Cleaning and feeding tasks are manually undertaken on animal and poultry farms. The assessment of the physical load on the cardiovascular system of the workers is necessary for work organization.
Objective
To assess the cardiovascular load among the workers during cleaning and feeding tasks in the pig and poultry farms.
Methods
Cardiovascular load among the workers was estimated in two farm types, i.e., pig and poultry, by assessing the heart rate (HR) and oxygen uptake (VO2). The HR responses of 36 participants were measured for two tasks namely cleaning and feeding in the selected farms. The VO2 responses of the participants were measured in laboratory conditions to develop the relationship between HR and VO2.
Results
The mean working HR (HRwork) of the participants in the pig farms were 121 ± 4 and 102 ± 4 bpm during the cleaning and feeding tasks, respectively; the mean HRwork of the participants in the poultry farms were 125 ± 2 and 107 ± 1 bpm during the cleaning and feeding tasks, respectively. The mean working oxygen uptake (VO2work) of the participants in the pig farms was lower than the poultry farms, and its values were 24.19 ± 1.76 and 14.56 ± 2.18 mL/kg/min during the cleaning and feeding tasks, respectively. The cardiovascular load is significantly (p < 0.001) different between the cleaning and feeding tasks for both farms.
Conclusions
Based on the HRwork data, the cleaning task is classified as heavy intensity work for both farm types. In contrast, the feeding task is categorized as light intensity work on pig farms but moderate on poultry farms.
ChurchilRR. Growth, structure and strength of Indian poultry industry: a review. Indian J Poult Sci2022; 57: 1–10.
2.
BhadauriPSinghSAparna, et al.Pig farming: technique and technologies. Zone-1, Ludhiana, Punjab, India: ICAR- agricultural technology application research Institute, 2023.
3.
Livestock Census. All India report of 20th. Livestock Census, 2019.
4.
ChatterjeeRNRajkumarU. An overview of poultry production in India. Indian J Anim Hlth2015; 54: 89–108.
5.
KolstrupC. Work environment and health among Swedish livestock workers. PhD Thesis, Department of Work Science, Business Economics and Environmental Psychology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 2008.
6.
AbeDMurakiSYasukouchiA. Ergonomic effects of load carriage on the upper and lower back on metabolic energy cost of walking. Appl Ergon2008; 39: 392–398.
7.
BelloO. Level of health risk among poultry workers in Nigeria. J Res For Wildl Environ2020; 12: 10–18.
8.
DiasMSilvaLFolgadoD, et al.Cardiovascular load assessment in the workplace: a systematic review. Int J Ind Ergon2023; 96: 103476.
9.
SandersMSMcCormickEJ. Human Factors in Engineering and Design. Singapore: McGraw-Hill Inc, 1992.
10.
GrandjeanE. Fitting the task to the man. A text book of Occupational Ergonomics. London: Taylor and Francis, 1988.
11.
ArmanZNikooyMTsiorasPA, et al.Physiological workload evaluation by means of heart rate monitoring during motor-manual clearcutting operations. Int J For Eng2021; 32: 91–102.
12.
NagPKSebastianNCMavlankarMG. Occupational workload of Indian agricultural workers. Ergon1980; 23: 91–102.
13.
BorgGA. Psychophysical bases of perceived exertion. Med Sci Sports Exerc1982; 14: 377–381.
14.
VargheseMASahaPNAtreyaN. A rapid appraisal of occupational workload from a modified scale of perceived exertion. Ergon1994; 37: 485–491.
15.
HuiLNgGYFYeungSSM, et al.Evaluation of physiological work demands and low back neuromuscular fatigue on nurses working in geriatric wards. Appl Ergon2001; 32: 479–483.
16.
YoopatPToicharoenPGlinsukonT, et al.Ergonomics in practice: physical workload and heat stress in Thailand. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2002; 8: 83–93.
17.
PutriNTZadryHRMahataME, et al.Ergonomics evaluation of manual material handling activities in the section of feeding laying hens at poultry farm. IOP Conf Ser Mater Sci Eng2020; 103: 1–8.
18.
LiuJWangHPanX, et al.Effect of a PLC-based drinkers for fattening pigs on reducing drinking water consumption, wastage and pollution. Agric2024; 14: 1525.
19.
