Glen H. Hetzel, Wei Zhao
Virginia Cooperative Extension
Introduction
Response
Rate
Farm
Size
Type
of Farm Operation
Injury
Rates
Injury
Information
Causes
of Accidents
Hazards
Presented by Farm Tractors
Conclusions,
Recommendations, and References
In
an effort to obtain more up to date farm injury data in Virginia,
a statewide farm accident survey was mailed to a random sample
of Virginia farmers in late April 1991 to obtain accident
data for the calendar year 1990. All materials were mailed
through the Virginia Agricultural Statistics Service (VASS)
to ensure anonymity of the respondents.
The
objectives of the survey were to identify: 1) farm activities
most frequently resulting in injuries; 2) high risk groups
with regard to farm accidents; and 3) hazards associated
with using tractors without rollover protective structures
( ROPS).
The
results of this survey provided a basis for developing effective
agricultural safety programs directed toward a reduction
in farm related injuries, illness and fatalities. The results
of the survey were also provided to the National Institute
for Occupational Safety and Health for inclusion in their
national survey data base.
Return
to Table of Contents
A
random sample of 1,520 farms across the commonwealth was selected
by type of operation, size, and geographic location. The 1,520
farms in the sample represented nearly 3.5% of the 44,000
farms in Virginia.
The
response to the survey was relatively low. Of the 1,520
survey forms sent, 915 were returned. This represented about
60% of the sample. However, only 695 of the 915 returned
surveys were usable. The responses of the other 220 returned
forms were as follows:
| Farm
rented out |
56 |
| Retired |
55 |
| Not
completed |
32 |
| Deceased |
18 |
| Farm
had been sold |
18 |
| Farm
idle |
16 |
| Refused
to participate |
6 |
| No
longer farming |
5 |
The
usable response rate for the survey was approximately 46%.
The reluctance of farmers to disclose accident information
may have been a factor in the low response rate. In addition,
the timing of the survey may also have contributed to the
low return rate. The Virginia survey was conducted in late
April and early May, which probably conflicted with normal
spring field work for most Virginia farms.
Return
to Table of Contents
The
survey information on the size of farms indicated that 18.4%
of the farms were less than 50 acres, 18.6% were 50 to 100
acres, 22.4% were 100 to 200 acres, 25.8% were 200 to 500
acres, and about 10% were 500 to 1,000 acres. Farms comprising
more than 1,000 acres accounted for the remaining 5% of the
surveys (Figure 1).
Return
to Table of Contents
The
replies from the 695 farms indicated that 6.8% were grain
operations; 24.6% mainly grew field crops such as cotton,
tobacco, peanuts and hay; 62.7% raised livestock and poultry;
and 3.6% produced specialty crops such as fruit, plants and
vegetables. The remaining 2.3% of the farms conducted a variety
of agricultural operations (Figure 2).
Return
to Table of Contents
An
accident in this survey was considered to have resulted in
injury if: 1) medical attention (including a phone call to
a physician) was required or 2) a half day or more of restricted
activity such as staying in bed, missing school or work, or
reducing other normal activities occurred.
Among
the 695 respondents, 40 reported one injury and five reported
two injuries during the period of 1990. This resulted in
a total of 50 injuries, with one being a fatality. Since
the survey only requested injury information for the most
recent accident, descriptive injury data were obtained for
45 of the 50 injuries. Among the injuries, 40 were reported
as work related and one as leisure or recreation related.
The classifications of the other four injuries were not
specified. Assuming all unknown injuries were work related,
a total of 49 work related injuries were reported in the
survey. The injury rate, i.e., the number of work related
injuries (49) divided by the number of farms (695), was
calculated as 0.07 work injuries per farm. In other words,
seven percent of the farmers surveyed experienced at least
one work- related injury in 1990. Because of suspected under-reporting,
this injury rate probably represents the lower bounds for
the actual rate of work injuries occurring during 1990.
