- Email: [email protected]
Hand Tool Injuries of Agricultural Farmers of South Odisha in India
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
www.materialstoday.com/proceedings
ICMPC_2018
Hand Tool Injuries of Agricultural Farmers of South Odisha in India Debesh Mishraa,* , Suchismita Satapathyb
a,b
School of Mechanical Engineering,KIIT University,Bhubaneswar,Odisha
Abstract A survey was carried out to study and collect data about the agricultural farmers injuries of South Odisha in India. Five villages with major population with farming as occupation were selected. A total of 45 farmers were selected for the study. 30 male farmers and 13 female farmers were reported to be injured during the four years period from 2014 to 2017. Maximum number of male and female farmers, who were victims of agricultural injury, was in the age group of 31 to 45. While minimum numbers of injured farmers were found in the age group of 18 to 30. It was reported that 43 farmers out of 45 farmers were the victims of agricultural injuries by the use of some selected agricultural hand tools such as Knife, Kudali (pick axe), Khurpi (weeding fork), Spade, Plain edge sickle Serrated sickle and shovel, respectively. The total number and percentage of accidents due to each of these tools were considered separately. It was observed that the total number of accidents or injuries were 79 and the number of accidents were more i.e. 14(17.72%) in each hand tools like knife, Kudali (pick axe) and Khurpi (weeding fork). The no. of accidents by other hand tools such as spade, plain edge sickle, serrated sickle and shovel were 13(16.45%), 06(7.59%), 11(13.92%) and 07(8.86%), respectively. Factor analysis using SPSS version 17 for the injuries by hand tools in farming and the type of injury by the hand tools was performed and the factors with variables (Tools) were grouped accordingly and some safety measures were recommended. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of Materials Processing and Keywords: Hand tools; Injuries; Agricultural farmers; South Odisha
1. Introduction Agricultural injuries are resulted from the improper selection and use of hand tools. In agricultural sector the traditional hand tools play a vital role in performing the farming activities. The traditional hand tools like spade/hoe, sickle, hammer, shovel, knife etc. have been used since the ancient though some modifications are found now a day. As most of the farmers in Odisha are from poor economic background, they usually prefer the traditional methods in farming instead of using the developed power operated machineries. The hand tools are mostly used in all farming activities like land preparation, weeding, harvesting of crops etc. * Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] 2214-7853 © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of Materials Processing and characterization.
Debesh Mishra et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
17649
The lack of ergonomic considerations in the design of hand tools and equipment, lack of expertise, lack of the knowledge of safety measures and negligence of farmers, adverse environment may lead to agricultural accidents or injuries. Murphy (1992) defined farming as the occupation which depends on the farming awareness skill of individual and the capability to do complicated and repetitive jobs. Voaklander et al. (2006) suggested having all these skills enhance the ability, performance of individuals and also the safety level in the working place. Further it is recommended that absence of any of the skill can result in farming injury. Karthikeyan et al. (2009) reported that most of the conventional tools and equipments used in the agricultural sector were manufactured locally by the available materials like wood, iron or stone, respectively. The literature on agricultural injuries and accidents in India are limited to a few. Many authors and researchers have reported the rate of agricultural accidents as higher than the industrial sectors. Lack of infrastructural facility, medical facility, training and rare use & maintenance of machines and lack of defining the work according to gender or age, are the causes of agricultural injuries (Knapp, 1965, 1966). Mohan and Patel (1992) reported 576 agricultural related injuries in 1 year in 9 villages of Haryana in India. 87% injuries were reported as minor, 11% as moderate and remaining as severe. It is found that most of the injuries were due to hand tools i.e. 24% by spade, 23% by sickles, 6% by bullock carts, 6% by manually operated fodder cutters, 5% each by power operated fodder cutters, diesel engines and tractors. Zhou & Roseman (1994) found limbs as the most injured body part for 1000 farmers in Alabama by agricultural accidents. Mittal et al. (1996) reported 36 agricultural injuries i.e. 8.3% as fatal and 91.7% as non fatal, in 12 villages of Punjab in India during 1year. The injury rate per thousand machines per year was found to be 23.7 for tractors, 15.5 for sprayers, 7.1 for electric motors, 5.7 for threshers and 2.2 for fodder cutters. DeMuri and Purschwitz, (2000) reported that the agricultural injuries are due to lack of proper supervision, irrational expectations, economic difficulty and lack of proper safety device. Huiyun Xiang et al. (2000) considered 1500 chinese farmers from 14 villages and conducted face to face interview of 1358 farmers between July 1997 and September 1997, to evaluate the agricultural related injuries. Rautiainen and Reynolds (2002) carried out agricultural survey in USA and reported a high fatality rate of 0.22 per 1000 workers per year and the injuries rate as 5 to 166 per 1000 workers per year. Tiwari et al. (2002) found the agricultural accident rate as 1.25 per thousand workers per year in Madhya Pradesh district in India. It is reported that 77.6% of agricultural accidents were because of farming machines, 11.8% because of hand tools and 10.6% due to others. Helkamp & Lundstrom (2002) reported the injuries of farmers to be higher than industrial workers. Adarsh Kumar et al. (2008) found 576 agricultural related injuries with 332 i.e 58% hand tool related, from 9 villages with 19,723 persons in 1st phase. Further, in 2nd phase with more 21 villages of 78,890 persons, it was reported of 54 i.e.19% of hand tool related out of 282 injuries. It was also recommended to have interventions development and training at block levels about the safety measures of equipments. Prasanna Kumar et al. (2009) investigated the agricultural accident for