August 5, 2010

Humboldt, Saskatchewan

A3107

Final Report

Research Report

50 ROPS in BC

A Pilot Project

Nathan Gregg, P.Ag.

Project Leader

Jim Wasserman, P.Eng.

Vice President

Saskatchewan Operations

Acknowledgement

PAMI gratefully acknowledges the following companies for their support:

PAMI also gratefully acknowledges the wisdom provided by the members

of the advisory committee:

FARSHA - Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Association - Bruce Johnson

and Scott Fraser

NYCAMH - New York Centre for Agricultural Medicine and Health - John May

and Julie Sorensen

University of Tennessee - Paul Ayers

University of Kentucky - Mark Purschwitz and Mel Meyers

NIOSH - National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health - Jim Harris and

Tony McKenzie

Manitoba Agriculture, Food, and Rural Initiatives - Glen Blahey

CASA - Canadian Agricultural Safety Association -Jonas Johnson

PAMI - Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute - Nathan Gregg and Jim

Wassermann

Table of Contents

Page

1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1

2. Introduction .................................................................................................................... 3

3. Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 6

4. Project Procedures ......................................................................................................... 7

5. Results and Discussions ...............................................................................................10

5.1 Tractor Data Surveys ...........................................................................................10

5.2 50 ROPS Installation - Costs ...............................................................................17

5.3 50 ROPS Installation - Other Information .............................................................22

5.4 ROPS Testing ......................................................................................................29

5.5 Communications ..................................................................................................29

6. Summary .......................................................................................................................32

6.1 ROPS Demand ....................................................................................................32

6.2 OEM - Aftermarket ...............................................................................................32

6.3 Custom-Built ........................................................................................................32

7. Future Activities .............................................................................................................34

7.1 The Case for Custom ROPS ................................................................................34

7.2 National ROPS Program ......................................................................................37

Appendix I ROPS Survey Data.............................................................................................. 41

Appendix II ROPS Installation Summary ................................................................................ 51

Appendix III Pictures ............................................................................................................... 53

1

1. Executive Summary

A pilot project was conducted in British Columbia that resulted in 50 Roll Over Protective

Structures (ROPS) being installed on older agricultural tractors across the province.

Besides the improved safety of those 50 tractors, the project aimed to define the

challenges of ordering and installing ROPS. It has also provided valuable information

that will help to initiate larger, multiprovince or national tractor ROPS programs.

The project had an advisory committee, which included several top USA ROPS

researchers. They provided much needed insight into this process and the overall

project.

Thirty-eight commercial ROPS for various types of farms and differing brands and sizes

of tractors were purchased through the project. Some ROPS were acquired from

Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEM) suppliers such as John Deere and Kubota.

Other ROPS were obtained from aftermarket suppliers such as Laurin (from Quebec),

Saf-T-Cab (from California), and Hercules and Bare-Co (both from Australia). Some

tractor manufacturers no longer in business or operating under different parent

companies were unable to supply ROPS for the older product lines. However, in order to

meet the demand, many manufacturers were able to direct customers to aftermarket

suppliers through their dealer network.

Twelve custom-built ROPS were also designed and built for specific tractors. Four

designs were completed and built to fit a range of Massey Ferguson (MF) tractors.

Several of the custom-built ROPS were built by PAMI. Others ROPS were built by British

Columbia fabricator shops to assess local fabricator‟s ability, costs, and availability to do

such manufacturing.

Of the commercially available ROPS purchased, the average total cost was

approximately $1,540. This cost was notably higher than the originally estimated

$1,000/ROPS and significantly higher than survey respondent‟s preferred price range of

$200 - $800. The custom-built ROPS made at fabrication shops or by PAMI ranged in

price from approximately $500 to $1,175. The home-built ROPS cost was $259 (material

and hardware only). These custom-built ROPS show promise as a viable option since

the lower manufacturing costs and the markedly lower freight costs associated with

being built locally help to keep the costs closer in line with the producer‟s price limits.

The project also obtained, provincial producer tractor demographic information to guide

ROPS placements throughout the targeted matrix. Over 80 producers were included in

the survey, which represented approximately 290 tractors. The tractor size/brand trends

garnered from the surveys aided in selecting the tractors for custom-built designs.

2

This project has been successful in that many different types of ROPS, tractors, farms,

and diverse geographic regions were included. This allowed many different situations

and obstacles to be encountered. Some regions appeared to have greater interest than

others in the ROPS program. This was in part due to the close relationship the regional

coordinators maintained with their customers in these particular regions (marketing) and

in part to the farm demographics of these regions. As an example, it was discovered that

there was greater resistance to outfitting tractors with ROPS on silviculture farms

(orchards, nurseries, etc.) due to the possibility of the ROPS breaking tree branches.

The option of a folding ROPS appeared to be one possible solution for this situation.

However, often ROPS were not available for “orchard-style” tractor models.

Future activities will likely result from this project. Discussions have been initiated with

other Canadian jurisdictions to progress and expand into these regions.

In summary:

A major pilot project was conducted.

Fifty ROPS were installed on farms across BC.

The cost of commercial ROPS is an issue to farmers.

Custom ROPS offered cost benefits.

This project has provided valuable information to help guide the initiation of full-scale

ROPS programs.

3

2. Introduction

A ROPS is a structure designed around the operator occupancy zone of a vehicle to

protect the operator from being injured in the event of that vehicle rolling over. These

structures can be a simple roll bar or a more complex structure consisting of several

beams and columns integrated into the cab. When ROPS are referred to in this project,

due to the need for simplicity, we will be referring to a roll bar. As such, the main

components of a ROPS consist of two posts, a cross member, two base plates, bolts,

and a seat belt (Figure 1).

Figure 1. Components of a Roll bar-type ROPS.

ROPS can be obtained from original equipment manufacturers like John Deere or

Kubota, or they can also be obtained from aftermarket suppliers like Laurin, Saf-T-Cab,

Bare-Co, and Hercules. It is also possible for ROPS to be built by welding shops or by

farmers. There are certain engineering and regulatory concerns in these cases that will

be explained later in this report.

Many safety-related research and development projects have been conducted

previously focusing on ROPS and agricultural tractors. The reason for this research is

4

straightforward. More injuries on agricultural operations involve tractors than any other

machine, and tractor rollovers are the leading cause of death. The Canadian Agricultural

Injury Surveillance Program monitored agricultural injuries from 1990 to 2000 inclusive.

During that time, there were 270 fatalities due to rollovers and another 339 injuries (most

of which were quite serious injuries).

The amazing fact is that the prevention of these fatalities and injuries could be

accomplished by installing a ROPS on these tractors. Research has shown that ROPS

are between 99% and 100% effective at preventing injuries from tractor rollovers.

Seldom is there such a well known and straightforward solution to such a major cause of

injury. Surprisingly, there is little movement towards this straightforward solution.

Research estimates found that 50% of the tractors or about 2.3 million tractors in the

USA do not have ROPS. Similar research information is not available in Canada.

Nevertheless, conservative estimates are that 1/3 of Canadian tractors are without

ROPS. Another way to estimate the Canadian situation is that if there is one tractor per

farm without a ROPS, there are 230,000 tractors without ROPS. It is quite possible the

number could be two tractors per farm without ROPS, which would mean there are

460,000 farmers in Canada without ROPS on their tractors.

Because almost all new tractors are voluntarily equipped with ROPS by the

manufacturer, one might assume that this problem will „go away‟ as older tractors wear

out and are no longer used. Unfortunately, observations are not supporting this

seemingly logical assumption. When observed closely, there are a few reasons why

tractors without ROPS will continue to be a problem. Old tractors are very durable and if

there is a problem, the repair is usually quite straightforward. Therefore, they will

continue to be used as chore tractors and on niche farms. In addition, a new source of

tractors without ROPS has recently occurred with the rise of gray market tractors that

are coming to North America. These manufacturers have not necessarily adopted the

voluntary practice of North American manufacturers to outfit ROPS on all new tractors

without ROPS. The onus then transfers to the importer/dealer and the results are

hit-or-miss. As a result, there is and will continue to be a need for a program in Canada

to get ROPS put on tractors. Some components of such a program are available from

previous projects and from understanding agricultural operations and their decision

makers. Something must trigger the decision maker to become interested in outfitting

tractors with ROPS.

It may be a new or recently-applied regulation, especially if there are employees

operating the tractor, as most provincial OHS departments require ROPS for

employees.

It may be information about the risk and ROPS benefits coming in through a random

source, or it could come from a structured, social marketing campaign. For example,

if the decision maker suddenly wants another person, such as a son or father to

5

operate the tractor, there may now be the justification to provide an added safety

expenditure for the safety of a family member.

Even if the decision maker has intended to acquire a ROPS, the following are issues that

could reverse the decision:

The cost must be within the perceived threshold. In the situation of a corporate

agricultural operation, the threshold may be quite high. Some USA research

indicated the average farmer threshold was about $350. If the ROPS was for the

safety of a family member, that threshold may be higher.

There is a process to acquire a ROPS. Normally, that process would involve the

dealer. For older tractors, especially if the manufacturing company has gone through

a lot of change, the applicable dealer may not be clear. However, options have

opened up with increased farmer usage of the internet.

There must be a ROPS available, which is not always the case for the old and less

popular tractors.

Installation must be reasonable and user friendly. The ROPS must fit. Ideally, all

parts are provided, and installation instructions should be easy to follow.

Unfortunately, even after a ROPS is installed, the ongoing use of it is not guaranteed. It

must not cause any significant issues to the required tractor operation or it may be

removed. Issues that may cause ROPS removal are:

It may need to fit through doors and under tree branches and should not interfere

with either the operator or operator visibility.

It must not require unreasonable maintenance such as regularly loosening bolts.

There must be an ongoing perceived benefit that outweighs any concerns.

In summary, there is a surprisingly long list of items that must be favourable before a

farmer will decide to purchase, install, and maintain a ROPS.

FARSHA is the lead agricultural safety organization in British Columbia and one of the

lead agencies in Canada. Through its many consultants, it has direct access to farmers

across the province. FARSHA recognized that getting ROPS on agricultural tractors was

a big challenge but the potential benefits were great. As a result, FARSHA decided to

initiate a ROPS project. Since many of the challenges associated with ROPS were

related to engineering, the Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute (PAMI) was asked to

participate in this project.

6

3. Objectives

The primary objectives for the project were:

To conduct a survey on a sample of BC agricultural operations to obtain an indication

of respective tractor and ROPS populations and use that information to target the

ROPS allocations.

To install 50 ROPS (approximately 19 OEM, 19 aftermarket and 12 custom) on older

tractors in BC.

To determine engineering and research information and use this information to

determine guidance for long-term BC and Canada ROPS program strategies.

