Improving labour efficiency and productivity in mushroom farming through mechanized straw cutter

Introduction

Mushroom cultivation is a labour-intensive process where bed preparation plays a crucial role in determining both yield quality and quantity. The size and structure of the mushroom bed significantly impact growth conditions, while fresh, disease-free paddy straw serves as the ideal substrate [1] . Typically, around 10-15 kg of paddy straw is required per bed, and cutting the straw to precise dimensions (1.5-2 ft length × 1.5 ft width × 1.5 ft height) [2] is essential for uniform bed formation. Traditionally, straw cutting process for the bed preparation is performed manually using a manual straw cutter, which is the most labour intensive, time consuming operation for the mushroom cultivation [3] . This not only increases labour costs but also affects the efficiency of mushroom bed preparation [4] . In recent years, mushroom farming has shifted to controlled environments, such as plastic film houses, where cultivation is carried out under tropical conditions with varying temperatures (30-35 °C) and relative humidity (75-85%) to ensure optimal growth [5] . However, the manual process of straw cutting remains a bottleneck in large-scale production. In Odisha, where straw mushroom cultivation is widely practiced, the absence of mechanized processing has been identified as a major constraint increasing labour dependency, preparation time, and overall cost of production [6] . With the growing emphasis on productivity and efficiency, mechanization in small-scale mushroom farming has become increasingly important. The development of safe, efficient, and low-cost machinery can significantly enhance operational performance while reducing drudgery during bed preparation. Ergonomic evaluations of farm women have shown that the use of improved agricultural implements considerably minimizes physical strain and fatigue, resulting in greater comfort and higher work efficiency [7] .

Likewise, comparative assessments of manual and mechanized straw cutters revealed that mechanized units not only enhance cutting precision but also reduce labour effort and time, thereby improving overall efficiency in mushroom cultivation [8] . Furthermore, studies on small-scale agricultural mechanization in India have established that customized low-cost machinery significantly lowers production costs and reduces post-harvest losses, thereby strengthening farm-level profitability [9] . Custom hiring of farm machinery has also emerged as a costeffective strategy in Indian agriculture, allowing smallholder farmers to access mechanized equipment without the burden of full ownership costs [10] . This model has gained particular relevance in mushroom farming clusters in eastern India, where shared machine utilization among 5-6 farmers reduces per-unit operational cost while increasing equipment utilization efficiency [11] . In light of these developments, the present study documents the iterative design, performance evaluation, and economic assessment of a mechanized paddy straw cutter, with the objective of providing an evidence-based account of its impact on labour efficiency, occupational safety, and mushroom farming productivity.

Materials & Methods Problem identification and need for mechanization

Prior to mechanization, a fully manual straw cutter (Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) was employed for slicing paddy straw bundles used in mushroom bed preparation. While considered suitable for small-scale operations, this method was found to be inadequate as commercial straw mushroom cultivation expanded. Field observations and operator feedback identified several operational and ergonomic limitations associated with the traditional manual cutter, as summarized below:

Design and development methodology

The mechanized straw cutter was developed through a series of iterative modifications aimed at improving performance, safety, and user comfort. Three successive versions were designed, fabricated, and evaluated before arriving at the final working model.

First version: single-blade motorized straw cutter

The first prototype was designed as a single-blade, motoroperated cutting unit aimed at enhancing cutting capacity over the traditional manual method. With the introduction of a powered blade and straw feeding tray, the hourly output was significantly increased in comparison to manual cutting. However, field evaluation identified several shortcomings that limited its practical acceptance.

Limitations of first version

 The straw bundles needed to be rotated after each cut to achieve complete separation from both sides.  The cutting capacity of the machine was recorded at 400-450 bundles per hour.  The exposed high-speed blade (operating at approximately 1200 rpm) posed serious safety concerns.  Female operators were hesitant to use the machine due to the risk associated with the uncovered rotating blade. Second version: safety-enhanced model with manual feeding mechanism To address the safety concerns identified in the earlier version, a second model was developed, incorporating a manual feeding system supported by a movable tray and handle. This design arrangement was intended to ensure that a safe operating distance from the cutting blade could be maintained by operators. While safety and operational comfort were greatly improved, some new challenges were identified.

