Journal of Agromedicine, 18:368–378, 2013

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1059-924X print/1545-0813 online
DOI: 10.1080/1059924X.2013.839977

Preliminary Ergonomic Evaluation of Barn Tasks

in Intensive Swine Production
Catherine Trask, PhD

ABSTRACT. This exploratory pilot study analyses musculoskeletal symptoms and working expo-
sures of intensive pig barn tasks. Methods included a questionnaire phase to gather information about
workers’ symptoms and video analysis to assess exposures during typical production tasks. Ninety-two
percent of workers reported symptoms in the last 12 months in any body part; 58% reported interrup-
tion of work activities in the last 12 months. The task “moving dead pigs” exceeded 3400 N during
6 of 18 observations. Frequency of hand gripping and trunk bending >45 degrees were moderate to
high in many tasks. These biomechanical exposures suggest a need for further study, particularly on
interventions to limit bending, lifting, and repetitive gripping.

KEYWORDS. Ergonomics, hog, musculoskeletal disorders, pig, pork production

INTRODUCTION be 78% in pork workers, with the most common

Agriculture is widely acknowledged as “one
of the most hazardous occupations worldwide,”1
both in terms of acute and chronic injuries.
Farmers’ lifetime prevalence of any type of
musculoskeletal disorder (MSD) is 91% and
1-year prevalence averaged over all studies that
measured it was 77% (95% confidence interval
[CI] = 60–92%).2 Sprains and strains account
for 28.2% of the approximately 200,000 time-
loss injuries on US farms, and 43% of all
agricultural injuries are categorized as “overex-
ertions” or MSDs.3 Animal handling introduces
unique risks; a study of Swedish pig and dairy
farms found a 12-month prevalence of MSD to
injuries being in the upper extremities (62%)
and the back (57%).4 Similarly, Danish swine
workers were found to have high rates of MSD,
particularly in the lower back, with a 12-month
prevalence of 60%.5
Although the number of hog farms in Canada
decreased from 15,472 in 2001 to 11,497 in
2006 (∼25% decrease), the total number of pigs
produced increased from 13.9 million in 2001 to
15 million in 2006 (∼7% increase), indicating
an overall trend of intensification of pork pro-
duction into larger barns. This trend is even
more pronounced in Saskatchewan, where the
number of farms has dropped from 1677 in
2001 to 930 in 2006 (∼44% decrease), but the

Catherine Trask is affiliated with the Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculture (CCHSA),
University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada.
The author would like to thank Bobbie-Jo Porter, Denys Robidoux, and Lori Rowat of Big Sky Farms
for their assistance and cooperation throughout the project. Appreciation also goes to Prairie Swine Centre
for hosting pilot measurements, and Aaron Unger of the Saskatchewan Ministry of Labour Relations and
Workplace Safety research assistant support. A special thanks to Julia Wellman for assistance with video
analysis and Dr. Shelley Kirychuck for reviewing the manuscript.
Address correspondence to: Catherine Trask, PhD, Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculture
(CCHSA), University of Saskatchewan, 103 Hospital Drive, PO Box 120, Saskatoon, SK S7N 0W8, Canada
(E-mail: catherine.trask@usask.ca).

