Farmer’s Lung Disease and Microbiological Composition of Hay: A Case–Control Study

Previous studies performed in France have suggested that handling hay contaminated with high amounts of moulds, and especially Absidia corymbifera and Eurotium amstelodami, may favour farmer’s lung disease. The circumstances favouring farmer’s lung disease and the distinctive microbiological composition of hay samples that provoke attacks need to be specified. We present a case–control study which investigates the agricultural practices and the microbiological composition of hay handled in patients with farmer’s lung disease as compared to those of a representative control population. Ten cases identified the hay they were handling at the onset of symptoms. The location, type of farm and working conditions were similar to those of the control farms. Conversely, the microbiological composition of hay differed, with significantly higher amounts of E. amstelodami (P < 0.01), A. corymbifera (P = 0.003), mesophilic Streptomyces (P < 0.01), thermophilic Streptomyces (P < 0.01) and Saccharomonospora viridis (P < 0.01) than in the control population. Our results demonstrate that hay identified by patients as having a harmful effect is characterized by a higher total amount of microorganisms, notably five microorganisms that seem discriminative. Mean concentrations are 2- to 115-fold higher in hay suspected to cause symptoms than in hay from a representative panel of farms. Handling hay with high amounts of these five microorganisms constitutes a risk factor for farmer’s lung disease that should be considered for the development of prophylactic measures.     

Characterization of Farmer’s knowledge and management practices of papaya mealybug Paracoccus magnatus (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) in Tanzania

Papaya mealybug (PMB) is a serious insect pest for papaya production in Sub-Saharan Africa, limiting production potential in farming communities. We did a household survey to evaluate the Characteristics of farmers' knowledge, challenges, and current (PMB) control practices in four papaya growing regions of Tanzania namely, Tanga, Dodoma, Pwani, and Katavi involving 100 papaya farmers. The study found that 96% of farmers reported PMB, as a major challenge in papaya production. Very few (0.8%) of the farmers were knowledgeable on insect pest identification. Chemical pesticides were the only option for PMB control, and 43.0% of farmers were able to access and apply. We also found that 36.4% of the farmers were aware of the adverse effects of chemical pesticides. Furthermore, the study observed that 0.3% of farmers use botanical pesticides. Additionally, the study observed that 44.1% of farmers use control measures against PMB, the remaining 55.9% did not practice any control measure, thus leading to low papaya yields observed in the study regions. Our findings provide insights to farmers into the use of plant-based pesticides, mainly plant essential oils, and its benefits that may promote farmers' attitudes towards increasing papaya yield and reducing chemical pesticide use to avoid pest resistance.     

2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference: The Intersection of Anthropology and Medicine as Portrayed in Paul Farmer’s Photo Album

