Progress 09/01/16 to 08/31/19
Outputs
Target Audience:The project assisted small-scale produce growers in Kansas and Missouri, including those using organic and conventional methods, and including minority producers and beginning farmers. Changes/Problems:After receiving a one-year no-cost extension for this project, we were able to conduct over 300 free water tests in the last year of the project. During the initial 2 years of the project, only 32 water samples were submitted for testing, so we started having our University of Missouri Extension and Missouri Department of Agriculture personnel collect water samples, particularly from Amish growers, at a central location in the community and then they drove the samples to the laboratory for processing. This greatly increased the number of water samples tested, and therefore assisted more growers to learn about the microbial quality of their water. Because of the lessons learned in the water testing, we successfully submitted a NIFA Food Safety Outreach Project grant in 2019 to cover water quality education for Kansas and Missouri produce growers. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We developed a half-day "Introduction to Produce Safety" grower training curriculum, which was intended to be complementary to the standardized FSMA Produce Safety Alliance grower training curriculum. We developed two different formats, one to be used in farm-based trainings and one to be used in classroom trainings. We then implemented two farm-based "Introduction to Produce Safety" grower trainings (22 total participants) and six classroom-based trainings (70 total participants) in KS and MO to compare the effectiveness of these training settings. We conducted on-farm produce safety assessments on 22 farms after the workshops and compared the differences on each farm from the first to the second assessment. In addition, we used some of these project funds to facilitate the attendance of KSU, MU, and Lincoln University Extension personnel to attend a FSMA produce safety Train the Trainer session so that these Extension personnel could also gain knowledge to teach and answer questions on produce safety. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have carried out numerous produce safety trainings with farmers to disseminate information to them on produce safety regulations, best practices and available resources such as the availability of free water testing. We have shared the key lessons from the farm assessments and the data on the training effectiveness with relevant stakeholders and have shared it at the Regional and National Food Safety Outreach Project Principal Investigators meetings, as well as at the North Central Region FSMA center annual meeting. We are working on a journal article submission and are planning to submit to present the results at other conferences as well. We presented the data from the microbial water testing in a poster at the Kansas Governor's water conference and at a One Health Day event in the Kansas City area. We have also submitted to present the poster at an Urban Foods System Symposium in June 2020, as well as the Great Plains Growers Conference in St. Joseph, MO in Jan 2020, where numerous produce growers and service providers from Kansas and Missouri will be present. We are planning to submit the poster for presentation at the 2020 International Association of Food Protection (IAFP) Annual meeting as well. We are planning to share information about the availability of the app through numerous venues, such as press releases, at workshops, through local Extension personnel, newsletters, and through partners such as State Departments of Ag and State Farmers Union. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The three objectives for this project and more information on how we have met them are listed below. 1. Compare the effectiveness of hands-on produce safety training of small-scale farmers (supplementary to the certified FSMA training) delivered entirely in a farm setting to training delivered in a classroom setting in both states. 1a) Major activities completed: We developed an on-farm produce safety assessment tool and conducted this assessment on a total of 32 farms in KS and MO before farmers attended a produce safety workshop. We developed a half-day "Introduction to Produce Safety" grower training curriculum, intended to be complementary to the standardized FSMA Produce Safety Alliance grower training curriculum. We then implemented two farm-based "Introduction to Produce Safety" grower trainings (22 total participants) and six classroom-based trainings (70 total participants) in KS and MO. We administered a post-workshop evaluation to all workshop attendees, as well as an approximately 6-month follow up workshop evaluation. We conducted on-farm produce safety assessments on 22 farms after the workshops and compared the differences on each farm from the first to the second assessment. 1b) Data collected: Change in produce safety farm assessment score from before to after attending training, based on type of training attended between the first and second assessment: Training attended: Average % improvement Number of farms (n) Farm Training +10.2% 5 Classroom training +12.5%, (+8.5% with farm with +57% removed) 12 FSMA PSA training +25.3% 3 No training One farm +12%, one farm -12% 2 Approximately 6 month workshop follow-up (sent to all participants attending Intro to Produce Safety workshops) included statements such as the following: • I can apply manure/compost safely • I can collect a water sample using proper procedures Most respondents replied that they have done this or "I am sure I could do this". 1c) Summary statistics and discussion of results Overall, our data indicates that farmers did benefit from the training provided through the farm assessments and the workshops. We did see a 10.2% increase in farm assessment scores from before to after farmers attended the on-farm trainings. On average, all the farms that attended the classroom trainings had a 12.5% increase in assessment scores from before to after the workshops. However, one farm that attended the classroom workshop had a 57% improvement from before to after the workshop, so when that score is removed, the average improvement of all the other farms attending the classroom trainings was 8.5%. An impact story was written about the farm with this large improvement, which is available from: https://www.ncrfsma.org/brooks-and-mai Farms attending both types of training showed improvement. However, we recognize that the number of farms, particularly those attending the on-farm training is small. In our approximately six month post-workshop follow-up survey, most farmers reported that they already have or "I am sure I could do this" to a number of different produce safety statements. Any remaining respondents said "I am fairly sure I could do this" to these questions. We did not differentiate between which workshop the respondents attended in these questionnaires, as it was intended to be completely anonymous. 