368
 Trask
number of pigs has increased from 1.1 mil-
lion to 1.4 million (∼21% increase).6 With this
trend comes a change in the labor context, from
independent family farms where family mem-
bers carry out a variety of farm tasks to an
employer-employee model where workers per-
form a narrow range of tasks as part of special-
ized occupational roles. This has the potential to
increase the repetitiveness of work and decrease
the amount of task variation that naturally arises
from work on a family farm. It also tips eco-
nomic conditions to favor investment in spe-
cialized equipment, technology, and facilities.
For example, needleless injections are avail-
able to replace hypodermic needle injections in
large barn facilities, and are seen in pork pro-
duction in other industrialized nations such as
Sweden.4 Similarly, industrial intensification of
dairy farming has been shown to change expo-
sure profiles,7,8 as well as to increase9 or change
the nature of10 reported MSDs. However, little
is known about the effects this industrial intensi-
fication has on swine workers’ musculoskeletal
health.
There are few recent published studies exam-
ining the biomechanical exposures of pig farm-
ing. Detailed biomechanical exposure assess-
ments have been conducted in dairy facilities,
which have similar rates/types of injury as
well as some overlap with swine work tasks.
Dairy workers have high degrees of non-neutral
shoulder, knee, wrist, and trunk postures that
are suspected of contributing to the high rates
of injury in that industry.7,8,11,12 A series of
questionnaire studies in swine and dairy farm-
ers found self-reported awkward postures and
repetitive movements to be related to MSD.4
Biomechanical assessment of Danish pork pro-
duction showed swine workers to spend 30–60%
of their work time bent forward, and can handle
up to 259 kg in 10-min performance of cer-
tain tasks.5 However, because this study took
place 20 years ago, it may not reflect inten-
sification trends and the most recent technolo-
gies used in intensive pork farming. There is
a need for more information on the nature of
working exposures in modern, intensive pig
farming.
This exploratory pilot study aims to investi-
gate pig barn tasks in modern, intensive barns
369
to generate hypotheses and test feasibility of
assessment methods for future research. The
objectives of this study are to (1) estimate
the prevalence of musculoskeletal symptoms
in pig barn workers; 2) describe pork produc-
tion tasks and identify tasks that may present
risk to musculoskeletal health; and (3) assess
biomechanical exposures during typical pork
production tasks.
METHODS
This study involved two phases: (1) a ques-
tionnaire phase to gather information about
workers’ MSD symptoms and perceptions of
work tasks; and (2) a video phase to assess expo-
sures resulting from common pork production
tasks. Since the goal is to identify potentially
high-risk activities and opportunities for inter-
vention, this study employs a task-based anal-
ysis. Pork production involves a wide variety
of work tasks embedded in several departments
and occupations throughout the pig lifecycle, as
described in Table 1.
Study Sample
The self-administered questionnaire was dis-
tributed by researchers and completed by work-
ers during paid work time. All 26 workers who
were scheduled to work during worksite visits
to five barns were invited to participate; an addi-
tional 9 workers were scheduled on another shift
or on vacation and thus were considered ineli-
gible. The video portion of the study recruited
a convenience sample of 19 workers from five
work departments (breeding, farrowing, nurs-
ery, finishing, and marketing) at five barn loca-
tions managed by a single corporate employer.
All workers who performed production tasks
as part of their work duties were eligible to
participate in the video phase, although some
declined to appear on camera. Participation in
both study phases was entirely voluntary and all
participants signed an informed consent form.
All methods were approved by the University
of Saskatchewan Behavioural Ethics Review
Board.
370 ERGONOMIC EVALUATION OF INTENSIVE SWINE PRODUCTION
TABLE 1. Departments, Production Objectives, and Main Tasks Involved in Pork Production
Department Production objectives
Breeding Impregnate sows through artificial
insemination
Farrowing Deliver and wean healthy piglets
Nursery Care for weaner pigs until they
are larger and more robust
Grow/finish Enable large groups of pigs to
gain weight until they are
market size (125 kg)
Marketing Select appropriate-size pigs and
send them to the abattoir
Maintenance Ensure proper operation of barn
facilities through scheduled and
