Vol. 42(3), 2018

Studies on Drudgery Reduction in Mulberry Cultivation through Improved Machines

Ajay Verma, Manisha Sahu* and Karale Dhiraj Sadashivrao Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering SV College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology, IGKV, Raipur-492012, India *Corresponding author’s email: [email protected] Date of submission: 14.11.2017 Date of acceptance: 5.4.2018

ABSTRACT Studies were conducted on drudgery reduction in preparation of cuttings, interculture and harvesting of mulberry cultivation through improved machines. Performance of cutting preparation machine, power tiller operated and shoot harvester was compared with traditional methods. Cutting preparation machine involved lesser drudgery as compared to bill-hook. Drudgery was lesser in power tiller operated cultivator as compared to . The shoot harvester was found to be better than the secateurs. The energy required of cutting preparation machine, power tiller operated cultivator and shoot harvester was 10.30, 46.24 and 82.32 MJ/ha, respectively with a saving of 89, 91 and 81%, respectively. Similarly, the cost of operation of cutting preparation machine, power tiller operated cultivator and shoot harvester was 160, 1040 and 980 Rs/ha, respectively with respective saving of 75, 67 and 70% as compared to traditional method. Key Words: Mulberry cultivation, Drudgery, Improved machines, Cutting preparation machine

INTRODUCTION developed and are used in place of the traditional Sericulture is agro based industry with its industrial methods. However, these farm implements and super structure and low gestation period (Chauhan machinery have not been ergonomically developed. and Tayal, 2017). It is estimated that nearly 1030 The drudgery, traumatic accidents and injuries man-days/year/ha are required for mulberry are the major concerns to examine options for cultivation. Among these, weeding and hoeing ergonomic interventions and betterment of work alone accounts for 500 man-days/year/ha (Dandin in crop production activities (Nag and Nag, 2004). and Verma, 2002). Mechanization in mulberry Hence, there is an urgent need to study the farming operation today is becoming popular due ergonomic aspects in detail and to quantify the to heavy work involved in traditional methods. drudgery involved in the agricultural operations. Most of mulberry land holdings are in the category This would greatly help the researchers to design of marginal (less than 1 ha). The small size of simple and effective gadgets, time scheduling in land holdings pose operational problems for large operations considering ergonomic requirements machinery cultivation. Traditionally, mulberry and to develop the robotic system which is cost- farming is done manually which involves high cost, effective, while being inherently safe and reliable, shortage of human labour and drudgery to the (Bechar and Vignault, 2016). Research workers can workers. Hence, mechanization of mulberry farming compare different work methods//equipment is contemplated to increase production, improve and also suggest a proper work rest schedule for labour efficiency and reduce the cost of operation optimum performance of the man machine system and drudgery (Dandin and Verma, 2002). and can assign the worker to some appropriate forms of activity suiting to his health (Tiwari, Improved tools, machines and implements have been 2002). Ergonomic evaluation of mulberry farming