six years i.e. between years 2000-2005 of 42 villages of 4 districts in Arunachal Pradesh in India. It was reported to have the accident rate as 6.39 per thousand workers per year with 40% farm implement related injury. S.K. Patel et al. (2010) reported the agricultural accident rate as 0.8 per 1000 workers per year in Etawah district of Uttar Pradesh in India. Also it is reported of lack of study in agricultural injuries in developing countries due to non availability of compiled information. Cem Copuroglu et al. (2012) studied the agricultural injuries of 41 patients for a period of 3 years and found hand as the most commonly injured part compared to the lower limb and foot. Robertoes Koekoeh K. Wibowo et al. (2016) studied the farmers of east java and Indonesia. Most of the farmer’s injury was found in hand and the fatigue was reported as 92.8% in upper back, 93.6% in mid back and 91.8% in lower back. Safe, good and fit in hand were suggested as design criteria for hand tools. The recommended tool handles length was 12.4 cm and diameter was 3cm, respectively. 2. Methodology Odisha state in india is one of the ancient state known for its agricultural sectors. Khorda is one of the districts in Odisha, where most of the populations are farmers by their profession. In the Khorda district 5 villages are selected which are within 10km radius distance from the great lake Chilka. The villages are so selected where more than 60% population are agricultural farmers in each village. The workers are not injured purposefully but the accident occurs due to the negligence of safety precautions in operating the machines or by the adverse environment. Agricultural injury does not have any standard definition (Kumar et al., 2000). Cooper et al. (2006) have defined the agricultural injury as the injury that occurs while
17650
Debesh Mishra et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
performing farm work or going to or from work. Nag and Nag (2004) have differentiated farming accident as farm implement related agricultural accidents and nonfarm implement related agricultural accidents. Accidents with the use of hand tools or farming machineries are included in farm implement related agricultural accidents, where as accidents without the use of hand tools or farming machineries are included in nonfarm implement related agricultural accidents i.e. snake biting, hazardous fuels & gases, airborne irritant, noises, vibrations, zoo noses, dusts, chemicals, fungal, end toxins, carrying heavy loads, exposure to heat, falls from height and electrical hazards. This definition is being used in the present study to analyze the farmer’s injuries while operating with the hand tools only. The most commonly used hand tools in farming by the farmers such as knife, Kudali (pick axe), Spade, Khurpi (weeding fork), Plain edge sickle, Serrated sickle and shovel, are only considered in the present study. The type of injury by using the hand tools are ranked in a 5 point scale of (1=nil, 2=cut, 3=sharp force injury, 4= blunt force trauma, 5=fracture). The injury level for different hand tools is measured with a 5 point ranking scale as (1=minor, 2= moderate, 3= nil, 4=serious, 5=severe). Before collecting the information and data, a team was formulated consisting of the author, co-author and one member from one of the selected village. Permission was taken from the village head/leader and all 3 members visited the farmer’s home randomly in the evening time during their leisure time. The information for the consequent visits to the farmers and other villages were obtained from the previous visits and talking to the farmers. The same procedure was being followed in other villages under consideration. The farmer’s injury by using hand tools irrespective of age and gender, were collected for 4 years i.e. from 2014 to 2017. From all the 5 villages, a total 45 farmers were selected for the study and their provided information was collected in a standard questionnaire containing their name, address, gender, age, the type of injury by using the hand tools and the injury level for different hand tools, respectively. 3. Results and discussion In the present study the total number of agricultural farmers selected was 45. Out of the total number of farmers total no. of male farmers was 31 and total no. of female farmers was 14. The farmer’s age distribution in the present study is shown in Table 1. Out of 45 farmers, 30 male farmers and 13 female farmers were reported to be injured during the four years period from 2014 to 2017. The farmer’s injuries distribution along with their age groups is shown in Table 2. From the two tables it can be seen that maximum number of male and female farmers who were victims of agricultural injury, were in the age group of 31 to 45. While minimum numbers of injured farmers were found in the age group of 18 to 30. Table 1. Farmers age distribution in present study Age in years
No. of Male farmers
% of Male farmers
18-30 31-45 >45 Total
03 18 10 31
9.67 58.06 32.25 100
No. of Female farmers 01 11 02 14
% of Female farmers 7.14 78.57 14.28 100
Total no. of farmers (male and female) 04 29 12 45
Total % of farmers (male and female) 8.88 64.44 26.66 100
Total no. of farmers (male and female) 04 27 12 43
Total % of farmers (male and female) 9.30 62.79 27.90 100
Table 2. Farmer’s injuries distribution in present study Age in years
No. of Male farmers
% of Male farmers
18-30 31-45 >45 Total
03 17 10 30
10 56.66 33.33 100
No. of Female farmers 01 10 02 13
% of Female farmers 7.69 76.92 15.38 100
Debesh Mishra et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
17651
Through the personal interaction and questionnaire with the farmers in the present study it was observed that 43 farmers out of 45 farmers were the victims of agricultural injuries by the use of some selected agricultural hand tools such as Knife, Kudali (pick axe), Khurpi (weeding fork), Spade, Plain edge sickle Serrated sickle and shovel, respectively. The total number and percentage of accidents due to each of these tools considered separately is illustrated in Table 3. It can be observed that the total number of accidents or injuries are 79 and the number of accidents are more i.e. 14(17.72%) in each hand tools like knife, Kudali (pick axe) and Khurpi (weeding fork). The no. of accidents by other hand tools such as spade, plain edge sickle, serrated sickle and shovel are 13(16.45%), 06(7.59%), 11(13.92%) and 07(8.86%), respectively. Table 3. Hand Tool related injuries of farmers Sl. No.
