ORIGINAL ARTICLES Ann Agric Environ Med 2004, 11, 85 89



Similar documents
Agricultural Production and Research in Heilongjiang Province, China. Jiang Enchen. Professor, Department of Agricultural Engineering, Northeast

JOB ANNOUNCEMENT. Nursery Manager DEGREE AND CURRICULUM:

GUIDELINES FOR THE REGISTRATION OF BIOLOGICAL PEST CONTROL AGENTS FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS

FARMING FOR THE FUTURE How mineral fertilizers can feed the world and maintain its resources in an Integrated Farming System

Science of Life Explorations

THE SCOPE OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS IN AGRICULTURAL EXTENSION IN MAURITIUS

Harvesting energy with fertilizers

Integrated Pest Management

Agricultural Advisory Service in Denmark International Adviser Henry Joergensen, Danish Agricultural Advisory Centre

INTRODUCTION. The 3-year upper primary syllabus development was guided by the RNPE, 1994, which called for the review of the Primary curriculum.

Outline. What is IPM Principles of IPM Methods of Pest Management Economic Principles The Place of Pesticides in IPM

FACTS. Nitrate and Nitrite in Drinking Water. What Are Nitrate and Nitrite? 3. How Can These Chemicals Get into Your Drinking Water?

Farming. In the Standard Grade Geography exam there are three types of farming you need to know about arable, livestock and mixed.

FUTURE CHALLENGES OF PROVIDING HIGH-QUALITY WATER - Vol. II - Environmental Impact of Food Production and Consumption - Palaniappa Krishnan

SOIL TEST LEVELS AND NUTRIENT BUDGETS IN THE WESTERN U.S.

AGRICULTURAL PROBLEMS OF JAPAN

Farm Tax Record Book SAMPLE

Academic Offerings. Agriculture

agricultural economy agriculture CALIFORNIA EDUCATION AND THE ENVIRONMENT INITIATIVE I Unit I Cultivating California I Word Wall Cards 426WWC

Wheat Farming: Then and Now

Environmental Asbestos Exposure in Poland

AP ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE 2012 SCORING GUIDELINES

Sustainability in Agricultural Marketing:

Wherever chemical solutions are involved, ph matters. Some

Risø-R-1512(EN) Green Technological Foresight on Environmental Friendly Agriculture: Executive Summary

U.S. SOYBEAN SUSTAINABILITY ASSURANCE PROTOCOL

Farming at dairy farms (produktion på mælkelandbrug)

SECTION 6. The Codex code of practice on good animal feeding

Agricultural and Forestry Activities

Master of Science Program in Sustainable Agriculture Faculty of Science and Technology, Thammasat University New Curriculum Year2004

MARKET ANALYSIS OF SOFTWARE TO SUPPORT DECISION MAKING FOR FARMS IN POLAND

Introduction to Industrial Hygiene for the Safety Professional

ENERGY IN FERTILIZER AND PESTICIDE PRODUCTION AND USE

Missouri Soybean Economic Impact Report

Pest Management - Holistic Pest Control?

Fayette County Appraisal District

Meeting Future Food Demands for Singapore

SOURCES OF FARM POWER

The Pillars of Agricultural Literacy

Welcome to Kristianstad The Biogas City

LEA-CalRecycle 2014 Technical Training Conference March 17, GREG PIRIE, REHS County of Napa, EH KARILYN MERLOS, REHS County of San Diego, DEH

Chapter 3: Separating Mixtures (pg )

Bottom-up: Responding to climate change through livestock in integrated agriculture

How to Reduce Your Exposure to Chemicals at Home, Work, and Play

Environmental Role of Poplar and Willow Drusilla Riddell-Black Lupus Science United Kingdom

ARIMNet 2 Call

Agriculture in Motion

Injury on Farms in New South Wales THE FACTS. Facts and Figures on Farm Health and Safety Series No 7

National Environment Awareness Campaign(NEAC) Theme

Green Entrepreneurship. Oliver Ortis, Green Jobs Specialist, Green Jobs in Asia Project, ILO Indonesia Office Jakarta

Farm Financial Standards Council Update Big Data Will Drive Financial Statements

Fodder R&D Funding. A Subsequent Submission to the Productivity Commission s. Review into Rural Research and Development Corporations

The project is part of an agricultural local and district program that aims to strengthen the social and economic capacities of producers.

