COMPARATIVE STUDY ON THE INTRODUCED SERRATED SICKLE WITH THAT OF DESI SICKLE USED BY TRIBAL WOMEN OF KOHIMA DISTRICT

L.Y. PONGEN¹*, K. ZHASA², S. KATH³, V. AKASHE ZHIMOMI^4
1ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kohima, Nagaland, 797109, India
²ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kohima, Nagaland, 797109, India
³ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kohima, Nagaland, 797109, India
⁴Sr. Scientist & Head, ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kohima, Nagaland, 797109, India
* Corresponding Author : longmakvk@gmail.com

Received : 03-07-2022     Accepted : 27-07-2022     Published : 30-07-2022
Volume : 14     Issue : 7       Pages : 11497 - 11499
Int J Agr Sci 14.7 (2022):11497-11499

Keywords : Desi sickle, Introduced sickle, Serrated sickle, Tribal women
Academic Editor : Dr Hemangi Mehta
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Director, ATARI Zone-VII Meghalaya for providing financial assistant for conducting the demonstration. Authors are also thankful to ICAR-Krishi Vigyan Kendra, Kohima, Nagaland, 797109, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

Kohima is a tribal dominated hilly district of Nagaland. The tribesman grows paddy under rainfed condition in Jhum and Terrace fields. The woman contributes maximum time in operation and harvesting to be the most laborious activity. Sickle used by them found to be non-serrated, inferior and required more time to harvest. Observing the Lacuna serrated sickle of Laxmi and Vaibhav was introduced. A harvest area of 47 m²/hr (Laxmi) and 46 m²/hr (vaibhav) were obtained which was 8.91and 6.5 percent more than the area harvested by desi sickle (43.2 m²/hr). The Man-hour (213) and labour requirement (26) per hectare in case of laxmi sickle was also reduced by 8.92 and 11.53 percent over desi sickle. Harvesting cost in the case with desi (?10150), Laxmi (?9217) and Vaibhav (?9450) sickles also differed which can be reduced from 7.40 to 10.12 percent once replaced with serrated ones

1. Singh A. (2012) Souvenir, Global conference on women in agriculture, 19.
2. Kumari V. and Kumari M. (2019) Jn of Community Mobilization and Sustainable Development, 14(1), 71-75.
3. Bhakta N., Choudhary A.K., Kumar S., Mishra J.S., Monobrullah Md and Kumar U. (2021) Technical Bulletin, R-69/ Patna-39.
4. Mohan D. and Patel R. (1992) Int Jn Industrial Ergonomics, 10, 301-30.
5. Oberoi K. and Singh O.P. (2001) All India coordinated research project in home science, Annual report, ICAR, New Delhi.
6. Sa’diyah N., Maksum M. and Mulyati G.T. (2021) The International Conference on Smart and Innovative Agriculture. IOP Conf. Series: Earth and Environmental Science, 686(2021), 012005.
7. Amponsah S.A., Addo A., Djidohopkin E. And Olaye R.B. (2021) Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal Open access, 23(2), 162-169.
8. Patel H.S. and Singh B. (2013) Jn. of Krishi Vigyan Kendra, 2(1), 82-83.
9. Patel H.S., Kher A.O. and Bariya M.K. (2015) J Krishi Vigyan 3(Special Issue), 109-112.
10. Sajeev M.V., Venkatasubramanian V. and Singha A.K. (2021) Ind. Jn of ext. Edu., 57(2), 115-122.
11. Kumar V. and Kumari N. (2018) Int Jn of Chemical Studies, SP4, 141-145.
12. Singh S.P. (2012) Agric Eng Int: CIGR Journal, 14(1), 1540.
13. Tiwari P., Shrivastav A.K. and Dave A.K. (2020) Int. Jn of Sc. Res., 9(2), 1052-1061.
14. Nag P.K., Goswami A., Ashtekar S.P., Pradhan C.K. (1988) Applied ergonomics, 19(3), 233-239.
15. Pongen L.Y. and Temjennungsang. (2020) Int. Jn. of Agriculture, environment and Biotechnology, 13(2), 201-204.