Dennis
J. Murphy and Fokwa Ambe
Pennsylvania State University Cooperative Extension
This
publication is the third in a series of five-year Pennsylvania
farm fatality summaries. The first two publications were Pennsylvania
Farm Fatalities During 1980-84 (Special Circular 319) and
Pennsylvania Farm Fatalities During 1985-89 (Extension Circular
390). The data summarized in this new publication come from
death certificates and newspaper clippings. Information about
some cases has been supplemented by other sources, including
workers' compensation injury reports and police investigations.
The data in this report cannot be compared directly with the
data in previous reports because injury classification methods
changed in 1990. These changes are explained below and in
other sections of this report.
This
publication introduces the Farm and Agricultural Injury Classification
(FAIC) code to the general public as a way to categorize and
describe fatal injury incidents associated with farms and
agriculture. Because it uses the FAIC code, this report includes
some cases that would have been excluded from earlier reports.
For example, many cases in FAIC categories -05 to -11 would
have been excluded from previous reports, even though they
are of direct interest to many people concerned about preventing
agricultural injury.
Classifying unintentional agricultural fatalities is not an
exact science. Because the term "agricultural" is sometimes
used interchangeably with "rural" and "farm," classifying injury
reports is a subjective task. Furthermore, since most farm residences
are located at agricultural work sites, it often is hard to
distinguish between work and nonwork injury cases, especially
when the victim is a child. In addition, much of the work done
on farms and in rural areas is not agricultural production,
or farming. Finally, not all work on a farm is done by a farm
worker. For example, an outside contractor erecting a building
on a farm is certainly working on a farm, but the work is not
production agriculture. It is construction work, and an injury
to one of the workers should be attributed to the construction
industry, not the agricultural industry.
The
Farm and Agricultural Injury Classification code has been
established to ensure more consistency in coding injury incidents
related to farms and agriculture in Pennsylvania. It provides
a rationale for consistent categorization of occupational
(e.g., farming/farm production work) and nonoccupational
(e.g., nonfarm production work/farm lifestyle) fatalities
associated with farms and agriculture. This helps to identify
situational exposures that are unique to farming and farm
lifestyles. Table 1 identifies FAIC code categories and provides
the number of fatality cases in each category from 1990-94.
FAIC code categories are explained in the Appendix. Forty
fatality cases could not be categorized because of a lack
of information.
Table
1. Fatalities by farm and agricultural injury
classification code in Pennsylvania 1990-94 |
NO.
OF CASES |
FAIC
CATEGORY |
103 |
FAIC-01.
Farm production work |
1 |
FAIC-02.
Agricultural services |
0 |
FAIC-03.
Forestry |
1 |
FAIC-04.
Fishing, hunting, trapping |
18 |
FAIC-05.
Farm tractors, machines, tools, equipment, etc.,
not being used for farm production |
27 |
FAIC-06.
Nonwork work site |
3 |
FAIC-07.
On-farm outside services |
7 |
FAIC-08.
Farm home |
8 |
FAIC-09.
Farm leisure |
2 |
FAIC-10.
Rural traffic--farm hazards |
0 |
FAIC-11.
Nonwork-related work interruption |
40 |
Undetermined.
Cases which appear to be farm or agriculturally-related
but which insufficient information exists to assign
the case to a FAIC category |
|
Occupational |
Farm
production work (FAIC-01) |
103 |
Agri.