I. RECOMMENDED PRACTICES BASED ON GOOD AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES (GAP) AND GOOD MANUFACTURING PRACTICES (GMP)

CORPORATE ACCRUAL TO TAX CONVERSION WORKSHEET

Introduction to the concepts of IPM

Integrated crop-livestock farming systems

Your Living Soil. Healthy soil includes:

Questionnaire: Physical-Ergonomic Workplace Evaluation The University of Aarhus 2008

PLACEHOLDER TEXT PROGRAMS DIVIDER PROGRAMS OFFERED

Agenda. Overview and market conditions. Current activities. Financials overview. Post-merger objectives

Advanced Soil Organic Matter Management

1. PUBLIC HEALTH STATEMENT. This public health statement tells you about hydraulic fluids and the effects of exposure.

Protection of the South Baltic Sea through the reduction of emission coming from agricultural waste pollution.

CHAPTER 5 RESEARCH ORGANIZATION AND ACADEMIC INSTITUTES FOR TRAINING IN OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY OF WORKERS IN INDUSTRIES IN GUJARAT

ADVICE FOR OWNERS OF PET PIGS AND MICRO PIGS

Liquid Biofuels for Transport

THE AGRICULTURAL EQUIPMENT MARKET IN CE, SE AND EASTERN EUROPE

Importance of Wildlife

Major/Specialization. B.Sc. Degree

environmental stewardship

GUIDELINES FOR MANAGEMENT AND HANDLING OF SPENT MYCELIUM FROM BULK DRUG INDUSTRY

Crop rotation and legumes cultivation: Effective measures to increase the environmental performance and long-term viability of European agriculture.

Texas Pesticide Recertification Course Accreditation Guide

STATISTICAL PROFILE OF CAPE BRETON. Prepared By: Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture

TURKEY ANATOLIA WATERSHED REHABILITATION PROJECT Sedat Kadioglu Ministry of Environment Abdulmecit Yesil Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Affairs

Introduction to Integrated Pest Management. John C. Wise, Ph.D. Michigan State University MSU Trevor Nichols Research Complex

STUDENT INFORMATION GUIDE

Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Policy

March, Zimbabwe National Statistics Agency Telephone: /8 or /7 P. O. Box C. Y. 342 Fax:

298,320 3, ,825. Missouri Economic Research Brief FARM AND AGRIBUSINESS. Employment. Number of Agribusinesses.

Agriculture in Australia: growing more than our farming future

Backyard Rabbit Hutches

Cash Flow Projection for Operating Loan Determination

C162 Asbestos Convention, 1986

Asbestos Disease: An Overview for Clinicians Asbestos Exposure

Current Research in Agricultural Sciences ECONOMICS OF SHEEP PRODUCTION IN ZURU LOCAL GOVERNMENT AREA OF KEBBI STATE NIGERIA

Tech Prep Articulation

Enterprise Budget User Guide

Impact of Fishpond for Socio-Economic and Nutritional Improvement: A Case Study of Kalundwa and Kibwaya Villages-Mkuyuni Division in Morogoro-Tanzania

Curriculum Policy of the Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Graduate Program

THE ECONOMIC DATA BASE AN INSTRUMENT SUPPORTING PREPARATION OF THE PROGRAMMES OF MEASURES IN ACCORDANCE TO THE WATER FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE

Transcription:

