A STUDY OF ACCEUENTS "OCCURRING‘ T0 FARM
PEOPLE {N MlCHiGAN

Thesis for the Degree of M. S.

MICHIGAN STATE UNNERSm’

KENNETH MELTON HOFMEESTER
.1958

    
   
   

LIBRA x a" "
Michiga.. State
Univer sity

TH E1313

 

WW5?

‘Eg—hbffl ‘3?

\

 

 

 

ABSTRACT

A STUDY OF ACCIDENTS OCCURRING
TO FARM PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN

By Kenneth Milton Hofmeister

The agricultural industry has not followed the
lead of others in determining the nature and extent of
all accidents to its workers. There haS‘been no
scientific sampling of Michigan farms on a statewide
basis. Little work of this kind has been done to deter-
mine the effectiveness of accident prevention programs.

Compulsory workmen's compensation insurance for
agricultural laborers has become effective, but the
rates were based on very limited experience. Many people
felt the rates weren't Justified. This study was con—
ducted to answer some of the questions about farm
accidents.

This study covered a one year period from June 1,
1967 to May 31; 1968. The sample was stratified on the
basis of type of farming, population; and per cent of
gross county sales of the major product in each county.
There were ten substrata with one county randomly selected
from each of these substrata. -

Farm Bureau leaders and county extension agents
were responsible for obtaining volunteers. The volunteer

interviewers reported all accidents to the farm family and

Kenneth Milton Hofmeister

accidents to hired labor only while doing farm-work. Only
families living on places conforming to the census defini-
tion of a farm were interviewed.

Data collected by the volunteers about characteris—
tics of the farm and accidents occurring to farm people
were used to analyze the sources of variance on these
farms. Chi-square was the basic test used to compare the
actual frequencies and accident rates with theoretical
values.

Results of the study indicate that accidents occur
at the rate of 13.1 per hundred farms or 29.8 per thousand
farm family members. Farm-work accidents occurred at the
rate of 20.6 per million man hours exposure. Evidence from
the sample indicated that size of farm was not signifi-
cantly related to the incidence of accidents when varying
amounts of exposure were taken into account.

The accident rate of hired labor was significantly
higher than that of the farm family. Statistically sig-
nificant differences were not found according to types of
farms. However, values close to significance were found.
A more detailed study might conclude that differences do
exist. Farm-work accident frequencies were affected by

both age and sex groups. Male accident rates are consist-

ently higher than female rates. / /’ l
I , ,
Approve“. ’ I

Major rofess r
Approved ‘
Department Cha rman

 

 

A STUDY OF ACCIDENTS OCCURRING TO FARM

PEOPLE IN MICHIGAN

By

Kenneth Milton Hofmeister

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Agricultural Engineering

1968

 

 

I.“ a 1‘
.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express his deep appreciation
to Dr. Richard Pfister, Agricultural Engineering Department,
for his guidance and supervision. His experience and
ideas were a constant source of assistance throughout this
study.

Appreciation is also extended to Dr. Merle Esmay,
Agricultural Engineering Department; Kenneth Siwicki,
National Safety Council; Larry Ewing, Field Services,

Farm Bureau; andbhwh Arlene King, Agricultural Economics,
for their cooperation and assistance.

Acknowledgment is extended to the county extension
agents and Farm Bureau Safety Chairmen in the counties
involved in the study for their assistance in administra-

tion of the study. Without their untiring efforts and the
.many hours of work by volunteer interviewers, this project
could not have been completed.

The author is indebted to Dr. Daniel Sturt,
director, Rural Manpower Center, Michigan State University
for obtaining financial support to make this investigation

possible.

11

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

LIST OF TABLES . . . . . . . . . . . . . V

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . iX
Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . l

1.1 Need for a Study . . . . . . . . l

1.2 Objectives . . . . . . . . . . A

1.3 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . 6

1.4 Limitations to the Study . . . . . . 7

1.5 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . 8

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . . 10

2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2 General Incidence . . . . . . . . 11

2.3 State and National Statistics . . . . 13

2.4 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . 20

III. PROCEDURES . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.1 Introduction . . . . . 22

3.2 Selection of the Sample Counties . . . 23

3.3 Organization of the Survey . . . . . 2A

3.4 Responsibilities . . . . ; . . 26

3.5 Developing the Questionnaire . . . 28

3.6 Conducting the Training Meeting . . . 30

3.7 Data Collection . . . . . . . . . 32

3.8 Summarization of Data . . . . . . . 33

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA . . . . . . . . . . 3A

4.1 Incidence of Accidents . . . . . . 3A

A.2 Validation and Extrapolation . . . 37

“.3 Exposure to Accidents . . . . . . . Al

A.A Farm-work Accidents . . . . . . . 50

iii

Chapter Page

A.5 Characteristics of the Total Farm

Accident Situation . . . . . . . . 65
4.6 Effects of Accidents . . . . . . . . 81
V. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8A
VI. CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
VII. RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . 89
REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
APPENDICES . . '. . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
A. Letter to T. D. McFarland, National Safety
Council, Informing Him of the Michigan Farm
ACCident SUUdy o o o o o 0‘ o o o o o 96
B. Letter to Kenneth Siwicki, Seeking the Co-
Operation of the National Safety Council . . 98
C. Sample Letter to Each Volunteer Interviewer
Reminding Them of the Forthcoming Training
meeting 0 o O O O O O O 0 o o O O 100
D. Suggested Responsibilities of Personnel
Involved in the Study . . . . . . . . 102
E. Timetable for County Agents . . . . . . . 104
F. Sample News Release for Use by County
Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
G. Basic Data Sheet Questionnaire . . . '. . . 109
H. Accident Report Forms . . . . . . . . . 111
I. Interviewers' Instructions and Step-by-Step
Procedure for Interviewers . . . . . . . 115
J. Summary Report Sent to Each Interviewer

Following the First, Second, and Third
Quarter Reports . . . . . . . . . . 121

iv

 

Table

4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
4.10

4.11

LIST OF TABLES

Accidental death rates of several
industries in 1966

Data from farm accident studies in four states.

Accident rates calculated from studies in
Ohio 0 0 O O 0 O O O O I O O 0

Theoretical Poisson distribution compared to
the actual number of accidents reported on
2139 farms . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of 2130 farms in the sample with
estimated 1967 census figures by acres of
cropland . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of 2139 farms in the sample with
1964 census figures by farm population

Farm family and hired labor eXposure to farm—
work‘accidents

Exposure tO'farm-work accidents by time
operator spent working on farm . . . .

Farm family and hired labor exposure to farm—
work accidents by size of farm . . .

Comparison of per cent of farms and exposure
by size of farm . . . . . . . . .

Farm family and hired labor exposure to farm-
work accidents by type of farm .

Comparison of per cent of farms and exposure
by type of farm . . . . . . . . .

Farm family and hired labor exposure to farm-
work accidents by age and sex . . . .

Comparison of per cent of farms and exposure
by age and sex . . . . . . . . .

Page

12

13

19

36

38

40

44

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

Table

4.12

4.13

4.14
4.15
4.16
4.17

4.18
4.19
4.20
4.21
4.22
4.23
4.24

4.25

Number and frequency of accidents
classified by farm family and hired
labor 0 O O O O O O I 0

Number and frequency of accidents classified
by farm family labor and hired labor with
and without workmen' s compensation
insurance

Number and per cent of farms and total farm—
work accidents classified by time spent
working on farm . . . . . . .

Number and frequency of total farm-work acci-
dents classified by time spent working on
farm . . . . . . . . . . .

Number and frequency of family farm-work
accidents classified by time spent working
on farm . . . . . . .

Number and frequency of hired labor farm-work
accidents classified by time spent working
on farm . . . . . . - . . . .

Number and per cent of farms and total farm—
work accidents classified by size of farm .

Number and frequency of total farmework
accidents classified by size of farm

Number and frequency of family farm-work
accidents classified by size of farm

Number and frequency of hired labor farm—work
accidents classified by size of farm

Number and per cent of farms and total farm—
work accidents classified by type of farm

Number and frequency of total farm-work
accidents classified by type of farm .

Number and frequency of family farm-work
accidents classified by type of farm

Number and frequency of total farm-work
accidents classified by sex

vi

Page

52

53

54

56

56

56

57

58

58

59

61

61

62

63

Table
4.26

4.27
4.28
4.29
4.30
4.31
4.32
4.33
4.34
4.35
4.36
4.37
4.38

4.39

4.40

4.41

Page

Number and frequency of total farm-work
accidents classified by age and sex . . . 64

Number and frequency of family farm-work
accidents classified by age and sex . . . 64

Number of accidents by time spent working on
farm and activity at time of accident . . 66

Number of accidents by size of farm and
activity at time of accident . . . . . 66

Number of accidents by type of farm and
activity at time of accident '. . . . . 68

Number of accidents by sex and activity at
time of accident . . . . . . . . . 69

Number of accidents by age and sex and
activity at time of accident . . . . . 69

Number of accidents by month and activity at
time of accident . . . . . . . . . 71

Number of accidents by day of week and
activity at time of accident . . . . . 72

Number of accidents by hour of day and
activity at time of accident . . . . . 73

Number of accidents by seriousness of injury
and activity at time of accident . . . . 74

Number of'accidents by type of’injury and
activity at time of accident ‘. . . . . 75

Number of accidents by part of body injured
and activity at time of accident‘. . . . 76

Number of accidents by agency most closely
associated with injury and activity at
time of accident . . . . . . . . . 78

Number of accidents by how person got hurt and
activity at time of accident '. . . . . 80

Number and per cent of accidents by days at
home . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

vii

Table Page

4.42 Number and per cent of accidents by days in
hospital 0 O O O O O O O O O O I 82

4.43 Number and per cent of accidents by cost of
medical treatment . . . . . . . . . 83

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

3.1 Counties selected by a random stratified
sampling procedure . . . . . . . . 25

3.2 Farm accident study organizational
structure . . . . . . . . . . . 27

ix

 

I. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Need for a Study

 

Today, people in all walks of life are becoming
concerned with safety of human life. The auto industry
has increased its emphasis on safety devices and reduc-
tion of accidents to employees in its factories.
Similarly, people connected with agriculture are becoming
more involved with the high cost of farm accidents.
Industrial companies are experimenting with safety devices,
educational people are concerned with safe practices, the
federal government has become involved with the hiring of
farm youth, and in Michigan workmen's compensation has
come into effect for farm employees.

The agricultural industry has lagged behind others
in determining the nature and extent of injuries to farm
people. There have been very few extensive studies of the
total accident problem in agriculture. Members attending
a conference on farm safety research Sponsored in part by
the National Safety Council (1959) outlined some of the
basic needs in the area of farm accident research. These
needs still prevail.

1. There is a critical need for more non—fatal farm

accident information at local and national levels.

2. Inadequate research in farm safety at the
present time places serious limitations on rural accident
prevention potential.

3. There is.a need for detailed information on
attitudes, safe working habits and methods of integrating
safety into family goals.

Several factors brought about the need for an in—
depth farm accident study in Michigan. Compulsory workmen's
compensation for farm laborers in Michigan became effective
July 1, 1967. Along with this compensation came rates
which were highly disputed by almost everyone involved with
compensation. The rates, as announced by John Marshall
(1967), General Manager of the Michigan Rating Bureau, were
based on very limited experience on farms in Michigan-and
some experience from other states which have compensation
for farm laborers. Many people involved felt the rates
set by the rating bureau were far too high especially for
some "safer" types of farming. Others, however, felt that
rates for some types of farming were not high enough. The
wave of controversy sparked the allocation of funds
necessary to conduct a study of accidents to Michigan farm
people.

There has been no scientific sampling of Michigan
farm accidents on a statewide basis. Information now
available has largely been gathered from coroner's reports,

state agencies, hospitals, and newspaper clippings. These

sources fail to give a complete picture of the accident
situation. Statistics available by such agencies as the
National Safety Council are clouded by variations in
definitions, reporting methods, and sampling techniques.
There is a need for a systematic sampling of farms with
accepted sampling techniques. Methods of obtaining a
random, representative sample of Michigan farms was needed.
A representative sample would give information about
accidents which could be extrapolated to give statewide
figures on accident frequency, severity, costs, and the
like. An obvious need for such information comes from the
order issued by the Department of Labor listing sixteen
hazardous occupations. Untrained youth under 16 cannot

be hired to perform these hazardous jobs. There is a need
for further definition of the relative hazards of these
occupations. A scientific sampling would help in defining
these potential hazardous occupations.

There has been little research in the past which has
provided usable information for extension personnel,
safety groups, and others concerned with farm safety. The
Agricultural Safety Workshop of the 1962 President's Con-
ference on Occupational Safety as reported by Lloyd (1963)
pointed out the problem when it cited the lack of adequate
information on farmwork accidents and limited research
and practical application of such information as serious

deterrents to effective farm accident prevention programs.

 

 

Information on the major causes of farm injuries and
potential safety hazards would be useful in determining
the areas to be stressed in safety education programs.
A study could also provide information on effectiveness
of present programs in safety such as the use of slow-
moving vehicle emblems in the state.

An accident prevention program is begun with the
belief that it will lower the accident rate. The effec—
tiveness of a program cannot be evaluated unless the
accident rate both before and after the program is known.
An initial study would provide a benchmark for later
studies. Present statistics on accident frequency,
severity, and costs could be used to compare with changes
in the years to come. Problem areas discovered could be

dealt with through education

1.2 Objectives

 

An obvious need for a study of farm accidents in
Michigan existed. There were many potential benefits from
such a study. With these needs in mind four basic objec-
tives, each with a number of subdivisions were developed.

First, this study was designed to determine the
characteristics of farms and farm families such as:

1. Number of males and females by age

2. Size of farm and major source of income

 

3. Exposure to farm accidents of:
a. Farm family
b. Hired help under workmen's compensation
c. Hired help not under workmen's compensation

The second objective was to procure information on the
total accident picture to Michigan farm residents;
frequency, severity, types, causes and cost. Specific
items to be investigated were:

1. Farm family accidents:

a. To different age groups
b. By types of farming
c. By exposure groups
2. Financial cost of accidents:
a. Time lost due to accidents
b. Medical costs
c. Days and cost of hired help to replace
injured person.

Providing supplemental information in the area of
agricultural workmen's compensation rating and the nature
and incidence of accidents that would come under agricul-
tural workmen's compensation was the third objective.
Items necessary to investigate this objective include:

1. Accidents to hired hands under agricultural

workmen's compensation

2. Accidents to hired hands not under agricultural

workmen's compensation

3. Accidents to hired hands versus farm family

compared with exposure to accidents

4. Accidents to hired hands for the various

types of farming

5. Accidents to hired hands for various exposure

groups.

The fourth objective was to collect information for
use in safety education and as a basis for future studies
in Michigan and other states. By choosing a representative
sample, estimates could be made of the total accident situ-
ation on Michigan farms. Information could be collected
such as who or what was involved in the accident. Possible
ways of reducing reoccurrence of accidents were to be inves-
tigated. The lack of comparable studies from state to
state was of concern. Therefore, whenever possible,
cooperation was established with the National Safety Council
to provide some common denominator which might yield data
for use on a regional and national basis (see Appendix B).
To do this definitions were to be used which could in time
become the standards for studies conducted in other states.
This study will attempt to establish a benchmark in
Michigan in order that future studies could be compared to
this one.

With the foregoing objectives in mind, specific

hypotheses were developed.

1.3 Hypotheses

 

There is no significant difference in the distribution
of farms according to size in the sample and in the
census figures.

There is no significant difference in the distribution
of the farm pOpulation in the sample and in the
census figures.

There is no significant difference between actual
frequencies of accidents per farm and the expected
frequencies.

There is no significant difference in the farm-work
accident rate between the various types of farming.

There is no significant difference in the farm-work
accident rate between different size of farming
Operations.

There is no significant difference between the farm—
work accident rate to hired help and the farm-work
accident rate to farm family members.

There is no significant difference in the farm-work
accident rate on farms where the head of household
spends more than 50% of his time farming and where
the head of household spends less than 50% of his
time farming.

There is no significant difference in the farm-work
accident rate among the different age groups.

There is no significant difference in the farm-work
accident rate among age and sex groups.

There is no significant difference in the farm-work
accident rate among the days of the week.

1.4 Limitations to the Study

 

A survey was conducted to gather data for this study.
The following limitations were established:

1. The study was to cover a one year period from
June 1, 1967 to May 31, 1968.

2. The study will be limited to rural farm families.
Rural non-farm families will not be included.

3- Volunteer interviewers were used to conduct this
study because of the high cost of professional interviewers.

4. This study will be confined to gathering informa—
tion about the physical and environmental aspects of

accidents.

5. A11 accidents to the farm family and accidents to
hired hands only while doing farm work will be reported in
this study.