Limitations of Second Version

 The effective cutting capacity decreased to 350-400 bundles per hour due to the added feeding mechanism  The adjustment of straw bundle length was complicated, requiring frequent mechanical adjustments.  After extended operation, there was a high chance of interference between the blade and the moving tray, creating potential hazards.

Third version: improved high-capacity model

In the third and final version, the feeding system was restructured and key components were redesigned to achieve higher productivity and safer operation. The straw feeding arrangement was redesigned with a flat metal feed sheet supported by two horizontal columns, allowing simultaneous feeding of multiple straw bundles.

Description

The developed straw cutter is an electrically operated machine designed for high-capacity, uniform cutting of paddy straw bundles for mushroom bed preparation. The machine incorporates a rotating dual-blade assembly, an ergonomically designed feeding system, and enclosed safety components, making it suitable for continuous operation by both male and female operators. The final version enables simultaneous feeding of more than eight straw bundles per pass, with adjustable cutting length to suit different mushroom bed sizes.

The overall design prioritises mechanical stability, operator safety, and ease of use under on-farm conditions.

Construction

The machine is constructed on a rectangular mild steel base frame supported by vertical columns that provide structural rigidity. Four wheels fitted to the base facilitate easy portability between work areas. Two electric motors, each rated at 1 hp and operating at 1,440 rpm, are mounted symmetrically on either side of the frame and drive counter-rotating cutting blades via a shaft assembly supported on bearings. The bearing supports minimise vibration and reduce friction during operation, extending the service life of the cutting components. A motor holding assembly with parallel slots is incorporated to enable lateral adjustment of each motor, thereby allowing the blade-toblade gap to be controlled in accordance with the required cutting length. A safety cover encloses the rotating blade assembly above the cutting zone, and the straw output channel is kept open for unhindered outflow of the precisely cut straw bundles. The feeding assembly, consisting of a flat metal feed sheet supported by two horizontal columns, is equipped with two parallel guiding rods through which straw bundles are channelled in a controlled and aligned manner toward the blades. An electric control panel with an on-off switch is mounted on the frame to facilitate convenient operation. All rotating and moving components are enclosed within protective mufflers, thereby eliminating direct contact between the operator and hazardous parts.

The major components of the machine are shown in Fig. 8, with all major parts identified in the component legend.

Working and operation

Prior to operation, the blade-to-blade distance is adjusted through the motor adjustment slots to match the target mushroom bed length of 1.5-2 ft. Upon energising the control panel, both motors are activated simultaneously, and rotational force is transmitted through the shaft assembly to the cutting blades. Shear force is thereby generated by the counter-rotating blades, by which paddy straw bundles are cut cleanly and uniformly to the desired length.

Straw bundles are placed on the feeding platform and advanced beneath the guiding rods, through which bundle alignment is maintained as the material is directed into the cutting zone. More than eight bundles are capable of being fed simultaneously, enabling high throughput to be achieved without compromising cut quality. Smooth, vibration-free rotation is ensured throughout the cycle by the bearingsupported shaft assembly. All moving parts remain enclosed within the safety covers and protective mufflers, thereby ensuring safe operation in accordance with basic ergonomic standards for agricultural machinery.

Key features and improvements in third version

1 Cutting capacity increased substantially to 1000-1200 straw bundles per hour. 2 A safety muffler was installed to cover the upper portion of the blade, reducing the risk of accidental contact. 3 Guiding bars were introduced to hold straw bundles parallel and stable during cutting. 4 The cutting-length adjustment mechanism was simplified through a dual nut-bolt arrangement, enabling quick calibration. 5 The electric motor holding assembly was redesigned with parallel slots, allowing easy adjustment of the motor's base position and enabling control of the blade-to-blade distance as required.

