Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Research Article

volume 36 issue 1 (march 2021) : 7-17,   Doi: 10.18805/BKAP271

Anthropometry of Female Agricultural Workers of Madhya Pradesh

R
R.R. Potdar
K
K.N. Agrawal
P
Prabhakar Shukla
B
Bikram Jyoti
1ICAR- Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabibagh, Bhopal-462 038, Madhya Pradesh, India.

  • Submitted08-05-2021|

  • Accepted16-06-2021|

  • First Online 26-06-2021|

  • doi 10.18805/BKAP271

Cite article:- Potdar R.R., Agrawal K.N., Shukla Prabhakar, Jyoti Bikram (2021). Anthropometry of Female Agricultural Workers of Madhya Pradesh. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 36(1): 7-17. doi: 10.18805/BKAP271.

ABSTRACT

Most of the agricultural operations in India are performed manually with hand tools and equipment by female agricultural workers. This prompted designers to use female anthropometric data in designing of farm equipment and workplaces in order to reduce drudgery, to enhance safety, to improve performance, productivity and efficiency. A study was conducted to collect the anthropometric data of selected 30 female agricultural workers in the age group of 22-54 years from Madhya Pradesh state. For design of agricultural tools, equipment and workplaces the important, thirty eight body dimensions including weight were identified and measured. The values of mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum, maximum, coefficient of variation (CV) and 1st, 5th, 50th, 95th and 99th percentile values were calculated of selected body dimensions. The mean weight and stature of female agricultural workers were found to be 53 kg and 1536 mm, respectively. A large variation in anthropometric dimensions in the anthropometric data of female farm workers of different states of India and other countries was observed. Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC) were calculated among selected anthropometric dimensions of subjects. The correlation coefficients of measured data varied from 0.65-0.98.

REFERENCES

  1. Barroso, M.P., Arezes, P.M., Costa, L.G., Miguel, A.S. (2005). Anthropometric study of Portuguese workers, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 35: 401-410.
  2. Dewangan, K.N., Prasannakumar, G.V. Suja, P.L. Choudhury, M.D. (2005). Anthropometric dimensions of farm youth of the north-eastern region of India, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 35: 979-989.
  3. Gite, L.P. Yadav, B.G. (1989). Anthropometric survey for agricultural machinery design, Applied Ergonomics. 20(3): 191-196.
  4. Gite, L.P., Agrawal, K.N., Mehta, C.R., Potdar, R.R., Narwariya, B.S. (2020). Handbook of Ergonomical Design of Agricultural Tools, Equipment and Work Places. Jain Brothers (New Delhi).
  5. Hanson, L. Sperling, L. Gard, G. Ipsen, S. Vergara, C.O. (2009). Swedish anthropometrics for product and workplace design, Applied Ergonomics. 40: 797-806. 
  6. Khadatkar, A., Potdar, R.R., Narwariya, B.S., Wakudkar, H. and Dubey, U.C. (2018). An ergonomic evaluation of pedal operated paddy thresher for farm women. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 88(2): 280-283. 
  7. Lin, Y.C. Wang, M.J. Wang, E.M. (2004). The comparisons of anthropometric characteristics among four people in East Asia, Applied Ergonomics. 35(2): 173-178. 
  8. MacLeod, D. (2000). The rules of work, A Practical Engineering Guide to Ergonomics, Taylor and Francis, Florida.
  9. Mehta, C.R., Chandel, N.S., Senthilkumar, T. Singh, K. (2014). Status, challenges and strategies for farm mechanization in India, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 45(4): 43-50.
  10. NASA. (1978a). Anthropometric Source Book, Volume I: Anthropometry for Designers, NASA reference publication 1024, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, USA.
  11. Obi, O.F., Ugwuishiwu, B.O., Adeboye, B.S. (2015). A survey of anthropometry of rural agricultural workers in Enugu State, south-eastern Nigeria, Ergonomics. 58(6): 1032-44.
  12. Pheasant, S.T. (2003). Bodyspace: Anthropometric Ergonomics and the Design of Work, Taylor and Francis, London, 257.
  13. Potdar, R.R., Ram, R., Kumar, A., Singh, J.K. and Mani, I. (2011). Ergonomic evaluation of rotary power input by hand and leg muscles to operate farm equipment. Journal of Agricultural engineering. 48(3): 8-16. 
  14. Syuaib, M.F. (2015). Anthropometric study of farm workers on Java Island, Indonesia and its implications for the design of farm tools and equipment, Applied Ergonomics. 51: 222-235.
  15. Yadav, R., Gite, L.P., Kaur, N., Randhava, J. (2000). An anthropometry of Indian female agricultural workers, Agricultural Mechanization of Asia, Africa and Latin America. 31(3): 56-60.
  16. Yadav, R., Tewari, V.K., Prasad, N. (1997). Anthropometric data of Indian farm workers-a module analysis, Applied Ergonomics. 28(1): 69-71.
Published In
Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
0
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Research Article

    volume 36 issue 1 (march 2021) : 7-17,   Doi: 10.18805/BKAP271

    Anthropometry of Female Agricultural Workers of Madhya Pradesh

    R
    R.R. Potdar
    K
    K.N. Agrawal
    P
    Prabhakar Shukla
    B
    Bikram Jyoti
    1ICAR- Central Institute of Agricultural Engineering, Nabibagh, Bhopal-462 038, Madhya Pradesh, India.

