Ergonomic Evaluation of Different Paddy Threshing Methods in Meghalaya

DOI : 10.5958/2349-4433.2024.00094.8 J Krishi Vigyan 2024, 12(3) : 521-530 Ergonomic Evaluation of Different Paddy Threshing Methods in Meghalaya Hijam Jiten Singh1, Govinda Pal2, H Dayananda Singh1, Nivetina Laitonjam1, Sougrakpam Roma Devi3, Laishram Kanta Singh*4, Lydia Zimik4 and Asem Ameeta Devi5 ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region Umiam-793103, Meghalaya (India) ABSTRACT Paddy threshing is an essential part of harvesting in paddy production in which farm machinery plays a crucial role for efficient threshing, reduced threshing losses and improved threshing capacity. Traditionally, farmers often thresh paddy by hand beating using a stick, or hitting a punch of harvested paddy on a wooden log followed by hand beating with a locally evolved hand tool. In this study, three different paddy threshing methods, including conventional hand beating, cycle-type pedal-operated thresher, and foot-type pedal-operated thresher, were subjected to ergonomic measures such heart rate (HR), energy expenditure rate and overall discomfort rating (ODR). It was observed that energy demand and ODR are significantly high (P<0.05) in farmers in the case of conventional hand-beating paddy threshing method than in paddy threshing by cycle-type pedal-operated thresher, and foot-type pedal-operated thresher. It was noticed that mean working EER, mean energy expenditure, and mean working ODR decreased by 19.69 and 15.15 percent, by 38.72 percent and 26.66 percent, and by 50 and 34.37 percent in case of paddy threshing by cycle-type and foot-type paddy thresher respectively as compared to hand-beating paddy threshing method with a significance level of P<0.05. The results suggested that cycletype and foot-type paddy thresher gave better performance from ergonomics perspective as compared to traditional hand-beating method. Key Words: Energy expenditure, Ergonomics, Heart rate, Paddy, Threshing. INTRODUCTION Rice crop production costs are rising drastically due to higher daily wages and greater demand for labour in paddy cultivation and postharvesting (Devi et al, 2020). Moreover, modern agriculture is heavily dependent on farm mechanization. The availability of farm electricity and effective farming equipment, as well as their economic use, determine farm productivity. Agricultural mechanization makes it possible to use various inputs like seeds, fertilizer, plant protection measures, and effective irrigation systems efficiently. It also aids in improving agricultural production, which boosts agricultural output and boosts the economy of many farmers by making farming a lucrative business (Kanta and Devi, 2017). However, the level of farm mechanization is extremely low in northeast India. Factors such as hilly terrain, high transportation costs, lack of governmental funding, various financial restrictions brought on by socioeconomic conditions, and lack of agricultural machinery manufacturing businesses have prevented these states' economies from growing in the farm equipment industry (Rajkhowa et al, 2020). Moreover, the bulk of the tribal population in northeast India are prone to excessive drudgery in farm operations. The dominance of traditional farming practices and a low level of mechanization are two major factors in the region's inferior agricultural productivity. Local artisans and small-scale manufacturers produce tools and equipment without using Corresponding Author's Email - kanta_lai@yahoo.co.in 1ICAR Research Complex for NEH Region Umiam-793103, Meghalaya (India) 2Haldia Institute of Technology, Haldia-721657, West Bengal (India) 3ICAR-KVK Churachandpur, Manipur (India) 4ICAR-KVK Imphal-West, Imphal-795004, Manipur (India) 5ICAR-KVK Chandel, Manipur (India) 521 J Krishi Vigyan 2024, 12(3) : 521-530 Hijam Jiten Singh et al ergonomic principles, which have a low level of operating effectiveness and frequently fail to lessen the arduousness of operation in hills. While introducing enhanced machinery for adoption, difficulties have been encountered in various regions of the nation. Paddy threshing is the separation of the paddy kernels from the panicle of the rice plant. The impact and stripping rubbing motion cause the grains to