









































Pa
ge

 
1



Pa
ge

 
19

American Journal of  Life Science and 
Innovation (AJLSI)

Weed Control Methods Used in Agriculture
Degefa Woyessa1*

Volume 1 Issue 1, Year 2022 
ISSN: 2833-1397 (Online)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.54536/ajlsi.v1i1.413
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi

Article Information ABSTRACT

Received: July 20, 2022

Accepted: July 23, 2022

Published: July 24, 2022

One of  the most challenging duties in an agricultural field is weed control. Weed control 
is a major problem for peasant framers everywhere. This paper’s objectives are to review-
ing and reporting the weed management practices utilized in Ethiopian agriculture and to 
recommend the viability of  mechanizing weeding operations for the further research. In 
agriculture, three weed management techniques are frequently used. These are chemical, 
mechanical, and manual control. Farmers that are convinced of  its benefits quickly adopt 
mechanical weed control. In addition to pulling weeds out from between the rows of  crops, 
mechanical weed management maintains the soil’s top loose, improving soil aeration and 
water absorption. Mechanical weeding saves time and labor while lowering labor costs also. 
Some weeding tools that are powered by animals are effective in terms of  time and money 
savings. Herbicides are occasionally used by farmers; however, they are not often used in 
farming. In conclusion, weed control is one of  the most essential and expensive operation 
in agriculture. Weeding by mechanical device reduces the cost of  labour and also saves time 
than any other methods of  weed control. Therefore, instead of  manual weeding and using 
chemicals, the use of  a mechanical weeding machine should be given priority.

INTRODUCTION
The Ethiopian economy is based primarily on agriculture, 
which directly and indirectly controls the national income. 
According to the central statistical agency (CSA, 2013) 
estimated that about 80% of  the population’s livelihood 
is based on this sector. One of  the major reasons for 
decreased productivity of  agricultural field crops in the 
country is due to lack of  mechanization from sowing to 
harvesting, especially at critical stages such as weeding 
and intercultural operations. Weed is a common term to 
describe a plant that is considered undesirable (Gavali and 
Kulkarni, 2014). Weed losses exceed those caused by any 
other agricultural pest. In Ethiopia, crop yield losses due 
to weeds vary from season to season and from region 
to region, due to different biotic and abiotic factors, it is 
estimated that weeds reduce yield due to delay weeding 
from 15 to 62% (Kebede Desta, 2000). Weeds can be 
undesirable for some reasons; an essential one is they 
intrude on meals and fodder production in agriculture, 
which ought to be managed so that it will save you 
misplaced or faded crop yields (Gavali and Kulkarni., 
2014). Weeding may be completed through the guide, 
chemical, and mechanical techniques. Due to excessive 
time consumption, much fewer paintings capability, and 
tediousness, chemical, and mechanical weed management 
techniques are possible options to guide weeding. 
The introduction of  efficient mechanical weeding 
machines is expected to encourage farmers to be self-
sufficient, which will lead to increased yields and thus 
reduced poverty (Olukunle & Oguntunde, 2006) for the 
soil, stimulating microbial activity in the soil, reducing soil 
moisture evaporation and facilitating rainwater infiltration 
(Hegazy et al., 2014). In developed countries, multi-

Keywords

Manual, Mechanical implements,
Weeds, Weed control, 
Weeding efficiency

purpose machines have been developed and successfully 
implemented for weeding and intercultural operations. 
The use of  such machines in the Ethiopian agricultural 
scenario is difficult as most of  the Ethiopian farmers are 
small-scale farmers because the area they control is small.
In the traditional method, weeding is done manually. 
Cutlass and hoe is a handy tool used for this purpose. 
It is the most widely used weed control method, but it is 
laborious, time-consuming, labor-intensive, cause’s long-
term health problems, and operating speed is one of  the 
most important factors. In most of  the highlands, crops 
are planted at the same time and weeding operation is 
performed at the same time.  This results in shortages of  
labor during the peak seasons of  weeding. The weeding 
labor bottleneck is especially problematic because some 
varieties are prone to weeding time; hence delayed 
weeding decreases crop yields. Using a mechanical weeder 
relieves stress and ensures a comfortable position for the 
farmer or operator during weeding. 
Pantage et al. (2015) found that the mechanical approach 
to weed control is best with little or no limitation due to 
its effectiveness. The main purpose of  row farming is 
to improve the use of  agricultural machinery to remove 
weeds from cropland. The effect of  this method is to 
promote plant growth and give higher quality. However, 
the use of  this type of  machine is uncommon, and very 
rarely is a mechanical weeder available. Generally, to 
increase agricultural output and reduce the time and cost 
of  weeding operations, it is imperative to develop and 
promote mechanical operated weeding technology. Hence, 
this paper is studying and reporting on the method of  
weed control in agricultural improvement and assessing the 
possibility of  mechanization of  weeding operation.