responsive maintenance
Questionnaire Data Collection
After a short presentation on the purpose
of the research, workers completed a one-page
questionnaire during an employee meeting. The
questionnaire took 5–15 min to complete and
contained questions on worker demograph-
ics, working exposures, and musculoskeletal
symptoms from the standardized Nordic
questionnaire.13 Completed questionnaires were
returned directly to the researcher and sealed in
an envelope until transported to the University
for analysis.
Main tasks
Move sows into breeding room
Move boar into “boar aisle” to help stimulate sows
Identify sow fertility/readiness
Clean ready sows
Stimulate sow with sand bag and “back massage” to simulate boar
activity
Insert catheter with semen bag and supervise insemination
Use ultrasound to check for pregnancy
Move sows to gestation pen
Move sows into gestation pen
Assist sows through farrowing (birth)
Identify and remove stillborn or terminally ill piglets
Remove runts/excess piglets and foster with sows that have fewer
piglets
Processing piglets: clipping tails, vaccinating, and castrating males.
Check piglet health and treat if needed
Wean piglets
Load in newly weaned pigs
Feed and water pigs 4–5 times/day
Check herd health and treat if needed
Remove sick and dead pigs
Load out pigs to grow/finish
Load in nursery pigs
Check automatic food and water systems
Check herd health and treat if needed
Remove sick and dead pigs
Sort pigs that are in the desirable weight range (118–125 kg) and
separate them
Load out pigs onto the truck
Power washing empty rooms
Pull manure pits (pull plug to empty pits)
Repair feed and water systems
Repair floor slats
Load out dead pigs
Video Data Collection
Participating workers were filmed for
30–120 min as they performed their regular
work tasks (generally this spanned several
task cycles). Object weights and push/pull
forces were assessed using a Shimpo FGE-HX
Javelin series force gauge (Shimpo Instruments,
Itasca, IL, USA). In cases where assessing
push and pull forces was not practical (i.e.,
when capturing an escaped pig), workers were
asked to reproduce the same amount of force
using the force gauge and an average of three
 Trask
trials was used. Pig weights were also assessed
using company records based on in-house pig
scales.
Selecting Tasks for Video Analysis
At the outset of the study, the scope
and nature of the musculoskeletal disorders
was explored quantitatively and qualitatively.
Workers’ Compensation Claims and employ-
ers’ injury/incident records between 2006 and
2011 were analyzed to determine the type
and reported cause of workplace injuries, rep-
resenting 358 and 1219 records, respectively.
Preliminary site visits employed consultation
with workers and managers during informal
focus groups and interviews to identify specific
tasks for further analysis. Tasks were selected
for further analysis when workers or employ-
ers identified them as difficult, tiring, or painful.
The tasks selected were moving pigs from one
room to another, heard health check, piglet
processing, feeding, pressure washing, pulling
manure pits, counting and sorting piglets, vacci-
nation and treatments, farrowing and fostering,
breeding sows, working with the boar, loading
pigs in or out of trucks, moving dead pigs, and
sorting pigs for market.
FIGURE 1. Postures, spinal forces, and predicted strength capabilities for the task “moving dead
pigs”16 (color figure available online).
371
Video Analysis
Video was reviewed in real-time speed by a
trained kinesiologist to determine the number
and frequency of manual material handling and
postural events, with particular focus on the
trunk, shoulder, and hand. Work tasks were
analyzed for 1–5-task cycles, with an average
analysis time of 5 min per participant/task com-
bination.
A selection of 5–10 still images were
selected from the video of each participant/task
combination to represent the “worst-case”
biomechanical events in that task and iden-
tify opportunities for ergonomic interventions.
Along with participant sex, height, and weight,
measured lift/push/pull forces and postures
from still images were used as inputs into a
computer-based biomechanical model (3DSSPP
version 6.0.5; University of Michigan). The
3DSSPP model calculates lumbosacral com-
pression and shear and the percentage of the
population who possess the strength to per-
form the task, as well as muscle and liga-
ment strain and joint torque. This program has
been used previously in ergonomics assessments
of hospitality14 and manufacturing.15 Figure 1
illustrates a sample 3DSSPP biomechanical
analysis for “moving dead pigs.”
372 ERGONOMIC EVALUATION OF INTENSIVE SWINE PRODUCTION

Statistical Analyses presented in Table 3. The spinal forces and

Questionnaire and video data were summa-
rized into frequencies, arithmetic means, and
standard deviations. The small sample size of
the pilot study precluded inferential analysis.
percentage of the population with the strength
capacity to carry out this task (as assessed by
the 3DSSPP software16 ) is presented in Table 4.

RESULTS
Participant Characteristics
All 26 workers who were invited to partic-
ipate submitted a questionnaire, leading to a
response rate of 100%. These 26 workers repre-
sent a 74% sample of the 35 full-time workers
who work in the selected barns. As 19 of the
26 invited workers agreed to participate in the
video phase, the video phase has a response rate
of 73% of the workers who responded to the
survey. Participant characteristics as well as the
characteristics of all workers at this multisite
company are shown in Table 2. The video par-
ticipant group had slightly fewer males than the
questionnaire participants. Both study groups
had substantially lower proportion of males than
the overall workforce at all barns.
Questionnaire Phase
The results of the standardized Nordic
Questionnaire are shown in Figure 2.
Video Phase
The frequencies of tasks, cycle lengths, and
frequency of postures and manual handling
events as recorded via video observation are
DISCUSSION
Reported Musculoskeletal Disorders
The present study showed high rates of
reported MSD: 92% in any body part over the
last 12 months, with 58% of workers stating
that any type of MSD had interrupted their
home or work activities. The most common
body part affected was the back (79%), fol-
lowed by the hands (57%) and neck and shoul-
ders (both 55%). Using the same type of sur-
vey questions, Christensen et al. investigated
the musculoskeletal symptoms of Danish swine
workers and found slightly lower rates with
a similar pattern; the body parts most often
reported in that study were the back (60%) and
neck (32%). Upper extremities were relatively
lower, with shoulder trouble reported by 20% of
workers and hands and elbows by 4%.5 A sim-
ilar study of large-scale pig farms in Sweden
found a 12-month prevalence of “any MSD”
to be 78% in pig barn workers, with the most
common injuries being in the upper extremi-
ties (62%) and the back (57%).4 One would
expect the Scandinavian countries to be more
consistent with one another given the similari-
ties in culture, language, and regulatory frame-
work; the difference may be in the 12-year gap
between the Danish and Swedish study resulting

TABLE 2. Participant Characteristics From the Questionnaire and Biomechanics Phases

Variable Questionnaire participants Video participants Entire workforce

n 26 19 334
% male 42% 38% 65%
Age in years (SD) 36.6 (SD = 12.8) 37.9 (SD = 10) 39
(range: 18–58) (range: 18–50)
Months working at company 49.5 (SD = 52.1) — 39.2
(range: 0.5–134)
Height in cm — 166.9 (SD = 9.8) —
(range: 147–182)
Weight in kg — 79.9 (SD = 12) —
(range: 56.8–105)
 Trask 373

FIGURE 2. (a) Frequency of reporting musculoskeletal trouble in the last 12 months and (b)
frequency of musculoskeletal trouble interfering with activities at work or home in the last
12 months, by body part.

in changes in technology and farming practices.
In fact, trends in Swedish dairy workers do show
increasing rates of MSD from 83% in 1988 and
90% in 2002.9 This change was concurrent with
increased awkward posture duration using mod-
ern milking equipment.17
MSD in agriculture is a critical concern not
only because it impacts farmers’ quality of
life, but also farm economics. Indeed, 58% of
respondents in the present study reported having
their activities interrupted by MSD symptoms.
MSDs have been shown to decrease productiv-
ity in construction and industrial workers even
when workers are at work.18 In agriculture,
MSDs are the most common cause of work
absence in self-employed Dutch farmers,19 and
Irish farm income is lower when operators have
MSD-related disability.20 Interestingly, work-
ers’ mental and physical health have also been
shown to be linked to dairy herd health.21
Clearly, interventions are needed to prevent
MSD in agriculture and particularly animal
handling professions.22 Unfortunately, little is
known about the exposures encountered in pig
farming and this limits development of effective
prevention strategies.
Biomechanical Exposures
The National Institute for Occupational
Safety and Health (NIOSH) spinal compression
guidelines are well established and based on
convergent findings from many different kinds
of research, from cadaver studies to psychophys-
ical assessments.23,24 The NIOSH action limit
(AL) of 3400 N (762 lbs) is designed to be safe
for 99% of men and 75% women; when a task
requires forces at this level or higher, it is a
signal to redesign the task, equipment, or work-
ing environment to lower exposures. The task
“moving dead pigs” was by far the most biome-
chanically challenging task in terms of peak,
instantaneous forces on the body. It was the only
task that exceeded the NIOSH action limit dur-
ing 6 of 18 analyzed snapshots, and on average
exceeded predicted strength capability for 6 of
7 body parts. Although the loading can be split
between several workers using a “team lift” on a
374
TABLE 3. Video Task Analysis for Main Pork Production Tasks

Task n Repetitions Daily duration n task Cycle Shoulder lift Trunk bend Lift Push/pull Hand grip
obs. per week of task (h) cycles duration (min) (lifts/min) (bend/min) (lift/min) (effort/min) (grip/min)