ORGNL RTLES EM nn gric Environ Med 24, 11, 85 89 TME OF FRMERS EXPOSURE TO OLOGL FTORS N GRULTURL WORKNG ENRONMENT $QQDRáRF]QLN nstitute of gricultural Medicine, Lublin, Poland RáRF]QLN$7LPHRDUPHU H[SRXUHWRELRORJLFDODFWRULQDJULFXOWXUDOZRUNLQJ environment. nn gric Environ Med 24, 11, 85 89. bstract: Working time in conditions of exposure to hazardous factors is an important element indispensable for the evaluation of human exposure in the working environment. gricultural work is accompanied by co-occurrence of many risk factors threatening farmers health, e.g., elements of the thermal environment, noise, vibration, chemical and biological agents. iological factors cause diseases with contagious, allergic or immuno-toxic backgrounds which constitute the majority of farmers occupational diseases registered in Poland. Exposure to hazardous factors in agricultural working environment is due to contact with plants, animals and organic wastes, more precisely - with microbes, plant and animal particles present in aerogenic agricultural, as well as pathogens of contagious and invasive diseases present in contaminated soil, water and plants. Data concerning the duration of farmers exposure to biological and other factors of the working environment were obtained with the use of the Private Farmer Work hart. Time-schedule observations concerned an annual work cycle. The study covered 3 farms with the following production profiles: plant (Group ), animal (Group ) and mixed production (Group ). The total working time was: in Group - from 16 163% of the legal working time; in Group - from 75 147%; in Group - from 136 167%. mong 48 work activities contributing to the full working cycle among the farmers examined, 15 activities were accompanied by 5 factors. These were mainly field activities which covered plant harvesting and fertilizing, chemical plant protection, as well as cultivation activities. gricultural and elements of the thermal environment were the environmental factors most frequently accompanying agricultural work, followed by contact with biological factors, noise, vibration, and chemical agents. iological factors are a specific element associated with 19 work activities, mainly the spreading of manure, animal breeding and plant harvesting. working time in conditions of exposure to these factors in the group of plant producers was 51% of the total working time on average, among animal breeders - 8% and in the case of mixed production - 77%. ddress for correspondence: 'U $QQD RáRF]QLN 'HSDUWPHQW R 2FFXSDWLRQDO Physical Hazards, nstitute of gricultural Medicine, Jaczewskiego 2, P.O. ox 185, 2-95 Lublin, Poland. Key words: farmer, exposure time, biological factors, agricultural, elements of the thermal environment, noise, vibration, chemical agents, agricultural environment. NTRODUTON Safe occupational conditions are determined by standard allowable values. The required safety measure for factors of both long-term and instant action is the mean weighted allowable value. This value refers to the whole work cycle and contains an element of exposure time [2, 9, 11, 2, 25, 26]. Received: 2 December 23 ccepted: 2 pril 24 Presented at the 1 st nternational Scientific-Training ongress Organic Dust nduced Pulmonary Diseases, 1-12 Oct. 23, Kazimierz Dolny, Poland

86 RáRF]QLN$ Working time (% of legal working time) 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 min mean max Working time (% of legal working time) 23 21 19 17 15 13 11 9 7 5 min max X X YER 162.8 146.4 121.8 112.3 75.4 Figure 1. Total annual time of performing all activities in the group of farmers engaged in plant production (), in animal production () and in mixed production (). Hence, the recognition of the time of exposure of farmers to each hazardous factor present in their working environment is extremely significant. The duration of exposure to a health risk factor is particularly important with respect to changeable exposure in agriculture where the work cycle is prolonged to one year, and the daily working time in conditions of exposure to hazardous factors changes irregularly from one day to the next [3, 4, 7, 15]. gricultural work is accompanied by co-occurrence of many risk factors threatening farmers health, e.g., elements of the thermal environment, noise, vibration, chemical and biological agents. iological factors cause diseases of contagious, allergic or immunotoxic background which constitute the majority of farmers occupational diseases registered in Poland [1, 2, 27]. Exposure to these factors in the agricultural working environment is due to contact with plants, animals and organic wastes, more precisely - with microbes, plant and animal particles present in aerogenic agricultural, as well as Figure 2. Distribution of working time in annual work cycle among farmers ( - plant production, - animal production, - mixed production). pathogens of contagious and invasive diseases present in soil, water and plants [1, 13, 17, 18, 24]. Pioneer studies in this area are being conducted by the nstitute of gricultural Medicine [5, 6, 8, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 22, 23]. The aim of the present study was the recognition of farmers time exposure to biological factors on the background of other hazards present in agricultural working environment. MTERL The study covered 3 farms in the Lublin region with the following production profiles: plant - wheat, sugar beet, vegetables (Group ), animal - dairy cattle (4 on average), swine (9 on average) (Group ) and mixed production (Group ). The size of the farms in the study was 3 66 ha (Group ), 18 41 ha (Group ) and 1 2 ha (Group ). The age of farmers was 22 53 years. They ran farms together with adult family members - wife, parents and children. Table 1. potential exposure to hazardous factors accompanying individual groups of work activities on private farms. Groups of work activities on farm thermal environment Hazardous factors of working environment biological hazards noise vibration chemical hazards ultivation and crop care: - mechanical - manual Fertilization Sowing, planting Plant protection Plant harvesting: - mechanical - manual Household activities Other work activities