1 Oromia Agricultural Research Institute, Asella Agricultural Engineering Research Center, Asella, Ethiopia.
* Corresponding author’s e-mail: degefawoyessa20007@gmail.com

https://doi.org/10.54536/ajlsi.v1i1.413
https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi
mailto:degefawoyessa20007%40gmail.com?subject=


Pa
ge

 
20

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi

Am. J. Life Sci. Innov. 1(1) 19-26, 2022

LITERATURE REVIEW
Overview of  weed control methods
In Ethiopia, weeds are controlled mainly by manual 
weeding, but also by good agricultural practices such as 
repeated deep plowing, late sowing, and crop rotation. 
Some mechanical weeding methods are also practiced, 
using simple traditional tools. All of  which is neither 
adequate nor timely. Hence, it is imperative to develop an 
efficient and economical way of  managing weeds through 
the use of  herbicides (Kebede Desta, 2000). 
Chemical weed management results in better crop 
growth and often improved yields compared to manual 
and mechanical methods by eliminating mechanical 
damage to the crop and reducing moisture loss (Atiq et 
al., 2009). .In addition, the authors found that chemical 
weed management was much quicker and less labor-
intensive, allowing for the covering of  large areas in a 
short time with limited work. Though, manual weeding 
is a traditional and common practice for managing weeds 
in potatoes, marginalities of  labor and the prevalence of  
frequent rains many times prevent the timely management 
of  weeds at critical periods of  crop growth.  
Weed control includes a variety of  techniques used to limit 
weed entry and minimize competition. These techniques 
attempt to strike a balance between control costs and crop 
yield loss, but weed control is used only after the problem 
exists; it is not prevention. Weed control techniques have 
been widely adopted because control is the easiest to do 
and often effective. The problem is known and visible, 
and actions can be tailored to the observed problem. 
Control techniques can be selected to meet short-term 
agricultural and economic planning objectives (Lopez, 
2011).
Duff  and Orcino (2001) reported that the timing rather 
than the frequency of  weeding was a major determinant 
of  effective weed control for crops. Recommendations 
have been made for the first weeding to be done 2 up to 
3 weeks after sowing, followed by a second weeding three 
weeks later and if  necessary a third one.
Ofor et al., (2009) reported that weeds as pests highly 
reduce the production of  the crops. They extract 
nutrients, water, and moisture available in the soil and also 
compete for light and air and negatively affect the crop. 
Critical crop growth periods are very much important 
in all crops at which weed competition for nutrient and 
water resources plays a significant effect on yield. It varies 
from crop to crop. It is shown between 30- 60 days in a 
wheat crop after sowing (Ahmad and Shaikh, 2003) 
Kebede (2000) found that Ethiopian farmers often lose up 
to 40% of  their crops to weeds. Since crops are usually not 
grown in rows, weeding is a time-consuming undertaking, 
up to 140 h/ha. Weeds are controlled mainly by manual 
weeding, but also by good agricultural practices such as 
increased tillage, delayed sowing, and crop rotation. He 
also reported that machine weeding was also carried out, 
using simple traditional tools and some modern tools. 
Weeding is one of  the important steps in the growing 
process and affects the yield and quality of  output. 

Verma and Victor (2003) reported that the percentage 
yield loss due to weed competition during the first month, 
two months, and the entire growing season were 23.7%, 
35.4%, and 35.4 percent, respectively. 40.8%.  
Thorat et al. (2014) reported that weed competition is a 
serious problem in most wet season crops, resulting in 
yield losses of  9-60% or more.
Most Ethiopian farmers do not weed their fields in 
time due to a lack of  labor. Therefore, weeds are one 
of  the major constraints on the country’s agricultural 
production. Research conducted by agricultural research 
institutes across the country investigated the effect of  
delayed weeding on crop yields.

Weed control methods
Weed management is as old as agriculture, but weed 
control methods and concepts have changed over the 
years. Current weed control practices in Ethiopia are 
chemical, mechanical, and biological. The mechanical 
method is characterized by heavy use of  manual labor 
and animal strength. Both are rare and are becoming 
increasingly unprofitable. Manual weeding, in addition 
to being laborious, is inefficient (not on time in most 
cases) and is not feasible due to poor soil conditions. 
Weeds compete more with plants in the early stages of  
growth (2-6 weeks after planting). Weed control during 
this period is essential to achieving maximum crop yields. 
For this reason, chemical weed control is rapidly gaining 
traction in the country, which, on the other hand, raises 
several environmental concerns. With increasing public 
awareness of  environmental pollution, the development 
of  environmentally friendly weed management 
technologies will be emphasized.
Weed control is one of  the most difficult tasks in 
agriculture, accounting for a significant portion of  the 
cost of  agricultural production. Weeds compete with 
crops for nutrients and other growth factors, and without 
effective control measures, weeds will consume 30 to 
40 percent of  the applied nutrients, resulting in reduced 
considerable productivity. Weeding with hand tools takes 
a lot of  work. A mechanical weeder makes it possible to 
get your weeding job done on time and at a lower cost. 
Environmental pollution due to chemicals is also reduced 
by using a mechanical weeder (Sirmour and Verma, 2018)
Babu & Rao (2017) studied weed management and 
concluded that weed management is one of  the tedious 
activities in agricultural production. Due to the cost of  
labor, time, and completely manual weeding, this is not 
convenient. Therefore, efforts are being made to design 
efficient agricultural equipment to perform weeding 
without a power supply. The design and key features of  
the design are based on simulation and the advantages 
of  using it to design the drive mechanism of  a three-
row weeding device have been discussed. Weeding and 
tilling are usually done 15 to 20 days after sowing. It 
is necessary to control and eliminate weeds at an early 
stage. Depending on weed density, grain yield loss of  20 
to 30 percent is quite common, which can increase up 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi


Pa
ge

 
21

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi

Am. J. Life Sci. Innov. 1(1) 19-26, 2022

to 80 percent if  proper crop management practices are 
not followed. Rice and peanuts are susceptible to weeds. 
Competition at the start of  growth and failure to control 
weeds in the first three weeks after sowing reduces yields 
by 50%.
Kebede (2000) found that Ethiopian farmers often lose 
up to 40% of  their crops to weed infestations. Since 
crops are usually not grown in rows, weeding is a time-
consuming undertaking, up to 140 h/ha. Weeds are 
controlled mainly by manual weeding, but also by good 
agricultural practices such as increased tillage, delayed 
sowing, and crop rotation. Machine weeding is also done, 
using simple traditional tools and some modern tools. 
Some weeding systems that use animals effectively save 
time and money. Some farmers also use herbicides, but 
these methods are not very suitable. He also reported that 
35% of  wheat yield loss was due to delayed weeding.
Olaoye and Adekanye (2012) has studied that weed 
control is one of  the most difficult tasks in agriculture, 
accounting for a significant portion of  the costs associated 
with agricultural production. Chemical weed control is 
more important than manual and mechanical methods. 
However, its harmful effects on the environment cause 
farmers to consider and accept mechanical methods of  
weed control. Hand weeding is popular in developing 
countries. This is the most commonly used weed control 
method, but it is laborious. The use of  a mechanical 
weeder reduces strain and ensures a comfortable position 
for the farmer or operator during weeding. 
Machine weeding is one of  the commonly used methods 
of  weeding in agricultural fields. Research has been done 
on economical weed control methods that do not harm 
the crop. Weeding machines are developed to be used for 
specific crops such as tomatoes, corn, and rice. These 
machines are mainly in-row weeders that remove weeds 
in several rows of  crops at once (Cordill and Grift, 2011)

Manual methods of  weed control
Sirmour (2016) reported that weeding is traditionally done 
using indigenous hand tools. These involve considerable 
time and labor. Hand weeding is very common on wheat 
and vegetable crops. In the manual method, weeds are 
pulled by hand.
Verma and Prabhat (2015)  found that the manual weeder 
has the limitation of  working width and required more 
time to cover an area between crops and a tractor-drawn 
cultivator was evaluated for weeding operation and found 
successful for weeding in large row spaced crops 
Kebede (2000) studied that the traditional animal-drawn 
weeding method known as Shilshalo involves growing 
cows in sorghum or maize planted broadcast or in rows 
at 50–70 cm spacing. Traditional animal traction plows 
are used for inter-row farming. This breaks down the soil 
crust, reduces runoff, and speeds infiltration into the soil, 
in addition to controlling weeds and thinning crops to an 
appropriate level. However, since most farmers do not 
practice Shilshalo at the correct stage of  crop growth, 
severe plant damage (stem breakage and uprooting) often 

occurs, resulting in low yields. A series of  trials have been 
carried out to improve existing traditional practices by 
determining the optimal timing of  livestock operations 
to increase yields of  sorghum and maize. Shilshalo is 
effective at the 6-8 leaf  stage for sorghum and the 4-6 
leaf  stage for maize.

Mechanical weed control method
Singh (2001) points out that mechanized farming is 
still the most important method used for weed control 
and is generally still the most economical method, 
recommended from an environmental pollution point of  
view. The author also found that operating costs of  rotary 
weeders and weeding costs are 63% higher than that of  
a hand wheel hoe and 72% lower than chemical control. 
Thorat & Sahoo (2014) researched and reported that 
machine weeding is highly effective because it reduces 
the effort of  manual weeding, kills weeds, and also keeps 
the soil surface loose by providing soil aeration level 
and water absorption capacity. The availability and cost 
of  labor for weed control are limiting its progress, and 
the development of  an appropriate mechanized weeding 
method is imperative. The cost of  weeding by mechanical 
weeding is about one-third that of  manual weeding.  
Guru et al. (2018) reported that mechanical weeding is 
one of  the most conventional weeding methods most 
important. Although this is one of  the older weed control 
methods, recent advances have made it an innovative 
weed control technique. Mechanical weeding has many 
advantages over chemical weeding, i.e. weeding is retarded 
and has no adverse effect on plant growth.
Piyush et al. (2018) found that controlling weeds in shoots 
was difficult and in these crops, weeds were removed only 
once by manual labor. As a result, weeding is inefficient 
and operations are stalled, behind schedule, and lost in 
productivity. For row crops, this problem does not arise 
because mechanical weeders and cart-powered tools 
can be used to effectively and promptly control weeds. 
Furthermore, the author concludes that tillage depth 
has no significant effect on rice yield. There is growing 
interest in using weeders between rows due to concerns 
about environmental degradation and growing demand 
for organically produced foods.
Weeding is an important but equally laborious farm 
unit operation. There is growing interest in the use of  
mechanical weeders in the row due to concerns about 
environmental degradation and the growing demand 
for organically produced foods. Today, the agricultural 
industry requires weed control without using chemicals 
to ensure food safety. Consumers demand high-quality 
food products and are particularly concerned about food 
safety. Through the engineering development of  physical 
weed control mechanisms, such as precision weeding 
between rows and within rows, it is possible to control 
weeds in a way that meets consumer and environmental 
needs (Kurstjens & Perdok., 2000).
Quadri (2010) reported that the mechanical weeder 
consists of  two auxiliary tools, namely, a primary blade in 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi


Pa
ge

 
22

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi

Am. J. Life Sci. Innov. 1(1) 19-26, 2022

the front for loose soil at the top and a secondary blade 
at the rear for cutting and lifting the grass. The weeding 
efficiency of  the manual weeding machine on loamy soil 
is 81.14%, clay soil is 93.75% and sandy soil is 94.29%. 
The overall field efficiency of  the machine is 98.67%.

Chemical method of  weed control
Weeding is one of  the main activities of  agriculture. 
Chemical weed control is more important than manual 
and mechanical methods. However, its harmful effects 
on the environment cause farmers to consider and accept 
mechanical methods of  weed control. Chemical weed 
control is the most widely used weed control method. 
But these chemicals used to control weeds are harmful to 
living organisms and are toxic.
Kebede (2000) reported that some farmers have started 
using herbicides to control weeds, especially in double-
cropping areas. However, herbicides are less effective 
than manual weeding, as they require specific conditions 
that can be more restrictive than other control methods.
Chemical weed control can quickly become unpopular 
because it is not environmentally friendly. Indeed, 
chemical weed control has been found to introduce a toxic 
substance into the environment. Herbicides seem to be 
out of  pocket and even uneconomical for small farmers. 
Herbicide production itself  is a high-tech process and 
requires a very reliable linkage (Manuwa et al., 2009).
Chemical weed control is more important than manual 
and mechanical methods. However, its harmful effects 
on the environment cause farmers to consider and accept 
mechanical methods of  weed control. Chemical weed 
control is the most widely used weed control method 
(Olaoye and Adekanye, 2012). 

Current weed control practices 
Since crops are usually not grown in rows, weeding is a 
time-consuming undertaking, up to 140 h/ha. Ethiopian 
farmers use a variety of  strategies to reduce or avoid weed 
invasion in their fields. Current weed control methods are 
reviewed below.

Hand weeding 
Manual weeding is the most common weed control 
method used by smallholders. It usually doesn’t require 
any upfront payments. This is a great advantage when 
cash is not readily available and labor is provided by 
the farming family directly or through a non-monetary 
exchange. This may be the only viable method of  weeding 
on flies when herbicides are not available. Manual weeding 
is intensive farming. Hand weeding is time-consuming, 
labor-intensive, back-breaking, and often costlier than 
other methods of  weed control.
The oldest and simplest technology is manual weeding. 
Manual weed control begins with farmers pulling weeds 
with their hands. Later, this technology evolved into hand 
tools, moving from the use of  a stick to the use of  a hand 
pickaxe. Cordilla and Grift (2011) report that manual 
weeding is labor-intensive, accounting for about 80% of  

the total labor required to produce food.   Farmers who 
use only hand-hoes for weeding will struggle to escape 
poverty, as this level of  technology tends to perpetuate 
human toil, risk, and mystery. The use of  a sorting hoe 
is effective and is the most widely used weed control 
method.

Figure 1: Hand weeding methods

Animal-drawn weeding implements
Kebede (2000) also reported that the three-tine cultivator 
with a reversible narrow shovel is attached to the frame 
by movable clamps, bolts, and nuts, designed to achieve 
width and depth. This includes a frame capable of  
adapting to different weeding attachments, two wheels 
for maneuverability, and provision for lifting and 
lowering tillage elements.  The author has also studied 
a practice known as Shilshalo that involves growing 
burdock in sorghum grown in rows or rows. Traditional 
animal traction plows are used for inter-row farming. 
This breaks down the soil crust, reduces runoff, and 
speeds infiltration into the soil, in addition to controlling 
weeds and thinning crops to an appropriate level. 
However, since most farmers do not practice Shilshalo 
at the correct stage of  crop growth, severe plant damage 
(stem breakage and uprooting) often occurs, resulting 
in low yields. A series of  trials have been carried out to 
improve existing traditional practices by determining the 
optimal timing of  livestock operations to increase yields 
of  sorghum and maize.

