Table of Contents - College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical ...

HICAHS International

Dairy Research Consortium

Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

July 11 -13, 2011

Colorado State University Environmental Health Room 120 250 West Lake Street, Fort Collins

Table of Contents

Minutes ................................................................................................................................................................................... 2

Agenda .................................................................................................................................................................................... 9

Participant List .......................................................................................................................................................................11

Sponsors .................................................................................................................................................................................14

Presentations .........................................................................................................................................................................15

Australia .............................................................................................................................................................................16

New Zealand ......................................................................................................................................................................23

Brazil (notes only) ............................................................................................................................................................. 31

Germany - MSD among milking parlour operatives and specific work place design .........................................................32

Italy - Summary of Current Research, Programmes, and Products of the International Centre for Rural Health .............36

Italy - Evaluation of ergonomic risks in agriculture and agroindustry ...............................................................................52

Sweden - Median nerve entrapment at the elbow level -Pronator syndrome ...................................................................64

Sweden - Musculoskeletal Symptoms among Swedish Dairy Workers ..............................................................................73

Sweden - Quantifying Physical Work Load in Different Milking Practices .........................................................................78

USA - Western U.S. HICAHS Programs ...............................................................................................................................87

USA - Dairy Production .......................................................................................................................................................96

USA - Livestock Manure Initiative ....................................................................................................................................117

USA - Culture-Independent Characterization of Bacteria in Poultry and Dairy Bioaerosols ............................................121

Canada - Canadian Centre for Health & Safety in Agriculture, University of Saskatchewan ...........................................127

Contact List ..........................................................................................................................................................................138

2011 International Dairy Research Consortium Participants ..........................................................................................138

HICAHS Staff .....................................................................................................................................................................145

1




July 11 -13, 2011


Minutes

Day 1 July 11, 2011

On the first day of the conference, researchers shared information on the state of the dairy industry in their respective

countries and the research and service programs on occupational safety and health that they are conducting.

A CD of all the presentations and other files from the conference was provided to the attendees following the meeting. A

CD can be provided to you by emailing [email protected]. Details of each presentation can be found by reviewing the

slides and the notes written beneath each PowerPoint slide.

The following is a categorization by theme of identified concerns.

Concerns mentioned by themes from Day 1 Presentations

Education of primary care physicians related to occupational disease & injury

o Assess for occupational diagnosis

o Return to work issues

o Modified work needs

Workforce Issues

o Language issues due to workforce needs

o Health care access, particularly undocumented

o Training needs at all levels (management & labor)

o Mental health effects of market volatility/suicide – price of milk

Methodology

o Difficulty of data comparison between current data collection methods and older data

o Developing and adoption of new methodology – ex: DNA pyro sequencing

o Standardization of data collection methods and/or analysis – e.g. dust collection methods

o Need for applied research – e.g. go to the work site to do research, don’t expect workers to come to you

2

mailto:[email protected]




July 11 -13, 2011


Mechanization of dairy operations

o Impact on dairy operation size

o Ergonomic impact

o Repetitions

o Training needs related to new milking procedures

Overcoming barriers to health and safety messages

o Whom do you target?

o Delivery method

o How increase receptivity – overcome “won’t happen to me”

o Time and finance pressures

o Modifying traditional approaches to production

Working conditions

o Long hours

o Every day of the week

o Multiple types of tasks

o Repetitious

o Task analysis needed

Policy Issues

o Who is covered by Workers’ Comp Insurance?

o Access to workers’ comp/insurance data

o How is a worker defined?

o Agriculture versus urban environment – environmental issues

o Regulating pesticide use

o Reporting issues/requirements – laws/regulations

Funding issues

o Long term research funding scarce

o Potentially relate to climate change

3




July 11 -13, 2011


Occupational Health

o Need for consistent surveillance data

o Respiratory Disease

o Ergonomics – musculoskeletal

o Zoonotic Diseases

o Pesticide exposure

o Heat stress

Occupational injury

o Need for consistent surveillance data

o ATVs, tractor rollovers – high fatality rate

o Animal handling

o Work environment - hot, slippery

Impact of globalization

o Harmonization of labeling

o Differences in country regulations/standards related to:

Products

Workers

Health and safety requirements

4




July 11 -13, 2011


Day 2 July 12, 2011

During Tuesday’s group session, researchers brainstormed to create a list of potential research topics for agricultural

safety and health. A master list of concerns was created in advance by Vicky Buchan and Kristin Danhoff from Day 1

Presentations. Consortium attendees added to this list and discussed the needs related to these topics during the group

session. Vicky Buchan and David Douphrate each facilitated a discussion with half of the Consortium Attendees and then

the Consortium Attendees voted which topic areas had the highest priority and relevance.

SESSION 1

In which areas of occupational health and safety is collaboration needed?

A broader scope of health

Addressing stress and mental health while working on other issues as well such as sanitation and diabetes is needed.

Leadership Training

Managers want assistance on how to be better leaders and managers to their employees.

Develop a more cohesive network to plan interventions, work together, and build off each other’s ideas.

Employee and management training are two key areas.

There are some safety areas that should be spearheaded by leadership: sharing near misses and safety training.

Apply to NIOSH to include a larger view with management/leadership training?

So much of this change of health and safety is imbedded in the culture. The change agent is the middle

management.

The dairy owners really appreciate what we are doing from a business stand point. Management drives safety.

The question is how to get producers involved in a safety program. Producers do seem to be taking on more of a

systems perspective. HICAHS has used tools such as Six Sigma to show them how to do this from a systems

perspective. Six Sigma is a process of improving production by eliminating inefficiencies.

It is also a question of “marketing” safety to a farmer or producer. How to craft the message about the

necessity of safety that will speak to them; what is their motivation for incorporating best “health and safety”

practices.

Considering Health and Safety from Multiple Perspectives

Need to consider the different levels and makeups of farms so as to target multiple groups.

Owners and producers wear many hats when looking at their farms, so how can this group assist them on the

different levels. Differences in language, education, size of farm, finances, etc. will make their needs different

across countries and regions.

Keep in mind the end-user; tangible products and applied knowledge.

5




July 11 -13, 2011


SESSION 2

The agenda for the second small group session included discussion of how we researchers can collaborate on potential

resources, research, and other projects. The discussion naturally followed earlier discussion regarding the highest priority

research areas identified by group votes.

The following is a list of resources that may address the research topics above.

Guidelines/starting points

o ISO 9002/14000

o COSHH Essentials (Control of substances hazardous to health)

Standardization resources (Aerosols)

o Australia standardization of dust exposure report (Sue)

o Literature review and database (Maggie)

Resources within our group of attendees:

o Integrated management programs (Dave, John R., Paul, Steve, Bill, Peter)

o Occupational medicine (Matt K, Dave) (DeLaval)

o OSHA/Extension

o Cultural Competence (Matt K, Lorann, Louise)

o Audit (Risto)

o Engineering/integration (Lelia)

SESSION 3

Areas for Potential Collaboration

1. Safety Process model/approach

a. Needs Assessment of Stakeholders (worker/owner/operator)

i. Related to Motivation (Why adopt Safety?)

ii. Other topics: training needs, safety practices, etc

b. Identification and sharing of best Practice Models/Examples

2. Standardization/Data Collection

a. Exposure assessment / agreed upon methods

b. Developing useful Profiles

i. Related to data sharing Re: Occupational Disease

3. Impact of Climate Change on Health of Dairy Workers

a. Popular due to Funding Potential

b. Relationship to Zoonotic Diseases

6




July 11 -13, 2011


Day 3 July 13, 2011

Christina Kolstrup gave her presentation on her research projects that are being conducted in Sweden.

Notable Features of Dairies in Sweden:

40% work on farms with <75 cows

Cows are housed most frequently in tie-stall barns, rather than free stalls

recent survey showed that farmers perceive a positive economic outlook for farming

Possible Collaborative Projects – From Day 1 Discussions

1. Discussing Dairy industry from international perspective

a. Summarization of different needs and concerns in dairy

b. Group statement

c. Draft of topics and ideas have been generated

d. Easy win as product from this group

2. Database of different tools developed between everyone

a. Comments by different users on use of tools

b. Potential blog discussing problems based on culture, etc.

c. Collaborate with Anthropologists looking at culture issues

3. Electronic Site

a. HICAHS can setup a resource list

4. Basic understanding of Resources

5. State of science in dairy research: literature reviews in different topics

a. What don’t we know and do we need to know here in the states

b. What contributes to motivation of workers: Comparative analysis

6. Aerosol Evaluation

a. Similar Data collection

b. Exposure similarities between different parts of the world

c. Evaluate sampling methods and simulate differences in aerosol characteristics

7. Human Factors in Agriculture and Safety

7




July 11 -13, 2011


Potential Projects & Activities Steve recommended we identify potential objectives, short term and long term, based upon previous discussions.

Collaboration Opportunities and Obectives Broken down by Time frame along with established

Responsibilities

1. Short Term

a. Compile Resources available: HICAHS website restricted

i. ILO: Government, union, and employers

ii. Sweden

iii. WHO

Regional disparities

b. Evaluate and Provide Feedback: HICAHS: Allison, Steve, Matt K, Italy

i. Use of LinkedIn and E learning System

Calendar of Events for meetings

ii. Blog: Structure, Vicky and John G,

First Blush: Does this work, will it work

Pilot: Add demographics

Apply and Evaluate

iii. Industry contribution: producers and workers

c. Producers and workers Feedback Dave Douphrate, Louise Quijano, Vicky Buchan

i. Design Tool specifically for Producers

d. Contribute Documents: Everyone

e. Organize thoughts about adaptability of different tools

f. Aerosol Project: short to long, Marcos, Sue, John G., Matt K, Maggie, John V, Steve, Shelley

g. Ergonomics Project: Dave, John R, Theresa, Martina, Kristina, Lelia

2. Medium Term

a. WHO collaboration Dairy project (Sue and Claudio)

b. Journal Article publication (Steve, Kristina, Matt K, David, Matt N)

c. Marketing (Publications or conferences: ISASH, IOHA)

3. Long Term

a. Explore opportunities nationally of partnership with WHO center: Sue, Claudio

i. WHO orgs: ICOH, WONCA, OHTA, IDF

b. Develop partnerships with Vets

i. One health: John G, Matt K, Claudio C, Steve R, Theresa, Rob, Susan B

8



July 11 -13, 2011


Day 1 July 11, 2011

9:00 – 9:15 Introductions

Review Objectives and Agenda Steve

9:15 – 5:00

Brief Overview –

Summary: national & regional trends, program

overview, industry needs or concerns, outreach and

products

Each Program

20 minutes each

15 minute breaks

Lunch : 12:00 – 1:00

Attendees:

Sweden – Kolstrup, Pinzke, Löfqvist (Time in Sweden: MST + 8 Hours) – Joining Wed,

US/Western US – Reynolds, Douphrate, Rosecrance, Nonnenmann, Bruno

US/Wisconsin – Keifer, Gunderson

Germany – Douphrate/reynolds (on behalf of Martina Jakob)

Brazil – Domingos

Italy – Colosio, Marras, Murgia

Canada – Gordon, Kirychuk

Australia/New Zealand – Reed, Davidson, Jarvie

(Time in Australia: MST+ 16 Hours)

Names in Italics are of Remote Attendees (Participating via Video-Conferencing)

Dinner – The Moot House – 6:30 pm

Day 2 Morning July 12, 2011

8:00 – 11: 30 TOUR: Aurora Dairy

Meet in the Environmental Health (EH)

parking lot by 8:00 a.m.

11:30 – 12:30 Lunch at Aurora Dairy

12:30 – 1:30 Return trip to Fort Collins

Lunch & Tour

Sponsored by

Dinner Sponsored By

Agenda

9



July 11 -13, 2011


Day 2 Afternoon July 12, 2011

Attendees will be divided in half for group sessions

1:45 – 3:00 Discuss & Prioritize needs/concerns identified 2 groups

15 minute break

3:15 – 4:15 Who has…resources, knowledge, and expertise? 2 groups

4:15 – 5:00 Report back: project ideas Whole group

Dinner – On Your Own

Day 3 Morning July 13, 2011

9:00 – 10:45 How can we collaborate? 2 groups

15 minute break

11:00 – 12:00 Report back: collaborative potential & Next steps Whole group

Future meetings

(Ireland August 2011, CASA Canada Nov. 2011,

Saskatoon Oct 2012)

12:15 – 1:15 Lunch at Café Vino

Afternoon - TBD (New Belgium tour, Estes Park, etc.)

Lunch Sponsored by

10

Participant List A total of six countries were represented through attendance at the 2011 International Dairy Research Consortium: Australia, New Zealand, Italy, Brazil, Canada, and the United States. Sweden was represented through teleconference participation. Nearly all of the partipants were from academia; one attendee represented employer interests in health and safety (Paul Jarvie, New Zealand) and one attendee worked in health and safety consultation (Marcos Domingos, Brazil).

Name Country Affiliation email

Non-HICAHS 1. Claudio Colosio Italy Director, International Centre for Rural

Health (Milan, Italy) claudio.colosio@ unimi.it

2. Marcos Domingos Brazil Dovlos Ambiental (Industrial Hygiene Consultation)

marcos_domingos@ terra.com.br

3. John Gordon Canada Director, Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculture

[email protected]

4. Paul Jarvie New Zealand Employers and Manufacturers Association

Paul.Jarvie@ EMA.CO.NZ

5. Matt Keifer U.S.A. National Farm Medicine Center (Wisconsin, U.S.A.)

keifer.matthew@ marshfieldclinic.org

6. Teresa Marras Italy Director, Occupational Health Service of Sassari (Sardinia, Italy)

[email protected]

7. Lelia Murgia Italy Associate Professor of Agricultural Mechanics, University of Sassari, Italy

[email protected]

8. Matt Nonnenman U.S.A. Deputy Director, Southwest Center for Ag Health, Injury Prevention, and Education (Texas, U.S.A)

9. Sue Reed Australia Associate Professor, Certified Occupational Hygienist, University of Western Sydney

s.reed@ ozemail.com.au

HICAHS 10. Vicky Buchan U.S.A. HICAHS Evaluation Program Director Buchan@

cahs.colostate.edu

11. Kristin Danhoff U.S.A. Graduate Research Assistant, HICAHS Evaluation

Kristin.Danhoff@ colostate.edu

11


















12. Maggie Davidson U.S.A. HICAHS Post-Doctoral Fellow Ma.Davidson@ colostate.edu

13. Allison DeVries U.S.A. HICAHS Coordinator Allison.DeVries@ colostate.edu

14. David Douphrate U.S.A. HICAHS Researcher David.I.Douphrate@ uth.tmc.edu

15. John Mehaffy U.S.A. HICAHS Research Associate john.mehaffy@ colostate.edu

16. Diana Perez U.S.A. Graduate Research Assistant, HICAHS Evaluation

Diana.Perez@ colostate.edu

17. Louise Quijano U.S.A. Evaluation Program Co-Director Louise.Quijano@ colostate.edu

18. Steve Reynolds U.S.A. HICAHS Director Stephen.reynolds@ colostate.edu

19. John Rosecrance U.S.A. HICAHS Researcher John.rosecrance@ colostate.edu

HICAHS Students

20. Emily Matthews

21. Anthony Mixco

22. Rob Paulson

23. Pamela Rosecrance

24. Natalie Schwatka

Presented via Teleconference

25. Paul Gunderson U.S.A. Director, Dakota Center for Technology Optimized Agriculture

Paul.d.gunderson.1@ lrsc.nodak.edu

26. Shelly Kirychuck Canada Assistant Professor, Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculture

shelley.kirychuk@ usask.ca

27. Lotta Löfqvist Sweden Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Work Science, Business Economics & Environmental Psychology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

lotta.lofqvist@ slu.se

12























28. Peter Lundqvist Sweden Professor and Head of Department, Department of Work Science, Business Economics & Environmental Psychology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

peter.lundqvist@ slu.se

29. Christina LunnerKolstrup

Sweden Researcher, Department of Work Science, Business Economics & Environmental Psychology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

christina.kolstrup@ slu.se

30. Stefan Pinzke Sweden Associate Professor, Department of Work Science, Business Economics & Environmental Psychology, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

stefan.pinzke@ slu.se

13







2011 International Dairy Research Consortium

Sponsors

Aurora Organic Dairy

Dawn Wobig Dairy Manager

28520 County Rd. 72 Gill, CO 80624

970-454-2420

[email protected]

Emily Prisco Organic Stewardship Specialist

970-564-6296

303-512-3656 cell

[email protected]

Juan Velez, MV, MS VP Farm Operations

7388 Highway 66 Platteville, CO 80651

720-564-6296 ext. 466 office 303-956-2084 cell

[email protected]

Colorado State University Department of Animal Sciences

Bill Wailes Department Head

Colorado State University Campus Delivery 1171 Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171

970- 491-5390

[email protected]

DeLaval

Wyatt Smith General Manager

1100 N. Congress Ave. Kansas City, MO 64153

816-891-7700 office

[email protected]

14









July 11 -13, 2011


Presentations

15

Dairy Industry in Australia

Sue Reed, Maggie Davidson &

Robert Mulley

Where are we?

