Content uploaded by Ganesh Upadhyay
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ganesh Upadhyay on Sep 21, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Comparative analysis of a remotely-controlled wetland paddy seeder
and conventional drum seeder
SUJIT HENSH
1,
*, HIFJUR RAHEMAN
2
, GANESH UPADHYAY
3
and SOUMEN BERA
1
1
College of Agriculture, Bidhan Chandra Krishi Viswavidyalaya, Burdwan, West Bengal 713101, India
2
Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, Kharagpur,
West Bengal 721302, India
3
Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, College of Agricultural Engineering and Technology,
CCS Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar, Haryana 125004, India
e-mail: s.hensh1986@gmail.com; hifjur@agfe.iitkgp.ac.in; ganesh.upadhyay0@hau.ac.in;
soumen.bckv@gmail.com
MS received 22 February 2024; revised 27 June 2024; accepted 30 June 2024
Abstract. A remotely-controlled wetland paddy seeder (RCWPS) with a mechatronic seed-metering device
was developed for precise sowing of pre-germinated paddy seeds in wet puddled field. The RCWPS, powered by
a 180 W DC motor, utilized two lugged wheels for propulsion. Linear actuator-controlled dog clutch was
connected with each wheel to discontinue the power supply while turning. The four-row seed metering unit
comprised a seed metering plate with holes at 200 mm spacing, actuated by a solenoid. The diameter of the
metering plate hole, operating speed, and speed of agitation were maintained at 11.18 mm, 0.84 km h
-1
, and 37
rpm, respectively. This comparative study assessed its performance and operational costs at 1/3
rd
and 2/3
rd
seed
filling levels under puddled conditions, comparing it to a conventional drum seeder. At 2/3
rd
seed filling,
RCWPS demonstrated 96% feed index quality, no multiple index, 4% missing index, 85.46% hill-distribution
uniformity coefficient, and 72.45% seed dropping uniformity coefficient. Meanwhile, the values observed for
drum seeder were 78.33%, 6.67%, 15%, 69.85%, and 60.94%, respectively. Similar results were observed at
1/3rd filling level. It showed better quality seed-dropping with RCWPS compared to the conventional drum
seeder at all degrees of seed filling. The total cost for seeding per hectare of land with RCWPS and drum seeder
were found to be 28.05 USD and 12.77 USD, respectively and the break-even point were found 0.54 ha year
-1
and 0.038 ha year
-1
, respectively.
Keywords. Pre-germinated paddy; mechatronics; wetland paddy seeder; wet seeded rice; direct seeded rice
(DSR).
1. Introduction
The direct seeding method in paddy cultivation has grown
immense interest in the farmers for growing paddy. Con-
ventional manually operated drum seeders are mainly uti-
lized for the direct seeding of pre-germinated rice in wet
puddled land. However, there are a few significant short-
comings in seeding through conventional drum seeders.
The seed rate is not maintained uniformly. Sivakumar [1]
reported that the percentage of variation of seed rate varied
from -60% to ?94% and -35% and ?90% at 2/3
rd
and half
seed filling level of drums, respectively. Shee [2] observed
that the seed rate of drum seeders varied widely by
changing the forward speed and level of seed filling in
drums. Kumar et al [3] observed that the seed rate of a
drum seeder was consistent over an initial 10 m run.
Thereafter, the seed rate was observed to increase contin-
uously for the following consecutive runs, up to a distance
of 20 m. Moreover, the hill-to-hill spacing is not consistent,
hence cross wise thinning is required. The seeds dropped in
scattered form with the population of seeds/hill varying
widely. According to many previous studies [1,4–6], the
operators of drum seeder experience increased heartbeat
and O
2
consumption rate and a decrease in endurance time.
Moreover, due to continuous work in paddy fields, the
farmers are affected by skin diseases like dermatitis and
vector-borne diseases like Malaria, Japanese encephalitis,
and Dengue. A brief summary of the development of dif-
ferent precision hill drop wetland paddy seeders is pre-
sented in Table 1.
The above-mentioned seeders are used for precise sow-
ing of paddy seeds in expense of higher operating cost, soil
compaction due to heavy weight of machine and also
environmental hazards. Whereas, several studies [3,14–16]
*For correspondence
Sådhanå (2024) 49:260 ÓIndian Academy of Sciences
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12046-024-02604-xSadhana(0123456789().,-volV)FT3](0123456789().,-volV)
Table 1. Summary of the development and evaluation of different precision hill drop wetland paddy seeders.