7

4. Project Procedures

Based on the complexity of the issue and the considerable expertise that already existed

in Canada and especially in the USA, it was decided to set up a Project Advisory

Committee consisting of the following members:

FARSHA - Farm and Ranch Safety and Health Association - Bruce Johnson and

Scott Fraser

NYCAMH - New York Centre for Agricultural Medicine and Health - John May and

Julie Sorensen

University of Tennessee - Paul Ayers

University of Kentucky - Mark Purschwitz and Mel Meyers

NIOSH - National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health - Jim Harris and Tony

McKenzie

Manitoba Agriculture, Food, and Rural Initiatives - Glen Blahey

CASA - Canadian Agricultural Safety Association -Jonas Johnson

PAMI - Prairie Agricultural Machinery Institute - Nathan Gregg and Jim Wassermann

While this project was intended to obtain any information that would allow the initiation of

a successful ROPS program, there was a special focus on engineering-related issues

and solutions.

In regards to the survey, this meant the collection of engineering information on tractor

demographics and ROPS installation. Further, the survey information on tractor

demographics was intended to guide the selection of installation locations to ideally

place ROPS across the matrix that included region, farm type, tractor make, size, and

age. Naturally, with only 50 ROPS, it was recognized that it would not be practical to

achieve all combinations but at least some reasonable distribution would occur. Also, to

decrease the variables, the project strictly worked with farmers wanting to voluntarily

obtain ROPS as opposed to accelerating uptake through non-voluntary processes such

as regulations.

For the ROPS installations, the engineering focus was to determine cost reduction

options, ensure that installation was user friendly, and that installation was performed

properly. Part of the cost reduction effort was based on the following cost breakdown

assumption (Table 1):

8

Table 1. Cost Breakdown Assumption.

This assumption, combined with American research that suggested a $350 price

acceptance threshold, stimulated investigation into local and/or on-farm fabrication

options that could eliminate the retail markup and shipping cost component and possibly

some or all of the fabrication costs. These will later be referred to as the custom-build

options. With these custom-build options, where there may not always be engineering

supervision that would normally occur with OEM/aftermarket ROPS, it was also

recognized that there may be legal/liability issues. This project attempted to identify and

seek resolutions for the custom-build options.

Based on the background, the specific procedures planned to achieve the objectives

were:

Initial planning and information gathering

o FARSHA regional safety coordinators

o Advisory committee

The decision to have the participant farmers pay $100 (originally the plans were to

have the farmers pay nothing to ensure enthusiastic participation, but after

discussion, their contribution was increased to $100 to confirm some level of farmer

commitment)

To conduct a tractor survey to steer ROPS placements throughout the target matrix.

It was recognized that these surveys would be administered and data collected

without a strict survey process design. Therefore, depending on the FARSHA

consultant‟s availability and the interest of their region‟s farmers, the results would

only give general trends and not be suitable for any statistical analysis.

To select locations of potential tractors using tools such as regional marketing

campaigns with a goal of locating ROPS in at least five regions in BC including

Fraser Valley, Vancouver Island, Cariboo, Interior, and Okanagan regions

To select 38 tractors for OEM/aftermarket ROPS

o Cover the “matrix” – region, tractor brand, ROPS brand

To purchase and install 38 aftermarket/OEM ROPS

To design, build, test, and install 12 custom ROPS

o Four models – three prototypes of each

To understand benefits and challenges of installing a ROPS

ROPS $$

Material 250 $

Fabrication 250 $

Shipping 250 $

Retail Markup 250 $

Total 1,000 $

9

To visit farmers after the install, collect information on the entire process, and

analyze the data. (It was recognized that the low number of samples of installed

ROPS would likely prevent any formal statistical analysis).

10

5. Results and Discussions

5.1 Tractor Data Surveys

For this project, a brief survey administered by FARSHA regional coordinators provided

helpful insight into the demographics of British Columbia farms, farmers, and farming

activities. It should be noted that, due to financial constraints, the survey was not

conducted in a statistically-verifiable manner. The data population may not be

completely random and may be unintentionally biased in regions, demographics, or

social contexts. In fact, there are already highly-comprehensive surveys conducted on

BC agricultural statistics from other agencies like Statistics Canada. But, it was felt this

survey, which focused on ROPS-related data, would be of benefit to this project. The

data has not been statistically analyzed. Therefore, the results and analyses are not

statistically significant. However, as planned, the survey did provide a basis for

recognizing very general provincial trends and achieved its primary purpose of guiding

the ROPS placement portion of this project. The results are discussed below. The raw

data is presented in Appendix I.

Approximately 80 individual farms participated in the survey. This represented five

different agricultural regions in BC. Some regions, namely Vancouver Island and the

Okanagan, demonstrated a greater response than other regions (Figure 2). This is not

solely indicative of the relative population census but is partially representative of the

marketing success of those administering the survey.

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Okanagan

Cariboo

Central Interior

Kootenays

Vancouver Island

Number of Respondents

Figure 2. Response by Region.

A logical conclusion is that regional interest and participation in the survey may also

apply to other initiatives including the ROPS program. Although not analysed

11

statistically, these two regions did in fact have greater participation in the ROPS

allocations of the 50 ROPS project. This is discussed later in the report.

Agricultural operation categories on the survey ranged from small, “family” operations to

large, corporate greenhouses, with the highest percentage of respondents listing

themselves as ranches, small farms, and vineyards (Figure 3).

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Farm Types

Figure 3. Distribution of Farm Types.

Further analysis of the survey data provided a breakdown of farm type by region

(Figure 4). As might have been expected, there was considerable variation in farm

demographics between regions. The vineyards and nurseries were concentrated in the

Okanagan Valley. The interior regions, including the Kootenay, Caribou, and Central

Interior, were dominated by ranching operations. Vancouver Island was more variable.

Traditional farms, both small and large, were the prevailing industry according to survey

responses. Recognizing differences in regional farm demographics is essential in the

implementation of a successful ROPS program. Distinguishing the inherent risks,

probabilities, and annual cycles associated with specific industries aids in customizing

the marketing approach.

12

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Okanagan Caribou Central Interior

Kootenays Van Isle

Farm Types by Region

Small Farm

Large Farm

Dairy

Ranch

Greenhouse

Orchard

Vineyard

Nursery

Other

Figure 4. Farm Demographic by Region.

Importantly for this ROPS project, the survey also contained questions concerning the

number and types of tractors on BC farms. From the approximately 80 survey

responses, over 400 tractors were reported resulting in an average of just over five

tractors per farm. Of the 400 tractors reported, specific information denoting brand, size,

ROPS, use, attachments, etc., was only provided for 290 tractors.

According to the data obtained on the 290 tractors, John Deere (JD) made up 23% and

was followed closely by Kubota at 20% (Figure 5). Other brands such as Ford, Massey

Ferguson (MF), and Case IH/David Brown had a notable presence in the market.

Eighteen different “one of” brands made up the 11% in the “Others” category.

23%

20%

17%

16%

13%11%

JD Kubota Ford MF Case/IH/David Brown Others

Figure 5. Distribution of Tractor Brands.

13

Of the tractors reported, approximately 35% did not have a ROPS installed. The

remaining 65% of the tractors either listed a ROPS or a cab structure present. This was

a hopeful statistic as 50% without ROPS was the expected number based on some

previous research.

Breaking these results down further and defining ROPS percentages by brand, although

JD had the most tractors, Massey Ferguson and Case/IH/David Brown had more “No

ROPS” tractors at approximately 50% (Figure 6). These trends can help ROPS

programs focus their efforts most effectively.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

JD Kubota Ford MF Case/IH/ David Brown

Others

Tractor ROPS by Brand

% of Tractors % Without ROPS

Figure 6. Distribution of Tractor with ROPS by Brand.

Further information regarding the tractor population in BC was also obtained.

Specifically, questions were asked concerning the presence of fixed attachments such

as front-end loaders, forklift attachments, or dozer blades. About 29% of the 290

described tractors reported an attachment. A front-end loader or forklift device was by far

the most common attachment representing 82% of all attachments. This statistic is of

interest from a ROPS-safety perspective. These lifting devices can raise the tractor‟s

centre of gravity increasing the risk of a rollover event.

When reviewing the tractor demographic data by region, the apparent provincial trend

mentioned earlier of JD and Kubota having the highest numbers is not accurate in all

regions (Figure 7). This trend is definitely applicable in the Okanagan region and on

Vancouver Island. The other regions have more MF and “Other” tractors. Relative to the

other regions, also evident from this review is the high proportion of tractors in the

Okanagan and to a lesser degree on Vancouver Island.

14

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Okanagan Cariboo Central Interior

Kootenays Vancouver Island

Tractors by Region

JD Kubota Ford MF Case/IH/ David Brown Other

Figure 7. Tractors by Region.

However, this observation should be viewed with caution as the disproportionate tractor

numbers may be due to the difference in the number of respondents between the

regions. Relative to the other regions, both the Okanagan and Vancouver Island had a

substantially higher number of survey responses. Nevertheless, the number of tractors

on Vancouver Island is vastly lower than in the Okanagan. Yet, the two regions had

exactly the same number of survey respondents. This indicates that “per farm” there are

more tractors in the Okanagan (Table 2).

Table 2. Average Tractors per Farm by Region.

Okanagan CaribouCentral

InteriorKootenays

Vancouver

Island

Tractors 273 13 36 8 83

Farms 32 4 8 3 32

Avg. Tractors/farm 8.8 3.3 4.5 2.7 2.6

Compared to other regional averages ranging from 2.6 to 4.5 tractors per farm, an

average of 8.8 tractors per farm for the Okanagan is a notable difference. Further

analysis of the tractor data, refining it by farm type (Figure 8), helps to explain the

notable difference above. Of all farm types in BC, nursery and vineyard operations

account for the most number of tractors (especially nurseries), which had more than

double the tractors of any of the other farm types.

15

0

20

40

60

80

100

120 Number of Tractors by Farm Type

Figure 8. Number of Tractors by Farm Type.

When the above data is converted to tractors per farm (Table 3), nurseries clearly have

the most tractors averaging 13.6 tractors per farm. Since vineyards and nurseries are

the two most common types of farms in the Okanagan (accounting for 72%), the survey

results indicating the high number of tractors per farm in the Okanagan seems realistic.

Table 3. Tractors per Farm by Farm Type.

Continuing to examine the tractor data within the context of farm type, trends relating to

brand become apparent. As noted previously, John Deere and Kubota made up the

highest percentage of tractors in the BC survey. Predictably, they are in the top three for

many farm types including vineyards, nurseries, and large farms. However, this is not

the case for all farm types. Notably, ranches and dairies had more Massey Ferguson

and Case/IH/David Brown tractors even though there were few of these tractors on

vineyards and nurseries.

Interestingly, the reported MF tractors were typically older models, the Kubota were

typically newer models, and the JD tractors ran the full range of ages. It might be

expected that the age of the tractors is related to ownership. The newer, more expensive

tractors were more typically found on the larger corporate farms such as nurseries and

vineyards. The older models were more often located on smaller, family-run farms

Small

Farm

Large

Farm Dairy Ranch

Green-

house Orchard Vineyard Nursery Other

Tractors 19.0 25.0 37.0 64.0 4.0 10.0 76.0 163.0 15.0 Farms 14.0 10.0 5.0 15.0 1.0 3.0 13.0 12.0 5.0 Tractors/Far

m

1.4 2.5 7.4 4.3 4.0 3.3 5.8 13.6 3.0

16

(dairies and ranches). Also, it was more common to find many tractors (>10) on

vineyards and nurseries (Figure 9).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40Tractor Brands by Farm Type

JD Kubota Ford MF Case/IH/David Brown Other

Figure 9. Tractor Brands by Farm Type.