MaselyneJSaeysWVan NuffelA. Review: quantifying animal feeding behaviour with a focus on pigs. Physiol Behav2015; 138: 37–51.
20.
BirthalPSRaoPP. Technology options for sustainable livestock production in India. In: Proceedings of Workshop on Documentation, Adoption, and Impact of Livestock Technologies in India, ICRISAT-Patancheru, Hyderabad, India, 2002.
21.
SinghSPPagareV. Status and scope of mechanization in animal husbandry. RASSA J Sci Soc2024; 6: 75–83.
22.
PotdarRRKhadatkarAAgrawalKN. Drudgery Reducing Improved Technologies for Farm Women. Technical Bulletin No. ESA/2017/232. Bhopal: ICAR-Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, 2018.
23.
CarvalhoCDSouzaCFTinôcoIF, et al.Evaluation of the physical load and biomechanics conditions of workers in poultry houses. Paper Number: 1008806, Annual Meeting of ASABE. 2010; p. 1.
24.
WangHKongYKJungMC. Postural evaluation in a poultry farm for broiler chickens. Int J Occup Saf Ergon2012; 18: 67–75.
25.
Perkiö-MäkeläMHentiläH. Physical work strain of dairy farming in loose housing barns. Int J Ind Ergon2005; 35: 57–65.
26.
RoebuckJKroemerKThomsoWG. Engineering Anthropometry Methods. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.
27.
Gilgen-AmmannRSchweizerTWyssT. RR Interval signal quality of a heart rate monitor and an ECG Holter at rest and during exercise. Eur J Appl Physiol2019; 119: 1525–1532.
28.
NiemanDCLaSassoHAustinMD, et al.Validation of cosmed’s FitMateTM in measuring exercise metabolism. Res Sport Med2007; 15: 67–75.
29.
NaughtonJSeveliusGBalkeB. Physiological responses of normal and pathological subjects to a modified work capacity test. J Sports Med Phys Fitness1963; 3: 201–207.
30.
RobergsRALandwehrR. The surprising history of the “HRmax=220-age” equation. J Exerc Physiol2002; 5: 1–10.
31.
KarvonenMJKentalaEMustalaO. The effects of training on heart rate: a longitudinal study. Ann Med Exp Biol Fenn1957; 35: 307–315.
32.
HayaytiAMarzbanAAsoodarMA. Ergonomic assessment of hand cow milking operations in Khuzestan province of Iran. Agric Eng Int CIGR J2015; 17: 140–145.
33.
AnDTMHoatLNSonDT, et al.Multilevel analysis of 24-h blood pressure, heart rate, and associated factors among police officers in Hanoi, Vietnam. Biomed Res Int2020; 2020: 1–11.
34.
ZamanianZSedaghatZHemehrezaeeM, et al.Evaluation of environmental heat stress on physiological parameters. J Environ Heal Sci Eng2017; 15: 1–8.
35.
HaismanMF. Determinants of load carrying ability. Appl Ergon1988; 19: 111–121.
36.
HayatiAMarzbanAAsoodarMA. Workplace and gravity: two mechanized cow milking systems compared for human physiological strains. J Agric Mach2022; 12: 21–32.
37.
Nevala-PuranenNKallionpiiiiMOjanenK. Physical load and strain in parlor milking. Int J Ind Ergon1996; 18: 277–282.
38.
Nevala-PuranenNTaattolaKVenalainenJM. Rail system decreases physical strain in milking. Int J Ind Ergon1993; 12: 311–316.
39.
SahaPNDattaSRBanerjeePK, et al.An acceptable workload for Indian workers. Ergon1979; 22: 1059–1071.
40.
DewanganKNOwaryCDattaRK. Anthropometry of male agricultural workers of north-eastern India and its use in design of agricultural tools and equipment. Int J Ind Ergon2010; 40: 560–573.
41.
ChandraARathoreSMallickZ. Ergonomic risk assessment and postural analysis of Indian agricultural workers. In: Ergonomics for Improved Productivity: Proceedings of HWWE, 2021: 73–82.
42.
ShabliaVPTkachovaIV. Machine and manual working actions for different manure removing technologies. Bol Indústria Anim2020; 77: 1–14.
43.
ThokchomSChhetryBSKDewanganKN. Evaluation of traditional design of shovel in dairy farms using digital human models. Smart Innov. Syst. Technol.2023; 343: 139–149.
