Role of human labour in relation to efficiency and effectiveness, with particular regard to small‐scale farms
Matthias Schick1,
1 Agroscope Reckenholz‐Tänikon ART, Tänikon, CH‐8356 Ettenhausen,
Key words: working time requirement, weak‐point analysis, model calculation, optimisation, labour organisation
Introduction and methodology
On every farm human labour is the most important and, at the same time, generally the scarcest factor of production.
Boosting efficiency is a way of safeguarding income within the framework of an in- creasingly tough national and international environment of stagnating prices and ris- ing costs. The appropriate action here is to optimise procedures and labour organi- sation. The methods of actual-state and weak-point analysis together with farm and cross-farm time and work planning can be used to reveal potential for rationalisation.
Constantly changing underlying conditions in agriculture and forestry are leading to increased demand for objective, valid and reliable bases of calculation for research- ers, advisers and farmers. This requirement is not met by previous calculation sys- tems based on estimates or static computations with linear interpolations. In previous studies the farm as a whole has only rarely been included within the scope of sys- tem-oriented approaches. Until now farm management and special tasks have been integrated in the calculations only on the basis of rough estimates.
An important basic prerequisite for research into agricultural ergonomics is that the organisation of labour in farming, and of the conditions governing it, should not only be subsequently corrected, but should be as forward-looking and innovative as pos- sible. These tasks should be carried out as part of an interdisciplinary collaboration, particularly with agricultural engineering and agricultural economics, and be based on the methods and findings of general industrial science.
Weak-point analysis and optimisation approaches
Diagnostic methods and model calculation systems (PROOF, estimated labour re- quirement) can be used to illustrate the ACTUAL situation as well as different TARGET situations for the purpose of optimising labour organisation procedures on farms.
To do this an existing ACTUAL situation is first accurately characterised within the framework of a consistent written plan (see Fig. 1).
Figure 1: The relative shares of individual activities at the same time illustrate the potential for savings in dairy farming. A comparison of different herd sizes shows the shift in the work involved from production technology to farm management (Schick, 2008).
From this it is also possible to identify the activities taking up the most time. The next thing to do is to make a precise analysis of all these activities with reference to their possible weak points. These may be building-related on the one hand (e.g. con- stricted unfavourable conditions, steps, etc.), or caused by technical defects on the other (e.g. construction, installation). Ultimately, however, even the farmer himself may be the cause of the problem owing to poor labour organisation (e.g. not prepar- ing cows properly for milking, making poor arable and forage-growing decisions, stressful animal handling).
Because of its rationalisation character this type of analysis always also has an op- timisation character, as jobs are subsequently either done differently, delegated or
Time requirement per cow per year:
62 MH (n = 60) Production system:
Loose housing, horizontal silo, 8000 kg
Management and special tasks
25%
Calf care 9%
Mucking out/
strawing 5%
Feeding 26%
Milking 35%
Milking 28%
Feeding 25%
Mucking out/
strawing 7%
Calf care 6%
Management and special tasks
34%
Time requirement per cow per year:
43 MH (n = 180) Production system:
Loose housing, horizontal silo, 8000 kg
even eliminated. Each time the three issues of necessity, doing things oneself and optimum performance need to be worked through one after the other in the form of a job analysis and weak-point analysis in order to reveal the desired rationalisation potential (see Fig. 2).
Figure 2: Job analysis and weak-point analysis (Schick, 2008).
The basic advantage of weak-point analysis is the constant querying of working processes and the comparison of existing ACTUAL situations with notional TARGET ones. To do this reference can be made to the model-oriented division of labour and the model calculation system devised therefrom. By simple extension the ACTUAL and TARGET situations can be represented side by side and the benefit read off.
This is possible on working procedure level (e.g. milking, feeding, etc.) as well as on production process levels (e.g. dairy farming, forage growing, arable farming, etc.).
It is clear here that outsourcing an activity can generate the greatest savings effect.
An example is illustrated in Figure 3, where contractors or a machinery syndicate are used for mowing and chaffing. In the ACTUAL variant the farmer still mows his for- age-growing land himself and – also on his own – transports the harvested crop to the horizontal silo by silage trailer. The TARGET variant is characterised in that the mowing work is taken over completely by the contractor. The contractor is also re- sponsible for chaffing the harvested crop.
Activity, task
Is the task/activity
absolutely necessary?
Must I perform the task/activity
myself?
Am I performing the task/activity
optimally?
DISPENSE WITH task/activity
DELEGATE task/activity
RATIONALISE task/activity no
no
no yes
yes
yes IMPLEMENT
task/activity
This means that in the TARGET variant mowing still only involves administrative jobs. The time saving is over 70 %. With chaffing the time saving is 1.9 MH/ha com- pared with the silage trailer method. This means that the working time requirement for harvesting and bringing in is reduced by more than half, so better use can be made of available field working days.
Altogether silage harvesting now needs 3.4 less MH/ha (equal to approx. 20 %) (see Fig. 3).