services; forestry; fishing, hunting, trapping
(FAIC-02-04) |
2 |
Subtotal |
105 |
Nonoccupational/farm
lifestyle
|
(FAIC-05-11) |
65 |
Undetermined
|
40 |
Grand
total |
210 |
|
There
were 210 farm-related fatality incidents in the 1990-1994
period. Table 1 shows that fatal injuries associated with
the occupation of farming (Farm Production Work, FAIC-01)
represent nearly all the cases, 103 of 105, associated with
agriculture as an industry (FAIC codes -01-04). However, agricultural
occupational work incidents account for only about one-half
(103 of 210) of the total cases associated with farms and
farm lifestyles. The remaining cases for which a FAIC designation
could be made (65 of 105) are distributed throughout the categories
that represent the overlap between farms as work sites, residences,
and recreational areas (FAIC-05 to -11). The two categories
with the majority of the remaining assigned cases (45 of 65)
are associated with using farm machines, tools, buildings,
etc., for nonfarm production purposes (FAIC-05, 18 cases),
and with children and others being exposed to farm work site
hazards (FAIC-06, 27 cases). A common FAIC-05 incident might
involve a person, living on a farm or in a rural area, using
a farm tractor and wagon to cut and haul firewood for personal
use. A common FAIC-06 incident might involve a young child
falling from a tractor while being carried as an extra rider,
or a child falling through a floor opening while playing in
a barn.
Table
2. Farm work death rates per million acres of land
in farms (LIF) |
YEAR |
LAND
IN FARMS (MILLIONS) |
DEATHS |
DEATH
RATE PER MILLION ACRES LIF |
1990 |
7.9 |
47.0 |
5.9 |
1991 |
8.0 |
47.0 |
5.9 |
1992 |
8.1 |
33.0 |
4.8 |
1993 |
7.9 |
48.0 |
6.1 |
1994 |
7.8 |
35.0 |
4.5 |
Average
1990-94 |
7.9 |
42.0 |
5.3 |
|
Previous
reports computed the number of deaths per 10,000 farms in order
to monitor progress in reducing the rate of fatal agricultural
injury. As noted earlier, the recent introduction of the FAIC
code prevents direct comparison between the data in this report
and the data in previous reports. Therefore, this report also
introduces other changes in data presentation. While deaths
per number of farms is a good monitoring indicator, deaths per
land in farms (LIF) is better because it more accurately reflects
hazard exposures associated with farming. Table 2 presents fatalities
per million acres of land in farms. The number of deaths and
the death rate per million acres of LIF varied over the five-year
period. As Table 2 illustrates, a one-year decrease or increase
in deaths or the death rate does not indicate a trend.
Penn State Cooperative Extension has divided the Commonwealth
into four administrative regions. Figure 1 shows the counties
in each region and the percentages of farm and agricultural
fatalities and LIF in each region. The Southeast and West regions
have slightly higher percentages of deaths than they do LIF.
The largest differential is in the Central region, where the
percentage of deaths was 6.7 percent less than the percentage
of LIF. Tables 3 through 6 list counties by region and show
the percent-ages of deaths and LIF that each county contributes
toward the regional total. These tables show that some counties
contribute a greater number of fatalities toward their region's
totals than others. For example, in counties with at least 10
fatalities, York County in the Southeast region and Butler and
Westmoreland counties in the West region had approximately
twice the percentage of their region's fatality cases as they
did their region's LIF (Tables 5 and 6). The data also show
that when a county has a large percentage of cases, it doesn't
mean that the county has had more than its share of incidents.
For example, Lancaster County had 18.8 percent of the cases
in the Southeast region, the second highest percentage in that
region, but it also had the highest percentage of the LIF in
the region, with 17.3 percent of the regional total (Table 5).
Table
3. Central region deaths and number of acres by county |
COUNTY |
NO.
DEATHS |
%
DEATHS |
NO.
ACRES (1,000) |
%
ACRES |
Bedford |
2 |
6.7 |
223 |
13.3 |
Blair |
1 |
3.3 |
87 |
5.2 |
Cambria |
3 |
10.0 |
86 |
5.2 |
Cameron |
0 |
0.0 |
3 |
0.2 |
Centre |
4 |
13.3 |
151 |
9.0 |
Clearfield |
2 |
6.7 |
62 |
3.7 |
Clinton |
2 |
6.7 |
47 |
2.8 |
Elk |
1 |
3.3 |
19 |
1.1 |
Fulton |
0 |
0.0 |
100 |
6.0 |
Huntingdon |
5 |
16.7 |
137 |
8.2 |
Jefferson |
3 |
10.0 |
86 |
5.2 |
Juniata |
1 |
3.3 |
93 |
5.6 |
McKean |
1 |
3.3 |
45 |
2.7 |
Mifflin |
1 |
3.3 |
89 |
5.3 |
Perry |
1 |
3.3 |
114 |
6.8 |
Potter |
1 |
3.3 |
97 |
5.8 |
Somerset |
2 |
6.7 |
232 |
13.9 |
Total |
30 |
99.9* |
1,671 |
100.0 |
*Rounding
error |
Table
4.Northeast region deaths and number of acres by county |
COUNTY |
NO.