The survey also asked questions related to the farmer‟s decision process regarding the

implementation of ROPS on their tractors. When asked for the reason they have not

installed ROPS on their tractors, the most common reason cited was cost (Table 4).

Other reasons were listed as well, but none were as prevalent as cost. Interestingly,

although cost was the most popular reason given in all regions, in the Okanagan the

frequency of other reasons was higher as well. Presumably, the larger, corporate farms

common in the Okanagan were less price sensitive than the smaller farms in other

regions.

Table 4. Survey Data - Reasons for Not Installing ROPS.

Reasons for No

ROPS%

Cost of ROPS 40%

Cost of Installation 16%

Limited use 11%

Low Clearance 5%

Not Important 5%

Limited Number of Operators 4%

Suitable ROPS Not Available 2%

Other 15%

17

Another question in the survey aimed to determine what would be an acceptable price

point for ROPS. Most survey respondents in BC indicated a price no greater than $200

would be acceptable, but some were willing to pay up to $800 (Table 5). No respondents

were willing to spend >$800, which is substantially lower than the average cost of ROPS

determined by this project (discussed later in the report).

Table 5. Survey Data – Acceptable Price Ranges.

Price

RangeCount %

Less $200 23 44%

$200 - $400 17 33%

$400 - $800 12 23%

$800 - $1,200 0 0%

> $1,200 0 0%

5.2 50 ROPS Installation - Costs

The 50 ROPS in BC project involved over 68 participants to achieve the target of 50

ROPS. Sixty-eight different farms/farmers were invited to acquire a nearly free ROPS

through the program. Eighteen of them eventually declined before completing the

process. The remaining 50 all purchased, received, and were reimbursed (less their

$100 contribution) for a ROPS to fit a tractor on their farm. Discussion on the

installations follows. A summary of the installations is presented in Appendix II and

pictures are shown in Appendix III.

In total, over $73,000 was spent on purchasing ROPS for this project. This included

purchases of commercially-available ROPS as well as custom-built ROPS for

participants and destructive standards testing.

5.2.1 OEM/Aftermarket (Commercial) ROPS

The total purchase cost of 37 commercial ROPS was $56,973, including applicable

shipping, federal and provincial taxes, brokerage fees, and duty (Table 6). Averaged

over 37 ROPS purchases (1 of the 38 was donated), this correlates to nearly

$1,540/ROPS, which is 50% higher than the initially-projected average ROPS cost.

Maximum total purchase price paid for a ROPS was $3,246 and the minimum was $425.

18

Table 6. Details of Commercial ROPS Costs.

ROPS # Total Cost ROPS Shipping

Brokerage

Fees

Duty Installation GST PST

U.S. to

CDN

Exchange

1 $ 947.32 $ 673.25 $ 130.19 $ 61.55 $ 82.33 $ 32.52

2 $ 729.75 $ 695.00 $ 34.75

3 $ 1,129.08 $ 1,075.31 $ 53.77

4 $ 624.75 $ 595.00 $ 29.75

5 $ 1,292.67 $ 884.84 $ 233.91 $ 67.65 $ 106.27 $ 44.05

6 $ 1,425.77 $ 1,057.88 $ 300.00 $ 67.89

7 $ 1,464.82 $ 1,057.88 $ 250.00 $ 65.39 $ 91.55

8 $ 2,069.20 $ 1,535.00 $ 435.67 $ 98.53

9 $ 657.96 $ 320.00 $ 267.47 $ 29.37 $ 41.12

10 $ 1,268.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 68.00

11 $ 1,350.00 $ 1,275.00 $ 75.00

12 $ 2,152.17 $ 1,695.00 $ 354.69 $ 102.48

13 $ 2,798.86 $ 2,419.83 $ 245.75 $ 133.28

14 $ 624.75 $ 595.00 $ 29.75

15 $ 2,620.54 $ 2,115.75 $ 380.00 $ 124.79

16 $ 832.29 $ 509.79 $ 205.33 $ 55.35 $ 61.82 $ 35.98

17 $ 3,245.81 $ 2,441.25 $ 650.00 $ 154.56

18 $ 666.22 $ 487.00 $ 150.00 $ 29.22

19 $ 1,465.20 $ 1,125.00 $ 195.00 $ 66.00 $ 79.20

20 $ 1,415.27 $ 1,057.88 $ 75.00 $ 215.00 $ 67.39

21 $ 2,126.20 $ 2,025.00 $ 101.20

22 $ 2,592.80 $ 2,215.00 $ 100.00 $ 115.75 $162.05

23 $ 952.56 $ 907.20 $ 45.36

24 $ 952.56 $ 907.20 $ 45.36

25 $ 1,768.32 $ 1,384.11 $ 300.00 $ 84.21

26 $ 1,936.00 $ 1,257.68 $ 494.17 $ 117.06 $ 67.09 $ 408.28

27 $ 2,178.91 $ 1,800.00 $ 275.15 $ 103.76

28 $ 425.25 $ 405.00 $ 20.25

29 $ 543.90 $ 518.00 $ 25.90

30 $ 1,890.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 90.00

31 $ 2,815.28 $ 2,363.63 $ 317.56 $ 134.09

32 $ 3,107.16 $ 2,332.94 $ 317.56 $ 308.70 $ 147.96

33 $ 1,912.53 $ 1,161.69 $ 390.51 $ 81.47 $88.07 $ 81.87 $108.92 $ 236.09

34 $ 1,686.75 $ 1,306.03 $ 200.00 $ 75.30 $105.42

35 $ 1,867.48 $ 1,374.12 $ 320.95 $ 83.48 $ 88.93

36 $ 904.18 $ 807.30 $ 40.37 $ 56.51

37 $ 532.88 $ 405.00 $ 102.50 $ 25.38

Total $ 56,973.20 $45,785.57 $ 6,631.91 $ 466.56 $88.07 $ 726.20 $2,630.12 $644.77 $ 756.92

Min $ 425.25 $ 320.00 $ 68.00 $ 55.35 $88.07 $ 100.00 $ 20.25 $ 41.12 $ 32.52

Max $ 3,245.81 $ 2,441.25 $ 650.00 $ 117.06 $88.07 $ 308.70 $ 154.56 $162.05 $ 408.28

Avg $ 1,539.82 $ 1,237.45 $ 276.33 $ 77.76 $88.07 $ 181.55 $ 75.15 $ 92.11 $ 151.38

19

Base ROPS Costs. The price of ROPSs (without shipping, taxes, etc.) varied between

brands and suppliers. The lowest priced ROPS was $320. The most expensive was over

$2,440. The average price for a ROPS alone (excluding all other purchase and

acquisition costs) was nearly $1,240. In relation to the total purchase price, the cost of a

ROPS amounts to an average of approximately 81%, but in some cases, the cost is less

than 50% and as high as 95% of the total price.

Shipping Costs. Shipping was a sizeable component of the total ROPS price tag,

though it was not administered universally to all purchases. About 65% of ROPS

purchased through the project incurred a shipping charge, which averaged about $276.

(Note: This and all subsequent calculations of averages are only based on the number of

ROPS that have that subcost applied. For example, only 23 ROPS had a shipping cost

applied. Therefore, 23, not 37, was used to calculate the average). This equates to an

average of approximately 16% of the total purchase price (including taxes, etc.). Relative

to the price of the ROPS alone, however, shipping represents nearly a quarter of the

cost at 24%.

Although shipping costs made up a substantial portion of the cost of all ROPS, this was

not universal for all purchases. Several purchases incurred no shipping or transportation

charges. Primarily, these were OEM ROPS purchased through OEM dealers, specifically

John Deere and Kubota. When it is handled through their normal parts distribution

systems, these corporations have an internal policy not to charge for shipping on safety

related equipment such as ROPS. The aftermarket suppliers, who do not have regional

distribution centres, are unable to offer this service. These ROPS arrive from

considerable distances with significant shipping charges. There were instances where

shipping was not explicitly charged on aftermarket ROPS purchases. However, these

instances are largely attributed to a lack of an itemized breakdown on the retail

supplier‟s invoice.

Brokerage Costs. All ROPS purchased from or imported through the United States

incurred brokerage fees to cross the US/Canada border. This included ROPS

manufactured in the US as well as those manufactured in Australia, shipped to the US,

and imported into Canada. Brokerage expense ranged from $55 to $117, averaging

approximately $78.

Duty Cost. It was understood that ROPS were to be exempt from duty assessments as

these are categorized under agricultural and safety products; however, one ROPS

purchase was assigned a duty fee of $88 upon crossing the border.

Tax Costs. All ROPS, regardless of their country of origin, were subject to taxation.

Most ROPS purchases incurred a GST charge, but two did not. However, these ROPS

20

were purchased from a small retailer that likely fell below the Canada Revenue Agency‟s

collection exemption cap. GST at 5% averaged approximately $75 per ROPS.

PST was applied to a limited number of purchases. In general, it should not be charged

on products for agricultural use. It is likely that the PST charged in these instances was

done so in error as an oversight on behalf of the supplier or the purchaser neglecting to

declare it as an agricultural product. PST at 7% equated to an average of $92 per

ROPS.

Exchange Rate. Some ROPS were purchased from ROPS suppliers without retail

outlets in Canada. Many of these purchases were therefore made from US retailers in

US currency. Depending on the US/Canadian exchange rate at the time of the purchase,

this often added to the cost of the ROPS. This added cost averaged $151, ranging from

$32 to nearly $410.

Installation Costs. Most ROPS were self-installed by the purchaser/cooperator. As part

of the project, however, some ROPS were installed by certified dealers. This installation

typically required two hours to three hours of labour, which at standard shop rates cost

an average of approximately $180.

5.2.2 Custom ROPS

Several custom ROPS were designed by PAMI for the project and built by PAMI and

selected welding and fabrication shops in BC. About $8,491 was spent on custom ROPS

for customers. The average custom ROPS cost was $708 (Table 7). Different tractor

models and ROPS designs varied in price with the highest cost at $1,177 and the lowest

at $496.

21

Table 7. Detailed Custom ROPS Costs.

ROPS Costs. Brokerage, duty, and other add-on fees were not a factor with custom

ROPS purchases, compared to commercial ROPS, as all custom ROPS were built

domestically. Therefore, the majority of the total purchase price of the ROPS was the

ROPS itself. The average price of a custom-built ROPS (without taxes, shipping, etc.)

was approximately $659. The ROPS cost typically represented 93%, but never less than

91%, of the total purchase price. Custom ROPS prices ranged between $468 and

$1,076.

Shipping Costs. Freight rates for the custom ROPS proved to be much less expensive

than for commercial ROPS. The maximum price for shipping of $63.38 was still below

the minimum price for a commercial ROPS ($68.00). On average, shipping charges

were less than $44.00 but periodically as low as approximately $28.00. Most of the

shipping was contracted through courier services, which may have been part of the

reason the freight charges were dramatically lower. Also, the delivery distance was

reduced relative to commercial ROPS out of Eastern Canada, US, or Australia as the

ROPS originated from within BC and Saskatchewan.