Figure 3: Work study comparison of ACTUAL (IS) and TARGET variants in forage growing as part of task and weak-point analysis (RB = round bales, QB = square bales, HD = high pressure bales).
Optimisation of procedures and labour organisation
On the modern farm every work plan also generates a time schedule. Here the available working time of all the employees is systematically allocated to different task blocks. In this context the three issues below should be addressed within the framework of self-inspection or external inspections:
1. How much time is needed for individual activities during the course of a day?
2. What is the best way of employing the available time?
3. How and where can time be saved without sacrificing quality?
Two basic optimisation possibilities can be concluded from this. The first is proce- dural optimisation. As a rule this means additional or different mechanisation of pro- cedural sequences. This is generally linked to a cost effect and often also means outsourcing jobs to third parties (e.g. contractors or a machinery syndicate). The aim of procedural optimisation is for the professional farmer to act as a specialist in his field. The advantage of this type of optimisation is very rapid goal attainment.
The second optimisation possibility is organisational optimisation, which is rarely as- sociated with cost effects. In this type of optimisation each work procedure of interest in the ACTUAL situation is queried in a weak-point analysis (see above) and im- proved in continual comparison with TARGET specifications. Once again the basic prerequisites are clear and measurable objectives by way of work schedules and checklists. The optimisation potential of any work procedure can therefore be fully tapped and job satisfaction increased. The basic prerequisite for organisational opti- misation, however, is continuous and targeted further training in the desired produc- tion process.
The so-called diagnostic control loop (see Fig. 4) can provide assistance in organisa- tional optimisation. Starting from process mapping through weak-point analysis and optimisation, this helps not only to control but also to manage a process.
Figure 4: The diagnostic control loop as a tool for monitoring optimisation measures.
Labour organisation on a farm-by-farm basis
The first step in organising labour on an individual farm is always to set a concrete goal. This can also be interpreted as an anticipated sense of achievement or vision.
Once the goal is set, a decision must be made on how to reach it. It is vital that goals be recorded in writing. Although planning costs time and is therefore often seen as a waste of time, it does help to meet targets, thus saving time and ultimately increasing job satisfaction for all concerned. Furthermore, writing a plan down can leave the head clear for more essential things.
With the aid of different objectives labour planning can also be defined by short-term, medium-term and long-term goals.
Daily or weekly scheduling can be designated as short-term planning. Here short- term objectives (= tactical objectives) should be recorded in writing and made avail- able as a work schedule which is easy for everyone to understand. This can be done by posting lists in the common room or on an electronic organiser. It is important that everyone concerned knows at all times what has to be done where, by whom and when.
Medium-term work planning, in the form of weekly or monthly scheduling, covers medium-term goals (= tactical goals). These should also be recorded in writing. It should be borne in mind, however, that this scheduling should leave space for the unexpected. Such free space is vital, as outdoor farming depends greatly on the weather for getting work done. In order to ensure that full use is made of an em-
Weak-point analysis
Defect rectification Optimisation
Process mapping
- Set target - Plan - Identify - Decide
- Product - Livestock - Technology - Labour
- Implement - Monitor
- Process control - Process
management
Diagnostics
ployee, max. 60 % of his total working time should be planned. If more available working time is planned there is an increased risk of occupational incidents and per- manent work overload.
The farm’s strategic goals are taken into consideration as part of long-term work planning and in long-term objectives. This takes the form either of annual targets or even “life planning”. This type of work planning is essential for long-term farm devel- opment and is an essential basis for successful farming.
Cross-farm labour planning
In addition to the individual farm and its plan, cross-farm labour planning takes into account the optimised use of machinery and manpower to improve capacity utilisa- tion and boost efficiency.
On most farms neither machinery nor manpower is used to optimum capacity. In the machinery sphere this results in increased machinery costs per unit. In the labour sphere this sometimes leads to very high capacity utilisation per labour unit, occa- sionally with more than 3200 MH per labour unit per year. This in turn results in a permanent work overload with unsatisfactory long-term situations, especially on fam- ily farms.
The capacity utilisation of machinery in outdoor farm work can be greatly increased, and hence economic viability improved, by using machinery collectives, machinery syndicates and contractors. Very precise agreements are necessary here, however, in order to rule out potential conflict. This applies particularly to regions with few fieldwork days available for getting work done (e.g. regions with a lot of rain). The machinery collective is a good way of ensuring optimised work planning in such re- gions. This can be effected, for example, by the collective use of mowers, rotary ted- ders, rotary windrowers and silage trailers. Instead of simple, but still expensive mechanisation on an individual farm, collective mechanisation can save working time and also cut costs due to improved capacity utilisation. Because of better capacity utilisation – in association with a shortened depreciation period – technical advances in machinery can also be better utilised, thus altogether improving the quality of the work done.
The capacity utilisation of agricultural manpower can also be optimised using differ- ent forms of cross-farm collaboration. One the one hand this can be simple forms of mutual neighbourly assistance (e.g. weekend relief) and, on the other, collective live-
stock housing or whole farming collectives. All these forms pool the labour supply, making it easier to plan. The advantage here is that the farmers involved can in- creasingly follow their inclinations in the work they do (e.g. young stock rearing, milk- ing, outdoor work, office organisation), thus generating additional benefit. Weekend relief and holiday cover are also easy to organise over all forms of cross-farm col- laboration. Those concerned know each other’s farms and can perform the requisite tasks without much familiarisation.
In all types of collaboration special importance is attached to checklists in the form of precise work schedules. When long-term use of such checklists is made for all the relevant areas, they can also be drawn upon to supplement weak-point analysis as a work performance manual and for quality assurance. Thus, for example, a simple checklist in the milking parlour can be used to accurately describe milking work and be used by a relief milker as operating instructions or an emergency handbook.
To safeguard the farm manager in the production of milk as a foodstuff, this checklist can at the same time be used for quality assurance, e.g. by precisely scheduling and documenting certain tasks.
Table 1: Checklists can play a part in weak-point analysis and help improve labour organisa- tion on individual farms.
Dairy farming Target Actual
Ø daily milk output/cow milked > 25 Ø milk yield/cow in 305 days > 7500
Ø Milk fat content Ø 4 (3.8 - 4.2)
Ø Milk protein content Ø 3.45 (3.2 - 3.6)
Calving interval (days) < 380
Insemination index < 1.6
Cows with metabolic disorders < 5 % Age at first calving (months) 24 - 27
Calf losses < 5 %
Cell counts < 125,000
Bacterial counts < 15,000
Difficult births < 5 %
Hoof problems < 3 %
Working life (lactations) > 4
Proportion of primiparous cows ~ 25 %
Conclusions
The use of work- and time-scheduling methods on the farm appears to be increas- ingly necessary in the context of changing agriculture with a diminishing workforce on family farms. From a work study perspective it is easy to see a positive benefit in all the methods used. The combination of target setting, task analysis, continual que- rying and ACTUAL-TARGET comparisons proves to be an advantageous, practical and cost-neutral way of boosting efficiency. The organisational optimisation ap- proach is therefore preferable to the procedural one. In procedural optimisation the capacity utilisation of the new technologies purchased has to be checked before- hand, so this approach is preferable for planning cross-farm work.
In future greater importance will be attached to the use of checklists when planning work on a farm-by-farm and collective basis, for optimisation and for quality assur- ance. Since from a political perspective there will be a steadily increasing require- ment for product traceability in the long term, the targeted use of checklists - in com- bination with electronic aids (e.g. exact GPS, radar sensors and RFID) – can ensure the traceability and hence also the quality assurance of farm production chains from field through animal housing to processors and on to distributors and consumers.
Bibliography
KANOWSKI, H. (2007): Gute Planung spart Leerlauf. DLG-Mitteilungen Nr. 6., pp. 26 - 27
Mačuhová, J., Schleicher, Th. and B. Haidn (2007): Working time requirement in Bavarian family livestock husbandries. In: Nozdrovický, L. (Eds): Advances in labour and machinery management for a profitable agriculture and foresty, XXXII CIOSTA-CIGR Section V Conference Proceedings, 17. –19.09. 2007, Nitra, Part II, pp. 457-465
Riegel, M.; Schick, M. and R. Stark (2007): Working-time requirement in agriculture – recording method, model calculation and work budget. Society for Engineering in Agriculture, 2007 National Conference. Agri- culture and Engineering - Challenge Today, Technology Tomorrow. 23-26 September, 2007, Adelaide, South Australia. Editors: T. Banhazi and C. Saunders. p. 328
SCHICK, M. (2008): Dynamische Modellierung landwirtschaftlicher Arbeit unter besonderer Berücksichti- gung der Arbeitsplanung. Ergonomia Verlag, Stuttgart 144 pp.
SCHICK, M. (2005): Arbeitszeit und Management auf dem Landwirtschaftsbetrieb. 51. Kongress der Ge- sellschaft für Arbeitswissenschaft GFA, Personalmanagement und Gestaltung, Heidelberg, pp. 341 – 344 SCHICK, M. u. SAVARY, P. (2009): 2. Tänikoner Melktechniktagung. Tiergerechtes Melken - Menschengerechte Arbeit - Wirtschaftliche Milchproduktion. ART-Schriftenreihe, 9, IV, 113 pages
SCHICK, M. (2008): Systemorientierter Ansatz für Bauen, Tierhaltung und Arbeitswirtschaft. Editorial. Ag- rarforschung, 15(3), p. 131.
SCHICK, M. (2007): Arbeitswissenschaft. Jahrbuch der Agrartechnik, Chap. 2.4 pp. 43 – 48
SCHICK, M. (2007): Work science in agriculture and forestry: from work procedure-based to system ap- proach. XXXII CIOSTA-CIGR Section V Conference “Advances in labour and machinery management for a profitable agriculture and forestry”. Nitra, 17.-19.09.2007, Tagungsband pp. 26 - 33
