More than time and money: A mixed-methods study of the barriers to safer cattle handling practices

De Ann Scott-Harp, Corinne Peek-Asa, Diane Rohlman, Brandi Janssen

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Cattle are responsible for more injuries and fatalities than any farm animal, and cattle-related nonfatal injuries are some of the costliest, requiring more time off work than other injuries. Though research has improved our understanding of cattle behavior, developed low-stress handling practices, and determined how facilities can be safer, injury rates remain high. This project identified the types of equipment commonly used on farms and assessed farmer perceptions of safety and barriers to implementing changes. Methods: A mixed-methods design was used for this study. The study was comprised of a survey (N = 66) and four site visits conducted at operations focusing on different types of beef production in Iowa, United States. Information collected included descriptive characteristics of the operator and operation, tasks carried out on the farm, handling facility components and design, and incidents of handling-related injuries. Results: Most farms indicated that they utilized equipment like alleyways, a manual headgate, a sorting/diverter gate, and a manual squeeze chute. Farmers cited the cost of equipment, lack of necessity (their setup worked well already), and lack of time as being the main reasons they have not implemented changes in their operations. However, qualitative responses provided additional details and nuance, illuminating farmers’ anxieties related to farm transitions, knowledge, and trust of equipment sales personnel. Conclusion: This study provides health and safety professionals with additional details about why beef cattle producers may choose not to invest in safer handling equipment, even when they recognize the safety benefits of doing so.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalAmerican Journal of Industrial Medicine
DOIs
StateAccepted/In press - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Equipment and Supplies
Wounds and Injuries
Safety
Facility Design and Construction
Domestic Animals
Anxiety
Costs and Cost Analysis
Farms
Health
Research
Farmers

Keywords

  • agricultural safety
  • cattle handling
  • mixed methods research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Cite this

More than time and money : A mixed-methods study of the barriers to safer cattle handling practices. / Scott-Harp, De Ann; Peek-Asa, Corinne; Rohlman, Diane; Janssen, Brandi.

In: American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4fa8cb6bf3774700807d57d59a548dad,
title = "More than time and money: A mixed-methods study of the barriers to safer cattle handling practices",
abstract = "Background: Cattle are responsible for more injuries and fatalities than any farm animal, and cattle-related nonfatal injuries are some of the costliest, requiring more time off work than other injuries. Though research has improved our understanding of cattle behavior, developed low-stress handling practices, and determined how facilities can be safer, injury rates remain high. This project identified the types of equipment commonly used on farms and assessed farmer perceptions of safety and barriers to implementing changes. Methods: A mixed-methods design was used for this study. The study was comprised of a survey (N = 66) and four site visits conducted at operations focusing on different types of beef production in Iowa, United States. Information collected included descriptive characteristics of the operator and operation, tasks carried out on the farm, handling facility components and design, and incidents of handling-related injuries. Results: Most farms indicated that they utilized equipment like alleyways, a manual headgate, a sorting/diverter gate, and a manual squeeze chute. Farmers cited the cost of equipment, lack of necessity (their setup worked well already), and lack of time as being the main reasons they have not implemented changes in their operations. However, qualitative responses provided additional details and nuance, illuminating farmers’ anxieties related to farm transitions, knowledge, and trust of equipment sales personnel. Conclusion: This study provides health and safety professionals with additional details about why beef cattle producers may choose not to invest in safer handling equipment, even when they recognize the safety benefits of doing so.",
keywords = "agricultural safety, cattle handling, mixed methods research",
author = "Scott-Harp, {De Ann} and Corinne Peek-Asa and Diane Rohlman and Brandi Janssen",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1002/ajim.23043",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "American Journal of Industrial Medicine",
issn = "0271-3586",
publisher = "Wiley-Liss Inc.",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - More than time and money

T2 - A mixed-methods study of the barriers to safer cattle handling practices

AU - Scott-Harp, De Ann

AU - Peek-Asa, Corinne

AU - Rohlman, Diane

AU - Janssen, Brandi

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Background: Cattle are responsible for more injuries and fatalities than any farm animal, and cattle-related nonfatal injuries are some of the costliest, requiring more time off work than other injuries. Though research has improved our understanding of cattle behavior, developed low-stress handling practices, and determined how facilities can be safer, injury rates remain high. This project identified the types of equipment commonly used on farms and assessed farmer perceptions of safety and barriers to implementing changes. Methods: A mixed-methods design was used for this study. The study was comprised of a survey (N = 66) and four site visits conducted at operations focusing on different types of beef production in Iowa, United States. Information collected included descriptive characteristics of the operator and operation, tasks carried out on the farm, handling facility components and design, and incidents of handling-related injuries. Results: Most farms indicated that they utilized equipment like alleyways, a manual headgate, a sorting/diverter gate, and a manual squeeze chute. Farmers cited the cost of equipment, lack of necessity (their setup worked well already), and lack of time as being the main reasons they have not implemented changes in their operations. However, qualitative responses provided additional details and nuance, illuminating farmers’ anxieties related to farm transitions, knowledge, and trust of equipment sales personnel. Conclusion: This study provides health and safety professionals with additional details about why beef cattle producers may choose not to invest in safer handling equipment, even when they recognize the safety benefits of doing so.

AB - Background: Cattle are responsible for more injuries and fatalities than any farm animal, and cattle-related nonfatal injuries are some of the costliest, requiring more time off work than other injuries. Though research has improved our understanding of cattle behavior, developed low-stress handling practices, and determined how facilities can be safer, injury rates remain high. This project identified the types of equipment commonly used on farms and assessed farmer perceptions of safety and barriers to implementing changes. Methods: A mixed-methods design was used for this study. The study was comprised of a survey (N = 66) and four site visits conducted at operations focusing on different types of beef production in Iowa, United States. Information collected included descriptive characteristics of the operator and operation, tasks carried out on the farm, handling facility components and design, and incidents of handling-related injuries. Results: Most farms indicated that they utilized equipment like alleyways, a manual headgate, a sorting/diverter gate, and a manual squeeze chute. Farmers cited the cost of equipment, lack of necessity (their setup worked well already), and lack of time as being the main reasons they have not implemented changes in their operations. However, qualitative responses provided additional details and nuance, illuminating farmers’ anxieties related to farm transitions, knowledge, and trust of equipment sales personnel. Conclusion: This study provides health and safety professionals with additional details about why beef cattle producers may choose not to invest in safer handling equipment, even when they recognize the safety benefits of doing so.

KW - agricultural safety

KW - cattle handling

KW - mixed methods research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072177344&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85072177344&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/ajim.23043

DO - 10.1002/ajim.23043

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85072177344

JO - American Journal of Industrial Medicine

JF - American Journal of Industrial Medicine

SN - 0271-3586

ER -