6. A random stratified sample was selected.

7. Only accidents, which resulted in injury, were

reported. Property damage accidents were not included.

1.5 Definitions

 

For the purpose of this study, the following terms
and concepts were used:

Accidental injury (injury).——An accident which resulted

 

in injuries which required professional medical care (doctor,
hospital, nurse, X-ray, etc.) or resulted in the loss of

one—half day or more of time from normal activities.

 

Family member.—-Any person regardless of relationship
or other status who lives in the household more than one—
half of the time.

Fagm.--A farm family as defined by the United States
Census Bureau (1964) is any family living at a place

Operated as a unit of 10 or more acres from which sale of

 

agricultural products totaled $50 or more (places of less

 

than 10 acres are a farm if sales of agricultural products

 

is $250 or more).

 

Farm employee.—-A person outside of the family hired

 

by an employer to do work on a farm. No person shall be

considered an employee if the person is a spouse, child,

 

or other member of the employer's family residing in the
home or on the premises of the agricultural employer.

Geographical.--In an attempt to obtain a representa-

 

tive sampling of all Michigan farms, a stratified random
sample was used. This consisted of one randomly chosen
county or group of counties from each of ten substrata in
the state. Substrata were chosen on the basis of type of
farming, population, and per cent of gross county sales
of the major product in each county.

Reportable accident.-—An accident that results in

 

an injury to a farm family member regardless of where the
injury occurs or an accidental injury that happens to hired
hands, while doing farm work, was reportable. Accidental
injuries which occurred to the hired hand off the job or

to the hired hand's family was not reportable.

Seriousness of injury.—-(1) Fatal—-means they died

 

during the survey quarter; (2) Permanent-—lost finger,

 

hand, eye, will never be able to walk again, others; (3)
Severe--broken leg, cut ligament, sprained back, others;

and (4) Slight-—minor cuts, sprains, burns, others.

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

2.1 Introduction

 

A large number of studies dealing with the incidence
of farm accidents have been conducted. Some deal with the
general incidence, while a large number deal with a specific
subject such as farm tractor upsets (Schneider, 1967) and
fatal accidents to farm people (Wardle, 1958). Most
studies do not deal with the total costs in money and time
lost from all accidents to farm people, nor with the overall
accident situation and what can be done to improve the
situation. The main emphasis in this review of literature
will be with studies conducted dealing with a representa-
tive sampling of farms. Some studies dealing with a
specific subject will be reviewed to illustrate the
statistics available.

Reference lists by Siwicki (1967) and the National
Safety Council (1959) were used to locate some studies
for review. More recent studies were gathered from
various sources. Only studies which illustrate sampling
techniques, study procedures, definitions used, and
state and national statistics pertinent to this project
were reviewed.

Conferences reported by Lloyd (1963) and the

National Safety Council (1959) summed up the present

10

11

situation in the agriculture industry. Both reported
essentially the same thing. A summarization of the two
conferences points out the situation and needs for farm
safety:

1. Lack of adequate information of farm—work
accidents.

2. Need to clarify terminology and increase
research and statistical services.

3. Need for increased cooperation and coordination
at the national level in all fields of safety.

4. Need for increased manpower in safety education.

5. Lack of comparable definitions and statistics
from study to study.

6. Need for continuous survey of accidental injuries
and deaths.

7. Need for studies Of recall method used in

accidental injury surveys.

2.2 General Incidence

 

The National Safety Council publishes yearly, a
report on accident statistics. This booklet by Smith
(1967) provides a summary of the best estimates available.
Estimates from the National Health Survey indicate over
730,000 farm residents in the United States sustained
disabling injuries in 1966. The cost Of accidents due
to deaths and injuries, property damage in auto acci-

dents, and fires was at least twenty billion dollars in

12

1966. Accidents are the leading cause of death among all
persons aged 1-37 and fourth leading cause Of deaths to
all ages.

Death rates from accidents in agriculture are high
when compared to other industries. Only construction and

mining rank higher.

TABLE 2.l.——Accidental death rates of several industries in

 

 

1966.
Industry Deaths/100,000 Workers in 1966
Trade 8
Manufacturing 10
Service government 13
Transportation and public utilities 40
Agriculture 69
Construction 74
Mining and quarrying 108

 

An accident as reported by the National Safety
Council was that occurrence in a sequence of events which
usually produced unintended injury, death or prOperty
damage. Disabling injury was defined as an injury causing
death, disability, or any degree of temporary total dis—

ability. No accident rate per million man hours was

13

presented for agriculture so it cannot be compared with

other industries.

2.3 State and National Statistics

 

2.3.1 United States

 

Rush (1962), in a summary of various studies in the
United States, indicated that accident fatalities are not
declining in proportion to the decline in farm population.
He reported an annual mortality rate of 60-70/100,000 farm
population. Lost time injuries involved about 19% of the
population or 19 injuries/100 farms. More than 80% of
these accidents were reported due to carelessness or
failure to deal with hazards safely. Limited data from

farms in four states showed:

TABLE 2.2.—-Data from farm accident studies in four states.

 

Number of Accidents/Farm Number of Farms Per cent Total

 

0 10,726 75.5
1 2,479 17.5
2 683 4.8
3 190 1.3
4 or more 131 .9

TOTALS 14,209 100.0

 

14

Data from workmen's compensation experience with farm
wage workers from state studies, vital statistics, and from
the National Health Survey indicate that for every 10,000
accidents, there are 25 deaths, 4 permanent total disabili—
ties,l,496;permanent partial disabilities, 5,367 temporary
disabilities with loss of time, and 3,108 injuries with no
loss of time. Rush also reports falls, motor vehicles, and
machinery respectively as the three leading causes of
accidents.

Another study by Rush (1957) points out one of the
problems in literature. Figures are listed for the
annual average number of fatalities and injuries from
1949—1953 to farm residents. Footnotes indicate that
duplication of injuries exists in some statistics due to
reporting methods. This gives misleading information

when the statistics are presented in tabular form.

2.3.2 England and Wales

 

The following item was included from the Journal,
Ministry of Agriculture (1959 and 1960), because it
illustrates the type of statistics that are quite often
found in literature. The two articles listed simply the
fatal accidents in agriculture in 1958-1959 in England and
Wales. The figures indicated the total number and a
breakdown by various causes of fatal accidents in agri—
culture. This is an interesting statistic, but no indi—

cation is given of the total farm population or exposure

15

to farm work accidents. The figures themselves tell very
little about the overall fatal accident situation in

England and Wales.

2.3.3 Ontario (Canada)

 

The Ontario Department of Agriculture (1961) con-
ducted a comprehensive twelve month survey of farm
accidents from March 1, 1959 to February 20, 1960 to
discover causes, types, extent and cost of farm accidents
in Ontario. The survey was conducted on a county and
district basis under the leadership of the Agricultural
Representative, in COOperation with farm organizations.
The counties and districts were divided into small areas
with a local reporter responsible for all accidents in
that area. A total of 5500 accident reporters were
involved. Accidents were forwarded to the Department of
Agriculture every three months. An accident was defined
as one in which the victim required medical attention,
two or more hours of time were lost through injury, or
prOperty damage exceeded $25.00. Accidents to peOple on
farms and to farm people off the farm were included.
Traffic accidents accounted for almost one-half of the
deaths. During the twelve months, 7,835 accidents were
reported with 293 deaths. No indication was given in the
summary report of the accident rate, only numbers of

accidents were presented.

16

2.3.4 Indiana

 

Ismail (1958) conducted a study during a six month
period from January to June 1958, in nine counties with
approximately 21,500 persons living on 5,810 farms.
Members of Home Demonstration Clubs were used as volun-
teer interviewers. Farms were Visited or telephoned once
a month to collect accident information. No approved
random sampling procedures were used, therefore a random
sample was not obtained.

An accident was defined as any suddenly occurring
unintentional mishap which caused injury or handicap to
the person involved in the conduct of normal activities,
to the extent of one-half day or more total time lost,
and also includes any property damage exceeding $50. A
farm, as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census (1954), was
considered to be any tract of land of three acres or more
on which agricultural products or livestock are produced
for the market. Also it can be a tract of less than three
acres producing $150 worth or more of agricultural
products for yearly sale.

During the six month period, 650 accidents occurred.
The yearly accident rate was 11.2 accidents/100 farms or
30.3 accidents/1000 people. Seven fatal accidents were
reported for the 5,810 farm families. Extrapolating gives
65.3 deaths per 100,000 farm people. Farm accident fre—

quencies differed according to size of farm. Rate of

l7

accidents for each type of farming was approximately the

same .

2.3.5 Missouri

 

This study by Gadalla (1962) from November 1, 1959
to October 31, 1960 included an extensive state wide
survey to determine the incidence of farm and farm home
accidents. Families in the sample were interviewed by
professional personnel who explained the study and
obtained basic information about the farm and family.
Individual farmers kept exposure and accident records
which were collected regularly by professionals. The
state was divided into four social areas, and eight
social areas or sub-areas. One core county was selected
from each area which best represented the average of the
area. The percentage of farm operaters in each area
determined the number of sampling units drawn at random
from each core country.

The U.S. Bureau of Census (1954) definition was used
to identify a farm. An accident was defined as an event
or occurrence being the unintended, unplanned consequence
of action on the part of person(s) directly responsible ‘
and reported as such. Although having the potential to
result in fatal or non-fatal injury, loss of time, and
property damage, the accident may or may not have brought

any such result.

18

The study consisted of 2,007 families with 7,227
individuals. The peak number of accidents occurred during
the summer months. A total of 1,040 accidents were
reported giving an accident rate of 140.2/1000 population.
This high accident rate is probably due to the definition

of an accident used.

2.3.6 Ohio

 

Three studies were conducted for a one year period
by Baker g£_a1, (1959), Bible and Stuckey (1965), and
Phillips and Stuckey (1968) involving Ohio farm families.
A farm family as defined by the U.S. Bureau of Census
(1959) was any family living at a place operated as a

unit of 10 or more acres from which sale of agricultural

 

products totaled $50 or more (places of less than 10

 

 

acres were a farm if sales of agricultural products was

$250 or more).Injury was defined as any injury to any

 

person living or working on a farm, that required pro—

fessional medical care (doctor, hospital, nurse, X—ray)
or results in loss of one—half day or more of time from
the normal activities of the injured.

A stratified random sample of Ohio counties was
selected for each survey. Contacts were made every
three months by volunteer interviewers obtained through
the county agents in the various counties. The 1967
study varied from the previous two; it included rural

non-farm people as well as rural farm people. In addition

19

to the accident study, the 1967 study also included a
health survey of the people interviewed.

Cuts, fractures, sprains, and bruises accounted
for over 80% of the injuries. Almost 75% of the acci-
dents occurred to men and boys who accounted for about
one-half of the population. Accident rates were as

follows:

TABLE 2.3.—-Accident rates calculated from studies in

 

 

Ohio.
Year Rate/1000 farm people %h:§ gigggefiggt
1957 42 16.7
1962 46 14.3
1967 58 16.7

 

2.3.7 Pennsylvania

 

Roy (1957) conducted a two phase study containing
a general survey of commercial farms in Pennsylvania
dealing with the incidence of farm accidents and secondly
a study of specific human traits that might contribute
’ to accidents. The study covered 2,288 commercial farms
with about 11,100 people from October 1, 1954 to
September 30, 1955.

A truly random sample was not considered economically
feasible. Attempts were made to get a.representative

sample with the cooperation of junior and senior high

20

school vocational agriculture students throughout the
state. A farm was confined to people living on what is
referred to in the United States Census of Agriculture as
"Commercial" farms. Non-commercial farms were excluded.
An accident was concerned with injury to the person with
very little emphasis on property damage. Any injury
sustained by a person that required medical attention and
caused a loss of one hour or more of time either at home,
during farm work or off the farm on the highway was reported.
A total of 354 accidents on 2,288 farms were
reported for a rate of 15.47 accidents/100 farms, or
31.9 accidents/1000 people. A rate of 30.12 disabling

farm-work injuries per million man—hours work was reported.

2.4 Summary

 

From the studies reviewed the following general con—
clusions may be drawn:

1. There have been few attempts at standardization.
In Ohio where three parallel studies have been conducted
using the same definitions, trends may become evident.
Differences in rates between states are reported. These
differences may be due to reporting methods and definitions
rather than actual differences in accident rates.

2. There has been very little work done on acci-
dents to farm people versus exposure to those accidents
expressed in some time-work unit. Further work on

exposure data would seem practical.

 

21

3. A standard definition of an accident and of an
injury would be desirable for comparison purposes.

4. Several of the studies conducted used no
approved random sampling techniques.

5. Differences in accident rates by size of farm
were reported. However, Ismail (1958) reported no
significant differences in accident rates by type of

farming.

6. Very little literature is available pertaining
to accidents sustained by hired farm laborers insured by

a workmen‘s compensation policy.

III. PROCEDURES

3.1 Introduction

 

A proposal for a farm study of farm accidents occur-
ring in Michigan was prepared by Richard Pfister in 1966.
This proposal outlined the basic objectives, points to be
investigated, and a possible procedure. No previous
study of this kind had been conducted in Michigan. The
necessary funds for this project were allocated by the
Rural Manpower Center in the Department of Agricultural
Economics at Michigan State University. Originally the
project was to be conducted during the year of 1967, but
delays in obtaining an investigator set back the project
until June of 1967. Contacts were made with the National
Safety Council (see Appendix A) and a team of investigators
in Ohio (see Appendix B) who were conducting a farm
accident and health survey. These contacts provided
orientation with regard to possible procedures, sampling
techniques, and past experiences. A meeting in Norwalk,
Ohio was attended on March 29, 1967 to observe interviewer
training.

Limitations of manpower and funds made it necessary
to use volunteers to gather information. In order to
provide unbiased information a set of questionnaires were

developed which would provide consistent responses from

22

 

23

several hundred volunteers. The questionnaires had to be
developed after the sample was selected and interviewer
training meetings scheduled because of time limitations.
Target dates for interviewer training meetings were early
September in order that accidents during the months of
June, July, and August could be included in the first
quarter reports. This gave the subsequent timing of pro-

cedure events and gave a very tight schedule.

3.2 Selection of the Sample Counties

 

A sample population of 2-3% of Michigan farms was
desired. To obtain this number of farms it was necessary
to obtain enough interviewers initially to cover 3-4% of
the farm population. A completely random sample of farms
was ruled out because of the great diversity of goods pro-
duced. Also Wright and Caul (1967) stated that 41 of
Michigan's 83 counties produce 88% of the state's total
farm product income. Vilardo (1966) outlined a procedure
for obtaining a stratified random sample which was used
to get a more representative sampling of Michigan farms.
This procedure was selected to take advantage of knowledge
about the distribution of types of farming, cash income,
and population distribution. The state was subdivided
into ten strata each with approximately equal population.
To account for heterogeneity of types of farming, the
state was subdivided into one livestock, one fruit, two

cash crop, two dairy, and four general farming areas.

24

Each county or group of counties in the substrata had a
minimum of about 500 farms in order to have enough farms
to draw a sample. One county and one alternate was

chosen from each strata.

3.3 ,Organization of the Survey

 

Farm Bureau and the county extension agents agreed
to cooperate.‘ By obtaining cooperation from Farm Bureau
it was anticipated that the work-load could be spread
among more peOple as opposed to using county extension
agents exclusively. Extension personnel were involved in
the project because their existing structure fit in with
the needs for disseminating information and collecting
data and as professional personnel they have a strong
interest in completing a project once a commitment has
been made.

A contact was made with each of the county extension
agents in the counties in the sample, explaining the basic
concepts of the study and asking for their cooperation.
Simultaneously, the manager of the Field Services Division
of Farm Bureau contacted the respective Farm Bureau County
Presidents in these counties, requesting that they obtain
a volunteer chairman who would meet with the county
extension agent and the project leader to discuss pro-
cedures for obtaining volunteer interviewers and establish

a training meeting date.

25

\
I

\
d
I

' "-
’v’ C?
’ ’ .t'
I _v
'~\-'
o”

Counties Selected
Various Strata

Cash Crop
Monroe
Tuscola

Dairy
Mecosta
St. Clair
3. Fruit

Van Buren—Berrien
(combined)

General Farming
Alpena
Branch
Jackson
Kent

5. Livestock

Delta

 

Figure 3.l--Counties selected by a random stratified
sampling procedure.

 

 

26

3.4 Responsibilities

 

Planning meetings were held for county extension
agents and Farm Bureau safety chairmen during the first
two weeks of August. At these meetings the responsibili—
ties Of personnel involved in the study were explained
(see Figure 3.2) and training meeting dates for volunteer
interviewers set. Training meetings were scheduled
between September 5 and September 14. The Farm Bureau
Safety Chairman had the responsibility of obtaining the
volunteers with the assistance of the county extension
agent. In several counties where the Farm Bureau chairman
failed to perform this function, the county extension
agents filled the gap by recruiting volunteers with
their own office personnel

At the outset of the project the main responsibilities
of the county extension agent were to secure a training
meeting location, act as the collection center for gathering
questionnaires and send reminder letters for quarterly
accident reports and other communications.

The project leaders organized the meeting dates,
trained interviewers, developed questionnaires, provided
instruction kits, set up sampling procedures, and analyzed
data. A complete listing of respective responsibilities

is given in Appendix D.

27

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Project ‘
Coordinators H
County Extension
7 Agents
State 7
Farm 4‘ ,
Bureau Trained
Office Interviewer
County' AAccident'
Farm Reports
Bureau 4 Times
President Per Year
A Vr Basic
County County Data
Farm Extension
Bureau Agents FZEI1
Safety ' . _ y
Chairman [10 families per] I
InterVIewer
I__I J .1 l L 1 1 1
. IA

VolunteerS] Volunteers

Interviewer

Training Session Trained

Orientation Interviewer

Materials [10-35 per county] T

Howto interview LJIIIIIIIL1111I_

Farms assigned

How to report

 

 

 

Figure 3.2—~Farm accident study organization structure.

 

28

3.5 Developing the Questionnaire

 

A basic objective of this study was to develop
methOds and questionnaires which could be used in future
studies. For this reason, the appendices of this thesis
provide several representative letters of communication
and all of the questionnaires used in the study.

Several of the forms from previous studies were
examined. Although none of the basic data questionnaires
used in previous studies was suited for this study, the
format of a study by Phillips, gt_al. (1967) was most
beneficial in concept.

The design of the questionnaires was completed in
August. The basic data sheet (Appendix G) was designed to
provide fundamental information about the farm and farm
families in the sample. This information was used in
validating the sample and showing the relationships between
accidents and various variables.

Two factors were important in selecting type and
number of questions. Since interviewers volunteered their
time, the questionnaires were to be short. Also, it would
be advantageous to have forms which would allow a large
cross-section of people to give uniform responses. This
could be achieved by keeping the questions simply answered.
Questions were selected with this in mind.

Exposure to farm accidents to both the farm family

and hired hands was needed to determine farm-work accidents

29

per unit of time. It was assumed that volunteers would be
unlikely to spend time to collect exposure data each quarter
or at the end of the survey. Either method would have been
a preferred one, but since they were not available, the
"best available" measure would logically be the exposure

to farm accidents during the year preceeding the study.

With these limitations in mind the interviewer was asked in
question 20 (see Appendix G) to place a "best estimate" of
the number of eight hour days spent by members in each age
group doing farm work during the preceding year. Similarly,
in question 3, the number of eight hour days spent by hired
hands doing farm-work during the preceding year was sought.
Question 4 attempts to isolate the number of employees that
would come under each category of required Workmen's Com-
pensation coverage as defined by the Workmen's Compensation
Department (1966). Question 11 indicates the number and
type of workmen's compensation policies in effect as of
September 1967.

A bi-level reporting system for accident reports was
developed. The first level report form (see Appendix H)
consisted of factors common to all accidents such as who,
where, what, when, and how the injury occurred. Specifi-
cally, question 8 dealt with where the person was treated
and by whom. Question 11 dealt with miscellaneous aspects

of the total cost of accidents to farm peOple.

30

A brief description of the accident consisting of
two or three sentences was requested in the final question.
This description was useful in determining unusual circum—
stances which sometimes are not evident from simple check
response items.

The second level report (see Appendix H) was a supple—
mental accident report form which gave detailed information
about a specific tractor accident. On this form an attempt
was made to get usable information on the exact nature of
the accidents, the type, year, and model of tractor
involved, driving experience, speed of tractor, and other
contributing circumstances.

Another second level report (see Appendix H) con-
sisted of a supplemental medical form to collect information
about medical costs which were incomplete at the time the
accident was first reported.

The questionnaires along with supporting instructions
were developed into an interviewers' training kit which
assembled all the necessary items for one volunteer to
conduct an accident study for a one year period on ten
farm families. These kits were distributed to volunteer

interviewers at the training meetings.

3.6 Conducting the Training Meeting

 

Training volunteer interviewers meant taking busy
farmers and farm wives away from their normal work. A

major emphasis was made by the investigators to explain

31

fully the basic objectives of the study which was to be con-
ducted. Meetings were conducted on a time schedule to limit
the length of the meeting to two hours. This still allowed
adequate time for dealing with questions.

Before the meeting began, volunteers were assigned
the ten farms each was to interview. Some means of obtain-
ing a random sampling of farms in the individual counties
selected was necessary. If the volunteer interviewers were
allowed to choose the farms they wanted to interview, surely
they would be selective, choosing only those which would
be most cooperative.~ A procedure similar to that used by
Phillips-313i. ' (1967) in previous studies in Ohio was
selected. This procedure assumes that the density dis-
tribution of volunteer interviewers will approximate the
density distribution of farms in the county. Each volun-
teer interviewer's residence was located on a county map.
At the training meeting the interviewers were instructed
to go in a certain direction from their home accepting as
their sample the first ten families living on farms along
this route. ‘The route was determined by the project
coordinator who had little or no knowledge of the families
in the county. ‘This procedure attempted to maintain the
randomness in selection of farms. County samples were
quite uniformly distributed by sending interviewers in
various directions.' This also prevented overlapping of

one interviewer's sample upon another.

32

The training meeting proper consisted of an introduc-
tion to the study followed by an explanation of use of each
form and the proper way to complete it. A summary step-by-
step procedure (see Appendix I) was provided for each inter-
viewer. This listed the exact tasks and deadlines to be

met by the interviewer.

3.7 Data Collection

 

The first quarter reports consisted of basic data
sheets for each farm family and reports on any accidents
during the months of June, July, and August 1967. Inter—
viewers were to complete these reports and send them to the
county extension agents by September 30, 1967.

During the last week of November a summary of some
Of the basic data from the master data sheets was sent to
each county agent (see Appendix J) who in turn sent it to
each interviewer along with a reminder note for the second
quarter report. The second quarter survey period,
September to November, was completed between December 1-15.
Although some of the reports were late in arriving at the
county agent's office, all but four of the 233 interviewers
who sent in first quarter reports, sent in second quarter
reports.

A similar procedure was followed in March and again
in June for the third and fourth quarter reports respec-

tively. An arbitrary cutoff deadline of July 30 was set.

33

The final tally showed that 224 out of the 233 first

quarter interviewers completed the project.

3.8 Summarization of Data

The data collected was prepared for analysis by
coding the information on each questionnaire. The
information from these coded forms was then placed on
data cards by keypunch operators. Each data card was
punched and verified to ensure accuracy. The computer
available at Michigan State University was used to
accumulate the information from both the basic data and
accident report forms. Chi-square was the basic statistical
test used to compare the actual frequencies and accident

ratestith theoretical values.

IV. ANALYSIS OF DATA

e4:1 Incidence of Accidents

 

During the one year survey period, 280 reportable
accidents occurred on the 2139 farms in the study. Of
these 280 accidents, 142 were farm—work accidents.

Hired labor protected by workmen's cOmpensation insur—
ance were involved in 20 of 31 accidents to farm
laborers.

Of the total accidents reported, 136 or 48.6% occurred
on the farm, 68 or 24.3% occurred in the home and homeyard,
37 or 13.2% on roads and highways, and 39 or 13.9% in
other places Off the farm.

Farm-work accidents accounted for 142 or 51.7% of
the total, 15 or 5.3% occurred to persons involved in home—
work, 27 or 9.6% to persons in work other than on the farm
or in the home, and 94 or 33.4% occurred to people during
periods of leisure activity.

Many of the accidents caused only slight injury.

Only 2 or .7% were fatal, 12 or 4.3% caused permanent
injury, 82 or 29.5% were classified as severe injury, and
182 Or 65.5% caused only slight injury.

The incidence of all accidents was (1) 13.1 per

hundred farms and (2) 29.8 per thousand farm family

members.

34

35

It is difficult to meaningfully compare the figures
obtained in other studies because of the many different
definitions used of an accident. Numerically, the
accident rate of 11.2 accidents per hundred farms and
30.3 accidents per thousand people in an Indiana study by
Ismail (1958) comes closest to this study. However, both
the definition of a farm and an accident differed slightly
from this study. The studies conducted in Ohio by Baker
and Stuckey (1959), Bible and Stuckey (1963), and Phillips
and Stuckey (1967) were similar in procedure and in
definition of accidents. Rates of 42, 46,and 58 accidents
per thousand people respectively were calculated from data
reported. The corresponding figure in this study was 29.8
per thousand people. The large discrepancy may be due to
differences in actual accident rates or in accuracy of
reporting.

The National Safety Council (1968) reports figures
on the disabling injuries per million man hours exposure.
The definitions in this study did not include disabling
injuries. An approximation of disabling injuries can be
obtained by sorting farm—work accidents which resulted in
loss of one day or more from normal activities. The
resulting rate was 14.67 accidents per million man hours.
This is slightly more than twice the average of 7.22 for
all industries. This may indicate that farming is more

dangerous than the average industry.

36

Farm accidents are often assumed to occur by pure
chance. The Poisson distribution would be followed if
there was an equal propensity for accidents to occur on
each farm unit. The hypothesis that there was no signifi—
cant difference in the distribution of actual accidents
and the expected according to the Poisson distribution
was tested.

Table 4.1 presents the actual and expected frequencies
of accidents per farm according to the Poisson distribution.
A Chi—square test of goodness of fit was applied. The Chi—
square value obtained was 103.8 which is beyond the
critical value needed for significance. Therefore the
hypothesis that there is an equal propensity for accidents
to occur on each farm unit must be rejected. Accident
frequency was related to factors associated with farm

units.

TABLE 4.l.—-Theoretical Poisson distribution compared to the
actual number of accidents reported on 2139 farms.

 

Number of Accidents 0 l 2 3 4
Per Farm

 

Probability by

Poisson .8772 .1149 ,00754 .000329 .0000107
Theoretical
expected frequency 1876 246 16 .7 .02

Actual number of
farms reporting 1859 192 32 8 0

 

Chi-square = 103.8 df = 4 p < .01

37

4.2 Validation and Extrapolation

 

If any generalized statements about the statewide
accident picture are to be made, the sample must be
analyzed to see how closely it reflects the actual
situation in the state. The United States Census of
Agriculture figures were chosen for validation because
it provides a comparable statistic in all states. The
absolute magnitude on census figures is not correct, but
relative figures from state to state would be Similar.

The distribution of the size of farming operations
and the farm family population available from both the

sample and census figures were compared.

4.2.1 Size of Farm

 

A Chi-square goodness of fit test was used to
analyze the hypothesis of no significant difference in
the distribution of farms in the sample and in census
figures by size of farm.

The farm picture in Michigan is changing rapidly,
with a trend to larger farms. There was more than a 15%
reduction in number of farms from 1959 to 1964. The 1964
census figures are the latest available. Changes in the
picture from 1964 to 1967 were estimated by extrapolating
changes during the 1959 to 1964 period to 1967. A
definite trend toward a large decrease in small farms less
than 50 acres and an increase in large farms above 500

acres existed.

38

The Chi-square value of 42.1 in Table 4.2 shows that
statistically significant differences exist in the distribu—
tion of farms by size in the sample and in the census
figures. Two—thirds of the contribution to Chi—square
comes from the small farms of less than 50 acres. The
causes of discrepancy in the two distributions can only be
speculated. One source of error could be in selection of
farms. Interviewers may be more likely to pass over a
small farm than a large one, assuming that the farm was too
small when in fact it complied with the census definition
of a farm. A second source of discrepancy may be in the
estimated 1967 census figures. The number of farms in

Michigan has been decreasing by over 3% per year during the

TABLE 4.2.--Comparison of 2130 farms in the sample with
estimated 1967 census figures by acres of cropland.

 

 

Acres Of Cropland Numbegensgz: cent NumbgimpPzr cent
Less than 50 16,599 20.0 317 14.9
50 - 99 20,486 24.8 526 24.7
100 - 499 43,117 52.0 1,289 56.8
500 - 999 2,408 2.9 67 3.1
lOOO—Over 232 ,3 ll .5
TOTAL 82,842 100.0 2,130 100.0

 

w... V—F—

*
Estimated by extrapolating changes in number of farms
from the 1959 to 1964 census. '

Chi—square = 42.1 df = 4 p < .01

39

last decade. This makes it very difficult to extrapolate
census figures accurately. The differences in the actual
distribution of Michigan farms and the sample may not be
as large as the differences indicated in the sample and

extrapolated census figures.

4.2.2 _FarmfPopulation

 

The Chi-square test was used to determine if any
significant difference existed in the distribution of the
farm population in the sample and in the census figures.
The only usable figures by age and sex were from the 1964
Census of Agriculture. It was assummed that the distribu-
tion of population by age would not vary greatly from 1964
to 1967 even though the absolute numbers of people on the
farm decreased.

Table 4.3 shows that significant differences do exist
in the distribution of farms in the sample and in the census
figures.

It must be concluded that the random stratified
sample taken from Michigan farms does not statistically
reflect the total state according to census figures. A
visual inspection of Tables 4.2 and 4.3 shows that the
sample does resemble the population even though it does
not reflect it. Since the census figures for 1967 were
only an estimate one cannot say with assurance that an
adjusted census figure would give more accurate informa—

tion than“using the actual sample.

40

TABLE 4.3.——Comparison of 2139 farms in the sample with
1964 census figures by farm pOpulation.

 

 

 

A Census Sample
., ge Number Per cent Number Per cent
Male
Under 5 14,630 4.1 272 3.3
5-14‘ 43,743 12.4 1,076 12.9
15-24 27,212 7.7 741 8.9
25-44 34,288 9.7 794 9.5
45-64 47,880 13.5 1,105 13.2
65—Over 17,678 5.0 384 4.6
Female _
Under 5 13,621 3.9 261 3.1
5 -14 40,394 11.5 992 11.9
15—24 22,297 6.3 602 7.2
25-44 36,985 10.5 878 10.5
45-64 41,012 11.6 944 11.2
65—Over 13,040 3.8 314 3.7
TOTAL 352,679 100.0 8,363 100.0
Chi—square = 60.2 df = 11 p < .01

The sample does not accurately reflect the total
state, therefore an accurate indication of the statewide
accident picture from the sample in the state is not justi-
fied. However, the best estimates from the data available
can be presented. Caution must be used in accepting these
figures as facts.

Extrapolation to statewide figures will be made on a
simple multiplication factor. This will give an estima-
tion of the number of accidents in the total state. To
obtain the accident rate per farm, the number of accidents

is divided by the number of farms in the sample.

41

280 _ .
2,139 - .131 acc1dents per farm

 

Using this rate to extrapolate for the 82,842 farms in

Michigan:

82,842 x .131 = 10,750 estimated accidents to farm

people.

This is about as far as the extrapolation is justified.
In defense of this figure, the statistical difference noted
in the sample does not always constitute a real difference.
With the large number of farms involved, even small per-
centage differences become statistically significant.
Also, as will be shown in section 4.4.3, little significant
difference was found in the farm-work accident rate among
size of farms when exposure to farm—work was taken into

account.

4.3 Exposure to Accidents

 

Figures in published materials about farm accidents
are often quoted as accidents per hundred farms or per
thousand people compared with various characteristics of
the farm. From these rates, statistical significance is
or is not concluded for these various characteristics.
This method does not take into account the varying amount
of time spent working on various size of farms, type of
farms, among age groups, and the like. Statistical con-

clusions really do not isolate the source of variance.

42

For example, smaller farms normally have less accidents
per hundred farms. This may merely indicate that much

less work is done per individual and/or per farm unit.

This would reduce the accident rate.

A procedure which accounts for differences in part
time and full time farming Operations is exposure to farm-
work accidents. Although many problems exist in obtaining
accurate exposure data, it offers a means of calculating
a more meaningful accident rate. This has been lacking in
past years.

Industry has a built—in reporting system via its
payroll. This gives the hours exposure for every job in
industry. When an accident record is kept, rates can be
easily calculated. Such data is not so easily collected
in the agricultural industry. Most farm Operators do not
keep accurate records of time spent working on the farm.
An estimate of exposure to farm-work accidents was
Obtained by estimating the exposure to accidents during
the year preceding this study for age and sex groups for
both the farm family and hired labor. This and other
information collected at the beginning of the study was
used to provide exposure to farm—work accidents for the
following characteristics of farms:

1. Farm family and hired labor

2. Time spent working on farm

3. Size of farm

43

4. Type of farm

5. Age and sex.

Because of the amount of exposure in certain cate-
gories was relatively small, some groups had to be com-
bined to obtain large enough theoretical accident
frequencies to justify statistical testing. However, data
for exposure to accidents will be presented without com—
bination in order that percentages of the total exposure
are not lost. This will give an indication of how large a
sample would be needed to obtain any given amount of
exposure for a group.

4.3.1 Farm Family and
Hired Labor

 

 

Table 4.4 shows that farm family labor accounted
for 85.6% of the total exposure, hired labor with workmen's
compensation 12.0%, and other labor 2.4%. Farm families
had an averagecfi‘2,772runus per farm, and with hired labor
3,236 hours.
4.3.2 Time Spent Working
on Farm

Table 4.5 indicates the differences in exposure to
what can be called full time farmers (50% or more) and
part time farmers (less than 50%).

Combining data given in Table 4.5, shows that part
time farmers contributed only 18.1% of the total farm

accident exposure. These farmers lived on 39.4% of the

44

TABLE 4.4.--Farm family and hired labor exposure to farm-
‘ work accidents.

 

Exposure to Farm-work Accidents

 

Type of Labor

 

Hours Per
(000) cent
Farm family 5,929 85.6
Hired labor under
workmen's compensation 828 12.0
Hired labor not under
workmen's compensation 164 2.4
TOTAL 6,921 100.0

 

TABLE 4.5.--Exposure to farm-work accidents by time Operator
spent working on farm.

 

Exposure to Farm-work Accident

 

 

Time Spent
Working on Hours Per Hours Per
Farm Farm Family cent Hired Labor cent
(000) (000)
50% or more 4,762 80.5 912 92.0
Less than 50% 1,167 19.5 80 8.0
TOTAL 5,929 100.0 992 100.0

 

farms in the sample. Total average hours per farm for
full time and part time farmers were 4,408 and 1,482
respectively. The corresponding figures when only the
farm family is considered were 3,700 and 1,386 hours per

farm.

45

4.3.3 Size of Farm

Table 4.6 shows the farm family and hired labor
exposure by size of farm. The farm family contributed
91% of the exposure hours on farms less than 100 acres
while contributing only 68% of the hours on farms larger
than 500 acres. Sixty per cent of the total farms were
larger than 100 acres, and had over 85% of the hired labor
in the study. Farms larger than 1000 acres had about

2% times as much hired labor as farm family labor.

TABLE 4.6.--Farm family and hired labor exposure to farm-
work accidents by size of farm.

 

Size of Farm Exposure to Farm-work Accidents

 

 

(acres)

Hours Per Hours Per

Farm Family cent Hired Labor cent

(000) (000)

Less than 50 438 7.4 35 3.5
50 — 99 1,066 18.0 115 11.6
100 — 199 1,190 32.3 252 25.4
200 — 499 2,163 36.5 432 43.6
500 — 999 302 5.1 56 5.7
1000 and above 40 .7 101 10.2

TOTAL 5,919 . 160.6 991 100.0

 

46

Information from Table 4.7 shows that farms of less
than 200 acres accounted for 70% of the total farms, but
had only 55% of the total exposure to accidents. This
table indicates that the average hours exposure per farm

climbs rapidly as the size of farm increases.

TABLE 4.7.--Comparison of per cent of farms and exposure by
size of farm.

 

 

 

Per cent Total Exposure
Size of Farm of total
farms Per cent Average hours
per farm
Less than 50 14.9 6.8 1,494
50 - 99 24.7 17.1 2,245
100 - 199 30.4 31.2 3,341
200 - 499 26.4 37.5 4,619
500 - 999 3.1 5.2 5,349
1000 -above .5 2.2 12,807
TOTAL 100.0 100.0

 

4.3.4 Type of Farm

Table 4.8 shows that 65% of the total farm family
labor comes from livestock farms which constitute only 51%
of the farms. In contrast, 43.4% of the hired labor
exposure comes from fruit farming which has only 6.0% of
the total farms. Most of the labor is hired on fruit and

various kinds of livestock farms.

47

TABLE 4.8.--Farm family and hired labor exposure to farm—
work accidents by type of farm.

 

 

 

Type of - Exposure to Farm-work Accidents
Farming Hours Per Hours Per
Farm Family cent Hired Labor cent
(000) (000)
Cash crop 1,059 17.8 108 10.9
Dairy 1,958 33.1 168 10.9
General livestock 1,041 17.6 67 6.8
Beef 583 9.8 54 5.4
Fruit 362 6.1 429 43.4
General farming 354 6.0 59 6.0
Hogs 179 3.0 17 1.7
Truck farming 155 2.6 52 5.2
Poultry 89 1.5 0 0
Soil bank 10 .2 0 0
Other 138 2.3 37 3.7
TOTAL 5,928 100.0 991 100.0

 

The relative amounts of exposure per farm can be seen
in Table 4.9. Fruit, truck farming and dairy are the top
three in labor consumption. Cash crop and other farms
averaged only one-fourth to one-third as many hours per
farm. Cash crop farms with almost 30% of the farms had
only 16.9% of the exposure to farm accidents, while fruit
farms with only 6.0% of the farms had 11.0% of the farm-

work exposure.

48

TABLE 4.9.--Comparison of per cent of farms and exposure by
type of farm.

 

 

 

Type of Farm ZTrTSEEI ,Total Exposure
Farms Per cent Average hours
per farm

Cash crop 28.5 16.9 1,925
Dairy 20.5 30.7 4,888
General livestock 15.9 16.0 3,286
Beef 11.0 9.2 2,720
Fruit “ 6.0 11.4 6,225
General farming 5.4 6.0 3,619
Hogs 3.0 2.8 3,111
Truck farming 2.0 3.0 4,930
Poultry 1.6 1.3 2,564
Soil bank 1.5 .1 309
Other 4.6 2.6 1,775
TOTAL 100.0 100.0

 

4.3.5 Age and Sex

Table 4.10 shows quite clearly that much of the
work on farms is done by males. Sixty-two per cent of
total exposure is by males. Assuming that males and
females have an equal frequency rate of accidents, 62.0%
of the farm-work accidents should occur to males. This

hypothesis will be tested in section 4.4.5. As might

49

TABLE 4.lO.--Farm family and hired labor exposure to farm-
work accidents by age and sex.

 

Exposure to Farm—work Accidents

 

 

Age Hours Per Hours Per
Farm family cent Hired Labor* cent
(000) (000)
Male
5-14 267 4.5 52 5.2
15-24 643 10.0 220 22.2
25-44 1,379 23.2 315 31.8
45-64 1,926 32.5 187 18.8
65-Over 439 7.4 33 3.3
Female
5-14 100 1.7 15 1.5
15-24' 137 2.3 41 4.1
45-64 490 8.3 31 3.1
65-Over 88 1.6 2 2
TOTAL 5,929 100.0 993 100.0

 

*Age categories for hired labor are under 16 and 16-24
for both male and female.

be expected, the age categories of 25-44 and 45-64 have the
largest percentage of labor for both males and females.

The total exposure by age groups was not available
because of the method of collecting data. For that reason,
Table 4.11 shows only farm family exposure data. Different
age groups show a disproportionate amount of exposure to
farm-work accidents. This would suggest that using numbers
of people to calculate accident rates would be subject to

considerable error. It would seem logical to use exposure

50

TALBE 4.ll.--Comparison of per cent of farms and exposure
by age and sex.

 

 

Per Cent Farm Family Exposure
Age of Farm
Family Members Per Cent Average hours

per person

 

Male
5-14 13.7 4.5 248
15-24 9.5 10.8 868
25-44 10.1 23.2 1,737
45—64 14.1 32.5 1,742
65-Over 4.9 7.4 1,144
Female
5-14 12.7 1.7 101
14—24 7.7 2.3 228
25-44 11. 7.7 524
45-64 12.1 8.3~ 518
65-Over 4.0 1.6 281
TOTAL 100.0 100.0

 

to accidents as a standard for accident frequency. This
method will be explored in greater detail in section 4.4

of this chapter.

4.4 Farm-work Accidents
The incidence of farm-work accidents was: (1) 6.67
per hundred farms or (2) 20.6 per million man hours
exposure.
4.4.1 Farm Family and
Hired Labor
A hypothesis was made that there is no significant

difference between the farm-work accident rate to hired

51

help and farm family members. Two Chi—square tests were
used to test this hypothesis, one comparing accidents to the
farm family and total hired labor, the second compares
accidents to the farm family and hired labor with and with-
out workmen's compensation insurance.

The accident rate was computed in this and following
sections by dividing the number of accidents in each
category by the number of million man hours of exposure to
farm-work accidents for that group. For example, the
overall accident rate for all farm—work accidents was the
total number of accidents, 142, divided by the total

number of million man hours exposure, 6.921. Therefore:

6&32I = 20.5 accidents per million man hours

exposure.
The Chi-square statistic was computed by comparing the
actual accident frequency with the theoretical. The
theoretical frequency can be found by taking the per-
centage of the exposure in any one group times the total
farmrwork accidents in all groups. If 25% of the exposure
is in one group, theoretically 25% of the accidents would
also occur in that group. The Chi-square test then
compares the distribution of the differences between the
groups. A large Chi—square value indicates significant
differences occurred from what was hypothesized. If the

Chi-square value is statistically large, the null

52

hypothesis must be rejected. Otherwise, no action can be
taken on the hypothesis.

Table 4.12 presents a Chi-square value of 6.58 for the
comparison of farm family and hired labor accident rates.
The differences between the groups are significant at the
5% level. The second Chi-square statistic shown in Table
4.13 is 19.44. This value is significant beyond the 1%
level. Since both Chi-square values were significant, the
null hypothesis that no significant differences exist in
farm family and hired labor accident rates must be
rejected. Hired labor in the sample has an accident rate

higher than the farm family.

TABLE 4.12.--Number and frequency of accidents classified
‘by farm family and hired labor.

 

 

Theoretical Actual Accidents per
Type of Labor Farm-work Farm-work Million Man
Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure
Farm Family 122 111 18.7
Hired Labor 20 31 31.2
TOTAL 142 142

 

Chi-square = 6.58 df = l .05 > p > .01

53

TABLE 4.13.--Number and frequency of accidents classified
by farm family labor and hired labor.with and without
workmen‘s compensation insurance.

W

 

 

Theoretical Actual Accidents per
Type of Labor Farm-work Farm-work Million Man
Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure
Farm family 122 111 18.7
Hired labor
with workmen's
compensation 17 20 24.1
Hired labor
without work-
men's compen-
sation 3 11 67.0
TOTAL 142 142
Chi—square = 19.44 df = 2 p < .01

4.4.2 Time Spent Working
on Farm

 

The null hypothesis being tested in this section was
that no significant differences existed in the farm-work
accident rate on farms where the head of the household
spends more than 50% of his time farming and where he
spends less than 50% farming.

The "traditional" theoretical measure of farm
accident rates has been the percentage of farms in each
group times the total number of accidents. This is then
compared with the actual rates to see if any differences
exist. As will be shown in sections 4.4.3 and 4.4.4

false conclusions may be predicted about actual

54

differences in accident rates for various characteristics
of the farm. By statistical manipulation, a variety of
conclusions can be drawn. This measure will be included
for the total farm-work accidents, not because this
method is advocated, but to illustrate that this measure
does lead to false conclusions.

Table 4.14 shows the number of farms and accidents
in the two categories of more and less than 50% of time
spent working on the farm. The Chi-square value of 24.75
yields highly significant differences in the two groups.
The null hypothesis that no significant differences exist
would have to be rejected. However, a closer look at
this figure is warranted.

TABLE 4.14.--Number and per cent of farms and total farm-
work accidents classified by time spent working on farm.

 

Time Operator Farm-work

 

Spegfi gigging No. Farms Per cent Accidents Per cent
More than 50% 1,287 60.5 115 81.0
Less than 50% 842 39.5 27 19.0
TOTAL 2,129 100.0 142 100.0

 

24.75 df = 1 p < .01

Chi-square

55

The above statistic does not account in any way for
the relative amount of exposure to farm-work accidents.
The full time farmers in this study averaged more than
three times the number of hours exposure to farm-work
accidents as the part time farmers did. Therefore, when
the number of farms is used as a measure, significant dif-
ferences in accident frequencies will be found.

In contrast, Table 4.15 indicates the overall farm-
work accident rate by million man hours exposure. The
Chi-square value of .10 shows no statistical difference
in the actual and the expected accident frequency for
full and part time farmers. Similarly Tables 4.16 and 4.17
yield Chi—square values of 1.78 and 2.84 for farm family
and hired labor respectively. The accident rate for hired
labor working on part time farms is misleading. There is
a zero accident rate because no accidents occurred.
However, one accident would have given an accident rate
of 12.6 accidents per million man hours and three accidents
would have given a rate almost identical to the full time
farmers. The number of accidents for this group is too
small to draw statistical conclusions.

The evidence for the total and the family farm—work
accident rate would lead to the conclusion that no
significant differences exist between accident rates to

full time and part time farmers in the sample.

56

TABLE 4.15.--Number and frequency of total farm-work
accidents classified by time spent working on farm.

 

 

 

Time Operator Theoretical Actual Accidents per
Spent Working Farm-work Farm-work Million Man

on Farm Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure
More than 50% 116 115 20.3
Less than 50% 26 27 21.6
TOTAL 142 142
Chi-square = .10 df = l .90 > p > .75

TABLE 4.16.--Number and frequency of family farm-work
accidents classified by time spent working on farm.

      
 

Actual Accidents per

  

 

 

Spent Working Farm-work Farm-work Million Man
on Farm Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure
More than 50% 89 84 17.6
Less than 50% 22 27 23.1
TOTAL 111 111
Chi-square = 1.78 df = 1 .25 > p > .10

TABLE 4.17.--Number and frequency of hired labor farm-work
accidents classified by time spent working on farm.

 

 

Time Operator Theoretical Actual Accidents per
Spent Working Farm-work Farm-work Million Man

on Farm Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure
More than 50% 28 31 33.9
Less than 50% 3 0 0
TOTAL 31 31

 

Chi-square = 2.84, df

II
[.1

.10 > p > .05

57

4.4.3 Size of Farm

 

The hypothesis was formulated that no significant
difference in accident rates existed between different
size of farming operations. Using the number of farms
in each group to compute the accident rate yielded a Chi-
square value of 33.0 as given in Table 4.18. This is»a
highly significant value, but does not account for the
differences in amount of exposure to farm-work accidents.

TABLE 4.18.--Number and per cent of farms and total farm-
work accidents classified by size of farm.

 

 

 

Size of Farm No. farms Per Farm-work Per
(acres) cent Accidents cent
Less than 50 317 14.9 5 3.5
50 — 99 526 24.7 21 14.8
100 - 199 647 30.4 55 38.7
200 — 499 562 26.4 48 33.8
500 - Over 78 3.6 13 9.2
TOTAL 2,130 100.0 142 100.0
Chi-square = 33.0 df = 4 p < .01

Tables 4.19, 4.20 and 4.21 yielded Chi-square values
of 6.42, 4.18, and 1.79 for total, farm family, and hired
labor accidents respectively. None of these values was
large enough to show significant differences in the actual
and expected frequencies between various size of farming

operations. It would seem logical that larger farms would

58

TABLE 4.19.--Number and frequency of total farm-work
accidents classified by size of farm.

‘
—

 

 

 

Theoretical 9 Actual Accidents per

SifizcggsFarm Farm—work Farm-work Million Man
Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure

Less than 50 10 5 10.5

50 - 99 24 21 17.7

100 - 199 44 55 25.4

200 - 499 53 48 18.4

500 - Over 11 13 26.0

TOTAL 142 142

Chi-square = 6.42 df = 4 .25 > p > .10

TABLE 4.20.--Number and frequency of family farm—work
accidents classified by size of farm.

 

 

 

M #r . 1 m
, Theoretical Actual Accidents per
SizzcggsFarm Farm-work Farm-work Million Man
Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure
Less than 50 8 5 11.4
50 - 99 2O 17 15.9
100 - 199 36 44 ' 23.0
200 - 499 40 37 17.1
500 - Over 7 8 20.5
TOTAL 111 111
Chi-square df = 4 .75 > p > .50

59

TABLE 4.2l.——Number and frequency of hired labor farm-work
accidents classified by size of farm.

 

 

 

=— ‘1
Theoretical Actual Accidents per
SizzcggsFarm . Farm—work Farm-work Million Man
Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure
Less than 100 5 4 26.7
100 - 199 8 11 43.8
200 - 499 13 11 25.5
500 - Over 5 5 31.8
TOTAL‘ 31 31
Chi-square = 1.79 df = 3 .75 > p > .50

have a lower rate per unit of exposure than small farms.
People showed a general tendency toward higher accident
rates on the larger farms. Exposure data does not show
the nature of exposure, perhaps this type of exposure
information could explain this tendency.

The hypothesis of no difference in accident rate by
size of farm must be held tenable. The Chi-square value
for farm-work accidents given in Table 4.19 approaches the
10% level of significance. A larger sample of accidents

might show differences between the size of farms.

4.4.4 Type of Farm

 

> A contention of many educators, insurance companies
and others interested in accident frequencies is there are

varying rates among the types of farming. The null

60

hypothesis that there is no significant difference in
farm-work accident rate between various types of farming
was tested.

Table 4.22 shows the number of farms of each type
in the state and the corresponding accidentsfku'each type.
There is considerable discrepancy in the percentage of
farms in cash crop and dairy farms and the corresponding
number of accidents. This gives a Chiésquare value of
27.94 which is beyond the 1% level of significance.

Once again when exposure is considered, the differ-
ences become less evident. Table 4.23 shows that beef
has the highest rate of 28.3 accidents per million man
hours, and general livestock the lowest at 17.2. The
differences in the accident rate among the types of
farming are not statistically significant; the Chi-square
has a value of 3.31.' Similarly, the Chi-square value of
7.61 for farm family accidents in Table 4.24 shows no
statistical significance.

The hypothesis of no significant difference in the
‘accident rate between various types of farming is held
'tenable. 'For'this sample there is only about one chance
'in ten that an error would be made in accepting this
hypothesis. With caution it could be said that there is
‘likely no significant differences in the statewide acci-
dent rate. The sample is not large enough to predict

this with assurance.

61

TABLE 4.22.--Number and per cent of farms and total farm-
work accidents classified by type of farm.

 

 

 

==-==_
.. 5:3. 1:21.48: 52:.
Cash crop 606 28.5 21 14.8
Dairy 435 20.5 47 33.1
General livestock 435 20.5 24 16.9
Beef 234 ' 11.0 18 12.7
Fruit 127 6.0 15 10.6
General farming 114 5.4 9 6.3
All others 173 8.1 8 5.6
TOTAL 2,124 100.0 142 100.0
Chi-square = 27.94 df = 6 p < .01

TABLE 4.23.-—Number and frequency of total farm-work
accidents classified by type of farm.

 

 

Theoretical Actual Accidents per

Type of Farm Farm-work Farm-work Million Man

' Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure
Cash crop 24 21 17.9
Dairy 44 47 22.1
General livestock 29 24 17.2

Beef 13 18 28.3
Fruit 16 15 18.9
General farming 8 9 21.8
All others 8 8 20.3
TOTAL 142 142

 

Chi-square = 3.31 df = 6 .90 > p > .75

62

TABLE 4.24.-—Number and frequency of family farm-work
accidents classified by type of farm.

 

= - ‘—

 

 

Theoretical Actual Accidents per

Type of Farm Farm-work Farm-work Million Man
Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure

Cash crOp 20 21 19.8
Dairy 36 40 20.4
General livestock 19 18 17.3
Beef 11 17 29.2
Fruit 7 3 8.2
General farming 7 4 11.2
All others 11 8 11.5
TOTAL 111 111
Chi-square = 7.61 . df = 6 .50 > p >..25

4.4.5 Age and Sex

 

The null hypothesis that no significant differences
existed in the farm-work accident rate between the male
and female groups was tested in Table 4.25. A Chi—square
value of 5.01 was obtained. This is significant at the 5%
level. The above hypothesis was rejected. The accident
rate per million man hours for the male of 22.5 was almost
double the female rate of 13.0. If a larger number of
accidents had occurred, the Chi-square value would probably
be larger yielding even more significant differences.

The hypothesis that no significant difference

existed in the farm-work accident rate among age and sex

63

TABLE 4.25.—-Number and frequency of total farm-work
accidents classified by sex.

 

 

 

_

Theoretical Actual Accidents per
Sex Farm-work Farm-work Million Man

Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure

Male 112 123 22.5
Female 30 19 13.0
TOTAL 142 142
Chi—square = 5.01 df = l .05 > p > .01

groups was tested. The total farm family accident rates
can be divided into three basic groups. The males aged
five through fourteen had by far the highest rate with
52.4 accidents per million man-hours exposure. Corres-
ponding rate for males aged fifteen and over was about
18.0 and-for females about 12.5 respectively. Among
males, the age group of twenty-five through forty-four
has the lowest accident rate per unit of exposure, with
higher rates for both young and old males.

The Chi-square value for total farm-work accidents
of 19.41 and for the family of 18.99.in Tables 4.26 and
4.27 respectively are both significant beyond the 1% level.
The hypothesis that no significant differences among age

and sex groups exists must be rejected.

64

TABLE 4.26.--Number and frequency of total farm-work
accidents classified by age and sex.

 

A

r

 

 

 

Theoretical Actual Accidents per
Age Farm-work Farm-work Million Man
Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure
Male
15 - 24 18 23 26.6
25 - 44 35 30 17.7
45 — 64- 43 40 18.9
65 - Over 10 16 33.8
Female-
5 - 24- 6 4 13.6
25 - 44 11 8 14.3
45 - Over 12 7 11.4
TOTAL 142 142
Chi-square = 19.41 df = 7 p < .01

TABLE 4.27.--Number and frequency of family farm-work
accidents classified by age and sex.

 

 

 

Theoretical Actual Accidents per
Age Farm-work Farm—work Million Man
Accidents Accidents Hours Exposure
Male
5 - l4 5 14 52.4
15 - 24 12 12 18.6
25 - 44 26 24 17.4
45 - 64 36 37 19.2
65 — Over 8 8 18.2
Female
5 - 24 4 3 12.6
25 - 44- 9 6 13.0
65 - Over 11 7 12.1
TOTAL 111 111

 

Chi—square = 18.99 df = 7 p < .01

65
4.5 Characteristics of the Total Farm
Accident Situation

Farm—work accidents accounted for only 51.7% of
all accidents to farm people. Since exposure data was
'gathered only for farm-work, it does not seem logical to
attach any statistical significance to the occurrence of
the rest of the accidents. However, the other accidents
'should be of interest to anyone concerned with farm people,
for these accidents cost money, disrupt family activities,
and cause lost time from work. The following sections will
present the overall accident picture in tabular form.

4.5.1 ‘Time Spent Working
on Farm

 

The head of the household spent more than one—half
of his time working on the farm on 60% of the Michigan
farms. Table 4.28 shows that 65.5% of all accidents
occurred on the farms loosely classified as full time
and 34.5% on part time farms. There were more leisure
"accidents occurring on the part time'farms even though they
constituted only 40% of the total farms. This would sug-
‘gest that more time is spent on activities other than

farm-work.

4.5.2 Size of Farm

The incidence of total accidents followed a definite
pattern, with home-work and other-work accidents approxi—
mating the distribution of farms in the sample as seen in

Table 4.29. ‘Leisure accidents occurred more often than

66

TABLE 4.28.--Number of accidents by time Spent working on
farm and activity at time of accident.

 

 

M f a:

Time Spent Number of Accidents Per cent

Working on of Total
Farm Farm Home Other Leisure Total

work work work

 

More than

50% 115 10 14 43 182 65.5
Less than
50% 27 5 l3 51 96 34.5
Subtotal 142 15 27 94 278 100.0
Unknown 2
TOTAL 280

 

TABLE 4.29--Number of accidents by size of farm and
activity at time of accident.

 
 

 
  

 
 

Per cent

Number of Accidents

 

 

 

Size of

Farm (acres) Farm Home Other Leisure Total Of Total
work work work
Less than 50 5 3 5 18 31 11.1
50 - 99 21 4 16 42 15.1
100 - 199 55 7 9 32 103 37.1
200 — 499 48 3 8 26 85 30.6
500 - 999 10 1 1 2 14 5.0
1000 - Over 3 O O O 3 1.1
Subtotal 142 15 27 94 278 100.0
Unknown 2

TOTAL 280

 

 

 

67

farm-work accidents on farms less than 50 acres in size.
Farms 100—500 acres in size accounted for about 56% of all
farms but had almost 68% of the total accidents. This

group had 68.7% of the total exposure to farm—work.

4.5.3 Type of'Farm

 

An interesting pattern is evident in Table 4.30.
On farms such as dairy and fruit, where a large percentage
of the farm-work exposure occurs, accidents are in direct
proportion to the hours exposure. The percentage of
leisure accidents in each group more nearly reflects the
'percentage of farms in the study. Without statistical
proof, it would appear that farm-work accidents are a
function of exposure to accidents as Shown in previous
sections and leisure accidents more nearly a reflection of
the number of farms and hence the number of people exposed

to accidents.

4.5.4 Age and.Sex

Table 4.31 shows that 74% of the total accidents
'occurred to males who comprise 52% of the pOpulation.
Males are involved in more accidentS'in all activities
other than home—work. The higher rate cannot be explained
solely by a larger exposure to accidents. Leisure and
farm-work accidents show a disproportionate number of
accidents to males. 'This may indicate more exposure to

hazards or more carelessness by the male population.

68

TABLE 4.30.--Number of accidents by type of farm and
activity at time of accident.

Number of Accidents

 

 

Type of Per cent
Farm Farm Home Other Leisure Total Of Total
work work work
Cash crop 21 3 5 28 57 20.5
Dairy 47 3 5 25 80 28.8
General
livestock 20 4 4 7 35 12.6
Beef 18 2 2 10 32 11.5
Fruit 15 2 2 5 24 8.6
General
farming 9 0 ' 2 4 15 5.4
HOgs 1 0 1 4 6 2.2
Truck farming l 0 O O ' l .4
Poultry 3 0 l 3 7 2.5
Soil bank 0 '0 1 2 3 1.1
Other 7 l 4 6 18 6.4
Subtotal 142 15 27 94 278 100.0
Unknown 2
TOTAL 280

 

Females spend more of their time doing home-work and show a
larger number of accidents in this activity.

Table 4.32 shows a large number of leisure accidents
occurring to children under age 15. Over one-half of all

leisure accidents occurred to this age group. This simple

69

TABLE 4.3l.--Number of accidents by sex and activity at
time of accident.

 

Number of Accidents
Sex Per cent
Farm Home Other Leisure Total of total
work work work

 

 

Male 123 2 20 61 206 74.1

Female 19 13 7 33 72 25.9
Subtotal 142 15 27 94 278 100.0
Unknown ' 2

TOTAL 280

 

TABLE 4.32.--Number of accidents by age and sex and activity
at time of accident.

 

Number of Accidents Per cent

Age Farm Home Other Leisure Total Of total

work. work work

 

 

Male
Under 5 0 0 0 4 4 1.4
5-14 14 0 2 25 41 14.8
15-24 23 0 1 14 38 13.7
25-44 30 2 6 7 45 16.2
45-64 40 0 10 11 61 21.9
65-Over 16 0 1 0 17 6.1
Female
Under 5 O 0 0 4 4 1.4
5—14 1 0 1 15 17 6.1
15-24 3 0 2 6 11 4.0
25-44 8 4 1 4 17 6.1
45-64 6 6 3 3 18 6.5
65-Over l 3 0 1 5 1.8
Subtotal 142 15 27 94 278 100.0
Unknown 2

TOTAL 280

 

7O

fact reflects the larger proportion of time spent in such
leisure activities as school play, sports and the like.
With the exception of the under 5 age groups, males were
involved in a larger percentage of accidents than females.
Much of this difference comes from farm—work accidents
where the male is exposed to more accidents than the

female.

4.5.5 Month

The lowest number of accidents was reported in
April. Only 4.0% of the accidents occurred during this
month. The increase in work load is evident in May,
June, July, and August with 7.2, 9.7, 13.4, and 13.4% of
the accidents occurring in these months. The peak number
of farm-work accidents was in August when 23 mishaps
occurred. Almost one-third of the farm-work accidents
occurred in July and August. The total accident fre-
quency reflects the general increase in all activities
during the summer months.

Fall work loads contributed to September and
October accidents when 10.5 and 8.6% of the accidents
occurred. A fairly large number of farm-work accidents
occurred throughout the winter months. 'This is likely
the result of continued activity on dairy, beef, and
general livestock farms. The winter months of November,

December, January, February, and March showed

71

irregularly lower accident numbers; 7.9, 7.6, 4.7, 6.9,
and 6.1% of the accidents occurred respectively during

these months.

TABLE 4.33.--Number of accidents by month and activity at
time of accident.

 

Number of Accidents

 

 

Month Per cent
Farm Home‘ Other Leisure Total of total
work work work

January ' 5 ‘ 0 0 8 13 4.7

February * 9 ' 4 l 5 19 6.9

March 10 l 1 5 17 6.1

April 4 l 6 11 4.0

May 9 0 4 7 20 7.2

June 15 l 3 8 27 9.7

July 20 0 3 14 37 13.4

August 23 1 5 8 37 13.4

September 16 2 2 9 29 10.5

October 13 3 l 7 24 8.6

November 8 l 3 10 22 7.9

December 10 l 4 6 21 7.6

Subtotal 142 15 27 93 277 100.0
Unknown 3

TOTAL 280

 

72

4.5.6 Day of Week

A Chi-square test was used to test the hypothesis
that no significant differences existed in the accident
rate among days of the week. The Chi-square value of
1.79 given in Table 4.34 makes the hypothesis highly
tenable. The general increase in leisure activities
accounted for the decrease in farm-work and other activi-
ties expected on weekends. A higher proportion of farm—
work accidents occurred on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday
than during the rest of the week. This may simply reflect

a greater proportion of the work exposure to accidents.

TABLE 4. 34. —-Number of accidents by day of week and
activity at time of accident.

 

Number of Accidents.
Day of Per cent
Week Farm ' Home Other Leisure Total of total
work work work

 

 

Sunday 15 3 2 18 38 14.5
Monday 19 3 4 15 41 15.6
Tuesday 24 3 ll 40 15.3
Wednesday 21 3 3 12 39 14.9
Thursday 15" 2 7 ll 35 13.4
Friday 22 0 2 12 36 13.7
Saturday 15 l 5 12 33 12.6
Subtotal 131 14 26 91 262 100.0
Unknown 18
TOTAL {."280

 

ll
0\

Chi—square = 1.79- df .95 > p > .90

73

4.5.7 Hour of Day

 

The increase in activity during daylight hours
accounts for the number of accidents occurring during
the various time periods of the day. Table 4.35 shows
more than 87% of all accidents occurred between the
hours of 8:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.

The peak accident periods were 10:00 to noon and
2:00 to 4:00 p.m. with 21.2 and 20.4% respectively.
Although complete exposure data was not collected, this
likely reflects the peak periods of all activity.

Most of the 9.2% of the accidents during 8:00 p.m.

and midnight were from leisure activities.

TABLE 4.35.--Number of accidents by hour of day and
' ‘activity at time of accident.

 

Number of Accidents :
' Per cent

 

 

Hogr Of Farm Home Other Leisure Total of total
ay ”'work ,work work
Midnight— 1:59 0 0' 0 2 2 .8
2:00 - 3:59 2 0 0 0 2 .8
4:00 - 5:59 0 0 0 0 O 0.0
6:00 - 7:59 3 o 1 1 5 2.0
8:00 - 9:59 5 2 2 7 16 6.4
10:00 —1l:59 30 4 6 13 53 21.2
Noon - 1:59 10 l 4 7 22 8.8
2:00 - 3:59 35 3 3 10 51 20.4
4:00 - 5:59 23 0 l 9 33 12.2
6:00 - 7:59 13 l 6 23 43 17.2
8:00 - 9:59 3 0 2 l2 17 6.8
10:00 -11:59 1 2 l 2 6 2.4
Subtotal 125 13 26 86 250 100.0
Unknown 30

TOTAL 280

 

74

4.5.8 Seriousness of Injury

Almost two-thirds of the accidents resulted in only

slight injury as shown in Table 4.36.

Farm-work showed a

higher proportion of severe and permanent injuries than

other activities.

Thirty-six per cent of farm—work

injuries were severe or permanent while only 30% of home—

work, other-work and leisure injuries were as serious.

TABLE 4.36.-—Number of accidents by seriousness of injury

‘ 'and activity at time of accident.

 

Number of Accidents,

 

 

Seriousness' Per cent
of Injury Farm Home Other Leisure_‘ TOtal of total
work work work

Slight 91 7 20 64 182 65.5

Severe 43 7 5 27 82 29.5

Permanent 8 l 1 2 12 4.3

Fatal 0 0 l l 2 .7
Subtotal 142 15 27 94 278 100.0
Unknown 2

TOTAL 280

 

4.5.9 Type of Injury

 

Cuts and/or bruises accounted for more than 40% of

all accidents reported in Table 4.37.

Fractures and

sprains had 18.3 and 13.5% of total accidents respectively.

These three types of injuries accounted for 72;7% of all

injuries.

75

Almost one-half of the home-work accidents resulted
in fractures. Several of these accidents involved falls
down a flight of stairs. No other type of injury was
disproportionately high for the various kinds of activity

at the time of the accident.

TABLE 4.37.-—Number of accidents by type of injury and
activity at time of accident.

 

Number of Accidents

 

 

Type of Per cent
Injury Farm Home Other Leisure Total Of Total
.work work work
Cut and/or bruise 62 u 8 38 112 40.9
Fracture 23 7 1 19 50 18.3
Sprain 21 2 3 11 37 13.5
Crushed 8 0 2 l 11 4.0
Multiple 3 2 1 5 11 4.0
Burn 3 O 2 3 8 2.9
Severed 5 0 l 1 7 2.5
Pulled muscle 5 0 l l 7 2.5
Concussion 1 0 0 3 4 1.5
Bite 0 O 1 3 4 1.5
Other 11 O 4 8 23 8.4
Subtotal 142 15 24 93 274 100.0
Unknown 6

TOTAL 280

 

76

4.5.10 Part of Body Injured

Table 4.38 shows a fairly even distribution of part
of the body injured with the leg involved in the largest
number of accidents. The arm, hand and fingers were
involved in almost one-third of all accidents, with a
large number of these occurring during farm—work.

The head was injured in over one—fourth of all
leisure activity accidents. Many of these injuries were
lacerations and concussions sustained during Sporting

activities.

TABLE 4.38.——Number of accidents by part of body injured
and activity at time of accident.

 

Number of Accidents

 

 

Part of "' ' Per cent
lggired Farm Home' *Other Leisure ‘Total Of Total
work:' work‘ work
Leg 23934 1- 5 11 40 14.6
Finger 25 jfi 3 ‘ 2 8 38 13.8
Head 5'ff 2 1 24 32 11.6
Arm 131“” l 2 12 28 10.2
Foot 14 1 3 5 6 28 10.2
Trunk 18"” l l 3 23 8.4
Hand 14.? 0 2 3 19 6.9
Shoulder 5 ”*5 2 1 3 11 4.0
Eye 4 f,’ 0 2 4 10 3.6
Multiple 6 fji 0 2 2 10 3.6
Other 13 f 2 3 18 36 13.1
Subtotal 140 15 26 94 275 100.0
Unknown 5

TOTAL ‘ 280

 

77

4.5.11 Agency Involved

 

Table 4.39 gives a detailed breakdown of the
agency most closely associated with the accident. The
most frequently involved agencies were the tractor and
auto each with 6.5% of the total number of accidents.
Other frequently involved agencies were the ladder, wagon,
floor, cow, and tree with 6.1, 4.7, 4.0, 3.6, and 3.6%
of the accidents respectively.

Farm machinery were involved in 22.7% of the
accidents, tools, 8.5%; animals, 8.6%;‘vehicles, 12.5%;
household items, 6.9%; recreational facilities, 4.2%;
and general items in 40.6% of the accidents. Most farm
machinery accidents occurred while doing farm—work
accounting for almost 40% of all farméwork accidents.

Most vehicle accidents occurred during periods of leisure.

4.5.12 How Person Got Hurt

 

Table 4.40 indicates that 35.2% of all accidents
were caused by falls. Another 28.1% were caused by being
struck by or against an object. About 16.0% were by
being caught in or between and 7.0% by a collision.
Collisions were peculiar to leisure activities, most of
these being auto accidents. Falls represented two-thirds
'of the accidents while doing home work.

‘About one-third of farm-work accidents were from a
fall and another third from being struck by or against an

object. Over threeafourths of the accidents where a

78

oaomohOpoz
oHo%0Hm

. xoSLB
.114 ous< .
moaofino>

0000205
(“00:00
MMOO
OOOO
NNOO

hospo
mom

empom
zoo
mamEHc¢

ONLflN
O\O-:TO
r-{Or-IO
OOOO
C\HOC\J

3mm
mHOOp bosom
mHOOp ocmm
,1. mHooe

(\ICXDLO
MNN
moon
O-ZTr-l
NON
OOr—l
N-‘d'm

a mmonpo

Loxoam.cnoo

popm>oam

oQHQEoo

moamm

cowmz

H _ monombe
. apocasome Spam

r-it—i

LhNQD-Ir-d't—ILO
\OJr—{r-lr—{r—IKO
oommzrzmoo
HJOOOOM
OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
[\oxmzra-mm

 

. xpoz. x903. xsos.
Hmpoe proB magmfimq nonpo .mEom. .Epmm
mo psoo pom oo>ao>cH mocow<
mucoofioo¢ no mooesz .

 

 

.pcoofioom mo mafia pm mpfl>flpom
pom zpzmcfi spas oopmfioommm mammoao pmoE monomm.mn.mpcmofioom mo smnESZIIAmm«:_mqm<B

 

O
O
H
2'
O\
(\I

H

\O-Z'Mr—lt—lr-lr-lr—ir-Im O
("\JLnNr-‘anI—lr-iOr-io
r—l

HOKOCDCIDCD-ZI'III—IKO
OHHOONHOOLO [\v

(I):
(\It—i
(I):
(I):
GO

NNLO
NNN
\O\ON
01.:an

A<BOB

csochD

Ln
r—l

med abscessm

("\J
(\I

sense.
mmmac

ooH

omam

boom

comboa.po£poc<

Hamz

cope.

pooam

H w .HmUUmA .
esp mwcflnp.amnmcow

MMOOOOOOr—lr-i
NNN-fi'ONN-fl'r—i

emebo
Hamnbmmn
Hambbooox.afimbpbxmmm
moapaafiomm HQCOprohomm

CO
CO

H H hmnuo

H o opspacasm

: o mbflmpm
vaonomsom

80

person was caught in or between objects were farm-work

accidents, many involving farm.machinery.

TABLE 4.40.—-Number of accidents by how person got hurt and
activity at time of accident.

W
How Person Number of Accidents Per cent

Got Hurt Farm Home Other Leisure Total Of Total

work work work

 

 

Fall, different p";
level 29 2‘ 7 2 23 61 21.9

Caught in or _,'¢

between 35, ’ 1 2 6 44 15.8
Struck against sfify

object 19 '1‘ 1 2 18 40 14.4
Struck by

falling or .1“.

flying object 24 “ 1 7 6 38 13.7
Fall, same ‘\

level 15 f 3 6 13 37 13.3
Collision 2"" o 2 14 18 6.5
Burn 3 ; o 2 3 8 2.9
Lifting 53‘ ' o 2 o 7 2.5
Kicked by cow 2 1‘ l 0 l 4 1.4
Other 8 5” 1 2 10 21 7.6

Subtotal 142 15 27 94 278 100.0

Unknown 2

TOTAL 280

 

81

4.6 Effects of Accidents

 

4.6.1 Days at Home

Table 4.41 shows the days lost from work at home
due to accidents.' Almost one—third of the accidents
resulted in no appreciable loss of time. There were two
deaths during the year. Each death was considered to have
caused the loss of one-half year. A total of 4,145 days
were lost. This was an average of 15.5 days lost per

accident.

4.6.2 Days in Hospital

Table 4.42 lists the days in the hOSpital due to
accidents. A total of 647 days or 2.4 days per accident
were reported. This gives a total average loss of 17.9
days working time per accident. The total medical costs
given in Table 4.43 for 228 accidents was $57,158. This
was an average of $250.69 for those accidents which

reported medical costs.

4.6.3' Hired Help

A total<qf 1,054days of hired help was reported to
replace those injured. The total cost was $9,592 or
an average of $456.76 when hired help was required. When
help was hired, it was usually for substantial periods of
time. An average of 47.9 days of help was hired for

those cases in which help was needed.

82

TABLE 4.4l.——Number and per cent of accidents by days at

 

 

home.
Days at Home Number of Accidents Per cent
No lost time 88 33.0
One day 38 14.3
2 - 4 36 13.5
10 - 14 23 8.6
15 - l9 3 1.1
20 — 29 13 4.0
30 — Over 45 16.8
Subtotal 266 100 0
Unknown 14
TOTAL 280

 

TABLE 4.42.--Number and per cent of accidents by days in

 

 

‘hospital.
Days in Hospital Number of Accidents Per cent
None 213 79.0
One day 9 3.3
5 - 9 13 4.8
10 - 14 3 1.1
30 - Over 6 2.2
Subtotal 270 100.0
Unknown 10..

TOTAL 280

 

83

TABLE 4.43.-—Number and per cent of accidents by cost of

medical treatment.

 

Cost of Medical

Number of

 

- Treatment (dollars) Accidents Per cent
No cost 11 4.8
Under 10 20 8.8

10 - 24 53 27.6
25 ' “9 “5 19.7
50 - 99 27 11.8
100 - 499 40 17.6
500 - 999 a 3.5
1000 - Over 14 6.2
Subtotal 228 100.0
Unknown 52
TOTAL 280

 

V. SUMMARY

It is recognized that farming is a dangerous occupa-
tion, but very little is known about just how dangerous
'it is. Very few studies have been conducted on the over-
all accident situation in agriculture. ‘Ther *has been
'little work done to relate the number of accidents occur-
ring to the amount of exposure to accidents. “There is
practically no literature available on the number and
frequency of accidents to agricultural laborers. These
basic needs provided the impetus for a Michigan farm
'accident study.

The basic Objectives of the study were to:

1. Determine the exposure characteristics of
‘ farms and farm families.

2. Procure information on the total Michigan
accident picture.

3. Provide supplemental information on the
' nature and incidence of accidents that
would come under workmen's compensation.

4. Collect information for use in safety
education.

A random stratified sampling of 2139 farms was
obtained from ten county areas. This represented 2.57%
of all Michigan farms. The period covered by the study
was June 1, 1967 to May 31, 1968 with 224 volunteer

interviewers completing the project.

84

85

A coding system was established to serve in tabu-
lating the information from the questionnaires. The
computer was used to aid in tabulating the information
obtained. 'Hypotheses developed at the time objectives
were established were used to analyze the variables in
this study. The amount of time spent working on the
farm, size of farming operations, type of farms, and
age and sex of farm people were the variables used in
analyzing‘the“data.

Results show that only 50.7% of the accidents
occurred to farm people while doing'farmework. The
balance of the accidents occurred while doing home-work,
other-work, or during periods of leisure. The incidence
of farm-work accidents is in direct proportion to the
hours exposure to accidents. Leisure accidents are more
'nearly a reflection of the number of farmS'or the number
of people exposed to accidents.

Males are involved in not only more farm—work
'accidents, but also more other-work and leisure accidents.
This may indicate more exposure to accidents or simply
more carelessness by the male population. 'Children are
involved in more than one-half of all leisure accidents
as might be expected.

Accidents occurred more frequently during the summer
months for all types of activities other than home-work.

More exposure data would be required to show that this

86

is likely the result of increased activity during the
summer months. Accidents occurred quite evenly through-
out the week. ’An increase in leisure accidents accounted
for the decrease in farm-work accidents on weekends. The
incidence of accidents by the hour was an obvious
'reflection of the amount of activity during periods of the
day.

Personnel involved in accident prevention are often
mislead on relative dangers of variOUS'farm’situations.
Corn pickers as popularly believed5'are not the leading
cause of accidents. 'In fact, they contribute only 1.1%
of all accidents to farm people. 'Farm machinery, however,
'is dangerous. Forty per cent of all farm—work accidents
are involved with machinery.

I Several likely candidates for'an accident preven—
tion program were found.‘ Tractors, ladders and farm wagons
had 6.5, 6.1, and 4.7% respectively of all accidents.
There is a large potential for improvement in safe
practices in these three categories. ‘LeaderS'would do
well to consider the overall impact any program would

have on the reduction of the accident frequency.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

1. Accidents do not happen by pure chance. Varia-
tions in farm factors and in family characteristics
affect the occurrence of accidents.

2. The total annual incidence of accidents was
13.1 per hundred farms or 29.8 per thousand farm family
members.

3. Farm-work accidents occurred at the rate of
6.67 per hundred farms or 20.6 per million man hours
exposure.

4. The accident rate of hired labor in the sample
was significantly higher than that of the farm'family.

5. There is no evidence from the study to assume
that the accident rate per million man hours exposure
differs for those heads of householdS'that Spend more or
less than 50% of their time working on the farm.

6. Evidence from the sample indicateS'that size of
farm was not significantly related to the incidence of
accidents when varying amounts of exposure were taken
intO'account.

7. The incidence of accidents according to types of
farms shoWs some variance, although there was not

statistically significant difference.

87

88

8. Farm-work accident frequencies are affected by
both age and sex groups. Male accident rates are higher

than female rates.

VII. RECOMMENDATIONS

1. A followeup study in Michigan should be con-
ducted in approximately five years to analyze changes in
the total accident situation.

2. Further’cooperation with the National Safety
Council would be desirable in attempts to improve and
'standardize procedures and definitions.

3.’ A detailed study of one or more types of farming
‘would be desirable to analyze the effect of size of farms
on the accident rate.

4. A greater effort should be directed toward
obtaining more accurate and complete exposure data.
Several studies could be done in this area such as the
nature and extent of exposure:

a. to various types of farm machinery

b. during different hours of the day

0. during different days of the week

d.‘ during different months of the year

e. to various home—work hazards.

5. More work needs to be done on the relative
hazards of full time and part time farmers. ‘What is the
pattern of exposure for these groups?

6. A study of the effect of human error in the

causation of accidents would be desirable.

89

9O

7. There would be much engineering use for a study”
of the compatibility of man and machine and its effects
upon accidents.

8. Very little is known about the accuracy of
recall of accidents.' A study should be made on the
effects of varying recall periods.

9. ‘The use of a single organization to obtain
volunteers is recommended.» Using two organizations
causes passing responsibility on to another person. An
organization that has a secretarial staff available for
collecting and disseminating information is essential.

10. Pretesting of questionnaires is highly desirable.
11. If volunteer interviewers from farms are used,
it is highly desirable to begin the study during the

winter months when the work load is somewhat lighter.

REFERENCES

91

REFERENCES

Anderson, R. L., and T. A. Bancroft (1952). Statistical
Theory‘in Research. McGraw Hill Book Company, Inc.,
New York.‘ 399 pp. ,

 

 

Baker, R. H. , and W. E. Stuckey (1959). Accidents to
Farm People, 29,361 Reasons for a Safety Program.
Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, Wooster.
Research Bulletin 305. 8 pp.

'Bible; Bond, and W. E. Stuckey (1963). ‘Accidents to Farm
People in Ohio, 22,608th Emergency Call.‘ Ohio
Agricultural Extension Service. 'Columbus. Bulletin
439. 8 pp.

Gadalla, Saad M. (1962). Selected Environmental Factors
' Associated with Farm and Farm Home Accidents in
Missouri. 'Missouri Agricultural Experiment
Station, Columbia.‘ Research Bulletin 790. 115 pp.

Ismail, Abdel Rahman Hafel (1958). Casual Analysis of
‘ Farm Accidents in the State of Indiana.‘ Thesis for
the degree of Ph.D. Indiana University, Bloomington.
(Unpublished).

Lloyd, Walter, Ed. (1963). A Safer American Agriculture.
Extension Service Review. USDA. p. 58.

Marshall, J. C., General Manager (1967).‘ Michigan
Workmen's Compensation Rating Bureau.‘ Detroit.
Mich. Circular Letter #592. April 28.

Phillips, Howard, A. Pugh, and W. E. Stuckey (1967).
Research Team, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Personal Communication. March 29.

Phillips, Howard, and W. E. Stuckey (1968). Accidents to
Farm and Rural Non-farm People in Ohio. Ohio
COOperative Extension Service, Columbus.' Extension
Bulletin 500. 11 pp.

Roy, Prodipto (1957). Selected Environmental and Human
Factors Associated with the Incidence of Accidents -
to Farm People. Thesis for the degree of Ph.D.
Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
(Unpublished).

92

93

Rush, John D. (1957). Fatal Farm Accidents in the United
States, 1949-53. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

18 pp.

Rush, John D. (1962). Farm Accidents in the United States.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. Ag. Econ. Report
#17. 62 pp.

Schneider, Rollin (1967). Farm Tractor Upset Accident
Survey. 'Preliminary Progress Report.' Extension
Service, University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 21 pp.

Siwicki, Kenneth, and T. D. McFarland (1967). A Reference
List'of'Accident'Statistics."National'Safety
Council, Chicago. 31 pp.

Smith, Sidney, Ed. (1967). Accident Facts. National
' Safety Council, Chicago. _96 pp.

Snedecor, George W. (1956). Statistical Methods. Iowa
State College Press, Ames. 534 pp.

Spadatora, Jennie, Ed. (1968). Accident Facts. National
Safety Council, Chicago. 96 pp.

Stuckey, W. E. (1967). Assistant to the Director, Safety
and Emergency Preparedness.' Ohio Cooperative
Extension Service, Ohio State University, Columbus.
Personal Correspondence to Richard Pfister.
February 7. '

Vilardo, Frank J. (1966). Some Guidelines to Sampling.
National Safety News. November, 1966. ‘47-49.

Wardle, N. J. (1958). Fatal AccidentS‘of Iowa Farm
People in 1957. Cooperative Extension Service in
Agr. and Home Econ., Iowa State College, Ames.
AB 833.

Wright, K. T., and D. A. Caul (1967);' Michigan Agricul-
ture, a Sourcebook Based on Information from 1964
Census Reports. Cooperative Extension Service,
Michigan State University, East Lansing.

Extension Bulletin 582. 84 pp.

Journal, Ministry of Agriculture (1959). “Fatal Accidents
in Agriculture, 1958, England and Wales. Journal,
Ministry of Agriculture. Vol. 66:2. p. 86.

94

Journal, Ministry of Agriculture (1960). Fatal Accidents
in Agriculture, 1959, England and Wales. Journal,
Ministry of Agriculture. Vol. 67:2. p. 78.

National Safety Council (1959). ‘Report of First Conference
on Farm Safety Research. National Safety Council.
October, 1959. 158 pp.

Ontario Department of Agriculture (1961). ' Ontario Farm
Accident Survey. Ontario Department of Agriculture,
Toronto, Ontario. 30 pp.

U. S. Bureau of Census (1954). 'United States Census of
‘ Agriculture.‘ U.S. Bureau of Census.‘ Vol. I, part 8.
pp. xiiexiii.

U. S. Bureau of Census (1959). United'StateS'Census of
Agriculture. U. S. Bureau of Census." Vol. 1,
part 13. p. xiv.

U. S. Bureau of Census (1964). ‘United‘StateS‘Census of
' Agriculture.” U. S. Bureau of'Census.’ Vol. 1,
part 13. p. 2.

Workmen's Compensation Department (1966). 'Workmen's
Compensation Act and Rules of Practice. *Legislative
Service Bureau. Workmen's Compensation Department.
Lewis Cass Bldg., Lansing, Mich. 'p. 11.

APPENDICES

95

APPENDIX A

LETTER TO T. D. MCFARLAND, NATIONAL
SAFETY COUNCIL, INFORMING HIM OF THE

MICHIGAN FARM ACCIDENT STUDY

96

March 27, 1967

Mr. T. David McFarland

Assistant Manager and Agricultural
Safety Engineer

Farm Department

National Safety Council

425 North Michigan Avenue

Chicago, Illinois 60611

Dear Dave:

Thank you for the information regarding the Farm Accident
Statistics program. ”I hope that a qualified man will soon
be obtained for this position with the Council.

Our plans for the Michigan farm accident study are going
ahead. An Agricultural Engineering graduate student,

Mr. Ken Hofmeister, will be working on this project,
'starting summer term. Ken and I are going to Norwalk,
Ohio on Wednesday, March 20, to see how Bill Stuckey and
his colleagues operate on an interviewer training session.
Our study will go from July 1, 1967 to June 30, 1968, thus
overlapping with the Ohio study during the summer months.

We look forward to working with the "2 time man" who will
be working with the Council on farm accident statistics.
'He will need tO'be available by July in order to work
with us on survey methodology.

Sincerely,

Richard G. Pfister
Extension'Safety'Engineer

cc: Mr. Ken Hofmeister

RGP/ys

97

APPENDIX B

LETTER TO KENNETH SIWICKI, SEEKING THE
COOPERATION OF THE NATIONAL

SAFETY COUNCIL

98

July 17, 1967

Kenneth Siwicki

Farm Division

National Safety Council

425 North Michigan Avenue
Chicago, Illinois ‘ 60611

Dear Ken:

I have just received your name as the man selected by

the National Safety Council in the area of farm accident
statistics. '1 am the graduate assistant at Michigan
~State University assigned to develop a survey of farm
accidents in Michigan. The project is already well under—
way; the counties to be sampled have been chosen.

In a meeting of the Studies and Research Committee, Farm
Conference and the Statistics and Farm Departments, NSC,
held on January 12, 1967, it was suggested that perhaps
you could work in COOperation with Michigan and Ohio in
their studieS‘to attempt to standardize some definitions
and procedures used in surveys. It would have been
advantageous if we could have met earlier, but it would
still be well if we could meet within the next month.

I wOuld be most happy to have you come to MSU’tO meet with
me if you would be interested. I feel there are several
areas in which we could be of mutual assistance. I look
forward to hearing from you in the near'future.

Respectfully,

Kenneth Hofmeister
Graduate'Assistant

cc: Dr. Pfister
Leon Urben

99

APPENDIX C

SAMPLE LETTER TO EACH VOLUNTEER INTERVIEWER
REMINDING THEM OF THE FORTHCOMING

TRAINING MEETING

lOO

September 5, 1967

Dear Mrs. Jones,

We are very pleased that you are willing to help the
Alpena County Farm Bureau and the Extension Service with
our farm accident study. Mrs. Herman Kirschner has con—
tacted each of you and this letter is a reminder of the
coming meeting.

We imagine you are”still wondering just what will be

asked of you for this study. On September 11 at 8:00 p.m.
at the Extension Office in the Federal Building, all those
who will be working on the survey in the county will meet
to discuss the program.' Everything necessary to conduct
the survey will be supplied at this time. 'Instructions
for making the interviews will be given and any questions
you haVe'will'be'answered.

It is very important that you attend this training meeting.
If you are unable to attend, try to have another family
member, neighbor, etc. attend to obtain your interviewer's
kit and instructions. '

We are looking forward to seeing you on September 11 at
8:00 p.m. Thanks again for your help.

Sincerely yours,

Albert H. Nickels
County Extension Agricultural
Agent

AHNzec

lOl

APPENDIX D

SUGGESTED RESPONSIBILITIES OF PERSONNEL

INVOLVED IN THE STUDY

102

SUGGESTED
Responsibilities of
County and State Personnel

967 chi 2 run Acc dent Stud

County Extension Agent
1. Assist Para Bureau in securing interviewers.

2. Provide four county maps with all interviewers spotted
on each IQ.

3. Provide two hundred bulletin sise (6%" x 101;") freaked
envelopes addressed to your county extension office.

4. Arrange for training nesting facilities? in centralised
location (if possible). Obtain location to be used for
nesting. Place news releases in local papers.

5. (hair the training meeting.

6. Send comleted questionnaires to Kenneth Hofmeister,
Ag. Engr. Bldg., Michigan State University, E. Lansing.
Michigan 48823.

County Perla Bureau Project Chairman

1. Obtain ”interviewers with the assistance of the
county agent.

2. Assist with the training meeting.

3. Pollow-up each quarter to obtain cleeted accidental
injury reports. Any reports not in the county office by
the 20th of the south should be located.

Research Staff

1. Meet with county leaders individually to discuss pro-
cedures.

2. Train interviewers.

3. Develop questionnaire.- instructions, suggested letters and
news releases.

lo. Set up saning procedure in county.

5. Tabulate naster data sheets and injury report forms.
6. Provide counties with quarterly findings.

7. Analyse facts and publish findings.

APPENDIX E

TIMETABLE FOR COUNTY AGENTS

104

Timetable for County Agents
Michigan Farm Accident Study

 

Dates
General For
County Your
Dates County
Aug. 1—15 Meet with County Agents and Farm
Bureau Chairman to discuss study and
procedures.
Aug. 25 Names and addresses of interviewers in
County Agent's office.
Aug. 23-30 Put release in papers 2 weeks prior
'to training meeting‘(Sample could be
used).
Send letter to each interviewer about 3
weeks prior to meeting announcing the
meeting. (Sample may be used.)
Aug. 30- Send follow-up card to interviewers 4-5
Sept. 6 days prior to meeting.‘ (Sample may be
used.)
Sept. 5 Training meeting in St. Clair 1:00 PM
Sept. 5 Training meeting in Tuscola 7:30 PM
Sept. 6 Training meeting in Branch 1:00 PM
Sept. 7 Training meeting in Jackson 7:30 PM
Sept. 7 Training meeting in Delta 9:30 AM
Sept. 11 Training meeting in Mecosta 1:00 PM
Sept. 13 Training meeting in Monroe 1:00 PM
Sept. 13 Training meeting in Van Buren 7:30 PM
Sept. 14 Training meeting in Alpena 8:00 PM
Oct. ‘11 Training meeting in Kent 8:00 PM
Dec. 5 Training meeting in Berrien 10:00 AM
Put release in papers day following
training meeting.’ (Sample release may
be used.)
Sept. 15-30 Send master data sheets, quarterly and

injury reportS'from first interview to
Kenneth Hofmeister, Ag. Engr. Bldg.,
Michigan State University, E. Lansing,
Michigan, 48823.

105

106

Dec. 4-15 Conduct second interview (same families)
and send quarterly and injury reports
to Kenneth Hofmeister._

Mar. 4—15 * Conduct third interview (same families)
and send quarterly and injury report to
Kenneth Hofmeister.

June 3—15 ' Conduct fourth interview (same families)
‘ ‘ and send quarterly and injury reports to
Kenneth Hofmeister.

The Training Meeting

We hope you can arrange to have two leaders present. We
will need them to assist in assigning families to inter—
viewers. We will also need:

1. 4 maps of your county with interviewers spotted
on each.

2. Two hundred bulletin size'(6%" x 10%") franked
*envelopeS'addressed to your County Extension
office.

APPENDIX F

SAMPLE NEWS RELEASE FOR USE

BY COUNTY AGENTS

107

No. 2. Release day following the
training meeting

A team of fifty volunteer interviewers is preparing to swing into
action on County's farm accident survey. Between now and
September 20th, the interViewers will visit with 500.farm.families in
the county in a study expected to give some very fruitful information
unavailable to Michigan residents in the past.

The County Extension Service and Farm Bureau coOperating with Kenneth
Hofmeister, MSU Agricultural Engineering graduate student conducting the
survey, and Dr. Richard Pfister, Extension Safety Engineer, Michigan
State University, drafted plans to conduct the survey. The group met with
Mr. Hofmeister date,_place to discuss purposes of the survey
and procedures.

In the forthcoming survey, each interviewer will visit with ten famr
ilies randomly chosen to ask them for accident information for the past
three months. Information collected will include such facts as age of
family member injured, where and how accident happened, severity, cost,
lost time and other data.

, County Extension Agent, urged all rural peOple to
cooperate in the survey. "Little of your time will be required, and of
course, all information will be kept confidential," he said. "We hope to
gain reliable information concerning the nature and extent of accidents,
who the injury occurs to, and what caused the accident and the economics
of Michigan accidents. This information.will be very useful in develops
ing safety education programs." The survey will cover accidents over a
one-year period. _

County is one of ten counties cooperating in the study.
Others are Alpena, Branch, Delta, Jackson, Kent, Mecosta, Monroe, St.
Clair, Tuscola, and Van Buren. (Mark out your county.) In all, approx-
imately 4000 Michigan families will be interviewed.

Locally, Farm Bureau is cooperating in the study. Funds for the
study are coming from the Rural Manpower Planning Center, Michigan State
university. The final report of the study should be available to the
counties by July, 1968.

APPENDIX G

BASIC DATA SHEET QUESTIONNAIRE

109

,A-

v-l

 

‘.
é!
a
(
V‘.
y.-

   
  

7;. 5J- zl‘sfi . - '-
. O
- I-‘s- .

'78

' " ' ‘ “brie-verve 4.15.-
‘ . 1 . .-_ H .

 

 

interviewer's Name Address Phone

MASTER DATA SHEET

 

 

 

DIRECTIONS: COMPLETE THIS FORM AND MAIL TO THE COUNTY EXTENSION OFFICE IMMEDIATELY.

1.

'l)

a.»

10.

11.

Name of the head of the household:

 

Please fill in the following about family membenscurrently living on the farm:

a. Total number of famdly members living at this residence:

 

 

MALE FEMALE
O— 5~ 15» 25- 45- 65 a ' O-‘S- 15- 25~ 45-‘65 &
4 14 24 44 64 over 4 I4 24 44 64 over

 

. A A. A

b. Age andysex of
family members
who live here:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

c. Estimate number of \\//
8 hr. days Spent on
farm work for each ’)&\
age group~ . / .

 

Please fill in the following about the hired help that has been hired during
the preceding year:

 

 

MALE FEMALE
Estimate number of Under l6~ 25- 45- 65 8 Under 16- 25- 45- 658
8 hr. days for each 16 24 44 64 over 16 24 44 64 over

 

age group

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How many farm employees, other than family, were hired during the preceding
year:

35 or more hrs. per week for 13 or more weeks
35 or more hrs. per week for 5 or more consecutive weeks
_ Less than 35 or more hrs. per week for S or more consecutive weeks

Estimate percent of working hours head of household Spends working on the farm:

 

100% 80% 60% 40% 20% None

Indicate the major type of farming: (one category only)
General livestock Hogs _ Fruit
Beef Poultry Truck farming
Dairy Grain __“_Other (specify)

What is the total number of acres of cropland you Operate including pasture and

land diverted into soil bank, etc.?

Less than 50 acres 100—199 acres 500-999 acres
50-99 acres 200-499 acres 1000 and above

How many of each of the following types of tractors do you own?
Tricycle Wide front end Crawler

How often do you have occasion to drive a tractor, combine, or other self-
prOpelled machinery on public roads?

Never Occasionally (less than once a
week)

Frequently (more than once a week)

How often do you use the slow-moving vehicle emblem when driving a tractor or
other selfepropelled machinery on public roads?

3. All the time 3/4 1/2 1/4 None
b. If you do use the emblem, how many do you own?
c. If you do not use the emblem, do you know what it is? Yes No

Do you presently have a workmen's compensation policy?

Yes If yes, Full workmen's compensation

NO Unlimited medical and liability
Limited medical and liability
Other (Specify)

.-———_—..

_fi

_—
_———-
-———-———
_—

 

 

 

 

~—-w~ -, m-" .m-

". O” --—~ 9»

.~v

'-v-'-,~§-r- my

I \ wf‘

APPENDIX H

ACCIDENT REPORT FORMS

lll

10.

ll.

12.

Directions:

MICHIGAN FARM ACCIDENT REPORT

Use a separate Accident Report form for each accident.

Check descriptive

words or fill in where necessary to adequately describe the accident.

Interviewed by

Person injured lives or works on farm of

(name of head of household).

 

County,

 

 

Injury occurred:

 

Date

 

WHO was injured?

Husband
Wife

Son
Daughter

Other hired help
Other

WHERE did it occur?

 

Township
Month
Hour
Age
Male
Female

Hired employee under Workmen's Comp.

5. WHAT were they doing when injured?

___ Work: ___ On farm ___ In home ___ Other
___ Total hours worked day of injury
Consecutive hours worked without
% hour or more break
.___ Leisure

6. WHAT TYPE of injury?

___Sprain ___Cut and/or bruise
‘___Fracture ____Bite

_Crushed _Burn

‘___Severed ___Other (specify)

7. WHAT PART of body was injured?

_Finger __Toe _Eye

___Hand ___Foot ___Head

___Arm ___Leg ___Other (specify)
___Trunk

 

 

In home Homeyard 8. Person WAS TREATED in:
Farm building Barnyard
Field Lane Home By family member
Road or highway Woods By doctor
School Other ~ Doctor's office

Hospital emergency department

HOW SERIOUS was the injury? Taken by:
Family car

Slight Permanent Ambulance (name of ambulance
Severe Fatal company)

 

Other (specify)

 

WHAT THING was involved?

POWER TOOL FARM MACHINERY ANIMAL GENERAL VEHICLES
Saw Tractor Cow Ladder Auto
Drill Corn picker Horse Tree Truck
Lawnmower Combine Hog Nail Motorbike or Motorcycle
Wagon Dog Gun Bicycle
HAND TOOL Mower Cat Ice
Ax Elevator Chemical sprays OTHER (specify)
Knife Baler

 

HOW did the person get hurt?

Fall, same level Struck against object Lifting Collision
Fall, different level Struck by falling or Burn Inhaling
Caught in or between flying object Firearms Other

 

TIME LOST AND COST
Time lost: days at home days in the hospital Name of hospital
Total medical expenses (doctor, medicine, hOSpital, etc.) $ .
Help hired to replace person injured days; total hired help cost $ .
Cost incomplete to date, will report actual or estimated total cost next quarter.
Was a liability suit involved in the accident? Yes No

 

 

 

Please give a brief description of the accident on back of page.

MAKE SURE ALL INFORMATION 1 THROUGH 12 IS COMPLETE

TRACTOR ACCIDENT SUPPLEMENT
T0 MICHIGAN FARM ACCIDENT REPORT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Nature of accident:
Struck bystander Backward tip .____ Collision with vehicle
Operator fell off Side tip ____ Repair of
Rider fell off Fire ____.0ther (specify)
Caught in PTO
2. Type of tractor involved:
Tricycle Wide front end ____ Crawler
3. Description of tractor:
Make Mbdel Year
4. How was tractor being used at time of accident?
Trailing equipment (specify)
Mounted equipment (specify)
No equipment attached_
Using PTO only
Other (describe)
5. How many years of tractor driving experience had the driver had?
Less than 1 month 1-5 years
1 month - 1 year Over 5 years
6. Speed of tractor at time of accident ( estimated):
Stationary 10-14 MPH
Less than 5 MPH Over 15 MPH
5-9 MPH Backwards
7. Other contributing circumstances (check as they apply):
Lost control
Slope
Tractor stuck
Crushed between
Lifting load with front end loader
;' Other (specify)
County Township

 

 

Name of head of household

Day

Month Year

SUPPLEMENTAL MEDICAL 0051' tons

INSTRUCTIONS: This form is to be completed for injuries previously reported

Name of head of household

Name of person injured

COST:

where medical, prOperty damage, and hired help costs were not
complete. Fill out only one for each person where this infor-
mation has not been provided on the yellow injury form»

Attach to Quarterly Report

Total medical expenses (doctors, medicine, hospital, etc.) 3
Total property damage (including all parties) 3 .
Total days help hired to replace person injured .

Total hired help cost $ .

Name of head of household

Name of person injured

COST:

Total medical expenses (doctors, medicine, hospital, etc.) $
Total property damage (including all parties) 3 .
Total days help hired to replace person injured

Total hired help cost $ .

Name of head of household

Name of person injured

COST:

Total medical expenses (doctors, medicine, hospital, etc.) 5
Total property damage ( including all parties) $

Total days help hired to replace person injured

 

Total hired help cost $ .

Name. of head of household

Name of person injured

COST:

Total medical expenses (doctors, medicine, hospital, etc.) $

 

Total prOperty damage (including all parties) 3 .
Tbtel days help hired to replace person injured .

Total hired help cost $

 

APPENDIX I

INTERVIEWERS' INSTRUCTIONS AND STEP-BY-STEP

PROCEDURE FOR INTERVIEWERS

115

II.

INTERVIEWERS' INSTRUCTIONS
Michigan Farm Accident Study, 1967-68

General

All information is confidential and for research purposes only. Do
not discuss personal information secured in interviewers with others.

Interview only adults in farm families. Not all rural families are
farm families. What is a farm family?

A farm family as defined by the 1964 Census of Agriculture is any
family living at a place operated as a unit of 10 or more ggres from which
sale of agricultural products totaled §50 or more (places of less than
10 acres are a farm if the sale of agricultural products is §250 or more.)
You can see that this includes part time farmers.

What Families Will I Interview?

' You will be assigned 10 farm families at this training meeting that
will be selected at random. However, in most cases they will be in
your immediate neighborhood.

Interview only adults.
Master Data Sheet (White Form)

Make sure the family is a farm family according to the census defini-
tion given above. If not, take another family in place of this one.
You should end up with ten farm families when you as done.

Use. one Master Data Sheet for each of the 10 farm families. This
information should be recorded during the first interview with each of
the cmilies.

At. the top of the data sheet, record your name, address, and tele-
phone number (interviewer).

1. Record the name of the head of the household. This is the
husband, whenever joint husband-wife ownership is involved.

2s. Write in the total number of family members living at this
residence. Any person regardless of relationship or other status
which is considered a family member should be included. Family
members who are away part of the year, but live at home more
than fi of the time should be included. A college student living
home would be an example.

2b. List the number of males in this family who are in each of the
age categories, and do the same for the females who live at
this residence.

2c.

-2-

Estimate the number of 8 hr. days spent by each age group doing
farm work during previous year (Sept. 1, 1966 to Aug. 31, 1967.)
If two or more children fall into one age group, simply add to-
gether the time they spend working and put in the proper box.

 

Estimate of

Example: Age 8 hr. days
Father 48 300
Mother 44 100
Son 20 300
Son 15 150
Daughter 17 100

‘flgle Female

 

 

 

 

0- 5- 15- 25- 45- 65 & 06 5- 15- 25- 45- 65 &
4 I4 24 44 64 over, 4 $4 24 44 64 ove;_

 

 

3.
4.

lo.

11.

Age and sex of

family members I 'I
who live hege: £1 /

Estimate number of 300

8 hr. days for each I50 300 [00 100

Lgpe groug_igifamily:g ‘\1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fill in question #3 in the same manner as question #Zc.

List the number of farm employees that fall into each category,
that were hired during the preceding year (September 1, 1966-
August 31, 1967).

Estimate the percent of working hours that the head of the house-
hold Spends working on the farm. Time working on the farm would
be apposed to time spent working off the farm in a factory,
elevator, etc.

Indicate the major type of farming. Farmers often have more than
one enterprise, but check only the one that he considers his major
enterprise.

Check the number of acres that will be operated during 1967. This
includes both land owned and rented, regardless of the crap or use.

List the number of each type of tractor owned by the head of the
household.

Read the question to the person being interviewed. Ask for a
response to the question. Check the category that applies most
nearly to this response.

Read the question to the person being interviewed. Check the
blank that most nearly corresponds to his response. If the re-
sponse to the above question is anything other than "ane", ask
how many emblems the person owns. If the response is "None",
ask if he knows what the slow-moving vehicle emblem is. Check
either yes or no.

Check either yes or no to the question; does the head of the
household presently carry a workmen's compensation policy. If
yes, indicate which type of coverage he has.

III.

-3-

DID ANY MEMBER OF THE FAMILY OR HIRED HAND HAVE AN ACCIDENT DURING JUNE,
JULY, OR.AUGUST, 1967? IF SO, FILL OUT A MICHIGAN FARM ACCIDENT REPORT.

Accidental Injury Report (Yellow Forms)

A. Report all accidental injuries which happen to members of the farm
families you interview, regardless of where the injury occurs. Also re-
port accidents that happen to hired hands, while doing farm*work, but do
not report accidents that happen to their family.

B. What is a reportable accident? For this study, we will report
only those accidents which result in injuries which require professional
medical care (doctor, hospital, nurse, X-ray, etc. ) or result in the
loss of 8 day or more of time from the normal activities.

C. Keep,information confidential. Do not discuss accident details
with others. People may worry about their injuries being publicized. You
can assure them that scientific surveys like this are interested only in the
general picture, rather than any Specific case. No individual accident will
be publicized without prior permission from the family involved.

D. If there have been no acCidental injuries in this family during
this quarter, place a check after the name in the "no accident" column on
the quarterly report form.

E. If there was an accidental injury during this quarter,complete a
separate Injury Report Form (yellow form) for each person injured. If two
or more persons are injured in the same accident, complete an Injury Report
form for each person.

F. Specific instruction for completing the yellow Farm Accident
Report form.

1. Fill in your own name after: interviewed by ; list the
name of the head of the household in which the injured person
lives or work, and the county and township. List the month,
date and hour of injury: e.g., June 12th 3:00 P.M.

2. Place check to indicate who*was injured. Write in age (estimate
if they are sensitive about it). Check.whether male or female in
case of hired help or other.

3. Check where the accidental injury occurred.
4. Indicate the seriousness of the injury:

Examples:

Fatal - means they died during survey quarter

Permanent - lost finger, hand, eye, will never be able to
walk again, other.

Severe - broken leg, cut ligament, sprained back, other.

Slight - minor cuts, sprains, burns, other.

10.
ll.

12.

-4-

Check either working or leisure. If working, check either on-
farm, in home, or other. If on-fanm or in home work is checked
fill in both the total hours worked day of injury and consecutive
hours worked without 5 hour or more break.

Check the major type of injury. If more than one type is con-
sidered to be major, check all that are appropriate.

Check the part of body to which major type of injury occurred. If
more than one part was involved check all that apply.

Check.where person'was treated: home, doctor's office, or hospital.
If the home was checked, also indicate whether person was treated
by family member or doctor. If hospital was checked, indicate

the means by which the injured was taken to the hospital.

Check the appropriate "thing" involved in the accident or write
in if not listed.

Check how the person got hurt.

Indicate the time lost.

List the hOSpital where treated if applicable.

Give the exact medical expenses if available; if not, give the
family's best estimate for all of this information. If costs

are incomplete because the injury happened only recently, and
expenses are still incomplete, make a note on the next quarterly
form to report this information. During the next quarter, secure
this information and report it on the supplemental cost form.(pink
form) if not included on first quarterly report.

Briefly describe accident - use back of page.

IV. Tractor Accident Supplement (green form)

In all cases where a tractor is involved in the accident, complete a
Tractor Accident Supplemental form (green form). This is a short check-
the-response questionnaire.

Check the appropriate blank to indicate the nature of accident.

Check type of tractor involved; tricycle, wide front end, or
crawler.

List the make, model, and year of tractor involved in the accident.

Check the item indicating how the tractor was being used at the
time of the accident. Fill in equipment trailed or mounted.

Check how much tractor driving experience the driver had.

Obtain an approximation of the speed of travel at the time of
the accident.

Check any items which the person feels may have contributed to
the accident. There may well be more than one response to this
item. Fill in others.

Fill in the county, township, name of head of household where accident
occurred along with the day, month, and year of accident.

V. Quarterly Report Directions for completing are at the top of the form

KHIvs

star 31 sub peocmuns son tmnnm‘as

fiigst Visig :- September 10-25I 1967

l.

2.

6.

7.

Personally visit the ten families in your neighborhood assigned at the
training meeting.

Complete a Master Data Sheet for each family (long white form).

Fill out a Michigan Farm Accident Report form (yellow form) for each person
who had had an accident during June, July, or August, 1967.

Fill out a Supplemental Tractor Accident form for each case in which tractor
was checked on Michigan Farm Accident Report under the heading "What thing
was involved?"

Fill out the First Quarterly Report form (green form). Also list the names
of the families on the second, third, and fourth quarterly forms in the
same order as on the First Quarterly Report form for future use. (This is
a must for us to keep accurate records.)

By October 11, mail the Master Data Sheet, any Michigan Farm Accident forms
and Supplemental Tractor Accident forms completed, and the First Quarterly
Report in the envelope addressed to your County Extension Office.

It is necessary that every question be completed on each one of the forms.
If any of the questions are not completed, the Farm Bureau Project Chairman
will return it to you for completion.

After the County Extension Office received all of the forms from the inter-
viewers in the county, these forms will be mailed to Kenneth Hofmeister,
Agr. Engr. Bldg., Michigan State University, E. Lansing, Michigan 48823.
It is the intent of the research team to compile and analyze the infor-
mation for each county and return it for local use as soon as possible.

Second mtact - December 1-15, 1961

1.

Contact each of your ten families and fill out a Michigan Farm Accident
form for each person who has had an accident during September, October, or
November, 1967. If an accident is to be reported, the information should
be secured by personal visit. Otherwise, one may contact the family in

any way that is convenient during this two week period (such as - telephone,
at meetings, etc.). Also, fill out a Supplemental Tractor Accident form
for accidents involving tractors. ~

If comlste medical information was not available on an accident at the time
of the visit following the accident, cowlete a Supplemental Medical Cost
form during this visit (pink form).

Caplets the Second Quarterly Report form (white fona) .

III-ediately after December 15,. mail these completed forms to your local
County Extension Office in the envelope provided.

Third Contact - March l-lS, 1968

1.

Same as second contact except use Third Quarterly Report form (blue form.)

Four h ntact - une -1 l9

1.

Sans as third contact except use Fourth Quarterly Report form (pink form).

8/ 29/ 67

H

1
‘kJ I.

I s

I"

.-.:

 

APPENDIX J

SUMMARY REPORT SENT TO EACH INTERVIENER
FOLLOWING THE FIRST, SECOND, AND

THIRD QUARTER REPORTS

121

SUMMARY FROM BASIC DATA SHEETS

I have compiled some of the basic information which might be of interest
to you. This is preliminary information; final results will be given to
you later.

SIZE OF FARMS IN SURVEY:

Less than 50 acres 13%
50-99 25%
100-199 32%
200-499 262
500-999 32
1000 and above 1%

SLOW MOVING VEHICLE EMBLEM:

On the questions concerning the SMV emblem some interesting results were
found:

1/6 of the farmers never drive on public roads
1/2 of the farmers occasionally drive on public roads
1/3 of the farmers frequently drive on public roads

8OZ.use the emblem.sll the time
32 use the emblem 3/4 of the time
1% use the emblem 1/2 of the time
12 use the emblem 1/4 of the time
15% don't use the emblem or don't drive on public roads

we found an average of more than Q‘Q,SMV emblems for every farm in
Michigan. If this is projected to a statewide level there would be
approximately 296,000 SMV emblems in the state. Kent County had the
largest number of emblems of the counties in the survey.

SUGGESTIONS: Experience is the best teacher, and a few things were
learned from the first quarterly reports which I might pass on to you.
In general, the reports were very complete, but there are a few trouble-
some items which you might be aware of when filling out the yellow
accident report form. ‘

1. Written comments are very helpful whenever an unusual situation
occurs.

2. Questions 5,6,7, & 8 of the accident report were not filled out
in a few cases.

3. On question 5, if the person was working be sure to put in the
number of total gnd_consecutive hours.

4. Question 11 on time lost and cost was incomplete on a few reports.

Thanks for a job well begun!

XML 2%w
Kenneth Hofmeister'

Graduate Assistant
Michigan State University

KH/rm

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EASTLANSING . MICHIGAN48823

 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

March 1, 1968

THANK YOU

Response on the second quarter reports was excellent. Twenty one out of

22 of you who completed first quarter reports sent in the accident reports
for the second quarter. I would just guess that with everyone now involved
in this project, somewhat over 4000 hours have already been invested in
this project by you, the interviewers. That is an awful lot of work that
would not have been possible without your help. I am quite enthusiastic
about the information we have already collected. Most of the time spent

on the project during the last two months has been coding the information
on the master data sheets. This is now completed and the information is
being put on computer cards and will be summarized in the next few weeks.

The basic data sheets show the heaviest concentration of numbers of farm
employees in the fruit areas of Michigan, while a very large proportion

of dairy and beef farms hire at least occasional workers, presumably during
haying time.

As of the second quarter, 201 accidents have been reported. I have
compiled some information from these accidents, and given a few of the
results below. The categories are given as percentage of the total rather
than as actual figures. I believe the relative percentages will be of
most interest to you.

WHO WAS INJURED? SEVERITY OF INJURY? WHERE INJURY OCCURRED
Husband 33% Slight 60% Farm building &
Son 27 Severe 34 barnyard 262
Hired help 15 Permanent 6 Home & homeyard 22
Wife 13 Fatal __11 Field 20
Daughter 9 100% Road or highway 8
Other __1 Lane &‘woods 5
100% School 4
Other '__§
1002

The third quarter report should be completed between March 1-15. Keep up
the good work! Most of your work is done now; only two more telephone
contacts to be made. When your job is done, my big job of analyzing the
information begins.

Respectfully,

Kenneth Hbfmeister, Graduate Assistant
Michigan State University

KH/ng

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY EASTLANSING-MIGIIGAN48823

 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING

May 29, 1968

Response on the third quarter reports was excellent. Your interest and
commiUment to this project is evident. As you may realize, the study of
agricultural accidents is a relatively new area and this study can go quite
far in determining the progress made in future studies. The information we
are receiving is going to be very useful to us, and to others. Already,

the fruits of the study are evident; the National Safety Council is using
experience gained in this study and a similar one in Ohio to prepare a guide
which other states might use in conducting farm accident studies. By using
the same or similar definitions, the results from various studies will be
comparable.

Because this is the last report and it will be impossible to follow up on
incomplete medical costs and time lost, simply fill in these blanks in the
following manner:

Under IIM§_LQ§I= If the person has not completely recovered
from the injury, please ESTIMATE the total time lost; that is,
days at home and days in the hospital. Likewise, under HEQLQAL,
.ERPEN§E§: If costs are incomplete, please make the BEST
ESTIMATE that the person being interviewed is able to give

you. Estimates will be quite sufficient for our use.

Although we have one more report to be completed, I would like to take this
opportunity to thank you fine people for the job you have done. I know you
have spent a great amount of time and effort on the project, and because of
each individual's contributions this project is going to be a success. I
assure you that you will hear more about this project. The summary for the
state and a copy of your individual county report will be sent to your county
agent by September. We want to make this information available as soon as
possible.

HELP!! The sooner I have all of the reports, the sooner we can complete this
project.

Thank you.
Respectfully,
Kenneth Hofmeister

Graduate Assistant

KMH/ng

MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERS TY LIB

I RARIES

3015 4107

 

0

3 1293