DEATHS |
%
DEATHS |
NO.
ACRES (1,000) |
%
ACRES |
Bradford |
9 |
20.9 |
342 |
19.7 |
Carbon |
0 |
0.0 |
22 |
1.3 |
Columbia |
1 |
2.3 |
111 |
6.4 |
Lakawanna |
3 |
7.0 |
42 |
2.4 |
Luzerne |
0 |
0.0 |
59 |
3.4 |
Lycoming |
5 |
11.6 |
142 |
8.2 |
Monroe |
3 |
7.0 |
26 |
1.5 |
Montour |
3 |
7.0 |
43 |
2.5 |
Northumberland |
3 |
7.0 |
126 |
7.3 |
Pike |
0 |
0.0 |
6 |
0.3 |
Snyder |
2 |
4.7 |
92 |
5.3 |
Sullivan |
1 |
2.3 |
31 |
1.8 |
Susquehanna |
3 |
7.0 |
192 |
11.0 |
Tioga |
5 |
11.6 |
226 |
13.0 |
Union |
3 |
7.0 |
66 |
3.8 |
Wayne |
1 |
2.3 |
139 |
8.0 |
Wyoming |
1 |
2.3 |
72 |
4.1 |
Total |
43 |
100.0 |
1,737 |
100.0 |
Table
5.Southeast region deaths and number of acres by county |
COUNTY |
NO.
DEATHS |
%
DEATHS |
NO.
ACRES (1,000) |
%
ACRES |
Adams |
2 |
2.9 |
189 |
7.9 |
Berks |
5 |
7.3 |
245 |
10.3 |
Bucks |
4 |
5.8 |
86 |
3.6 |
Chester |
5 |
7.3 |
192 |
8.0 |
Cumberland |
1 |
1.4 |
155 |
6.5 |
Dauphin |
4 |
5.8 |
102 |
4.3 |
Delaware |
1 |
1.4 |
8 |
0.3 |
Franklin |
6 |
8.7 |
257 |
10.8 |
Lancaster |
13 |
18.8 |
412 |
17.3 |
Lebanon |
4 |
5.8 |
118 |
5.0 |
Lehigh |
4 |
5.8 |
97 |
4.1 |
Montgomery |
0 |
0.0 |
56 |
2.3 |
Northampton |
2 |
2.9 |
88 |
3.7 |
Philadelphia |
0 |
0.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
Schuylkill |
3 |
4.4 |
98 |
4.1 |
York |
15 |
21.7 |
280 |
11.8 |
Total |
69 |
100 |
2383 |
100 |
Table
6.West region deaths and number of acres by county |
COUNTY |
NO.
DEATHS |
%
DEATHS |
NO.
ACRES (1,000) |
%
ACRES |
Allegheny |
6 |
9.1 |
42 |
2.0 |
Armstrong |
4 |
6.1 |
125 |
5.8 |
Beaver |
5 |
7.6 |
60 |
2.8 |
Butler |
10 |
15.2 |
145 |
6.8 |
Clarion |
2 |
3.0 |
104 |
4.8 |
Crawford |
5 |
7.6 |
237 |
11.0 |
Erie |
4 |
6.1 |
186 |
8.7 |
Fayette |
3 |
4.5 |
117 |
5.5 |
Forest |
0 |
0.0 |
6 |
0.3 |
Greene |
2 |
3.0 |
97 |
4.5 |
Indiana |
5 |
7.6 |
165 |
7.7 |
Lawrence |
2 |
3.0 |
97 |
4.5 |
Mercer |
3 |
4.5 |
183 |
8.5 |
Venango |
1 |
1.5 |
64 |
3.0 |
Warren |
2 |
3.0 |
80 |
3.7 |
Washington |
2 |
3.0 |
221 |
10.3 |
Westmoreland10 |
15.2 |
167 |
7.8 |
Total |
66 |
100 |
2,145 |
100 |
Nearly all fatal injury incidents generate information that
can be used to describe general trends and enhance understanding
of when, where, how, and to whom farm and agricultural injury
occurs. Such details as the victim's age, the activity he or
she was engaged in, and the time the incident occurred are necessary
for effective injury prevention planning. Several tables and
figures are presented to give readers an overall picture of
Pennsylvania farm and agricultural fatality incidents.
