Reginald Gwisai

BINDURA UNIVERSITY
OF
SCIENCE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
SCIENCE
www.buse.ac.zw
Promoting Science for Human Development

ERGONOMIC RISK AND EMPLOYEE
PRODUCTIVITY IN FARMS, ZIMBABWE
Presenter:
Dr. Gwisai, Reginald. Dennis. (BSc, MSc, PhD).
Safety Health At Work Conference (NSSA):- 2019 Harare International Conference
Centre, 02 – 04 October 2019, Harare, Zimbabwe
www.buse.ac.zw

BINDURA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
INTRODUCTION
❑Several complaints of body discomfort amongst farm workers
have not been accounted for in farms.
❑Work – related musculoskeletal disorders have more
pronounced risks in agriculture and limited studies have been
done.
❑Worldwide, farming is regarded as a hazardous and
physically strenuous occupation.
▪It is associated with potential risk of work – related
musculo – skeletal disorders (Walker – Bone and Palmer,
2002).
Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

❑International Labour Organization (ILO) statistics found out
that out of 160 million work – related illnesses that occur
annually; farm work – related musculoskeletal disorders
(WMSDs) have leading rates of recurrence (Nius, 2010).
❑Notable experiences show that farm ergonomics in both

high and low income countries is being given less priority.
❑Previous studies categorize work – related musculoskeletal

disorders into awkward and static postures (Meyers et al.,
2001 ; Nonnenmann et al., 2010).

❑Previous studies in ❑This is because it

Brazil further related work requires:
– related musculoskeletal ▪repetitive actions,
disorders to be a resultant ▪forceful pushing and
of a mismatch between pulling of heavy
working equipment and equipment,
worker’s physical ▪persistent exertions of
capacity (Bartels et al., hands,
2000; De Roo et al., ▪heavy lifting
2000). ▪and persistent
awkward postures.

❑Other scholars view ❑Common stressors

musculoskeletal found are in the form of;
disorders as a ▪ low back pain,
▪osteoarthritis of the
resultant of frequent
knee and hip,
experiences to a ▪ hand – arm vibration
stressor (Richardson syndrome
et al., 2005; Kotowski ▪ and finally neck and
et al., 2009). upper limb strains
(Cha et al., 2009).

❑In SADC region, petite studies on farm

ergonomic risks have been done hence the
problem continues to escalate (Purnawatt,
2007).
❑According to (Mukwazhe and Gwisai, 2016),

in Zimbabwe ergonomic risk and hazard
structures are non-existent hence people
continue to be affected.

❑Previous studies on ❑At Bindura University

farm ergonomics farm, workers
revealed that most farm participate in planting,
work is associated with harvesting and
ergonomic risk factors maintenance which
such as: require the mentioned
▪ awkward postures, risk factors.
▪ gender,
▪duration of exposure
▪ and age.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

❑BUSE farm has a dam that is
used for irrigation purposes.
❑The 540 hectare farm has five
departments.
▪These are namely; piggery,
poultry, fields, cattle breeding,
teaching and learning unit.
▪A total of 215 hectares has
ground tubing which is
permanent and is irrigable.
▪The teaching and learning
unit is meant for research and
study purposes.

❑The cross – sectional censors study was conducted

as an experimental and observational research.
❑All (30) employees who work at the farm were
involved in the study.
❑The participants comprised of 15 farm employees,
10 students and five academics.
Cluster Description No. of Employees
1 Teaching & learning 6
2 Piggery 6
3 Field 6
4 Poultry 6
5 Cattle breeding 6
RESULTS
❑The cattle and field department had the highest
significant difference of (±3.516a and ±3.232c).
❑The field department had the highest mean age
(35.67).
❑The cattle and field department both had a
maximum age of (45).
Department Cattle Teaching and Field Piggery Poultry
Learning
Age 34.83±3.516a 30.17±1.195b 35.67±3.232c 31.50±1.057d 27.50±2.125e
Maximum 45 34 45 35 34
Minimum 26 27 26 29 21