Authors Investigations Working Major findings
Togashi et al [7]
Studied a shooting gun metering device for
seeding paddy seeds
A saw-tooth rotating disc hit the seeds
consistently released from a tube and
hill-dropped into the soil
The optimal hill-drop effect occurred with a saw-
tooth disc featuring a diameter of 190 mm, a
thickness of 20 mm, 32 teeth, and made of
elastic material
Khobragade et al [8]
Pneumatic seed metering mechanism with
rotating cylindrical drum
Air pressure generated on the inner surface of a
rotating cylindrical drum created an
environment where seeds were released into
the tube at the interface between high and low
pressure zones
The intended planting results were attained with
an injection pressure ranging from 1300 to
1350 N m
-2
and an operating speed between
0.228 and 0.338 m s
-1
Furuhata et al [9]
Evaluated performance of an air-assisted strip
seeder,
developed by the Hokuriku Research Centre,
Japan
The blower of the seeder conveyed the seeds to
the injection ports; powered by
the PTO of the tractor and deposited seeds in
rows with interval spacing of 30 cm
The effective field capacity was 2 ha h
-1
, for a
base speed of 0.8 m s
-1
and the field efficiency
was 70%
Zhang et al [10]
Designed a precise pneumatic rice seed metering
device
A plate equipped with a set of suction holes,
allowing for the simultaneous suction and
release of 3–4 seeds into the paddy field
The probabilities of dropping 3–4 seeds per hill in
two moisture contents (23.43% and 26.07%)
were 56.13% and 56.40% respectively
Xing et al [11]
Developed a six row pneumatic rice direct-seeder The seeds gathered on the surface of the suction
plate, where they were drawn into the holes of
the suction plate by the vacuum created in the
suction chamber shell
The optimal negative pressure was 2 kPa. The
probability of empty hole was less than 2%.
The probability of distance between hills (1–3
seeds per hill) at 130 mm and 170 mm was
93.8%
Bandi et al [12]
Designed and developed a power operated paddy
hill seeder
A cell-type roller mechanism was designed to
accommodate the dimensions of paddy seeds.
The roller is intended to pick and drop 3–5
paddy seeds in each cycle
The missing and multiple indices were less and
quality feed index was 86.1–91.1% for
different combinations of operating conditions
Rajaiah et al [13]
Designed and developed a precision planter for
direct seeding of paddy
The seed metering unit comprised a seed hopper,
metering plate, and a transmission system
The mean seed spacing was 150.1 mm,
accompanied by a highest quality feed index of
90.5%, and a minimal seed damage of 0.38%
260 Page 2 of 11 Sådhanå (2024) 49:260
reveal that mechatronic based metering mechanism can be
used for precise dropping of seeds like okra, wheat,
groundnut, cow pea, etc. at a very low cost. Hence, to
mitigate the above-mentioned issues faced in the sowing of
paddy seeds, a cost effective mechatronic precise hill-drop
paddy seed metering device was designed and developed
[17]. It was evaluated under controlled conditions in a
laboratory and found to perform satisfactorily. The labo-
ratory experiments revealed encouraging results concerning
performance parameters such as missing, multiple, and
quality feed indices, coefficients of seed dropping and hill
distribution uniformity, and spacing between the hills with
respective values as 93.75%, 6.25%, nil, 90.32%, 65.22%,
and 235 mm, respectively. Using this metering mechanism,
a multi-row remotely-controlled wetland paddy seeder
(RCWPS) was developed. Nevertheless, a comprehensive
study is required under real puddled field conditions to
assess its performance and operational cost in comparison
to a conventional manual drum seeder. This will further
help to recommend the use of this machine for the small
and marginal farmers to carry out seeding of paddy in
wetlands.
2. Materials and methods
2.1 Description of the remotely-controlled wetland
Paddy Seeder (RCWPS)
The developed prototype Remotely-controlled wetland
paddy seeder (RCWPS) is shown in figure 1. It comprised
two main units: seed metering and propelling unit. The seed
metering unit was equipped with a hopper, push-pull type
solenoid-actuated metering plate, DC motor driven agita-
tors for avoiding seed choking at hopper outlet and a sensor
wheel. The top part of the hopper was designed with a
square shape, while the bottom part was formed as an
inverted pyramid with a 60°inclination angle to ensure the
smooth flow of paddy seeds. Because, the angle of repose
for various paddy varieties ranges from 30°to 50°,
depending on their moisture content levels [18,19]. Two
numbers of inductive-proximity sensors were installed in
the close vicinity of the iron spokes in the sensor wheel.
During forward movement, one of the two sensors recog-
nize the iron spokes and consequently gives feedback sig-
nals to the solenoid which actuates the metering plate to
allow hill-dropping of the paddy seeds. Another sensor was
used for measuring linear speed of the RCWPS, which was
showcased in the LCD module. The propelling unit com-
prised a 24 Volt, 180 W geared DC motor with nominal
torque of 20 N-m at 80 rpm speed, driving chains and
sprockets, a transmission shaft, 2 clutches (dog type), and 2
lugged wheels. The lugged wheels were driven by con-
necting the wheel axles to the driving shaft using dog
clutches. To make a turn with the seeder, the dog clutch
needed to be disengaged using 24 Volt linear actuators with
a 50 mm stroke and a load capacity of 200 N. The capacity
of the driving motor and linear actuators were selected
based on the measurement of propelling torque, rotational
speed and actuating force of clutch while operating in the
puddled field. Two 12-Volts and seven Ampere-hours (Ah)
batteries of weight 2.4 kg each were bridged in series-
connection for supplying power to the motor to help in
vehicle forward motion, actuating the solenoid, linear
actuators and seed agitating motors in the hoppers. The
increase of battery size would cause the increase of weight,
which would create sinkage problem of the RCWPS in the
puddled field. The operating time of the fully charged
batteries was 1.2 h. Another set of recharged batteries was
kept ready to replace the discharged batteries.