Analytical methods and formulae

Performance evaluation was carried out using five quantitative indicators. The following formulae were applied consistently across all machine versions and comparative analyses. Where: Electrical Energy (kWh) = connected motor load (kW) × operating hours; Human Energy (kWh) = Number of workers × 0.544 kWh/person-hour [12] ; Cutting Capacity = bundles per hour.

Operational Safety Risk (OSR) -Fine-Kinney Method:

The Fine-Kinney risk assessment method [12] was used to quantify operational risk at each design stage. Risk is expressed as a composite score of three independent factors.

OSR = S × L × E

Where S = Severity of potential harm, L = Likelihood of occurrence, and E = Exposure frequency. Risk levels were classified as: High (OSR > 20), Medium (OSR = 10-20), and Low (OSR < 10).

Z-Score Standardization:

Since labour requirement and OSR are measured on different scales, z-score normalization was applied to enable cross-variable comparison while preserving relative differences [13] .

𝑍 = (𝑋 -𝜇)/𝜎

Where Z = standardized score, X = observed value, μ = mean of the dataset, and σ = standard deviation. A negative Z-score indicates a value below the mean (improvement), while a positive score reflects abovemean values (higher risk or labour demand).

Depreciation -Straight-Line Method:

Annual depreciation was calculated using the standard straightline method [14] , which distributes the cost of an asset uniformly over its useful life.

𝐷 = (𝐶 -𝑆)/𝐿

Where D = Annual depreciation (Rs.), C = Initial capital cost (Rs. 25,000), S = Salvage value at end of life (10% of C = Rs. 2,500), and L = Expected operational lifespan (5 years). Annual Depreciation = Rs. 4,500.

Pearson Correlation Coefficient:

Pearson's correlation coefficient (r) was used to determine the strength and direction of linear relationships between pairs of performance variables (cutting capacity, SEC, OSR, and labour requirement) [15] .

Where r = Pearson's correlation coefficient (-1≤r≤+1), x and y = individual data points for the two variables and n = number of observations (machine versions evaluated). Values of r close to ± 1 indicate strong correlation; values near 0 indicate weak or no linear relationship.

Simple Payback Period (SPP)

The Simple Payback Period was used to determine the duration required for the initial capital investment to be recovered through annual cost savings generated by replacing the manual method. The SPP is a widely adopted economic indicator for evaluating the financial viability of agricultural machinery investments [16] . SPP (years) = C / S; Where: SPP = Simple Payback Period (years); C = Initial capital investment (Rs.); S = Annual net cost savings = Annual cost of manual method -Annual cost of mechanized method (Rs./year). A lower SPP indicates faster recovery of investment and higher financial attractiveness for the adopting farmer.

Results

Performance evaluation and operational efficiency

Performance evaluation of the developed straw cutter was conducted to assess improvements in cutting capacity, labour requirement, power consumption, and operational safety across successive versions of the machine. Comparative trials were performed between the manual process and three mechanized prototypes under similar operating conditions. The observations are summarized in Table 1. Since labour requirement and OSR are expressed on different scales, z-score standardization was applied as described in Section 2.4 (Equation 3) to enable cross-variable comparison.

The standardized results are presented in Table 3. Specific Energy Consumption: As computed Capacity), and incorporating human energy at 0.544 kWh per person-hour [17] , the net SEC values reflect total energy demand across all versions. The manual process recorded an SEC of 0.00389 kWh/bundle, representing the baseline. Version 1 and Version 2 exhibited higher SEC values of 0.00532 and 0.00655 kWh/bundle respectively, attributed to increased human energy input from two-operator requirements alongside elevated electrical consumption.

𝑍 = 𝑋 -𝜇 𝜎

The final version (Version 3) achieved the lowest total SEC of 0.00195 kWh/bundle, demonstrating a 50% reduction over the manual baseline, driven by the combined effect of singleoperator operation and the substantially higher cutting throughput of 1,100 bundles per hour. Bearings and precision alignment were incorporated to minimize vibration losses, ensuring smooth mechanical operation and enhancing durability.