    • Submitted08-05-2021|

    • Accepted16-06-2021|

    • First Online 26-06-2021|

    • doi 10.18805/BKAP271

    Cite article:- Potdar R.R., Agrawal K.N., Shukla Prabhakar, Jyoti Bikram (2021). Anthropometry of Female Agricultural Workers of Madhya Pradesh. Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika. 36(1): 7-17. doi: 10.18805/BKAP271.

    ABSTRACT

    Most of the agricultural operations in India are performed manually with hand tools and equipment by female agricultural workers. This prompted designers to use female anthropometric data in designing of farm equipment and workplaces in order to reduce drudgery, to enhance safety, to improve performance, productivity and efficiency. A study was conducted to collect the anthropometric data of selected 30 female agricultural workers in the age group of 22-54 years from Madhya Pradesh state. For design of agricultural tools, equipment and workplaces the important, thirty eight body dimensions including weight were identified and measured. The values of mean, standard deviation (SD), minimum, maximum, coefficient of variation (CV) and 1st, 5th, 50th, 95th and 99th percentile values were calculated of selected body dimensions. The mean weight and stature of female agricultural workers were found to be 53 kg and 1536 mm, respectively. A large variation in anthropometric dimensions in the anthropometric data of female farm workers of different states of India and other countries was observed. Pearson correlation coefficients (PCC) were calculated among selected anthropometric dimensions of subjects. The correlation coefficients of measured data varied from 0.65-0.98.

    REFERENCES

    1. Barroso, M.P., Arezes, P.M., Costa, L.G., Miguel, A.S. (2005). Anthropometric study of Portuguese workers, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 35: 401-410.
    2. Dewangan, K.N., Prasannakumar, G.V. Suja, P.L. Choudhury, M.D. (2005). Anthropometric dimensions of farm youth of the north-eastern region of India, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics. 35: 979-989.
    3. Gite, L.P. Yadav, B.G. (1989). Anthropometric survey for agricultural machinery design, Applied Ergonomics. 20(3): 191-196.
    4. Gite, L.P., Agrawal, K.N., Mehta, C.R., Potdar, R.R., Narwariya, B.S. (2020). Handbook of Ergonomical Design of Agricultural Tools, Equipment and Work Places. Jain Brothers (New Delhi).
    5. Hanson, L. Sperling, L. Gard, G. Ipsen, S. Vergara, C.O. (2009). Swedish anthropometrics for product and workplace design, Applied Ergonomics. 40: 797-806. 
    6. Khadatkar, A., Potdar, R.R., Narwariya, B.S., Wakudkar, H. and Dubey, U.C. (2018). An ergonomic evaluation of pedal operated paddy thresher for farm women. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 88(2): 280-283. 
    7. Lin, Y.C. Wang, M.J. Wang, E.M. (2004). The comparisons of anthropometric characteristics among four people in East Asia, Applied Ergonomics. 35(2): 173-178. 
    8. MacLeod, D. (2000). The rules of work, A Practical Engineering Guide to Ergonomics, Taylor and Francis, Florida.
    9. Mehta, C.R., Chandel, N.S., Senthilkumar, T. Singh, K. (2014). Status, challenges and strategies for farm mechanization in India, Agricultural Mechanization in Asia, Africa and Latin America. 45(4): 43-50.
    10. NASA. (1978a). Anthropometric Source Book, Volume I: Anthropometry for Designers, NASA reference publication 1024, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Washington, USA.
    11. Obi, O.F., Ugwuishiwu, B.O., Adeboye, B.S. (2015). A survey of anthropometry of rural agricultural workers in Enugu State, south-eastern Nigeria, Ergonomics. 58(6): 1032-44.
    12. Pheasant, S.T. (2003). Bodyspace: Anthropometric Ergonomics and the Design of Work, Taylor and Francis, London, 257.
    13. Potdar, R.R., Ram, R., Kumar, A., Singh, J.K. and Mani, I. (2011). Ergonomic evaluation of rotary power input by hand and leg muscles to operate farm equipment. Journal of Agricultural engineering. 48(3): 8-16. 
    14. Syuaib, M.F. (2015). Anthropometric study of farm workers on Java Island, Indonesia and its implications for the design of farm tools and equipment, Applied Ergonomics. 51: 222-235.
    15. Yadav, R., Gite, L.P., Kaur, N., Randhava, J. (2000). An anthropometry of Indian female agricultural workers, Agricultural Mechanization of Asia, Africa and Latin America. 31(3): 56-60.
    16. Yadav, R., Tewari, V.K., Prasad, N. (1997). Anthropometric data of Indian farm workers-a module analysis, Applied Ergonomics. 28(1): 69-71.
    In this Article
      Contact us
      Follow us
      Published In
      Bhartiya Krishi Anusandhan Patrika

      Editorial Board

      View all (0)