41 Agricultural Engineering Today implements and machines can provide a rational MATERIALS AND METHODS basis for recommending methods and implements The study on drudgery involved in traditional and for mulberry cultivation with higher output and safety. mechanized cultivation of mulberry was carried Drudgery involved in mechanical weeding increases out at the research farm of the Central Sericulture stress on the workers causing increase in their heart Research and Training Institute, Central Silk Board, rate and oxygen consumption (Ashok et al., 2013). Srirampur Mysore, in the mulberry gardens. Farm workers used to uproot the weeds by hand in bending position that affect their health (Singh, Selection of Human subjects 2010). Singh (2017) found out that the physiological Three subjects having variation in age, weight and cost and the mean working heart rate of operators stature were selected for the study. Anthropometric in the paddy field was 109 beats/min with paddy data and physiological characteristics of the subjects weeder; the operation was graded as “moderately were screened for normal health with medical heavy”. Several research workers (Karthirvel and investigation (Table 1). Ananthakrishan, 2000; Balasankri et al., 2003; Singh Selection of Variable and Gite, 2007) have used heart rate for assessment of physiological workload of the workers. The variables selected for the study are given in Table 2. Keeping in view the above facts, the present study was conducted on assessment of the drudgery Independent variables: The movement and involved in traditional and mechanized cultivation of posture of various body parts and force exerted mulberry on the basis of heart rate, blood pressure by the operator during the operations depends on and body discomfort. the equipment used. The independent variables Table 1: Selection of human subjects selected for the study were the different equipment used for performing the same operation (Table 2). Particulars Subjects The machines used in study are shown in Fig. 1. S1 S2 S3 Age (years) 28 32 34 Preparation of cuttings: Bill-hook is a hand Stature (cm) 158 164 167 having a long sharp edge blade and wooden handle Weight (kg) 58 65 60 which is used for preparation of cutting. Cutting Resting heart rate 73 74 73 preparation machine is a power operated machine (bpm) used for cuttings preparation. It consisted of a 0.75 Resting blood kW electric motor placed on the angle frame with pressure Systolic 119 125 128 a 20 cm diameter serrated blade fixed on the shaft Diastolic 79 82 85 of the machine. Weeding and hoeing: Spade (Kolugadali) is like Table 2: Selection of study variables hard tool comprising a narrow blade and wooden S. Operation Independent Dependent handle used for digging out the grass from the No. variables variables mulberry gardens. A power tiller operated cultivator 1. Preparation i) Bill hook i) Heart rate is used for weeding and hoeing operation in of cuttings ii) Cutting ii) Postural mulberry garden. A five tine cultivator was used for preparation onfiguration removing the weeds which was attached to 6.375 machine iii) Body 2. Weeding i) Spade discomfort kW power tiller. and hoeing ii) Power tiller Shoot harvesting: Secateurs is a hand tool used operated cultivator for harvesting of mulberry shoots. Shoot harvester 3. Shoot i) Secateurs (Brush cutter) is a shoulder hung unit consisting harvesting ii) Pruning of an engine and a long shaft enclosed inside the saw Shoot pipe fixed to the handle with a cutting blade at its harvester end. The shoot harvester is used to harvest the

42 Vol. 42(3), 2018

a) Interculture with power tiller operated (b) Shoot harvesting by brush cutter cultivator

Fig .1 : Equipment used in study for mulberry cultivation mulberry shoot as well as tough grass, scrub and marked difference in energy expenditure (11.2 forest stands. kJ/min and 12.18 kJ/min, respectively). But the drudgery caused due to bending is reflected in terms Dependent Variables of postural discomfort experienced by the workers. i. Heart rate: Heart rate is the number of ventricular Hence, postural configuration was selected in terms beats/min . It is a sensitive and fine discriminating of sitting, standing or bending posture of operator measure for evaluating strain in muscular work. In during the work. addition to this, heart rate can be measured and iii. Body discomfort: Discomfort is the body pain/ analyzed easily. Therefore, heart rate was taken unrest arising as a result of the working posture and/ as a measure for stating the rest allowances, which or the excessive stress on muscle due to the effort compensated for the fatiguing effects of physical involved in the activity. Sometimes, it is also called strain. Heart rate monitor is the best method overall discomfort or simply, discomfort. In many available and used now a days for measurement of situations through the work may be well within the heart rate of subjects before and after work, Fig 2(a). physiological limit of the workers, the body discomfort ii. Postural configuration: A good posture is one may restrict the duration of work dependent upon which can sustain a minimum effort and which the static loading component involved in it. Body allows the subjects to perform the given task more discomfort is quantified in two ways, one is overall efficiently and with least muscular discomfort. discomfort rating (ODR) and another is body part discomfort score (BPDS). For the assessment of Nagi. et al. (1980) observed that weeding either in squatting or bending posture did not cause a ODR a 7-point scale (0 = no discomfort, 7 = extreme