Mechanical weeding implements
Much effort has been made to design and develop 
convenient and practical mechanical weeding methods 
using simple tools and instruments. Mechanical 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi


Pa
ge

 
23

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi

Am. J. Life Sci. Innov. 1(1) 19-26, 2022

equipment can save time during peak times, resulting in 
higher output per worker and reduced weeding costs. 
This mechanical device can be pulled by hand or by an 
animal.
Kankal (2013) has researched the design and development 
of  self-propelled weeding machines for field crops. The 
machine is useful in row crops, horticulture, and vegetables 
for weeding and seedbed preparation. It consists of  a 4.1 
kW diesel engine mounted on the chassis of  the electric 
tiller, a drivetrain, two MS wheels, a frame, and a rotary 
tiller. Power from the motor is transmitted to the rotor 
by belt and chain and through a gear transmission to 
the ground wheels. A disconnect device is provided to 
connect or disconnect the power to the rotating system. 
The lug wheels are provided for traction. The speed of  
the electric lawn mower ranges from 2.3 to 2.5 km/h with 
an effective working width of  550 mm for a field yield of  
0.10 to 0.13 ha/h. The cost of  a self-propelled weeding 
machine is around Rs 40,000/ha and the average weeding 
cost is Rs 1000/ha. The device saves 90% of  operating 
time and 30% of  weeding costs compared to manual 
weeding.
Machine weeding not only pulls weeds between rows 
of  plants, but also keeps the soil surface loose, creates 
better aeration of  the soil and increases water absorption, 
and the machine weeder does the job at the same time. 
Weeding and hoeing can reduce weeding time, the cost 
of  weeding, and the arduousness of  manual weeding 
(Shakya et al., 2016).
Sirmour and Verma (2018) evaluated the performance 
of  the developed electric lawn mower. It has been tested 
based on field capacity, field efficiency, weeding efficiency, 
activity index, energy consumption, and operating cost. 
Therefore, the following conclusions can be drawn. 
The performance of  the rice weeding machine is rated 
as excellent in wet conditions, the working width of  the 
developed machine is expected to be adjustable between 
140-250mm, and the forward speed is 2.48 km. / h and 
operating depth from 3 to 4.2 cm, with fuel consumption 
of  0.55 l / h. The effective yield is 0.054 ha/h. Weeding 
efficiency is 82.92%,  operating cost of  rotary weeding 
machine and manual weeding machine is Rs 980/ha and 
Rs 2300/ha respectively. Weeding cost saving is 60% and 
time-saving is 65% compared to manual weeding.  
Verma and Victor (2003) report that the rotary weeder 
reduces strain and ensures a comfortable posture of  
the operator when weeding and increases yields because 
of  the field productivity and weeding efficiency of  the 
machine was 0.0712 ha/h and 73%, respectively.
Kishore et al. (2018) studied and evaluated the activity 
of  mechanical weeds in dry soil conditions. Three weeds 
were evaluated initially on dry land maize with plots of  
20 m × 10 m with row spacing of  60 cm. The actual 
productivity of  electric weeders, rotary hoes, and star 
weeders are 0.0494 ha/h, 0.022 ha/h, and 0.021 ha/h, 
respectively. The field efficiency of  electric weeders, 
hoes, and star weeder were 82.33%, 73.66%, and 80.76%, 
respectively. The electric weeder is more efficient in the 

field than the other two weeders. The weeding efficiency 
of  electric weeders, wheel hoe, and star weeders are 
78.4%, 74.0%, and 75.4%, respectively. The hoe has 
lower efficiency and lower operating costs than the three 
types of  weeders. Since weeding is more labor-intensive 
than other grasses, weeding may be given less priority 
than electric and star weeders. 
Padole (2007) studied the comparison in-field 
performance between rotary power weeder and bullock 
drawn blade hoe. It was reported that effective field 
capacity of  0.14 ha/h (40% more than a bullock-drawn 
blade hoe), and field efficiency of  90% (34.1% more than 
that of  a bullock-drawn blade hoe were obtained). The 
cost of  operation was found to be Rs 798.46 compared 
to 894.87 per ha by bullock-drawn blade hoe. Hence, it 
was more economical and effective than bullock-drawn 
blade hoe as it saved 10.77% weeding cost; reduced plant 
damage up to 54.23%, and achieved weeding efficiency 
up to 92.76%. 
Manuwa et al., (2009) designed and developed a power 
weeding machine with a working width of  0.24 m for 
weeding in row plantations. The effective field capacity, 
fuel consumption, and field efficiency of  the machine are 
0.53 ha/h, 0.7 l/h, and 95% respectively.
Alizadeh (2011) studied the performance of  4 types 
of  mechanical rice weeders including single row cone 
weeders (W1), double row cone weeders (W2), rotary 
weeders (W3), and power weeders (W4) compared 
with manual weeders (W5). Two local rice varieties and 
improved transplanted rice, Hashemi and Lai respectively, 
were selected for this study. The results showed that 
among the mechanized grasses, the highest weeding 
efficiency (84.33%) was with W4 and Hybrid varieties, 
and the lowest value (72.80%) was measured with W3 
and Hashemi varieties. Plants damaged by mechanical 
weeding were 3.83% compared with 0.13% for manual 
weeding. The highest effective field yields of  0.082 
and 0.087 ha/h was measured with W4 and the lowest 
values of  0.0084 and 0.0088 ha/h was obtained with W5 
respectively for the Hashemi and Hybrid. Weeding costs 
decreased by 15.70, 38.51, 22.32, and 48.70% respectively 
for W1, W2, W3, and W4 compared to W5.
Chanakyan and Mohanty (2017) conducted a study to 
evaluate the performance of  mechanical power weeders. 
The weeding was done 35 days after transplanting in sandy 
loam soil. The various mean performance parameters 
such as speed of  operation, effective field capacity, field 
efficiency, weeding efficiency, plant damage, and fuel 
consumption were observed to be 1.65 km/h, 0.065 
ha/h, 78.9%, 84.8%, 4.12%, and 16.9 l/hr respectively.
Mechanical weeding is very effective because it reduces 
manual weeding, kills’ weeds, and also keeps the soil 
surface loose by providing aeration and water absorption 
to the soil. The availability and cost of  labor for weed 
control are limiting its progress, and the development of  
an appropriate mechanized weeding method is imperative. 
The cost of  weeding by mechanical weeding is about one-
third that of  manual weeding (Thorat et al., 2014).

