Drudgery, Accidents and Injuries in Indian Agriculture.

Abstract

The Indian farming employs 225 million workforce to cover 140 million hectares of total cultivated land. In spite of rapid farm mechanization (e.g., 149 million farm machinery), the vast resource-poor family farming has primary dependence on traditional methods (e.g., 520 million hand tools and 37 million animal-drawn implements are in operation). The work drudgery, the traumatic accidents and injuries are the major concerns to examine options for ergonomics intervention and betterment of work in crop production activities. This review summarizes human energy expenditure in crop production activities, to assess the job severity, tools and machinery, and formulate the basis to reorganize work and work methods. While the farm mechanization is more in the northern India, the accidents were more in the villages in southern India. On average of the four regions, the tractor incidents (overturning, falling from the tractor, etc.) were highest (27.7%), followed by thresher (14.6%), sprayer/duster (12.2%), sugarcane crusher (8.1%) and chaff cutter (7.8%) accidents. Most of the fatal accidents resulted from the powered machinery, with the annual fatality rate estimated as 22 per 100,000 farmers. The hand tools related injuries (8% of the total accidents) were non-fatal in nature. In spite of the enactment of legislation, the shortcomings in production and monitoring of the machinery in field use may be responsible for the high rate of accidents (e.g., 42 thresher accidents/1,000 mechanical threshers/year in southern India). Due to the lack of technical capability of the local artisans, adhering to safety and design standards is impractical to the implements fabricated in the rural areas. The analysis emphasizes that the effective safety and health management may be possible through legislative enabling of the local infra-structure, such as block development authority and primary health services, to permeate occupational health and safe work practices in the farming sector.

Tractor Controls Actuating Force Limits for Indian Operators

“…Mehta et al 15) observed that the actuating force limits as given in IS 10703 8) /ISO TR 3778 9) were very high as compared to leg strength of Indian operators. Similar results were reported by other investigators 4,10,16) . However, the Bureau of Indian Standards at present has adopted recommendations of ISO/ASABE standards due to non-availability of strength data of Indian male agricultural workers.…”

“…It was 746 N, which was above the recommended limits as per IS 10703 8) /ISO TR 3778 9) . Nag and Nag 10) reported that tractor operation often required a large braking force (600 N or more) to be exerted by an average Indian operator weighting 50 to 60 kg. Febo and Pessina 11) also observed that actuating forces for tractor controls were higher than 600 N for pedals and 300 N for levers on 20% of the surveyed 90 tractors in use in Nothern Italy.…”

Ergonomics and psycho-sociological quality indexes in greenhouses, Almería (Spain)

“…Further, the lack qualified workers is a concern with respect to crop mechanisation, as this could provoke more serious accidents (Nag and Nag, 2004). García and Padilla (2005), in a study on preventing work risks in Almerian greenhouses, concluded that variable environmental conditions can be extreme, and could have a negative effect on worker health and increase the risk of accidents.…”

Assessment of Economic Losses due to Agricultural Accidents in Selected Districts of Tamil Nadu, India

“…Accident occurred while using any hand tool, implement or powered machinery was considered as farm implement-related agricultural accident whereas accident without use of any hand tool, farm implement and machinery was considered as other agricultural (non-farm implement-related) accident. Other agricultural accident may occur due to various reasons like snake bite, noise, vibration, and magnitude of load carrying, falling from height, falling objects and electricity (Nag and Nag, 2004). Furthermore, injury severity descriptions differ widely.…”

“…In this scale, injuries are ranked on a scale of 1-6 (1 minor, 2 moderate, 3 serious, 4 severe, 5 critical and 6 unsurvivable injuries). Mohan and Patel (1992), Varghese and Mohan (1991) and Jansson and Jacobsson (1988) have also used AIS.…”