(a) Heart rate monitor (b) Setup for body discomfort rating (c) Tread mill Fig. 2: Heart rate monitor, body discomfort rating and subjects calibration

43 Agricultural Engineering Today discomfort) was used (Fig. 2 b).Overall discomfort c) The inclination and speed of tread mill was rating scale was used to indicate the level of overall adjusted to 6% and 1 km/h, respectively. discomfort of the operator after completion of the d) The subject was asked to walk on the treadmill experiment. A wooden scale of 70 cm length was and heart rate was recorded for the duration of fabricated having 0 to 7 digits mark on it at equal 10 min. distance (Tiwari, 2002). This technique is based on Corlett and Bishop Technique (1976). A movable e) Then, the speed was increased to 1.5 km/h pointer is provided to indicate the rating. At the end keeping slope as same ie 6%. of 2 h of continuous work, subjects were asked to f) After half an hour rest, subject was again asked indicate the overall discomfort rating on this scale. to walk on the treadmill at increased speed. . Experimental Procedure g) The above procedure was followed for all speed The study was conducted in the field as well as in up to 6 km/h with the step of 0.5 km/h and for all laboratory. In laboratory subjects were calibrated the three subjects. on treadmill to get a calibration between workload h) Three replications for each speed were taken. and heart rate. Field experiments were conducted for three operations namely preparation of cuttings, i) Regression analysis was done to fit suitable weeding and hoeing, and shoot harvesting. functional relationship between heart rate and work load, obtained during the calibration. It was Subjects’ calibration on treadmill: A tread mill was obtained independently for each subject. used for subject’s calibration. It consisted of main body, handle and control unit (Fig. 2(c). The main It was seen that initially heart rate increased and it body consisted of running belt and side rails. The took about 15 to 20 minutes of time to stabilize at handle is provided to give support to the operator a specific level depending upon workload (Fig. 3). while walking on the belt. The control unit consisted Guruprasad et al. (2003), Solunke (2003), Kumar of the LCD for indicating time, speed and distances. et al. (2000) and Gite et al. (2000), also reported that 15 to 20 minutes time interval was sufficient Initial trial on the treadmill showed that 6% inclination for stabilization of the heart rate in their studies. and the speed upto 6 km/h was sufficient to get a Thus, in this study average heart rate of last 10 desired level of the heart for all subjects. Therefore, minutes of experiment was taken to represent the 6% inclination was kept constant through the heart rate corresponding to particular experimental calibration and workload was varied by changing combination. the speed of treadmill. Field experiment: Experiments were carried out

The workload (WL) on treadmill was calculated by for determination of heart rate at two minute interval using following formula: for a period of thirty minutes. For overall body W = 0.1657 WV Sin θ discomfort score, the observation was taken for L two hours of continuous operation. The subjects where, W = Work load (Watt); L were permitted rest, if required. The scaling of W = Weight of the subject (kg); physical work was classified as given by Sam V = Speed of running belt (m/min); (2016) in Table 3. = Inclination of running belt with horizontal (degree) Energy and Cost Economics The steps involved in subject calibration are given The energy requirement for cutting , weeding and below: hoeing, and shoot harvesting operations of mulberry crop in traditional and mechanized methods were a) The subject was allowed to rest for minimum of calculated with the help of energy equivalents for half an hour prior to the start of calibration. direct and indirect sources as suggested by Mittal b) Digital heart rate monitor was kept hanging on et al. (1985) and Verma et al. (2005), Table 4. The the shoulder of the subjects. cost was determined as per standard practice.