On
a statistical basis, this represents one injury per every
14 farms in 1990. A total of 1.90 million hours of exposure
to farm work was reported in the survey. Family members
accounted for 64.4% or 1.22 million hours, and hired workers
accounted for 35.6% or 0.68 million hours. Injury rates,
per million hours of work exposure, for family members and
hired workers were calculated. Twenty-eight of the work-
related injuries were identified as having occurred to family
members and 19 to hired workers. The injury rate for family
members was 22.9 injuries per million hours of work exposure.
The rate for hired workers was 27.9 per million hours of
farm work.
Return
to Table of Contents
The
injury data indicated that about 85% of the total injuries
occurred to male farm workers and 15% to females. Work injuries
appear correlated with worker's age. Nearly one-third of the
injuries occurred to workers aged 45 to 64 years. No children
under the age of 15 were reported to be injured. The oldest
victim of an accident was 77 years old. Table 1 shows the
percentage of work injuries experienced by age groups. The
work injury rates by age group could not be calculated due
to lack of data. Although agricultural workers in the age
groups of 25 to 64 were reported to experience more injuries,
it is likely they have lower injury rates per hours of exposure
because they usually work more hours.
Table
1. Injuries by Age Groups
| Age
group |
%
of injuries |
| Under
15 |
0.0 |
| 15
to 24 |
13.6 |
| 25
to 44 |
20.5 |
| 45
to 64 |
29.5 |
| 65
& over |
13.6 |
| Unknown |
22.7 |
Analyzing
the injury data by month revealed that November was the
top month for injuries, accounting for 17.5% of the total
injuries, as shown in Table 2. June and September had the
next highest number of injuries, each accounting for 12.5%
of reported injuries reported. Few injuries occurred during
the period from February to May. Further examination of
the accident descriptions disclosed that many injuries occurring
in the winter months were associated with harvesting fire
wood and using hand and power tools.
Table
2. Month Injury Occurred
| Month |
%
of injuries |
| January |
7.5 |
| February |
2.5 |
| February |
2.5 |
| April |
10.0 |
| May |
2.5 |
| June |
12.5 |
| July |
10.0 |
| August |
7.5 |
| September |
12.5 |
| October |
7.5 |
| November |
17.5 |
| December |
7.5 |
The
severity of injury data indicate that 85% of the injuries
required medical attention and 12.5% of the injuries resulted
in restricted activities. One fatality was reported from
the survey due to a tractor overturn. A total of 561 lost
workdays were reported as a result of 38 work-related injuries.
Nearly two-thirds of the injuries resulted in at least one
full day of lost time. Thirty-two percent of the cases involved
six or more lost workdays. The maximum number of lost workdays
reported in the survey was 120. Time lost per injury averaged
15 workdays. Table 3 lists the number and percentage of
injuries by the number of lost workdays.
Table
3. Lost Workdays Due to Injury
| Lost
workdays |
Number |
Percentage |
| less
than one |
15 |
34.1 |
| one
to five |
9 |
20.5 |
| six
to ten |
4 |
9.1 |
| 11
to 20 |
4 |
9.1 |
| 21
to 50 |
3 |
6.8 |
| over
50 |
3 |
6.8 |
| Unknown |
6 |
13.6 |
The
nature of injuries is displayed in Table 4. Cuts were the
most common injury, accounting for about 27% of the total
injuries. Sprains/strains and fractures were the next two
most common types of injuries, resulting in 15.9% and 13.6%
of the total injuries, respectively.
Table
4. Nature of Injury
| Nature
of injury |
%
of injuries |
| Amputation |
2.3 |
| Bruise |
6.8 |
| Burn |
2.3 |
| Cut |
27.3 |
| Crushed/mangled |
4.5 |
| Fracture |
13.6 |
| Puncture |
9.1 |
| Sprain/strain |
15.9 |
| Multiple
injury |
6.8 |
| Other/unknown |
11.4 |
Table
5 gives work injury by part of the body. The hand/wrist
was the most frequently injured body part, accounting for
about 18% of the injuries. The leg/ knee was injured next
most frequently and accounted for 15.9% of the injuries.
Then, the arm/shoulder and finger follow, each with 13.6%
of the total injuries. The back accounted for another 11.4%
of the injuries.