The lower shipping cost meant that shipping accounted for a slim margin of the total

purchase price at an average of 6.8% and not higher than 8.1%. Even relative to the

price of just the ROPS alone, shipping only represents 8.8% at a maximum.

Tax Costs. These were nil or insignificant on custom ROPS.

Custom

ROPS Total Cost ROPS Shipping GST PST

1 509.19 $ 468.10 $ 41.09 $

2 509.19 $ 468.10 $ 41.09 $

3 509.19 $ 468.10 $ 41.09 $

4 496.49 $ 468.10 $ 28.39 $

5 509.19 $ 468.10 $ 41.09 $

6 844.00 $ 790.00 $ 54.00 $

7 509.19 $ 468.10 $ 41.09 $

8 1,176.91 $ 1,075.53 $ 49.80 $ 51.58 $

9 973.39 $ 945.00 $ 28.39 $

10 946.38 $ 883.00 $ 63.38 $

11 998.73 $ 945.00 $ 53.73 $

12 509.19 $ 468.10 $ 41.09 $

Total 8,491.03 $ 7,915.23 $ 524.22 $ 51.58 $ - $

Min 496.49 $ 468.10 $ 28.39 $ 51.58 $ - $

Max 1,176.91 $ 1,075.53 $ 63.38 $ 51.58 $ - $

Average 707.59 $ 659.60 $ 43.69 $ 51.58 $ - $

22

5.3 50 ROPS Installation - Other Information

5.3.1 Demographics and Regions

One of the main goals of the project was to “cover the matrix” and include as many

different BC regions and demographics as possible. In this effort, the project was

undoubtedly successful. ROPS were installed throughout the province (Figure 10).

Predictably, certain regions showed greater response and involvement, but most regions

had at least minor representation. The exception was the Peace Region, which despite

intensified efforts, failed to provide a participant.

Commercial 18 5 11 4 38

Custom Built 7 0 5 0 12

Combined Total

Commercial 22 5 11 0 38

Custom Built 5 0 7 0 12

Combined Total

25 5 16 4 50

Vancouver

Island

Fraser

Valley

Okanagan,

Etc. Peace Totals

Target

Actual

27 5 18 0 50

Figure 10. ROPS Installed Throughout the Province.

23

ROPS participants were not only selected from different regions but also from varying

farm types. Conventional operations such as large and small farms, dairies, ranches,

and orchards as well as less conventional greenhouses, nurseries, vineyards, and berry

farms were all represented.

Tractor and ROPS brands were also carefully selected to optimize the variables and

combinations included. Seven different tractor brands and seven ROPS brands were

utilized and efforts were made to maximize the resulting combinations of those variables

(Table 8).

Table 8. Tractor Models and ROPS Suppliers Involved in Project.

TRACTOR

MAKES

ROPS MAKES

JD Hercules Laurin Kubota Saf-T-Cab Bare-Co Other Tractor

Total

JD 7 1 1 - - 1 - 10

MF - 3 - - 1 - 3 7

Kubota - - - 5 - 1 - 6

Case IH - 2 1 - 1 1 1 6

Ford - 1 3 - 1 1 - 6

David Brown - - - - 2 - - 2

Allis Chalmers - - 1 - - - - 1

ROPS Total 7 7 6 5 5 4 4 38

5.3.2 Suppliers

All of the ROPS purchased for the project were sourced through normal retail channels.

In some cases, this meant a visit to the local dealer. In other instances, it required

consulting directly with manufacturers or alternatively international distributors.

Initially, attempts were made to make the experiment “blind” and conceal the project and

its intent from suppliers. The aim was to evoke an honest response to a producer

inquiry, and to prevent an intensified effort within the supply chain due to being

monitored. However, the project was ultimately disclosed to some suppliers as the

concentration of producer ROPS requests eventually aroused supplier curiosity.

Local OEM tractor dealers were a primary resource to acquire ROPS and not just OEM

ROPS. Some of the aftermarket suppliers like Laurin and Saf-T-Cab required customers

to purchase through retail dealers. Others, such as Hercules and Bare-Co, only retailed

through a single North American distributor. John Deere and Kubota dealers were the

only dealers capable of supplying OEM ROPS direct from within their own respective

parts systems.

Responses to customer inquiries varied between suppliers. Some dealers knew exactly

how and where to acquire a ROPS for a participant even if it was not within their parts

system. Other dealers did not have any idea where to start. If there was not a serial

24

number to search or a part number to be found in their own part‟s system, they often

informed customers a ROPS could not be attained. Presumably, the dealers and parts

people that were able to supply had previous experience in locating ROPS.

5.3.3 ROPS Demand, Customers, and Buying Experience

As discussed previously, cooperators were included from all over British Columbia.

These customers were vast and varied in their response to the program. Some were

eager to be involved and others needed to be convinced. The reasons for these two

different responses were not evident.

It could be postulated that the response is attributable to geographic region and to some

extent this is true. There was a greater positive response on Vancouver Island. Largely

due to the interest level, over 50% of the ROPS were installed in this region. Other

regions were not nearly as receptive.

However, another factor that may be masked by geography is the role of the regional

coordinators within the regions. Obviously, initial interest level is a considerable aspect,

but the relationship of the “marketer” with customers is also important. A very familiar,

trusted, credible, and politely-persistent coordinator will likely have greater success. In

some regions where the coordinator was relatively new to the area, despite persevering

efforts, the regional coordinator had a very difficult time acquiring participants. However,

even in some regions with familiar regional coordinators, customers were not readily

willing to participate. Often these customers were not very enthusiastic and acquiring the

ROPS ranked fairly low on their priority list. Many eventually declined to participate.

Many different reasons were noted for refusal to participate in the program. Some

indicated that cost was prohibitive. This was interesting considering the cost to

producers was only the $100 participation fee. Others noted that the time investment

involved to purchase the ROPS was too much to fit into their schedules. Others listed

physical obstacles as a ROPS limitation, specifically low barn doors and tree limbs.

Interestingly, nurseries, which commonly declined to be involved in the program due to

concerns over breaking tree limbs, had ROPS on approximately 80% of the tractors

recorded in our survey. This statistic suggests that their stated concern for the trees may

not be their primary objection, but rather a deflection for not wanting the hassle. Overall,

it was interesting to discover that even a nearly free ROPS was not enough to persuade

all customers.

Other lessons were learned from those that did participate. In many cases, significant

time was required throughout the purchasing process to ensure the purchase was

completed by the customer. Many customers did not know who to contact or were

thwarted at their initial contact. Other customers completed the purchase effortlessly and

without incident. Another interesting fact that emerged was the prevalent desire among

25

customers to purchase locally or at least Canadian. Several customers were not happy

about having to purchase ROPS from international suppliers.

5.3.4 OEM and Aftermarket ROPS Details

When analyzing costs of the ROPS, several interesting facts emerged. Table 9 lists the

cost of the ROPS by tractor brand. The average price of a ROPS was the highest for

David Brown tractors at approximately $2,500. The most expensive overall ROPS was

installed on a Case IH tractor at approximately $3,250. The ROPS were least expensive

to install on John Deere and Kubota tractors primarily because of the lower priced OEM

ROPS.

Table 9. Cost of the ROPS by Tractor Brand.

Costs are sorted by ROPS brand in Table 10. The OEM ROPS supplied by John Deere

and Kubota were the lowest priced. The model-specific ROPS manufactured by

Saf-T-Cab and Laurin averaged the highest prices.

Table 10. Cost of the ROPS by ROPS Brand.

Comparing the cost of OEM to aftermarket ROPS, OEM ROPS (when available) are

definitely the more economical choice costing an average of approximately 50% less

than the aftermarket option (Table 11).

Tractor Avg Min Max

David Brown 2,497 2,179 2,815

Case IH 2,268 1,350 3,246

Allis Chalmers 1,687 1,687 1,687

MF 1,548 658 2,799

Ford 1,509 832 2,621

John Deere 1,181 625 2,069

Kubota 1,088 425 2,593

ROPS $

Tractor Avg Min Max

JD 845 625 1,129

Kubota 952 425 2,593

Unknown 1,519 658 2,799

Hercules 1,606 947 2,126

Bare-Co 1,911 832 3,107

Laurin 1,885 1,415 3,246

Saf-T-Cab 2,327 1,867 2,815

ROPS $

26

Table 11. Comparison of the Cost of OEM vs. Aftermarket ROPS.

To illustrate this further, consider the examples in Table 12 comparing the costs of OEM

vs. aftermarket ROPS for similar (if not identical) tractors. The cost of the OEM is <40%

of the cost of the aftermarket ROPS.

Table 12. Cost Comparison of OEM vs. Aftermarket ROPS for Similar Tractors.

OEM AftermarketJohn Deere Laurin

$729.75 $2,069.20

John Deere Bareco

$624.75 $1,936.00

Kubota Bare-Co

$666.22 $1,768.32

John Deere 3130

John Deere 1630 & 1650

Kubota L2850 & L2950

ROPS $Tractor

As discussed previously, seven different brands of OEM/Aftermarket ROPS were

installed on 38 tractors. Of those 38 ROPS installed, 37 fit successfully without any

modifications required. Only one ROPS did not fit as planned. A miscommunication

between the retail dealer and the supplier led to the ROPS for a similar (but different)

tractor model being supplied.

Generally, installation was a relatively simple undertaking. Fixed attachments, such as

front-end loaders or dozer frames, would complicate things slightly by occupying bolting

space on the axle. The OEM ROPS typically fit without incident or any modifications

required to the tractor. Aftermarket ROPS occasionally required more time and minor

modifications to the tractor to relocate or remove tool boxes, implement control levers,

and fenders. All ROPS fit on the intended tractor but, for ease of installation and

confidence of fit, the OEM ROPS were often the better choice.

Seatbelts were another item that sometimes caused concern. Many tractors were not

originally equipped with a seatbelt or the seat had been replaced over the years

therefore relocating or removing the seatbelt altogether. If the ROPS came with a

seatbelt (which most did), locating and attaching it to the tractor could sometimes be

ROPS Avg Min Max

OEM 890 425 2,593

Aftermarket 1,852 658 3,246

Overall 1,540 $ 425 $ 3,246 $

ROPS $

27

problematic. Often, the OEM ROPS would come with the appropriate hardware or

brackets to mount the seatbelt to the seat. This would be successful if the seat was

close to the original seat, but not 100% guaranteed. Because of the “universal” fit of

many aftermarket ROPS, mounting the seatbelt became more difficult as the brackets

required to mount to the specific seat were not supplied. The aftermarket solution to this

problem was seatbelt mounting locations on the ROPS itself. However, this solution may

not be ideal as several customers noted the excessive length of the seatbelt straps

posed a safety concern since they dangled behind the operator near 3-point hitch and

power take-off components. In one case, a serious safety hazard was observed when

the seatbelt was entangled behind the 3-point hitch arm (Appendix III). When the hitch

arm was lowered, the seatbelt would pull on the operator possibly causing injury or

operator displacement from the seat.