Figure
2 combines age groups of victims with the FAIC code categories.
Appropriate information was available for 209 of the 210 cases.
The graph shows the diversity of farm and agricultural fatal
injury incidents while also illustrating how some types of
incidents largely affect specific age groups. For instance,
children 0 to 4 years of age and 5 to 9 years of age were
most often killed (21 of 27 incidents) by exposure to farm
work site hazards even though they were not actively engaged
in farm work at the time (FAIC-06). More than twice as many
senior farmers, 70 to 74 years of age, were killed during
farm production work than were members of any other age group.
Twenty-three farmers 70 to 74 years of age were killed during
farm production work; victims 55 to 59 years of age had the
next highest number of fatalities, with 11 cases. Figure
2 also shows that a substantial number of the FAIC-05
incidents, 11 of 18 cases, involved people age 60 and over.
Table
7.Fatalities by time and day of the week |
TIME
| DAY/FATALITIES
|
MON
| TUE
| WED
| THUR
| FRI
| SAT
| SUN
| TOTAL
|
6:00A.M.--9:00A.M. |
5 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
7.1 |
9:01A.M.--12:00P.M. |
3 |
9 |
9 |
1 |
4 |
7 |
6 |
18.6 |
12:01P.M.--3:00P.M. |
5 |
6 |
11 |
5 |
4 |
6 |
9 |
21.9 |
3:01P.M.--6:00P.M. |
8 |
8 |
7 |
8 |
8 |
2 |
5 |
21.9 |
6:01P.M.--9:00P.M. |
2 |
2 |
4 |
3 |
7 |
8 |
1 |
12.9 |
9:01P.M.--12:00A.M. |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3.3 |
Undetermined |
7 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
6 |
3 |
4 |
14.3 |
%
Total |
14.3
| 14.8
| 16.7
| 10.9
| 15.7
| 13.8
| 13.8
| 100.0
|
Table
7 shows the number of farm fatalities by three-hour intervals
and by the days of the week, as well as the percentages that
each contributed to the total number of incidents. Nearly
two-thirds of the incidents, 62.4 percent, occurred between
9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. This is not surprising. When viewed
in combination with the day of week data, this appears to
suggest that no particular time of day or day of the week
clearly stands out as a prime time for fatal injury incidents.
However, combining the data from Table 7 with the data from
Figure 3 brings the picture into better focus. Figure 3 shows
fatality cases by the month in which they occurred. The majority
of cases, 52 percent of the total, occurred during the late
spring and summer months of May through August. This is the
season when children and adolescents are out of school and
are more exposed to farm hazards. These months also are a
peak time for farm field work. The combined data from Table
7 and Figure 3 suggest that fatal injuries are most likely
to occur between 9:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. any day of the week
between May and August. Injury prevention programs, strategies,
and messages should target this time period.
