Economic Analysis and Feasibility of Self-propelled Rotor Power Weeder

S. Rahaman *

Department of Agricultural Engineering, Aditya Engineering College, Surampalem, Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh–533 437, India.

C. Ramana

Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, Regional Agricultural Research Station, Tirupati, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh–517 101, India.

A. Srinivasa Rao

Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, College of Agricultural Engineering, Madakasira, Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh– 515 301, India.

B. Ravindra Reddy

Department of Statistics and Mathematics, Integrated Tribal Development Agency Office, Sunnipenta, Kurnool District – 518 102, India.

*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.


The manual weeding process is laborious, requires significant effort, and is a costly operation. Farmers typically allocate 30 to 40 percent of their total crop production expenses to the weeding process. The research was carried out by development and economic feasibility of self-propelled weeder for small category farmers. Economic analysis and feasibility of developed mechanical weeder was evaluated by considering cost of operation, breakeven point and payback period. The utilization of a self-propelled weeder for mechanical weeding can result in cost savings of up to 45% compared to the manual weeding method. The estimated break-even point (BEP), calculated based on time and area, indicates potential savings of 209.6 hours and 13.63 ha. The payback period, assessed on a time basis for the rotary power weeder, was determined to be 1.02 years. The total development cost for the self-propelled power weeder was recorded as 8050 Rupees. By adopting self-propelled power weeder, farmer saving 1856 ₹/ha directly over manual method.

Keywords: Self-propelled weeder, cost of operation, break-even point, payback period

How to Cite

Rahaman , S., Ramana, C., Rao, A. S., & Reddy, B. R. (2024). Economic Analysis and Feasibility of Self-propelled Rotor Power Weeder. Journal of Experimental Agriculture International, 46(2), 119–125.


Download data is not yet available.


Yadav R, Pund S. Development and ergonomic evaluation of manual weeder. Agricultural Engineering International: the CIGR Ejournal. 2007;9(4):7-22.

Kumar N, Kumar S, Nayak M. Performance evaluation of weeders. International Journal of Science, Environment and Technology. 2014;3(6): 2160-2165.

Mehta CR, Jena PC, Chandel NS, Anamika J. Indian Agriculture Counting on Farm Mechanization. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 2019;50(1):84-89

Singh S, Singh RS, Singh SP. Farm power availability on Indian farms. Agricultural Engineering Today. 2014; 38(4):44-52.

Mohan SS, Sanjana G, Avinash D, Rohitha M, Anil Kumar D. Performance evaluation of power weeder in sugarcane crop. Current Journal of Applied Science and Technology. 2020;39(38):70-81.

Mishra PK, Singh M, Gill JS, Mandal B, Patel B. Economic analysis and feasibility of tractor mower operated cotton harvesters. Indian Journal of Economics and Development. 2017; 13(4):761-766.

Rawat SN, Verma MR, Goyal SK, Dave AK. Cost economic evaluation of zero till fertilizer cum seed drill vs conventional method of sowing. Progressive Agriculture. 2007;71(2):161-162.

Mynavathi VS, Prabhakaran NK, Chinnusamy C. Manually- operated weeders for time saving and weed control in irrigated maize. Indian Journal of Weed Science. 2015;47(1):98-100.

IS: 9164. Guide for estimating cost of farm machinery operation. Indian Standards Institution, New Delhi; 1979.

Hunt D. Farm power and machinery management. Waveland Press, Inc. 2001;77-80.

Pagare V, Nandi S, Khare DK. Appraisal of optimum economic life for farm tractor: A case study. Economic Affairs. 2019; 64(1):117-124.

Venkat R, Sai MS, Mohnot P, Vinayak M. Economic analysis and feasibility of rotary weeder-cum-fertilizer drill. 2021;66(3): 451-457.

Singh RS, Singh K, Dubey A. Custom hiring business model and decision support system of agricultural machinery. Agricultural Engineering Today. 2014; 38(4):31-36.