The main components of the electronic circuit of
RCWPS were Arduino Mega microcontroller, motor dri-
vers for controlling the speed and direction of DC motors
and linear actuators, relay module for controlling the
solenoid, Ardunino Nano with LCD module for displaying
forward speed and proximity sensors. The remote controller
unit consisted of an Arduino UNO microcontroller, three
joysticks, one potentiometer knob, one DPDT (Double pole
double throw) switch, and one toggle switch. The com-
munication link among the remote-controller (transmitter)
and the developed RCWPS (receiver) was established by a
combination of two HC12-modules having frequencies of
433 Megahertz (MHz). A camera was mounted on the top
of the vehicle and the forward speed display unit (LCD
module) was kept in front of the camera. The captured
video by the camera can be made visible in the smartphone
of remote-controller operator through an internet connec-
tion so that he/she could operate the seeder in the right path
and at optimized speed from a remote distance. The detail
design of the RCWPS was explained in Hensh and Rahe-
man [20].
2.2 Description of the manually operated
conventional drum seeder
The conventional drum seeder had two hyperboloid-shaped
drums, baffles, a main shaft, a handle, and two lugged
ground wheels. The diameter of the seed drum was 200 mm
which was made of Polypropylene Copolymer (PPCP)
material by fixing the smaller ends of conical frustums. In
each drum, 8 holes having a radius of 4.5 mm were pro-
vided throughout the periphery at 200 mm intervals. It had
a fixed row-to-row spacing of 200 mm. The seeds flow
easily from the cone to the metering holes because of their
slope. The diameter of lugged ground wheels was 600 mm.
The baffles present in the seeding drum helped to maintain
the uniformity in seed dropping rate. Floats may also be
provided on both sides to reduce the wheel sinkage and to
ease pulling in the puddled field. The gross weight of the
drum seeder was 8 kg. Each drum could be filled with up to
6.5 kg of pre-germinated paddy seeds.
Sådhanå (2024) 49:260 Page 3 of 11 260
3. Research plan for field performance comparison
of the RCWPS and conventional drum seeder
The field performance comparison of the four-row RCWPS
was made with an existing manually operated 4-row drum
seeder (figure 2). The experimental field of size 25910 m
was divided into four plots (2592.5 m each). Thereafter,
each seeder was operated at two degrees of seed filling in
the hoppers i.e., 2/3
rd
and 1/3
rd
in these plots as shown in
figure 3. For RCWPS, the diameter of the metering hole,
operating speed, and speed of agitation was maintained at
11.18 mm, 0.84 km h
-1
, and 37 rpm, respectively by using
a remote controller as per the optimized laboratory results
using Response Surface Methodology [17]. The detailed
research plan for comparing the performance of RCWPS
and conventional drum seeder is given in Table 2. Each test
was replicated thrice and all the data sets were taken for the
analysis.
3.1 Measurement of field parameters
A plate-penetrometer device was developed for determin-
ing the penetration resistance (PR) of puddled soil using the
plate sinkage method [21]. A mild steel plate of dimension
120928094 mm was fixed to the end of a graduated steel
rod of diameter 12.5 mm. The other end of the rod was
fastened with a circular ring of diameter 150 mm. A dial
gauge was fixed at the centre of the ring. The needle of the
gauge was kept in contact with the ring. A handle was
attached to the ring to press the penetrometer in the soil.
Whenever the pressure was applied in the circular ring, it
deflected and the deflection was detected and accordingly
reading was shown by the pointer of the dial gauge. The
mean of each 2.5 cm graduated dial gauge value up to a
total penetration depth of 15 cm indicated the PR of the
puddled soil.
The puddling index was measured by following the
technique as described in BIS standard IS:11531 [22]. The
water-suspended soil test samples from a 100 mm depth
were taken from different spots of the puddled field by
using suitable glass tubes. Then these test samples were put
1. DC motor; 2. Linear actuator for actuating dog clutch; 3. Linear actuator for actuating sensor
wheel;4. Sensor wheel; 5. Camera; 6. LCD module; 7. Float; 8. Electronic control unit; 9. Battery;
10. Wheel; 11. Seed metering unit
Figure 1. Developed remotely-controlled wetland paddy seeder (RCWPS).
260 Page 4 of 11 Sådhanå (2024) 49:260
in four measuring glass cylinders up to a volume of 500 ml
and allowed to settle in the cylinders for 48 h without any
disruption. Thereafter, the index of puddling was predicted
by using equation (1). The average puddling index of the
four samples was considered as the puddling index of the
tested plot.
Puddling index ¼Vss
Vgs 100 ð1Þ
where V
ss
is the volume of the settled-soil in the cylinder;
V
gs
is the gross volume of soil-water suspension in the
cylinder.
As per ISO 7256-1 [23], the missing index (I
miss
) can be
defined as the number of spacings between the hills, greater
than 1.5 times the desired spacing (n
1
). It was determined
using Eq. (2). The multiple index (I
multiple
) (equation (3)) is
defined as the number of spacings between the hills, less
than or equal to 0.5 times the desired spacing (n
2
)[21]. The
quality of feed index (I
QF
) is defined as the number of
spacings that are less than 1.5 times, but more than 0.5
(a) RCWPS (b)Conventional drum seeder
Figure 2. Field testing with RCWPS and conventional drum seeder.