Type of Hand Tool
No. of accidents
% of accidents
1.
knife
14
17.72
2.
Kudali (pick axe)
14
17.72
3.
Spade
13
16.45
4.
Khurpi (weeding fork)
14
17.72
5.
Plain edge sickle
06
7.59
6.
Serrated sickle
11
13.92
7.
shovel
07
8.86
Total
--
79
100
Factor analysis using SPSS version 17 for the injuries by hand tools in farming and the type of injury by the hand tools was performed as shown in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. The principal component analysis method with rotated component matrix was used. The rotation was used to reduce the number of factors on which the variables under study have high loading. After obtaining the rotated component matrix and considering only the variables with factor loading more than or equal to 0.5 were considered. For factors selection, Kaiser’s Eigen value criteria with eigen value greater than 1 were selected (Kaiser, 1960). The factor analysis of injuries by hand tools (Table 4), resulted in 3 dominant factors with cumulative% of variance of 62.16%. In factor1, the factor loading is high in Kudali (pick axe) which is 0.720. The other variables (tools) with factor loading more than 0.5 in factor1 are related to digging purpose in agricultural sector. Hence the factor1 is named as Digging. Similarly the factor loading in factor2 is high in knife which is 0.786. The other variables with factor loading more than 0.5 in factor2 are related to cutting purpose; hence the factor2 is named as Cutting. The factor loading in factor3 is high in Serrated sickle i.e. 0.763. The other variable in factor3 is shovel with factor loading of -0.733. As the serrated sickle and shovel are the improved versions of tools, hence factor 3 is named as “Improved tool”. The factor analysis of type of injury by hand tools (Table 5), resulted in 3 dominant factors with cumulative% of variance of 67.28%. In factor1, the factor loading of 0.898 is found in both knife and shovel. Both knife and shovel are operated by hand and hand is the most affected part during its operation. Hence the factor1 is named as Hand. Similarly the factor loading in factor2 is high in plain edge sickle which is 0.731. The other variables with factor loading more than 0.5 in factor2 are spade and serrated sickle. As these tools operation depends on the arm movement and also mostly arm is the more affected part. Hence the factor2 is named as Arm. The factor loading in factor3 is high in Kudali (pick axe) i.e. 0.770. The other variable in factor3 is Khurpi (weeding fork) with factor loading of -0.698. As both of these tools are used for digging of soil purposes and mostly leg is the most affected part during injury by these tools. Hence factor 3 is named as Leg.
17652
Debesh Mishra et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
Table 4. Factor analysis of injuries by Hand tools Type of hand tools Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 2.Kudali (pick axe)
0.720
3.Spade 4.Khurpi (weeding fork) 1. knife 5.Plain edge sickle
0.678 0.683
6.Serrated sickle 7.shovel Eigen value % of variance Cumulative % of variance
0.786 -0.737
1.80 25.75 25.75
1.38 19.77 45.52
0.763 -0.733 1.16 16.63 62.16
Table 5. Factor analysis of type of injury by Hand tools Type of hand tools
Factor 1
1. knife
0.898
7.shovel
0.898
Factor 2
3.Spade
-0.571
5.Plain edge sickle
0.731
6.Serrated sickle
0.727
Factor 3
2.Kudali (pick axe)
0.770
4.Khurpi (weeding fork)
-0.698
Eigen value
2.12
1.52
1.05
% of variance
30.41
21.74
15.13
Cumulative % of variance
30.41
52.15
67.28
Based on the consequences of the present study, some important reasons for agricultural accidents or injuries by the hand tools and the safety precautions to be followed are depicted below, Various reason of hand tools related injuries: * Inward cutting instead of outward. * Using the tools with dull cutting edge, which increases the application of pressure on the tool. * Cutting more than the capacity of tool. * Keeping the cutting zone extended when storing the tools. * Avoiding or negligence to wear the protective shields during operation. * Lack of expertise in the farming process. * Lack of knowledge about the use of tools.
