليت السراعت – جاهعت كفر الشيخ‪.‬‬
‫‪ ‬رئيص بحىث – هعهذ بحىث الهنذضت السراعيت – هركس البحىث السراعيت – الجيسة‪.‬‬
‫**** ههنذش بوعهذ بحىث الهنذضت السراعيت – هركس البحىث السراعيت – الجيسة‪.‬‬

‫‪Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014‬‬ ‫‪- 727 -‬‬

 ‫‪FARM MACHINERY AND POWER‬‬

‫اػًٍ ليّت ٌٍسؼت اٌحمٍيت اٌفؼٍيت هً ‪ ١,284‬فذاْ‪/‬ساػت ػٕذ ِحخىي سطىبً ٌٍخشبت ‪٪ 16,18‬‬ ‫‪‬‬
‫وػّك ػضيك ِٓ‪١‬ــ ‪ ُِ٢١‬وسشػت أِاِيت ٌٍؼضالت ‪ 2,4‬وُ‪/‬ساػت وػذد ِٓ األسٍحت ‪٢‬سالح ٌىً‬
‫وحذة ػضيك‪.‬‬

‫وأج الً ليّت ٌىفاءة ِماوِت اٌحشائش (ِؼاًِ اٌؼضيك) ‪ ٪69,93‬ورٌه ػٕذ ِحخىي سطىبً‬ ‫‪‬‬
‫ٌٍخشبت ‪ ٪7,73‬وػّك ٌٍؼضيك ‪١‬ــ ‪ ُِ٢١‬وػذد ِٓ األسٍحت ‪٢‬سالح ٌىً وحذة ػضيك وػٕذ سشػت‬
‫أِاِيت ٌٍؼضالت ‪ 2,4‬وُ‪/‬ساػت‪.‬‬

‫أػًٍ ليّت ٌٍطالت اٌّطٍىبت ٌىً وحذة ِساحت هً ‪ 8,634‬ويٍى واث‪.‬ساػت‪/‬فذاْ ورٌه ػٕذ‬ ‫‪‬‬
‫ِحخىي سطىبً ٌٍخشبت ‪ ٪7,73‬وػّك ػضيك ‪ ُِ 40-20‬وسشػت أِاِيت ٌٍؼضالت ‪ 1,8‬وُ‪/‬ساػت‬
‫ػذد ِٓ األسٍحت ‪ 4‬سالح ٌىً وحذة ػضيك‪.‬‬

‫بٍغج الً حىٍفت حشغيً ٌٍؼضالت اٌّطىسة ‪ 55,09‬جٕيه ‪ /‬فذاْ ورٌه ػٕذ اسخخذاَ أػًٍ سشػت‬ ‫‪‬‬
‫أِاِيت ٌٍؼضالت ‪ 2,4‬وُ ‪ /‬ساػت وػذد ِٓ األسٍحت ‪ 2‬سالح ٌىً وحذة ػضيك وػّك ػضيك ‪20-0‬‬
‫ُِ وِحخىي سطىبً ٌٍخشبت ‪.٪16,18‬‬

‫‪Misr J. Ag. Eng., July 2014‬‬ ‫‪- 728 -‬‬