Figure 3. Demarcation of the field for operation with RCWPS and conventional drum seeder.
Sådhanå (2024) 49:260 Page 5 of 11 260
times of the desired spacing expressed as percentage [23]. It
was determined using equation (4). The uniformity coeffi-
cient for hill-distribution (HD
coeff
) was used to determine
the unevenness in hill-to-hill spacings. Greater values of
HD
coeff
indicates better uniformity in hill-to-hill spacing
with respect to its closeness to the desired spacing. It was
calculated using equation (5)[24]. Greater values of Uni-
formity coefficient for seed-dropping (SD
coeff
) signify less
inconsistency in the actual number of seeds dropped in hills
with respect to the desired seeds to be dropped per hill [25].
It was determined using equation (6):
Imiss ¼100 ð2Þ
Imultiple ¼100 ð3Þ
IQF ¼100 Imiss þImultiple
ð4Þ
HDcoeff ¼1A
B
100 ð5Þ
where N is the total number of observations; Ais the
average of absolute differences between actual and mean
hill spacings (mm); Bis the desired spacing between hills
(mm).
SDcoeff ¼1C
D
100 ð6Þ
where Cis the average of absolute differences between
actual and mean no.’s of seeds per hill; Dis the desired no.
of seeds per hill.
3.2 Test procedure
The experiments were conducted in sandy clay loam soil at
the Research farm of the Department of AgFE, IIT
Kharagpur. Initially, the fields were roto-tilled with the help
of a walk-behind type tractor followed by irrigating and
allowing them to soak for a whole day. After that, the
puddling operation was performed thoroughly. Thereafter,
the fields were leveled, and the surplus water was drained.
The soil penetration resistance and puddling index were
measured following the above-mentioned procedure and
were found to be 18.45 kPa and 85.5%, respectively. The
field was kept idle for 3–4 days to allow the soil to settle
down. Therefore, the penetration resistance was measured
once again, which was found to be 32.14 kPa. Then the
experiments were carried out. The seeds were pre-germi-
nated before conducting field testing. The paddy seeds were
soaked in a bucket of water for 12 h. After soaking, seeds
were removed from the bucket and were kept in a wet
gunny bag fully covered for 36 h. After this time, sprouts
were coming out from the seeds. The sprouted paddy seeds
were filled in the seed hoppers. Then the seeders were
operated. The sowing was carried out only when the seeder
was moved in a straight path in the forward direction.
3.3 Economic analysis
The economic analysis of the RCWPS and conventional
drum seeder was carried out by estimating the fixed and
variable costs. The fixed cost was estimated by calculating
the depreciation cost, interest, insurance and taxes, and
housing cost. The depreciation cost per hour was calculated
by using equation (7)[26].
D¼CS
LHð7Þ
where, D is the depreciation cost; C is the initial capital
cost; S is the residual value of the machine at the end of its
useful life, which was considered as 5% of the initial cost;
L is the life of the seeder, year; H is the annual use, hours.
The interest, insurance, and housing costs were consid-
ered as 7%, 2%, and 1.5% of the average investment over
the life of the seeder, respectively. The average investment
over the life of the seeder (AI) was computed by using
equation (8)[26].
AI ¼CþS
2
ð8Þ
The variable cost was assessed by deriving the battery
cost, labour cost, repair, and maintenance cost, etc. The
repair and maintenance costs were taken as 5% of the initial
cost. Therefore, the cost of seeding per hectare of land was
computed by dividing the total cost for operation by the
field capacity of the seeder. After that, the break-even point
(BEP) was calculated for the RCWPS and drum seeder.
Table 2. Research plan for field performance comparison of the
RCWPS and conventional drum seeder.
Parameters Levels Level values
Common parameters
Forward speed, km/h 1 0.84
Variety of seeds 1 IR36
Independent parameters
Degree of seed filling in the hopper 2 2/3
rd
and 1/3
rd
Dependent parameters
Length of hills, mm
Seed rate, kg ha
-1
Quality of feed index (I
QF
), %
Missing index (I
miss
), %
Multiple index (I
multiple
), %
Uniformity coefficient for hill-distribution (HD
coeff
), %
Uniformity coefficient for seed-dropping (SD
coeff
), %
Germination percentage, %
Effective field capacity, ha h
-1
Field efficiency, %
260 Page 6 of 11 Sådhanå (2024) 49:260
Here, the BEP could be described as the minimum oper-
ating area required to be sown with the seeder annually, for
getting economic benefits compared to conventional man-
ual seeding. The BEP was determined using equation (9)
[27].