Moving live pigs 3 6.5 (0.7) 0.2 1.0 4.2 (3.6) 0.030 (0.34) 0.70 (0.75) 0.28 (0.49) 0.081 7.9 (5.6)
(0.14)
Heard health check 1 7.0 2.0 1.0 2.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0 16
Feeding 2 16.5 (17) .28 (0.035) 21 0.7 (0.10) 0.67 10 3.7 4.0 13
Pressure washing 2 6.0 0.1 0.5 2.0 (2.8) 1.0 (0.67) 0 0.5 0 2.5
Counting and sorting piglets 4 5.0 2.0 9.8 (10.6) 0.47 (0.44) 3.5 (3.3) 8.2 (5.1) 6.4 (4.0) 1.5 (3.0) 15 (2.9)
Vaccination and treatments 4 5.3 (0.57) 1.8 (0.87) 4.8 (5.2) 4.5 (4.3) 2.8 (3.3) 1.6 (1.6) 3.2 (4.3) 2.5 (4.3) 12 (7.3)
Breeding sows 1 7.0 3.5 1.0 8.3 0.24 2.3 0.12 1.2 7.1
Loading pigs in or out of trucks 4 4.4 (0.55) 0.7 (0.27) 1.1 (.63) 4.7 (3.9) 0.32 (0.35) 0.41 (0.41) 2.2 (2.2) 1.0 (1.2) 5.7 (5.6)
Moving dead pigs 1 11.5 (19.0) 0.43 (0.15) 7.25 (2.9) 1.1 (0.75) 0.47 (0.40) 3.5 (3.7) 2.1 (2.7) 0.86 (0.46) 11.3 (16)
Sorting pigs for market 3 5.0 3.0 0.50 4.7 1.7 (0.86) 1.3 (1.3) 2.4 (0.35) 0.56 (0.1) 8.9 (2.4)
Pregnancy checking 1 2.0 1.0 9.0 0.22 0 6.0 0 2.5 18
Piglet processing 2 6.0 3.5 21 (2.8) 0.14 (0.19) 3 (2.8) 2.5 (2.6) 6.2 (0.24) 0.33 (0.47) 29 (1.4)
Farrowing and fostering 1 6.0 5.0 2.0 1.5 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 18.3
Note. n obs. = number of observed task cycles; n task cycles = number of task cycles observed.
 TABLE 4. Biomechanical Analysis for Main Pork Production Tasks

Task n L5/S1 Sagittal Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum Minimum hip Minimum Minimum
compression in shear in wrist elbow shoulder torso percentile knee ankle
newtons (SD) newtons percentile percentile percentile percentile (SD) percentile percentile
(SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD) (SD)

Moving live pigs 3 1174 (759) 284 (35) 98 (0.6) 100 99 (0.6) 97 (2.3) 95 (4.2) 74 (40)∗ 69 (50)∗
Heard health check 2 1160 (411) 251 (24) 98 (1) 98 (1.4) 99 95 (2.1) 93 (8.5) 96 98 (1.4)
Feeding 1 2606 464 99 100 99 96 84 96 81
Pressure washing 4 1014 (681) 296 (43) 99 99 (0.5) 98 (0.6) 96 (4.5) 94 (10) 92 (13) 91 (16)
Counting and sorting piglets 6 2099 (260) 314 (40) 98 (1.2) 99 (1) 98 (1) 93 (1.80) 78 (14.6) 89 (10) 81 (5.5)
Vaccination and treatments 8 1603 (579) 275 (47) 98 (0.5) 99 (0.5) 99 88 (19) 89 (6.5) 89 (10) 82 (12)
Breeding sows 4 2420 (553) 332 (41) 99 (5) 99 (0.5) 98 (2.7) 96 (2.8) 80 (15) 98 (1) 79 (17)
Loading pigs in or out of trucks 1 522 263 99 99 99 99 99 99 100
Moving dead pigs 19 2983 (1181) 421 (215) 74 (35)∗ 88 (21) 74 (40)∗ 74 (24)∗ 49 (28)∗ 59 (34)∗ 49 (39)∗
Sorting pigs for market 8 1256 (471) 262 (28) 99 99 (0.5) 99 (0.4) 97 (2.2) 94 (4.5) 96 (7) 95 (8.7)
∗ Mean exposure exceeds the NIOSH action limit.

