Template:Chapters 6.2

6.2 - Lost cost weeding tools for women

Natalie Fear, University of Guelph, Canada

Suggested citation for this chapter.

Fear,N.(2022) Lost cost weeding tools for women. In Farmpedia, The Encyclopedia for Small Scale Farmers. Editor, M.N. Raizada, University of Guelph, Canada. http://www.farmpedia.org

Background Information

Women represent about 43% of the agricultural labour force in developing countries as well as globally (FAO, 2011). Today, women account for one third of the total agricultural input in most parts of Asia and Africa (Aggarwal et al., 2003). Furthermore, women carry a disproportionate work burden compared to men (Grassi et al., 2015). For example, in India women work 10 hours more per week compared to their male counterparts on agricultural tasks (Aggarwal et al., 2003). Time surveys show that predominant female activates include weeding and harvesting (FAO, 2011). These two tasks are likely the most time consuming and the most difficult in terms of physical labour compared to all other agricultural tasks. These tasks are very physically straining for women because of their limited access to labour saving technologies (Grassi et al., 2015). In particular, it is estimated that hand weeding consumes 400-600 work hours per hectare per growing season (Raut et al., 2013).

A low cost solution to this problem is to introduce improved weeding tools to women. These tools will allow the task of weeding to be less physically demanding and time consuming compared to the pre-existing indigenous tools that have been used for generations (Langill and Landon, 1998). For many tools available today, women were not involved in the design process even though they are the primary users and have special needs (e.g. low weight and height specific). These improved tools will be specific to the women’s desired designs, for increased productivity. The purpose of this chapter is to provide detailed options and information about how this intervention may reach women in developing countries and how they can then use this specialized product and practice to benefit their daily lives.

Description of Practice and Product

The obscure task of weeding is usually performed manually by bending over and pulling the weed and its roots above the ground (Raut et al., 2013). The posture used while weeding leads to induced back pain for the women involved (Raut et al., 2013). Improved weeding tools are helpful because they allow the women to remain in an upright body position and can be used to remove the weed without the women having to touch the weed or put difficult labour into pulling it out (IFAD, 1998). There are several types of tools that are available for different purposes and preferences. Please refer to Table 1 to assess the types of weeders available and what they are best used for.

Table 1: Types of Weeders

The farmer may choose their type of weeding tool according to price, availability, preference and weed type. It is important to realize that the motorized weeder would be the most costly option and may not be of financial reach to all farmers. However the other tools, which are less expensive, will still be of great assistance to women farmers while weed picking. These weeding tools can be purchased from a local vendor or can be made by a local blacksmith.

Weeding Tool Criteria

There are specific criteria that make a weeding tool effective and efficient for women subsistence farmers. Firstly, it is important that the tools are of low cost. Most subsistence farmers live under the international poverty line, meaning that most farmers make less than $1.90 USD per day (The World Bank, 2015). To ensure that the tools are of low cost, a local blacksmith can be employed, crafting the tool with wood handles to reduce the cost of the tool. Secondly, it is important that vendors have versatile and appropriate tools available for sale to meet the challenges of different types of weeds (e.g. deep roots versus horizontally spreading; different soil types; different income levels). It is also important that there are different models available that cater to different women’s heights and tool weight preferences. It is best to employ participation of women both in the design and implementation process. Allowing women to fully participate in the tool crafting process will allow them to feel empowered and in control of the decisions being made on their farm, it provides women with a voice that is often always over-ruled by their husbands (Narayanan, 2003). Lastly, an important characteristic for a weeding tool to have is durability. Since subsistence farmers are very poor and the product will be used a lot, the product must be strong and of good quality to last for a long period of time.

Possible Benefits

Reduction of Time and Physical Labour-A study conducted by Mitchell, 2016 concludes that farmers who use an improved weeding tool experience an average decrease of 6.5 hours of weeding time, which results in an 80% overall decrease in time spent weeding (Mitchell, 2016). The time that is saved by using these tools could be put towards household duties or other agricultural tasks. In addition to the reduction of time, the use of weeding tools will reduce the physical strain that manual weeding causes (IFAD, 1998).

Increase in Crop Production- The removal of weeds is extremely important for achieving high crop yields (Holm, 1969). Weeds can cause soil degradation, limit nutrients and space and furthermore negatively impact the growth of the desired crop (Kingley and Rudolph, 2009). It is very important to remove weeds early in the growing season because competition between weeds and crop seedlings at this stage forever reduces the yield of the crop (Frick and Johnson, 2012).

With the use of weeding tools, more weeds can be removed in a reduced time frame. Less weeds in the fields results in less nutrient and space competition and overall increased yields (Kingley & Rudolph, 2009). If farmers have access to mechanical weeders, the re-working of weeds back into the soil can also help build up organic matter, this mobilizes micronutrients in the soil to ensure the healthy growth of a plant (WASSAN, 2006).

Increase in Profits- With an increase in crop yields, subsistence farmers will have an increase in profit from the additional crops they will now able to harvest and sell. Also, with the time they will save using weeding tools, women may have more time to spend on other profit making activities, which will then result in additional profit for her family.

Critical Analysis

Cost Analysis- As mentioned in the Weeding Tool Criteria section above, it may be difficult for subsistence farmers to purchase the tools because of their low incomes. Farmers, who lack knowledge of the full extent of the tool’s benefits, may choose not to spend their money on a tool and fail to see it as a worthy purchase. To get an idea of how much a farmer would have to spend on a weeding tool, a study done by the Food and Agriculture Organization notes that a traditional weeding tool made by a local blacksmith would cost between 1.00-4.25 USD and an imported industrial weeder would cost $2.50-8.00USD (FAO, 1998). Furthermore, the motorized weeders would again be a higher price than those previously listed. Refer to Table 1 to see an estimated break down of prices.

In addition, the traditional weeding tools that are of a lower price range may not be as time efficient as the motorized tools. The motorized tools are expensive and may be outside the budget of a subsistence farmer. Moreover, the farmer may not be able to totally maximize efficiency with a low cost traditional weeder, but it would still bring benefits to them by cutting down time requirements and the amount of physical labour by a noticeable amount. A major cost will be the size and/or weight of the tool, which will increase transportation, costs, especially to remote areas. A way to reduce costs is to not sell the handle and let farmers create their own from local wood.</P

Potential Problems- The main problem of this intervention is the ability of the women to access the weeding tools. In many societies in developing countries, women have low socio-economic statuses and are not often able to make decisions without the approval of their husband (FAO, 1998). This therefore constrains their ability to invest in gender-specific technologies (FAO, 1998).

Another potential problem is the lack of information transmission from seller to buyer. In order for women to use these tools properly, they must be trained on how to use them. The vendor can transmit the information to the women or the SAK picture book could be attached to the product with picture examples of how to properly utilize the tool.

Picture Based Lesson to Train Farmers

Click on the image to access a higher resolution image as well as lessons adapted for different geographic regions.

Useful Resources

Images and Videos of Tools

Wheel Hoe: http://dir.indiamart.com/impcat/wheel-hoe-weeder.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUwSmojsUxY

Motorized Weeder:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNe5h471td0

Cono-Weeder

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5HohX3TwHY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIqXa9y4XHY

Long Handled Weeder: http://tierragarden.com/ProductImages/DeWit/31-0806.jpg

http://www.selections.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/485x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/G/F/GFA375.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ERMmRF9Fqo

Short Handled Weeder: https://gallandt.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/img_0771.jpg?w=300

http://cdn2.bigcommerce.com/n-pktq5q/1we6yb79/templates/__custom/images/prdct-img1.jpg?t=1454504760

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blPXjavqPJ8

Long Handled Weed Puller: http://cdn.gadgetsandgizmos.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/fiskarsweedpuller-600x450.jpg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cruAPsZJwFQ

Links to Potential Suppliers: http://www.alibaba.com/Agriculture-Machinery-Equipment_pid100009395?spm=a2700.8190021.199001.27.NJnzZB

http://www.indiamart.com

http://dir.indiamart.com/industry/agro-poultry-dairy.html

Instructional Resources: http://saknepal.org/resource/sample-images-of-agricultural-tools-machines-supplies/ (Austin Brush, University of Guelph)