5.3.5 Custom ROPS Details

Based on the survey data acquired in the initial stages of the project, it was decided to

target older Massey Ferguson (MF) tractors for custom ROPS. The surveys indicated

there were many MF tractors in BC and approximately 48% of them were without ROPS.

Also, OEM ROPS were no longer available for these tractors. There were also many

John Deere and Kubota tractors without ROPS, but OEM ROPS were available for these

tractors and often at a reasonable cost.

Several designs were produced by PAMI to fit the MF tractors. The “PAMI Large” ROPS

fit the larger tractors (i.e. MF 65, MF 165, MF 265, MF 270, etc.), and the “PAMI Small”

ROPS fit the smaller tractors (i.e. MF 35, MF 135, MF 235, MF245, MF TO35, etc.).

These designs were relatively simple, welded one-piece designs.

There were also “modular” designs developed that were a variant of these ROPS but

were based on a modular, bolt-together component system. These designs were

intended to test the concept of an adjustable, universal-fit ROPS that could

accommodate many different sizes and models of tractors. The theory was that some

components would be common to many tractors, but certain components would be

model specific. This concept may have some advantages in the retail market. It would

reduce the number of ROPS designs required and the number of individual parts to

stock while still maintaining coverage of a wide variety of tractor models. There may also

be some benefit realized regarding freight costs when shipping smaller, compact

components opposed to large, bulky, one-piece ROPS.

The cost-effective ROPS (CROPS) design from the National Institute for Occupational

Health and Safety (NIOSH) was also utilized. This design is also bolt-together, almost in

entirety, but is assembled from simple “cut-and-drill” parts manufactured from common

flat, plate, and tubing steel.

28

From these designs, ROPS were manufactured by PAMI as well as selected

manufacturers and welding shops within BC. The purpose of tasking industry partners

was to gauge their ability, costs, and desire to manufacture “one-of” ROPS from the

drawings supplied. Generally, all the retained fabricators produced quality goods at a

reasonable cost and were willing to accept the job and any liability that may be

associated with it. Some manufacturers also stated that their costs could be lowered with

orders for more than one. The fact that these fabricators were not intimidated by liability

lends promise to the idea of custom ROPS.

Comparing the different designs (Table 13), it is apparent that certain designs and

manufacturers were more cost effective. The PAMI redesign was the most cost effective

partly because several were manufactured at once, which improved the efficiency with

which they were built.

Table 13. Comparison of Different Custom ROPS Designs.

ROPS

Total Material Hardware Paint Labour

PAMI Large $ 884.26 $ 820.88 $ 277.04 $ 43.84 $ 100.00 $ 400.00 $ 63.38

BC Mfr. (PAMI Large) $ 1,176.91 $ 1,075.53 $ 299.81 $ 43.84 $ 90.00 $ 641.88 $ 49.80 $ 51.58

PAMI Modular Large $ 999.57 $ 945.84 $ 286.16 $ 59.68 $ 100.00 $ 500.00 $ 53.73

PAMI Smal l $ 719.85 $ 665.85 $ 152.53 $ 13.32 $ 100.00 $ 400.00 $ 54.00

BC Mfr. (PAMI Smal l ) $ 774.92 $ 693.32 $ 295.00 $ 13.32 $ 90.00 $ 295.00 $ 34.00 $ 47.60

PAMI Modular Smal l $ 793.87 $ 793.87 $ 164.71 $ 29.16 $ 100.00 $ 500.00

PAMI Redes ign $ 509.19 $ 468.10 $ 154.78 $ 13.32 $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 41.09

PAMI CROPS $ 779.87 $ 719.20 $ 276.10 $ 63.10 $ 130.00 $ 250.00 $ 60.67

BC Mfr. (CROPS) $ 713.61 $ 613.10 $ 82.00 $ 63.10 $ 118.00 $ 350.00 $ 34.51 $ 27.50 $ 38.50

Min 509.19$ 468.10$ 82.00$ 13.32$ 90.00$ 200.00$ 34.51$ 27.50$ 38.50$

Max 1,176.91$ 1,075.53$ 299.81$ 63.10$ 130.00$ 641.88$ 63.38$ 51.58$ 47.60$

Average 816.89$ 755.08$ 220.90$ 38.08$ 103.11$ 392.99$ 51.03$ 37.69$ 43.05$

GST PST Total Cost Custom ROPS

Design/Mfr.

ROPS Mfg. Shipping

Material for the custom ROPS averaged approximately $220 while hardware was

approximately $40. Labour averaged approximately $390, and the labour cost would

likely decrease with experience. Commercial painting costs were fairly universal for all

designs and manufacturers averaging approximately $100 per ROPS. Considering the

average cost of aftermarket ROPS was approximately $1,850 and OEM ROPS was

approximately $890 (Table 11), custom ROPS appear to be an effective solution at an

average of $816. In fact, if a farmer does not assign a cost to his time and chooses to

paint his own ROPS (rather than having it done commercially), the homebuilt ROPS cost

would be $260!

Direct comparison of aftermarket and custom ROPS options purchased for specific

tractors within the project demonstrate the cost advantage of the custom ROPS. For

example, the PAMI Small and the CROPS designs (in the lower half of Table 13) that fit

a MF 135 tractor range in cost from $509 to $794, compared to $947 and $1,268 for

29

aftermarket ROPS. Similarly, for a MF 265 tractor, a custom ROPS (in the top portion of

Table 13) at a cost of $884 to $1,177 are more attractive than aftermarket ROPS at

$1,465 and $2,799.

5.4 ROPS Testing

Destructive standards testing, according to standard CSA B352 (Rollover Protective

Structures for Agricultural, Construction, Earthmoving, Forestry, Industrial, and Mining

Machines), was conducted as part of the project. Testing was performed to verify all

PAMI designs as well as several others including the CROPS and Hercules 101. A

homebuilt “ROPS” was also acquired from a project participant and tested to the

standard. A total of six ROPS designs were tested.

Standards testing involves applying forces to the rear of the ROPS, the top (crush), and

from the side. The homebuilt ROPS withstood the loads for the rear push and crush test

but eventually encroached the operator zone during the side push. This ROPS

performed quite well considering it was designed and built on-farm without experienced

engineering input.

5.5 Communications

A number of communication activities took place throughout the province by FARSHA‟s

staff and regional safety consultants. The intent of these activities was to communicate

the importance of the project in terms of reducing injuries and death, to create

awareness of ROPS and its benefits, and finally to explain the project and its anticipated

outcome.

The target group involved in this project was agricultural producing companies or

individuals that own and operate agricultural tractors. Many mediums were utilized to

reach this demographic. These mediums included articles in newsletters, presentations

at producer association meetings, and face-to-face meetings between individual

producers, FARSHA regional coordinators, and/or PAMI project leaders. Surveys were

also administered to raise awareness about ROPS and to gather data for the project.

The following list of activities is a synopsis of the communications:

5.5.1 Vancouver Island

A presentation to a group of 28 farmers from Nanaimo-Cedar.

A presentation to a group of 24 farmers from Ladysmith-Nanaimo.

A presentation to a group of 50 farmers from Arrowsmith.

The ROPS project was discussed at all training courses.

30

5.5.2 Fraser Valley

A marketing campaign at the Pacific Ag Show. A ROPS model was exhibited with

PAMI and FARSHA representatives explaining and promoting the program.

An article in the FARSHA Guardian Newsletter September 2007.

The ROPS project was presented to the BC Milk Producers Association Annual

General Meeting (AGM) in 2007.

A 4-H meeting "4-H Extreme" 2007 - the ROPs project was highlighted.

A Mushroom Council meeting (2008) - the ROPS project was highlighted.

At Greenhouse Association meetings, the ROPS project was highlighted.

The ROPS project was discussed at several British Columbia Landscape and

Nursery Association (BCLNA) meetings throughout 2008/09.

An article in Hort West magazine.

An article was published in Country Life.

5.5.3 Okanagan

A ROPS project was highlighted at a Grape Growers meeting.

An article in the Grape Growers newsletter describing the ROPS project.

An article in the Orchard Growers journal described the project.

5.5.4 Cariboo

A ROPS project was described and discussed at the 2008 BC Cattleman‟s

Association, AGM, and Trade Show.

A ROPS project was presented at the Kamloops Stockman‟s Association meeting –

2008.

A presentation at the McLeese Lake Cattlemen‟s Safety Day.

Two articles were published in Beef in BC that described the ROPS project and the

benefits of ROPS.

An article in the Williams Lake Tribune described the ROPS project during both the

2008 and 2009 agricultural safety week.

The project was mentioned in a radio interview for the 2009 agricultural safety week.

5.5.5 Central Interior

A ROPS project presentation at Vanderhoof Bull Sale committee meeting.

A ROPS project presentation at the Fort Fraser Livestock AGM.

A ROPS project presentation at the Pleasant Valley Cattlemen's AGM in Houston.

A ROPS project presentation at the Bulkley Valley Cattlemen's AGM in Smithers.

A ROPS project presentation at the Skeena Valley Cattlemen's AGM in Houston.

A ROPS project presentation at the Nechako Valley Regional Cattlemen's AGM in

Vanderhoof.

A ROPS project presentation at the Cluckus Lake Cattlemen‟s meeting at Cluckus

Lake.

31

5.5.6 Conferences

Interim results and project updates were presented at the Canadian Agricultural Safety

Association (CASA) meetings, Public Health and the Agricultural Rural Ecosystem

(PHARE) Conference, and National Institute for Farm Safety (NIFS) conferences.

Various other media articles and interviews were also conducted.

32

6. Summary

6.1 ROPS Demand

Demand is diverse and dependent on farm type, farm size, economic situation, and

producer perceived risk.

The relationship between the marketer (i.e. regional coordinator) and the producer

appears to have an impact on producer interest.

Cost is an important consideration but not the only one. Sometimes a virtually free

ROPS ($100) was not enough to engage a participant. It often required intensive

management to keep participants interested and willing to complete the purchase.

Often, purchasing the ROPS was not a top priority, and the purchase was repeatedly

deferred.

6.2 OEM - Aftermarket

Average ROPS cost is approximately $1,540. Kubota supplied the cheapest ROPS

at $425.

OEM is often the easiest option to be confident of a fit.

If available, often OEM is the cheapest option, but ROPS not available for all models

from OEM.

OEM is usually the quickest option as well. However, some universal fit aftermarket

options were relatively cheap and quickly available (i.e. Hercules, Bare-Co).

On-demand built ROPS (Laurin, Saf-T-Cab) often took significantly longer,

sometimes months.

Shipping costs associated with aftermarket options are a deterrent, especially from

international suppliers.

Seatbelt location can be an issue with an aftermarket ROPS (especially for older

tractors (>30 years)). Sometimes a seatbelt may in itself be a safety concern as it

may catch on/interfere with 3-point hitch components.

If possible, producers would prefer to buy locally/Canadian.