BEPðha=yearÞ¼
Annual fixed cost of seeder ð$=yearÞ
Manual seeding cost ð$=haÞSeeder operating cost ð$=haÞ
ð9Þ
4. Results and discussion
4.1 Comparative assessment between RCWPS
and conventional drum seeder
During field operation, hill drop seeding was observed in
the fields sown with RCWPS as compared to scattered
seeding with conventional drum seeder. The effect of
hopper filling levels on the length of hills was compared for
both the seeders and results are shown in figure 4. The
average hill length obtained with RCWPS decreased from
37.3 mm to 23.0 mm with an increase in the degree of seed
filling from 1/3
rd
to 2/3
rd
in hoppers. Whereas, the average
hill length in the case of conventional drum seeder was
found to be decreased from 135 to 110 mm with an increase
in the degree of seed filling of drums from 1/3
rd
to 2/3
rd
,
which was significantly higher (pB0.01) than the RCWPS
seeding hills. The longer hill length cause hindrances to
conducting intercultural operations. Moreover, uniform
plant spacing increases the yield [28]. Hence, cross-wise
thinning of growing plants was required in the case of
conventional drum seeders. However, this operation can be
omitted in RCWPS fields due to the shorter hill lengths
observed. Furthermore, upon reduction in the degree of
seed filling from two-thirds to one-third, the seed rate of
drum seeder and RCWPS increased by 33.98% and 13.4%,
respectively (figure 4). Kumar et al [3] also observed an
increase in the seed rate of a drum type paddy sowing
machine by 65.13% due to the decrease in seed filling level
from full to 1/4
th
.
The results of one-way ANOVA carried out for analyz-
ing the effect of seeder type on different performance
parameters are given in Table 3. The statistical analysis was
carried out by using SPSS statistics 22.0 (IBM Corporation,
New York, USA) software. From Table 3, it can be seen
that most of the considered performance parameters i.e.,
hill length, I
QF
,I
miss
,I
multiple
,HD
coeff
, and SD
coeff
are sig-
nificantly affected by the type of seeder used, except the
seed rate and germination percentage at 0.99 confidence
bound. It confirmed significant improvement in the per-
formance of RCWPS as compared to the conventional drum
seeder in terms of I
QF
,I
miss
,I
multiple
,HD
coeff
, and SD
coeff.
In
a One-way ANOVA analysis, the sum of squares within
groups refers to the summation of the squared differences
between each data point and the mean of its respective
group (drum seeder and RCWPS groups). On the other
hand, the sum of squares between groups is the summation
of the squared differences between each group mean and
the overall mean, multiplied by the number of samples in
each group.
The quality of feed index (I
QF
) upon sowing with the
conventional drum seeder was found to be varying from 90
to 78.33% with augmentation in the degree of seed filling
from 1/3
rd
to 2/3
rd
, as shown in figure 5. At higher degrees
of filling, the paddy seeds combined with their sprouts that
obstructed the free flow of sprouted seeds from the drum.
So, the missing hill number increased and consequently, the
I
QF
decreased. Whereas, the I
QF
of RCWPS was found to be
100% and 96% at one-third and two-thirds degrees of seed
filling, respectively. The significantly higher (pB0.01) I
QF
value obtained with RCWPS could be due to the incorpo-
ration of rotary agitators in the hoppers, which prevented
the seeds from choking at the outlet of the hopper. Ma et al
[29] observed that the I
QF
of a precision paddy seeder
varied from 87.14 to 93.21%. Rajaiah et al [30] reported
that the value of I
QF
for the mechanical and electronic
precision paddy planter were 74.3% and 86.39%, respec-
tively. The multiple index of the drum seeder decreased
from 6.67 to 3.33% with an increase in the degree of seed
filling from one-third and two-thirds as compared to 0% in
the case of RCWPS for all degrees of the filling (figure 5).
The missing index of drum seeder increased from 6.67 to
15% with an increase in the degree of seed filling from one-
third and two-thirds. Kumar et al [3] observed that the
missing index of a drum-type paddy sowing machine
increased from 10 to 15% with an increase in the degree of
seed filling from 1/4
th
to full in the drum. However, the
missing index of RCWPS varied from 0% to 4% only with
an increase in the degree of hopper seed filling from 1/3
rd
to
2/3
rd
.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1/3rd filling 2/3rd filling 1/3rd filling 2/3rd filling
Hill length(mm) Seed rate(kg/ha)
Values
Performance parameters
Drum seeder RCWPS
Figure 4. Variations in Hill length and Seed rate with the change
in the degree of hopper seed filling for RCWPS and conventional
drum seeder (error bars represent standard deviations).
Sådhanå (2024) 49:260 Page 7 of 11 260
The uniformity coefficient for seed-dropping (SD
coeff
)in
hills was observed to be significantly higher (pB0.01) in
RCWPS as compared to the drum seeder for both degrees
of the filling (figure 6). In the case of seeding through the
conventional drum seeder, the seeds dropped in scattered
form, hence lesser SD
coeff
value was obtained. Whereas,
through RCWPS the paddy seeds dropped as hills, hence
the higher value of SD
coeff
was found. Kumar et al [3]
reported that the average number of seeds per hill of drum
seeder reduced from 24.16 to 9.09 at 1 km/h forward speed
with an increase in the degree of seed filling from 1/4
th
to
the full level of the drum.