Australian Dairy Industry

Owner-operated farms dominate;Share farming was employed on 15% of farms in2009/10;Corporate farms make up just 2% of the total No offarms;The number of dairy farms has fallen by two-thirds overthe last three decades from 22,000 in 1980 to 7,511 inmid-2010;Steady farm gate milk prices during 2007/08;2008/09 have slowed the closures and even led to anincrease in Victorian dairy farms;60% of Australian dairy farms are in Victoria;

16

1.5 to 2 fold increase in the number of people working ondairy farms in Australia over 4 years;50% of dairy herds are in metropolitan areas; andConcern for 2009/10 because the season opened with thelowest milk prices in a number of years.


Australian Dairy at a Glance

National Dairy Herd 1.6 million cows

Average Herd Size 220 cows

Milk Production 9,023 million litres

Dairy - Australia's 3rd Largest Rural Industry

$3.4 billion value at farmgate

Production Of Main Commodities (tonnes)

• Milk Powders 316,300,• Cheese 349,400 &• Butter (CBE) 128,400

Dairy - Major Export Industry $2.4 billion, 10 per cent of world dairy trade

Percentage Exported 45 per cent

Australian Dairy at a Glance

Major Markets For Australian Dairy Products (Tonnes)

• Australia 2,773,000 (including 2,337,000 ofdrinking milk)

• Japan 116,000• Singapore 87,000• China 65,300• Indonesia 44,700• Philippines 43,200• Pacific Islands

Dairy Industry Workforce Direct employment of approximately 40,000 people

17

Number of Australian Dairy Farms

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

Num

ber o

f Reg

ister

ed F

arm

s

Year

Australian Dairy Herds

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

Num

ber o

f Dai

ry C

ows

(per

000

hea

d)

Year


Average herd size has increased from 85 cows in 1980 to anestimated 220 currently.Trend emerging to very large farm operations of over 2,000 headof cattle.2010 National Dairy Farmer Survey indicated that 11% of dairyfarms had herd sizes of >500 cows, and produced 28% of thetotal milk production.Friesian Holstein is the dominant breed, accounting for 70% ofall dairy cattle.Other important breeds include the Jersey, and the AustralianIllawarra.

18

Australian Dairy Industry Challenges

Price for milk; Conflicting needs for land: near large cities land wanted for housing; Workforce needs.

Incidence Rate (Injury and Disease) for Agricultural Workers by Age Group

Incident Rate by Industry

19

Incidence Rate by Industry

Injury Facts in NSW in 2008/09

Agent of Injury: • Injuries are caused by live animals: ~20%• Outdoor environment: ~12%• Moving Plant and Machinery: ~65%Type if Injuries: • Back Injuries: ~1%• Traumatic Injuries: ~ 90%• Health related injuries: ~ 1%• Undefined ~6%

Typical Small Australian Dairy Farm

20

Typical Large Australian Dairy Farm

Where to Now?

In addition to the areas which relate to acute issues suchas:− Tractor rollovers;− Pesticide exposures;− Stress; and or− Manual handling.Identify funding sources in Australia who may beinterested in funding projects related to worker long termhealth outcomes, such as:– Exposures to bioaerosols;– Respiratory health of workers and their families;

and/or– Thermal stress.

21

Our Other Collaborators

Any Questions

22

High Planes Intermountain Centrefor Agriculture Health and Safety

(HICAHS)

Paul Jarvie.New Zealand.

23

NZ Farming statistics.

• 63,000 farms• Ave 232 hectares.

– Outputs.– 1.78 million tonnes dairy products (21.8% or world trade)

– 600,000 tonnes sheep meat (around 55% of world trade)

– 140,000 tonnes of wool– 634,000 of beef and veal

Sheep &Beef, 46

Dairy, 18

Horticulture,17

Other ,15

Cropping, 3 MixedLivestock, 1

Dairying

• 5.6 million cows, average herd 351 cows.• Each cow producing 307kg of milk solids, 3567litres of milk per year

• Peak flow 23 litres per day.• 80% of farm fatalities involve ATV’s or tractors.

Health and Safety.

26

Number of New Claims

Number New 2008 07/2009 06

Number Active 2008 07/2009 06

27

Claims by region

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

< 8 weeks 8 26 weeks 26 52 weeks 1 2 years 2 3 years 3 4 years 4 5 years 5 10 years 10 years plus

Active claims

Costs

Claims by duration & cost

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

140000

160000

180000

Injury by mechanism

New claims

Active claims

Costs of claims

28

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

16000

Injury by mechanism

New claims

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

ATV's Live animal Noise Ground / path MachineryAgr

Otherexternal

agency NEC

Numbers

$ Mills

Average

Claims by external agency

Research by ACC

• To evaluate the Human Factors Analysis pilotscheme.

29

Detailed Objectives

More detailed research objectives are to…

• Evaluate the recommendations were of assistance to farmerswithin the programme, recognising behavioural triggers and orhabits that lead to the incident

• Evaluate if the recommendations provided by the Consultantswere practical and realistic to adopt into the farmers daily workpractice

• Evaluate if the farmers have made changes to their work placeas a result of the recommendations provided by theConsultants

• Evaluate if farmers believed being part of the HFA programmewas worthwhile and would they recommend it to other farmersto be part of

Detailed Objectives

More detailed research objectives are to… continued

• Evaluate if the farmers believed the recommendations would beof benefit in protecting other farmers from similar accidents

• Evaluate if the recommendations provided by the Consultantsto the farmers were easy to understand and interpret

• Evaluate if the farmers would use this type of ACC serviceagain and what would farmers like to see improved with theservice

• And finally would the pilot programme farmers be willing toshare their experience with other farmers and have their storytold

Conclusions continued• Almost all of the respondents on a whole found the recommendations to be

practical and realistic to adopt into their work environment and daily practice

• And as result of the recommendations an impressive 17 of the 20 respondents indicated they made some degree of change or adjustment already to their work environment or daily practice

• References to more consultation and training with staff, slowing down and being more safety aware and conscious and an overall willingness to implement recommendations was evident

• Structural changes and more expensive adjustments such as changing yards may take longer to action but it was mentioned in their medium term plan.

• All respondents agreed that being part of the programme was worthwhile and they would recommend it to other farmers

• Respondents indicated the programme had identified and flushed out work habits and some level of complacency and this was a positive and timely thing

30

Marcos Domingos Brazil presentation notes

Slide 2 photos. Country vary diverse but share common language

3: globe

4: Dairy industry all over country. North portion is very different from the amazon and the southern

amazon area ( floods 6 months out of year) southern portion of country near argentina similar to Euro

dairy

5 1 cow per 1 person

6 video of south amazon dairy workers moving cattle through flooded areas. Area has all kinds of

problems from snakes to mosquitos ( disease) why don’t move b4 floods come? Don’t know exactly

why. Typical movement. Not able to know exactly when floods come

7 northeast vid: very dry almost desert. Why heavy leather? Used to protect body from sun exposure

and cutting yourself while riding. If there are no rain cattle will die from lack of water

8 vid of south near argentina: colder

9/10 different occupational situation. Socioeconomic situation need to separate urban workers and

rural workers. Laws protect more urban than rural

11: large production of beef (churrasco). Large amount of sugar to produce ethanol for vehicles. World

leader in poultry where does it rank? Its very strong export to Arabic countries

12 dairy industry

13: occupational safety standard covers all occu industries. Require each company to hire a professional

group, safety engineer, occu doc, etc. Rural area not considered industrial so there is a problem also

family farms. Less than 300 employees how you manage? And how many farms you have w/300

employees? Less than 300 just technician, 300 employees still a big farm

14: requirements of employer to give to employees

16 official stats. Most people to do not have formal contracts and therefore wont receive any benefits.

Total accidents per each industry that are reported to gov’t

17 why difference between diseases, higher in chicken than cattle? Probably because poultry is more

organized.

18. No real occupational health programs or safety. Good programs for quality. Organizations that might

help. Fundacentro = brazil NIOSH, SENAR is for training for rural area, SENAI for industrial not govt

programs but rather large companies put on programs.

31

MSD among milking parlour operatives and specific work place design

Dr. Martina JakobLeibniz-Institute for Agricultural Engineering Potsdam Bornim e.V.

Background Information

MSD among dairy farmers

Despite a reasonable reduction of the workloaddue to the mechanisation of the milking process,a constant or rising number of health problemsamong dairy farmers and especially milkingparlour operatives is noticed.

European studies (Sweden, Finland, Germany)

USA

New Zealand

Work place design

General construction of modern milking parlours is verysimilar all over the world.The milker stands in a pit between 80 and 100 cm lower thanthe cows.Udder height and body height of the worker influence thework place design.

app. 30 cm

„Herringbone“

32

Work place design

The actual working height induces typical kinematic patterns:

Above shoulder height = arms have to be raised

Below shoulder height = upper body inclination increases

On farm measurements

Cow specifics:Distance udder-floor

Horizontal distance between the middle of the udder and edge of pit

Diagonal distance between two teats

Parlour specifics:Depth of pit and others

Worker specifics:Shoulder height

Incidence of MSD (Standardised Nordic Questionnaire, Kuorinka 1987)

Calculation of personal work load profile

Based on the results of a preliminary study* the workload is lowest when the bottom of the udder is at the same level as the shoulder of the worker.

Optimal working height:

distance udder to floor = Shoulder height - pit depht (± 5 cm)

Below shoulder height:

distance udder to floor < Shoulder height - pit depht - 5 cm

Above shoulder height:

distance udder to floor > Shoulder height - pit depht + 5 cm

* Part one submitted for applied ergonomics in October 2010, part two accepted for the Journal of Agromedicine due in autumn this year.

33

Results of on farm measurements„best case scenario“ between 60 and 70% of optimal working height

Examples for the distribution of udder heights in relation to the shoulder height

Out of 22 workers for exampleOnly five workers encounter the optimal working height for at least 50% of the cows.The largest possible amount of optimal working height is between 60 and 70% due to the variation in udder height.

Bovimetrics• Udder height ranges

from 70 – 34 cm

Results of on farm measurements

Standardised Nordic Questionnaire (Kuorinka 1987) answered by 35 workers


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

upper extremities upper and lowerback

lower extremities whole body

Perc

enta

ge o

f wor

kers

with

and

with

out p

ain no pain

pain

34

o Four persons or 11 % with pain in only one body regiono 11 persons or 31 % with pain in two body regionso 16 persons or 46 % with pain in all body regions

The average duration in this profession was 23 years!

The average age of the 35 workers questioned was 42 years.


Only four workers had no pain at all!

Nearly 50% of the workers with pain were absent from work due to that within

the last year.

We still carry on with this survey!

The horizontal distance between udder and the edge of the pitis very important and shall be included!

… and I would reallyappreciate if we could follow my idea together!

Greetings from Germany!

35

Nuove sfide per la medicina del Lavoro: Immigrazione, Promozione della salute

Claudio Colosio, Giulia Rabozzi, Chiara Somaruga, Ramin Tabibi, Stefan MandicRajcevic, Francesca Vellere, Federico M. Rubino, Eugenio Ariano, Gabri Brambilla

SUMMARY OF CURRENT RESEARCH, PROGRAMMES AND PRODUCTS OF THE ICRH

Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA.HICAHS International Dairy - Research Consortium MeetingJuly 11 – 13, 2011

AGRICULTURE: THE SPECIFICITIES

THE SPECIFICITY

Activity linked with the wellbeing of entire nations•Risk of soil depletion andpollution•Agricultural workers are apatrimony of their countries!•Need of healthy, trained andaware agricultural workers

THE SCENARIO•About 50% of the global populationlives and works in rural and remote areas•Low income, poorer quality of life•Limited access to welfare structures•Total number of economically active subjects in the world in 2001 :2.838.897.404•Doing agricultural activities:1.300.000.000

WORKFORCENot an homogeneous entity:Developed countries: Elderly (USA, Italy…)Migrant & seasonal workers (in last decades)•Developing countries &Countries in transition:Three generations at work (included children and young workers)DIFFERENCES IN

Activity done, Mechanization, Specialization, Training & Education, Type of property, Kind of employment

36

AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISE IN EUROPE(Eurostat 2007)

TOTAL AGRICULTURAL WORKFORCE (Eurostat 2007)

AGED EQUAL OR MORE THAN 65 yrs (Eurostat 2007)

37

CATTLE FARMS IN ITALY and REGION OF LOMBARDY ISTAT, 2010

FARMS CATTLESFARMS N.ANIMALS

2010 2000 2010 2000 2010 2000LOMBARDY 21.476 35.403 14.700 19.684 1.483.557 1.606.285

ITALY 209.996 661.771 124.341 171.994 5.677.953 6.049.252

North west 44.102 91.090 30.198 41.509 2.346.246 2.480.904

North east 47.601 164.045 32.259 48.736 1.652.307 1.849.410

Center 35.522 176.642 18.007 24.476 429.394 477.572

South 47.636 184.272 26.892 39.543 662.616 684.140

Islands 35.135 45.722 16.985 17.730 587.390 557.226

LOMBARDY DAIRY PRODUCTION (Kg*100)ISTAT,2008

MILK BUTTER CHEESE

LOMBARDY6.548.177 415.336 4.105.517

ITALY28.515.122 1.150.139 11.494.128

North19.411.561 1.012.356 8.166.263

Center4.546.066 23.239 879.622

South4.557.495 114.544 2.448.243

MAJOR CAUSES OF INJURIES AND FATALITIESIN THE AGRICOLTURAL/LIVESTOCK SECTOR

FARM MACHINERYAbout 77.6% of all incidents are due to machinery and machinery parts (tractor, shaft drive etc…), while farmers are lifting, pushing, or pulling (21%), adjusting the machine (20%) or repairing the machine (17%). 54% of the fatal incidents are attributed to tractor’s use, the majority of injury events took place while persons were mounting or dismounting the tractor (42%).

SHOCK AND CRUSHED BY ANIMALS Dairy and hog farming are the riskiest activities.Farmers working on farms with beef cattle had statistically significant increased risk for a farm related injury.