Refer to the SAK picture book for picture illustrations of how to use different types of weeding tools: A Picture Book of Best Practices for Subsistence Farmers: South Asian version

References

1. Aggarwal, S., Khanna, K., & Malhan, S. (2003). Quality of Life of Farm Women. Delhi: Abhijeet Publications

2. Agriculture Equipment (2016). In ismat Engineering Works. Retrieved from http://www.kismatengineering.com/agriculture-equipment.html#agricultural-hoe

3. Farm Machinery (2016). In Alibaba. Retrieved from https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/China-export-15hp-power-tiller-weeder_1887396732.html

4. FAO (1998). The potential for improving production tools and implements used by women (1998). Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/w8794e/w8794e01.htm#P372_59507

5. Triple-Claw Weeder (2016). In Fiskars. Retrieved from http://www2.fiskars.com/Products/Gardening-and-Yard-Care/Weeders/Triple-claw-Weeder

6. Frick, B., & Johnson, E. (2012). Weeds - when are they a problem?. In Linking Organic Knowledge . Retrieved from http://www.oacc.info/Extension/ext_weed_problem.asp

7. Garden Tools (2016). In Alibaba. Retrieved from https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/welded-bow-carbon-steel-garden-rake_60430829304.html

8. Grassi, F., Landberg, J., & Huyer, S. (2015). Running Out of Time: The Reduction of women’s work burden in agricultural production. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/3/a-i4741e.pdf

9. Holm, L. (1969). Weeds Problems in Developing Countries. Weed Science, 17(1), 113- 118. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org.subzero.lib.uoguelph.ca/stable/pdf/4041470.pdf

10. IFAD (1998). In Agricultural Implements Used by Women Farmers in Africa. Retrieved November from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/011/aj334e/aj334e.pdf

11. Kingely & Rudolph, V. (2009). Weeds : Retrieved from http://web.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/ebookviewer/ebook/bmxlYmtfXzM1NDMzNV9fQU41?sid=9250de35-4ae7-47ae-a2a7-3e0a998abb21@sessionmgr120&vid=0&format=EB&rid=1

12. Langill, S., & Landon, S. (1998). Indigenous Knowledge. IDRC, Readings and Resources for Comunity-Based Natural Resource Management Researchers, 4. Retreived from https://idl-bnc.idrc.ca/dspace/bitstream/10625/32031/6/114509.pdf

13. Manual and Mechanical Weeding (2016). In Rice Knowledge Bank. Retrieved from http://www.knowledgebank.irri.org/step-by-step-production/growth/weed-management/manual-and-mechanical-weeding

14. Mitchell, A. (2016). Examination of Improved Weeding Technologies with Smallholder Rice Farmers in Southern Benin, West Africa. Retrieved from http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/countries/benin/research/BeninMPSpaperAMMitchell.pdf

15. Narayanan, P. (2003). Empowerment through Participation: How Effective Is This Approach. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(25), 2484-2486. Retreived from https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/4413702.pdf

16. Raut, V. D., Deshmukh, P. B. D., & Dekate, P. D. (2013). Review paper on “ Various aspects of Weeders for Economical Cultivation ” Preparation of Papers for International Journal of Modern Engineering and Bold ), 3, 3296–3299. Retrieved from http://www.ijmer.com/papers/Vol3_Issue5/EG3532963299.pdf

17. SOFA Team. & Doss, C. (2011). The role of women in agriculture. In FAO. Retrieved from http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am307e/am307e00.pdf

18. The World Bank. (2016). Global Poverty Line Updated. In The World Bank. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/brief/global-poverty-line-faqe

19. WASSAN. (2006). WEEDERS A Reference Compendium, 28. Retrieved from http://sri.ciifad.cornell.edu/countries/india/extmats/SRIWeederManual06.pdf

20. Wheel Hoe Weeder (2016). In India Mart. Retrieved, from http://dir.indiamart.com/impcat/wheel-hoe-weeder.html