separate from the panicle (Perumal et al, 2013). The traditional method of threshing rice by hand involves beating bundles of panicles with a flail or against a hard object (such as a bamboo bar, bar stone, bamboo table). Depending on the kind of rice, the production per man-hour ranges from 10 to 30 kg of grain. When threshing is done too late, this procedure results in grain losses of between 1% and 4% (Paulsen et al, 2015); some unthreshed grains might also be lost over the threshing area. Trampling with persons and animals while threshing traditionally results in significant losses (Belay et al, 2013; Lad, 2020). Most of the paddy threshing in Meghalaya is generally done by hand beating by farmers. For the design of manual material handling jobs, ergonomic studies on operator capabilities are crucial. Threshing operations, according to (Kathrivel and Shivkumar, 2003), use 25% of the total energy used in rice production. The most laborious process, traditional threshing involves thrashing the grain bundle on stones or a wooden platform while bending over. Bending over while working adds to the tedium that has to be eradicated with the right technology (Kathrivel and Sivakumar, 2003; Khadatkar et al, 2017). Therefore, the mechanization of these processes should be emphasized to reduce labour needs in rice threshing. Human energy is mainly used in agriculture for seedling raising, weeding, harvesting, and cleaning. In order to improve the efficiency of human work, simple, adequate, and efficient machines or tools must be available to increase agricultural production in Meghalaya (Devi et al, 2020). Economic situations, tiny and dispersed land holdings, a lack of/uncertainty in electricity, etc. are some of the obstacles that prevent small-holding farmers from using power threshers. For them, employing human force to do 522 the threshing is the finest option. To lessen the labour-intensive nature of threshing, it was imperative to conduct ergonomic studies of small machine such as pedal-operated paddy thresher for popularization and adoption among the farmers. Therefore, research on the ergonomics of farmers engaged in paddy threshing is essential (Khadatkar et al, 2017). Hence, considering the above issue, an ergonomic study was conducted for performance evaluation of different paddy threshing methods in Meghalaya. MATERIALS AND METHODS Pedal Thresher For the ergonomic experiment, two types of pedal threshers from ICAR (NEH, Meghalaya) were selected. The selected thresher were cycletype pedal threshers with seating arrangements and another one is a foot-type pedal-operated, both threshers attach with a wire loop-type cylinder. The selected threshers were also facilitated with power transmission systems, foot and cycle-type pedals, and mild steel sheet bodies. Specifications of both threshers are given in Table 1. Selected area for experiment Umeit and Pynthor are two villages of Ri bhoi district of Meghalaya that was selected for the experiments. The latitude and longitude of the selected villages are 25.7176° N & 25.9363° N, and 92.0191° E & 91.7666° E respectively. Both villages are situated nearby ICAR for the NEH complex of Meghalaya, India. People of those villages follow traditional hand-beating for the paddy threshing process. The ergonomic experiment was carried out on ten male farmers (N=10) based on anthropometric characteristics between the 5th and 95th percentile, and these ten workers handled all of the study's operations. The chosen ten farmers were in the age range of 20 to 39 years. The experiments were carried out between 8 am to 1 pm in the month of December 2022. The anthropometric dimensions like stature (cm), age (years), weight (kg), and heart rate (HR) (bpm) were recorded. Additionally, the subject's height and weight were divided to calculate the subject's body mass index (BMI) (m2). Hume's formula (1966) and DuBois and DuBois's formula were J Krishi Vigyan 2024, 12(3) : 521-530 Ergonomic Evaluation of Different Paddy Threshing Methods in Meghalaya Table 1. Specifications of selected threshers Sr. No. Specifications 1 2 3 4 5 6 Diameter of Drum (mm) Width (mm) Height (mm) Length (mm) Power Source Transmission System 7 Weight , kg Cycle -type pedal operated thresher 300 500 890 780 One