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi


Pa
ge

 
24

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi

Am. J. Life Sci. Innov. 1(1) 19-26, 2022

Figure 2: Mechanical weeding Machine

Manual weeding
Commonly used manual weeders consist of  a hoe (pull-
and-push weeder) consisting of  a steel blade (cultivator) 
mounted on a long wooden handle. These weeders are 
most useful when weeds are small and the soil is not too 
hard.
Attanda et al. (2013) developed and evaluated a hand-
push mechanical weeder to determine its performance 
indicators. Field performance was compared with that of  
a traditional hand hoe in multiple TZPB-SR maize fields. 
The mean values of  forwarding rate, actual field capacity, 
and weeding efficiency were 0.092 m/s, 0.028 ha/h 
and 75.17% for weed growth compared to 0.013 m/s, 
respectively. , 0.0059 ha / h and 77.98% for hand hoe. 
According to Bhavin et al. (2016) to evaluate the field 
performance of  manual weeding machines developed 
which performed for various performance parameters 
such as weeding capacity, efficiency weeding, draft 
requirements, and the welder’s performance index were 
taken into account during the tests. The weeding machine 
developed has a field yield of  0.0285 ha/h and the highest 
weeding efficiency (ie up to 80.42%). The required draft 
was 34.4 kg for a weed width of  20 cm and the obtained 
weed activity index was 1210.53.
Nkakini et al. (2010) studied the field performance 
evaluation of  manual gasoline-powered weeders for the 
tropics. According to the report, the theoretical yield of  
the rotor weeding machine is 0.047 ha/h with an effective 
capacity of  0.34 ha/h, which is about 20 times higher than 
manual weeding. The operating index is 1700 and the 
fuel consumption is 3.2 liters in 8 hours. Rotary weeders 
have a weeding efficiency of  71% at removing weeds 
with shallow roots. This suggests that motorized weeders 
can be useful equipment in agricultural modernization 

for smallholder farmers. Mechanical weeding is an 
environmentally friendly method of  weed control. 
Bhavin et al. (2016) reported that mechanical methods are 
by far the most widely used means of  weed control for 
many years to come. Furthermore, the author points out 
that mechanical weeding is potentially more sustainable 
than chemical weeding because it is less risky (financial, 
health, and environmental) and easier to maintain with 
current skills and facilities.
Mechanical weeding is very effective because it reduces 
manual weeding, kill’s weeds, and also keeps the soil 
surface loose by providing aeration and water absorption 
to the soil. The availability and cost of  labor for weed 
control are limiting its progress and therefore the 
development of  a suitable mechanized weeding method 
is urgent. The cost of  weeding with a motorized weeder 
is about one-third that of  manual weeding (Guru et al., 
2018). 
Mechanical methods of  weed control are widely used 
in many developing countries because agricultural labor 
is cheap and readily available. Mechanical weed control 
methods are simple for farmers. Weed control tools 
and instruments are mainly hand and animal-operated. 
Mechanical weed control involves the use of  human 
labor, animal-drawn, or tractor-powered weeders, self-
propelled weeders, or electric weeders (Sirmour, 2016).  
Attanda et al. (2013) developed a mechanical weeder 
consisting of  two sets of  conical propellers, an adjustable 
main frame, and an afloat. The weeder has an effective 
capacity of  0.357 ha/hr, a draft of  64.87 N, and overall 
width and depth of  cut of  180 mm and 20 mm, 
respectively. With one cut between rows in the field at 
40.8% soil moisture, the optimal weed control efficiency 
was 84.5% while the weed control efficiency at 10.5% soil 
moisture was 53.1%. Therefore, the highest plant damage 
of  8.33% was recorded at soil moisture of  10.5%. 0.058 
hp is the power required for one person to push the 
prototype grass. 
Alizadeh (2011) reported that manual weeding removed 
only 65-85% of  weeds for cotton production, mainly 
because workers confused weeds with crops or lacked 
weeds. It has also been reported that manual weeding 
with a long-handled hoe will damage crops and miss 
some weeds. Digging is also time-consuming and can lead 
to back injuries for workers.