Table
5. Work Injury by Body Part
| Body
part |
%
of injuries |
| Hand/wrist |
18.2 |
| Leg/knee |
15.9 |
| Arm/shoulder |
13.6 |
| Finger |
13.6 |
| Back |
11.4 |
| Foot |
6.8 |
| Multiple |
6.8 |
| Head/neck |
4.5 |
| Eye |
2.3 |
| Chest/trunk |
2.3 |
| Other/unknown |
4.5 |
Information
about work injuries by type of accident is presented in
Table 6. Contact with a sharp object was the most common
type of accident occurring on Virginia farms. These accounted
for about 20% of the total injuries. Another 20% of the
injuries were caused by one of the "struck by" categories.
The "caught" type of accidents were responsible for 16%
of the injuries. Falls resulted in approximately 9% of the
injuries.
Table
6. Work Injuries by Accident Type
| Type
of Accident |
%
of Injuries |
| Contact
with sharp object |
20.5 |
| Struck
by or against object |
11.4 |
| Struck
by flying object |
6.8 |
| Struck
by falling object |
2.3 |
| Caught
between objects |
9.1 |
| Caught
under object |
4.5 |
| Caught
in object |
2.3 |
| Fall
from elevation |
6.8 |
| Fall
from same level |
2.3 |
| Overexertion |
6.8 |
| Other/unknown |
27.3 |
Return
to Table of Contents
Animals
were found to be the leading cause of accidents to Virginia
farm workers with about 18% of the injuries, as shown in
Table 7. Agricultural machinery (excluding farm tractors)
was the second most prominent cause of injuries, accounting
for 16% of the injuries. Hand and powered tools were responsible
for about 18% of the injuries. Another 11.4% of the injuries
were attributed to the working surface (ground, floor, etc.).
Tractors caused only 6.8% of the total injuries. However,
injuries involving tractors were much more severe than other
injuries. The one fatality reported in the survey was associated
with a tractor overturn. The average of workdays lost for
other tractor-related injuries was 60 days, the highest
among all injury sources. In conclusion, farm tractors,
animals, agricultural machinery and equipment, and liquid
(including water, manure, etc.) caused the most workdays
lost due to work-related injuries on Virginia farms. A study
by Hetzel et al. (1991) on the death certificate data for
Virginia farm workers revealed that agricultural machinery,
including tractors, was responsible for over 50% of the
fatal accidents for the period from 1975 through 1989.
Table
7. Major Causes of Accidents and Average Workdays Lost
| Cause |
No. |
%
injuries |
Average
workdays lost |
| Animals |
8 |
18.2 |
40.86 |
| Machinery |
7 |
15.9 |
10.00 |
| Work
surface |
5 |
11.4 |
0.75 |
| Hand
tools |
5 |
11.4 |
4.80 |
| Power
tools |
3 |
6.8 |
0.67 |
| Tractors |
3 |
6.8 |
60.00 |
| Plant/tree |
3 |
6.8 |
1.00 |
| Liquid |
3 |
6.8 |
12.33 |
| Chemicals |
1 |
2.3 |
0.00 |
| Other/unknown |
6 |
13.6 |
6.50 |
The
type of work being performed when an injury occurred is
tabulated in Table 8. Livestock treatment or handling was
the most common activity performed when injuries occurred,
resulting in nearly one-third of the total injuries. Persons
engaged in field work and machinery maintenance experienced
the next highest percentage of injuries, each accounting
for 11.4 percent of the total injuries. Another 27% of the
injuries resulted from "other" kinds of agricultural activities.
Table
8. Activity When Injured
| Activity |
%
of injuries |
| Livestock
handling |
31.8 |
| Field
work |
11.4 |
| Machinery
maintenance |
11.4 |
| Building
maintenance |
9.1 |
| Routine
chores |
4.5 |
| Other |
27.3 |
| Unknown |
4.5 |
Return
to Table of Contents
The
information on farm tractors reveals that serious problems
exist regarding the safe use of tractors on Virginia farms.
The survey data showed there were 1393 tractors in use on
620 farms, for an average of 2.25 tractors per farm. About
70% of these tractors were not equipped with a ROPS. Table
9 depicts the presence of ROPS on Virginia farm tractors.
Table
9. Tractor Rollover Protection
| Rollover
protection |
%
of tractors |
| None |
69.8 |
| ROPS |
15.6 |
| Cab |
12.0 |
| Unknown |
2.6 |
Of
the 620 respondents that provided tractor information, only
240 reported that at least one tractor on the farm was equipped
with some type of ROPS. The remaining 380 farms used tractors
that had no ROPS/protective cabs at all.
Hours
of tractor use revealed that, on average, tractors without
ROPS were used about 290 hours per year. Tractors with ROPS
averaged approximately 330 hours of use. Tractors equipped
with cab type ROPS were used about 450 hours. However, the
total hours of use for tractors without ROPS (280,000 hours)
were 85% higher than those for tractors with ROPS or cabs
(148,000 hours) because the majority of tractors used on
Virginia farms were not equipped with ROPS or protective
cabs. Table 10 shows the average annual hours of tractor
use by kind of rollover protection.
Table
10. Average Yearly Hours of Tractor Use by Rollover Protection
Status
| Rollover
Protection |
Number
of Tractors |
Average
Hours of Tractor Use |
| None |
972 |
288 |
| ROPS |
218 |
332 |
| Cab |
167 |
453 |
| Unknown |
36 |
297 |
Based
on the authors' information, some 10 to 20 people lose their
lives each year in Virginia as a result of tractor overturns.
Most of those fatalities occurred to older farm workers,
probably because they were more likely to use old tractors
that had no rollover protection. Three tractor overturns
were reported from this survey, and one of them caused a
fatality. The hazards resulting from using tractors without
ROPS are very evident.
Return
to Table of Contents
Based
on the information from this survey, the following conclusions
can be derived:
1.
Hired workers had a higher injury rate per million hours
of work exposure than family members. 2. More injuries occurred during the winter months.
3. Animals, agricultural machinery, and hand or power
tools were leading causes of work injuries on Virginia
farms. Farm tractors, machinery, and animals normally
resulted in more severe injuries than other sources.
4. Tractors used on Virginia farms that had no ROPS presented
serious safety problems for agricultural workers. Although,
on average, the hours of annual use for tractors equipped
with ROPS were higher than for tractors without ROPS,
the total hours of use for tractors without ROPS were
85% higher than for those with ROPS.
A
number of recommendations follow regarding action that can
be undertaken to reduce the number of injuries occurring
on farms in Virginia:
1.
Provide training for family members and hired farm workers
on how to operate tractors and machinery and perform work
tasks safely.
2. Emphasize safe practices to follow when harvesting
fire wood and when using hand tools.
3. Provide training on how to work with livestock safely.
4. Encourage farmers to retrofit older tractors with a
certified ROPS and seat belt or to purchase replacement
tractor equipped with a ROPS and seat belt.
5. Increased efforts and research should target how to
retrofit tractors with ROPS.
-
Cavaletto, R. A. 1989. Oregon agricultural injury survey.
Paper presented at the 1989 Summer Meeting, National Institute
of Farm Safety, Inc. Paper No. 89-5.
-
Hetzel, G. H., W. Zhao, S. J. Thomson, M. J. Weaver and
J. V. Perumpral. 1991. Fatal Farm Injuries in Virginia,
1975-1989. Poster presented at the Tenth Surgeon General's
Conference: Agricultural Safety and Health, April 30 -
May 3, 1991, Des Moines, Iowa.
-
Huizinga, M. A. and D. J. Murphy. 1989. Farm work injuries
in Pennsylvania. Extension Circular 370. Cooperative Extension
Service, The Pennsylvania State University, University
Park, PA.
-
Murphy, D. J. and M. A. Huizinga. 1989. A new approach
to collect farm accident data. J. of Safety Research 20:21
-29.
Disclaimer
and Reproduction Information: Information in NASD does not
represent NIOSH policy. Information included in NASD appears
by permission of the author and/or copyright holder. More
NASD Review: 04/2002
This
publication was prepared with support from CDC/NIOSH grant
number UOS/CCU 306075-03.
Glen H. Hetzel and Wei Zhao; Agricultural Engineering Department,
Virginia Tech
October 1996
|
