A Summary of Fatalities and Injuries Involving Horizontal Bunk or Open Pile Silos Used in Agricultural Production.

IF 0.9 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Noah Joel Haslett, William E Field, Mahmoud Nour, James Carrabba, Martin Huseman
{"title":"A Summary of Fatalities and Injuries Involving Horizontal Bunk or Open Pile Silos Used in Agricultural Production.","authors":"Noah Joel Haslett, William E Field, Mahmoud Nour, James Carrabba, Martin Huseman","doi":"10.13031/jash.16058","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Highlights: </strong>The frequency of horizontal silo-related fatalities and injuries was lower than anticipated, based upon historical media coverage. Horizontal bunk silos are a safer design than conventional tower silos based upon the frequency of documented cases. Implementing prevention strategies should focus on dairy and beef production operations. Consideration should be given to incorporating recommendations on safe work practices in the current ASABE bunk silo design standard. Workers should be trained to keep no less than the height of the silage pile away from the face of the silage when entering the silo for any reason, including when sampling silage. The frequency of both fatal and non-fatal bunk silo incidents does not justify significant changes to federal workplace safety regulations.</p><p><strong>Abstract: </strong>Horizontal bunk silos, including open or surface storage of silage, though not new concepts, have rapidly replaced conventional wood, concrete stave, and steel tower silos at dairy and beef production operations. Horizontal silo designs have allowed for much larger capacities, in some cases exceeding thousands of tons. These storage structures have reduced the need to climb 70-120 feet (21.3-37.6 meters) vertically to access the surface of the silage or internal equipment, such as distributors and top unloading silo unloaders for service or repair. The use of horizontal silos has increased the filling and unloading rates by eliminating the restriction of forage blower capacities and height limitations. Furthermore, they have contributed to increased uniformity and quality of silage due to more rapid filling and increased packing density. However, a relatively few highly publicized injuries and fatalities over the last decade involving these structures have resulted in considerable attention by agricultural safety and health professionals and enhanced regulatory enforcement by state and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA), resulting in citations for unsafe work practices and civil litigation due to personal injuries and economic loss. There has been, however, no reliable assessment of the frequency and severity of these incidents upon which to develop effective evidence-based prevention strategies or assess relative risk between silage handling practices. Research was undertaken to identify and document horizontal silo-related injuries and fatalities building on cases included in the Purdue Agricultural Confined Space Incident Database (PACSID), OSHA reports, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (NIOSH FACE) reports, online databases such as AgInjuryNews, state farm fatality summaries, and prior legal litigation. Approximately 2,400 cases identified as occurring in agricultural confined spaces, including \"silos,\" and related structures were reviewed. A total of 33 cases, involving 35 individuals, were confirmed as having occurred in the U.S. in bunk-type silos or associated with open silage storage piles between 1962 and 2023. This frequency was considerably lower than originally anticipated. In some instances, the same cases were repeated by the media numerous times, giving the appearance of multiple incidents. Of the cases examined, the primary contributing factors were suffocation due to being buried by collapsed silage caused by undercutting of the silage face or silage instability, being crushed by a tractor rollover, entanglement during silage packing operations, and falls from the silage surface or sidewalls. In addition to farm operators and farm workers, victims included veterinarians buried at the face of the silage while attempting to collect silage samples for nutritional analysis. Prevention recommendations include discouraging the overfilling of bunk silos, restricting unprotected worker access to the face of the silage at any time, especially if overhanging silage is present, use of appropriate unloading equipment that can access the full face of the silage and still protect the operator, safer means of accessing the top surface of the silage, and restriction of packing equipment to only vehicles equipped with rollover protection for the operator. Prevention strategies should target primarily dairy and beef producers with horizontal or open pile storage of silage. The inclusion of warning signage and safer access to the surface of the silage pile for removal of coverings should be considered. Considering the infrequency of these incidents, the need for additional regulatory language does not appear justified. The need for an expanded engineering standard for bunk silos that includes a safety component, such as safety signage, should, however, be considered.</p>","PeriodicalId":45344,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","volume":"31 3","pages":"231-243"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13031/jash.16058","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Highlights: The frequency of horizontal silo-related fatalities and injuries was lower than anticipated, based upon historical media coverage. Horizontal bunk silos are a safer design than conventional tower silos based upon the frequency of documented cases. Implementing prevention strategies should focus on dairy and beef production operations. Consideration should be given to incorporating recommendations on safe work practices in the current ASABE bunk silo design standard. Workers should be trained to keep no less than the height of the silage pile away from the face of the silage when entering the silo for any reason, including when sampling silage. The frequency of both fatal and non-fatal bunk silo incidents does not justify significant changes to federal workplace safety regulations.