FALLS FROM ABOVEsilos, portable ladders, roof work on buildings in small rural areas

38

AGRICULTURE : STATISTICAL DATA

Work-related health problems for sector 2008-2009

EUROSTAT 2009

AGRICULTURE : STATISTICAL DATA

Estimated incidence rates of self-reported work-related illness and reportable non-fatal injury, by industry, for people working in the last 12 months, average 2007/08–2009/10

EUROSTAT 2009

Fragmentation

Family run enterprises

Variability of jobs and tasks

Indoor vs outdoor

Variability of exposure to risk factors

THE «LAND OF INEQUALITIES»

Overlapping of living and working time

Entire families at work

Elderly and retired at work

Lower access to health care structures

Migrant, seasonal and temporary works

Unavailability of BOHSs

Difficulties in complying with OH&S legislation

Limited access to occupational health care

Role of GPs

39

Only a small proportion of agricultural workers provided with health surveillance at the workplace

THE «LAND OF INEQUALITIES»

Same levels of riskexposure addressed indifferent ways

Among those who are exposed at the same levels of risk only a

small proportion is provided with occupational health care

UNDERREPORTING OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES

AND ACCIDENTS

PRIMARY HEALTH CARE: ALMA-ATA DECLARATION 1978; LODI DECLARATION, CARTAGENA DECLARATION AND TIRANA DECLARATION ON RURAL HEALTHALMA-ATA DECLARATION (12 September 1978): Essential health care:•Practical, scientifically sound and socially acceptable methods and technology•Universally accessible to individuals and families in the community through their full participation•Cost that community and country can afford •First level of contact between national health system and individuals, family and community•Brings healthcare as close as possible to where people live and work. TIRANA DECLARATION (25 September 2010)1.The rural populations and rural workers of the area suffer an unacceptable exposure to environmental and occupational health risks2. Children working in agriculture represent the biggest share of hazardous childlabor.3. Migrants are often provided with the most dangerous jobs4. Rural women often carry extra burden of disease and injuries due to agricultural health risks and unpaid domestic labours.5. There is a strong need for placing a stronger emphasis on ensuring access of rural people to occupational, environmental health and healthcare services in rural areas.

Incorporating Occupational Health in Primary Health care

OUR PROPOSAL

Providing BOHS with aminimum set ofinstruments (ECG,respiratory function andhearing loss evaluation,biological samplecollection…)

Bringing Basic Occupational Health Services Close to the

rural workplaces

Collaborating with Rural GPs

Providing BOHS with aminimum set ofinstruments for riskassessment: noise, dusts,biological agentsmeasuringTraining personnel and workers

Active search for new and emerging risks and diseases;

record keeping and epidemiological elaboration

40

Occupational accidents in agriculture in Italy (happened: 2006; compensated: 30/4/2008

LocationNumber events Fatalities

Animal breeding enterprise 8.501 12Cultures 11.856 33

Three cultures 9.499 15Forest 2.547 4Other 4.339 5

Type of activitySoil treatment 8.371 26

Cultivation 10.122 17Breeding 8.017 12Forestry 3.349 6

Other 3.116 5

Occupational diseases in agriculture in Italy: «OFFICIAL DATA»

Reported: 2003 – 2007 compensated: 30/4/2008

Year 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007Included in the Italian list of occupational diseases

Specific agents 6 2 2 4 1

Skin diseases 1 1 1 1Asthma 19 19 13 18 7Allergic alveolitis 19 11 12 17 7Hearing los 31 22 22 18 13Muscle – skeletal diseases 8 12 10 8 6

total 84 67 60 65 35Non included in the list of occupational diseases

Tendonitis 49 56 110 118 112Vertebral disk diseases 21 25 40 41 61

Hearing loss 83 78 98 107 59Carpal tunnel syndrome 48 42 55 60 44

Other peripheral neuropathies 20 27 41 54 32

Arthritis 4 16 11 18 24Respiratory diseases 4 7 11 15 7

Tumors 2 3 14 3 6Contatct dermatitis 6 7 5 8 2

Total 237 261 385 424 347

HEALTH RISK FACTORS IN THE DAIRY FARMS

• BIOLOGICAL ("emerging risk factor “) : zoonoses and organic dusts (moulds, pollens, bacteria, endotoxins, feed, bedding particles, animal particles including hair, feathers, and droppings);

• CHEMICAL: pesticides and other agrochemicals, solvents, detergents and disinfectants, fuels, antibiotics, gases;

• PHYSICAL: noise, vibration, radiation and the risk factors for the musculoskeletal system.

41

BIOLOGICAL RISK: ZOONOSES, SOME POINTS(Miller and Heptonstall, 2010)

75% of emerging pathogens and 61% of all

infectious organisms are zoonotic

No specific features. Only detailed occupational history brings to the diagnosis

Highest risk: veterinarians and agricultural workers

The risk of a worker to acquire a zoonotic disease depends on the prevalence of the infection among the animals, the infectivity and route of infection, and the preventive interventions done at the workplace

SOME ZOONOSESDISEASE AGENT SECTOR/ACTIVITIES

Anthrax Bacillus anthracis Herbivor breeding

Brucellosis Brucellae Cattles, goat.; farmers and abbatoir workers.

Campylobacterosis Campylobacter Mainly poultry

Cryptosporidiosis Coccidian protozoa Mainly food borne disease, rare in humans

Echinococcosis (Hydatiddisesase; hydatidosis

Echinococcus Dogs, sheeps, cattles ; abattoirworkers

Enterohaemorragic E Coli infection

E. Coli Mainly food borne disease

Erysipeloid Erysipelothrixrhusuiopathiae

Swines, sheeps, poultrys, shellfish and fish

Fish tank finger Mycobacterium marinum Fish breeders and fishers on tropical countries

SOME ZOONOSES

DISEASE AGENT SECTOR/ACTIVITY

Hepatitis E Hepatits E RNA virus Pigs/rabbits. Pig and rabbit breeders

Leptospirosis Leptospira Rodenst and small mammals. Workers in touch with surface water.

Listeriosis Listeriamonocytogenes

Seldom associated with occupational exposure

Lyme disease Borriella Vector: ticks, reservoir: small ruminats,rodents, wild animals. Forestry and agriculture workers; veterinarians

Mokeypox disease Monkeypox (orthopox) Monkey and wild animals. Veterinarians and breeders of tropical countries

Orf, contagious pustolardernmatitis, milkers’nodule

Orf, a DNA parapoxvirus

Cattles, sheeps, goats and reindeers. Breeders and butchers.

Transmissible spongiformencephalopathies (TSE)

Prion Cattles, sheeps, goats, cats, minks, deers, elk; foodborne

42

SOME ZOONOSES

DISEASE AGENT SECTOR/ACTIVITY

Ornithosis, psittacosis Chlamidophilapsittaci/abortus

Birds; Cage cleaning, carcass evisceration

Q Fever Coxiella Burneti Cattles, sheeps, goats. Role of ticks

Rabies Rabies virus genotipe 1 Dogs, bats

Salmonellosis Salmonella Mainly food borne disease

Streptococcus suis infection Streptococcus suis Pigs. Pigs breeders and slaughterers

Tetanus Chlostridium tetani Not typical zoonoses. Herbivore bowel (mainly ruminants). Agricultural workers as a whole.

Toxoplasmosis Toxoplasma gondii Cats, birds, sheeps, goats

Tuberculosis MycobacteriumTuberculosis hominis

Infect works may transmit the disease to animals (manly cattle)

Tuberculosis bovis Infected animals (cattles) may transmit the disease to humans

FACTORS AFFECTING EMERGENCE AND REEMERGENCE OF ZOONOSES

ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS :

• CLIMATE AND ECOSYSTEM CHANGES

SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC EFFECTS

• “GLOBALIZATION”

• CAN AFFECT THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PATHOGENS IN THE WORLD

• MIGHT BRING NEW AND EMERGING BIOLOGICAL RISKS

• CAUSE TYPICAL RISKS TO MOVE IN THE AREAS DIFFERENT FROM THEIR ORIGIN

EXAMPLE: TUBERCULOSIS OUTBREAKS IN THE REGION OF LOMBARDY

(FROM 2006 TO 2008)

YEARS n.OUTBREAKS

PLACE OF DETECTION

ORIGIN of theINFECTION

TYPE OFPUTTING DOWN

M.BOVISISOLATION

OUTBREAKTYPE

2006 14 12 slaughterhouse2 farm

13 unknown1 introduction

5 stamping out9 selective

13/14 All close


11 unknown 5 stamping out6 selective

11/11 All close


11 unknown1 correlation

1 stamping out4 selective

12/12 All close

• 37 Tuberculosis outbreaks in 3 years

• 36/37 Mycobacterium bovis isolated

Pay attention to reemerging zoonoses !

43

CHEMICAL RISK

SOME CRITICAL ISSUES:

•VARIABILITY OF THE ACTIVITIES AND THEIR LOCATION (INDOOR-OUTDOOR)

•INTERMITTENT EXPOSURES•COMPLEX MIXTURES•INTERMITTENT USE OF PPP•METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS•HIGH COSTS•TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES

RISK ASSESSMENT OF PESTICIDE USE IN AGRICULTURE

CHEMICAL RISK

Concise but reliable description of the working conditions, obtained through the identification of o selected set of indicators and the attribution, to each of these indicators, of specific weights

OUR PROPOSAL: FROM EXPOSURE PROFILES TO RISK PROFILES

data ALGORITHM “Exposure indicators”

Substance’s toxicity

“Risk Profile”

SUCH AN EVALUATION CAN BE DONE ALSO IN ABSENCE OF MEASUREMENTS

SOME DATA FROM OUR ACTIVITIES

44

THE AGRICULTURAL ENTERPRISES PROVIDED WITH HEALTH SURVEILLANCE AT THE WORKPLACE BY OUR CENTRE

260 enterprises

PRODUCTIVE ACTIVITIES OF THE WORKERS PROVIDED WITH HEALTH SURVEILLANCE AT THE WORKPLACE

800 workers

JOB TITLES OF THE WORKERS

45

WORK & MIGRATION IN OUR SAMPLE (n=800)

HIGHER PERCENTEGE OF MIGRANTS COMPARED WITH ITALIAN OFFICIAL DATA: 26% VERSUS 4,5%(ISTAT 2009)

74%

26%

Italian Foreigners

6%

1%

25%

48%

3%

17% 1%

Tractor driver

Cultivator/Agricultural workerBreeder

Milker

Catering

Gardener

Mechanic

Italian Vs Foreign workers Foreign workers by type of jobs

WORK & MIGRATION IN OUR SAMPLE -CATTLE BREEDERS

HIGHER PERCENTEGE OF MIGRANTS COMPARED WITH «OUR» AGRICULTURAL WORKERS: 27.8% VERSUS 26% (ISTAT 2009)

Italian Vs foreign workers (n=385) Foreign workers by type of jobs (n=106)

72.8%

27.8%

Italian

Foreigners

4.75.7

84.0

3.81.9

tractor driver

breeder

milker

breeder/ tractordriver

mechanic

OUTCOMES OF HEALTH MONITORING:RESPIRATORY FUNCTION IN CATTLE BREEDERS (n = 385)

PFR Results Frequency Percentagee

normal 242 85,2

Obstructive 2 0.7

restrictive 12 4.2

not interpretable 19 6,7

Small airways obstruction 5 2.5

Total 284 100,0

85.2

.7

4.2 6.7 2.5

normal

obstructive

restrictive

not interpretable

small airway obstruction

46

DIAGNOSIS ECG frequency percentage

normal 58 78,4

patological 14 18,9

non interpretable 2 2.7

total 74 100,0

PATOLOGIC frequency percentage

Arrhytmia 11 2.9

Ischemia/ infarction 2 0.5

Hypertrophy 4 1

OUTCOMES OF HEALTH MONITORING:ELECTROCARDIOGRAM (CATTLE BREEDERS)

78.4

18.9

2.7

normalpathologicalnot interpretable

OUTCOMES OF HEALTH MONITORING:ALLERGIES (CATTLE BREEDERS)

92.1

7.9NoYes

Type of allergy Frequency Percentagee

Contact 1 3

Pollen 13 47

Animal derivatives 5 20

Medications 3 10

Asthma 6 20

Total 30 100,0

Type of allergy (n=30)

3.3

47.0

20.0

10.0

20.0

ContactPollenAnimal derivativesMedicationsAsthma

Allergy (dairy workers=385)

OUTCOMES OF HEALTH MONITORING:HEARING FUNCTION IN CATTLE BREEDERS

140

44

21 6 1 233

61

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Merluzzi Class (n=308)

45.5

21.1

2.9

10.7

19.8 normal hearing function

acoustic trauma

noise -induces hearing loss

not noise related heaing loss

not noise + others

47

THE “SOUND CIRCLE” OF HEALTH SURVEILLANCE

IN FIELD ACTIVITIES

•Risk assessment and analysis•Health surveillance schedule•Phisical examination and «only necessary» laboratory analyses

Electronic record keeping and

epidemiologicalobservations over time

Research actvities

Evidence-basedinterventions

SOME ELABORATIONS OF DATA FROM OUR HEALTH SURVEILLANCE SYSTEM

2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

< 0,01 0,01 - 0,1 0,1 - 0,5 0,5 - 1,0 >1

n Italian non-Italian

14

3

7

13

2 3

137

31

p = 0.342

Tetanunus antibody title–UI/mL)

Total: 95Italians: 56Migrants: 39

Case 1: tetanus immunization in italian agricultural workers and migrants in the region of Lombardy, 2010

48

Case 2: hearing loss

Examined the official data showing the yearly number of hearing loss reports in

agriculture

Questions: does underestimation of cases exist?

45 44 32 33 38

196234

267245

222

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Cases Reported in Italy (2004-2008)

Not Listed Listed

Case 2: our systematic approach(from BOHS pilot-study)

Case 3 : Cow Milker’s Nodule(From BOHS pilot study)

Pseudopoxvirus infection inhuman

Diagnosis: reached in closecollaboration with theveterinarian of the agriculturalenterprise (epidemic in cattle)

Pseudopoxvirus infection in cow

49

CASE 4: Serum cytokines between breeders and non breeders

Serum Cytokine Job Median(Pg/ml)

P

IFNBreeders (n=64) 10.8

0.32Non Breeders (n=32) 10.5

TNF-Breeders (n=64) 190.1


IL10Breeders (n=64) 45.3


IL8Breeders (n=64) 40.6


IL6Breeders (n=64) 5


There was a statistically significant difference between type of job (breeders & non-breeders) and serum concentrations of Il8, IL10 and TNF .

EDUCATION AND TRAINING: WHAT WE DO

Undergraduate courses:School of medicine: 42 hrs OHS, 12 agricultureNurse school: 16 hrs, 3 agricultureOccupational Health and Safety Expert: whole course, about 40hrs agriculture + practical in field activitiesPostgraduate courses:School of Occupational Medicine: 5 years, 12 hours agriculture +trainingOHS, manager of health care structures, prevention personnel: 2years, about 20 hrs agriculture + practical in field activities.Specials courses:Updating of OHS physicians: 8 hoursInternational training courses: upon request. Done a full course onpesticides in Hong King; planned a course in Kazakhstan etc.

OTHER

1. ICRH is a WHO Cenetre for occupational health, coordinating the WHO-CC activities in agriculture

2. ICRH has currently the conduction of the ICOH SC on Rural Health

3. ICRH has currently the vice-presidence of the International Association of Agricultural Medicine and Rural Health

4. ICRH is running 4 EU-Funded projects

5. ICRH is promoing the organization of a world congress on rural health in 2015 in Milan (“EXPO 2015: Energy for life, feding the planet”)

50

AREAS OF COLLABORATION1. SPECIFIC HEALTH RISKS IN THE DAIRY/AGRICULTURALSECTORBIOLOGICAL: exposure to organic dusts (immune activation in animal breeders); zoonoses (brucellosis, tuberculosis, tick-borne diseases etc… - emerging & reemerging diseases-)CHEMICAL: RISK PROFILES (user-friendly, raw but reliable method for pesticide exposure estimation)

2. OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH CARE FOR AGRICULTURALWORKERS

Creating pilot experiences of basic occupational health services(BOHSs) in agriculture, to provide agricultural workers with primary occupational health care.

