Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The potential of quarter individual ilki d h k l d
S d R M i höf 1 M ti J k b1
milking to reduce the work load
Sandra Rose-Meierhöfer1, Martina Jakob1
Falk Liebers2, Sylvia Behrendt2
1 Leibniz-Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam-Bornim (ATB) 2 Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Berlin
StructureStructure ofof presentationpresentation
Presentation of the results of a follow-up study measuring theworkload of the milking parlour operative regarding different working heights and weights of milking units.
Background informationac g ou d o at oStudy designResultsDiscussion
30.06.2011 2CIOSTA 2011
WhyWhy isis itit still still necessarynecessary toto reducereduce thetheworkloadworkload??workloadworkload??
Foto: http://en wikipedia orgFoto: http://en.wikipedia.org
90ies today2nd world war
Mechanization of milking procedureReduction of risk factors causing MSD like carryingg y gbuckets full of milk or awkward body posturesReduction of job diversityIncrease of cows milked per hour
30.06.2011 3
Increase of cows milked per hour
CIOSTA 2011
StructuralStructural changeschanges ofof farmfarm
Increasing farm sizesIncreasing milk yieldRationalization and optimization of milk withdrawelMilking 24 hours and 7 days per week, multi-shift operation
But:This kind of work system changes the work profile regarding workThis kind of work system changes the work profile regarding workintensity and repetition of individual work elements. The remainingmanual work tasks such as cleaning the udder, premilking andattaching the milking unit are tasks with higher muscular load.
30.06.2011 4CIOSTA 2011
ProblemsProblems
Despite the reduction of risk factors there is a significant increaseof sick leave, especially in female milking parlour operatives, due to musculo skeletal disorders.
W k l d f i iWork load assessment of situationin modern milking parlours
study at ATB
30.06.2011 5CIOSTA 2011
Study designStudy design
Laboratory settingy gHerringbone milking parlourArtificial udderTrained female subjectsTrained, female subjects(aged between 25 and 39)
Experimental matrix3 o king heights3 working heights(udder/shoulder ratio)
2 kinds of milking units(1,4 kg and MultiLactor®)
30.06.2011 6CIOSTA 2011
Study designStudy design
Data collectionElectromyography: BiovisionHeart frequencyProcess durationProcess durationMotion analysis: video & SimiMotion softwaresubjective workload assessment: Borg-Scale ratingj g g
30.06.2011 7CIOSTA 2011
ResultsResults -- Borg Borg ScaleScale
20dl k h h
16
18 conventional milking unitMultilactor
Average regardless working height:
conventional milking unit 11.15
MultiLactor® 8.9
14
16
ved
exer
tion
10
12
rate
of p
erce
iv
8
10r
6above shoulder height at shoulder height below shoulder height
30.06.2011 8CIOSTA 2011
ResultsResults -- EMGEMG
25
conventional milking unitM l il
15
20
ar c
ontr
actio
n Multilactor
10
15
age
of m
uscu
la
0
5
perc
enta
01 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
30.06.2011 9CIOSTA 2011
ResultsResults -- processprocess durationduration
18conventional milking unit Multilactor
14
16
in s
conventional milking unit Multilactor
10
12
cula
r act
ivity
6
8
tion
of m
usc
2
4dura
t
0
above shoulder level at shoulder level below shoulder level
30.06.2011 10CIOSTA 2011
ResultsResults -- motionmotion analysisanalysis (I)(I)
Percentages of time for upper arm elevation in °
70
80
90
0-30°
>30-60°
60°
50
60
70 >60°
%
20
30
40
%
0
10
20
A1 AM B1 BM C1 CMSettings
A - above shoulder hight C - below shoulder hightB t h ld hi ht 1 C M M lti
30.06.2011 11CIOSTA 2011
B - at shoulder hight 1 - Con M - Multi
ResultsResults -- motionmotion analysisanalysis (II)(II)
Upper body inclination increasing 20°Upper body inclination increasing 20
3
2
2,5
ds
1,5
tion
in s
econ
0,5
1Dura
t
0A1 B1 C1 AM BM CM
Settings MultiCon
30.06.2011 12CIOSTA 2011
Settings MultiCon
DiscussionDiscussion andand conclusionsconclusions (I)(I)
Fairly small (15 cm respectively) variations within the ergonomic setting strongly influenced posture and comfort.
In practice the vertical distances of the cows' udders in combination with the body height of the workers may induce variations easily induce variations easily exceeding 15 cm.
below shoulderabove shoulder
30 cm
30.06.2011 13CIOSTA 2011
DiscussionDiscussion andand conclusionsconclusions (II)(II)
Experimental setting A and C are likely to cause physical overload according to the applied standards overload according to the applied standards.
The upper body inclination was lower when using the MultiLactor®.u t acto
There is no holding of the cluster when a quarter individual system is attached and motions are more dynamic.
AC
Bshoulder levelabove below
30.06.2011 14CIOSTA 2011
shoulder levelabove below
ConclusionsConclusions
No static component while attaching a
Potential of the MultiLactor® to reduce the workload
cluster
Lower muscular activity for most muscle groups
Lower impact of working height on the body posturebody posture
Less time needed for attaching the cups
Better rating by the workersBetter rating by the workers
30.06.2011 15CIOSTA 2011
Thank you very much for your attention!
L ib i I tit t f A i lt l E i iLeibniz Institute for Agricultural EngineeringDr. rer. agr. Sandra Rose-Meierhö[email protected]
30.06.2011 16CIOSTA 2011