Table
8. Tractor and machinery fatal injuries by type of incident |
| Overturns
| Runovers
| Entanglements
| Other
| Undetermined
| Total
|
Riders
| Operators
| Bystander,
On-Ground Helper
| Pto
| Crop/Product
Intake, Processing Area
| Misc.
|
Tractor |
72 |
5 |
21 |
3 |
|
|
9 |
3 |
113 |
Bulldozer,
etc |
3 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
4 |
Skid-steer,
payloader, etc. |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 |
|
5 |
Combine,
self-propelled harvesters, mowers, etc. |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
Nonpowered
wagons, trailers, carts, etc. |
|
3 |
|
1 |
|
|
|
1 |
|
5 |
Powered
wagons, spreaders, mixers, etc. |
|
|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
|
|
|
6 |
Towed
field machines |
|
1 |
|
2 |
1 |
5 |
1 |
2 |
|
12 |
Stationary
farmstead machines |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
|
1 |
|
2 |
Machines,
other |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
1 |
Machines,
undetermined |
|
|
|
|
3 |
1 |
|
|
|
4 |
Total |
77 |
9 |
21 |
7 |
7 |
9 |
1 |
19 |
3 |
153 |
| Overturns
| Runovers
| Entanglements
| Other
| Undetermined
| Total
|
Riders
| Operators
| Bystander,
On-Ground Helper
| Pto
| Crop/Product
Intake, Processing Area
| Misc.
|
Table
8 contains data for the 153 cases that were related to tractors
and machinery, which accounted for 72.9 percent of the total
number of incidents (210). Tractors were the major source
of injury in 73.9 percent (113) of the 153 tractor and machinery
incidents. The remaining 26.1 percent (40) involved a wide
variety of other self-propelled and towed machines, or could
not be specifically identified. Overturns accounted for nearly
two-thirds of tractor-related fatalities (72 of 113, or 63.7
percent). Twenty-nine tractor incidents involved people being
run over; almost three-fourths of these cases (21 of 29, or
72.4 percent) involved tractor operators who were run over
by the tractor they were operating. The majority of these
cases occurred during attempts to jump-start the tractor,
or when the tractor rolled after the operator dismounted for
some reason. There were no tractor power take-off (PTO) stub
or other types of entanglement injuries. Nine cases (8 percent)
fell into the Tractor, Other category. Three cases could not
be categorized due to a lack of detailed information.
As Table
8 shows, a broad array of self-propelled and towed machines
are involved in a wide variety of fatality incidents on farms
and in agriculture. However, bunching some cases reveals significant
information for people interested in injury prevention. Eight
of 16 incidents (50 percent) involving runovers by towed wagons
and field machines happened either to riders on the equipment
or to bystanders. Six of these eight cases (75 percent) involved
children under 10 years of age, with four of the six victims
between one and three years of age. The largest grouping of
nontractor incidents (17 of 40, or 42.5 percent) involved
machine entanglement. Nearly all the entanglements were associated
with the machine's PTO shaft (seven of 17, or 41.2 percent)
or with the machine's crop/material intake or processing area
(nine of 17, or 52.9 percent). Another 25 percent (10) of
nontractor incidents fell into the Other category, a catch-all
group of incidents. The most frequent incident in this group
was injury associated with the bucket on skid-steer loaders
(three cases).
Table
9. Non-tractor and machinery fatal injuries by type
of incident |
|
Fall
Off/From
| Other
Falls
| Drowning
| Buried
By
| Explosion
| Poisoned
By
| Struck
By
| Burned
| Other
| Total
|
Buildings
(barns, sheds, etc.) |
4 |
4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 |
Structures
(ponds, silos, manure storages, etc.) |
2 |
|
8 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
10 |
Motor
vehicles (cars, trucks, etc.) |
|
|
|
|
|
1 |
5 |
|
|
6 |
Trees |
1 |
|
|
|
|
|
3 |
|
|
4 |
Fire |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 |
|
2 |
Chemicals
(substances, gases) |
|
|
|
|
1 |
3 |
|
2 |
|
6 |
Animals |
2 |
|
|
|
|
|
6 |
|
|
8 |
Misc.