Time of farmers exposure to biological factors in agricultural working environment 87 35 1 3 25 2 15 1 5 thermal environment biohazards noise vibration chemical hazards 8 6 4 2 thermal environment biohazards noise vibration chemical hazards Figure 3. exposure time to hazardous factors on 3 types of farms,, (hours). Figure 4. exposure time to hazardous factors on 3 types of farms,, (% of the total working time on a farm). METHODS The Private Farmer s Labour harter was applied in order to obtain data concerning time exposure of a farmer to biological and other factors of the working environment during the work cycle. The harter was designed for a farmer to register his everyday work activities, and contained questions concerning: duration of work, labourers, the equipment applied, as well as subjectively perceived environmental factors accompanying work, such as, elements of the thermal environment, noise, vibration, chemical agents including pesticides, mineral fertilizers and biological factors. Time-schedule observations concerned an annual work cycle. RESULTS Total working time. ased on the time-schedule documentation, 48 types of work activities were distinguished associated with crop and soil cultivation, fertilization, sowing, planting, plant protection, crop harvesting, as well as household activities, such as care of animals, grain threshing, cleaning and crushing, mixing of fodder, and other work activities - repair, transportation and reloading (Tab. 1). The total time of performing all activities registered in annual time-schedule documentation was: in the group of farmers engaged in plant production (Group ) - from 2,26 3,464 hours, in the group of farmers engaged in animal production (Group ) - from 1,65 3,132 hours, and in the group of farmers engaged in mixed production (Group ) - from 2,94 3,373 hours. These values were expressed in the percentage of legal working time and were: in Group - from 16 163%, 122% on average; in Group - from 75 147%, 112% on average; and in Group - from 136 167%, 146% on average. Mixed production occurred to be most time consuming, while swine breeding based on concentrated feeding staff was the least time consuming (Fig. 1). The greatest amount of time is devoted to the care of animals - the main component of working time during the whole year on animal production and mixed production farms. The analysis of monthly data shows a great inequality in working time load among the farmers in the study during the annual work cycle, especially among those engaged in mixed production (Fig. 2). t also indicates a high monthly working time schedule of farmers, most frequently exceeding the legal working time, especially 4 35 X X 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 X X 3 25 2 15 1 5 Figure 5. Working time distribution in conditions of exposure to biological, t - thermal environment, d - ) in a selected farmer of Group (plant production). Figure 6. Working time distribution in conditions of exposure to biological, t - thermal environment, d - ) in a selected farmer of Group (animal production)

88 RáRF]QLN$ 3 X X 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 X X 25 2 15 1 5 Figure 7. Working time distribution in conditions of exposure to biological, t - thermal environment, d - ) in a selected farmer of Group (mixed production). with plant and mixed production, maximum over 2% of the legal time in case of a farmer engaged in plant production (October) and a farmer engaged in mixed production (June). Working time in conditions of exposure to hazardous factors of the working environment. mong 48 activities contributing to the whole work cycle of farmers in the study, 15 were accompanied by 5 hazards, and the following 16 - by 4 risk factors. These were mainly field work activities associated with plant harvesting and fertilization, chemical plant treatment, as well as cultivation activities (Tab. 1). Figure 3 presents the mean working time of farmers on 3 types of farms in conditions of exposure to hazardous factors of the working environment. The environmental factor most frequently accompanying agricultural work is and elements of the thermal environment, followed by contact with biological factors of plant and animal origin, noise and vibration; chemical agents create risk within the shortest working time schedule. Work in the agricultural environment creates risk to hazardous biological agents through contact with plants, animals and organic wastes (manure, dung) precisely, with microbes and plant and animal particles present in aerogenic agricultural produced and inhaled by a farmer while performing various work activities in the field and within the household, as well as pathogens of contagious and invasive diseases present in contaminated soil, water and plants. iological agents are a specific element accompanying agricultural work. These factors were associated with 27 work activities, mainly during application of fertilizers, harvesting and animal breeding. The farmers exposure time to these factors was about 51% of the total working time on a farm, on average, in the group of plant producers; 8% - among animal breeders; and 77% - among farmers engaged in mixed production (Fig. 4). The working time of a farmer changes during the annual cycle, each of the hazards registered also has its typical distribution: changeable, with clear maximum values. Figure 8. Working time of farmers (,, ) in conditions of exposure to biological hazards Figures 5, 6 and 7 present examples of working time distributions in conditions of exposure to hazardous factors in 3 farmers of the Groups, and. The exposure time of farmers to biological hazards remained on a high and slightly changeable level throughout the whole year, except for November in the group of plant producers and October among animal breeders (Fig. 8). ONLUSONS Working time of farmers on private farms generally exceeds the legal working time, irrespective of the type of production. gricultural work is most often accompanied by several hazards at the same time, which may determine the type and intensity of the body reaction among workers exposed. Dust, elements of the thermal environment and biological agents, occur most frequently and create risk for farmers. iological agents accompany nearly 6% of farm activities. Working time in conditions of exposure to biological hazards was: in the group of plant producers - 51% of the total working time on a farm; in the group of animal breeders - 8%; and in the group of farmers carrying out mixed production - 77%. Time schedule and the distribution of farmers exposure to hazardous factors during an annual work cycle were specific for each farm and dependent primarily on production profile. Data concerning the time of exposure to the hazards of agricultural working environment constitute a basis for biasing prophylactic actions; this is especially important with respect to biological factors, farmers generally not being aware of their presence. REFERENES 1. Dutkiewicz J: acteria and fungi in organic as potential health hazard. nn gric Environ Med 1997, 4, 11-16. 2. 'XWNLHZLF]-RáRF]QLN$3\á\RUJDQLF]QHSRFKRG]HQLDUROLQQHJR i ]ZLHU]FHJR3RGWDZ\LHWRG\2FHQ\URGRZLND3UDF\LG]\UHRUWRZD.RPLMD GR SUDZ 1DMZ\*]\FK 'RSX]F]DOQ\FK 6W*H L 1DW*H

