green heron tools sbir grant

Need for & feasibility of designing, producing & marketing agricultural tools & equipment

for women

Ann M. Adams, RN, MSN Elizabeth A. Brensinger, MPH

Market growers for 13+ years at Green Heron Farms

Initial idea resulted from:Our own experience with tools & equipment Conversations with other women growers at

farmers’ markets Affiliations with Pennsylvania Women’s

Agricultural Network, Pennsylvania Association for Sustainable Agriculture

Backgrounds in public health, nursing

Company evolutionFormed in 2008, to provide high-quality agricultural and

gardening tools designed to work with the bodies of women, thereby maximizing comfort, efficiency, productivity and safety.

Online survey posted summer 2008Target: women farmers, market growers, gardenersData requested:

Needs, problems, experiences with tools & equipment Recommendations for change, potential solutions

See www.greenherontools.com for full surveyReview of literatureSubmission of SBIR grant; received April, 2009

Changing demographics in U.S. agriculture1997-2002

4% in number U.S. farms13% in farms operated by women

2002-200729% in farms operated by women,

compared to 3.6% increase in all U.S. farmsU.S. Department of Agriculture: 75% of U.S.

farms could be owned or co-owned by women by 2014

Women’s farms – trends “Small”: 53.5% between 1 and 49 acres (U.S.

Census of Agriculture, 2007)Characteristics (Charney, 2005)

DiversifiedSustainable / organicPart-time vocationValue-addedDirect-marketed Less mechanized

Average age of woman farmer: 52.6 (USDA)

Women & food production: a global viewRural women produce half of the world’s food

and 60% to 80% of the food in most developing countries (Food & Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)

Need for tools /equipment designed for womenAnatomical differences (various sources)

40-75% less upper-body strength5-30% less lower-body strengthSmaller statureMore adipose tissueNarrower shouldersWider hipsProportionally shorter legs & armsSmaller grips

Need for tools/equipment designed for womenAnthropometric / human factors data

National Health & Nutrition Examination Survey: Significant differences between male & female agricultural workers in 9 / 14 anthropometric variables (Hsiao et al., 2002)

Implications for health & safety: examplesWhole-body vibration affects women more than

men (McCoy et al., 2002)Excessive physical strain = injuries in women

(Pickett et al., 1995; McCoy, 2000)Elevated risk for musculoskeletal disability

(McCoy et al., 2002) Work-related musculoskeletal disabilities = leading

cause of disability for people in working years Lower back disorders most prevalent

Need for tools / equipment designed for women

4 factors influencing lower back disorders (Fathallah et al., 2004):Heavy physical workLifting and forceful movementsBending and twisting (awkward postures)Whole-body vibration

All 4 influenced by design & fit of toolsU.S. Centers for Disease Control & Prevention

(2001):1 of the 2 best ways to reduce work-related

musculoskeletal disorders: redesign of tools

Need for tools /equipment designed for women

Lack of tools / equipment designed for womenSearches conducting using these databases

AGRICOLAApplied Science & Technology AbstractsAmerican Society of Agricultural & Biological

Engineers’ Technical LibraryElectronic resources of National Agricultural LibraryNational Technological Information ServiceUSDA’s Current Research Information System

No evidence of efforts to redesign tools / equipment for women in U.S. or Canada; limited efforts in India

Funded in part by USDA Small Business Innovative Research grant

Methodology Online survey (n = 218; 105 self-identified

farmers / market growers; 113 gardeners) Four focus groups with 26 participating

farmers / market growers Oregon (Pacific Northwest) Vermont (n = 2) (Northeast) Iowa (via conference call) (Midwest) (pilot focus group at Penn State)

Interviews with 13 women Input obtained from women in 32/50 states

Survey results

Too heavyShafts too long Handles too highNot well-balanced for female usersMechanized equipment too heavy, difficult to

controlPull strings too long (gas engines)Mechanized equipment too noisy

General findings (re: tools/equipment)

Focus groups / interviewsGeneral support for survey findingsAnecdotal evidence regarding health

problemsIn all 3 face-to-face focus groups, women cited

histories of disabilities & injuries, including: Sore backs / back injuries (sprained sacrum; back

surgery; general soreness) Arthritis Torn tendons

What now?Identification & sale of existing tools &

equipment that work well for womenE-commerce site up later this year

Design of new tools (SBIR grant)

Process for choosing toolsRecommendations from surveys, focus

groups, interviews, other women farmersPurchase / acquisition of toolsTesting & evaluation by women farmersAnalysis of data from evaluationsIdentification of tools that work best for

women

Design team: Penn State members

Aaron Yoder, ag engineering; Angie Hissong, occupational therapist / AgrAbility; Andy Freivalds, ergonomist, manufacturing engineer;

Jesun Hwang, doctoral student

Deliverables include:Set of design parameters for

tools/equipment designed for womenPrototypes of three hand toolsGeneral design concepts for a rototiller

Criteria/Design ConsiderationsHigh quality

DurableReliableEffective for defined task

ErgonomicBased on anthropometric / human factors dataAs simple as possible to maintain and operate

Criteria/Design ConsiderationsSafe to use

Include a description of how to use tool correctly

As “green” or sustainable as possible without compromising effectiveness and strengthMaterials, fuel (if applicable), manufacturing

processReasonable cost / good value