375
376 ERGONOMIC EVALUATION OF INTENSIVE SWINE PRODUCTION
dead pig, it can be challenging to fit several peo-
ple into tight spaces and then navigate doorways
and other living and dead animals. In addition,
barn staffing does not always allow for several
people to perform this task at the same time.
This is a good opportunity to use mechanization
through electric or mechanical winches on dead
carts and over the load out door.
For the other assessed tasks, spinal com-
pression and most strength predictions were
within the action limit. Since the biomechanical
analysis was based on “worst-case” snapshot
sampling of pig farm tasks, it seems reasonable
to assume that (with the exception of “moving
dead pigs”) that peak spinal loading is not
a primary concern for many pig barn tasks.
According to the 3DSSPP documentation,
NIOSH and 3DSSPP are “. . . most useful in the
analysis of the “slow” movements used in heavy
materials handling tasks . . .”16 It is therefore
vital to consider not only peak forces, but also
cumulative exposures arising from excessive
duration and repetition.
Repetitive movements during work tasks such
as trunk bending, arm abduction, hand gripping,
and lifting have been consistently shown to
increase risk of musculoskeletal disorders.25,26
Such movements were common among the
assessed tasks. For example, observed hand grip
frequencies between 10 and 15 per minute were
found in tasks such as herd health checks, feed-
ing, farrowing, and counting and sorting piglets,
with nearly 30 hand grips per minute during
piglet processing. This repetitive, often forceful
gripping can be expected to increase risk of
hand and wrist disorders such as carpal tunnel
syndrome.27 The lifting frequencies over 6/min
during piglet sorting and processing also gives
cause for concern. The frequency multiplier
associated with the NIOSH lifting equation caps
lifting frequency at 15/min even when the work
is performed for less than 1 h under otherwise
ideal conditions. Lifting over a greater distance
and at high frequencies requires reductions
up to 13% of the maximum acceptable load
of 23 kg. Trunk bending >45 degrees was
moderately frequent while moving dead pigs
(3.5/min) and high while counting and sorting
piglets (8.2/min). High levels of trunk bending
have been reported in many occupations,28,30
and back bending has been identified as a partic-
ularly relevant hazard in agriculture.31 A study
of Danish pig farmers performing various tasks
and found that in most tasks workers had trunk
bending more than 20 degrees for about 40%
of the time,5 and a Dutch study found workers
exhibited trunk bending over half of working
time.32
Identifying Future Research Needs
The current paper contributes to a sparse
literature on pig barn tasks. Catching and lift-
ing piglets has been identified as a physically
demanding pig farming tasks,9 as well as barn
cleaning, piglet processing, and sorting piglets.4
Both these studies relied on survey methods
to assess exposure rather than direct measure-
ment or observation. Like the current study,
Christiansen et al. used observation techniques
to assess manual materials handling and postural
exposures, assessing 27 workers prior to 1992.5
Although the observational methods have many
similarities, the present study expanded on the
work of Christiansen et al. by looking at an
expanded list of tasks and examining postures
of multiple body parts. Direct comparison of
the swine industry literature is difficult not
only because of the variety in exposure met-
rics, but also the distribution over different geo-
graphic regions and time periods means the
level of industrialization/intensification and task
specialization can vary substantially. However,
even in studies spanning several methods and
decades, there is a consistent impression of
awkward postures and repetitive, challenging,
physical workloads.
The need for ergonomic interventions in the
agricultural industries has been identified and
prioritized,33,34 but few prevention strategies
have been evaluated and implemented in ani-
mal commodities. In pig farming, improvements
may include strategies such as developing a
device or method for catching and lifting piglets
to avoid bending and twisting the back, or adapt-
ing a piglet processing cart that can limit bend-
ing hold the piglets during processing. There is
substantial opportunity to enhance working con-
ditions in pig barn occupations via development
of novel methods. There is also opportunity for
 Trask
a “natural experiment” evaluating work meth-
ods and equipment that are undergoing change
right now (for example, needleless injectors are
becoming more common for mass vaccination.)
The impact on productivity and farm economics
needs to be considered in any proposed inter-
vention, as pork production involves narrow
financial margins.
Strengths and Limitations
As a biomechanical evaluation of a compre-
hensive list of tasks in modern, intensive pig
farming, the present study makes a novel contri-
bution into musculoskeletal risks in this work-
force. In addressing high-risk, high-MSD-rate
occupations, this study allows for prioritization
of future research needs and flags repetitive
lifting and awkward posture as primary con-
cerns among pig barn occupations. Even with
impressive response rates, the study has a lim-
ited sample size and should be interpreted as
an exploratory investigation into the range and
nature of modern pig barn tasks, rather than
an accurate and generalizable exposure esti-
mate. Although the 19 participants in the video
phase exceeds by almost 3-fold the criteria of
7 participants set by Vieira and Kumar,25 most
tasks were assessed based on a small number
of observations. The cross-sectional design and
limited study sample position this study as an
exploratory work, but one that joins a limited
body of work on this population.
CONCLUSIONS
Some pig barn tasks have very high fre-
quency of gripping (such as piglet processing),
lifting, and bending (such as piglet sorting).
As an exploratory study, the results should be
interpreted with caution as an indication of the
magnitude of exposures one might expect in pig
farming occupations. Despite the study’s limi-
tations, the results uncover a high magnitude of
repetition and awkward postures among swine
farming tasks. The frequencies, postures, and
in the case of moving dead pigs, the spinal
compressions observed suggest exposures equal
to or great than those seen in other high-risk
377
occupations in heavy industrial contexts. Taken
altogether, the biomechanical exposures suggest
a need for further study, particularly on inter-
ventions to limit bending, lifting, and repetitive
gripping. It is hoped this will be of use to health
care professionals who may provide care to pig
barn workers with MSD and health and safety
professionals working in agriculture.
REFERENCES
1. International Labour Organization. The ILO
Programme on Occupational Safety and Health in
Agriculture. 1999. Available at: http://www.ilo.org/safe
work/areasofwork/lang--en/WCMS_117367/index.htm.
Accessed October 31, 2011.
2. Osborne A, Blake C, Fullen BM. Prevalence of
musculoskeletal disorders among farmers: a systematic
review. Am J Ind Med. 2012;55(2):143–158.
3. Myers J. Injuries Among Farm Workers in the
United States, 1995. NIOSH, ed. Cincinnati, OH: National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health;2001:1–295.
4. Kolstrup C, Stål M, Pinzke S, Lundqvist P. Ache,
pain, and discomfort: the reward for working with many
cows and sows? J Agromedicine. 2006;11:45–55.
5. Christensen H, Vinzents P, Nielsen B, Finsen L,
Pedersen M, Sjogaard G. Occupational exposures and
health among Danish farmers working in swine confine-
ment buildings. Int J Ind Ergon. 1992;10:265–273.
6. StatisticsCanada. Census of Agriculture counts
44,329 farms in Saskatchewan. 2007. Available at: http://
www.statcan.gc.ca/ca-ra2006/analysis-analyses/sask-eng.
htm. Accessed December 16, 2011.
7. Nonnenmann MW, Anton DC, Gerr F, Yack HJ.
Dairy farm worker exposure to awkward knee posture
during milking and feeding tasks. J Occup Environ Hyg.
2010;7:483–489.
8. Jakob M, Liebers F. Potential of a quarter individual
milking system to reduce the workload in large-herd dairy
operations. J Agromedicine. 2011;16:280–291.
9. Pinzke S. Changes in working conditions and health
among dairy farmers in southern Sweden. A 14-year
follow-up. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2003;10:185–195.
10. Douphrate DI, Nonnenmann MW, Rosecrance
JC. Ergonomics in industrialized dairy operations. J
Agromedicine. 2009;14:406–412.
11. Douphrate DI, Fethke NB, Nonnenmann MW,
Rosecrance JC, Reynolds SJ. Full shift arm inclinome-
try among dairy parlor workers: a feasibility study in a
challenging work environment. Appl Ergon. 2012;43(3):
604–613.
12. Hwang J, Kong YK, Jung MC. Posture evaluations