3. CREATION OF A GLOBAL RURAL HEALTH NETWORKTo create a network adequate for realizing the holistic approach needed to manage the complicated problems of rural areas,using, sharing and spreading useful tools: HEALTH SURVEILLANCE ELECTRONICAL DATA COLLECTION FORM linked with our DATA BASE.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

51

Evaluation of ergonomic risksin agriculture and agroindustry

HICAHS International Dairy ConsortiumJuly 11-13, 2011 - Colorado State University - Fort Collins, Colorado, USA

Department of Prevention Occupational Health Service(SPRESAL)ASL Sassari, Italy

Department of Territorial EngineeringUniversity of Sassari, [email protected]

LELIA MURGIA TERESA MARRAS

University of Sassari

http://www.uniss.it/php/home.php

Faculty of Agricultural Sciencehttp://agrariaweb.uniss.it

6 Departments

• Agricultural Economics and Woody PlantEcosystem

• Agricultural Environmental Sciences andFood Biotechnology

• Animal Science• Crop Science and Genetics• Plant Protection• Territorial Engineering

http://www.uniss.it/php/dit.php

Undergraduate Courses

• Agricultural science and technology

• Agricultural and animal sciences

• Forestry and Environmental Sciences

• Viticulture, Enology and Food Technology

Graduate Courses

• Agricultural and environmental biotechnology

• Agricultural systems

• Forest and environmental systems

• Animal science

• Food science and technology

• Viticultural and enological sciences

Faculty ofAgricultural Science

52

Dipartimento di Ingegneria del territorio

Department of Territorial Engineering

Sections and research areasMechanization of rural systemsHydrology and soil consevation

Structures and planning of rural areas

Geology and Soil science

15 professors and researchers8 research assistants and PhD students3 technical and administtrative staff

Mechanization of dairy farms: milking, refrigeration, milk processing

Energy savings and production from RES LCA and energy analisys of agricultural and

agrofood productionWork safety and ergonomy in agricultureAutomation of food industryPrecision viticultureMechanical harvesting of olives, grapes,

mirtus, saffronMechanization of forest systems

Outline

Overview of the Italian Dairy Sector

Research activities on ergonomics

Dairy sheep farmsCheese industries

Numbers of Italian Dairy sector

53

Total Heads (1)(Nx000)

Female in milking (2)(Nx000)

Dairy Farms

(N)

COWS 5,832 1,800 60,627

SHEEP 6,600 5,500 51,000

GOATS 983 800 22,500

BUFFALOS 365 245 2,462

Dairy farming

(1) ISTAT_2010; (2) AIA_2009

4 millions workers75% of the milk is produced in the North districts of Italy: Lombardia, Emilia Romagna, Veneto e Piemonte.

0.4%4.7%

93.2%

1.8%

COWBUFFALOSHEEPGOAT

Milked milk (tonnes)

Milk delivered to Dairy Industry (tonnes)

COW 11,285,905 10,489,381SHEEP 564,549 479,243GOAT 48,515 22,708

BUFFALO 216,779 190,532

Milk Production (ISTAT_Dec 2010)

The dairy sector is the first Italian food division, with a sale of

14,2 billion € (10% of agriculture GDP)

11 Mtonnes of milk are produced and 2150 cheese factories convert

13 Mtons of milk in

1 Mt of cheeses (more than 44% are PDO cheeses 56% of EU market)

2.9 Mtof pasteurized drinking milk and UHT milk

190,000 t of yogurts and fermented milks

160,000 t of butter

Dairy industry

54

Numbers of Sardinian Dairy sector

35,000 milking cows

3,317,000 sheep + 294,000 goats

2,800,000 milking ewes( 30% last 10 years)

12,600 sheep farms (extensive and semi-intensive)

240 heads/farm avg herd size

5,000 milking machines

20,000 workers

350 ML ewe and goat milk

197 ML cow milk

20% of sardinian

agriculture GDP

79 cheese factories

Milk processing

Research activities on ergonomy

Dairy sheep and goat farms

Analysis of environmental factors in the mechanical milking of sheep and goat

Field investigation to monitor the main parameters as temperature, humidity, air speed, light, noise that can affect the milker’s health and productivity

Estimation of noise-induced hearing impairment risk among persons working in sheep dairy farmingbased on combination of worker’s age and time of occupational exposure

55

Field survey on dimensions of milking pit and stalls, milking machine structure, size of operator, with the aim of defining design parameters for improving the working place

Structure of the work place in small ruminants milking parlours

..some features suggesting further investigation

•Fast milking routine (milking time

32 sec/head)

•Velocity and repetitiveness of

milking units manipulation

•Hand and wrist efforts involved in

udder stripping

Study of potential ergonomic risks in the dairy industry

Objective:

To identify and evaluate the potential risks of developing

musculoskeletal deseases for dairy industry workers involved in the

manufacturing, seasoning and packaging of sheep’s cheese

Analysis was performed in factories with different level of

mechanization

56

Dairy sheep industry

many tasks are still manual and require sometimesprolonged and intense physical exertion

manipulation of Pecorino Romano cheese forms(25-35 kg weight) can expose to an increased riskof developing pain in the back and upper limbs

Approximately 2000 workers are involved

in PR production in Sardinia, where 58 industries process some 55% of the italian 15% of the total EU sheep milk

low level of automation compared to other dairy industries

Work analysisDescription of work cycles and jobproceduresVideotaping of the different tasks

Identification and assessment of risk factorsNIOSH ChecklistsOSHA ChecklistsStrain Index methodOCRA ChecklistOCRA Index

Methods

Departments and tasks

Pecorino Romano production•Preparing the curd•Filling the pressing board•Pressing the forms•Turning the forms

PR Seasoning and storage•Salting•Movement in seasoning room•Washing the boards

Ricotta production•Extraction of ricotta•Greek ricotta preparation

PR Storage and packing PR•Quality selection•Packing in film•Dressing•Cutting and packing in quarters•Dividing the forms

57

PR production department

Distribution of the curd and removal of the whey using spatulas and rakes

Restricted work space, trunk inclined and arms outstretched, not ergonomic tools

OSHA-A = 9OSHA-B+C = 5SI= 27

Protracted and intense effort(>60% tot time)

High speed and repetitivenessof movements (40 actions/min)

Filling the pressing/cutting boards

Storage and packing departmentDressing

Use of a steel spatula to scrapeclean the surface

MS effort for moving the forms(NIOSH 83%)

OSHA-A = 11OSHA-B+C = 13SI= 20.25

Repeated efforts of bendingthe hand and the wrist

Critical tasks

• Draining the whey at the pressing/cutting table• Mixing the whey and squeezing the sacks of ricotta

• Moving the forms in/out of storage rooms andbetween different workstations

• Preparing the curd• Turning the forms• Repetitive movements in the cutting and bagging

sections

58

Critical environment

Most common MSD risk factors observed

Manual movements involved in handling the cheesesMuscular stress of limbs and back due to the postureUse of tools not ergonomically designedRepetitiveness and absence of programmed pauses

High humidity, wet and slippery floors, high noise levels, cold

/ high temperatures

Implementing ergonomic solutions

Vacuum lifts

Load positioners (scissors-lift)

Height adjustable stands

Sit/stand stools

Automation of production lines and handling systems can solve the problems caused by moving the weights

Conveyors or roller belts to eliminate distance andheight differences between the work surfaces

WORK IN PROGRESS

Evaluation of upper limbs biomechanical risk performed byOCRA method (Occupational Repetitive Action) thatconsiders:

frequency of technical actions, repetitiveness,awkward postures, level offorce, additional factors(physical, mechanic, organizational), lack of recovery periods,duration of repetitive tasks

Okra ChecklistOcra indexSW Kinovea (by EPM_Milan)

59

ASL Sassari Department of Prevention SPRESAL

Occupational Health ServiceTeresa Marras M.D.

Director

Specialist in occupational medicineSpecialist in hygiene and preventive medicine

Msc. Occupational medicine LSHTM University of London

Address Tel: +39 0792062882Via Rizzeddu 21 b Fax: +39 0792062881

07100 Sassari (Italy) e-mail: [email protected]

SPRESAL

60

WHAT IS MY JOB

Control of occupational risks and work environment in every workplace

Research in occupational health

SPRESAL

Experience in the field of ergonomy and biomechanical overload risk:

Responsible for the scientific project

"Investigation of the risk of upper limb biomechanical overload in theactivity of milking sheep," supported by National Ministry of Labour, 1999– 2000, in which we studied Work related muscolo-scheletal disorders(WMSDs), and mainly carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) in sheep breeders.

Milker's hand has been studied in the past; in these historical studies,symptoms as pain, tingling, articular illnesses and lack of strength havebeen well descripted.

Some cases of CTS in sheep breeders who practise non automatizedmilking have been reported to the occupational health service in Sassari(north Sardinia, Italy).

The project aim was to study prevalence of WMSDs in a Sardinian sheepbreeders group who practize manual milking, using a control group of nonmanual milking breeders of the same area.

109 manual milkers and 56 mechanized (adjusted in analisys for previous manual and change of milking for MS pathologies)The first step of the study has been a risk assessment, which has been carried out using two different methods, one of the IEA group of Milan (Occhipinti et Al. 1986) which uses OCRA risk index, and another of Garg and others (1995) which defines a Strain Index for repetitive movements.Both methods analyze the following occupational risk factors:number of technical actions of a job cycle;times of activity and recover;entity of muscular stress (subjective evaluation measured with Borg scale)posture features (posture analysis of scapolo-omerale articulation, elbow, wrist and hand).Job has been filmed and its cycles and technical actions were analyzed

MethodsRisk analisys

61

A random sample of 109 male breeders who practise manual milking and 56 mechanical was selected from a list of members of breeder associations in the province of Sassari.

Information about individual features (age, period of occupational exposure, scholarship, job organization, size of the herd etc.) and presence of specific symptoms have been collected by a clinical-anamnestic questionnaire.

Subjects who proved to be positive to at least one of the symptoms for CTS, underwent a risk-targeted physical examination, which included an electroneurographic test using surface electrodes.

MethodsClinical tests

ResultsJob analisys

In both techniques of manual breeding (“nuorese” in which the milker stands at one side of the sheep, bended and turned to the tail, and "sassarese", where the man is crouched or sitted on a low stool with wheels behind the sheep, a high level of exposure has been proved (OCRA 9 and 7 NV 0,7, and Strain 40 NV 3), which clearly shows an elevated risk of WMSDs in this workers

Out of the 109 workers examined, 95% proved to be positive to the questionnaire for one or more symptoms, mono or bilateral; controls were positive 54%, with PRR of 1,76; for controls “clean” (= never done manual milking) PRR is 3,94 highly significantReported frequency of symptoms is superior to that found in other groups of high exposure workersThe positive subjects were tested with electromyography for the diagnosis to be confirmed by a specialist neurologistEMG has been performed on 57% of the exposed and 50% of non exposed (total 74 exams) 73% exp and 60% non exp were EMG positive, with a higher proportion (even not significant) of neurological alterations between the manual breeders. High percentage in controls could be justified by previous manual milking in many of them and by heavy job in agricolture.Results of EMG show we are facing a real epidemic of illnesses due to the mechanical stress of upper limbs.The prevalence of bilateral cases, found in both anamnesis and electromyography can be explained by the nature of the job, which equally involves both hands, with a high level of strain

Results of clinical-anamnestic examination

62

Analisi univariata: tassi per mansione prevalente svolta negli ultimi 10 anni

1. Colletti bianchi2. Impiegati3. Addetti ai servizi4. Commessi/commerc.5. Autisti6. casalinghe

7 Addetti alle pulizie8 Inferm./ausiliari9 Op. tessili10 Sarti11 Cuochi12 Op. confez./assembl.

13. Op. elettrico14. Op. metalmeccanico15. Op. montat./manut.16. Altri operai17. Agricoltori18. Pensionati

Other studies now ongoing

As Lelia already said, we worked on ergonomic risk in cheeseproduction industry and are now involved in studying risk ofpecorino cheese line

We are also studying accidents in agriculture and dairy industry

We are collecting all information on factories, workers andoccupation, kind and number of animals (sheeps, cows, goatsand porks) in our territory, which could be useful for futureprojects

Future ideas for cooperation with HICAHS group

Multicentric international study to compare different techniques of dairy production and processing

Sheep and cow herds: study on risks for workers in manual and authomatic milking

Other risks for workers in dairy industry and in agriculture

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION 63

Median nerve entrapment at the elbow level -Pronator syndrome

A follow up study after a surgical release

Marianne StålAssociate professor

Swedish University of aAgricultural Sciences, Alnarp Sweden

HICAHS INTERNATIONAL DAIRY RESEARCH CONSORTIUM MEETING

11th-13th of July 2011

Marianne StålAssociate Professor Swedish University of aAgricultural Sciences, Alnarp SwedenPREMUS 2010


64



Atrophy;M.pronator teresTendeness; 1.5-2 cm medial epicondyle


65

Muscle test; M. flexor carpi radialis (FCR)


Muscle test;M. Flexor pollicis longus


• To evaluate after 8.5 years, the outcomeof a surgical release of the median nerveat the elbow level.

• To evaluate after 10 years the outcome ofthose who did not undergo surgery andstill working as active milkers

Aim


66


• Standardized Nordic Questionnaire(Kuorinka et al., 1987)

• Johansson and Hagberg (1990)

Methods

Questionnaires


Physical examination(Stål et al., 2004)

• Range of motion

• Muscle tenderness

• Muscle atrophy

• Muscle strength in separatemuscles in the upper extremities


67

Muscle test; M. flexor carpi radialis (FCR)


Muscle test; (Mannerfeldt 1997)M flexor pollicis longus



ResultSurgical group (n=8)

Subjective findings;No painNo focal tendernessNo weakness in median innervated muscles, FCR, FPL, FDP II.

68

Long-term effect of the surgical release of the median and ulnar nerves on the muscle strength in eight female milkers. Ratio – the individual muscle strength of the afflicted side/non afficted side of the surgical group (n=8) Mannerfelt intrinsic meter.

Muscle Pre- op. strengthratio

Post op. strength ratio

After1 hour

After sixmonths

After 8.5 years

FPL 0.75 1.0 0.99 1.0

FDP II 0.62 0.95 0.99 1.0

FDP V 0.93 0.98 0.99 1.0



ResultNon-Surgical group (n=14)

Subjective findings;Still pain (10/14)Focal tenderness (12/14)Still weakness in median innervated muscles ,FCR, FPL, FDP II (14/14).

Long-term effect of the surgical release of the median and ulnar nerves on the muscle strength in eight female milkers. Ratio – the individual muscle strength of the afflicted side/non afficted side of the non-surgical group (n=14). Mannerfelt intrinsic meter.

Muscle Strength ratio at the first examination

Strength ratioat 10 yearsfollow-up

FPL 0.76 0.78

FDP II 0.78 0.76

FDP V 0.98 1.0


69

• How can we explain the highincidence of pronator syndromein female milkers?

• Ergonomic factors?

Discussion


Carpal tunnel syndrome


Pronator syndrome


70


Surgical group (n=8)

• Surgical release of the median nerve at the elbow willimmediate as well as long term return to normal strengthof FPL and FDP II.

• Improvement in subjective status e.g. pain, numbness,coldness in the wrists and hands.

• Improvement of the focal tenderness over the mediannerve.

• Surgical release is a rather simple operation with lowmorbidity and good long-term outcome it should beconsidered the method of choice.

