Certified safe farm

Identifying and removing hazards on the farm

Risto Rautiainen, L. J. Grafft, A. K. Kline, M. D. Madsen, J. L. Lange, K. J. Donham

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 selfreported 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)75-86
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of Agricultural Safety and Health
Volume16
Issue number2
StatePublished - 2010

Fingerprint

Farms
Hazards
farms
Safety
range improvement
Farm buildings
agricultural health and safety
farm buildings
Emblems and Insignia
work schedules
Beef
Agrochemicals
Poultry
poultry production
Housekeeping
agrochemicals
certification
Takeoff
Certification
pork

Keywords

  • Agriculture
  • Farm machinery
  • Farm safety
  • Hazard abatement

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Agricultural and Biological Sciences(all)
  • Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality
  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

Rautiainen, R., Grafft, L. J., Kline, A. K., Madsen, M. D., Lange, J. L., & Donham, K. J. (2010). Certified safe farm: Identifying and removing hazards on the farm. Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, 16(2), 75-86.

Certified safe farm : Identifying and removing hazards on the farm. / Rautiainen, Risto; Grafft, L. J.; Kline, A. K.; Madsen, M. D.; Lange, J. L.; Donham, K. J.

In: Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, Vol. 16, No. 2, 2010, p. 75-86.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Rautiainen, R, Grafft, LJ, Kline, AK, Madsen, MD, Lange, JL & Donham, KJ 2010, 'Certified safe farm: Identifying and removing hazards on the farm', Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health, vol. 16, no. 2, pp. 75-86.
Rautiainen, Risto ; Grafft, L. J. ; Kline, A. K. ; Madsen, M. D. ; Lange, J. L. ; Donham, K. J. / Certified safe farm : Identifying and removing hazards on the farm. In: Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health. 2010 ; Vol. 16, No. 2. pp. 75-86.
@article{3f15cd91aa204f1ba9ffabd34e1ae2fc,
title = "Certified safe farm: Identifying and removing hazards on the farm",
abstract = "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 selfreported 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.",
keywords = "Agriculture, Farm machinery, Farm safety, Hazard abatement",
author = "Risto Rautiainen and Grafft, {L. J.} and Kline, {A. K.} and Madsen, {M. D.} and Lange, {J. L.} and Donham, {K. J.}",
year = "2010",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "16",
pages = "75--86",
journal = "Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health",
issn = "1074-7583",
publisher = "American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Certified safe farm

T2 - Identifying and removing hazards on the farm

AU - Rautiainen, Risto

AU - Grafft, L. J.

AU - Kline, A. K.

AU - Madsen, M. D.

AU - Lange, J. L.

AU - Donham, K. J.

PY - 2010

Y1 - 2010

N2 - 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 selfreported 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.

AB - 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 selfreported 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.

KW - Agriculture

KW - Farm machinery

KW - Farm safety

KW - Hazard abatement

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=77955041391&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=77955041391&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 16

SP - 75

EP - 86

JO - Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health

JF - Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health

SN - 1074-7583

IS - 2

ER -