Development and evaluation of PAU multi-purpose sprayer to control whitefly (Bemisia tabaci) in cotton

Santosh Kumar; Manjeet Singh; G S Manes; Mandeep Pathania

doi:10.56093/ijas.v90i6.104792

Authors

Santosh Kumar Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India
Manjeet Singh Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India
G S Manes Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India
Mandeep Pathania Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana 141 004, India

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijas.v90i6.104792

Keywords:

Boom sprayer, Bio-efficacy, High clearance sprayer, Multi-purpose sprayer, Sprayer, Whitefly and cotton

Abstract

A multi-purpose high clearance sprayer was developed with three types of spraying mechanism, viz. auto-rotate gun, drop-up boom and boom nozzles. The experiment was conducted during 2016 at Abohar in cotton growing region of South-western Punjab at six farm locations to evaluate sprayer performance and its bio efficacy against whitefly (Bemisia tabaci). It was observed that the auto-rotate gun sprayer produced lowest droplets VMD of 259.01 μm followed by boom type of 290.28 μm, drop-up boom type of 312.12 μm and knapsack sprayer of 328.50 μm, respectively. The maximum droplets density/cm2 was found to be 31.67 (drop-up boom sprayer), 26.29 (auto-rotate gun), 21.34 (boom sprayer) and 18.13 (knapsack sprayer). However, more leaf area coverage was observed as 31.67% in drop-up boom sprayer followed by 26.29% of auto-rotate gun type, 21.24% of boom-type and 16.86% of knapsack sprayer. The higher whitefly control was obtained with a drop-up boom sprayer of 80.69-88.65% followed by autorotate gun sprayer of 80.31-85.10%, boom-type of 72.81-86.27% as compared to knapsack sprayer of 63.37-75.45%. Lowest operation cost was found to be ₹ 150/ha for auto-rotate gun-type followed by ₹ `239/ha a for boom type and ₹ 291/ha for drop-up boom spraying system of multi-purpose high clearance sprayer, however, it was maximum ₹ 475/ha for knapsack sprayer. The similar, trend of cost saving was observed as 68.55, 49.82 and 38.80% per ha as compare to knapsack sprayer.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Anonymous. 2019. Package of practices for kharif crops. Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, pp 34-35.

Anonymous. 2016. Agricultural statistics at glance. Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Department of Agriculture, Cooperation & Farmers Welfare, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, p 135.

Indian Standard 11429-1985.1985. Methods for Calibration of Sprayers. Bureau of Indian Standards, Delhi, India. (Reaffirmed 1999).

Kanthi K R. 2015. Whitefly–the black story. Cotton Statistics and News 23: 1–4.

Kepner R A, Bainer R and Barger E L.2003. Sprayers. Principles of Farm Machinery, Ist eBook Edns, pp 288-295.CBS Publications and Distributors Pvt Ltd.

Laryea G N and No S Y. 2004. Electrostatic spray and atomization for agricultural application. Atomization 14: 33–53.

Singh M, Ghanshyam C, Mishra P K and Chak R. 2013. Current status of electrostatic spraying technology for efficient crop protection. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa, and Latin America 44(2): 46–53.

Mishra P K, Singh M, Sharma A, Sharma K and Mahal A K. 2015. Studies on effectiveness of electrostatic spraying for cotton crop. Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa, and Latin America 46(2): 17–22.

Silvie P, Deguine J P, Nibouche S, Michel B and Vaissayre M. 2001. Potential of threshold-based interventions for cotton pest control by small farmers in West Africa. Crop Protection 20: 297–301. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0261-2194(00)00146-0

Singh G, Kumar S S, Dixit A, Manes G S and Singh A. 2011. Spray distribution pattern of different sprayers on cotton using droplet analyzer. Journal of Research SKUAST-J, 10: 33–40.

Singh S K. 2005. ‘Design and development of a tractor mounted air assisted sprayer for cotton’. Ph D thesis, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana India.