Chemical weed controls
Chemical control involves the use of  herbicides. 
Herbicides control weeds by accelerating, stopping, or 
altering the normal growth patterns of  crops; by drying 
the leaves or stems; or by making them drop their leaves. 
Chemical control with the application of  herbicides 
can provide the most effective and fastest method of  
weed management. Many herbicides are available for 
effective weed control and are selective so that weeds 
are not harmed. Weeding is one of  the main activities of  
agriculture
Chemical weed control is becoming popular day by day 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi


Pa
ge

 
25

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi

Am. J. Life Sci. Innov. 1(1) 19-26, 2022

in developing countries. Some farmers have begun to 
use herbicides to control weeds, especially in double-
cropping areas. However, herbicides are less effective 
than manual weeding, as they require specific conditions 
that can be more restrictive than other control methods. 
For example, the right herbicide must be selected for the 
specific spectrum of  crops and weeds present. It must be 
applied at a specific rate, at the right time, and only under 
specific environmental conditions (Kebede, 2000).
Fagade (2008) reported that the cost of  applying 
herbicides to control weeds is half  that of  manual 
weeding. Chemical methods give promising results in the 
eradication of  weeds but are limited due to their harmful 
effects on humans and the environment. Singh (2001) a 
states that herbicides can significantly reduce the need for 
labor, but there is a contradiction in their performance. 
Inconsistencies include herbicide cost versus labor, and 
farmers’ lack of  knowledge about application rates, 
timing, and methods. In addition, the lack of  availability 
of  herbicides and sprayers is one of  the main factors 
limiting the use of  herbicides by smallholder farmers. 
These limitations make mechanical weed control a 
priority over the use of  herbicides. 

CONCLUSIONS
The main objective of  this paper is to gain insight into 
the various aspects or limitations of  different weeding 
techniques in order to reduce the efforts that farmers have 
spent in terms of  money, labor, time, and money. Weed 
control is one of  the most difficult tasks in agriculture, 
accounting for a significant portion of  agricultural 
production. Weed losses exceed those caused by any 
other agricultural pest. Three methods of  weed control 
are commonly known in agriculture. Here’s how to weed 
by machine, manually and chemically. Machine weeding is 
easily adopted by farmers once they believe in its benefits.  
Mechanical weeding not only removes weeds between 
rows of  crops but also keeps the soil surface loose, 
ensuring better aeration and water absorption. Weeds 
are also controlled mainly by manual weeding. Manual 
weeding is the most efficient weeding method, but it is 
not suitable due to the time-consuming operations and 
labor-intensive costs. Chemical methods give promising 
results in the eradication of  weeds but are limited due to 
their harmful effects on humans and the environment.  
In general, weeding is one of  the most essential and 
costly activities in agriculture. Mechanized weeding 
reduces labor costs and also saves time compared to 
any other weeding method. In summary, weeding is one 
of  the most essential and costly activities in agriculture. 
Mechanized weeding reduces labor costs and also saves 
time compared to any other weeding method. Therefore, 
instead of  manual and chemical weeding, the use of  a 
mechanical weeding machine should be most preferable.

REFERENCES
Ahmad, R., and  Shaikh, A.S. (2003). Common weeds 

of  wheat and their control. Pakistan Journal of  Water 

Resources, 7(1),73-76.
Alizadeh, M.R., 2011. Field performance evaluation 

of  mechanical weeders in the paddy field. Scientific 
Research and Essays, 6(25):5427-5434.

Atiq Ahmad Khan , Muhammad Zubair, A. Rahim1 
and A. Wahab., 2009. Comparison of  different weed 
management practices in onion (allium cepa ) under 
agroclimatic conditions of  dera ismail khan, pakistan. 
Pak. J. Weed Sci. Res. 15(1): 45-51

Attanda, M. L.; Muhammad, A. I. and Shema, A., 2013. 
Development and performance evaluation of  hand 
pushed. Journal of  Engineering and Technology ( JET ), 
8(1): 61–69.

Babu, P. K., & Rao, S. G.,  2017. Manually Operated Dry 
Land Weeder : A Study. International Journal for Modern 
Trends in Science and Technology, 3(7):27-33.

Bhavin,Ram,Khardiwar, M.S., Kumar, Shailendra and 
Solanki,B.P.,2016. Performance evaluation of  manual 
operated single row weeder for groundnut crop. 
Engineering and Technology in India, 7(1): 45–52.