Conclusion



71


From an ergonomic point of view

• Reduce the weight of the milking unit• Reduce the velocity. Take a pause!• Reduce the number of repetitive

movements• Redesign the milking cluster• Technical development-support/robot arm

Thank you for your attention!


Conclusion


72

Musculoskeletal Symptoms among Swedish Dairy Workers

Christina Lunner Kolstrup, Pinzke, S, Stål, M and Lundqvist, PSwedish University of Agricultural Sciences

Department of Work Science, Business Economics & Environmental Psychology

HICAHS INTERNATIONAL DAIRY RESEARCH CONSORTIUM MEETING11th-13th of July 2011

Fewer, but larger dairy operations

The structure of modern dairy farming differs between countries

However –

Large dairy operation = labour intensive industries with a high degree of task specialization

High physical work load, repetition, awkward postures with reduced resting time

- all these, which are known risk factors for the development of musculoskeletal disorders (MSD)

A Global Trend ….

The aim of this presentation

To give an overview of conducted studies concerning the prevalence of MSD among dairy parlor workers in Sweden

73

The General Standardized Nordic Questionnaire perceived symptoms of MSD (Kourinka et al., 1987)

Ache, pain and discomfort in the musculo-skeletal system

Have you experienced ache, pain or discomfortduring the preceding 12 months?

Have you during the preceding 12 month been unable to do your daily workbecause of the ache, pain and discomfort?

Have you experienced ache, pain or discomfortduring the preceding 7 days?

To be answered by

all!

To be answered if you have answered Yes in the first column!

Neck Yes No Yes No Yes No

Shoulders Yes No Yes No Yes No

Elbow Yes No Yes No Yes No

Hands/wrists Yes No Yes No Yes No

The upper back Yes No Yes No Yes No

The lower back Yes No Yes No Yes No

Hips Yes No Yes No Yes No

Knees Yes No Yes No Yes No

Feet Yes No Yes No Yes No

NeckShouldersUpper back

ElbowsLower backHands/wrists

Hips

Knees

Feet

Questions about physical work-related factors

Have you and to what extent have you regularly experienced ache, pain and discomfort from …

• Noise• Vibrations• Climatic conditions• Illumination• Lifting/carrying heavy burdens• Monotonous/repetitive work• Awkward working positions• Dust• Chemical solvents• Work pace

Demographic description of studied Swedish dairy parlor workers

Country Subjects(n)

M (n;%)

F (n)

Age(year; range/sd)

Herd size(n; range/sd)

Loose-housing (%)

Kolstrup et al, 2006

Sweden 4228

(66) 14

32 (20-57)33 (20-57)31 (20-49)

306 (125-500)304 (125-500)309 (125-500)

958993

Pinzke, 2003

Sweden 625445(71) 180

49 (20-79)47 (20-68)

56 (3-320)59 (12-320)

2629

Stål et al, 1996

Sweden

161 161 44 (sd 11) No information Approx 10

Gustafsson et al, 1994

Sweden 29992081(69) 918

45 (sd 11)43 (sd 11)

30 (sd 23)29 (sd 22)

Approx 4Approx 2

74

Prevalence (%) of MSD among studied male (M) and female (F) dairy parlor workers in Sweden

Kolstrup et al, 2006 Pinzke, 2003

Stål et al, 1996

Gustafsson et al, 1994

Gender M F M F F M FSubjects (n) 28 14 445 180 161 2081 918All bodyparts 82 93 83 90 84 82 86Neck 25 50 31 39 25 35Shoulders 36 71 44 59 37 49Elbow 4 21 20 28 18 22Hands/Wrists 11 57 24 46 18 35Upper back 18 43 12 15 12 18Lower back 36 50 54 47 55 50Hips 11 21 28 34 23 27Knees 21 29 38 33 41 37Feet 14 14 14 20 13 16

Risk factors for MSD among Swedish large-herd dairy parlor workers (n = 42)

The most frequently reported discomforting work factor:

• Dust (48%)• Awkward working postures (41%)• Lifting heavy burdens (41%)• Repetitive work (38%)• Climatic conditions (33%)

Risk factor for upper extremities MSD:

• Body height (OR 8.0)• Female (OR 5.7)• Repetitive work (OR 4.8)

(Kolstrup et al, 2006)

Perceived physical work strain in relation to Swedish parlor milking (Borgs CR-10 scale, 1990)

• Handling of feed (4.40) and machine milking(3.46) the most physically demanding work tasks

• Machine milking the most time-consuming workstask (15 hours/week)

(n = 42) (Kolstrup et al, 2006)

Carrying one milking machine

Carry two milking machines

Pulling a milk-wagon

Connecting the equipment

Cleaning the udder

Pre-milking

Attaching

Detaching

Dipping

Disconnecting the equipmentn = 161 Stål et al. (1996)

NO ache & painAche & pain

Physical work strain in hands/wrists

75

Conclusions -

• In general, high frequency of MSD reported amongSwedish dairy parlor workers – and especially amongfemale workers

• High prevalence of MSD, mainly located to the upperextremities and the upper back, especially among thelarge-herd dairy parlor workers.

• Among small-herd parlor workers also lowerextremities are associated with high frequencies ofMSD

• To be concluded –

Dairy parlor work is physically demanding andmay constitute a risk for the development of MSD!

Desirable improvements –to make these work places

more attractive, safe and healthy –

• Engineering

• Enforcement

• However, technicalequipment does not solveeverything!!!

• Education – Information Communication

Thank You for Your Attention 76

References

• Borg, G. 1990. Psychophysical scaling with applications in physical work and perception of exertion. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environment and Health 16(1), 55-58

• Gustafsson, B., S. Pinzke and P.-E. Isberg. 1994. Musculoskeletal symptoms in Swedish dairy farmers.Swedish Journal of Agricultural Research 24: 177-188

• Kolstrup, C., M. Stål, S. Pinzke and P. Lundqvist. 2006. Ache, pain, and discomfort: the reward for working with many cows and sows? J Agromedicine 11(2): 45-55

• Kuorinka, I., B. Jonsson, A. Kilbom, H. Vinterberg, F. Biering-Sorensen, G. Andersson and K. Jorgensen. 1987. Standardised Nordic questionnaires for the analysis of musculoskeletal symptoms. Applied Ergonomics 18(3): 233-237

• Pinzke, S. 2003. Changes in working conditions and healthamong dairy farmers in Southern Sweden. A 14-year follow-up. Annals of Agricultural and Environmental Medicine:AAEM10: 185-195

• Stål, M., U. Moritz, B. Gustafsson and B. Johnsson. 1996. Milking is a high-risk job for young females. Scandinavian Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 28(2): 95-104

77

Department of Work Science, Business Economicsand Environmental Psychology

Swedish University of Agricultural SciencesAlnarp, Sweden

QUANTIFYING PHYSICAL WORK LOAD IN

DIFFERENT MILKING PRACTICES

Stefan Pinzke, Associate professorChristina Kolstrup, PhD

HICAHS INTERNATIONAL DAIRY RESEARCH CONSORTIUM MEETING

11th-13th of July 2011

Musculoskeletal symptoms

p denotes differences between sexes

2002 (n=686) 1988 (n=1465)Male Female Male Female

% % p % % pNeck 31 39 * 21 29 **Shoulders 44 59 ** 34 43 **Elbows 20 28 * 18 23 *Wrists/hands 24 46 *** 16 34 ***Upper back 12 15 ns 9 12 *Lower back 54 47 ns 56 49 *Hips 28 34 # 25 26 nsKnees 38 33 ns 40 38 nsFeet 14 20 ns 11 16 **In any 83 90 * 81 84 ns

Explanations to the disorders

• more work hours per week• more cows being milked• more milking units used• transition from tethering to loose-

housing systems

78

Tethering vs. Loose-housing

Tethering • more heavy lifting• more awkward work postures

40% awkward postures 10% awkward postures

Tethering system Loose-housing system

Work postures

Tethering vs. Loose-housing

Tethering• more heavy lifting• more awkward work postures

Loose-housing• more demanding for wrists/hands

79

Demanding for wrists/hands

Drying

Pre-milking

AttachingHolding

• higher static load

• higher wrist angel positions,velocity, repetivity

Aim

• To quantify the work load whenmilking in different type of loose-housing systems.

Preconditions

• System design• Milker• Cow

80

System design - Parlour milking

Herringbone

Tandem

Parallel

System design - Rotary parlours

Inside

Outside

Milker - Work height and area

Swedish Work Environment Authority, AFS 1998:1 81

Milker - Work area in parlours

http://www.jbt.slu.se/KOSTALLPLAN/index.htm

The cow

Holstein Association USA, Inc

Methods - Biomechanics

2D-load moment(Pinzke, 1994)

2DSSPP© (2D Static Strenght Prediction Program) (Chaffin and Andersson, 1984)

JACK© (Siemens), (Adolfsson, 2008) 82

Results – Parlour, Load Moment (Nm)

Parlour depth (mm)

Right shoulder Left shoulder L5/L4

Male percentile 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th

Parallel 920 9.3 9.1 9.4 9.2 9.4 9.9 24.8 26.2 25.71120 9.5 10.1 9.4 9.4 10.1 9.7 25.4 28 28

Tandem 750 9.9 8.8 10.3 8.9 8.8 10.5 41.6 25.9 87.2950 9 10.2 9.4 9.9 10.2 9.7 45.2 27.8 27.6

Heringbone 750 9.2 9 9.3 9.6 8.8 8.9 64.2 73.7 83.1950 9.9 10.1 9.3 9.8 10 9.1 64.3 76.4 82.2

Female percentile 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th 5th 50th 95th

Parallel 920 7.5 7.4 7.6 7.5 7.5 7.7 19.9 26 25.11120 6.4 8 8 6.4 7.9 8.3 18.9 28.2 28.8

Tandem 750 7.5 7.4 7.3 7.5 7.4 7.3 36.2 36.8 32.1950 7.4 8.1 8.6 7.4 8.1 8.6 22.9 30.4 21.7

Heringbone 750 7.5 7.7 7.8 7.5 7.7 7.8 59.7 69.4 56.1950 7.4 8 8.5 7.5 8 8.5 44.8 59.1 37.6 (Adolfsson, 2008)

Preliminary conclusions

• Small variations in moment on theshoulder joints between the systems

• Herringbone systems show thehighest moment on the back

• The parlour depth affect themoment mostly on the back

Measures

• adjustable floor height

83

Adjustable floor

Measures

• adjustable floor height• rubber matting on the floor

Rubber matting

84

Measures

• adjustable floor height• rubber matting on the floor• installation of a support arm

Support arm

Measures

• adjustable floor height• rubber carpet on the floor• installation of a support arm• lighter milking clusters and tubes

85

Light-weight cluster and tubing

Conclusions

high frequency of musculoskeletal disorders

high values of physical load

techniques that reduce the work load

ergonomical improvements

Photo: Magazine Husdjur (2003)

Thank you

for your attention!

86

• HICAHS International Dairy ResearchConsortium Meeting July 11 13, 2011

Western US – HICAHS ProgramsStephen Reynolds, David Douphrate, John Rosecrance

US Dairy Industry

• 65,000 dairy operations in 2009, down 33% since2001, down 90% since 1970.

• In 2009, 56% of milk produced in the US came fromlarge herd operations (>500 head) compared withonly 35% in 2001.

• Operations with 2,000 head or more accounted for30% of milk, up from just 12% in 2001 [NASS 2010].

US Mountain West

• Limited water resources• High altitude plains and rugged mountains• Dairy is large and growing sector in theregion’s agriculture profile.

• Dairy ranks among the top 5 commodities• Colorado, Utah and South Dakota rank in thetop 22 dairy producing states in the nation. 87

• Pilot: Training methods and Worker Injury on Colorado Dairies– (Roman Muniz JASH 2006)

• R01: Odor Reduction from Dairies– (Lester 2008, Saito AOH 2009)

• R01: Endotoxin Genetics in Organic Lung Disease– (Reynolds AIOH 2009, Burch JToxEH 2009)

• Pilot: Workers Comp Analyses– (Douphrate JAgromedicine 2009, Douphrate AJIM 2009)

• Outreach and Dissemination: Mycotil (Injectible Drugs) Fatalities

HICAHS Dairy Research & Outreach 2002 2007

• R01: Injury Risk Analysis in Large Herd Dairies– Douphrate, Rosecrance

• R01: Endotoxin Exposure Among New Dairy Workers– Reynolds, Roman – Muniz, Poole, Von Essen

• Pilot: Inflammatory Relationship of Gram Positive and Gram NegativeBacteria– Poole, Reynolds, Dooley2009 – 2010 Poole JToxEH 2010

• Pilot: Chemical Analysis of Bacterial Composition and Potency AgriculturalDusts – Utah ERC– Goodridge, Reynolds, Dooley, Saito

HICAHS Dairy Research & Outreach – 2007 – 2011 Prior to Workshop

88

HICAHS Programs

• Outreach (OSHA training, Lean six sigmaworkshops, ecoli outbreak etc.)

• Organization of 1st workshop for Dairyindustry stakeholders (Fall 2009)

• Creation of Dairy Advisory Board (Spring 2011)• Pilot project program

Ergonomics Injuries

• Dairy workers file 8.6 workers’ compensation claims per200,000 work hours [Douphrate et al., 2006], higher than thenational injury rate (6.2 per 200,000 hours) [BLS 2004].

• The largest percentage (35%) of injury claims involves theupper extremity. Nearly 50% of injuries occur in the milkingparlor [Douphrate et al., 2009b].

• Ninety eight percent of large herd parlor workers areHispanic, and 85% report MSS in the previous 12 monthperiod.

Ergonomics Injuries

• Parlor milkers identify teat stimulation and cluster attachmentas the most difficult milking tasks.

• In addition, milkers report “having to work when injured orhurt” as the most problematic job feature of working in alarge herd parlor [Douphrate et al., 2011c].

• Our preliminary studies indicate industrialized parlor workersmay be exposed to extreme shoulder postures, high muscleforces, highly repetitive tasks, and insufficient periods of rest[Douphrate et al., 2011a, Douphrate et al., 2011b].

89

Respiratory Disease• Exposure to inhalable dust/endotoxin was associated with

inflammation and reduced pulmonary function among dairyworkers [Reynolds 2009, Burch 2009].

• Livestock (dairy) dusts contained two times higherconcentrations of Endotoxin/3 OHFAs than grain dusts.

• Mean inflammatory markers (nasal lavage) were 2 3 foldhigher among workers in the upper quartile of 3 OHFAexposure compared to the lowest exposure quartile.

• Ten percent of the population (total n = 174) had baselineFEV1 and FEV1/FVC below criteria used to clinically defineobstructive lung disease.

Effect of Pesticide Use re. Exposure and CrossShift FVC

Effect of TLR4 399 Gene Mutation re.Exposure and Cross Shift FVC

90

Effect of Work History re. Exposureand Cross Shift FVC

Enhanced Bioaerosol Exposure Assessent

• Molecular genetic methods (16sRNA, 454 Pyrosequencing) toidentify bacteria and GC MSMS analysis of 3OHFA, muramicacid, and ergosterol. (Nonnenmann 2010)

• More than 200 bacteria species recovered, 66 80% (Grampositive organisms).

• (Poole 2010) cell studies with endotoxin depleted dusts –found monocyte and epithelial IL 6 and IL 8 secretion werenot entirely dependent on endotoxin.