person Cycle -type pedal with 1:4 gear ratio 43 used to computing each subject's body surface area (m2) and lean body mass (kg) (Shuter and Aslani, 2000). Hume's formula (2.1) was used to calculate the lean body mass (LBM) weight (Hume, 1966). Foot -type pedal operated thresher 300 600 800 700 One Person Crank mechanism with 1:4 gear ratio 37 for a period of 30 minutes each. Major instruments used for conducting the field experiments are a tachometer, Polar HR monitor M10, measuring tape, weighing machine, etc. (Fig 1). Before beginning the experiments, the subjects were LBM=[(body weight× 0.29569)+(body height × given enough time to rest in order to calculate their resting heart rates (HR rest). 0.41873) - 43.29]...... (2.1) Circulatory stress was evaluated using the Each participant's Body Surface Area cardiac cost of labour and the cardiac cost of (BSA) was calculated using the DuBois and recovery. The cardiac cost of recovery is the sum DuBois formula based on their weight and height of all heartbeats above the resting rate between as specified in eq. 2.2. ending work and returning to sleep (Saha, 1976). B S A = We i g h t 0 . 4 2 5 × H e i g h t 0 . 7 2 5 × 0 . 0 0 7 1 8 4
The heart rate was determined using a Polar heart …… (2.2) rate monitor using the formula HR=beat/min. By dividing each subject's weight in Heart rate kilograms by the square of their height in meters Heart rate is one of the primary physiological square, the body mass index, or BMI, was also indicators connected to increasing physical strain calculated. The World Health Organization (BMI) and energy requirements. Three different types of gave the body mass index the following category. BMIs of 18.5 or below is considered underweight, heart rates were considered for the evaluation of whereas those between 18.5 and 24.9 are regarded the physiological responses. In this investigation, as medium weight. People that are overweight a Polar heart rate monitor was used to assess heart have a BMI of 25 or above. By utilizing the rate. Resting heart rate (Rhr), average working formula of Robergs and Landwehr (HRmax = 205.8 heart rate (Rw), peak heart rate (Phr), and other - 0.685 × Age), the maximum HR was determined cardiovascular characteristics are taken into account throughout the field trial. The following (Robergs and Landwehr, 2002). definitions include some particular words The study was conducted in an open rice associated with heart rate. field on male agricultural workers of Meghalaya. Three distinct paddy threshing procedures, Maximum heart rate (HRmax) including conventional hand beating, cycle-type The maximum heart rate (HRmax), which pedal-operated thresher, and foot-type pedal- decreases with age, is the greatest heart rate a operated thresher, were subjected to ergonomic person may achieve without exhausting measures (HR, ODR and energy expenditure rate) themselves excessively. The most accurate 523 J Krishi Vigyan 2024, 12(3) : 521-530 Hijam Jiten Singh et al Figure 1. Instrumentation for carrying out the field experiment method for determining HRmax is a cardiac stress test because HRmax varies from person to person. For determining the HRmax, the formula from Robergs and Landwehr (2002) was used (HRmax = 205.8 - 0.685 Age) (Robergs and Landwehr, 2002). substantial amount of data indicates that the typical range is 60–100 bpm. Mortality is commonly correlated with resting heart rate. The remaining farmers were given 5 minutes to relax while the resting heart rate was monitored under field circumstances. Resting heart rate (Rhr) Working heart rate (Rw) The resting heart rate, measured in beats per minute (bpm), is the typical pulse rate while at rest. The basal or resting heart rate (Rhr) is the heart rate of an individual while they are awake, in a temperature-neutral environment, with no recent activity or stimulus, such as stress or surprise. A Working heart rate is the typical HR that participants have while they are working (Rw). In order to determine the effects of heat stress on Rw during labour, it evaluated the working heart rate under three distinct WBGT circumstances. 524 J Krishi Vigyan 2024, 12(3) : 521-530 Ergonomic Evaluation of Different Paddy Threshing Methods in Meghalaya Table 2. Discomfort in body parts (adopted from Kwatra et al, 2010) Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 6 Particulars Very severe Severe Moderate Mild very Mild Intensity of pain 4 3 2 1 1 Table 3. Physical characteristics of selected farmers Sr. No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Particulars Height (cm) Age (yr) Weight (kg) BSA (m2) BMI (kg/m2) LBM (kg) HRmax (bpm) Statistic of Subjects 161.6±1.42 30.10 ±5.13 60.4±4.08 1.63±0.05 23.12±1.48 46.10±1.82 185.19±3.6 Peak heart rate (Phr) Measurement of Pain Intensity