Debesh Mishra et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
17653
* Negligence of inspecting and ensuring the tools before use. * Farmers personal characteristics like illness, sickness/weakness, mental stability, defective eyesight etc. * Adverse environmental affects. Safety precautions to follow: * Wearing of protective shields like gloves, shoes during operational work. * Using tools with sharp cutting edges. * Protecting arms, hands and legs during the repetitive work. * The tool handle should be handed first while transferring the tools to the co workers. * Preferring to use a new tool instead of old damaged or broken tool. * The tools should be properly and firmly positioned to its respective handles. * The operation path must be kept clean avoiding any obstruction. * Trying to perform the operations with low pressure, avoiding more pressure on tools. * Strictly following the manufacturer’s operation manual. * Discarding and disposing all the broken/damaged tools in a secured container. 4. Conclusion For farmers from the low economic sections, the traditional tools and techniques are the only options to carry out the farming activities. Hence respective competent authorities must have a high vision for the farmers to provide them with the latest tools and techniques, providing training regarding the operation and safety measures to consider, providing adequate medical facilities and regular inspection of respective activities. References 1. D. J. Murphy, Safety and Health for Production Agriculture, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich, USA, 1992. 2. D. C. Voaklander, K. D. Kelly, B. H. Rowe et al., “Pain, medication, and injury in older farmers,” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 374–382, 2006. 3. Karthikeyan C, Veeraragavathatham D, Karpagam D and Ayisha F S. 2009. Traditional tools in agricultural practices. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 8(2): 212-217. 4. Knapp, L.W., 1965. Agricultural Injuries Prevention. J. Occup. Med. 7 (11), 553-745. 5. Knapp, L.W., 1966. Occupational and Rural Accidents. Arch. Environ. Health 13, 501-506. Mohan D, Patel R (1992) Design of safer agricultural equipment: application of ergonomics andepidemiology. Intern J Indus Ergon 10, 301–9. 6. Zhou, C., Roseman, J.M., 1994. Agricultural injuries among a population based sample of farm operators in Alabama. Am. J. Ind. Med. 25 (3), 385–402. 7. Mittal, V. K., Bhatia, B. S., Ahuja, S. S., 1996. A Study of the Magnitude, Causes, and Profile of Victims of Injuries with Selected Farm Machines in Punjab. Final Report of ICAR adhoc Research Project, Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India. 8. DeMuri, G.P., Purschwitz, M.A., 2000. Fatal injuries in children: a review. WMJ 99 (9), 51–55. 9. Huiyun Xiang, Zengzhen Wang, Lorann Stallones, Thomas J. Keefe, Xuzhen Huang and Xianghua Fu, (Am J Public Health. 2000;90:1269– 1276). 10 Rautiainen, R.H., Reynolds, S.J., 2002. Mortality and morbidity in agriculture in the United States. J. Agric. Safety Health 8 (3), 259–276. 11.Tiwari, P.S., Gite, L.P., Dubey, A.K., Kot, L.S., 2002. Agricultural injuries in Central India: nature, magnitude and economic impact. J. Agric. Safety Health 8 (1), 95–111. 12.Helkamp, J., Lundstrom, W., 2002. Tractor Related Deaths Among West Virginia Farmers. Ann. Epidemiol. 12(7), 510. 13.A.Kumar et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 54–65. 14.G.V. Prasanna Kumar, K.N. Dewangan / Safety Science 47 (2009) 199–205. 15.S.K. Patel et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 222–229. 16.Cem Copuroglu, Nurettin Heybeli, Mert Ozcan, Baris Yilmaz, Mert Ciftdemir and Elif Copuroglu; The ScientificWorld Journal Volume 2012, Article ID 314038, 6 pages doi:10.1100/2012/314038 17.Robertoes Koekoeh K. Wibowo and Peeyush Soni / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 9 ( 2016 ) 323 – 327 18. Pradhan CK, Goswami A, Ghosh SN, Nag PK (1986) Evaluation of working with spade in agriculture. Ind J Med Res 84, 424–9. 19.Kumar, A., Varghese, M., Mohan, D., 2000. Equipment-related injuries in agriculture: an international perspective. Injury Contr. Safety Promot. 7 (3), 1–12. 20.S. P. Cooper, K. E. Burau, R. Frankowski et al., “A cohort study of injuries in migrant farm worker families in South Texas,”Annals of Epidemiology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 313–320, 2006. 21.Nag, P.K., Nag, A., 2004. Drudgery, accidents and injuries in Indian agriculture. Ind. Health 42 (4), 149–162. 22.Kaiser, H. F. (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.