44 Vol. 42(3), 2018

140 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 120 The results of study are presented herewith. 100 Trend of heart rate response to workload of the 80 subjects on treadmill: The subjects’ calibration 60 on treadmill was carried out for assessing the relationship between work load and heart rate of 40 the subjects (Fig. 4). From the figure, it can be

Heart Rate, (beats/min)Rate, Heart 20 observed that there was linear trend of heart rate with increased workload for all the three subjects. 0 The subject characteristics equation is valid for Fig. 3: Time0 rate5 vs 10heart response15 20 25 30 Time, (min) the particular subject under the ambient conditions Table 3: Scaling of physical work (Source: Sam maintained during experimentation. It is obvious 2016) that the value of the inclination depends on work capacity of the subjects. Work H.R., Energy consumption, classification beats/min kcal/min For the three subjects S1, S2 and S3 under study Light 75 2.5 at a mechanical workload of 57.6, 64.5 and 59.6 W, Moderately heavy 100 5.0 respectively at 6 km/h, the workload approached Heavy 125 7.5 the category of very heavy work and therefore Very heavy 150 10.0 subjects needed to take rest after 30 minutes of Extremely heavy 175 12.5 work. The heart rate increase was in the range of

Table 4: Energy equivalent of different sources (Source: Mittal et al) Particulars Unit Equivalent energy Remarks (MJ) Human Adult-Man Man-h 1.96 Woman Woman-h 1.6 Animals medium size Pair-h 10.1 Weight of bullock 0 350-450 kg bullock Electricity kWh 11.9 Agricultural Machinery kg (machine weight) 62.7 Distributing the manufacturing energy uniformly over the life, based on weight.

150 150 150 y = 1.197x + 67.20 y = 1.160x + 66.20 y = 1.160x + 66.20 R² = 0.993 130 130 R² = 0.987 130 R² = 0.987

110 110 110

90 90 90

Heart rate, beats/minrate, Heart 70 70 70 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 5 15 25 35 45 55 65 Workload, Watt Workload, Watt Workload, Watt (a) S1 (b) S2 (c) S3 Session: 9 to 5 p.m; Temperature: 23.90 C to 350 C;; RH::75 to 90%;; Velocity of treadmill 1-6 kmph Fig. 4: Characteristic curves obtained during calibration on treadmill with the three subjects

45 Agricultural Engineering Today

80 to 138 beats/min for different velocity i.e. 1 km/h in heavy discomfort category but in case of cutting to 6 km/h of the treadmill and for all three subjects preparation machine the range of value was 2 - 2.4 (Table 5). which falls in slightly discomfort rating on the rating The subject characteristics equations obtained are: scale of overall discomfort. From the results, it is evident that the variation in heart rate was due to For subject S1: HR=1.180WL+67.814; R2=0.9965 change in working method and weight of the hand tool used. Hence, the subject must be conscious For subject S2: HR=1.0383WL+67.677; R2=0.9932 about working methods to minimize the drudgery. For subject S3: HR=1.1196WL+66.934; R2=0.9938 ODR value for cutting preparation machine was less due to working in standing posture which resulted Physiological response of subjects (S1, S2 and in faster work. Thus, the subjects felt more comfort The values of heart S3) in preparation of cuttings: while working with cutting preparation machine as rate and work load of all three subjects were very compared to bill-hook. close before work (Table 6). The maximum value of work load for S1, S2 and S3 increased from initial Physiological response of subjects (S1, S2 and value of 3.5, 5.1 and 4.5 to 39.4+1.5, 42.8+1.2 and S3) in weeding and hoeing: The weeding and 38.5 + 2.1 W respectively for bill hook and 20.5, hoeing operations are traditionally carried out by 20.9 and 21.8, respectively, for cutting preparation spade for which maximum heart rate, work load and machine. Thus, an increase of nearly 10 times ODR values were 136 beats/min, 63 W and 6.33, and 5 times was observed for bill hook and cutting respectively. The heart rate, work load and ODR preparation machine, respectively. value for the power tiller operated cultivator was 12 beats/min, 41 W and 4.22, respectively, which was The range of heart rate observed after work for lesser in drudgery as compared to the spade. The bill-hook and for the three subjects was 110-114.33 workload for S1, S2 and S3 was found to increase beats/min. According to Sam (2014), the range of nearly by about 15 times and 10 times, for spade heart rate for moderately heavy physical load is and power tiller operated cultivator, respectively 100 to 125 beats/min (Table 3), which indicated (Table 6). that work done by bill-hook falls under moderately heavy category whereas the range of heart rate for The observed values of heart rate for the spade was cutting preparation machine was 89 to 92 beats/min 136 beats/min, which falls in heavy physical load which falls in light category of work (Table 5). From category and for power tiller operated cultivator it field observation for 2 h, the ODR value in case of was 112 beats/min which falls in the moderately bill-hook was in the range of 4.1 to 4.3, which falls heavy physical load category. In case of spade it