farm objects, materials, products, etc. |
1 |
1 |
|
3 |
1 |
|
2 |
|
|
8 |
Other |
|
1 |
|
|
|
|
1 |
|
3 |
5 |
Total |
10 |
6 |
8 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
17 |
4 |
3 |
57 |
Table
9 contains data for the 57 incidents unrelated to tractors
and machinery, which accounted for 27.1 percent of the total
number of incidents. No single category stands out as involved
most often in these incidents, and the data show that there
are a number of different ways to be fatally injured. A farm
structure such as a pond or silo was mentioned most often
as the thing involved in the fatal incident (10 cases, or
17.5 percent). This was closely followed by buildings; animals;
and miscellaneous farm objects, materials, or products, each
of which had 8 cases (14 percent). Four of the eight falls
(50 percent) associated with buildings were falls off of a
roof. Two of the remaining falls (25 percent) involved small
children falling through barn hay drop openings. Eight of
the 10 incidents (80 percent) involving farm structures were
drownings, all occurring in farm ponds. Six of the eight (75
percent) animal- related incidents were attacks and kicks
by animals, including bulls (two), cows (two), a horse, and
a mule. The other two incidents (25 percent) were falls from
horses.
The
five Motor vehicle/Struck by incidents include one vehicle/train
crash; a raised truck bed falling on the victim; one crash
involving two vehicles; and two farm truck drivers who had
stopped along a roadway, stepped out of their trucks, and
then were struck by other vehicles. Each victim was engaged
in farm production work at the time of the incident. There
probably are many more farm production work fatality incidents
that involve motor vehicles, but go unreported.
Figure
4 shows fatal incidents by age groups. The data are consistent
with, though not directly comparable to, previous summary
reports showing that children age 14 and under and farm workers
age 65 and over accounted for nearly 50 percent of the total
number of cases. The two age groups accounted for 47.7 percent
of the total during 1990-94; 49.7 percent during 1985-89;
and 41.3 percent during 1980-84. Children age 14 and under
and workers age 65 and over usually are not found in other
hazardous occupations. Children age 14 and under often are
untrained, inexperienced, not closely supervised, and emotionally
and physically immature. On the other hand, the ability of
aged workers to respond to danger often is limited as some
effects of aging, such as slower reactions or decreased physical
mobility, begin to have a pronounced influence on risk and
hazard avoidance. On the surface, it appears that the risk
of injury increases significantly at about age 70.
Table
10 has fatalities occurring to youth age 14 and under and senior
farmers age 65 and over by type of incident. Tractors and machinery
were associated with 19 of 31 (61.3 percent) incidents involving
youth and 59 of 70 (84.3 percent) incidents involving senior
farmers. While tractor and machinery incidents were the primary
cause of fatal injury for both age groups, each group was affected
by quite different types of tractor and machinery incidents.
Only two overturn incidents involved young operators, accounting
for 10.5 percent of their total tractor and machinery incidents.
How-ever, senior farmers were involved in 30 overturn incidents,
accounting for 50.8 percent of their total tractor and machinery
incidents.
Table
10. Fatality types by ages 14 and under, and
65 and over |
|
14
AND UNDER |
65
AND OVER |
NO. |
% |
NO. |
% |
Tractor
and Machinery |
19 |
61.3 |
59 |
84.3 |
Overturns |
2 |
10.5 |
30 |
50.8 |
Runover
Riders |
6 |
31.6 |
1 |
1.7 |
Operators |
0 |
0.0 |
14 |
23.7 |
Bystanders |
8 |
42.1 |
1 |
1.7 |
Entanglements
PTO |
0 |
0.0 |
4 |
6.8 |
Intake/processing
area |
2 |
10.5 |
3 |
5.1 |
Other
areas |
1 |
5.3 |
0 |
0.0 |
Other,
undetermined |
0 |
0.0 |
10 |
10.2 |
Remaining
Types |
12 |
38.7 |
10 |
14.3 |
Animals |
1 |
8.3 |
1 |
10.3 |
Drownings |
3 |
25.0 |
0 |
0.0 |
Buildings |
2 |
16.7 |
0 |
0.0 |
Miscellaneous |
6 |
50.0 |
9 |
90.0 |
Unknown |
0 |
0.0 |
1 |
1.4 |
Total
all accident types |
31 |
100.0 |
70 |
100.0 |
|
Tractor
runover incidents also varied considerably by age group. Youth
age 14 and under were run over while being a rider in six
of 14 cases (42.9 percent) or while being a bystander or on-the-ground
helper in eight cases (57.1 percent). Senior farmers, on the
other hand, almost always were run over while working with
or around the tractor as the operator, a scenario that occurred
in 14 of 16 cases, or 87.6 percent of the runover cases for
their age group. In many of these cases, an operator was trying
to jump-start a tractor while standing on the ground, thinking
that the tractor was out of gear. There also were a number
of incidents in which the tractor rolled as a senior farmer
attempted to hook or unhook equipment to the tractor. In some
cases the tractor was left in neutral, in others the brakes
reportedly did not hold.
The
three youth group incidents involving machinery other than
tractors were entanglements with the machine; however, none
of the entanglements involved the machine's PTO shaft. The
same is not true for senior farmers. Four of seven (57.1 percent)
nontractor machinery incidents involving senior farmers were
entanglements with the PTO shaft. The other three incidents
(42.9 percent) were entanglements in the crop/product intake
or processing area. In six cases involving senior farmers,
there was insufficient information to determine the specific
type of machinery in the incident.
There
were 12 incidents unrelated to tractors and machinery among
the youth group, accounting for 38.7 percent of their total.
There were 10 of these incidents among senior farmers, accounting
for 14.3 percent of their total. Three of the 12 (25 percent)
incidents involving youth were drownings in farm ponds. One
child was trampled by a cow and two children fell through
a barn hay drop opening. The rest of the fatalities were spread
among a variety of other incident types. Nine of the 10 (90
percent) incidents unrelated to tractors and machinery involving
senior farmers were spread among a variety of types. An animal
was involved in only one case, in which the victim was kicked
by a horse. The remaining case involving a senior farmer lacked
detailed information.
The College of Agricultural Sciences and the Department of Agricultural
and Biological Engineering offer many fact sheets, extension
circulars, videotapes, and educational programs to help prevent
and control the types of fatal injury incidents described in
this report. Most of these are available through the Penn State
Cooperative Extension office in your county; from the College
of Agricultural Sciences' Publications Distribution Center,
112 Agricultural Administration Building, University Park, PA
16802; or from the Department of Agricultural and Biological
Engineering, 246 Agricultural Engineering Building, University
Park, PA 16802.
FAIC-1.
Farm production work
Victim engaged in a work activity related to agricultural production (SIC* 01 or 02). Examples include persons engaged in the operation of tractors or machinery in farm operations; use of ATVs or horses for farm work; use of cars or trucks in a farm work activity (including transport of produce, delivery of products, traveling to purchase supplies, etc.); use of farm structures (excluding the home in most instances--see classification category 8); construction or maintenance of farm machines or structures (excluding hired contractors--see classification category 7); working with farm animals; cutting or clearing trees, brush, logs, etc., to prepare land for production or to sell timber or firewood (if farm operator or worker); working on fish, frog, or other aquacultural farms; working on nursery products farms. Includes farm-related work done in the home, such as farm office or farm shop work. Also includes farm-related work done off farm property, such as a farmer injured while selling produce at a roadside market. Includes intentional injuries occurring during occupational work-related activity. Excludes contractors who are contracted for specific agricultural production work--see classification category 2.
FAIC-2.
Agricultural services Victim engaged
in a work activity related to agricultural services (SIC 07).
Examples include contractors hired to perform specific agricultural
production tasks (custom-hired); persons employed by firms offering
specific agricultural services as listed under SIC 07. Includes
intentional injuries occurring during occupational work-related
activity. Excludes persons employed for nonagricultural services--
see classification category 7.
FAIC-3.
Forestry Victim engaged
in a work activity related to commercial forestry production
(SIC 08). Examples include persons engaged in the operation
or management of timber tracts, tree farms, or forest nurseries;
forest fire fighting; collecting maple sap. Includes intentional
injuries occurring during occupational work-related activity.
Excludes lumberjacks and others engaged in commercial logging
operations, which are classified as part of manufacturing and
not agricultural.
FAIC-4.