6.3 Custom-Built

Massey Ferguson tractors were chosen for the custom-built ROPS as they were the

dominant tractor model without ROPS in producer surveys. There were 46% of

MF tractors that had no ROPS. Also, no OEM supplier is available for MF tractors.

According to surveys, other no-ROPS tractors were John Deere and Kubota tractors.

However, it was determined that OEM was able to supply a ROPS and often at a

reasonable cost. Some OEMs have internal policies in place to absorb shipping

charges for safety equipment or will apply rebates to ROPS orders.

33

Custom-built ROPS appear to be a viable option from a cost standpoint at an

average price of $817.

The concept of a modular, component-based ROPS that would provide a universal fit

may hold promise.

Further monitoring and feedback from ROPS participants would provide useful

information on the overall ROPS experience.

34

7. Future Activities

Further activities on this initiative could be pursued to increase the number of ROPS on

tractors across Canada and internationally. It has been considered to partner other

tractor accessories that have more perceived value (i.e. canopies or new seats) with

ROPS to provide a more attractive marketing pitch. Providing new seats may also

include the benefit of improved seat belt mounting locations. These lower-cost

accessories included in a ROPS package may contribute increased value to the ROPS

package thereby increasing the customer‟s acceptable price point.

Other discussions concerning ROPS cost reduction focus on custom and homebuilt

ROPS as an alternative to high-priced aftermarket ROPS. Investigation into purchasing

ROPS designs from established aftermarket suppliers to be custom/homebuilt may also

be an option.

7.1 The Case for Custom ROPS

Table 14 summarizes the actual ROPS‟ costs.

Table 14. Actual ROPS‟ Costs by ROPS Manufacturer Category.

Based on actual OEM and aftermarket ROPS costs, combined with information from the

farmer surveys, the following table aligns preferences with actual costs (Table 15). This

analysis is based on the assumption that those willing to purchase in a certain price

bracket would also purchase at a lower cost. While this may not be a valid mathematical

analysis, it indicates that if 100 farmers voluntarily decided one day that they were going

to buy a ROPS provided the price was acceptable, only the 23% that were willing to pay

$400 to $800 might find a ROPS in their price category. Since only 22% of the ROPS

were in that price range, it may be theorized that of that 23%, only about 1 in 4

(approximately 22%) will find a ROPS in their price range therefore resulting in 5%

actually purchasing. Or to state this in simpler terms, if those 100 farmers went shopping

for ROPS, only five of them would actually end up buying one! This would certainly

explain the reason for the very low amount of ROPS on older tractors.

ROPS Avg Min Max

OEM 890 425 2,593

Aftermarket 1,852 658 3,246

Custom ROPS 692 496 1,177

Homebuilt** 259 145

346

ROPS $

** Theoretical based on materials and hardware cost from

Custom ROPS and no labour or painting cost.

35

Table 15. Actual OEM/Aftermarket Costs Aligned with Preferred Cost.

Price

Range

Would

Buy %

Actual ROPS

Cost (%)

Purchase

Opportunity (%)Less $200 100% * 0% = 0%

$200 - $400 56% * 0% = 0%

$400 - $800 23% * 22% = 5%$800 - $1,200 0% * 16% = 0%

> $1,200 0% * 62% = 0%

While this does not present an optimistic picture, there is hope if one considers the

possibilities of a few intervention activities.

Referring to the above table, assume that a homebuilt custom ROPS program would

make about 25% of the ROPS available at the average price of $259 and the local

shops‟ custom ROPS would add 25% more ROPS available at about $700 (Table 16).

Now the 56% finding the $200-$400 ROPS acceptable would have an option. So of

those 100 farmers that went ROPS shopping, another 14 would find one in their price

range. Additionally, the 23% in the $400 to $800 price range would have more

opportunities translating into just under six more people able to make a purchase. So

now, if 100 went shopping, 25% would purchase.

Table 16. Effect of Homebuilt and Custom ROPS.

Further, assume another intervention occurred in the form of a social marketing

campaign that convinced farmers that there was more value in buying a ROPS and their

purchase threshold would increase to the next highest price level (Table 17). Now of

those 100 farmers that went shopping, 55% would find acceptably priced ROPS. While

this is not 100%, it would certainly certainly create a major improvement to the uptake.

Price

Range

Would

Buy %

Actual ROPS

Cost (%)

Purchase

Opportunity (%)

Less $200 100% * 0% = 0%

$200 - $400 56% * 25% = 14%

$400 - $800 23% * 47% = 11%

$800 - $1,200 0% * 16% = 0%

> $1,200 0% * 37% = 0%

36

Table 17. Effect of Custom ROPS and Social Marketing.

Price

Range

Would

Buy %

Actual ROPS

Cost (%)

Purchase

Opportunity (%)Less $200 100% * 0% = 0%

$200 - $400 100% * 25% = 25%

$400 - $800 56% * 47% = 26%

$800 - $1,200 23% * 16% = 4%> $1,200 0% * 62% = 0%

Interventions like this would be quite possible with a provincial or a national ROPS

program. In fact, additional interventions would aid in moving the ROPS uptake number

towards the eventual goal of 100%. Based on this, possible components of a national (or

regional) ROPS program are described in the next section. There is certainly merit for

establishing a program within interested provinces. The ideal scenario would be a

national ROPS program.

37

7.2 National ROPS Program

7.2.1 National ROPS Program Scenarios

Four program design scenarios were considered to allow an early indication of relative

budgets.

Scenario 1 - Total Cost: This first scenario assessed the total outright cost of

purchasing ROPS for an estimated 500,000 tractors in Canada. Since some farmers in

the BC program were reluctant to obtain ROPS, a $250 cash incentive was also factored

in. This program would cost $895 M if all ROPS purchased were OEM and aftermarket.

Naturally, this is unrealistic. Costs were also determined without the incentive and using

custom ROPS. Even using all homebuilt ROPS, which is the most economical and

probably not unrealistic, the cost was still $110 M.

OEM / Aftermarket with incentive

500 K tractors x ($1,540 ROPS + $250 incentive) = $895 M

OEM / Aftermarket (no incentive)

500 K tractors x ($1,540 ROPS) = $767 M

Custom machine shop

500 K tractors x ($692 ROPS) = $346 M

Custom homebuilt farm shop

500 K tractors x ($259 ROPS) = $130 M

Scenario 2 – Subsidize: To obtain a lower budget, scenarios were run where partial

subsidies ($250, $500, and $1,000) were assigned to each ROPS (Table 18). Additional

calculations were made based on the cost to drop OEM/Aftermarket costs to $350

($1,190 subsidy) and to drop custom ROPS costs to $350 ($467 subsidy). Depending on

the subsidy level, the cost of this program still ranged from $125 M to $595 M, which

was still considered too high.

Table 18. Subsidy Program Costs for 500 K Tractors.

Subsidy

Level

Program

Cost $250 $125 M

$500 $250 M

$1,000 $500 M

$1,190 $595 M

$467 $234 M

38

Scenario 3 – Regulations: Using a much different approach, budgets were estimated

based on a scenario where across Canada ROPS became regulated mandatory by law.

To be effective, there would need to be an average of five inspectors employed in each

province to enforce the new law. The cost of that approach would be $50 M, which is

surprisingly high. Many times regulations are suggested as an effective solution, but it

would not happen without a significant cost. Additionally, farmers would be very upset

with this approach.

10 provinces x 5 regulators x $100 K/yr x 10 years = $50 M

Scenario 4 - Multifaceted Program: The forth scenario was based on using the

economical lessons learned in this pilot project. It was a multifaceted approach that was

built around a national ROPS coordinator who would lead programs such as provincial

coordinator liaison, social marketing, and engineering design of affordable custom

ROPS. There would be an advisory committee consisting of experts from across Canada

and the USA. The budget for this approach was $19.5 M over 10 years or $1.95 M

annually (Table 19).

Table 19. Annual Budget.

Annual Budget

National ROPS Coordinator $100 K

Social Marketing $50 K x 10 Provinces

Custom Design, Testing, and Drawing (2/yr) $200 K

Provincial Coordinator $100 K x 10 Provinces

Advisory Committee(including US Experts) $50 K

Insurance & Legal $100 K

Annual Cost $1.95 M

Program (x 10 years) $19.5 M

Such a budget has potential to move forward. As a result, future information about the

features of such a program is described below:

7.2.2 Staffing and Activities

1. There would be a national ROPS coordinator with technical and coordination

expertise. This position would be located within another organization like CASA,

PAMI, or FARSHA. This individual would lead or stimulate intervention initiatives and

be a resource to provincial farm safety coordinators or directly to farmers to assist

with ROPS sourcing and installation.

2. Provincial farm safety coordinators would use their direct relationship with farmers in

their region to maximize uptake and effectiveness of the program. They would be

available for local promotion presentation and one-on-one assistance and followup.

They would be trained and technically supported by the national ROPS coordinator.

39

3. An advisory committee consisting of experts from Canada and the USA would be

established to guide the program based on their huge pool of combined knowledge.

4. An engineering organization such as PAMI would be required to develop designs for

homebuilt and custom ROPS (two per year) and to provide other engineering support

to the program as required.

5. Potential activities led by the national coordinator could include:

Social marketing campaigns

Research in tractor & ROPS demographics across Canada to target and

maximize effectiveness of the program

A ROPS website to provide information on where to purchase ROPS and also

access to ROPS engineering drawings for custom fabrication

A ROPS hotline to resolve specific issues not on the website

Soliciting corporate and government funding for ROPS subsidy programs

Identifying other initiatives that will stimulate ROPS installations such as

canopies, replacement seats, etc.

7.2.3 Goals of National ROPS Program

The following would be the goals of a national ROPS program:

Farmers are stimulated to put ROPS on all of their tractors.

Once the decision is made, acquiring and installing reasonably cost ROPS is easy to

do.

Once a ROPS is installed, its ongoing benefits are obvious and therefore the ROPS

remains installed.

All tractors in Canada have ROPS.

Injuries from tractor rollovers in Canada are eliminated.