Table 5: Heart rate at different work loads on tread mill for all three subjects

Velocity Subjects S1 Subjects S2 Subjects S3 (km/h) Heart rate Work load Heart rate Work load Heart rate Work load (beats/min) (watts) (beats/min) (watts) (beats/min) (watts)

V1 = 1.0 80 9.6 80 10.8 80 9.9

V2 = 1.5 86 14.4 85 16.1 84 14.9

V3 = 2.0 90 19.1 90 22.0 89 19.9

V4 =2.5 93 24.0 95 26.9 93 24.9

V5 = 3.0 100 29.0 101 32.3 99 29.8

V6 = 3.5 108 33.6 105 37.6 104 34.8

V7 = 4.0 113 38.4 113 43.0 114 40.0

V8 = 4.5 120 43.2 117 48.4 116 44.6

V9 = 5.0 123 48.0 123 53.8 122 44.6

V10 = 5.5 130 52.8 128 59.1 130 54.6

V11 = 6.0 138 57.6 138 64.5 135 59.6 Session: 9 am to 5 pm, Temperature:23.9.to 350C; Relative humidity: 75 to 90%

46 Vol. 42(3), 2018

Table 6: Physiological responses of the subjects in different operations of mulberry cultivation Operation Subjects Particulars Values before Mean values after work work Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Bill hook Cutting preparation machine Cutting S1 Heart rate, beats/min 72 1.5 114 2.18 92 2.0 Work Load, W 3.5 1.0 39.4 1.5 20.5 1.0 - - 4.1 0.17 2 0.09 ODR S2 Heart rate, beats/min 73 1.6 112 2.5 89 1.56 Work Load, W 5.1 0.9 42.8 1.2 20.9 1.0 - - 4.3 0.18 2.1 0.1 ODR S3 Heart rate, beats/min 72 1.68 110 2.96 91 2.33 Work Load, W 4.5 0.9 38.5 2.1 21.8 1.2 4.1 0.17 2.4 0.18 ODR - - Spade Power tiller operated cultivator Weeding S1 Heart rate, beats/min 72 1.67 136 3.0 112 2.2 and hoeing Work Load, W 3.8 0.8 57.5 2.2 37.4 2.1 - 6 0.22 4 0.13 ODR - S2 Heart rate, beats/min 71 1.37 133 3.3 110 3.0 Work Load, W 3.5 0.8 63.3 2.5 41.0 2.6 - - 6.33 0.21 4.22 0.18 ODR S3 Heart rate, beats/min 72 1.78 128 2.5 110 3.2 Work Load, W 5.1 0.7 56.7 2.0 38.5 2.7 - - 6.12 0.18 4.3 0.29 ODR Secateurs Shoot harvester Shoot S1 Heart rate, beats/min 73.33 2.5 119 2.1 110 1.96 harvesting Work Load, W 4.7 1.6 46.6 1.8 35.5 1.7 - - 5 0.18 3.5 0.38 ODR S2 Heart rate, beats/min 72.67 2.0 118 1.96 107 2.0 Work Load, W 4.8 1.4 48.5 1.8 37.7 1.6 - - 5 3.33 0.29 ODR 0.17 S3 Heart rate, beats/min 73 1.96 116 3.0 106 2.1 Work Load, W 5.4 1.3 44.1 2.2 35 1.9 ODR - - 3 0.19 5 0.18 Note: ODR= Overall discomfort rating was observed that subjects felt discomfort after S1 before operation was 73±2.5 beats/min, 4.7±1.6 continuous working for 25-30 minutes, whereas in W and 0, respectively. The HR, WL and ODR for case of power tiller operated cultivator subjects felt subject S2 before operation were 73±2.0 beats/min, discomfort after continuous working for 1 hour. This 4.8±1.4 and 0, respectively. The HR, WL and ODR may be due to weight of spade and continuous arm for subject S3 before operation were 73±1.96 beats/ action for digging (30-40 digging strokes). min, 5.4±1.3 and 0, respectively. Physiological response of subjects (S1, S2 and In case of harvesting with secateurs the mean heart S3) in shoot harvesting: Two different methods rate for all three subjects increased from initial of harvesting were compared viz secateurs and value of 73 beats/min to 117.6 beats/min, showing shoot harvester. The HR, WL and ODR for subject an increase of 76.13%. Similarly, the workload