Dairy Milking Parlorbacteria/m3

276

179

160

48

4035353023221918181817141313131313

StaphylococcusClostridiumPseudomonasTuricibacterCorynebacteriumProteusAkkermansiaRuminococcusConchiformibiusEubacteriumFinegoldiaAlcaligenesPeptostreptococcusCaldilineaKluyveraRothiaMycobacterium

91

Regional Industry Needs Identified

• 2009 Regional Dairy Workshop• 2011 Dairy Advisory Board

Workshop and AdvisorsStatements re the Dairy Industry rank ordered:

Pre 2009 Workshop Post 2009 Workshop Pre 2011 Ad Bd

Worker health canimpact productionefficiency

4.58 Worker health canimpact productionefficiency

4.92 4.18

More expensive toreplace than maintainworkers

4.58 Safety issues canimprove productionefficiency

4.85 4.18

Comprehensiveapproach is desirable

4.50 Comprehensiveapproach is desirable

4.77 4.27

Safety issues canimprove productionefficiency

4.37 More expensive toreplace

4.46 4.36

Comprehensiveapproach could be costeffective

4.25 Comprehensiveapproach could becost effective

4.31 4.27

2009 Workshop and 2011 Advisory BoardConcerns rank ordered:

Pre 2009 Workshop Post 2009 Workshop

Ergonomics 3.65 Hired worker Training 4.00Hired workertraining

3.39 Sustainability 4.00

Infectious Disease 3.13 Cow Care 3.85Sustainability 3.00 Infectious Disease 3.23Cow Care 2.87 Ergonomics 2.85

Pre 2011 Advisory Post 2011 Advisory Board Mt.

Sustainability 3.56 Hired worker Training 3.91Hired workerTraining

3.44 Sustainability 3.64

Cow Care 3.22 Cow Care 3.09Infectious Disease 3.00 Ergonomics 2.73Ergonomics 2.67 Infectious Disease 2.00

92

Regional Dairy Workshop 2009 and other NeedsAssessment

• Dairy Owner/Managers 2009 HICAHS/SWAG Dairy Workshop– Critical issues that were identified included mental and emotional

health (of both workers and managers), infectious disease andsanitation, obesity and diabetes, chemical exposures, reproductivehealth, and preventive health/wellness.

• Salud Family Health Center informal survey– Dairy farmworkers were less likely to have a regular source of medical

care; more likely to see traditional healers; less likely to have seen adentist, medical care provider, or to have been to a hospital; less likelyto have health insurance and less likely to have received informationfrom their employers about medical or dental services than thevegetable farmworkers.

2011 Dairy Advisory Board HighlightsMajor themes: Immigration, communication,OSHA/regulatory compliance, managementskills, building further partnerships, fundingmodels.

Needs:Skills and tools for managers.

Inventory of programs, organizations orpartners, resources.Facilitate connections.

• Pilot: Evaluating the Presence of CTX M ESBLs in Colorado Dairy Workers – Goodridge

• Pilot: Dairy Aerosol Interventions in CO: Ventilation – Reynolds, Nonnenmann

• Pilot: Dairy Aerosol Interventions in TX: Flushing –Nonnenmann, Reynolds,

• Pilot: Full Shift Direct Measurement of Exposure to Muscle Forces Among Large Herd DairyParlor Workers Douphrate, Rosecrance

• Pilot: Full Shift Direct Measurement of Exposure to Upper Extremity Awkward PosturesAmong Large Herd Dairy Parlor Workers Douphrate, Rosecrance

• Pilot: Prevalence of Median Mono Neuropathy Across the Carpal Tunnel Among Large HerdDairy Parlor Workers Douphrate, Rosecrance

HICAHS Dairy Research & Outreach Response – Following Workshop

93

• Pilot: Seasonal and Migrant Farmworker Stress: Mental and PhysicalHealth Implications

• Pilot: Use of Pesticides and Other Chemicals on Colorado Dairy Farms

• Outreach: Investigation of an Escherichia Coli O111 Outbreak at a Staterun Correctional Facility Dairy Facility

• Outreach: OSHA Training Workshops, Lean Six Sigma, Training forManagers and Workers

HICAHS Dairy Research & Outreach Response – Following Workshop

HICAHS Products

• Translation/dissemination products• Journal articles• Newsletter articles

94

• Researchers: Represent Sweden, Finland, Germany, Italy, Canada, Australia, Brazileand New Zealand.

• Rationale: Dairy workers throughout the world are confronted with many of thesame challenging issues. It will be advantageous for investigators to collaborate(nationally and internationally) regarding successful injury and illness preventionstrategies, tested dissemination channels, and novel approaches used to improvethe health and safety of dairy workers globally. Leveraging of resources willaugment efforts lead to research with greater impact regionally, nationally, andinternationally.

• The consortium’s objective is to collaborate on research and outreach projects thatwill ultimately result in the reduction of injuries and illnesses among dairy workersinternationally.

• Several meetings of smaller groups to date. First formal meeting July 2011.

Proposed - 2011 - 2016 HICAHS International Dairy Research Consortium

95

US Dairy Production

David Douphrate

US Dairy Industry

96

2007 US Milk Production(million pounds)

>40,00010,001-25,000500-10,000<500Source: USDA,NASS

40,683 2,704

7,145

1,075

1,641

4,210

1,075

5,531

2,233

1,732

7,306

11,549 24,080

10,682

12,103

4,278

8,656

7,598

4,9801,917

1,144

2,151 1,2501,678

999

1,753

921

1,399

Source: USDA,FAS

US Dairy Industry

97

US Dairy Industry

US Dairy IndustryUS Milking Operations, 1998-2007

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 070

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500Large HerdSmall Herd (in thousands)

Large Herd(500+ head)

Small Herd(<500 head)

US Dairy IndustryUS Mega-Herd Milking Operations

(2000+ head)

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07

98

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

$20

$22

$24

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Year

Dollars per cWT

US Milk Prices2008: “Perfect Storm” Low demand/high supply

•New Zealand/Australia drought recovery•Melamine issue in China•Global recession•Decreased consumption•Price: ~$10 per 100 lbs•Cost: ~$15+ per 100 lbs

2007: Low supply/High demand•New Zealand/Australia drought•Price: ~$20 per 100 lbs•Cost: ~$15 per 100 lbs

ModernMilking

Milking in the US

THEN

NOW

99

Worforce

• Primarily Latino• Non-English speaking• Majority male

(Roman-Muniz, 2007;Douphrate et al, in prep)

Modern Milking

•Vulnerable workforce•High repetitions•High muscle loads•Awkward postures•Long work shifts•No rest breaks•Harsh environments•Dangerous animals

NIOSH Ag Centers

State Cooperative Extension

Producer Organizations

Industry Service Companies

International Research Consortium

100

Parlor Styles

Herringbone

Herringbone

101

Herringbone

Herringbone

Herringbone

102

Parallel

Milking Pit

Parallel

Rotary

103

Rotary

Rotary Video

Milking Tasks

•Pre-dip/spray•Strip/wipe•Attach-Parallel•Attach-Rotary•Detatch/post-dip

104

Research

Workers’ CompensationData Analysis

To identify costs, characteristics andcontributing factors associated with livestock

handling injuries through an analysis ofworkers’ compensation data

WC Analysis Results

Dairy Farms

Cattle/Livestock Raisers

Cattle Dealers

Total claims 988 2,168 1,265

Total LH claims 307 471 336

Overall injury rate* 9.39 (8.79-10.03)

8.35 (8.00-8.71)

10.32 (9.76-10.91)

*Injury claims per 100 Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) or 200,000 work hours

105

WC Analysis Results

• LH injuries: highest proportions among all injurycauses– 31% Dairy Farms– 22% Cattle/Livestock Raisers– 27% Cattle Dealers

• LH injuries represented the highest proportionsof high cost & high severity injuries in all threesectors

WC Analysis ResultsDairy Farms

Cattle/Livestock Raisers

Cattle Dealers

% male 88% 80% 92%

Mean age 32.2 yrs 34.7 yrs 36.8 yrs

Mean experience 2.4 yrs 2.5 yrs 3.1 yrs

% large operation 87% 57% 67%

Injury location 26.7% wrist,hand,fingers

17.4% wrist,hand,fingers

24.4% wrist,hand,fingers

Injury nature69.7%

contusions39.1%

contusions57.4%

contusions

WC Analysis Results

Dairy livestock handling injury claimsGender88% male

Age26.1% aged 16 2441.8% aged 25 3422.8% aged 35 44

Experience43.6% with 0 6 months experience

106

48% of LH claims in dairy parlor

WC Analysis Results

WC Analysis Results

• 47.9% while milking

• 21.2% kicked while milking

• 10.1% kicked while attaching cluster

• 8.1% stepped on while milking

• 14.0% injured while pushing cows

Injury Risk Analysis inLarge Herd Dairies

• Project includes:– Symptom surveys– Video analysis– Focus groups– Efficiency & productivity

107

•Finishing final year (4 yr study)•32 dairies (CO,SD,WY,UT,NM,TX)•456 surveys collected (target 444)•8 focus groups (target 9 12)•Video data of parlor tasks

Study Status

Survey Preliminary Results• n=403 • 357 male, 43 female• 98% Hispanic

• 40.7% kicked by cow

•Job related pain:• 49% feet• 41% upper back• 38% shoulder• 31% wrist• 29% low back• 24% neck• 23% knee• 21% hip• 19% elbow

Survey Preliminary Results(0 = no problem, 10 = major problem)

• Continuing to work when injured or hurt 7.5• Hot, cold, wet, humid conditions 7.1• Working at or near your physical limits 5.8• Bending or twisting back in awkward way 5.7• Working in same position for long periods 5.6• Reaching or working overhead or awayfrom body 5.2

• Carrying, lifting, or moving heavy materials orequipment 5.2

108

Prevalence of Carpal Tunnel SyndromeAmong Dairy Parlor Workers

• 66 parlor workers/58 non parlor workers• Structured interviews regarding hand symptoms• Nerve conduction studies• Case definition: presence of CTS symptoms & abnormalmedian mononeuropathy

• Prevalence of CTS among the dairy parlor workers: 16.6%and 3.6% among non parlor workers.

• Odds Ratio of 5.3 (1.1 25.5) (p<.05)

ErgonomicExposure

Assessment

ShoulderPosture & Movement

109

Methods: Inclinometry• Convenience sample n=9•Microstrain Virtual Corset

•Biaxial accelerometer with datalogging• 7.5 Hz sampling rate • Full-shift data collection• Bilateral shoulders & trunk• Amplitude Probability

Distribution Function (APDF)• Exposure Variation Analysis (EVA)

Exposure Outcome Relevance

*Intramuscular pressure increases in association with upper arm elevation, with hand load greatly enhancing IMP in both the supraspinatus and infraspinatus musculature (Palmerud, 2000)

*Upper arm flexion 45° 15% of time combined with forceful exertions or forceful pinch was found to be a significant risk factor for development of Rotator Cuff Syndrome (Silverstein, 2008)

College Student: 10.7% of shift 45° elevationDairy Worker: 37.8% of shift 45° elevation

Amplitude ProbabilityDistribution Function (APDF)

110

Female Dairy Worker

0 1s1 3s

3 5s> 5s

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

ShoulderElevation

Time in Posture

Percent Of

Workshift

Female College Student

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

PercentOf

Workshift

ShoulderElevation

Time in Posture

Results• Posture: extreme postures (>45° elevation) for28.1% (right) and 20.6% (left) of the totalworkday

• Movement: median angular velocity among allworkers was 28.7°s 1 and 26.9°s 1 (right & left)

• Repetition: Mean Power Frequency .73 Hz and.60 Hz (right & left)

• Rest: 12.2% (right) and 16.7% (left) ofworkshift in neutral posture and low velocity

(Douphrate, Fethke, Nonnenmann & Rosecrance, under review) 111

Comparison• car disassembly workers• house painters• car mechanics• machinists• hairdressers• hospital cleaners• dentists• poultry processing workers• air traffic controllers

Muscle Force

Electromyography (EMG)

• Full shift data collection• Anterior deltoid• Forearm flexors• Upper trapezius• Forearm extensors• n=10• APDF and EVA

112

0 1s1 3s

3 5s> 5s

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

Percent Of

Workshift

Duration of Contraction

% MVE

Male Dairy WorkerForearm Flexors

Male Dairy WorkerAnterior Deltoid (Shoulder Flexor)

0 1s1 3s

3 5s> 5s

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

%MVE

PercentOf

Workshift

Duration ofContraction

Exposure Outcome Relevance

Static Load (10 %tile) should not exceed 2% MVC and must not exceed 5% MVC

Mean (or median) (50 %tile) should not exceed 10% MVC and must not exceed 14% MVC

Peak loads (90 %tile) should not exceed 50% of MVC and must not exceed 70% of MVC

(Jonsson, 1978)

Anterior Deltoid Forearm Flexors

10th %tile 0.73% 1.35%

50th %tile 12.2% 17.2%

90th %tile 48.5% 57.8%113

Capacity BuildingThrough Partnerships

Stakeholder Partnership

Strategy

• Bilingual dairy vets & extension specialists• Incorporation of health and safety into:

– Process management– Operational performance– Efficiency and productivity– Dairy sustainability

114

Collaborations• 40+ dairy owners/managers CO,UT,ND,SD,TX,NM• John C. Rosecrance, PhD, PT, CPE CSU/HICAHS• Steve J. Reynolds, PhD, CIH CSU/HICAHS• Cecy Rosas Goulart, DVM CSU/Integrated Livestock Management• Noa Roman Muniz, DVM CSU/Dairy Ext Specialist• Matt Nonnenmann, PhD, CIH UTHSC Tyler, TX/Southwest Ag Center• Nathan Fethke, PhD, CPE Univ of Iowa/Heartland Ag Center• Peter W. Johnson, PhD, MS Univ of Washington/Pacific NW Ag Center• Christina Kolstrup, PhD Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences• Stefan Pinzke, PhD Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences• Marianne Stål, PhD Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences• Peter Lundqvist, PhD Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences• Allen Young, PhD Utah State Univ/Dairy Ext Specialist• Alvaro Garcia, PhD South Dakota St Univ/Dairy Ext Specialist• JW Schroeder, PhD North Dakota St Univ/Dairy Ext Specialist• Chris Mondak, DVM Iowa St Univ/Dairy Ext Specialist• Ralph Bruno, DVM Texas A&M Univ/Dairy Ext Specialist• Juan Rodgrigo Pedraza, DVM Pfizer Inc.• Wyatt Smith, PhD DeLaval

Challenges

• Initial access• Return access• Language barriers• Worker trust• Owner trust• Dairy variability• Down market• Ag Center Funding

Future Activities• Inervention analysis

– Parlor style configuration– Lightweight milking cluster– Milking tool

• New technology– Full shift EMG– Full shift motion analysis using inertialmeasurement units (IMUs) with micromachinedaccelerometers, gyroscopes and magnetometers

115

Questions?

Major Large Herd States (2007)& 10 year % change

Source: USDA,NASS

1,1005%

6530%

2000%

353,500%

1800%

1308%

4033%

4060%

16033%

20054%

250400%

60500%

18080%

50900%

80300%

105200%

50400%

101,000%

202,000%

101,000%

300%

13 13%7 30%

50150%

Impact

• Strategic partnerships– 40+ industrial dairies in 7 states– Dairy extension specialists in 7 states– 15 dairy service companies– 3 dairy equipment manufacturers– International research collaboration

116

LivestockManureInitiative

Or “what are we going to do with all this organic material?”

We are intending to explore… Can manure application equipment be modified to employ variable rate application technology?

Where should manure be applied?

Will new-design application technologies protect fragile ecosystems…e.g. where do manure-borne nutrients migrate to??