Peak heart rate is the maximum heart rate that can be reached without running any danger of cardiovascular disease or the highest heart rate that can be measured while working (Phr). The occurrences of discomfort the individuals reported during the performance of the activity indicated by different locations on a body map were used to calculate the muscular strains. On the five-point scale shown below (Table 2), the degree of discomfort in the bodily parts mentioned above was scored: Recovery heart rate (HRr) Recovery heart rate is the decrease in heart rate that occurs one minute after a peak effort. While a heart rate of 50 to 60 bpm is considered exceptional, a recovery heart rate of 25 to 30 bpm is considered good. By allowing the farmer to rest for five to ten minutes, recovery heart rate (HRr) may be very helpful for detecting the cardiovascular strain under heat stress and monitoring the resting heart rate in field situations. Work strain is determined by adding values for the recovery heart rate (SRHR) throughout the 5 to 10-minute recovery interval (Dey et al, 2007). Energy Expenditure Rate In addition, it was generally accepted that there was a connection between heart rate and energy expenditure. Based on the empirical equation, the energy expenditure rate (EER) (2.3) was estimated with the aid of heart rate (Saha et al., 1979; Yadav et al., 2007). EER=(HR-66)/2.4……(2.3) 525 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The demographic information of the selected farmers is detailed in Table 3. Most farmers reported that they rely on traditional methods for threshing due to the ease of use and low cost, despite the advent of modern mechanical methods. The physiological parameters during paddy threshing in three different methods is shown in Table 4. Fig. 2 showed the experiment for ergonomic evaluation carried out at Umeit and Pynthor villages of Ri -bhoi district of Meghalaya by adopting three different methods of paddy threshing i.e. traditional hand beating (Fig 2a), cycle-type pedal-operated thresher (Fig. 2b) and foot-type pedal-operated thresher (Fig. 2c) for 30 minutes. The variation in heart rate of selected farmers at different paddy threshing processes was presented in Fig. 3. The heart rate of each farmer was measured with the help of polar H10 by J Krishi Vigyan 2024, 12(3) : 521-530 Hijam Jiten Singh et al Figure 2. Ergonomic evaluation of paddy threshing using different methods Table 4. Physiological parameters during paddy threshing in three different methods Sr. No 1 2 3 5 Parameters Mean Working HR, bpm Mean Resting HR, bpm Mean Recovery HR, bpm Energy Expenditure Rate, KJ/min Hand heating Paddy threshing 132 90 109 27 Cycle-type pedal-operated thresher 106 85 95 17 Foot-type pedaloperated thresher 112 87 99 19 Figure 3. Mean heart rate of selected farmers using different paddy threshing methods 526 J Krishi Vigyan 2024, 12(3) : 521-530 Ergonomic Evaluation of Different Paddy Threshing Methods in Meghalaya Figure 4. Variation in energy consumption during paddy threshing Table 5. Recommended work category with the rate of energy expenditure Sr.No. Work category EER, kJ/min 1 Light <9.10 2 Moderate 9.11-18.15 3 Heavy 18.16-27.22 4 Extremely heavy >27.22 attaching it to the chest of a farmer with a suitable belt arrangement. The mean heart rate for 30 minutes duration of selected farmers varied from 118 to 135 bpm during paddy threshing by hand beating, 101 to 113 bpm during paddy threshing by cycle-type pedal-operated thresher, and 104 to 116 bpm during paddy threshing by foot-type pedal-operated thresher respectively. The mean working HR, mean resting HR, and mean recovery HR is presented in Table 4. The mean resting HR and mean recovery HR for 5 min duration. It was