Abstract: Horizontal bunk silos, including open or surface storage of silage, though not new concepts, have rapidly replaced conventional wood, concrete stave, and steel tower silos at dairy and beef production operations. Horizontal silo designs have allowed for much larger capacities, in some cases exceeding thousands of tons. These storage structures have reduced the need to climb 70-120 feet (21.3-37.6 meters) vertically to access the surface of the silage or internal equipment, such as distributors and top unloading silo unloaders for service or repair. The use of horizontal silos has increased the filling and unloading rates by eliminating the restriction of forage blower capacities and height limitations. Furthermore, they have contributed to increased uniformity and quality of silage due to more rapid filling and increased packing density. However, a relatively few highly publicized injuries and fatalities over the last decade involving these structures have resulted in considerable attention by agricultural safety and health professionals and enhanced regulatory enforcement by state and federal Occupational Safety and Health Administrations (OSHA), resulting in citations for unsafe work practices and civil litigation due to personal injuries and economic loss. There has been, however, no reliable assessment of the frequency and severity of these incidents upon which to develop effective evidence-based prevention strategies or assess relative risk between silage handling practices. Research was undertaken to identify and document horizontal silo-related injuries and fatalities building on cases included in the Purdue Agricultural Confined Space Incident Database (PACSID), OSHA reports, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's Fatality Assessment and Control Evaluation (NIOSH FACE) reports, online databases such as AgInjuryNews, state farm fatality summaries, and prior legal litigation. Approximately 2,400 cases identified as occurring in agricultural confined spaces, including "silos," and related structures were reviewed. A total of 33 cases, involving 35 individuals, were confirmed as having occurred in the U.S. in bunk-type silos or associated with open silage storage piles between 1962 and 2023. This frequency was considerably lower than originally anticipated. In some instances, the same cases were repeated by the media numerous times, giving the appearance of multiple incidents. Of the cases examined, the primary contributing factors were suffocation due to being buried by collapsed silage caused by undercutting of the silage face or silage instability, being crushed by a tractor rollover, entanglement during silage packing operations, and falls from the silage surface or sidewalls. In addition to farm operators and farm workers, victims included veterinarians buried at the face of the silage while attempting to collect silage samples for nutritional analysis. Prevention recommendations include discouraging the overfilling of bunk silos, restricting unprotected worker access to the face of the silage at any time, especially if overhanging silage is present, use of appropriate unloading equipment that can access the full face of the silage and still protect the operator, safer means of accessing the top surface of the silage, and restriction of packing equipment to only vehicles equipped with rollover protection for the operator. Prevention strategies should target primarily dairy and beef producers with horizontal or open pile storage of silage. The inclusion of warning signage and safer access to the surface of the silage pile for removal of coverings should be considered. Considering the infrequency of these incidents, the need for additional regulatory language does not appear justified. The need for an expanded engineering standard for bunk silos that includes a safety component, such as safety signage, should, however, be considered.

农业生产中使用的水平铺位或开桩筒仓的伤亡总结。
重点:根据历史媒体报道,与水平筒仓相关的伤亡频率低于预期。根据记录的案例频率,水平双层筒仓比传统的塔式筒仓更安全。实施预防战略应侧重于乳制品和牛肉生产业务。应考虑在现行ASABE双层筒仓设计标准中纳入有关安全工作实践的建议。工人应接受培训,无论出于何种原因(包括取样青贮料)进入料仓时,应保持不低于青贮料堆的高度远离青贮料表面。致命和非致命铺位筒仓事故的频率并不能证明对联邦工作场所安全法规进行重大修改的理由。摘要:卧式双层筒仓,包括露天或地面储存青贮,虽然不是新概念,但已迅速取代传统的木材、混凝土壁和钢塔筒仓在乳制品和牛肉生产操作中。水平筒仓设计允许更大的容量,在某些情况下超过数千吨。这些存储结构减少了垂直爬升70-120英尺(21.3-37.6米)到达青贮料表面或内部设备的需要,如分配器和顶部卸载筒仓卸载机进行服务或维修。水平筒仓的使用通过消除饲草鼓风机容量和高度限制的限制,提高了填充和卸载速度。此外,由于更快的填充和增加的包装密度,它们有助于提高青贮饲料的均匀性和质量。然而,在过去十年中,涉及这些结构的相对较少的高度宣传的伤害和死亡事件引起了农业安全和卫生专业人员的相当大的关注,并加强了州和联邦职业安全与卫生管理局(OSHA)的监管执法,导致了不安全工作做法的引用和因人身伤害和经济损失而提起的民事诉讼。然而,没有对这些事件的频率和严重程度进行可靠的评估,以制定有效的循证预防策略或评估青贮处理方法之间的相对风险。研究人员根据普渡农业密闭空间事件数据库(PACSID)、OSHA报告、国家职业安全与健康研究所的死亡评估和控制评估(NIOSH FACE)报告、在线数据库(如AgInjuryNews)、州农场死亡摘要和先前的法律诉讼等案例,进行了识别和记录与水平竖井相关的伤害和死亡的研究。审查了大约2400起确定发生在农业密闭空间(包括“筒仓”)和相关结构中的病例。在1962年至2023年期间,美国共有33例病例,涉及35人,被证实发生在铺位式筒仓中或与开放式青贮饲料储存桩有关。这个频率比原先预期的要低得多。在某些情况下,同一案件被媒体多次重复,造成多起事件的假象。在调查的案例中,主要原因是青贮料表面被切下或青贮料不稳定导致的塌陷青贮料掩埋导致的窒息,被拖拉机翻车压碎,青贮料包装作业时缠绕,以及从青贮料表面或侧壁跌落。除了农场经营者和农场工人外,受害者还包括在试图收集青贮饲料样本进行营养分析时被埋在青贮饲料表面的兽医。预防建议包括不鼓励双层筒仓的过度填充,限制无保护的工人在任何时候进入青贮的表面,特别是如果存在突出的青贮,使用适当的卸载设备,可以进入青贮的整个表面并仍然保护操作员,更安全的方法进入青贮的顶部表面,限制包装设备只有配备了保护操作人员的翻转保护的车辆。预防策略应主要针对具有水平或开放式青贮堆储存的乳制品和牛肉生产商。应考虑安装警告标志和更安全地进入青贮堆表面以清除覆盖物。考虑到这些事件的罕见性,需要额外的监管语言似乎并不合理。然而,应该考虑扩展铺位筒仓的工程标准,其中包括安全组件,例如安全标志。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health
Journal of Agricultural Safety and Health PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
20.00%
发文量
10
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信