ScienceDirect Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
www.materialstoday.com/proceedings
ICMPC_2018
Hand Tool Injuries of Agricultural Farmers of South Odisha in India Debesh Mishraa,* , Suchismita Satapathyb
a,b
School of Mechanical Engineering,KIIT University,Bhubaneswar,Odisha
Abstract A survey was carried out to study and collect data about the agricultural farmers injuries of South Odisha in India. Five villages with major population with farming as occupation were selected. A total of 45 farmers were selected for the study. 30 male farmers and 13 female farmers were reported to be injured during the four years period from 2014 to 2017. Maximum number of male and female farmers, who were victims of agricultural injury, was in the age group of 31 to 45. While minimum numbers of injured farmers were found in the age group of 18 to 30. It was reported that 43 farmers out of 45 farmers were the victims of agricultural injuries by the use of some selected agricultural hand tools such as Knife, Kudali (pick axe), Khurpi (weeding fork), Spade, Plain edge sickle Serrated sickle and shovel, respectively. The total number and percentage of accidents due to each of these tools were considered separately. It was observed that the total number of accidents or injuries were 79 and the number of accidents were more i.e. 14(17.72%) in each hand tools like knife, Kudali (pick axe) and Khurpi (weeding fork). The no. of accidents by other hand tools such as spade, plain edge sickle, serrated sickle and shovel were 13(16.45%), 06(7.59%), 11(13.92%) and 07(8.86%), respectively. Factor analysis using SPSS version 17 for the injuries by hand tools in farming and the type of injury by the hand tools was performed and the factors with variables (Tools) were grouped accordingly and some safety measures were recommended. © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of Materials Processing and Keywords: Hand tools; Injuries; Agricultural farmers; South Odisha
1. Introduction Agricultural injuries are resulted from the improper selection and use of hand tools. In agricultural sector the traditional hand tools play a vital role in performing the farming activities. The traditional hand tools like spade/hoe, sickle, hammer, shovel, knife etc. have been used since the ancient though some modifications are found now a day. As most of the farmers in Odisha are from poor economic background, they usually prefer the traditional methods in farming instead of using the developed power operated machineries. The hand tools are mostly used in all farming activities like land preparation, weeding, harvesting of crops etc. * Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] 2214-7853 © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Selection and/or Peer-review under responsibility of Materials Processing and characterization.
Debesh Mishra et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
17649
The lack of ergonomic considerations in the design of hand tools and equipment, lack of expertise, lack of the knowledge of safety measures and negligence of farmers, adverse environment may lead to agricultural accidents or injuries. Murphy (1992) defined farming as the occupation which depends on the farming awareness skill of individual and the capability to do complicated and repetitive jobs. Voaklander et al. (2006) suggested having all these skills enhance the ability, performance of individuals and also the safety level in the working place. Further it is recommended that absence of any of the skill can result in farming injury. Karthikeyan et al. (2009) reported that most of the conventional tools and equipments used in the agricultural sector were manufactured locally by the available materials like wood, iron or stone, respectively. The literature on agricultural injuries and accidents in India are limited to a few. Many authors and researchers have reported the rate of agricultural accidents as higher than the industrial sectors. Lack of infrastructural facility, medical facility, training and rare use & maintenance of machines and lack of defining the work according to gender or age, are the causes of agricultural injuries (Knapp, 1965, 1966). Mohan and Patel (1992) reported 576 agricultural related injuries in 1 year in 9 villages of Haryana in India. 87% injuries were reported as minor, 11% as moderate and remaining as severe. It is found that most of the injuries were due to hand tools i.e. 24% by spade, 23% by sickles, 6% by bullock carts, 6% by manually operated fodder cutters, 5% each by power operated fodder cutters, diesel engines and tractors. Zhou & Roseman (1994) found limbs as the most injured body part for 1000 farmers in Alabama by agricultural accidents. Mittal et al. (1996) reported 36 agricultural injuries i.e. 8.3% as fatal and 91.7% as non fatal, in 12 villages of Punjab in India during 1year. The injury rate per thousand machines per year was found to be 23.7 for tractors, 15.5 for sprayers, 7.1 for electric motors, 5.7 for threshers and 2.2 for fodder cutters. DeMuri and Purschwitz, (2000) reported that the agricultural injuries are due to lack of proper supervision, irrational expectations, economic difficulty and lack of proper safety device. Huiyun Xiang et al. (2000) considered 1500 chinese farmers from 14 villages and conducted face to face interview of 1358 farmers between July 1997 and September 1997, to evaluate the agricultural related injuries. Rautiainen and Reynolds (2002) carried out agricultural survey in USA and reported a high fatality rate of 0.22 per 1000 workers per year and the injuries rate as 5 to 166 per 1000 workers per year. Tiwari et al. (2002) found the agricultural accident rate as 1.25 per thousand workers per year in Madhya Pradesh district in India. It is reported that 77.6% of agricultural accidents were because of farming machines, 11.8% because of hand tools and 10.6% due to others. Helkamp & Lundstrom (2002) reported the injuries of farmers to be higher than industrial workers. Adarsh Kumar et al. (2008) found 576 agricultural related injuries with 332 i.e 58% hand tool related, from 9 villages with 19,723 persons in 1st phase. Further, in 2nd phase with more 21 villages of 78,890 persons, it was reported of 54 i.e.19% of hand tool related out of 282 injuries. It was also recommended to have interventions development and training at block levels about the safety measures of equipments. Prasanna Kumar et al. (2009) investigated the agricultural accident for six years