Correlation Analysis of Performance Parameters

To understand the interrelationships among the measured performance variables, a correlation analysis was conducted using four key indicators: cutting capacity, labour requirement, Specific Energy Consumption (SEC), and Operational Safety Risk (OSR). Pearson correlation coefficients for all six variable pairs computed using Equation ( 5), are presented in Fig 12 . A strong design trend was observed between cutting capacity and OSR, which exhibited a strong negative relationship (r = -0.70). Since lower OSR values indicate lower operational risk and therefore safer operation, this trend suggests that successive design improvements increased productivity while simultaneously enhancing operator safety. The incorporation of safety covers, feed guide bars, controlled feeding arrangements enabled the final version to achieve a cutting capacity of 1100 bundles/hour while reducing the OSR from 64 in manual operation to 8 in the final design. A similarly strong negative trend was observed between cutting capacity and specific energy consumption (SEC) (r = -0.66), indicating that improvements in machine productivity were accompanied by improved energy utilization efficiency. Dual motor configuration and continuous feeding mechanism enabled the machine to process a larger quantity of straw without a proportional increase in energy consumption, thereby reducing the energy requirement per bundle processed.. The strongest positive relationship in the matrix was observed between labour requirement and SEC (r = 0.88), indicating that machine configurations associated with greater labour dependency also exhibited higher energy consumption per unit output. Earlier versions required greater operator involvement for feeding and handling operations, leading to intermittent feeding and reduced utilization of the cutting mechanism. The final version, equipped with guide bars and an improved feeding arrangement, enabled smoother material flow and reduced idle machine time, resulting in improved energy utilization and reduced labour dependency. A moderate negative trend was observed between labour requirement and OSR (r = -0.30), indicating that reductions in labour dependency were accompanied by reductions in operational risk. The transition from manual operation to the final version reduced the workforce requirement from two operators to a single operator while simultaneously reducing OSR values from 64 to 8. This improvement was primarily attributable to the introduction of safety guards and ergonomic operating arrangements, which reduced direct interaction between the operator and moving components. Similarly, the moderate negative relationship between cutting capacity and labour requirement (r = -0.30) suggests that the substantial increase in throughput was not solely a consequence of reduced manpower requirements. Instead, the productivity gains were largely driven by engineering modifications which enabled higher output while maintaining lower labour dependency. Finally, the correlation between SEC and OSR was negligible (r = -0.03), suggesting that energy utilization efficiency and operational safety evolved largely independently during the machine development process. This indicates that the safety improvements introduced in successive versions did not adversely affect energy performance, allowing the machine to achieve lower operational risk without compromising energy efficiency.

Economic analysis and cost estimation

Economic feasibility was assessed through a cost analysis covering depreciation, electricity, maintenance, and labour. Progressive mushroom growers in eastern India typically operate in batches of 120-150 beds, adding 25-30 beds daily to sustain an output of 20-25 kg/day across the 12-14-day crop cycle. This necessitates the cutting of 400-500 straw bundles per day, yielding an annual straw bundle requirement of 140,000-150,000 bundles. All economic calculations were carried out based on this annual workload of 150,000 bundles.

Depreciation (straight-line method)

Depreciation was computed using the standard straight-line method [14] The straight-line depreciation schedule over the 5year operational life of the machine was computed. This method distributes the asset cost uniformly and provides a transparent basis for financial planning in mushroom cultivation mechanization.

𝐷 = 𝐶 -𝑆 𝐿

Where: Repair and maintenance cost: Annual repair and maintenance costs (covering lubrication, blade replacements, and minor adjustments) were estimated at Rs. 1,000.

Labour Cost: Based on an annual requirement of 150,000 straw bundles and the hourly cutting capacity of the manual process, approximately 1,072 working hours were required for the annual cutting workload. It was estimated that approximately 134 working days (8 hours per day) are required to complete the annual cutting workload the manual method, whereas the same workload was accomplished in 19-20 days using the mechanized machine.