The uniformity coefficient for hill-distribution (HD
coeff
)
was observed to be significantly higher (pB0.01) in
RCWPS as compared to the drum seeder for both degrees
of the filling (figure 6). The HD
coeff
obtained with drum
Table 3. One-way ANOVA for analyzing the effect of seeder type on different performance parameters.
Sum of squares df Mean square F-value
Hill length Between groups 25300.08 1 25300.08 140.80*
Within groups 1796.83 10 179.68
Total 27096.91 11
Seed rate Between groups 3.00 1 3.00 0.09
Within groups 343.16 10 34.31
Total 346.16 11
IQF Between groups 574.08 1 574.08 20.88*
Within groups 274.83 10 27.48
Total 848.91 11
Imiss Between groups 225.33 1 225.33 14.89*
Within groups 151.33 10 15.13
Total 376.66 11
Imultiple Between groups 80.08 1 80.08 25.97*
Within groups 30.83 10 3.08
Total 110.91 11
HDcoeff Between groups 623.52 1 623.52 41.64*
Within groups 149.70 10 14.97
Total 773.22 11
SDcoeff Between groups 720.75 1 720.75 15.61*
Within groups 461.50 10 46.15
Total 1182.25 11
Germination percentage Between groups 6.75 1 6.75 1.00
Within groups 67.50 10 6.75
Total 74.250 11
df = degrees of freedom; F-value: index of the coefficient of determination; *Significant at 0.99 confidence bound.
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1/3rd filling 2/3rd filling1/3rd filling 2/3rd filling 1/3rd filling2/3rd filling
IQF(%) Imiss(%) Imultiple(%)
Values
Performance parameters
Drum seeder RCWPS
Figure 5. Variations in quality of feed, missing, and multiple
indices with the change in the degree of hopper seed filling for
RCWPS and conventional drum seeder (error bars represent
standard deviations).
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
1/3rd filling 2/3rd filling 1/3rd filling 2/3rd filling 1/3rd filling 2/3rd filling
HDcoeff(%) SDcoeff(%) Germination percentage
Values
Performance parameters
Drum seeder RCWPS
Figure 6. Variations in uniformity coefficients for hill-dropping
(HD
coeff
) and seed-dropping (SD
coeff
) and germination percentage
with the degree of hopper seed filling (error bars represent
standard deviations).
260 Page 8 of 11 Sådhanå (2024) 49:260
seeder reduced from 77.32 to 69.85% at higher degrees of
seed filling from one-third to two-thirds as compared to a
reduction from 90.42 to 85.46% with the RCWPS (fig-
ure 6). The wide range of variation in hill spacing obtained
with drum seeder was the main reason for the lesser value
of hill distribution uniformity. The germination percentage
varied from 94 to 90% and 92 to 89% for drum seeder and
RCWPS, respectively with the increase of filling level from
1/3
rd
to 2/3
rd
level. There was no significant variation in
germination percentage among the two seeders (pB0.01).
Rajaiah et al [30] observed that the germination percentage
of mechanical and electronic precision paddy planter varied
between 88–96.2% and 91.8–96.5%, respectively.
The effective field coverage and field efficiency of the
drum seeder was observed to be 0.058 ha/h and 72.5%,
respectively as compared to 0.054 ha h
-1
and 84.37% for
RCWPS. Prakash et al [31] reported the actual field cov-
erage and field efficiency of a four-row drum seeder with
row-to-row spacing of 250 mm as 0.07 ha h
-1
and 77.41%,
respectively.
The established plants 20 days after sowing (DAS) with
RCWPS and drum seeder are given in figures 7a and b,
respectively. Uniform spacings between the hills of estab-
lished plants were noticed with RCWPS. Whereas, the
plants were established continuously without maintaining
any hill-to-hill spacing in the case of the drum seeder.
Hence, cross-wise thinning was required in the fields sown
with conventional drum seeder to give spacing between the
established plants and to obtain a better yield.
4.2 Economic analysis of the RCWPS
and conventional drum seeder
The economic analysis of the RCWPS and conventional
drum seeder was carried out by comparing the initial, fixed,
and variable costs of both seeders. The initial cost of the
RCWPS for materials and fabrication was found to be Rs.
80,800 (1050.4 $). The useful life and the annual uses of the
seeder were taken as 10 years and 250 h, respectively. The
fixed cost of the RCWPS was estimated by calculating the
depreciation, interest, insurance and taxes, and housing
costs. The depreciation cost per hour was computed using
equation (7) and found to be Rs. 30.70 (0.42 $). The
average investment over the life of the seeder was com-
puted using equation (8) and found to be Rs. 42,420 (573.63
$). The interest, insurance, and housing cost per hour were
computed to be Rs. 11.88 (0.16 $), Rs. 3.39 (0.046 $), and
Rs. 2.54 (0.034 $), respectively by considering interest,
insurance, and housing cost as 7%, 2% and 1.5% of the
average investment over the life of the seeder. The total
fixed cost per hour of the RCWPS was found to be Rs.
48.51 (0.66 $). Whereas, variable costs per hour such as
battery replacement cost, battery charging cost, labour
charge, and repair and maintenance cost were found to be
Rs. 2.88 (0.039 $), Rs. 0.72 (0.0097 $), Rs. 16.16 (0.22 $)
and Rs. 43.75 (0.59 $), respectively. Hence, the total vari-
able cost per hour was found to be Rs. 63.51 (0.86 $).