40

Appendix I

ROPS Survey Data

#1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #1 #2 #2 #2 #2 #3 #3 #3 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #4 #5 #5

Region Okanagan x x x x x

Chilcotin (Tatla)

Cariboo

Central Interior

Kootenays

Vancouver Island

1. Type Small Farm

Large Farm

Dairy

Ranch

Greenhouse

Orchard

Vineyard

Other Nursery Nursery Nursery Nursery nursery

2. Number of Tractors on farm 6 4 3 11 2

3. Terrain Hard, firm x x

soft, boggy

flat x x x

steep slopes x

gentle slopes x

other

4. Tractor Info.

Model Case 5240 Kubota MF 35 JD 2555 JD 2555 JD 2555 NH TC21D JD 2555 JD 2955 JD 5300 JD 750 JD 5400 JD 2955Kubota

7510

Kubota

7510

Kubota

7500

Kubota

2320MF 135 Case 210 JD 6220 JD 6220 JD 6320 Ford 9N Ford 9N Case IH Satoh Beaver

ROPS y y n y y y y y y y y y y n n n y n n n n n n n n n

Model/Brand ROPS factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory

Rigid/Foldable rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid cab cab cab cab

Attachmentsfront end

loader F.E. loader F.E. loader

front end

Loader

Main use field field field field field field field field field field field field field discing mowing spraying field field field field field field field field blocks field

Amount of Use daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily seasonal daily daily daily daily daily daily seasonal daily daily daily

5. Reasons Cost of ROPS

for no ROPS Cost of Installation

Suitable ROPS n/a

Labour to install n/a

Low Clearance x

Limited use

Limited # Operators

Not Important

Otherolder

tractor

require use

of seat beltflat terrain

6. If cost factor Less $200

in #5, how much $200 - $400

would you pay $400 - $800

for ROPS? $800 - $1200

$1200 +

Region Okanagan

Chilcotin (Tatla)

Cariboo

Central Interior

Kootenays

Vancouver Island

1. Type Small Farm

Large Farm

Dairy

Ranch

Greenhouse

Orchard

Vineyard

Other

2. Number of Tractors on farm

3. Terrain Hard, firm

soft, boggy

flat

steep slopes

gentle slopes

other

4. Tractor Info.

Model

ROPS

Model/Brand ROPS

Rigid/Foldable

Attachments

Main use

Amount of Use

5. Reasons Cost of ROPS

for no ROPS Cost of Installation

Suitable ROPS n/a

Labour to install n/a

Low Clearance

Limited use

Limited # Operators

Not Important

Other

6. If cost factor Less $200

in #5, how much $200 - $400

would you pay $400 - $800

for ROPS? $800 - $1200

$1200 +

#6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #6 #7 #7 #8 #8 #8 #8 #9 #9 #10 #10 #10 #11 #11 #12

x x x x x x

x

x

x

x x x x x

nursery

10 2 4 2 3 2 4

x x

x

x

x x x x x

x

Steep

embankments

steep banks,

small

turnarounds

steep em-

bankments

Manitou Manitou JD 1140 JD 1140Kubota

MC45JD 1630 Carraro Carraro Fiat Universal JD 5319N Sent Kubota L2950

Kubota

BX2350

Fecidt cab

F207V

Deutz cab

Agro-

compact 70

Kubota L2850 Dexheiner Kubota KubotaAntonio

CarraroJD JD 3720 Ford 5000

y y n n n n y n n n n y n y y y n y n n n n y n

factory factory factory cut down OEM

rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid removable rigid

forklift forklift forklift forklift forklift bucket sprayer forklift forks cab

grape hoe,

sprayer,

mulcher, bin

fork, F.E.

loader

mowersprayer

movingbin loader forks, bucket hedger

loading loading field field loading gravel spraying field spraying mowing spraying mowingfertilizer,

sprayingcherries field

daily daily daily daily daily daily seasonal seasonal daily daily daily daily 320 hrs/yr 200 hrs/yr weekly weekly weekly weekly weekly seasonal daily daily

x x x

x

x

older

tractors not

equipped

no ROPS when

purchased

second hand

x x x

x

Region Okanagan

Chilcotin (Tatla)

Cariboo

Central Interior

Kootenays

Vancouver Island

1. Type Small Farm

Large Farm

Dairy

Ranch

Greenhouse

Orchard

Vineyard

Other

2. Number of Tractors on farm

3. Terrain Hard, firm

soft, boggy

flat

steep slopes

gentle slopes

other

4. Tractor Info.

Model

ROPS

Model/Brand ROPS

Rigid/Foldable

Attachments

Main use

Amount of Use

5. Reasons Cost of ROPS

for no ROPS Cost of Installation

Suitable ROPS n/a

Labour to install n/a

Low Clearance

Limited use

Limited # Operators

Not Important

Other

6. If cost factor Less $200

in #5, how much $200 - $400

would you pay $400 - $800

for ROPS? $800 - $1200

$1200 +

#12 #12 #12 #13 #13 #14 #14 #14 #15 #15 #15 #15 #16 #16 #16 #16 #17 #17 #18 #19 #19 #20 #20 #20

x

x x x x x x x

x x x x

x

x

x

mixed beef &

sheepNursery

2 3 4 5 2 1 2 38

x x

x x x

x x

x

x x x x x

mixed

Oliver 70 Oliver 80 Ford 5500 JD 3130Massey

135

Kubota

M125x

Kubota

M8200FORD Case IHC 485

Case IHC

3220MF 135 IHC 656 Massey 1103 Ford 7600

Massey

383

Massey

125

New Holland

1055

Massey

T035Massey 1020 JD 4030 IH 275

Kubota

3825

Kubota

3825

Kubota

3825

n n y n n y y n y y y n n y y n y y y n y y y

OEM factory cab 3600 factory factory Hercules OEM factory factory OEM OEM factory factory factory

rigid rigid foldable foldable foldable rigid rigid rigid foldable foldable foldable

bucket loader bucket forks forks forks forks scraper loader bucket bucket

fieldfield

choresfield field field field field field loader loader winch loader field field field barn field chores field chores field field field

daily weekly weekly weekly weekly weekly weekly weekly weekly weekly weekly monthly weekly daily daily daily weekly weekly daily monthly daily daily daily

x x x

x x

saw dust

blower

doesn’t allow

ROPS

tractor worn

out

older

tractor

x x

x x x

x

Region Okanagan

Chilcotin (Tatla)

Cariboo

Central Interior

Kootenays

Vancouver Island

1. Type Small Farm

Large Farm

Dairy

Ranch

Greenhouse

Orchard

Vineyard

Other

2. Number of Tractors on farm

3. Terrain Hard, firm

soft, boggy

flat

steep slopes

gentle slopes

other

4. Tractor Info.

Model

ROPS

Model/Brand ROPS

Rigid/Foldable

Attachments

Main use

Amount of Use

5. Reasons Cost of ROPS

for no ROPS Cost of Installation

Suitable ROPS n/a

Labour to install n/a

Low Clearance

Limited use

Limited # Operators

Not Important

Other

6. If cost factor Less $200

in #5, how much $200 - $400

would you pay $400 - $800

for ROPS? $800 - $1200

$1200 +

#20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20

Kubota

3825

Kubota

3825 Ford TC18 Ford TC18 Ford TC18 Ford TC18 Ford TC18 Ford TC18 Ford TC18 Ford TC18 Ford TC18 Ford TC18 Ford TC30 Ford TC30 Ford TC30 Ford TC30 Ford TC30 Ford TC30 Ford TC30 Ford TC30 Ford TC30 Ford TC30 Ford 5215 Ford 5215 Ford 5215 Ford 5215 Ford 5215

y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y y

factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory

field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field field

daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily

Region Okanagan

Chilcotin (Tatla)

Cariboo

Central Interior

Kootenays

Vancouver Island

1. Type Small Farm

Large Farm

Dairy

Ranch

Greenhouse

Orchard

Vineyard

Other

2. Number of Tractors on farm

3. Terrain Hard, firm

soft, boggy

flat

steep slopes

gentle slopes

other

4. Tractor Info.

Model

ROPS

Model/Brand ROPS

Rigid/Foldable

Attachments

Main use

Amount of Use

5. Reasons Cost of ROPS

for no ROPS Cost of Installation

Suitable ROPS n/a

Labour to install n/a

Low Clearance

Limited use

Limited # Operators

Not Important

Other

6. If cost factor Less $200

in #5, how much $200 - $400

would you pay $400 - $800

for ROPS? $800 - $1200

$1200 +

#20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #20 #21 #22 #22 #22 #23 #24 #25 #26 #26 #27 #27 #27 #27 #27 #27 #28 #28 #28

x x x

x

x x x x

x

x x

x x x x x x

Nursery

11 6 4 4 3 2 6 17

x

x x x x

x x

x x x x x x

Ford 5215 Ford 5215 Ford 5215 Ford 5215 Ford 5215Deutz

2815

Deutz

2815

Deutz

2825Kubota Case 1194 Massey 35 Massey 35

Massey

165

Internatio

nal 454,

1970

Massey

255

(square

axle)

David

Brown

Massey

265Ford 2000

Case MTX

120

Case MTX

110

Case MTX

8930

Case MTX

5220

Case MTX

40 HP

Kubota 80

HPMF 1105 MF 1135 MF 285

y y y y y y y y n n n n n n n n n n cab cab cab cab y n n cab n

factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory

harrow

rake

harrow

rake

loader

pounderloader loader

field field field field field field field field field general general generalyard work &

general

raking &

generalbale, mow

raking,

general

feeding

haying

raking,

hayingmisc.

daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily 250 hrs 300 hrs 800 hrs 300 hrs 200 hrs 600 hrs 150 hrs 800 hrs 100 hrs daily

x x x x x x

x

old barns

x

x x x x x

Region Okanagan

Chilcotin (Tatla)

Cariboo

Central Interior

Kootenays

Vancouver Island

1. Type Small Farm

Large Farm

Dairy

Ranch

Greenhouse

Orchard

Vineyard

Other

2. Number of Tractors on farm

3. Terrain Hard, firm

soft, boggy

flat

steep slopes

gentle slopes

other

4. Tractor Info.

Model

ROPS

Model/Brand ROPS

Rigid/Foldable

Attachments

Main use

Amount of Use

5. Reasons Cost of ROPS

for no ROPS Cost of Installation

Suitable ROPS n/a

Labour to install n/a

Low Clearance

Limited use

Limited # Operators

Not Important

Other

6. If cost factor Less $200

in #5, how much $200 - $400

would you pay $400 - $800

for ROPS? $800 - $1200

$1200 +

#28 #28 #28 #28 #28 #28 #28 #28 #28 #28 #28 #28 #28 #28 #29 #29 #30 #30 #30 #30 #31 #31 #31 #31 #31 #31 #31

x x x

x

Forest

nurseryNursery

2 4 54

x x

x

MF 44 MF 2745 MF 235 MF 1155 MF 3650 MF3670 Case 5250 MF1080 Case 1845Kubota

603

Internatio

nal 815

Massey

Harris 33 Case 7120

Massey

Harris 81

Kubota 50

hp

Internatio

nal 40 hpCase CX60

Case

MX110Case 275 Case 1845

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130

cab cab cab cab cab cab cab n cab n n n y y y y y y y y y y y y

cab factory factory factory factory Kubota Kubota Kubota Kubota Kubota Kubota Kubota

rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid

turbo mist

loading disc field field field field

weekly weeklydaily in

summer

daily in

summer

daily in

summer

daily in

summer

ROPS

break tree

brances

Region Okanagan

Chilcotin (Tatla)