Hence the mechanization achieves an approximate 85% reduction in time commitment. Labour cost was estimated based on the prevailing wage rate for unskilled workers in Odisha (Rs. 500/man day for an 8-hour workday). Annual labour costs for each method were computed as follows:  Manual Method: 1 worker × Rs. 500/man day × 134 man days = Rs. 67,000/year  Machine Use: 1 operator × Rs. 500/man day × 20 man days = Rs. 10,000/year The cost component distribution presented in Table 4 and highlights the relative contribution of each operational cost element in the mechanized method of straw cutting. The labour component accounts for the largest share (59%), followed by depreciation (27%), electricity (8%), and maintenance (6%) which is visually presented in fig 13. This distribution indicates that even though labour costs remain the dominant component, they are substantially lower compared to the manual method (Rs. 67,000per year). Depreciation forms a moderate share due to the low capital investment of Rs. 25,000. Electricity and maintenance together contribute less than 15% of total annual expenditure, demonstrating that the machine is cost-efficient and inexpensive to operate. Overall, the cost structure reflects a low-recurring-expense model, which is considered favourable for small and mediumscale mushroom growers considering mechanization of bed preparation. As shown in Table 5, the per-bundle cutting cost under the mechanized method was computed at Rs. 0.12, representing a reduction to approximately 27% of the manual method cost (Rs. 0.44). Labour dependency was reduced by approximately 85%, while processing reliability was improved and timely bed preparation was ensured which is a critical requirement for consistent mushroom production cycles.

Cost per Unit and Economic Efficiency

Simple Payback Period

Based on the economic data presented in Table 4, the Simple Payback Period was computed as follows: SPP = C / S = 25,000 / 50,105 = 0.499 years (≈6 months) The SPP of approximately 6 months confirms that the initial investment of Rs. 25,000 is fully recoverable within the first season of operation, well within the 5-year machine lifespan. This is significantly lower than comparable agricultural machinery investments reported in similar contexts [16] ,

confirming the high financial attractiveness of the mechanized straw cutter, particularly under custom-hiring or shared-use arrangements where multiple farmers benefit from the same unit. The standardized radar chart presented in Fig. 15 illustrates the progressive improvement in machine performance through successive design iterations. The manual operation exhibited the least favourable performance profile, characterized by low cutting capacity, high operational safety risk (OSR), high cost per bundle, and poor energy utilization efficiency. Version 1 achieved a substantial increase in cutting capacity and a reduction in cost per bundle compared with the manual method. However, labour dependency and specific energy consumption remained relatively high due to the continued requirement for operator involvement in feeding and material handling operations. Version 2 primarily focused on improving operational safety and ergonomics. The incorporation of safety trays, feed guide bars, and controlled feeding arrangements significantly reduced OSR, although these modifications resulted in a temporary reduction in cutting capacity and an increase in specific energy consumption.

Multi-Metric Performance Comparison Across Machine Versio

The final version (Version 3) exhibited the most balanced and optimized performance profile, achieving the highest cutting capacity while simultaneously maintaining low labour dependency, low operational risk, reduced specific energy consumption, and the lowest cost per bundle processed. The integration of dual motors, optimized blade geometry, and an improved feeding mechanism enabled higher throughput with reduced operator effort and improved energy utilization.

Discussion Broader Implications and Adoption Potential

Due to the high-quality protein content and the presence of dietary fibres, vitamins, amino acids, and carbohydrates [2,18] paddy straw mushroom is gaining popularity as a protein-rich dietary option. With increasing commercial demand, paddy straw mushroom farming is becoming the first choice for many farmers as an alternative livelihood [11] . As the popularity of paddy straw mushroom continues to rise, the need for mechanisation and automation in the associated cultivation steps is becoming essential for farmers. Bed preparation is a fundamental step in straw mushroom cultivation and has been associated with significant labour requirements. To overcome this challenge, a preference for mechanised cutting of paddy straw bundles has been increasingly observed among farmers. With the introduction of the paddy straw cutting machine, extensive adoption among farmers has been observed.

