Weeding is a critical but labour-intensive operation for farmers holding small and marginal farms. A major portion of crop loss and reduced productivity occurs because weeds compete with crops for sunlight, nutrients, and water during the early growth stages. At Vigyan Ashram, where learning is closely linked with field realities, understanding the true scope of intervention in weeding is essential before proposing technological solutions.

This blog shares insights from field visits, farmer interactions, market surveys, and literature review carried out as part of an exploratory study to identify context-appropriate weeding interventions.

Existing Weeding Practices in Villages Around Pune

Field interactions with farmers from Pabal, Dhamari, Kendur, and Amboli revealed how weeding is currently managed on the field.

Manual Weeding: Precise but Exhausting

Traditional tools such as khurpi, hoes, and sickles are still used, particularly in closely spaced crops. While manual weeding is precise and environmentally safe, it is physically demanding and increasingly expensive. In many cases, farmers spend ₹10,000–12,000 per acre per operation, often repeating the process twice in a single crop cycle.

Mechanical Weeding: Limited Adoption

Wheel hoes, cono weeders, and power weeders are available in the market and frequently showcased at agricultural expos. However, actual field adoption is limited. Small landholdings, uneven crop spacing, high initial costs, and operational constraints restrict their usefulness. Even local hardware stores report low demand for such tools.

Herbicides: The Dominant Choice

Most farmers prefer herbicides because they are affordable, fast, and require minimal labour. For many crops, weed control through herbicides costs less than ₹1,000 per acre per crop cycle. In rice fields, practices such as water mulching also help suppress weed growth.

However, discussions with farmers and field observations highlighted concerns such as improper dosage, limited awareness of safe application practices, and increasing dependence on chemical solutions.

What This Means for Technology and Design Interventions

A key learning from this study is that introducing new tools alone may not address the real problem. While mechanical weeders appear promising, they struggle to compete with herbicides in terms of cost and convenience for smallholder farmers.

For institutions like Vigyan Ashram, this insight is important. It suggests that the scope of intervention in weeding should extend beyond tool development and include:

  • Knowledge dissemination
  • Practice-based learning
  • System-level thinking

Immediate Scope: Designing Solutions for Awareness and Practices

There is potential for interventions focused designing solutions for judicious herbicide use. Many challenges arise not from the technology itself, but from how it is used.

Design solutions with simple decision-support tools can help farmers:

  • Apply correct dosages
  • Choose appropriate timing
  • Reduce health and environmental risks
  • Maintain cost-effectiveness

Long-Term Scope: Exploring Aspirational Technologies

In the long term, AI-based and robotic weeders offer possibilities for precision weed management, reduced chemical use, and lower drudgery. While these technologies are currently expensive and inaccessible for most smallholders, they represent an aspirational direction worth exploring through research, prototyping, and exposure.

Vigyan Ashram can play a critical role as a testbed for early-stage experimentation, helping evaluate whether such technologies can be adapted to local conditions through shared-use or service-based models.