i.e. between years 2000-2005 of 42 villages of 4 districts in Arunachal Pradesh in India. It was reported to have the accident rate as 6.39 per thousand workers per year with 40% farm implement related injury. S.K. Patel et al. (2010) reported the agricultural accident rate as 0.8 per 1000 workers per year in Etawah district of Uttar Pradesh in India. Also it is reported of lack of study in agricultural injuries in developing countries due to non availability of compiled information. Cem Copuroglu et al. (2012) studied the agricultural injuries of 41 patients for a period of 3 years and found hand as the most commonly injured part compared to the lower limb and foot. Robertoes Koekoeh K. Wibowo et al. (2016) studied the farmers of east java and Indonesia. Most of the farmer’s injury was found in hand and the fatigue was reported as 92.8% in upper back, 93.6% in mid back and 91.8% in lower back. Safe, good and fit in hand were suggested as design criteria for hand tools. The recommended tool handles length was 12.4 cm and diameter was 3cm, respectively. 2. Methodology Odisha state in india is one of the ancient state known for its agricultural sectors. Khorda is one of the districts in Odisha, where most of the populations are farmers by their profession. In the Khorda district 5 villages are selected which are within 10km radius distance from the great lake Chilka. The villages are so selected where more than 60% population are agricultural farmers in each village. The workers are not injured purposefully but the accident occurs due to the negligence of safety precautions in operating the machines or by the adverse environment. Agricultural injury does not have any standard definition (Kumar et al., 2000). Cooper et al. (2006) have defined the agricultural injury as the injury that occurs while
17650
Debesh Mishra et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
performing farm work or going to or from work. Nag and Nag (2004) have differentiated farming accident as farm implement related agricultural accidents and nonfarm implement related agricultural accidents. Accidents with the use of hand tools or farming machineries are included in farm implement related agricultural accidents, where as accidents without the use of hand tools or farming machineries are included in nonfarm implement related agricultural accidents i.e. snake biting, hazardous fuels & gases, airborne irritant, noises, vibrations, zoo noses, dusts, chemicals, fungal, end toxins, carrying heavy loads, exposure to heat, falls from height and electrical hazards. This definition is being used in the present study to analyze the farmer’s injuries while operating with the hand tools only. The most commonly used hand tools in farming by the farmers such as knife, Kudali (pick axe), Spade, Khurpi (weeding fork), Plain edge sickle, Serrated sickle and shovel, are only considered in the present study. The type of injury by using the hand tools are ranked in a 5 point scale of (1=nil, 2=cut, 3=sharp force injury, 4= blunt force trauma, 5=fracture). The injury level for different hand tools is measured with a 5 point ranking scale as (1=minor, 2= moderate, 3= nil, 4=serious, 5=severe). Before collecting the information and data, a team was formulated consisting of the author, co-author and one member from one of the selected village. Permission was taken from the village head/leader and all 3 members visited the farmer’s home randomly in the evening time during their leisure time. The information for the consequent visits to the farmers and other villages were obtained from the previous visits and talking to the farmers. The same procedure was being followed in other villages under consideration. The farmer’s injury by using hand tools irrespective of age and gender, were collected for 4 years i.e. from 2014 to 2017. From all the 5 villages, a total 45 farmers were selected for the study and their provided information was collected in a standard questionnaire containing their name, address, gender, age, the type of injury by using the hand tools and the injury level for different hand tools, respectively. 3. Results and discussion In the present study the total number of agricultural farmers selected was 45. Out of the total number of farmers total no. of male farmers was 31 and total no. of female farmers was 14. The farmer’s age distribution in the present study is shown in Table 1. Out of 45 farmers, 30 male farmers and 13 female farmers were reported to be injured during the four years period from 2014 to 2017. The farmer’s injuries distribution along with their age groups is shown in Table 2. From the two tables it can be seen that maximum number of male and female farmers who were victims of agricultural injury, were in the age group of 31 to 45. While minimum numbers of injured farmers were found in the age group of 18 to 30. Table 1. Farmers age distribution in present study Age in years
No. of Male farmers
% of Male farmers
18-30 31-45 >45 Total
03 18 10 31
9.67 58.06 32.25 100
No. of Female farmers 01 11 02 14
% of Female farmers 7.14 78.57 14.28 100
Total no. of farmers (male and female) 04 29 12 45
Total % of farmers (male and female) 8.88 64.44 26.66 100
Total no. of farmers (male and female) 04 27 12 43
Total % of farmers (male and female) 9.30 62.79 27.90 100
Table 2. Farmer’s injuries distribution in present study Age in years
No. of Male farmers
% of Male farmers
18-30 31-45 >45 Total
03 17 10 30
10 56.66 33.33 100
No. of Female farmers 01 10 02 13
% of Female farmers 7.69 76.92 15.38 100
Debesh Mishra et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
17651
Through the personal interaction and questionnaire with the farmers in the present study it was observed that 43 farmers out of 45 farmers were the victims of agricultural injuries by the use of some selected agricultural hand tools such as Knife, Kudali (pick axe), Khurpi (weeding fork), Spade, Plain edge sickle Serrated sickle and shovel, respectively. The total number and percentage of accidents due to each of these tools considered separately is illustrated in Table 3. It can be observed that the total number of accidents or injuries are 79 and the number of accidents are more i.e. 14(17.72%) in each hand tools like knife, Kudali (pick axe) and Khurpi (weeding fork). The no. of accidents by other hand tools such as spade, plain edge sickle, serrated sickle and shovel are 13(16.45%), 06(7.59%), 11(13.92%) and 07(8.86%), respectively. Table 3. Hand Tool related injuries of farmers Sl. No.
