green heron tools sbir grant
DESCRIPTION
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. History of Green Heron Tools. Market growers for 13+ years at Green Heron Farms. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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