47 Agricultural Engineering Today increased to 46.3 W, showing an increase by 9.3 for weeding and hoeing there was saving in energy times as compared to initial value. The maximum and cost of 91% and 70% respectively by power overall discomfort score was 5.0. tiller operated cultivator as compared to traditional method. It is necessary to maintain the quality In case of shoot harvester the maximum values of and time to supply the shoot for silkworm rearing HR, WL, and ODR were as 110 beats/min, 37.7 operation with lesser cost of production so as to W and 3.33 which were much less as compared increase the profit. It was observed that energy to respective values of 119 beats/min, 48 and 5 required for shoot harvester was almost 5 times for the secateurs. These values indicated that the lesser (82.32 MJ/ha) than traditional method using shoot harvester was better over the secateurs in all the cases. secateurs (435.12 MJ/ha) and cost of operation (Rs 980/ha) of shoot harvester was nearly 3 times The maximum value of heart rate after work for lesser than secateurs (Rs 2960/ha). Percentage secateurs was 119 beats/min and for shoot harvester saving in energy and cost in the case of mechanized it was 110 beats/min. It indicated that secateurs and shoot harvesting was 81% and 67%, respectively shoot harvester fell in moderately heavy physical as compared to traditional method. load. This may be due to metabolic efforts required in specific operations. Overall discomfort rating in CONCLUSIONS case of secateurs was 5 and for shoot harvester The ergonomic evaluation of different operations was 3.5, which differentiated the discomfort as in mulberry cultivation revealed that by using heavy discomfort and moderately heavy discomfort, mechanized methods of cultivation the physiological respectively. From the above results it was observed response, energy required and cost of work could that the subjects felt comfort with shoot harvester be reduced significantly. The drudgery of the as compared to secateurs. workers measured in terms of heart rate and overall Energy and cost of operation in mulberry discomfort rating reduced with mechanized method cultivation: Mechanized method of mulberry as compared to traditional method. It showed that cultivation was compared with the traditional method human beings are not the best source of power and (Table 7). It was observed that as compared to therefore, farmer should go for mechanized methods use of bill hook, the saving in energy and cost by instead of traditional methods wherever possible. . cutting preparation machine was 89% and 75%, respectively. Energy required and cost of operation ACKNOWLEDGEMENT for power tiller operated cultivator for weeding and The authors acknowledge the Central Sericulture hoeing was 46.24 MJ/ha and Rs 1040/ha. Thus, Research and Training Institute, Central Silk Board,