We already know….Manure application practices are going to have to changeNutrient management plans are requiredApplication documentation is requiredPublic health issues (odour and fly control) must be addressedWet-cycle water movement is different from dry-cycle water movement

117

And, we also know:Value-added must be the way of the futureLivestock industries are encouraged which consume high plains feed stuffs and retain earnings for high plains farmers, ranchers, and feed supply dealersThe technological components exist – but need to be integrated into systems that producers can efficiently useSeveral equipment manufacturers will be involved (and could be future partners)Custom feedlot manure handling and manure lagoon cleanout represents another viable vertical spin-off

This initiative involves…Design and field testing of new slurry manure injection technologiesSpreader technology development for dry livestock wasteResolution of the agronomic issue: where should livestock manure be used?Use of “answer farms” as partners for field testing and evaluation of all technologies

Our Slurry Manure InitiativeFocus is on towed hose systemsProducer focus groups provided basic specificationsNew injection technology designed that capitalizes upon precision agriculture technologies (variable rate injection, real-time flow process control, partial tool-width injection, pre-processing of slurry, on-the-go nutrient sensing, and “as-applied” map generation, Fabrication of prototype injection tool bar and software/firmware interface underwaySwine and dairy answer farm enrollment completed

118

Other considerations…Tractor hydraulic requirementsTractor cab console requirementsTowed 1,000 gallon slurry tank requirementsWheel compaction issuesStrip tillage potential?Combined injection/seed tool functions?

In early fall, 2011, the fabricated injection tool bar will be field tested on the LRSC farm (soil flow tillage characteristics, opener function, injection shank impact/shatter, furrow closure, distribution manifold(s) functionality, hydraulic function, electro-hydraulic function, sensor function, on-board controller function, and roadway lighting and clearance)

In mid-fall of 2011 40-acre field tests of injection tool bar will be conducted to assess operational performance under real-time conditions (field speed functionality, hose coupling and drag hose performance, stubble clearance between shanks and shank to tool bar frame, spillage, stop/go functionality, shank horsepower requirements, etc.)

119

In spring/summer of 2012 assess nitrogen, phosphorous, and antimicrobial movement within and across soil profiles within target fieldsComplete field test of completed slurry injection tool, including initial version of on-the-go nitrogen sensorIn late 2012, write two research reports

120

Culture-IndependentCharacterization of Bacteria in

Poultry and Dairy Bioaerosols: A New Approach

Matthew W. Nonnenmann Ph.D., CIHJuly 10th, 2011

HICAHSFort Collins, CO

Background

Workers in agriculture are exposed to various dusts and bioaerosols.

Inhalation exposure to bacteria has may contribute to respiratory disease such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis, asthma and allergic respiratory disease among agricultural workers (Douwes, 2003).

Background

Culture-based methods are often used for characterization of bioaerosols [Lee 2006; Clark 1983]

Limitations exist with culture-based methods as only microorganisms which are viable and able to grow on selected media can be characterized. [Torsvik 1996, 1998; DeLong 2001]

121

BackgroundA need exists to develop methodologies which are not subject to the limitations of culture-based characterization.

Molecular techniques such as polymerase chain reaction which use gene targets (16s) [Oppliger 2008].– Target specific (e.g., staphylococcus)

Identifying non-target specific molecular techniques for the characterization of bioaerosols would be useful.

BackgroundA new approach has emerged which allows for massive sequencing of DNA – Pyrosequencing [Margulies 2005; Nonnenmann 2010]

Developed to classify microorganisms in complex environments [Dowd 2008]– 16S is a component of the 30S subunit of prokaryotic

(eukaryotic) ribosome– The gene is highly conserved and is used for

phylogenetic studies of bacteria [Clarridge 2004; Liu 2010]

SignificancePyrosequencing (bTEFAP) is a fast and cost effective way to study microbiome when compared to traditional culture-based methods.

Pyrosequencing offers identification of bacteria in the sample with a very high level of precision ( 95%) as well as being able to describe the genera and species of bacteria as percentages and the number of sequences found

122

Objective

Demonstrate the utility of pyrosequencing technology to characterize and estimate concentrations of bacteria in the inhalable fraction of bioaerosols in dairy and poultry environment.

MethodsbTEFAP was used to characterize inhalable bioaerosols present in poultry and dairy facilities over an eight-hour work shift.

Samples were collected using inhalable samplers at both at both 2 and 4 L/min using a gelatin filter.

Personal sampling was conducted at the dairy parlor and area sampling was conducted at the poultry facility.

Bacterial samples were sent to Research and Testing Laboratory in Lubbock, TX for pyrosequencing.

123

Sample AnalysisTo identify bacteria:– Sequences were queried using a distributed Basic Local

Alignment Search Tool (BLASTn) .NET algorithm against a database of high quality 16s bacterial ribosomal DNA sequences derived from the National Center for Biological Information database.

The relative percentages of bacteria present in each sample were reported.

124

ResultsOf the bacteria detected, 369 groups of bacteria were identified.

Preliminary results suggest varying distributions of bacteria among inhalable samples collected in poultry and dairy facilities.

Bacteria identified in the poultry facility: Staphylococcus (43.5%), Fracklamia (4%).

Bacteria identified in the poultry facility: Staphylococcus cohnii (23%), Staphylococcaceae(14%).

Staphylococcus sp, 43.5

Facklamia sp, 4.4

Lactobacillus aviarius, 1.2

Lactobacillus sp, 3.4

Ruminococcaceae (family), 1.2

Yaniella , 2.4

Clostridiales (family), 1.3

Bacillales (order), 2.3

Lachnospiraceae (family), 1.4

Bacillales (family), 2.1

Ruminococcus sp, 1.5

Salinicoccus sp, 2.1

Lactobacillus johnsonii, 1.5

Clostridium sp, 2.1

Brachybacterium, 1.8

Staphylococcus nepalensis, 1.7

Lactobacillus gallinarum, 1.6

Bacillaceae (family), 1.6

Brevibacterium sp, 1.5

Porphyromonadaceae (family), 1.0

Percent Distribution of Bacteria of Dairy Bioaerosol

Staphylococcus cohnii, 23%

Lactobacillus (genus), 1%

Staphylococcaceae (family), 14%

Staphylococcus (genus), 1%Bacillales (order), 7%

Jeotgalicoccus (genus), 1%

Lactobacillus crispatus, 7%

Brevibacterium (genus), 1%

Clostridiales (order), 6%

Staphylococcus arlettae, 3%

Lactobacillus johnsonii, 3%

Dermabacteraceae (family), 2%

Brevibacteriaceae (family), 2%

Yaniella (genus), 2%

Ruminococcaceae (family), 2%

Lactobacillus reuteri, 2%

Bacillaceae (family), 1%

Lachnospiraceae (family), 1%

Clostridiaceae (family), 1%

Percent Distribution of Bacteria of Broiler Chicken Bioaerosol

125

Broiler Chicken Bacteria Concentrations

Bacteria (Genus) Cells/m3

Staphylococcus 2187Salinicoccus 1452

Lactobacillus 1130Ruminococcus 277Brevibacterium 269

Clostridium 247Roseburia 211

Brachybacterium 194Yanniella 181

Jeotgalicoccus 135Nocdaripsis 105

Faecalibacterium 92Turcibacter 90

Enterococcus 74Other 697Total Cells 7503

ConclusionConcentrations of bacteria were lower than previously reported and may not be viable.

However, this is the first application of this sequencing technology for the characterization of bioaerosols.

Furthermore, the fast processing speed of molecular techniques may revolutionize the ability to identify the distribution and concentration of bioaerosols.

The impact of this technology has yet to be realized by the scientific community dedicated to evaluating occupational and environmental bioaerosol exposure.

Questions?

126

Shelley KirychukJohn R. Gordon

Canadian Centre for Health & Safety in Agriculture (CCHSA), University of Saskatchewan

http://www.cchsa-ccssma.usask.ca/

Four Competencies• Agricultural: specific to farmers, their families, workers and

others involved in agricultural production. Areas include injury prevention, health effects of dust, chemicals and other hazards.

• Rural: the health of rural and remote persons and communities.Includes acute and chronic health issues, particularlyrespiratory issues and dementia

• Environmental: air and water. Includes pesticide exposure,ecosystem health, as well as risk assessment.

• Occupational Health: Health and safety issues of workers inagriculture and other rural based industries. Includes physical,chemical, biologic, and ergonomic exposures

Research for Rural HealthResearch for Rural HealthCanadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculturehttp://www.cchsa-ccssma.usask.ca/Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculturehttp://www.cchsa-ccssma.usask.ca/

CCHSA is engaged in:

Service, Education, Prevention, And Research activities

Agricultural InjurySurveillance Program

(Gov’t and non-gov’t organizations,Health research funding)

From knowledge to action- application

- policy development

Stress of the Farm, Sleepless in Saskatchewan,

H1N1 for ProducersCdn Dust Limits in Grain.

CCHSA – 25 yr, 6/11

CCHSA’s National Training Program

CCHSA: full cycle service to research to practice

CCHSA National Research Network- what we breathe- what we eat & drink- how we work- how we live

Ag Health & Safety Network

Extension


127

Research for Rural HealthResearch for Rural Health

VISION: to improve health and safety on the farm through education, service and evaluation research.

CCHSA’s Ag Health & Safety Network

SaskatchewanAgricultureand Food

The Network 2011203 RMs &

>29,000 farm families

CCHSA – 25 yr, 6/11

Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculturehttp://www.cchsa-ccssma.usask.ca/Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in Agriculturehttp://www.cchsa-ccssma.usask.ca/

- Respiratory/Hearing Health & Wellness Clinics- Low Stress Cattle Handling Workshops, etc- Sleepless in Saskatchewan DVD launch- Health Works column, CTV’s Farm Gate

- Saskatchewan Farm Injury Project- SARM 90th Anniversary Scholarship- Annual Info. Pkg to 29,000 farm families- Website resource library (29,000 hits annually)

Research for Rural HealthResearch for Rural Health

CCHSA Research

CCHSA Saskatoon

-8 faculty (MD, PhD, RN/PhD)

- 33 staff (RN, MSc, BSc)- 16 trainees (MSc, PhD, PDF)

- Occupational Medicine- Environmental Hygienc- Environmenal Epidemiology- Biostatistics- Respiratory Medicine- Mental Health - Respiratory immunology- Ergonomics

CCHSA National Research Network

- Environmental Hygienc/Toxicol- Environmenal Epidemiology- Evironmental Engineering- Respiratory Medicine/Health- Mental Health - Rural health (social, mental)- Basic & applied biology

65 faculty (MD, PhD, RN/PhD)

- what we breathe- what we eat & drink

- how we work- how we live

- how our environment affects us- how we live in our environment


Linkages between the College of Medicine, College of Nursing, College of Veterinary Medicine, College of Engineering, College of Arts & Sciences, VIDO, etc, have all been, and continue to be integral to our research success

The CCHSA National Research Network“The Centre for Research Development” (2003 - 2010)

Prince Edward Island Dalhousie Universitˇ du Quˇbec Chicoutimi Universitˇ Laval QueenÕs University University of Ottawa University of Guelph University of Saskatchewan University of Regina First Nations University of Canada University of Alberta University of British Columbia University of N. British Columbia University of Toronto

University of Calgary WesternUniversity National Hydrology Research Centre Statistics Canada Monash University National Inst. of Environ. Health Colorado State Inst recherche et dˇvel e n agroenviro.Prairie Swine Centre Inc Kumamoto University International Labour Organization Kiev University Poland

128

The CCHSA PHARE* Training Program (2003-’09; 2009-’15*; $345K/yr, plus matching funds)

- Developing a critical mass of skilled trans-disciplinary investigators who have a focus on agricultural- and rural-related issues, utilizing the best of available resources nationally and internationally

*Public Health and the Agricultural-Rural Ecosystem

The Rural Wellness CentreThe Rural Wellness Centre

CCHSA National Agricultural-Industrial Hygiene Laboratory (NAIHL)

- artist’s rendition -

(CFI-UofS matching funds, $15.2M*)

CCHSA National Laboratory(Ground Floor, HSc E wing,University of Saskatchewan)

*Includes facility upgrades atQueens, Laval and Dalhousie


CCHSA NAIHL Lab(to be commissioned in 2012-13)

Rural Health Lab (six academic centres) - dedicated to health services, social issues, and stress;

Environmental Epidemiology (three academic, one government centre),

CCHSA Nat’l LabGround Floor, HSc E wing

State-of-the-art:Respiratory Exposures Labs (four academic centres)

- endotoxin, controlled exposures, and pulmonary function in various rural working sectors; Environmental Health Labs (five academic centres)

- water quality, environmental infections, enhancement and protective agents, and genetics;

Occupational Hygiene Labs (three academic, one industrial and one government centre)- occupational hygiene, hearing conservation, vibration, and ergonomics;

Injury Control Labs (two academic centres)- injury epidemiology and prevention;

Commercialization (academic and private sector), Knowledge Translation (multiple academic centres, CASA)Tele-transmission (13 academic centres) Labs.

CCHSA – 25 yr, 6/11

129

www.dairyinfo.gc.ca


The Canadian Dairy Industry

Dairy Barns by Type


www.dairyinfo.gc.ca

Proportion of dairy barns by type across Canada


www.dairyinfo.gc.ca

130

Average Volume of Milk Produced Per Farm in Canada (1991-2010)


www.dairyinfo.gc.ca

Dairy Farming in Canada(net farm receipts)

- In 2010, dairy production in Canada generated total net farm receipts of $5.5 billion and generated sales of $13.7 billion, representing 15% of the Canadian food and beverage sector.

- The dairy industry ranks third in the Canadian agricultural sector following grains, and red meats.


www.dairyinfo.gc.ca

Dairy Farming in Canada

- About 81% of Canadian dairy farms are located in Ontario and Quebec, 13% in the Western provinces and 6% in the Atlantic Provinces.

- There are 455 milk processing plants (274 federally-inspected) contributing to more than 22,650 jobs across Canada.

- The Canadian dairy cattle population totals 1.4 million. Based on milk recording records, the typical Canadian dairy farm has 72 cows.

- The Canadian dairy sector operates under a supply management system based on planned domestic production, administered pricing and dairy product import controls.


www.dairyinfo.gc.ca

131

CCHSA’s Livestock-related research

The majority of CCHSA’s research to-date has focused on: - swine and poultry workers and operations- environmental exposures levels (dusts, proteins,

inflammatory potential)- worker’s respiratory responses- little work to-date in the dairy industry


(Some work on controlling mastitis inflammation in dairy cows – neutrophil chemokine antagonism)

Swine Research• Saskatchewan swine

workers:– Greater annual

decline in lung function of swine workers as compared to grain farmers and non-farming control subjects

– Across-shift change in lung function was a strong indicator of predicted annual decline in lung function Kirychuk et al Can Resp J, 5: 472-478, 1998


Impact of the Hierarchy of Control: Engineering vs PPE


132

PPE: the impact of masking


A Comparison: Engineering vs PPE

• Use of oil stillresults in somerespiratorychanges over afive-hour period

• Use of a maskresulted in littlechange over thefive-hour period

-9.9

-1.9

0.32

-8.12

-12

-10

-8

-6

-4

-2

0

2

No Oil Oil Mask NoMask

% C

hang

e in

FEV

1

Dosman et al, Chest 118: 852-860, 2000


New Workers

• New generation of swine workers, some appear tobe develop an occupational “like” asthma withinmonths of beginning work (Dosman et al, 2006, 2004)

– ? a relationship to prior history of farmexposures

– Following new workers over 1-year• Assessing allergic and inflammatory status• Assessing PEF


133

The Chicken or the Egg?