Hence, the total cost of seeding per hour with the RCWPS
was found to be Rs. 112.02 (1.52 $).
On the other hand, the initial cost of the conventional
drum seeder was found to be Rs. 6000 (80.70 $), which was
very less as compared to the RCWPS. The fixed cost and
variable cost per hour for the drum seeder were found to be
Rs. 3.59 (0.049 $) and Rs. 51.20 (0.69 $). Hence, the total
cost of seeding per hour with the drum seeder was found to
be Rs. 54.79 (0.74 $). The total cost for seeding per hectare
of land with RCWPS and drum seeder were found to be Rs.
2074.44 (28.05 $) and Rs. 944.65 (12.77 $), respectively
which were calculated by dividing the total cost of seeding
with the actual field capacity of the seeder. Thus, the cost of
seeding per hectare with RCWPS was Rs. 1129.79 (15.28
$) higher than the manual drum seeder.
The break-even point of the RCWPS and drum seeder
were calculated using equation (9), which were determined
to be 0.54 and 0.038 ha year
-1
, respectively. It means the
(a) with RCWPS (b) with conventional drum seeder
Figure 7. Views of established paddy plants on 20 DAS.
Sådhanå (2024) 49:260 Page 9 of 11 260
RCWPS and drum seeder were required to be operated
annually in a minimum of 0.54 ha and 0.038 ha of land,
respectively to have an economic advantage over manual
sowing.
5. Conclusions
The developed remotely-controlled wetland paddy seeder
(RCWPS) performed satisfactorily in the wetland. Its per-
formance was found better than the conventional drum
seeder and closer to the pneumatic type paddy seeder. The
comparison was made based on the measured parameters
such as length of hills, quality feed index, multiple index,
missing index, uniformity coefficients for hill-distribution
and seed-dropping in hills, field capacity, and cost of
operation. It was observed that seeding with RCWPS
resulted in hill drop seeding as compared to scattered
seeding with conventional drum seeder. Higher values of
quality feed index, uniformity coefficients for hill-distri-
bution and seed-dropping in hills obtained with RCWPS as
compared to the conventional manual drum seeder at all
degrees of seed filling indicated better precision in sowing
with RCWPS. The effective field coverage and cost of
seeding with the RCWPS were predicted to be
0.054 ha h
-1
and $28.05 per hectare, respectively in com-
parison to 0.058 ha/h and $12.77 with the conventional
drum seeder. A minimum area of 0.54 ha for RCWPS and
0.038 ha for drum seeder were required to be sown annu-
ally to have an economic advantage over manual sowing.
To operate the developed RCWPS in the puddled field,
the workers need not have to enter into the wetlands, which
is otherwise very hazardous to human health. Thus, its use
would increase the operator’s comfort as well as reduce
occupational health risks. Besides, it could be operated for
long durations in the puddled fields without any diesel fuel
expenditure, causing no environmental pollution. The
developed environment-friendly seeder might be very
beneficial for rice-growing farmers of all genders for car-
rying out the sowing operation of pre-germinated paddy
and would help towards improving mechanization in paddy
seeding in small and marginal land holdings.
Acknowledgements
The facilities provided by Agricultural and Food Engineer-
ing (AgFE) Department, IIT Kharagpur, India to carry out
this research work are sincerely acknowledged.
Declarations
Competing interests The authors declare that they have no known
competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
References
[1] Sivakumar S S 2001 Investigation on the Performance
Evaluation of Drum Seeder as Influenced by Machine,
Ergonomic and Crop Parameters. Ph.D. Thesis. Tamil Nadu
Agricultural University, Coimbatore
[2] Shee M 2014 Development and Evaluation of a Powered
Drum Seeder. M. Tech. Thesis. Orissa University of
Agriculture and Technology, Bhubaneswar
[3] Kumar D, Singh U V, Kumar J, Kumar M and Khan K 2017
Laboratory test and calibration of direct paddy drum seeder
for pre- germinated paddy seeds. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol.
Appl. Sci. 6(9): 1037–1046.
[4] Roger P A and Joulian C 1999 Environmental impact of
wetland rice cultivation. In: Proceedings of the International
Symposium Held in Nottingham, U.K., November 24–27,
pp. 1–14
[5] Trang D T, Hoek W V D, Tuan N D, Cam P D, Viet V H,
Luu D D, Konradsen F and Dalsgaard A 2007 Skin disease
among farmers using wastewater in rice cultivation in Nam
Dinh, Vietnam. Trop. Med. Int. Health 12(2): 51–58.
[6] Shiva S S and Singh S K 2017 Prevalence of occupational
skin diseases among rice field workers in Haryana. Int.
J. Commun. Med. Public Health 4(4): 1011–1017.
[7] Togashi T, Shimotsubo K and Yoshinaga S 2001 Develop-
ment of seed-shooting seeder of rice combined with a paddy
harrow and characteristics of the sowing depth. Jpn. J. Farm
Work Res. 36(4): 179–186.
[8.] Khobragade H M, Kamble A K and Dave A K 2012
Performance evaluation of pneumatic seed metering device
for paddy in puddle. Int. J. Agric. Eng. 5(1): 98–102.
[9] Furuhata M, Chosa T, Shioya Y, Tsukamoto T, Seki M and
Hosokawa H 2015 Developing direct seeding cultivation
using an air-assisted strip seeder. Jpn. Agric. Res. Q. 49(3):
227–233.
[10] Zhang G Z, Zhang S S, Yang W P, Lu K, Lei Z Q and Yang
M 2015 Design and experiment of double cavity side-filled
precision hole seed metering device for rice. Trans. CSAE
32(8): 9–17.
[11] Xing H, Wang Z M, Luo X W, Cao X M, Liu C B and Zang
Y 2017 General structure design and field experiment of
pneumatic rice direct-seeder. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 10(6):
31–42.
[12] Bandi N, Reddy H K V, Mathew M, Patil B and Dev A J
2020 Design, development and testing of a paddy hill seeder.
Int. J. Chem. Stud. 8(4): 472–477.
[13] Rajaiah P, Mani I, Kumar A, Lande S D, Singh A K and
Vergese C 2016 Development and evaluation of electroni-
cally controlled precision seed-metering device for direct-
seeded paddy planter. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 86(5): 598–604.
[14] Singh T P and Mane D M 2011 Development and laboratory
performance of an electronically controlled metering mech-
anism for okra seed. Agric. Mech. Asia Africa Latin Am.
42(2): 63–69.
[15] Aware V V and Aware S V 2014 Development of
microprocessor based electronic metering mechanism for
seed—an approach. Eng. Technol. India 5(1 and 2): 26–31.
[16] Koley S, Bhatt Y C, Singh G, Joshi S and Jain H K 2017
development of electronic metering mechanism for precision
260 Page 10 of 11 Sådhanå (2024) 49:260
planting of seeds. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 6(8):
3481–3487.
[17] Hensh S and Raheman H 2021 Laboratory evaluation of a
solenoid-operated hill dropping seed metering mechanism
for pre-germinated paddy seeds. J. Biosyst. Eng. 47: 1–12.
[18] Zareiforoush H, Komarizadeh M H and Alizadeh M R 2009
Effect of moisture content on some physical properties of
paddy grains. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 1(3): 132–139.
[19] Patel N, Jagan S K, Jha S K, Sinha J P and Kumar A 2013
Physical properties of basmati varieties of paddy. J. Agric.
Eng. 50(4): 39–47.
[20] Hensh S and Raheman H 2022 An unmanned wetland paddy
seeder with mechatronic seed metering mechanism for
precise seeding. Comput. Electron. Agric. 203: 107463.
[21] Srivastava R K 2019 Prediction of Fuel Consumption of a
Tractor for Puddling Operation in Sandy Clay Loam Soil.
M.Tech. Thesis. Indian Institute of Technology-Kharagpur,
Kharagpur
[22] IS: 11531 1985 Test Code for Puddler. Indian Standards
Institution, Manak Bhavan, New Delhi
[23] ISO: 7256/1-1984(E) 1984 Sowing equipment—Test meth-
ods—Part 1: Single Seed Drills (Precision Drills). Interna-
tional Organization for Standardization. Geneva
[24] Bagherpour H 2019 Modeling and evaluation of a vacuum-
cylinder precision seeder for chickpea seeds. Agric. Eng. Int.
CIGR J. 21(4): 75–82.
[25] Maleki M R, Mouazen A M, De Ketelaere B and De
Baerdemaeker J 2006 A new index for seed distribution
uniformity evaluation of grain drills. Biosyst. Eng. 94(3):
471–475.
[26] Anonymous 2011 FMP 211: Lecture 16: Cost of Operation
of Farm Machinery-Problem Solving.http://eagri.org/
eagri50/FMP211/lec16.html. Accessed on July, 2021
[27] Mitchell C 2023 Breakeven Point: Definition, Examples, and
How to Calculate. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/
breakevenpoint.asp#:*:text=In%20corporate%20account
ing%2C%20the%20breakeven,the%20variable%20costs%
20per%20unit. Accessed on May 2023
[28] Huan T T N, Tan P S and Hiraoka H 1999 Path-coefficient
analysis of direct seeded rice yield and yield components as
affected by seeding rates. Omonrice 7: 104–111.
[29] Ma X, Kuang J, Qi L, Liang Z, Tan Y and Jiang L 2015
Design and experiment of precision seeder for rice paddy
field seedling. Chin. Soc. Agric. Mach. 46: 31–37.
[30] Rajaiah P, Mani I, Kumar A, Lande S D, Parray R A, Singh
A K and Vergese C 2018 Comparative study of mechanical
and electronic paddy planter for direct seeding. Int. J. Curr.
Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 7(09): 1284–1294.
[31] Prakash R J, Kumar B A and Reddy G A 2015 Fabrication
and evaluation of 4 row drum seeder with 25 and 30 cm
spacing. Int. J. Agric. Sci. 7(9): 678–682.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner)
holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement
with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of
the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed
by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.
Sådhanå (2024) 49:260 Page 11 of 11 260