Table 7: Energy and cost of operation in mulberry cultivation Parameters Method of mulberry cultivation Traditional Mechanical Energy required, MJ/ha 94.68 10.3 Cost of operation, Rs/ha 640 160 Saving in Energy, % - 89 Saving in cost, % - 75 Energy required, MJ/ha 505.68 46.24 Cost of operation, Rs/ha 3440 1040 Saving in Energy, % 91 Saving in cost, % 70 Energy required, MJ/ha 435.12 82.32 Cost of operation, Rs/ha 2960 980 Saving in Energy, % 81 Saving in cost, % 67

48 Vol. 42(3), 2018

Shrirampura, Mysore for providing funds and facility Mittal V K; Mittal J P; Dhawan K C. 1985. Research for conduct of the research. Digest an Energy requirement in agricultural sector. All India Co-ordinates Research Project. REFERENCES Energy requirements in agril. Sector. Punjab Agril. Ashok A K; Haribabu B; Rao A S; Someswarao Ch. University Ludhiana,. .2013. Ergonomical evaluation of manually operated Nag P K; Sebastion N C; Malonker. 1980. weeder under wet land condition. Scientific Occupational workload of Indian agricultural Research and Essays, Vol. 8(6) pp 249-255, 2013. workers. Ergonomics Vol. 23(2) pp 91-102. Balasankari P K; Manian R; Karthirvel K. 2003. Nag P K; Nag A. 2004. Drudgery, accidents and Energy cost and discomfort rating for injuries in Indian agriculture..Industrial Health th selected tractor operation. 37 Annual Convention Vol. 42 pp 149–162. of ISAE, FMP-HE-6:339-343. Sam B. 2014. Ergonomic evaluation of paddy Bechar A; Vigneault. 2016. Agricultural robots for harvester and thresher with farm women. field operations: Concepts and components. International Journal of Science and Research, Biosystems Engineering, Vol. 149 pp 94-111. Vol. 3(11) pp 1644-1648. Chauhan T PS; Tayal M K. 2017. Mulberry sericulture. Sam B. 2016. Development and physiological cost Industrial Entomology. Pages 197-263. evaluation of a modified blade system for power Corlett E N; Bishop R P. 1976. A technique for weeder in dry land cultivation. International Journal assessing postural discomfort. Ergonomics. 19: of Scientific Engineering and Research, 4(1): 175-182. 74-78. Dandin S B; Verma S. 2002. Mechanization on Singh K K. 2017. Modification of power operated sericulture – need and scope. Indian silk, Vol. single row rice weeder for dry field condition. M. 40(1) pp 9-12. Tech. Thesis, IGKV University, Raipur, Gite, L P. 2000. Ergonomical comparison of local and Singh S P. 2010. Ergonomical evaluation of cono- improved for wheat harvesting by women weeder with farm women. Agricultural Engineering workers. Agricultural Engineering Today, Vol. 24(3) Today, Vol. 34(3) pp 31-36, 2010. pp 7-12. 2007. Ergonomical assessment Guru Prasad P; Lavana K; Balchand. 2003. Singh S P; Gite L P. Unpublished B.Tech. Thesis. Acharya N.G.Ranga of hand operated paddy winnower by woman Agricultural University, Bapatla, A.P. workers. Journal of Agricultural Engineering (ISAE), 44 (4): 67-71. Kathirvel K; Ananthakrishnan D. 2000. Physiological cost of rice farming operations. AllIndia Coordinated Solunke R. 2003. Ergonomic accepts of selected Research Project on Human Engineering and design parameters of manually operated wheel Safety in Agriculture. Progress Report (1996- hand . M. Tech. Thesis, Punjab Agril. University, 2000): 97-105. Ludhiana. Kumar V J F; Durairaj C D; Salokhe R. 2000. Tiwari P S; Gite L P. 2002. Lecture delivered during Ergonomics evaluation of hand weeder operation training for the investigators/research fellows using simulated actuary motion. Agril. Engg. J. ‘Organized by AICRP on HEASA at CIAE Bhopal, Vol. 9(1) pp 41-50. January 22-24.

49