Book of Extended summaries ISDA

International Conference on Reimagining Rainfed Agro-ecosystems: Challenges &
Opportunities during 22-24, December 2022 at ICAR-CRIDA, Hyderabad
of 300 and 440 rpm with forward speed 1.7 km/h at 25 and 45 days after sowing was in the
range of 2.12% to 3.96%. For L-type blades the plant damage varied from 2.19% to 4.16% at
the selected variables. The effective field capacity of L-type blades with rotary speeds of 300
and 440 rpm at forward speed 1.7 km/h at 25 and 45 DAS was varied in the range of 0.13 ha/h
to 0.14 ha/h. Effective field capacity for L-type blades with rotary speeds of 300 and 440 rpm
with forward speed 2.5 km/h at 25 and 45 DAS was varied in the range of 0.19 ha/h and 0.21
ha/h. The fuel consumption of modified mini tractor having L-type blades with rotary speeds
of 300 and 440 rpm with forward speed 1.7 km/h at 25 and 45 DAS was varied in the range of
0.95 - 1.12 l/h. Fuel consumption for L-type blades with rotary speeds of 300 and 440 rpm with
forward speed 2.5 km/h at 25 and 45 DAS varied from 1.25-1.38 l/h, respectively. Ten number
of observations for each parameter were measured in the earmarked field plot and the range
was recorded. Weeding implements work in shallower depth up to 10cm (Goel et. al., 2008)
when compared with tillage implement, the soil moisture and bulk density values were
measured in the depth range 0 - 10cm and cone penetration resistance values from 0-17.5cm.
The soil moisture and bulk density in the selected plots ranged from 9.6 to 12.49%db and 1.25
to 1.4 g/cc, respectively. The cone penetration resistance values varied from 100-2489 MPa
and as the depth increased from surface, penetration resistance was also increased.
Conclusion
In redgram crop production weed is one of the major problems. But, the simplest and most
popular management method is manual weed control, where, labours pull weeds out of the soil
using different types of hand tools like khurpi, wheel hoe, hand hoe, etc. simultaneously
fulfilling intercultural operation also. These practices are expensive, time consuming and
difficult to organize labourer for weeding. Mechanical weed control is very effective as it helps
to reduce the drudgery involved in manual weeding, kills the weeds and keeps the soil surface
loose ensuring soil aeration and moisture absorption capacity.
References
Power J. R., Harris J. R, Etherton, K. A. Snyder M. Ronaghi and Newburgh, B. H. 2000.
Performance of an automatically deployable ROPS on ASAE tests. J. Agric. Saf.
Health, 7:51-61.
Rajashekar M and Dr. Mohan Kumar S., 2015. Virtual Design, aanalysis and ddevelopment of
single row weeder. Int. J. Emerg. Tech., 6(1): 125-129.
Tajuddin A. 2006. Design, development and testing of engine operated weeder. Agric. Eng.
Today, 30(5, 6): 25–29.
Tewari V.K, Datta R.K. and Murthy A.S.R. 1993. Field performance of weeding blades of a
manually operated push-pull weeder. J. Agric. Eng. Resh., 55: 129-141.
Emerging approaches (RS, AI, ML, Drones etc) for crop management &assessment
720 | Page