A couple of weeks ago, I wrote about a report issued by The University of Saskatchewan’s Centre for Agricultural Medicine.
The report detailed facts and figures about farm injuries in the province.
The first of its kind using Saskatch-ewan statistics, the report was based on 147 deaths from farm injuries and 2,293 farm injuries requiring hospitalization in Saskatchewan from April 1990 to December 1996.
I said at the time – and I still hold to this – that the report stated the obvious. It put numbers to what farmers and rural people have known for years, namely that most farm injuries and deaths occur in May and September (the busiest months on grain farms), that men will make up the majority of those hurt or killed (because they do most of the field work) and that, in accidents involving machinery, tractors are the machinery most often involved (because they are the most commonly and consistently used machinery on the farm.) There were no surprises in the report.
Read Also
Farm groups are too amiable with the federal government
Farm groups and commodity groups in Canada often strike a conciliatory tone, rather than aggressively criticizing the government.
After the column was published, I received a phone call asking if I had written it just to be controversial. The answer: of course not.
The scientific community doesn’t like “anecdotal evidence” so now we have some scientifically gathered facts and figures to show that farmers were right. The big question is, what will be done now?
I also said the researchers will be dining out on this study for some time to come, as indeed I believe they will.
But what does this mean for farmers? It has been scientifically shown that anecdotal evidence is correct. So what?
Is this research for the sake of research or can we expect some practical results, some advice and guidelines on how to reduce these injuries and deaths?
I’m sure the researchers will have some nice trips explaining their results to fellow researchers. But, again, what will farmers get out of all of this?
Someone must take the next step and find ways to help farmers avoid injuries and untimely deaths.
It does little good to say don’t do this or that, don’t get overtired, don’t work long hours, don’t get stressed. It’s going to happen because that’s the nature of farming.
What is needed from researchers is information on coping skills, perhaps some focus groups – out in the country, not in Saskatoon or Regina – to help farmers understand the dangers they are facing and to find out how they have coped (or not) in the past.
This study, whatever its merits, is a first step. And no, I’m not trying to be controversial.