The developed machine has been demonstrated to enhance both productivity and operational safety. Owing to its lightweight construction and portability, a single machine is typically shared among 5-6 farmers within a village cluster through renting or custom hiring arrangements. This practice reduces the initial acquisition cost for individual farmers and enables the machine owner to utilise the equipment more efficiently, facilitating cost recovery in a timely manner.

Conclusion

The mechanized paddy straw cutter, developed through three iterative design phases with direct input from mushroomgrowing clusters across Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand, achieved a final cutting capacity of 1,100 bundles per hour which is an 8-fold increase over the 140 bundles per hour recorded for the manual baseline. Labour requirement was reduced from two operators to one, and the Operational Safety Risk score declined from 64 (High) under manual operation to 8 (Low) in the final version. Total Specific Energy Consumption fell from 0.00389 kWh/bundle under the manual method to 0.00195 kWh/bundle in the final version, reflecting a 50% improvement in energy utilization efficiency. Economic analysis established an annual cost saving of Rs. 50,105 against a capital investment of Rs. 25,000, yielding a Simple Payback Period of 0.499 years i.e. 6 months of operation [16] . Over the 5-year machine lifespan, the net gain amounts to Rs. 2,25,525, confirming financial viability for smallholder operators. Per-bundle cutting cost was reduced from Rs. 0.44 to Rs. 0.12, a 73% reduction. These figures are attainable through the shared-use model already practised in surveyed clusters, where one machine serves 5-6 growers through custom-hiring arrangements, further distributing acquisition costs [11] .

The correlation analysis revealed that successive design improvements followed a consistent trade-off trajectory: cutting capacity and OSR were negatively correlated (r = -0.70), as were cutting capacity and SEC (r = -0.66), confirming that engineering modifications increased throughput while simultaneously reducing both risk and energy demand per unit processed. The positive correlation between labour requirement and SEC (r = 0.88) identifies operator involvement in feeding as the primary driver of energy inefficiency which is an insight that should guide future design decisions. Deployment data, with over 1,600 units in operation across three states [11] , substantiates field acceptance at scale. The machine's suitability for operation by a single female worker is evidenced by the Low OSR rating and ergonomic feeding design [7] which has supported the participation of women farmers in bed preparation, an operation previously constrained by physical load requirements. Mushroom cultivation is an established livelihood activity for rural women in eastern India [19] , and mechanization of thi preparatory step reduces the physical barrier to their participation [20] . The primary limitation of the current design is its dependence on grid electricity, which restricts use in offgrid cultivation sites common in tribal districts of Odisha and Jharkhand, where mushroom farming has been identified as a key income source for smallholder communities [6] . Adaptation for battery or solar operation, and an investigation of blade geometry optimisation for uniform straw length control, represent the most productive directions for future work.

Acknowledgement

AcknowledgementThe authors gratefully acknowledge Dr. Arvind C. Ranade, Director, National Innovation Foundation-India,Er. Rakesh Maheswari, Scientist 'E' and Head-VARD & IPM Engineering, NIF-India and Dr. Vivek Kumar, Scientist 'F' and Head-SDDM, NIF-India, for their valuable guidance and support throughout this study. The authors also extend their sincere thanks to the farmers and mushroom-growing clusters of Odisha, Chhattisgarh, and Jharkhand for their cooperation during field trials and for providing valuable feedback during the iterative design process of the mechanized straw cutter.