Time of farmers exposure to biological factors in agricultural working environment 89 &]\QQLNyZ6]NRGOLZ\FKGOD=GURZLDZURGRZLNX3UDF\:DU]DZD 1998, 18, 151-185. 3. RáRF]QLN $ 2FHQD QDUD*HQLD QD G]LDáDQLH S\áX Z ZDUXQNDFK ekspozycji nieustalonej. %H]SLHF]HWZR3UDF\ 199, 7-8, 8-11. 4. RáRF]QLN $ 2FHQD HNSR]\FML SUDFRZQLNyZ QD S\á\ UROQLF]H - stan aktualny i potrzeby. %H]SLHF]HWZR3UDF\ 1993, 5, 7-11. 5. RáRF]QLN$([SRXUHWRDgricultural in Poland. nn gric Environ Med 1994, 1, 115. 6. RáRF]QLN$3UREOHP]DJUR*HQLDS\áRZHJRZUROQ\PURGRZLNX pracy. Zastosowania Ergonomii 1996, 22-23, 189-197. 7. RáRF]QLN$&]DSUDF\UROQLNDZQDUD*HQLXQDS\áMDNRHOHPHQW oceny higienicznej. Higiena Pracy 1996, 3, 25-31. 8. RáRF]QLN $ ([SRXUH WR GXW RQ DUP n: 25th nternational ongress on Occupational Health, Stockholm, Sweden, 15-2 September 1996. ook of bstracts,, 265. 9. RáRF]QLN $ +LJLHQD SUDF\ Z LQG\ZLGXDOQ\P JRSRGDUWZLH rolnym -SRWU]HE\LPR*OLZRFLHigiena Pracy 1997, 3, 23-36. 1. RáRF]QLN$URGRZLNRSUDF\UROQLNDLQG\ZLGXDOQHJR- czynniki ]DJUD*DMFHMHJR]GURZLXL*\FLXZastosowania Ergonomii 1998, 1/2/3, 115-123. 11. RáRF]QLN $ 3UREOHPDW\ND ]DS\OHQLD Z UROQLF]\P URdowisku pracy. n: Dutkiewicz J (Ed): =DJUR*HQLD%LRORJLF]QHZ5ROQLFWZLH, 24-32. nstitute of gricultural Medicine, Lublin 1998. 12. RáRF]QLN $ ([SRXUH WR GXW RQ SULYDWH DUP LQ 3RODQG n: nternational onference Environmental, Occupational Health and Safety in griculture on the oundry of two Millenia, Kiev, Ukraine, 8-11 September 1998. bstracts, 87. 13. RáRF]QLN$=DJyUNL-=DJUR*HQLDZUROQLFWZLHLQG\ZLGXDOQ\P RUD]G]LDáDQLDQDU]HF]SRSUDZ\ZDUXQNyZSUDF\UROQLNyZLQG\ZLGXDOQ\FK Medycyna Ogólna 1996, 2, 16-166. 14. RáRF]QLN $ =DJyUNL - ([SRXUH WR GXW DPRQJ DJULFXOWXUDO workers. nn gric Environ Med 1998, 5, 127-13. 15. RáRF]QLN $ 5R]SR]QDQLH F]DX SUDF\ UROQLND Z QDUD*HQLX QD ]NRGOLZH F]\QQLNL URGRZLND SUDF\ QD SU]\NáDG]LH Z\EUDQ\FK gospodarstw rodzinnych. Zastosowania Ergonomii 1999, 34-35, 77-87. 