Chanakyan, P.C. and Mohanty. R, 2017. Performance 
evaluation of  power-operated wetland paddy weeder 
in Odisha. International Journal of  Multidisciplinary 
Research and Development International, 4(10):140-146.

Central Statistical Authority of  Ethiopia.,  2013. Report 
on Area and production of  major Crops Meher 
season. Report on Area and Production of  Major 
Crops Meher Season. Addis Ababa.

Cordill, C and Grift, T. E., 2011. Design and testing of  
an intra-row mechanical weeding machine for corn. 
Biosystems Engineering, 110(3): 247–252.

Duff, B. and Orcino, N.,  2001. Economic research in the 
department of  agricultural engineering. IRRI Seminar. 
Los Banos, Philippines.

Fagade, S.O., 2008. Performances of  some herbicides in 
the control of  upland rice weed in Nigeria. WARDA 
Technical News Letter, 2(2):9-10. 

Gavali and Kulkarni.,  2014. Comparative Analysis of  
Portable Weeders. International Journal of  Innovative 
Research in Science, Engineering and Technology, 3(4): 
11004–11013.

Guru, P., Patel, S., Nayak, A., Kumar, A.,& Gautam, P., 
2018. Development and evaluation of  power operated 
weeder in rice. ORYZA- An International Journal on Rice, 
55(2): 317–323.

Hegazy.R. A. , I. A. Abdelmotaleb, Z. M. Imara, M. H. 
O.,  2014. Development and evaluation of  small–scale 
power weeder. Misr J. Ag. Eng, 31(3): 703–728.

Kankal, U. S., 2013. Design and development of  self  
propelled weeder for field crops. International Journal 
of  Agricultural Engineering, 6(2): 304–310.

Kebede Desta.,  2000. Animal power for weed control.A 
resource book of  the Animal Traction Network 
for Eastern and Southern Africa (ATNESA). 
Wageningen, The Netherlands.

Kishore. G, Kumar, R. K. and Chamn, M. K., 2018. 
Performance and Evaluation of  Power Weeder, under 
Dryland Conditions. International Journal of  Current 

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi


Pa
ge

 
26

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi

Am. J. Life Sci. Innov. 1(1) 19-26, 2022

Microbiology and Applied Sciences,7(12): 1669–1675.
Kurstjens, D. A. G., and Perdok, U. D., 2000. The selective 

soil covering mechanism of  weed harrows on sandy 
soil. Soil & Tillage Research, 55: 193–206.

Lopez.F., 2011. Weed detection for site-specific weed 
management, mapping and real-time approaches. 
Weed Research, 51: 1–11.

Manuwa,S.I, Odubanjo &S. G. O.,  2009. Development 
and Evaluation of  a row-crop mechanical weeder. 
Journal of  Engineering and Applied Sciences, 4(4): 236–239.

Nkakini, S. O., Ayotamuno and Akor.A.T., 2010. Field 
performance evaluation of  manual operated petrol 
engine powered weeder for the Tropics. Agricultural 
Mechanization in Asia,Africa & Latin America, 41(4): 
68–73.

Ofor, M.O., Ibeawuchi, I.I. and Oparaeke, A.M.,  2009. 
Crop protection problems in production of  maize 
and Guinea corn in northern Guinea Savanna of  
Nigeria and control measures. Nature and science, 7(12), 
pp.8-14.

Olaoye. J.O. and Adekanye, T.A.,  2012. Development and 
Evaluation of  a rotary power weeder. Environmental 
Engineering Journal, 1(2):129–141.

Olukunle, J., and Oguntunde, P. G., 2006. Design of  a 
row crop weeder. Confer Ence on International 
Agricultural Research for Development ,Tropentag 
2006 University of  Bonn.

Pantage.S., Thokale, P. J., and Deshmukh, V. D.,  2015. 
Performance evaluation of  self  propelled rotary 
weeder. International Journal of  Agricultural Engineering, 
8(1):70–74. 

Padole,Y.B.,2007. Performance Evaluation of  Rotary 
Power Weeder. Agricultural Engineering Today, 31(3and4): 
30-33.

Singh, R., 2001. Studies on rotary weeder in wheat crop. 
Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India.

Sirmour and verma.,  2018. Design and development of  
single row power weeder for rice. Journal of  Crop and 
Weed, 14(1): 163–169.

Sirmour Aditya.,  2016. Design and development of  
single row power weeder for rice. M. Tech. (Agril. 
Engg.) Thesis. India.

Thorat Deepak P. K. Sahoo, D. D. and M. A. I.,  2014.  
Design and Development of  Ridge Profile Power 
Weeder. Journal of  Agricultural Engineering, 56(4).

Verma. A and Prabhat, K.G., 2015.  Development and 
evaluation of  cultivator cum. Ecology, Environment and 
Conservation, 21(3): 1359–1364.

Verma and Victor., 2003.  design and development of  
powe operated rotary weeder for wet land paddy. 
Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin 
America, 34(4): 27–29.

https://journals.e-palli.com/home/index.php/ajlsi

