Skip to main content

Agriculture into the Future: New Technology, New Organisation and New Occupational Health and Safety Risks?

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018) (IEA 2018)

Part of the book series: Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing ((AISC,volume 825))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Agriculture is a hazardous industry, with a high frequency of injuries. As working life has changed over the last decades, so has also agriculture. In Norway, farm size has increased, and agriculture has become technology intensive with a high amount of automated milking systems (AMS) and is now more dependent on hired help. The aim of the study is by sociotechnical system theory to explore how a new generation of farmers describe their work organisation in relation to occupational health and safety. The study is an explorative interview study at five farms having implemented AMS. An open interview guide was used. The interviews were recorded and thereafter transcribed. Analyses were based on the balance-theory with the domains technology, organisation, physical environment, task design, and individual characteristics. The results show that AMS changes the farm as a sociotechnical work system. AMS is considered a relief with regards how tasks become less physically demanding, less time consuming, and with less animal contact. On the other hand, cognitive demands increase. The results indicate that the technology increases both complexity and vulnerability, these factors being less considered by the farmers. The findings underline the importance of farmers’ increasing awareness of their role as a manager and for an increased system perspective.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Jadhav R et al (2015) Risk factors for agricultural injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Agromed 20(4):434–449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Jadhav R et al (2016) Review and meta-analysis of emerging risk factors for agricultural injury. J Agromed 21(3):284–297

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Kjestveit K, Aas O, Holte KA. Can organizational aspects serve as latent conditions for occupational injury rates among Norwegian Farmers? (manuscript)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hartman E et al (2004) Risk factors associated with sick leave due to work-related injuries in Dutch farmers: an exploratory case-control study. Saf Sci 42(9):807–823

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Norwegian Agriculture Agency (2017) KU - Foretak med felles melkeproduksjon 2016, fylkesfordeling

    Google Scholar 

  6. Carayon P et al (2015) Advancing a sociotechnical systems approach to workplace safety - developing the conceptual framework. Ergonomics 58(4):548–564

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Salfer J et al (2017) Dairy robotic milking systems – what are the economics? https://articles.extension.org/pages/73995/dairy-robotic-milking-systems-what-are-the-economics. Accessed 25 Jan 2017

  8. Norsk landbruk. http://www.norsklandbruk.no/nyhet/antallet-melkeroboter-oker-i-Norge. Accessed 6 Dec 2017

  9. Kjesbu E, Flaten O, Knutsen H (2006) Automatiske melkingssystemer - en gjennomgang av internasjonal forskning og status i Norge. NILF, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  10. John AJ et al (2016) Review: milking robot utilization, a successful precision livestock farming evolution. Anim Int J Anim Biosci 10(9):1484–1492

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Drach U et al (2017) Automatic herding reduces labour and increases milking frequency in robotic milking. Biosys Eng 155:134–141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Jacobs J, Siegford J (2012) The impact of automatic milking systems on dairy cow management, behavior, health, and welfare. J Dairy Sci 95(5):2227–2247

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Steeneveld W et al (2012) Comparing technical efficiency of farms with an automatic milking system and a conventional milking system. J Dairy Sci 95(12):7391–7398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Butler D, Holloway L, Bear C (2012) The impact of technological change in dairy farming: robotic milking systems and the changing role of the stockperson. R Agric Soc Engl 173:1–6

    Google Scholar 

  15. Stræte EP, Vik J, Hansen BG (2017) The social robot: a study of the social and political aspects of automatic milking systems. In: System dynamics and innovation in food networks. International Journal on Food System Dynamics, Innsbruck

    Google Scholar 

  16. Hansen BG (2015) Robotic milking-farmer experiences and adoption rate in Jæren, Norway. J Rural Stud 41:109–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Hårstad RB, Stræte EP (2017) Melkerobotbønder mer tilfreds med HMS, ferie og fritid, in Faktaark 7/17, Ruralis, Editor. Ruralis, Trondheim

    Google Scholar 

  18. Davis MC et al (2014) Advancing socio-technical systems thinking: a call for bravery. Appl Ergon 45(2, Part A):171–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Carayon P (2009) The balance theory and the work system model… Twenty years later. Int J Hum Comput Interact 25(5):313–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Carayon P et al (2006) Work system design for patient safety: the SEIPS model. Qual Saf Health Care 15:I50–I58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Tynes T et al (2015) Faktabok om arbeidsmiljø og helse 2015 - status og utviklingstrekk. STAMI - rapport, Årg 16, Nr 3. STAMI, Oslo

    Google Scholar 

  22. Theorell T, Karasek R (1996) Current issues relating to psychosocial job strain and cardiovascular disease research. J Occup Health Psychol 1(1):9–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Karttunen JP, Rautiainen RH (2013) Distribution and characteristics of occupational injuries and diseases among farmers: a retrospective analysis of workers’ compensation claims. Am J Ind Med 56(8):856–869

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Taattola K et al (2012) Risk factors for occupational injuries among full-time farmers in Finland. J Agric Saf Health 18(2):83–93

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Perrow P (1984) Normal accidents. Basic Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  26. Glasscock DJ et al (2006) Psychosocial factors and safety behaviour as predictors of accidental work injuries in farming. Work Stress 20(2):173–189

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Rautiainen RH et al (2009) Risk Factors for serious injury in finnish agriculture. Am J Ind Med 52(5):419–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Van den Broucke S, Colemont A (2011) Behavioral and nonbehavioral risk factors for occupational injuries and health problems among Belgian farmers. J Agromed 16(4):299–310

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kari Anne Holte .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Holte, K.A., Follo, G., Kjestveit, K., Stræte, E.P. (2019). Agriculture into the Future: New Technology, New Organisation and New Occupational Health and Safety Risks?. In: Bagnara, S., Tartaglia, R., Albolino, S., Alexander, T., Fujita, Y. (eds) Proceedings of the 20th Congress of the International Ergonomics Association (IEA 2018). IEA 2018. Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing, vol 825. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96068-5_45

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics