• Journal of Korean Society of Forest Science
• /
• v.110 no.2
• /
• pp.210-216
• /
• 2021

Musculoskeletal disorders affect workers' safety in most industries, and forest operations are classified as a musculoskeletal burden according to the Occupational Safety and Health Act in South Korea. In particular, felling and delimbing operations are mainly conducted by manpower, and then, it is necessary to evaluate ergonomic risk assessment for safety of felling and delimbing workers. Three ergonomic risk assessment methods, such as Ovako Working posture Analysis System (OWAS), Rapid Upper Limb Assessment (RULA), and Rapid Entire Body Assessment (REBA), are available for assessing exposure to risk factors associated with timber harvesting operations. Here, three ergonomic risk assessment methods were applied to examine ergonomic risk assessments in chainsaw felling and delimbing operations. Additionally, exposure to risk factors in each method was analyzed to propose an optimal working posture in felling and delimbing operations. The risk levels of these operations were evaluated to be highest in the RULA method, followed by the OWAS and REBA methods, and most of the exposed working postures were examined with a low-risk level of two and three without requiring any immediate working posture changes. However, two significant working postures, including the bending posture of the waist and leg in felling operation and standing posture on the fallen trees in delimbing operation, were assessed as the high-risk level and needed immediate working posture changes. Low-risk work levels were examined in the squatting posture for felling operation and the straightened posture of the waist and leg for delimbing operation. Moreover, the slope in felling operation and the tree height in delimbing operation significantly affected risk level assessment of working posture. Therefore, our study supports that felling and delimbing workers must operate with low-risk working postures for safety.

• Korean Journal of Poultry Science
• /
• v.45 no.3
• /
• pp.219-228
• /
• 2018

This study was conducted twice to investigate egg purchase behavior and perception on animal welfare of Korean consumers. This study included women, who were the main decision makers and caretakers in the household, and men with one-person household. This survey was conducted with by the Computer Assisted Web Interview and Gang Survey methods. On the key considerations factor, the highest response rate was considered to be 'price', and the response rate of considering 'packing date' increased in the second survey. At a reasonable price based on 10 eggs, the response rate was the highest at 53.8% and 42.9% in both the first and second surveys and the appropriate price averages were 2,482 won and 2,132 won, respectively. The highest rate of purchase of egg consumers from 'Large Mart' followed by 'Medium sized supermarket' and 'Chain supermarket'. As for the awareness about animal welfare, the recognition ratio (73.5%) was higher in the result of the second survey than the first. The cognitive period of animal welfare was 59.0% before the insecticide egg crisis and 41.0% thereafter. Regarding whether or not they have ever seen an animal welfare certification mark and an animal welfare animal farm certification mark, 59.6% of respondents said that they saw it for the first time and 37.6% answered that they knew the animal welfare certification mark. On the animal welfare system, the 'free-range' response rate was the highest at 85.8%. The 'free-range' fit response decreased by 34.2%p, while the 'barn' and 'European type' fit response increased by 13.2%p and 24.1%p, respectively. The number of 'I have never seen' and 'I have ever eaten' responses to the recognition and eating experience of animal welfare certified eggs decreased while the number of those who answered 'Have ever seen' and 'Have eaten' increased. The answer of purchasing animal welfare certified eggs at department stores, organic farming cooperatives, and internet shopping malls was higher than that of buying conventional eggs. Of the total respondents, 92.0% were willing to purchase an animal welfare egg before the price was offered, but after offering the prices of animal welfare eggs, the intention to purchase was 62.7%, which was about 30%p lower than before. The reason for purchasing an animal welfare certified egg was the highest score of 71.0% for 'I think it is likely to be high in food safety', and 38.1% for 'I think the price is high' for lack of intention to purchase. In the sensory evaluation of animal welfare eggs, egg color and skin texture of conventional eggs were significantly higher than those of certified welfare eggs (P<0.05), and boiled eggs showed that egg whites of animal welfare certified eggs were more (P<0.05). As a result, the results of this study will contribute to the activation of the animal welfare certification system for laying hens by providing basic data on consumer awareness to animal welfare certified farmers.