Fishing, hunting, trapping Victim engaged
in a work activity related to commercial fishing, hunting, or
trapping (SIC 09). Examples include the operation of fish hatcheries
and fish and game preserves. Includes intentional injuries occurring
during occupational work-related activity. Excludes fish, frog,
and other aquacultural farms--see classification category 1.
FAIC-5.
Farm tractors, machines, tools, equipment, etc., not being
used for farm production Victim engaged
in an activity involving agricultural machines, equipment, tools,
etc., but not related to farm production operations. Examples
include persons using tractors to pull a stranded motorist from
a ditch; operating tractors for a hayride; restoring old farm
machines or tractors; operating a tractor at a tractor pull
or county fair; using a tractor to pull vehicles at a mud bog
race or other recreational activity; operating farm tractors
for highway construction; using a tractor or a chain saw to
pull, drag, or cut miscellaneous trees, brush, logs, or to obtain
firewood for the home. Excludes victims associated with a business
or service who were providing services at the time of injury--see
classification category 7.
FAIC-6.
Nonwork work site Victim not
actively engaged in a work activity but injured as a result
of exposure to a farm work site hazard. Examples include children
playing on or around farm machinery, structures, or animal
pens; children riding as extra riders on farm machinery (excludes
extra riders actively working--see classification category 1);
church youth groups playing in barns or on hay stacks; children
and aged persons unintentionally falling into farm ponds; persons
watching a farm work activity (bystanders).
FAIC-7.
On-farm outside services Victim was
associated with a business or service and was injured on a farm
while providing services to the farm. Examples include farm
machinery repairmen, silo and grain bin erectors, builders and
construction workers, electricians, feed salesmen, firemen,
EMTs, etc. Excludes persons custom-hired for agricultural production
work--see classification category 2.
FAIC-8.
Farm home Victim was
engaged in either nonagricultural work, leisure, recreational,
or other miscellaneous activity involving a farm residence,
including the interior or exterior of the house, garden, driveway,
and yard around the house. Also includes nonagricultural shop
work. Excludes persons working in the barnyard or yard areas
around farm structures, and persons engaged in office or shop
work relating to farm production, agricultural services, etc.,
which would be considered agricultural work--see classification
categories 1 to 4.
FAIC-9.
Farm leisure Victim engaged
in recreational or leisure activity on a farm. Examples include
victims who were riding horses, riding ATVs, hunting, swimming,
camping, or playing organized games, or taking part in leisure
activities not connected with the industry of agriculture. Excludes
children at play who were injured by farm-related hazards, such
as farm machinery or structures--see classification category
5 or 6.
FAIC-10.
Rural traffic--farm hazards Victim was
an operator or passenger in a motor vehicle (car, truck, motorcycle),
on an ATV, a pedalcycle, or was a pedestrian, and involved in
a roadway collision with farm machinery, farm animals, or other
farm-associated hazards. Excludes persons using motor vehicles
for farm work activities--see classification category 1.
FAIC-11.
Non-work-related work interruption Victim was
a farmer, farm worker, or a farm resident, and was injured during
a "work interruption." An example is a farmer who stops field
work, crosses a fence to aid a stranded motorist, and is then
stuck by another vehicle. Excludes persons who may be walking
or pedaling on public roads as a part of a work activity--see
classification categories 1 to 4. * Standard Industrial Classification
Manual, 1987. This is the official U.S. document for defining
and describing industrial establishments. Division A of the
manual is Agriculture, Forestry, and Fishing, and includes five
major groups (01, 02, 07, 08, 09).
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
Prepared
by Dennis J. Murphy, professor, and Fokwa Ambe, research associate.
Issued
in furtherance of Cooperative Extension Work, Acts of Congress
May 8 and June 30, 1914, in cooperation with the U.S. Department
of Agriculture and the Pennsylvania Legislature. J.L. Starling,
Director of Cooperative Extension, The Pennsylvania State
University.
Agricultural
and Biological Engineering Extension
246 Agricultural Engineering Building
Penn State University
University Park, PA 16802
Telephone: 814-865-7685
FAX 814-863-1031
|