Question 2: Do you think safety is a problem on farms/ orchards?
Responses to this question ranged from definite "yes's" to flat "no's". The strongest negatives came from the Central Otago sheep and beef (valley floors) and high country merino classes. This could reveal an distinct attitude among the long-established and traditionally independent areas of central/lower South Island, or perhaps indicates questioner influence.
A different type of no came from the orchards, both pipfruit and kiwifruit, who said that safety was not a problem because they had recognised it as an issue and dealt with it. Some felt it was no greater problem than in any other industry, and that some accidents would always happen no matter what precautions were taken.
Gisborne/Wairoa sheep and beef farmers indicated that they did not consider it a major problem, but admitted they perhaps needed to learn more about it.
In the Taranaki dairy class, it was noted that those with staff seemed to consider it more of a problem, as did those with young children. This attitude was echoed more generally across other farm types and regions as the notion that farmers themselves do not have a problem with safety, but others on the farm may do. Some indicated that they acted safely, but could not guarantee the same thing about their employees.
A related attitude which emerged was that the farmers responding did not have any safety problems themselves, but other farmers did. Farmers noted that safety was more of a problem on particular types of farms (usually not theirs!) or with particular individuals (due to attitude, practices, etc). From the Nelson kiwifruit class came the opinion that the biggest problem were those operators who failed to recognise hazards (and thus obviously did not address them).
Some farmers used interesting evidence to decide whether or not safety was a problem. Dairy farmers in the Tui supply area deduced that it must be a problem since their ACC levies were high! Canterbury summerfruit growers expressed the view that, since they had an acceptably low accident rate (not specified), they had no problem with safety.
Many farmers indicated that they had seen no evidence to show that safety was a problem in farming (in terms of statistics). However, one rather alarming comment from a Wairarapa sheep and beef farmer, who had seen some figures, was that farming was not as hazardous as the statistics showed! (Some basic statistics on farm accidents are presented in the Appendix.)
In general, there seemed to be an attitude that farmers had got this far ok, why did they need to change?
Although farmers were not asked to identify specific hazards, it is notable that almost all pipfruit or kiwifruit growers volunteered the opinion that machinery and chemicals were the major hazards. It is of some concern that kiwifruit growers in the North region stated that they reduced their exposure to chemicals by using contractors. To the extent that contractors are better equipped and more aware of the hazards of chemicals, this may be a reasonable strategy, and not as callous as it initially sounds Nelson apple growers considered that all chemical applicators should be required to be licensed.
Only two farm classes mentioned motorbikes/ATVs specifically: central/north Canterbury summer dry farms and South Otago/Southland intensive finishing farms. The recent OSH survey on ATVs in Southland (Brown, 1.993) may have influenced the latter class. The same farm class also mentioned livestock as a hazard, while Canterbury farms, which tend to undertake more cropping, mentioned farm machinery. Canterbury summer moist farms considered that safety was a problem when visitors came to the farm. No other specific hazards were mentioned in reference to this question.
Further information on farmer perceptions of specific hazards on the farm is provided by a survey done by the Christchurch South Branch of OSH at the recent Lincoln University agricultural fielday. Visitors to the OSH booth were asked to fill in a brief questionnaire on farm safety. One question asked "What do you see as the major safety and health problem in farming today?" The biggest concern, on 27.4% of forms, was tractors. Next came chemicals (20.5%) and machinery (16.4%). The two hazards mentioned least, at 1.4% each, were farm bikes and back problems. Livestock was not mentioned at all.
It is interesting to compare these perceptions with reality, as revealed in studies of actual injury. In a MAF-commissioned study (Houghton and Wilson, 1992), farmers and farm workers reported on injuries experienced in the previous twelve months. A major cause of injury was livestock, with 22% of respondents having been hurt in the previous year. Over 10% had experienced an accident involving machinery (including 2, 3 and 4-wheelers), while chemicals had affected only 7%. A later analysis of accidents on farms in 1989 resulting in hospitalisation (reported in Houghton, 1993) found the top three causes of injury were (in order) animals, vehicles, and machinery. Animal accidents accounted for 30% of injuries, while motor vehicles, including 2, 3 and 4-wheelers, accounted for 20% and machinery (including tractors) caused 14%. It is evident that two major causes of injury on farms are animals and farmbikes/ATVs, and yet these do not seem to be widely recognised by farmers themselves.
| © MAF 1999 | ||
| MAFnet Help | Important Disclaimer |
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
