Animal-related injuries: a population-based study of a five-state region in the upper Midwest: Regional Rural Injury Study II

PROBLEM: While agricultural injury has been identified among the major causes of occupational injury mortality and morbidity, data have been limited pertinent to the magnitude, consequences, and potential risk factors for animal-related injuries -- a major source of morbidity among agricultural operations. METHODS: Demographics, exposure, and injury data were collected for 1999 and 2001 among agricultural households in a five-state region. Causal models facilitated survey design, data analyses, and interpretation of results; directed acyclic graphs guided multivariate modeling. RESULTS: From 7,420 households (84% response of eligible), a total of 5,045 injury events were reported; 1,016 (20.1%) were animal-related. Multivariate analyses revealed increased risks for those <20 years; residents of all states compared to Minnesota; all age groups compared to 0-4 years; >0 hours worked; and prior agricultural injury history. For those 20+ years, increased risks were identified for: South Dakota residents; males; >0 hours worked; and prior agricultural injury history. For those cases <20 and 20+ years of age, 58% and 46%, respectively, resulted in lost work time on their agricultural operations (31% and 50%, one week or more). CONCLUSIONS: Animal-related injury has a major impact on the agricultural industry. Results serve as a basis for interventions and further research. IMPACT ON INDUSTRY: The impact of animal-related injuries on the agricultural industry appears significant; among age groups <20 and 20+, 85% and 82%, respectively, had some resulting restriction. For all events combined, 29% and 30%, respectively, involved restriction from one week to 3+ months; 12% and 15% involved restriction for one month or more. Among those <20 and 20+ years of age, 58% and 46%, respectively, lost work time on their own agricultural operation as a result of injuries associated with their own operation; 22% and 15% lost one week or more. Moreover, of the non-agriculture-related injuries, 31% and 50% resulted in lost work time on their own operation; 15% and 28%, respectively, lost one week or more. Restrictions such as these can affect the productivity of the operation, resulting in financial impacts, especially on small operations that have few people to manage the required tasks.     

Children's behavioral traits and risk of injury: Analyses from a case-control study of agricultural households

Problem

Children on family agricultural operations have high risk of injury. The association between children's behavioral traits and their risk of injury is not well understood.

Method

Data from the Regional Rural Injury Study-II were used to assess behavioral risk factors for injury to children ages six to < 20 years. A total of 379 injury events (cases) and 1,562 randomly selected controls were identified. Adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), calculated using logistic regression, were used to estimate injury risk in reference to behavioral traits.

Results

Injury risks were greater for children with high levels of depressive symptoms (OR = 1.9, CI = 1.0-3.7) and aggression (OR = 1.6, CI = 0.9-2.7), and low levels of careful/cautious behavior (OR = 1.8, CI = 1.1-2.9). Children with low levels of self-regulation had reduced risks (OR = 0.4, CI = 0.2-0.8).

Discussion

Results suggest that children's behaviors affect their risk of agricultural injury. Additional research could elucidate mechanisms and inform interventions.

Impact on industry

The development of multifaceted, sustainable approaches for prevention is necessary for this unique population. These findings suggest a need for interventions that incorporate specific behavior-related risk factors in the context of family farms and ranches.     

An experimental test of alternative population augmentation scenarios

Human land use is fragmenting habitats worldwide and inhibiting dispersal among previously connected populations of organisms, often leading to inbreeding depression and reduced evolutionary potential in the face of rapid environmental change. To combat this augmentation of isolated populations with immigrants is sometimes used to facilitate demographic and genetic rescue. Augmentation with immigrants that are genetically and adaptively similar to the target population effectively increases population fitness, but if immigrants are very genetically or adaptively divergent, augmentation can lead to outbreeding depression. Despite well‐cited guidelines for the best practice selection of immigrant sources, often only highly divergent populations remain, and experimental tests of these riskier augmentation scenarios are essentially nonexistent. We conducted a mesocosm experiment with Trinidadian guppies (Poecilia reticulata) to test the multigenerational demographic and genetic effects of augmenting 2 target populations with 3 types of divergent immigrants. We found no evidence of demographic rescue, but we did observe genetic rescue in one population. Divergent immigrant treatments tended to maintain greater genetic diversity, abundance, and hybrid fitness than controls that received immigrants from the source used to seed the mesocosms. In the second population, divergent immigrants had a slightly negative effect in one treatment, and the benefits of augmentation were less apparent overall, likely because this population started with higher genetic diversity and a lower reproductive rate that limited genetic admixture. Our results add to a growing consensus that gene flow can increase population fitness even when immigrants are more highly divergent and may help reduce uncertainty about the use of augmentation in conservation.