16. RáRF]QLN $ =DS\OHQLH Z UROQLF]\P URGRZLNX SUDF\ MDNR otwarty problem higieniczny. n: Solecki L (Ed): =DJUR*HQLD)L]\F]QHZ Rolnictwie, 58-66. nstitute of gricultural Medicine, Lublin 1999. 17. RáRF]QLN $ 6NáDGQLNL S\áX UROQLF]HJR MDNR SRWHQFMDOQH czynniki patogenne. n: Zagórski J (Ed): horoby Zawodowe i Parazawodowe w Rolnictwie, 61-67. nstitute of gricultural Medicine, Lublin 2. 18. RáRF]QLN $ :LHORDSHNWRZ\ FKDUDNWHU HNSR]\FML QD S\á Z URGRZLNXUROQLF]\PMedycyna Ogólna 2, 4, 347-357. 19. RáRF]QLN $ +\JLHQLF DSHFW R GXWLQH RQ 3ROLK SULYDWH farms. n: ERGON-X 2. Ergonomics and Safety for Global usiness Quality and Productivity. Proceedings of the Second nternational onference ERGON-X 2, Warsaw, Poland, 19-21 May 2, 147-15. OP, Warsaw 2. 2. RáRF]QLN$6WXGLHRWLPHRDUPHU H[SRXUHWRKD]DUGRX factors in the working environment on Polish family farms. n: Proceedings of the E 2/HFES 2 ongress, San Diego, alifornia, US, 29 July 4 ugust 2, 3, 662-665. 21. RáRF]QLN$=DJyUNL-([SRXUHRHPDOHDUPHUWRGXWRQ family farms. nn gric Environ Med 2, 7, 43-5. 22. RáRF]QLN$=DJyUNL-([SRXUHRDUPHUWRGXWRQSULYDWH farms of various production profiles. nn gric Environ Med 21, 8, 151-161. 23. RáRF]QLN $ 3UDFD Z LQG\ZLGXDOQ\P JRSRGDUWZLH UROQ\P - otwarty problem ergonomiczny. n: Solecki L (Ed): ktualny stan ergonomii w rolnictwie - SRWU]HE\ QD SU]\]áRü, 135-147. nstitute of gricultural Medicine, Lublin 22. 24. RáRF]QLN$4XDOLWDWLYHDQGTXDQWLWDWLYHDQDO\LRDJULFXOWXUDO in working environment. nn gric Environ Med 22, 9, 71-78. 25. RáRF]QLN$)DUPHU ZRUNLQJWLPHLQFRQGLWLRQRH[SRXUHWR hazardous factors of working environment. n: onference Proceedings. 8th nternational onference on Human spects of dvanced Manufacturing: gility & Hybrid utomation Rome, taly, 26 3 May 23, 567-568. 26. 5R]SRU]G]HQLH LQLWUD 3UDF\ L 3ROLW\NL 6RFMDOQHM ] GQLD llwrsdgduzsudzlhqdmz\*]\fk GRSX]F]DOQ\FK W*H L QDW*HF]\QQLNyZ]NRGOLZ\FKGOD]GURZLDZURGRZLNXSUDF\']8 22, Nr 217, poz. 1833. 32. :\SDGNLSU]\SUDF\LFKRURE\]DZRGRZHUROQLNyZRUD]G]LDáDQLD prewencyjne KRUS w 22 roku. Kasa Rolniczego Ubezpieczenia 6SRáHF]QHJR:DU]DZD