Current and Chronic Symptoms

2117 13

36 39

26

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cough Phlegm SOB

% re

port

ing

curr

ent s

ympt

om

Floor Cage

p=0.02

Kirychuk, 2006, JOEM

9 12 156

40

16

0

20

40

60

80

100

Cough Phlegm Wheeze

% re

porti

ng c

hron

ic s

ympt

om

Floor Cage

p=0.002


Total Dust and Endotoxin Levels

7.57

9.56

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Tota

l Dus

t (m

g/m

3 )

p=0.01

1291.471106.40

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

Endo

toxi

n C

once

ntra

tion

(EU

/mg)

Kirychuk, 2006, JOEM

CagedFloor 134

Environmental Measures

All Stages

Non respirable (stages 3 & 4)Non respirable (stages 3 & 4)

Respirable (stages 5-8)

Staged

Total

Stage 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8Cut-off diameter, μm 21.3 14.8 9.81 6.00 3.50 1.55 0.93 0.52

Non-respirable Respirable


Respirable vs. Non-respirable Dust

0.37 mg0.23 mg

1.74 mg

0.62 mg

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

Caged Floor Caged Floor

Non-Respirable Respirablep<0.001 p=0.01

CagedFloor


Respirable vs. non-respirable dusts: Endotoxin Load

331.13 EU/mg

704.37 EU/mg

585.64 EU/mg

982.99 EU/mg

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400 Non-Respirable Respirable

p<0.007 p<0.005

CagedFloor


135

Characterizing animal confinement facility dusts and assessment of their impact on the respiratory tract – S. Kirychuk and J. Gordon

Lymphocytes

Monocytes

Neutrophils

Eosinophils

Dust mass (μg/ml)

106

104

102

0

400

40.0 4.0

0.4

0.04

No.

BA

L C

ELLS

(+/-

SEM

)

PMN, 1% of WBC

- Identify components of dust (mass spec)- Assess their individual impact on respiratory health- Characterize inflammatory response (chronic)


Schema for characterizing the bioactive components within swine (x3), poultry, grain, and house dusts

Barn DustExtracts to FPLC

FPL

C c

olum

n

Bioassay (in vitro) (resp. epithel. cell/PBL monocyte)

Bioplex: IL-1, IL-6, IL-8, TNF, chemokines…

1 or 2D PAGE

FPLC fractions

OD206

- Mass spec ID of components- In vivo bioassay (mice)

Bio-activefractions

Fraction collector

SummaryCCHSA is open for collaboration

Expertise we can bring to the table:- assess impact of exposures on worker’s health- physical characterization of organic dusts

(PAGE, MS, LPS/LTA contents)- ID bioactive components and characterize role(s)

in worker’s pathologies (in vitro & in vivo bioassay)- translation of outcomes to action (KT)

- best practice approachesworkshops, etc

- policy shifts, as appropriate


136

SummaryCCHSA is open for collaboration

What we can bring to the table:- assess impact of exposures on worker’s health- physical characterization of organic dusts

(PAGE, MS, LPS/LTA contents)


- ID bioactive components and characterize role(s) in worker’s pathologies (in vitro & in vivo bioassay)

- translation of outcomes to action (KT)- best practice approaches

workshops, etc- policy shifts (Internat’l symposia consensus)

137

Contact List

2011 HICAHS International


Colorado State University

138

HICAHS International Dairy Research Consortium

Contact Information

to email the entire list of International Dairy researchers:

[email protected]

Ralph Bruno *

Credential(s) DVM, MPVM Dr. Bruno has been working in the area of reproduction, nutrition, dairy herd health and management, epidemiology, milk quality and data record analysis. He works both individually and as a team member in planning, executing and evaluating result demonstration tours, field days and seminars.

His research focuses on integrating nutrition, reproduction and animal health. Special emphasis is on designing strategies to maximize profitability and sustainability of dairy operation.

Title Extension Associate – Dairy Specialist

Organization Texas AgriLife Extension

University West Texas A&M University

email [email protected]

Phone Phone: (806) 651-2620

Fax: (806) 651-250

Mailing Address Texas AgriLife Extension Associate

WTAMU Box 60998

Canyon, TX 79016

U.S.A.

website http://texasdairymatters.org

Claudio Colosio

Credential(s) MD, PhD I am the director of the Centre, which is a WHO Collaborating Centre on Occupational Health specialized in Agriculture.

We are cxonducting a pilot project that addresses how to create basic occupational health services (BOHSs) in agriculture. In this frame, we are collecting epidemiological data coming from our health surveillance activities.

Our main research interests are chemical risk in agriculture, with a particular attention to pesticides, and biological risk. Key words: creating new tools for risk.

Title

Organization Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, san Paolo Hospital Unit

& International Centre for Rural Health, University Hospital san Paolo, Milan.

University University of Milan


Phone Phone: + 39 02 81843465

Fax. + 39 02 49538671

Mobile: + 39 340 1122183

Mailing Address Via San Vigilio 43 20142 Milan ITALY

website www.unimi.it

139


http://texasdairymatters.org/

http://www.unimi.it/

Marcos Domingos da Silva

Credential(s) MS, COH I have spent most of my professional life in industrial hygiene, but not in agricultural areas. It is not a big issue in Brazil.

It is time to help millions of workers who are suffereing on farms.

Title

Organization Dovlos Ambiental (Industrial Hygiene Consultation)

University


Phone 55-11-3875-2236 (home)

Mailing Address Rua dos Caetés,

707 cj 41

Sau Paulo - SP

BRAZIL

website N/A

John Gordon

Credential(s) PhD My primary research focus is on the immunopathology of living inflammatory responses and characterization of complex mixes of compounds (e.g. organic dusts).

Title Director

Organization Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in

Agriculture

University University of Saskatchewan


Phone Phone: 306-966-8286

Fax: 306-966-8799

Mailing Address PO Box 120

Saskatoon, SK S7N OW8

CANADA

website http://www.cchsa-ccssma.usask.ca/

140


Paul Jarvie

Credential(s) Dip OH&S Management, Dip Occupational Health Practice, Qualified Physiotherapist, studied ergonomics.

My role is to advocate for and behalf of employers. I sit on a National advisory committee advising our Ministers of Labour and Accident Compensation on OH&S Matters. I regularly sit on government department committees on all matter pertaining to OH&S and the workplace.

I manage the New Zealand Institute of Safety management and chair the Occupational Health and Safety Industry Group, an OH&S forum.

Title Manager OH&S Organization Employers and Manufacturers Association University N/A email [email protected] Phone Mobile 027 4949 628

Wk 0064 09 367 0963 Mailing Address EMA(N) Private Bag 9206, Auckland,

NEW ZEALAND website N/A

Matt Keifer

Credential(s) MD, MPH As a senior scientist at the National Farm Medicine Center, I am responsible for developing and conducting research on agricultural health and safety. My initial focus will be on safety in the Wisconsin dairy industry.

Title Dean Emanuel Endowed Chair

Organization Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation National Farm Medicine Center

University N/A


Phone 715-389-3794 715-897-3170

Mailing Address 1000 N. Oak Ave. ML-1 Marshfield, WI 54449 U.S.A.

website N/A

Shelley Kirychuk

Credential(s) BSN, MSc, MBA, PhD Dr. Kirychuk is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Medicine and an associate member of the School of Public Health. Her teaching and research interests relate to occupational, environmental and respiratory health.

Title Assistant Professor Organization Canadian Centre for Health and Safety in

Agriculture - CCHSA University University of Saskatchewan email [email protected] Phone Work: (306) 966-6649

Fax: (306) 966-8799 Mailing Address Royal University Hospital

103 Hospital Drive Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, CANADA S7N 0W8

website http://www.cchsa-ccssma.usask.ca/

141


Lotta Löfqvist *

Credential(s) PhD Candidate

Title Student Organization Department of Work Science, Business Economics

& Environmental Psychology

University Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences

email [email protected] Phone 0046-40415491 Mailing Address P.O. Box 88

SE-23053 Alnarp

SWEDEN

website http://www.slu.se/aem

Peter Lundqvist*

Credential(s)

Title Professor and Head of Department Organization Department of Work Science, Business Economics

& Environmental Psychology University Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences email [email protected] Phone 0046-40415495 Mailing Address P.O. Box 88

SE-23053 Alnarp SWEDEN


Christina Lunner Kolstrup *

Credential(s) PhD

Title Researcher Organization Department of Work Science, Business Economics


SE-23053 Alnarp SWEDEN


142

http://www.slu.se/aem



Teresa Marras

Credential(s) My service controls health and safety in every workplace, giving prescriptions to eliminate risks for workers in order to prevent accidents and occupational illnesses.

In the dairy industry we researched musculo-skeletal disorders of the upper limbs due to mechanical overload among sheep breeders and in workers of cheese production.

Title Director

Organization Occupational Health Service of Sassari

(Sardinia, Italy)

Department of Prevention

National Health Service

University N/A


Phone +39 079 2062882

Mailing Address SPRESAL-ASL SASSARI

Via Rizzeddu 21B

07100 Sassari

ITALY

website http://www.aslsassari.it/

Lelia Murgia

Credential(s) Professor of Agricultural Mechanics, her teaching activity includes: Energy applied to rural systems, Mechanization of animal farms, and Agro-food industries engineering for graduate and postgraduate programs in Agricultural Systems and Animal Science & Food Technology. Her research focuses on the mechanization of dairy farms (cows, sheep, goats, buffalo), mechanical milking (construction norms, mechanical performances, effect of vacuum level, milking routine, animal well-being), quality and efficiency of milk production. She is also involved in ergonomic analysis of work methods in dairy farms and cheese factories and energy analysis and balance of processes in agricultural and agro-industrial systems (milk production, cheese production).

Title Associate Professor of Agricultural Mechanics

Organization DIPARTIMENTO INGEGNERIA DEL TERRITORIO

(Department of Territorial Engineering –Section of

Mechanization and Plant engineering)

University UNIVERSITA’ DI SASSARI

(University of Sassari, Italy)


Phone +39 079 229284 office

+39 329 4208924 cell phone

Mailing Address Viale Italia 39

07100 Sassari

ITALY

website http://www.uniss.it/


143

http://www.aslsassari.it/

http://www.uniss.it/


Matt Nonnenmann

Credential(s) MS, PhD, CIH I am an Industrial Hygienist/Ergonomist. I’m interested in working with agricultural producers to develop solutions to occupational exposures present in the agricultural work environment.

Title Deputy Director Organization NIOSH Southwest Center for Ag Health,

Injury Prevention, and Education University University of Texas email [email protected] Phone 319-325-8051 (cell) Mailing Address 11937 US Highway 271

Tyler, TX 75708 U.S.A.

website N/A

Stefan Pinzke *

Credential(s)

Title Associate Professor Organization Department of Work Science, Business Economics


SE-23053 Alnarp

SWEDEN website http://www.slu.se/aem

Sue Reed

Credential(s) BSc(UNSW), MEngSc(UNSW), MSc (Lond), PhD (UWS), CIH, COH, FAIOH,MAAS, FSIA

Sue has led a number of research projects in relation to workers exposures to a range of hazards funded by the Rural Industries Research Development Corporation (RIRDC), WorkCover NSW and NSW Environmental Protection Agency on agricultural workers exposures to dusts and bioaerosols, OHS of Hairdressers and noise in the general environment.

As a certified occupational hygienist, she has undertaken a number of studies that involve the monitoring of air quality including dust levels for both inspirable and respirable dust levels. She has authored or co-authored over 40 papers and conference presentations.

Title Associate Professor/Dr

Organization School of Natural Sciences, University of Western Sydney

& Reed OHE Pty Ltd

University University of Western Sydney

email [email protected]/

[email protected]

Phone +61 245 701 492

+61 418 216 325

Mailing Address PO Box 669

Springwood NSW 2777

AUSTRALIA

website http://www.uws.edu.au/natural_sciences/sns/academic_staff_profiles/doctor_sue_reed /

http://www.reedohe.com.au

*Participating Remotely (video-conferencing)

144


mailto:[email protected]/


http://www.uws.edu.au/natural_sciences/sns/academic_staff_profiles/doctor_sue_reed%20/

http://www.uws.edu.au/natural_sciences/sns/academic_staff_profiles/doctor_sue_reed%20/

http://www.reedohe.com.au/

HICAHS Staff Contact Information

email all: [email protected]

Twitter: HICAHS

HICAHS Director: Steve Reynolds

HICAHS Deputy Director: Vicky Buchan (ending Sept. 2011)

HICAHS Deputy Director: Lorann Stallones

(beginning Sept. 2011)

HICAHS Coordinator: Allison De Vries

Names written in orange are of HICAHS Staff who attended the 2011 HICAHS International Dairy Research Consortium.

Paul Ayers HICAHS Researcher University of Tennessee, Knoxville

865-974-4942

[email protected]

Cheryl Beseler* HICAHS Researcher

Colorado State University Department of Psychology

Mailing Address: Campus Delivery 1879 Fort Collins, CO 80523-1879

970-491-3653 office

[email protected]

Mary Bradford HICAHS Research Associate

Colorado State University College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences


[email protected]

Vicky Buchan* HICAHS Deputy Director (ending Sept 2011)

HICAHS Director of Education & Translation Core (beginning Sept 2011)

HICAHS Co-Director of Evaluation Program (beginning Sept 2011)

Colorado State University School of Social Work


970-491-5211

[email protected]

Maggie Davidson HICAHS Post-Doctoral Fellow



970-491-5090

[email protected]

145







Kristin Danhoff Graduate Research Assistant to Vicky Buchan Social Work Doctorate Candidate



970-491-2088

[email protected]

Allison De Vries* HICAHS Coordinator



970-491-6152

[email protected]

David I. Douphrate* HICAHS Researcher HICAHS Director of Prevention/Intervention Core (beginning Sept 2011)

University of Texas School of Public Health San Antonio Regional Campus

Mailing Address: 8550 Datapoint, Suite 200 San Antonio, TX 78229

210-562-5505 office 210-562-5528 fax

[email protected]

David Gilkey HICAHS Associate



970-491-7138

[email protected]

Lawrence (Larry) Goodridge* HICAHS Researcher

HICAHS Co-Director of Research Core (beginning Sept 2011)

Colorado State University College of Agricultural Sciences


970-491-6271

[email protected]

Paul Gunderson* (participating remotely) HICAHS Associate Director, Dakota Center for Technology Optimized Agriculture

Mailing Address: Lake Region State College 1801 North College Drive Devils Lake, ND 58301

701-662-1652 701-662-1570 fax 1-800-443-1313 ext. 1652

[email protected]

146







William Hanneman HICAHS Researcher



970-491-5652

[email protected]

Chuck Henry HICAHS Researcher

Colorado State University Department of Chemistry


970-491-2852

[email protected]

Dennis Lamm* HICAHS Associate Agriculture Extension Education Director Colorado State University


970-491-2074

[email protected]

John Mehaffy HICAHS Research Associate



970-491-6636

[email protected]

Diana Perez Graduate Research Assistant to Vicky Buchan Master of Social Work Candidate Colorado State University School of Social Work


970-491-1912

[email protected]

Louise Quijano*

HICAHS Researcher

HICAHS Co-Director of Evaluation Program (beginning Sept 2011)



970-491-7448

[email protected]

147







Stephen Reynolds* HICAHS Director

HICAHS Co-Director of Research Core (Sept 2011)



970-491-3141 [email protected]

John Rosecrance*

HICAHS Researcher



970-491-1405

[email protected]

Bob Seiz HICAHS Associate



970-491-4810

[email protected]

* These HICAHS Staff are involved in dairy projects.

Lorann Stallones* HICAHS Deputy Director (beginning Sept 2011) HICAHS Co-Director of Outreach Program (beginning Sept 2011)

Colorado State University Department of Psychology


970-491-6156

[email protected]

John Volckens HICAHS Director of Pilot Programs (beginning Sept 2011)



970-491-6341

[email protected]

STUDENTS:

Emily Matthews

Anthony Mixco

Rob Paulson

Pamela Rosecrance

Natalie Schwatka

148






Table of Contents - College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical ...

Documents

Transcript of Table of Contents - College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical ...