Certified safe farm: identifying and removing hazards on the farm

• Published in: Journal of agricultural safety and health Vol. 16; no. 2; p. 75
• Main Authors: Rautiainen, R H, Grafft, L J, Kline, A K, Madsen, M D, Lange, J L, Donham, K J
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States 01.01.2010
• Subjects: Accidents, Occupational - prevention & control; Agriculture - standards; Agriculture - statistics & numerical data; Analysis of Variance; Cohort Studies; Female; Humans; Iowa; Male; Middle Aged; Motor Vehicles - standards; Motor Vehicles - statistics & numerical data; Occupational Health - statistics & numerical data; Risk Assessment; Safety Management - methods; United States; United States; Iowa
• ISSN: 1074-7583
• DOI: 10.13031/2013.29592

This article describes the development of the Certified Safe Farm (CSF) on-farm safety review tools, characterizes the safety improvements among participating farms during the study period, and evaluates differences in background variables between low and high scoring farms. Average farm review scores on 185 study farms improved from 82 to 96 during the five-year study (0-100 scale, 85 required for CSF certification). A total of 1292 safety improvements were reported at an estimated cost of $650 per farm. A wide range of improvements were made, including adding 9 rollover protective structures (ROPS), 59 power take-off (PTO) master shields, and 207 slow-moving vehicle (SMV) emblems; improving lighting on 72 machines: placing 171 warning decals on machinery; shielding 77 moving parts; locking up 17 chemical storage areas, adding 83 lockout/tagout improvements; and making general housekeeping upgrades in 62 farm buildings. The local, trained farm reviewers and the CSF review process overall were well received by participating farmers. In addition to our earlier findings where higher farm review scores were associated with lower self-reported health outcome costs, we found that those with higher farm work hours, younger age, pork production in confinement, beef production, poultry production, and reported exposure to agrichemicals had higher farm review scores than those who did not have these characteristics. Overall, the farm review process functioned as expected. encouraging physical improvements in the farm environment, and contributing to the multi-faceted CSF intervention program.