of tethering and loose-housing systems in dairy farms. Appl
Ergon. 2010;42:1–8.
378 ERGONOMIC EVALUATION OF INTENSIVE SWINE PRODUCTION
13. Kuorinka I, Jonsson B, Kilbom A, et al.
Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of
musculoskeletal symptoms. Appl Ergon. 1987;18:233–237.
14. Jones T, Strickfaden M, Kumar S. Physical
demands analysis of occupational tasks in neighborhood
pubs. Appl Ergon. 2005;36:535–545.
15. Gomez-Bull K, Ibarra-Mejia G, Hernandez-
Arellano JL. Biomechanical Analysis of a Manual
Materials Handling Task in a Local Manufacturing
Company. In: 1st Annual World Conference of the Society
for Industrial and Systems Engineering Proceedings.
Washington, DC, USA; September 16–18, 2012:386–390.
16. University of Michigan Center for Ergonomics.
3DSSPPManual, 3D Static Strength Prediction
Program.TM Version 6.0.5. User Manual. Ann Arbor,
MI: University of Michigan Center for Ergonomics; 2011.
17. Stål M, Pinzke S, Hansson GA, Kolstrup C. Highly
repetitive work operations in a modern milking system.
A case study of wrist positions and movements in a rotary
system. Ann Agric Environ Med. 2003;10:67–72.
18. Meerding WJ, Jzelenberg IW, Koopmanschap MA,
Severens JL, Burdorf A. Health problems lead to consid-
erable productivity loss at work among workers with high
physical load jobs. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:517–523.
19. Hartman E, Oude Vrielink HH, Huirne RB, Metz
JH. Risk factors for sick leave due to musculoskeletal dis-
orders among self-employed Dutch farmers: a case-control
study. Am J Ind Med. 2006;49:204–214.
20. Whelan S, Ruane DJ, McNamara J, Kinsella A,
McNamara A. Disability on Irish farms—a real concern.
J Agromedicine. 2009;14:157–63.
21. Kolstrup CL, Hultgren J. Perceived physical and
psychosocial exposure and health symptoms of dairy farm
staff and possible associations with dairy cow health. J
Agric Saf Health. 2011;17:111–125.
22. Kirkhorn SR, Earle-Richardson G, Banks RJ.
Ergonomic risks and musculoskeletal disorders in produc-
tion agriculture: recommendations for effective research to
practice. J Agromedicine. 2010;15:281–299.
23. Waters TR, Putz-Anderson V, Garg A, Fine LJ.
Revised NIOSH equation for the design and evaluation of
manual lifting tasks. Ergonomics. 1993;36:749–776.
24. Genaidy AM, Waly SM, Khalil TM, Hidalgo J.
Spinal compression tolerance limits for the design of
manual material handling operations in the workplace.
Ergonomics. 1993;36:415–434.
25. Vieira ER, Kumar S. Working postures: a literature
review. J Occup Rehab. 2004;14:143–159.
26. Punnett L, Wegman DH. Work-related
musculoskeletal disorders: the epidemiologic evidence and
the debate. J Electromyogr Kinesiol. 2004;14:13–23.
27. Palmer KT. Carpal tunnel syndrome: the role of
occupational factors. Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol.
2011;25:15–29.
28. Teschke K, Trask C, Village J, Johnson P, Koehoorn
M. Measuring posture for epidemiology: comparing
inclinometry, observations, and self-reports. Ergonomics.
2009;52:1067–1078.
29. Gentzler M, Stader S. Posture stress on firefight-
ers and emergency medical technicians (EMTs) associated
with repetitive reaching, bending, lifting, and pulling tasks.
Work. 2010;37:227–239.
30. Tak S, Buchholz B, Punnett L, et al. Physical
ergonomic hazards in highway tunnel construction:
overview from the Construction Occupational Health
Program. Appl Ergon. 2011;42:665–671.
31. Fathallah FA, Miller BJ, Miles JA. Low back dis-
orders in agriculture and the role of stooped work: scope,
potential interventions, and research needs. J Agric Saf
Health. 2008;14:221–245.
32. Hildebrandt V. Musculoskeletal symptoms and
workload in 12 branches of Dutch agriculture. Ergonomics.
1995;38:2576–2587.
33. Davis KG, Kotowski SE. Understanding the
ergonomic risk for musculoskeletal disorders in the United
States agricultural sector. Am J Ind Med. 2007;50:
501–511.
34. National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health. National Institute for Occupational Safety and
Health Research Agenda: National Agriculture Forestery
and Fishing Agenda. 2008. Available at: http://www.cdc.
gov/niosh/nora/comment/agendas/agforfish/pdfs/AgFor
FishDec2008.pdf. Accessed December 5, 2011
Copyright of Journal of Agromedicine is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content
may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright
holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for
individual use.