❑The table shows that employees of age group (≥32), have the
lowest standard deviation of (4.837) whereas the other age
group has (5.750).
❑Age group (< 32) has a lower mean value of (17.07) than
(≥32) age group with (20.40).
❑The significant difference across the two groups was [age
group (≥32) having (0 .007) and the other age group with
(0.006)].
Age Mean Std. P value
Deviation
≥32 20.40 4.837 0.007
< 32 17.07 5.750 0.006
❑There is a significant difference in means between the Right

Hand Side and the Left Hand Side.
❑ The Right Hand Side (RHS) has a higher mean than the
Left Hand Side (LHS) with (5.30 and 5.03, respectively).
❑The Right Hand Side (RHS) had a higher standard deviation
with (±1.393) whereas the left hand side (LHS) had (±1.351).
Parameter Mean ± Std. Deviation P
RHS 5.30±1.393 0.046
LHS 5.03±1.351 0.005

❑For RHS, the maximum score for RHS was (7) in the
teaching and learning unit, field and piggery departments
indicating a very high risk.
❑On average teaching and learning unit and piggery have the
highest score (6.5).
❑For LHS, the highest score is a (7) across all departments.
❑This is observed in the teaching and learning unit and the
piggery department.
❑The majority of employees in the teaching and learning unit
had the highest average of (7) scores.


❑Findings generally show that the majority of employees across

three departments had more complaints in decreasing order (field,
teaching and learning unit and piggery) respectively.
The complaints of body parts affected across all departments (YES responses).
DEPARTMENT
Body Part CATTLE FIELD TEACHING PIGGERY POULTRY
AND
LEARNING
Neck 0 23 15 13 17
Shoulder 7 7 16 15 17
Upper back 14 13 18 6 13
Elbows 0 0 15 18 11
Wrist/hands 17 8 13 16 15
Lower back 17 23 22 20 14
Hips/thighs 1 9 19 2 12
Knees 3 14 9 23 10
Ankles/feet 3
Promoting Science20 13
for Human Development 17 4
www.buse.ac.zw
❑The field department has the highest percentage of complaints

on neck (95%), lower back (95.33%) and ankles (83.33%).

❑The majority (79.89%) of body discomforts were observed in the lower

back.
❑Furthermore, teaching and learning has the highest percentage
(64.82%) of employees complaining of body discomfort.
100
Percentage of Respondents %
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Body Part
100
Percentage of Respondents %
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Cattle Field Teaching and Piggery Poultry
Learning
Department

DISCUSSION
❑The piggery and teaching and learning unit had the highest
RULA scores.
▪This is because the two departments are associated with
bending and twisting of the upper limbs. This is similar to
previous studies (Fulmer et al., 2002).
❑ The age group (greater than 32) had the highest response rate
on body discomfort as it is the most active age group on the farm.
▪This is similar to previous studies where older farmers
experienced increased levels of incidence than young farmers
(Osborne et al., 2010).

❑The work schedule played an important role in the occurrence of

WMSDs.
▪This notion is supported by previous studies (McMillan et al.,
2015) where every farm employee is vulnerable to any
response related to WMSDs .
❑Irregular distribution of work tasks and duties between females
and males is one of the reasons why females experience high
recurrence rates than males.
▪This was similar to previous studies (Vyas, 2012; Cha et al.,
2009).

❑The field department had the highest response rate in the neck
(23) lower back (23) and ankles (20).
▪This was because the departmental activities require use of those
specific upper limbs especially in setting up the pivot and driving a
tractor.
▪Previous studies observed similar patterns(Osborne et al., 2013).
❑The farm schedule shows that farm employees are exposed to 8
or 9 working hours a day.
▪ A similar research also revealed that farms exposed to long periods of
working were more prone to produce higher response rate which result
in work-related musculoskeletal disorders (Osborne et al., 2010;
Mushayi et al., 2014).