Cariboo

Central Interior

Kootenays

Vancouver Island

1. Type Small Farm

Large Farm

Dairy

Ranch

Greenhouse

Orchard

Vineyard

Other

2. Number of Tractors on farm

3. Terrain Hard, firm

soft, boggy

flat

steep slopes

gentle slopes

other

4. Tractor Info.

Model

ROPS

Model/Brand ROPS

Rigid/Foldable

Attachments

Main use

Amount of Use

5. Reasons Cost of ROPS

for no ROPS Cost of Installation

Suitable ROPS n/a

Labour to install n/a

Low Clearance

Limited use

Limited # Operators

Not Important

Other

6. If cost factor Less $200

in #5, how much $200 - $400

would you pay $400 - $800

for ROPS? $800 - $1200

$1200 +

#31 #31 #31 #31 #31 #31 #31 #31 #31 #31 #31 #31 #31 #32 #32 #32 #32 #32 #32 #32 #32 #32 #32 #32 #33 #33

x x

x

Nursery

11 2

x

x

x x

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130

Kubota

3130JD 5000 JD 5000 JD 5000 JD 5000 JD 5000

Kubota L-

245JD 5400 JD 5520 Case 5130 Case 1194

Kubota

B7500

Kubota

B7510

Kubota

L3650

Kubota

3830

Kubota

R420MF 298

Kubota

L3240Kubota Kubota

y y y y y y y y y y y y n y y y n y y y y y y y y y

Kubota Kubota Kubota Kubota Kubota Kubota Kubota JD JD JD JD JD M 8200 M 8201

rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid

mowing

discs

sprayer

cultivator

row crop

daily daily

x

x

x

Region Okanagan

Chilcotin (Tatla)

Cariboo

Central Interior

Kootenays

Vancouver Island

1. Type Small Farm

Large Farm

Dairy

Ranch

Greenhouse

Orchard

Vineyard

Other

2. Number of Tractors on farm

3. Terrain Hard, firm

soft, boggy

flat

steep slopes

gentle slopes

other

4. Tractor Info.

Model

ROPS

Model/Brand ROPS

Rigid/Foldable

Attachments

Main use

Amount of Use

5. Reasons Cost of ROPS

for no ROPS Cost of Installation

Suitable ROPS n/a

Labour to install n/a

Low Clearance

Limited use

Limited # Operators

Not Important

Other

6. If cost factor Less $200

in #5, how much $200 - $400

would you pay $400 - $800

for ROPS? $800 - $1200

$1200 +

#34 #34 #34 #34 #34 #34 #34 #35 #35 #35 #35 #35 #36 #36 #37 #37 #37 #38 #39 #39 #39 #40 #40 #40 #40 #41

x x x x x x x

x

x

x

x x

x x x

350 acres

7 5 2 4 32 3 7 3

x x 50% x

20% x

x x x 30% x

with creek

& a bank One area

steep

varied

John DeereJohn

Deere

John

Deere

John

Deere

John

Deere

John

DeereCaterpillar

Massey

396

Massey

253

Massey

6490

Massey

390IH 1086 JD 1630 Case 430

Landien

6560GE

Massey

354GEFord 95FA

Universal

Ford 4610Kubota

8200

New

Holland

4320

Case 885Kubota

L5240

Kubota

M740

Kubota

M7030NJD 6410

y y y y y y y n y n n Y Y Y n n y y n y y y y

5520 5320 5320 5320 5320 5320 large cab 25-30 hp 4x3 4x4 JD

cab cab cab cab cab cab cab cab factory cab fold fold cab rigid cab cab rigid rigid

weed

buncher

front end

loaderbucket

wagon

hoefront forks forks buckets

mowing

rotovatingmowing spraying mowing spraying field

daily daily daily daily daily daily weekly weekly monthly weekly weekly weekly regularly regularly regularly regularly regularly regularly regularly daily

x x

x

x

x x

x

now

contracts

out lot of

his work

x

x x

Region Okanagan

Chilcotin (Tatla)

Cariboo

Central Interior

Kootenays

Vancouver Island

1. Type Small Farm

Large Farm

Dairy

Ranch

Greenhouse

Orchard

Vineyard

Other

2. Number of Tractors on farm

3. Terrain Hard, firm

soft, boggy

flat

steep slopes

gentle slopes

other

4. Tractor Info.

Model

ROPS

Model/Brand ROPS

Rigid/Foldable

Attachments

Main use

Amount of Use

5. Reasons Cost of ROPS

for no ROPS Cost of Installation

Suitable ROPS n/a

Labour to install n/a

Low Clearance

Limited use

Limited # Operators

Not Important

Other

6. If cost factor Less $200

in #5, how much $200 - $400

would you pay $400 - $800

for ROPS? $800 - $1200

$1200 +

#41 #41 #42 #43 #44 #44 #44 #45 #46 #46 #47 #48 #49 #50 #51 #52 #52 #52 #53 #53 #54 #55 #55 #56 #57 #58 #58

x x

x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

x

x x

Berry farm broad acre broad acre 350 acres

1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 3 2 1 2 1 1 3

x x

x x x x x x x

x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x

cliff varied

JD 3130 JD 1630 JD 950JD 1120

1978Ford 1520 Case 584 JD 5520 JD 2130

Kubota

L2950JD 3150

Kubota

3300MF 299 Kubota Ford 4100 Case

Internatio

nal 584

Internatio

nal 684

Internatio

nal 684MF 270 MF MF 135

Kubota

L2950JD 3150 JD 2130 JD 950 JD 640 JD 3130

y y n n y y n y n y y n n n n n n n n n y n n n y y

JD JD factory factory JD JD

rigid foldable rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid rigid

bucket loader loader loader bucket bucketfront end

loadercutter bucket bucket bucket bucket bucket bucket

field field field field field field field field chores field field field field field field field chores field chores field field field field field

daily weekly daily daily weekly daily weekly daily daily dailydaily

weeklyseasonal daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily daily

x x x x x x x x x x x x

x x x x x x x x x x x

x

x x x x x x x

x x x x x

Region Okanagan

Chilcotin (Tatla)

Cariboo

Central Interior

Kootenays

Vancouver Island

1. Type Small Farm

Large Farm

Dairy

Ranch

Greenhouse

Orchard

Vineyard

Other

2. Number of Tractors on farm

3. Terrain Hard, firm

soft, boggy

flat

steep slopes

gentle slopes

other

4. Tractor Info.

Model

ROPS

Model/Brand ROPS

Rigid/Foldable

Attachments

Main use

Amount of Use

5. Reasons Cost of ROPS

for no ROPS Cost of Installation

Suitable ROPS n/a

Labour to install n/a

Low Clearance

Limited use

Limited # Operators

Not Important

Other

6. If cost factor Less $200

in #5, how much $200 - $400

would you pay $400 - $800

for ROPS? $800 - $1200

$1200 +

#58 #59 #59 #59 #60 #61 #61 #61 #61 #62 #62 #62 #62 #64 #65 #65 #71 #71 #71 #72

x x x

x x

x x x

x x

x

x x x x

berry farm feedlot

3 1 5 4 1 2 3 2

x x x

x x x x

x x x

x x x x x

x x x x x

JD 1630 Ford 1520 Case 584 JD 5520 JD 1120

1978 JD 4020

Velmat

900

Velmat

600JD 1840 Ford Ford Massey

Massey

265

Massey

240

Mineapoli

s Moline

M5

Fordson

MajorFord 6610 Ford 4600 MF 135

David

Brown

n y n y n n y y n y y y n n n n y y n n

factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory factory

rigid cab cab rigid

loader loader loaderFront-end

loaderLoader Loader

3 point

hitch

field field field field fieldnot used

sparefield

feeding

loadercrop work haying

haying

choreshaying

sq. bales

utilityfield field field chores haying haying

weekly weekly daily daily daily 15% 70% 15% 25% 50% 5% 20% daily 90% 10% daily seasonal seasonal

x x x x x

x x x

x

x x

x

x x

hired hand

uses tractor in-

experience

x x x x

x x x

51

Appendix II

ROPS Installation Summary

52

Number Tractor type ROPS Installed Reimbursed1 John Deere 1040 Hercules 1,890.00$

2 Massey Ferguson 265 -70's ??? 2,798.86$

3 Ford 7700 Saf-T-Cab 2,620.54$

4 Kubota L2250 Kubota 543.90$

5 Kubota L235 Kubota 425.25$

6 Ford(son) Dexta Special - 1962 Bare-Co 832.29$

7 Case International 584-1980 Laurin 3,245.81$

8 Massey Ferguson T035 Hercules 947.32$

9 Ford Deisel 5500 - 70's Laurin 1,425.77$

10 Massey Ferguson 1020 - 89 ??? 657.96$

11 Massey Ferguson 1105 - 74 Saf-T-Cab 2,152.17$

12 Ford Diesel 3600 - 79 Laurin 1,415.27$

13 Ford 3000 - 70's Hercules 1,292.67$

14 Massey Ferguson 135 - 1973 Hercules N/A

15 Massey Ferguson 265 - 85 Hercules 1,465.20$

16 John Deere 4030 - mid 80's John Deere 1,129.08$

17 John Deere 1120 - 1974 John Deere 624.75$

18 Ford 1700 - 1980 Laurin 1,464.82$

19 John Deere 3130 - 1978 Laurin 2,069.20$

20 John Deere 3130 - 1979 John Deere 729.75$

21 International 454 - 1980 ??? 1,350.00$

22 John Deere 1630 - 1978 John Deere 624.75$

23 Massey Ferguson 135 - 1975 ??? 1,268.00$

24 Massey Ferguson 270 Custom N/A

25 Massey Ferguson 135 Custom N/A

26 Massey Ferguson 240 Custom N/A

27 Massey Ferguson 35 Custom N/A

28 Massey Ferguson 135 Custom N/A

29 International 684 (or 581?) Hercules 1,912.53$

30 Allis Chalmers 5020 Laurin 1,686.75$

31 Kubota L245 DT Kubota 532.88$

32 John Deere 950 John Deere 904.18$

33 Kubota L2950 Kubota 666.22$

34 Kubota L2850 Bareco 1,768.32$

35 John Deere 1650 Bareco 1,936.00$

36 Massey Ferguson 135 Custom N/A

37 Case 885 Saf-T-Cab 1,867.48$

38 John Deere 1140 John Deere 952.56$

39 International 454, 1970 Bare-Co 3,107.16$

40 David Brown Saf-T-Cab 2,815.28$

41 Massey Ferguson 255 Custom N/A

42 Massey Ferguson 265 Custom N/A

43 Massey Ferguson 35 Custom N/A

44 David Brown ??? Saf-T-Cab 2,178.91$

45 Massey Ferguson 135 Custom N/A

46 Massey Ferguson 35 Custom N/A

47 Massey Ferguson 265 Custom N/A

48 Kubota Kubota 2,592.80$

49 John Deere 1840 John Deere 952.56$

50 International 584 Hercules 2,126.20$

Total 56,973.19$

Average 1,539.82$

Min 425.25$

Max 3,245.81$

ROPS Purchases

53

Appendix III

Pictures

Aftermarket ROPS – Accessories

54

Aftermarket ROPS – Hercules Adjustable

Aftermarket ROPS – Hercules Fixed

55

Aftermarket ROPS – Laurin

Aftermarket ROPS – Saf-T-Cab

56

Custom ROPS

OEM ROPS – Deere

57

ROPS Testing – Setup

Rops Testing – Side Load

58

Seatbelt Entanglement with 3-Point Hitch Arm (Top View).

Seatbelt Entanglement with 3-Point Hitch Arm (Rear View).