Paul Farmer, physician, anthropologist, and author, spoke at the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference at Yale University in September.Medical anthropology is a very young field, only approximately 50 years old. The underpinnings of medical anthropology have been around for some time, but as a discipline, the burden to ensure that it continues to flourish and grow belongs to future generations of students and scholars. However, future generations of medical anthropologists cannot carry the field forward unless they examine the teachings of previous teachers and scholars. By narrating his own story, just as he so frequently narrates the intricacies of Haiti [1], Paul Farmer, physician, anthropologist, and author of Pathologies of Power: Health, Human Rights, and the New War on the Poor [2], displayed a parallel between the stories of his own past with that of medical anthropology.At the 2009 Society for Medical Anthropology Conference at Yale University in September, Farmer began his aptly titled presentation, Photo Album, with a discussion of his introduction to medical anthropology while an undergraduate at Duke. He stumbled upon medical anthropology quite by chance as an ambitious pre-med who was interested in taking every course that had the word “medical” in its title. He credited many people, including Patricia Pessar, Arthur Kleinman, and Linda Garro with aiding the development of his ideas and perception of the world and teaching him to use medical anthropology not only in passive observation, but in the active practice of medicine. You “don’t have to be a faculty member to teach,” stressed Farmer. Some of the most important lessons to learn come from the poor, to whom few listen.Farmer believes that listening can form the work we do. He honed his listening skills, which are used in anthropology in an ethnographic context, after his first night in an emergency room, when he saw that many minor cases were brought in solely because individuals had no other outlet for treatment. Being a good listener allowed Farmer to understand the full impact of a 1981 slavery case involving migrant workers in Florida. It was this skill of listening that enabled Farmer to understand and tell Haiti’s story, as well as understand the intricate web that exists between privilege and privation. Just as the line between medical anthropology and primary care is often blurred, the “bracing connection between privilege and privation” becomes even more apparent the longer one spends studying both extremes.This is a vantage point Farmer was particularly susceptible to, given his trips from Haiti to Harvard and back again. Listening to his patients in Haiti and the United States would allow Farmer to draw parallels of inequality and injustice that exist for the impoverished in both places. The only difference between the United States and Haiti is that eventually many impoverished individuals in the United States will wind up in somewhat adequate medical facilities. In the story of global economics, Farmer said, “Good things get stuck in customs and bad things get traded freely.” A practicing physician may easily note that inequalities between the rich and poor are not unique to the United States or to Haiti, but what, Farmer asks, can anthropologists say about this division?The cursory glance through Farmer’s photo album ended with a picture of friends whom he fondly termed “the structural violence mafia” and anthropological ideas regarding unequal access to health care. While at first, the portion of anthropology that dissects the structures of violence seems isolated from medical anthropology, those structures of violence institute the vast inequalities that cause medicine to seem inaccessible. Farmer also stressed that “how we think about social theory influences global health.” Work in Haiti taught Farmer firsthand about the phenomenon of blaming the victim [3]. To understand this entrenched system of structural violence fully, an intensive bio-social analysis must be undertaken. Structural violence results in a system in which the victims are blamed, empowering those who suppress the victim while inhibiting the victim’s access to health care. Pointing fingers at the vulnerable is illustrated by the fact that Haiti is often blamed for the introduction of AIDS into North America [4,5]. Farmer stressed not only the inherent trauma of structural violence, but Carolyn Nordstrom’s ideas on violence having a distinct tomorrow [6]. The perpetual cycle of structural violence enables this concept of violence having a clear future with the inherent cultural systems that allow for violence remaining stagnant while the individuals entrapped within the system change.Beyond this concept of structural violence is that of structural healing [3]. Though structural healing is a new phenomenon being examined by anthropologists, it provides a balance to structural violence with the idea being that there are certain societal standards that are either in place or can be introduced that allow for an alleviation of the suffering caused by structural violence. While Farmer’s discussion of the path that led him to his current position was inspirational in itself, the sharing of his story is of even more importance because he has been a teacher to so many. His story reinforces the idea that even though structural violence has a definite past and future, so do medical anthropology and the idea of structural healing. Thankfully, medical anthropology may be used as a relatively new force to combat structural violence. Farmer’s speech may have been unexpected in its autobiographical content, but perhaps the main point is that the intersection between medicine and anthropology can be seen not as a single point but a line that runs the full length of each of these disciplines. We all have a distinct responsibility to not only hear but to listen and learn, not to just passively observe, but actively understand. It is with this listening and acting, that future medical anthropologists can bridge the gap between social sciences and practical medicine.     

Ethnoprimatology without Conservation: The Political Ecology of Farmer–Green Monkey (<Emphasis Type="Italic">Chlorocebus sabaeus</Emphasis>) Relations in St. Kitts,West Indies

The driving force behind the mixed-methods ethnoprimatological endeavor is to effectively conserve nonhuman primates. In this article, I argue that ethnoprimatological research can meet this goal only by discarding the purely science views of conservation that dominate the current literature. By considering more than local ecological perceptions, their ideological agendas, and their levels of power via a political ecology framework, ethnoprimatologists can simultaneously socialize the ecosystems we study and contribute our ethological skills to advance traditionally humanist disciplines’ increased attention to a wider field of agents and structures that matter. I support these arguments through an examination of farmer–green monkey (Chlorocebus sabaeus) relations in St. Kitts. Kittitian farmers’ narrative revealed three scales that collectively construct what is locally known as “the monkey problem:” increased rates of local contact between farmers and monkeys on farms, contestations over the future of St. Kitts’ land, and global debates over appropriate strategies to manage the monkey population. I show that although “the monkey problem” in St. Kitts does not involve an endangered or threatened species, my analysis of this construct has implications for primate populations that are threatened. This is because the root cause of this “problem”—the globalized discourse of nature conservation overpowering and problematizing local views about people–animal interactions—characterizes so many of the locales home to primates of conservation concern.