❑All body parts have high response rates. This shows that top
management has not developed a system to lower the response
rates.
▪This is a similar behaviour to previous studies (Bhattacharyya and
Chakrabarti, 2012; Vyas, 2012; Suutarinen, 2003).
❑Lower back has the highest response rates amongst the nine
body parts.
▪This is because all farm activities are associated with awkward
postures that have an effect on the lower back than any other body
part.
▪This was a similar pattern to previous studies (Osborne et al.,
2010).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

❑Farm employees are at high risk of developing work – related
musculoskeletal disorders.
❑Departments such as the teaching and learning unit, piggery are the
major areas of concern.
❑ Awkward postures, carrying heavy equipment, twisting and long
periods of exposure are the major benefactors to high prevalence of
ergonomic risk.
▪The study recommends farm employees to engage into a safety and
health culture(including top management allocation of ergonomic safety
roles).
▪Moreover, training and awareness of employees and top management on
safety skills should be addressed.
▪Lastly the top management should purchase improved technology so as to
reduce awkward postures.
INNOVATION AND INDUSTRIALISATION SOLUTION

❑Incubation and Development of SHERQ Reporting Application.
❑Concept empowers all employees in the workplace.
❑Allows real-time situational analysis of status quo.
❑Inculcates high levels of inclusivity within organisation (from top

management to the lowest level).
❑A response to the call for technological innovation in Safety

Health at the Workplace.
❑VID-20190929-WA0000.mp4
Thank You
www.buse.ac.zw

REFERENCES
▪Bhattacharyya, N., and Chakrabati, D. (2012). Ergonomic Basket designed to reduce Cumulative trauma
disorders in tea leaf plucking operation. Work, 41(1), 1234-1238.
▪Vyas, R. (2012). Mitigation of Musculoskeletal Problems and Body Discomfort of Agricultural Workers through
Educational Intervention. Work, 41(1), 2398 – 2404.
▪Osborne, A., Blake, C., McNamara, J., Meredith, D., Phelan, J., and Cunningham, C. (2010). Musculoskeletal
Disorders among Irish Farmers: Occupational Medicine, 52(4), 26-28.
▪Walker-Bone, L., and Palmer, K.T. (2002). Musculoskeletal Disorders in Farmers and Workers. Occupation Med
(London), 52(1), 441 – 450.
▪Nius, S (2010). Ergonomics and occupational safety health: An ILO perspective. Applied Ergonomics, 41 (6),
744-753.
▪Mushayi, K., Muteti, S., Chikwanha, T.M., and January, J. (2014).Work related musculoskeletal disorders among
farm workers: A case study of an agriculture college in Zimbabwe. Central Journal of Medicine, 60 (3), 5-9.
▪Fulmer, S.,Punnett, L., Slinger, T., and Earle-Richardson, G. (2002). Ergonomic Exposures in Apple Harvesting:
Preliminary Observations, American Journal of Industrial Medicine 2 (1), 3 – 9.
▪Myers,J., and Hendricks, J. (2001). Injuries among youth on farms in the United States: Clincinnati, OH. DHHS
(NIOSH) PUBLICATION, 2 (1), 154.
▪Nonnenmann, M.W. (2010). Dairy Farm Worker Exposure to Awkward Knee Posture during Milking and Feeding
Task, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 7(1), 483-489.
▪Bartels, S., Niederman, B., Waters, T.R. (2000). Job Hazards for Musculoskeletal Disorders for Youth Working on
Farms. J Agric.Saf. Health 6(1), 191-201.

Reginald Gwisai

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reginald Gwisai

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BINDURA UNIVERSITY

Promoting Science for Human Development

Promoting Science for Human Development

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

❑Notable experiences show that farm ergonomics in both

❑Previous studies categorize work – related musculoskeletal

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

❑Previous studies in ❑This is because it

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

❑Other scholars view ❑Common stressors

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

❑In SADC region, petite studies on farm

❑According to (Mukwazhe and Gwisai, 2016),

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

❑Previous studies on ❑At Bindura University

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

❑The cross – sectional censors study was conducted

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

❑There is a significant difference in means between the Right

RHS 5.30±1.393 0.046

LHS 5.03±1.351 0.005

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

❑Findings generally show that the majority of employees across

❑The field department has the highest percentage of complaints

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

❑The majority (79.89%) of body discomforts were observed in the lower

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

❑The work schedule played an important role in the occurrence of

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

INNOVATION AND INDUSTRIALISATION SOLUTION

❑Concept empowers all employees in the workplace.

❑Allows real-time situational analysis of status quo.

❑Inculcates high levels of inclusivity within organisation (from top

❑A response to the call for technological innovation in Safety

Promoting Science for Human Development

Promoting Science for Human Development www.buse.ac.zw

You might also like