References

1. Ahlawat OP, Tewari RP. Cultivation technology of paddy straw mushroom (Volvariella volvacea) (Technical Bulletin No. 36). National Research Centre for Mushroom, Indian Council of Agricultural Research; 2007.
2. Ojha S, Pradhan S, Samal AK, Pani M, Nayak L, Parihar P. A Review on Paddy Straw Mushroom Farming: Cultivation, Opportunities and Challenges in Odisha, India. Journal of Advances in Biology & Biotechnology. 2025;28(4):10041014.https://doi.org/10.9734/jabb/2025/v28i42256
3. Lal K, Netam A, Naik RK. Design of straw size cutting machine for mushroom production. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2018;7(2):16381640.
4. Das TR, Mahapatra SS, Baig MAA, Dash D, Mahapatra SS. Economics of paddy straw mushroom (Volvariella spp.) production and effect of plant extracts on the growth of fungal contaminants in Odisha: A case study. Ecology, Environment and Conservation. 2025;31(Supplement Issue):S430S434.https://doi.org/10.53550/EEC.2025.v31i03s.065
5. Thiribhuvanamala G, Krishnamoorthy S, Manoranjitham K, Prakasam V, Krishnan S. Improved techniques to enhance the yield of paddy straw mushroom (Volvariella volvacea) for commercial cultivation. African Journal of Biotechnology. 2012;11(64):1274012748.https://doi.org/10.5897/AJB11.4066
6. Rath S, Sarangi KK. Economic feasibility of straw mushroom production in Odisha: A case study. Journal of Agricultural Development and Policy. 2021;31(2):140146.
7. Gautam A, Jogdand SV, Omprabha. Ergonomic study of farm women for selected agricultural implements. Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry. 2020;9(1):298300.
8. Lal K, Naik RK, Tuteja HS. Comparative analysis of manual and paddy straw size cutter machine. The Pharma Innovation Journal. 2023;12(11):780-783.
9. Sarkar A. Agricultural Mechanization in India: A Study on the Ownership and Investment in Farm Machinery by Cultivator Households across Agro-ecological Regions. Millennial Asia. 2020;11(2):160186.https://doi.org/10.1177/0976399620925440
10. Takeshima H, Nin-Pratt A, Diao X. Mechanization and Agricultural Technology Evolution, Agricultural Intensification in Sub-Saharan Africa: Typology of Agricultural Mechanization in Nigeria. American Journal of Agricultural Economics. 2013;95(5):12301236.https://doi.org/10.1093/ajae/aat045
11. Ranasingh N, Chinera N. Mushroom Cultivation: A profitable venture for tribal farmers of Odisha. Orissa Review. 2021;NovDec.https://magazines.odisha.gov.in/orissareview/2021/N ov-Dec/engpdf/page57-63.pdf
12. Kinney GF, Wiruth AD. Practical Risk Analysis for Safety Management (Technical Paper No. TP-5865). Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA; 1976.
13. Spiegel MR, Stephens LJ. Statistics (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education; 2017.
14. Akram MO, Singh VK, Shivam, Mishra PK, Singh A, Mathur A, Ali K, Rastogi DR, Tiwari A, Verma S. Review on Cost Estimation of Farm Power and Machinery. International Journal of Statistics and Applied Mathematics. 2024;9(SP-1):109112.https://www.mathsjournal.com
15. Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation Analysis for the Behavioural Sciences (3rd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2003.
16. Ahmed H, Miller EE. Needs Analysis and Payback Models for Tractor Design Based on Field Data from Farmers in Sudan. World. 2023;4(4):698708.https://doi.org/10.3390/world4040044
17. Devasenapathy P, Senthilkumar G, Shanmugam PM. Energy management in crop production. Indian Journal of Agronomy. 2009;54(1):80-90.
18. Roy A, Prasad P, Gupta N. Volvariella volvacea: A macrofungus having nutritional and health potential. Asian Journal of Pharmacy and Technology. 2014;4(2):110-113.
19. Biswas MK. Oyster Mushroom Cultivation: A Women Friendly Profession for the Development of Rural West Bengal. International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management. 2014;5(3):432435.https://doi.org/10.5958/0976-4038.2014.00594.6
20. Kishtwaria J, Rana A. Ergonomic Interventions in Weeding Operations for Drudgery Reduction of Hill Farm Women of India. Work. 2012;41(Suppl. 1):43494355.https://doi.org/10.3233/WOR-2012-0730-4349