observed that mean working HR decreased by 19.69 and 15.15 percent in the case of paddy threshing by cycle-type and foot-type paddy thresher compared to hand-beating paddy threshing. It was also noticed that the recovery HR has not come to normal after threshing performed by hand beating for a duration of 5 min. However, more rest may be required to recover the HR after the hand-beating paddy threshing for the duration of 30 min. It was observed that HR was significantly increased (P<0.05) in the case of hand-beating paddy threshing compared to paddy 527 threshing by cycle-type and foot-type paddy thresher with the help of paired t-test. Energy Expenditure Rate The graphical presentation in Fig. 4 showed the variation in energy consumption under working conditions at various processes of rice threshing. The mean energy expenditure varied between 21.86 to 28.70 KJ/min during paddy threshing by hand beating 14.78 to 19.44 KJ/min during paddy threshing by cycle-type pedaloperated thresher and 15.78 to 21.69 KJ/min during paddy threshing by foot-type pedaloperated thresher respectively. The mean±SD energy expenditure was 27.37±1.50 KJ/min, 16.77±1.63 KJ/min, and 19.30±1.29 KJ/min respectively for three different paddy threshing processes. The classification of agricultural work according to energy expenditure values was carried out by Nag et al. (1980) (Table 5). It represented that paddy threshing by hand beating is extremely heavy and, paddy threshing by cycletype pedal-operated thresher and foot-type pedal l-operated thresher are under the heavy category. It J Krishi Vigyan 2024, 12(3) : 521-530 Hijam Jiten Singh et al Table 6. Comparison of ODR between traditional paddy threshing and cycle-type pedal-operated thresher for the duration of 30 minutes Condition Traditional paddy threshing Cycle-type pedaloperated thresher Sample 10 Mean 3.20 SD 0.92 df 9 t-value 25.92 P-value 0.0002 10 1.60 0.84 - - - Table 7. Comparison of ODR between traditional paddy threshing and foot-type pedal-operated thresher for the duration of 30 minutes Condition Sample Mean SD df t-value P-value paddy 10 3.20 0.92 9 22.52 0.0115 Foot-type pedaloperated thresher 10 2.10 0.99 - - - Traditional threshing was observed that EER decreased significantly by 38.72 percent and 26.66 percent respectively in the case of paddy threshing by cycle-type and foot-type paddy thresher compared to handbeating paddy threshing. It was also observed that EER is significantly increased (P<0.05) in the case of hand-beating paddy threshing compared to paddy threshing by cycle-type and foot-type paddy thresher with the help of paired t-test. Overall Discomfort Rating (ODR) The farmers' overall discomfort rating (ODR) was found to be 3.2±0.91 when paddy was threshed manually by hand pounding, as opposed to 1.6±0.84 & 2.1±0.99 while utilizing cycle-type and foot-type paddy threshers. When compared to hand-beating paddy threshing, it was shown that ODR dramatically lowered for cycle-type and foot-type paddy threshers by 50 and 34.37 percent, respectively. When pounding rice crop bundles by hand, the discomfort was mostly caused by the standing posture used. However, when using a foot-type paddy thresher, the discomfort was mostly caused by pedalling while standing. The same findings were reported by Dewangan (2007). The seating configuration of the cycle-type paddy thresher also makes it less uncomfortable. It was also observed that ODR is significantly increased (P<0.05) in the case of hand-beating paddy threshing compared to paddy threshing by cycletype and foot-type paddy thresher with the help of paired t-test (Tables 6 and 7). 528 CONCLUSION This ergonomic study was carried out to know the workload of Meghalaya farmers working in different types of paddy threshing systems. It was observed that mean working EER, mean energy expenditure, and mean working ODR decreased by 19.69 & 15.15 percent, by 38.72 percent & 26.66 percent, and by 50 and 34.37 percent in case of paddy threshing by cycletype and foot-type paddy thresher respectively as compared to hand-beating paddy threshing method with a significance level of P<0.05. Therefore, the results suggest that cycle-type and foot-type paddy thresher gives better performance from ergonomics perspective as compared to traditional hand-beating method. ACKNOWLEDGMENT The authors would like to thank ICAR Research Complex for NEH region Umiam, Meghalaya and AICRP on FIM project for the necessary support to conduct this study. REFERENCES Anonymous (2022). Meghalaya Food - 11 Dishes of Meghalaya That Are a Must-try. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from https://www.holidify.com/pages/food-ofmeghalaya-1672.html. Belay Z A, Fanta A and Abera S (2013). Effects of parboiling treatment on the milling J Krishi Vigyan 2024, 12(3) : 521-530 Ergonomic Evaluation of Different Paddy Threshing Methods in Meghalaya quality of selected rice varieties. J PostHarvest Technol 1(1): 60-68. DAGM (2022). Rice - Department of Agriculture, Government of Meghalaya. Retrieved December 16, 2022, from http://megagriculture.gov.in/public/crop s_rice.aspx. Dewangan K N (2007). Ergonomical evaluation of various paddy paddle threshers. Annual Report of AICRP on Ergonomics and Safety in Agriculture, 57-68. North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Nirjuli, India. Devi S R, Singh L K, Bhupenchandra I and Chandra Dihingia P (2020). Use of paddy drum seeder to sow pre-germinated seed as an alternative to mechanized paddy transplanter in valley area of Manipur. Int J Ecol and Environ Sci 2(4): 391-394. Dey N C, Amalendu S and Saha R (2007). Assessment of cardiac strain amongst underground coal carriers-A case study in India. Int J Industrial Ergonom 37(6): 489-495. Hume R. (1966). Prediction of lean body mass from height and weight. J Clin Pathol 19(4), 389-391. Kathrivel K, and Sivakumar S S (2003). Empowerment of women in agriculture. Coordination Committee Report of AICRP on Ergonomics and Safety in Agriculture. Tamil Nadu Agricultural University, India. Khadatkar A, Potdar R R, Narwariya B S, Wakudkar H and Dubey U C (2018). An ergonomic evaluation of pedal operated paddy thresher for farm women. Indian J Agri Sci 88(2): 280-283. Kwatra S, Deepa V and Sharma S (2010). A Comparative Study on the Manual Beating of Paddy and Manually Operated Paddy Thresher on Farm Women. J Human Ecol 32(3): 183–187. https://doi.org/10.1080/09709274.2010. 11906338. 529 Lad P P, Pachpor N A, Lomate S K, Fadavale P R and Dhamane A S (2020). Development and compare performance evaluation of traditional, pedal operated and modified pedal operated portable paddy thresher for small farmers. J Pharmacog and Phytochem 9(1): 1033-1039. Nag P K, Sebastian N C and Mavlankar M G (1980). Occupational workload of Indian agricultural workers. Ergonomics 23(2): 91-102. Paulsen M R, Kalita P K and Rausch K D (2015). Postharvest losses due to harvesting operations in developing countries: A r e v i e w. I n 2 0 1 5 A S A B E A n n u a l International Meeting. American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers. Perumal D, Dhananchezhiyan P, Parveen S and Rangasamy K (2013). Development and performance evaluation of low-cost portable paddy thresher for small farmers. Int J Engg Res & Tech 2(7): 571585. Rajkhowa A, Barman I, Das P K, Deka S D and Sonowal A (2020). An analysis of extent of farm mechanization in north bank plains agro-climatic zone of assam. Asian J Agri Ex, Econ & Socio 11: 81–90. Robergs R A and Landwehr R (2002) The surprising history of the “HRmax=220age” equation. J Exer Physio 5: 1–10. Saha P N, Datta S R, Banerjee P K and Narayane G G (1979). An acceptable workload for Indian workers. Ergonomics 22(9): 1059-1071. Saha P N (1976). Practical use of some physiological research methods for assessment of work stress. J Indian Assoc Physiother 4: 9-13. Shuter B and Aslani A (2000). Body surface area: Du bois and Du bois revisited. European J Appl Physio 82(3): 250-254. J Krishi Vigyan 2024, 12(3) : 521-530 Hijam Jiten Singh et al Singh L K and Devi S R (2017). Economic Evaluation for different level of agricultural mechanization in Manipur. Indian J Hill Farming 19(2): 60-68. Singh S P, Mathur P, Rathore M (2007). Weeders for drudgery reduction of women farm workers in India. J Agri Engg 44 (3): 3338. 530 Yadav R, Patel M, Shukla S P and Pund S (2007). Ergonomic evaluation of manually operated six-row paddy transplanter. Int Agri Engg J 16(3-4): 147-157. Received on 13/6/2024

Accepted on 9/8/2024 J Krishi Vigyan 2024, 12(3) : 521-530