Type of Hand Tool
No. of accidents
% of accidents
1.
knife
14
17.72
2.
Kudali (pick axe)
14
17.72
3.
Spade
13
16.45
4.
Khurpi (weeding fork)
14
17.72
5.
Plain edge sickle
06
7.59
6.
Serrated sickle
11
13.92
7.
shovel
07
8.86
Total
--
79
100
Factor analysis using SPSS version 17 for the injuries by hand tools in farming and the type of injury by the hand tools was performed as shown in Table 4 and Table 5, respectively. The principal component analysis method with rotated component matrix was used. The rotation was used to reduce the number of factors on which the variables under study have high loading. After obtaining the rotated component matrix and considering only the variables with factor loading more than or equal to 0.5 were considered. For factors selection, Kaiser’s Eigen value criteria with eigen value greater than 1 were selected (Kaiser, 1960). The factor analysis of injuries by hand tools (Table 4), resulted in 3 dominant factors with cumulative% of variance of 62.16%. In factor1, the factor loading is high in Kudali (pick axe) which is 0.720. The other variables (tools) with factor loading more than 0.5 in factor1 are related to digging purpose in agricultural sector. Hence the factor1 is named as Digging. Similarly the factor loading in factor2 is high in knife which is 0.786. The other variables with factor loading more than 0.5 in factor2 are related to cutting purpose; hence the factor2 is named as Cutting. The factor loading in factor3 is high in Serrated sickle i.e. 0.763. The other variable in factor3 is shovel with factor loading of -0.733. As the serrated sickle and shovel are the improved versions of tools, hence factor 3 is named as “Improved tool”. The factor analysis of type of injury by hand tools (Table 5), resulted in 3 dominant factors with cumulative% of variance of 67.28%. In factor1, the factor loading of 0.898 is found in both knife and shovel. Both knife and shovel are operated by hand and hand is the most affected part during its operation. Hence the factor1 is named as Hand. Similarly the factor loading in factor2 is high in plain edge sickle which is 0.731. The other variables with factor loading more than 0.5 in factor2 are spade and serrated sickle. As these tools operation depends on the arm movement and also mostly arm is the more affected part. Hence the factor2 is named as Arm. The factor loading in factor3 is high in Kudali (pick axe) i.e. 0.770. The other variable in factor3 is Khurpi (weeding fork) with factor loading of -0.698. As both of these tools are used for digging of soil purposes and mostly leg is the most affected part during injury by these tools. Hence factor 3 is named as Leg.
17652
Debesh Mishra et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
Table 4. Factor analysis of injuries by Hand tools Type of hand tools Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 2.Kudali (pick axe)
0.720
3.Spade 4.Khurpi (weeding fork) 1. knife 5.Plain edge sickle
0.678 0.683
6.Serrated sickle 7.shovel Eigen value % of variance Cumulative % of variance
0.786 -0.737
1.80 25.75 25.75
1.38 19.77 45.52
0.763 -0.733 1.16 16.63 62.16
Table 5. Factor analysis of type of injury by Hand tools Type of hand tools
Factor 1
1. knife
0.898
7.shovel
0.898
Factor 2
3.Spade
-0.571
5.Plain edge sickle
0.731
6.Serrated sickle
0.727
Factor 3
2.Kudali (pick axe)
0.770
4.Khurpi (weeding fork)
-0.698
Eigen value
2.12
1.52
1.05
% of variance
30.41
21.74
15.13
Cumulative % of variance
30.41
52.15
67.28
Based on the consequences of the present study, some important reasons for agricultural accidents or injuries by the hand tools and the safety precautions to be followed are depicted below, Various reason of hand tools related injuries: * Inward cutting instead of outward. * Using the tools with dull cutting edge, which increases the application of pressure on the tool. * Cutting more than the capacity of tool. * Keeping the cutting zone extended when storing the tools. * Avoiding or negligence to wear the protective shields during operation. * Lack of expertise in the farming process. * Lack of knowledge about the use of tools.
Debesh Mishra et al./ Materials Today: Proceedings 5 (2018) 17648–17653
17653
* Negligence of inspecting and ensuring the tools before use. * Farmers personal characteristics like illness, sickness/weakness, mental stability, defective eyesight etc. * Adverse environmental affects. Safety precautions to follow: * Wearing of protective shields like gloves, shoes during operational work. * Using tools with sharp cutting edges. * Protecting arms, hands and legs during the repetitive work. * The tool handle should be handed first while transferring the tools to the co workers. * Preferring to use a new tool instead of old damaged or broken tool. * The tools should be properly and firmly positioned to its respective handles. * The operation path must be kept clean avoiding any obstruction. * Trying to perform the operations with low pressure, avoiding more pressure on tools. * Strictly following the manufacturer’s operation manual. * Discarding and disposing all the broken/damaged tools in a secured container. 4. Conclusion For farmers from the low economic sections, the traditional tools and techniques are the only options to carry out the farming activities. Hence respective competent authorities must have a high vision for the farmers to provide them with the latest tools and techniques, providing training regarding the operation and safety measures to consider, providing adequate medical facilities and regular inspection of respective activities. References 1. D. J. Murphy, Safety and Health for Production Agriculture, American Society of Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich, USA, 1992. 2. D. C. Voaklander, K. D. Kelly, B. H. Rowe et al., “Pain, medication, and injury in older farmers,” American Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 374–382, 2006. 3. Karthikeyan C, Veeraragavathatham D, Karpagam D and Ayisha F S. 2009. Traditional tools in agricultural practices. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge 8(2): 212-217. 4. Knapp, L.W., 1965. Agricultural Injuries Prevention. J. Occup. Med. 7 (11), 553-745. 5. Knapp, L.W., 1966. Occupational and Rural Accidents. Arch. Environ. Health 13, 501-506. Mohan D, Patel R (1992) Design of safer agricultural equipment: application of ergonomics andepidemiology. Intern J Indus Ergon 10, 301–9. 6. Zhou, C., Roseman, J.M., 1994. Agricultural injuries among a population based sample of farm operators in Alabama. Am. J. Ind. Med. 25 (3), 385–402. 7. Mittal, V. K., Bhatia, B. S., Ahuja, S. S., 1996. A Study of the Magnitude, Causes, and Profile of Victims of Injuries with Selected Farm Machines in Punjab. Final Report of ICAR adhoc Research Project, Department of Farm Machinery and Power Engineering, Punjab Agricultural University, Ludhiana, India. 8. DeMuri, G.P., Purschwitz, M.A., 2000. Fatal injuries in children: a review. WMJ 99 (9), 51–55. 9. Huiyun Xiang, Zengzhen Wang, Lorann Stallones, Thomas J. Keefe, Xuzhen Huang and Xianghua Fu, (Am J Public Health. 2000;90:1269– 1276). 10 Rautiainen, R.H., Reynolds, S.J., 2002. Mortality and morbidity in agriculture in the United States. J. Agric. Safety Health 8 (3), 259–276. 11.Tiwari, P.S., Gite, L.P., Dubey, A.K., Kot, L.S., 2002. Agricultural injuries in Central India: nature, magnitude and economic impact. J. Agric. Safety Health 8 (1), 95–111. 12.Helkamp, J., Lundstrom, W., 2002. Tractor Related Deaths Among West Virginia Farmers. Ann. Epidemiol. 12(7), 510. 13.A.Kumar et al. / Safety Science 46 (2008) 54–65. 14.G.V. Prasanna Kumar, K.N. Dewangan / Safety Science 47 (2009) 199–205. 15.S.K. Patel et al. / Safety Science 48 (2010) 222–229. 16.Cem Copuroglu, Nurettin Heybeli, Mert Ozcan, Baris Yilmaz, Mert Ciftdemir and Elif Copuroglu; The ScientificWorld Journal Volume 2012, Article ID 314038, 6 pages doi:10.1100/2012/314038 17.Robertoes Koekoeh K. Wibowo and Peeyush Soni / Agriculture and Agricultural Science Procedia 9 ( 2016 ) 323 – 327 18. Pradhan CK, Goswami A, Ghosh SN, Nag PK (1986) Evaluation of working with spade in agriculture. Ind J Med Res 84, 424–9. 19.Kumar, A., Varghese, M., Mohan, D., 2000. Equipment-related injuries in agriculture: an international perspective. Injury Contr. Safety Promot. 7 (3), 1–12. 20.S. P. Cooper, K. E. Burau, R. Frankowski et al., “A cohort study of injuries in migrant farm worker families in South Texas,”Annals of Epidemiology, vol. 16, no. 4, pp. 313–320, 2006. 21.Nag, P.K., Nag, A., 2004. Drudgery, accidents and injuries in Indian agriculture. Ind. Health 42 (4), 149–162. 22.Kaiser, H. F. (1960) The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 141–151.