1d) Key outcomes or other accomplishments realized Through conducting these on-farm assessments and the produce safety trainings provided, we were able to help most of these farmers improve the safety of the fruits and vegetables they produce. In addition, at least four KS farms were able to get GAP certified for the first time, partially through the efforts of this project. When developing the curriculum for these workshops, we wanted farmers to learn the basics of produce safety in these workshops, but also to encourage them to attend full-day FSMA PSA training and/or food safety plan workshops, which many farmers did. Objective 2: Provide free water testing to farmers attending the trainings to assist them in meeting the FSMA agricultural water requirements and build capacity for more economical future water testing. 2a) Major activities completed / experiments conducted: We acquired the necessary materials, supplies, and training to be able to conduct microbial water testing using the IDEXX Colilert Test Kit Quanti-Tray 2000 for generic E. coli quantification. We initially offered free water testing to only people attending the workshops associated with this project to encourage farmers to attend the workshops. We offered each workshop participant up to 10 free water tests and provided water collection bottles to those interested. Researchers generally recognize that testing samples within 24 hours of collection will produce accurate results, even though it is preferred to get the samples to the lab within 6 hours of collection. 2b) data collected: Through this project, we have tested 369 water samples from produce farms in KS and MO, including surface water, ground water, and rain barrels. Thirty-two of the 369 samples (8.67%) exceeded 126 CFU/100 mL, and 22 samples (5.96%) surpassed 410 CFU/100 mL. Seven (1.90%) samples exceeded 2419.6 CFU/100 mL, the maximum reportable value of the Colilert test. Surface water samples (n=181) contained the highest number of positive generic E. coli tests (153) of any water sample type. 2c) Summary statistics and discussion of results Overall, microbial water surveillance indicated the majority (91.33%) of produce agricultural water sampled in Kansas and Missouri did not exceed the FSMA produce safety rule generic E. coli geometric mean guideline (126 CFU/100 mL). This indicates that although the majority of KS and MO producers who tested their water are in compliance, some growers still need additional support to improve the safety of their agriculture water. 2d) Key outcomes or other accomplishments realized. Particularly in the past year, we have been able to educate more farmers on the importance of water testing and water quality. Many of our MU Extension personnel organized a central pickup location for Amish growers to collect their water samples, which greatly increased our water sample numbers in the final year of the project. Because of the lessons learned in this project, we successfully submitted a NIFA Food Safety Outreach Program grant in 2019 to cover water quality for produce growers in Kansas and Missouri. Objective 3) Develop/expand a smartphone application (app) to assist produce growers in meeting FSMA traceability requirements and to input other data to document compliance with FSMA requirements. 3a) Major activities completed / experiments conducted; We developed a smart phone application to assist farmers with traceability of their produce. The app was developed jointly with another KSU NIFA project (Eleni Pliakoni, PI) which is an AFRI Reduction of Post-harvest Food Losses grant. Their project developed an app to help farmers trace post-harvest food losses at each stage of production and post-harvest handling. We expanded the app to include information to assist farmers with traceability. The app is currently available from app.farmament.com. The app requires the farmer to create an account to use the app. The app can generate a traceability QR code and a traceability search is also available. 3b) Data collected; We have conducted some informal grower feedback groups on the app, which has provided positive feedback. 3c) Summary statistics and discussion of results We are planning to develop some training materials on how to use the app and promote its use more in the future. 3d) Key outcomes or other accomplishments realized. We feel that the app will be useful to farmers to help them with traceability requirements related to FSMA. We plan to seek other funding further strengthen the app to make it even more useful to farmers.
Publications
- Type:
Other
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2017
Citation:
We developed an app through this project (which was co-funded by a NIFA AFRI post-harvest food losses project. The app helps farmers track post-harvest food losses and allows them to trace the source of the produce they sell. It is freely available from https://app.farmament.com/farm/?modern
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Poster presentation. One Health Day. Water testing of agriculture water used by produce growers in Kansas and Missouri. Nov 6, 2019. Olathe, KS.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Poster presentation. Kansas governor's Water Conference. Water testing of agriculture water used by produce growers in Kansas and Missouri. Nov 8, 2019. Wichita, KS.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Poster presentation submitted. Great Plains Growers Conference. Water testing of agriculture water used by produce growers in Kansas and Missouri. Jan 2020 conference. St Joseph, MO.
- Type:
Conference Papers and Presentations
Status:
Submitted
Year Published:
2019
Citation:
Poster presentation submitted. Urban Food Systems Symposium. Water testing of agriculture water used by produce growers in Kansas and Missouri. June 2020 conference. Kansas City, MO.
|
Progress 09/01/17 to 08/31/18
Outputs
Target Audience:Fruit and vegetable producers in Kansas and Missouri were the primary target audience for this reporting period. Many of the produce growers in Kansas and Missouri are smaller-scale and may not be familar with produce safety regulatory or marketplace requirements, so it is important to provide such education and resources. Changes/Problems:We were granted a no-cost extension for this project so that we could conduct more free microbial water testing through this project. We originally anticipated that farmers would willingly submit water samples for testing, but we found that few farmers took advantage of the water testing opportunity, so we are now planning to have Extension personnel take water samples at farms (with the farmers' permmission) and have the Extension personnel submit the samples to the lab to increase the number of water samples received. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We developed a half-day "Introduction to Produce Safety" grower training curriculum, which was intended to be complementary to the standardized FSMA Produce Safety Alliance grower training curriculum. We developed two different formats, one to be used in farm-based trainings and one to be used in classroom trainings. We then implemented two farm-based "Introduction to Produce Safety" grower trainings (22 total participants) and six classroom-based trainings (70 total participants) in KS and MO to compare the effectiveness of these training settings. We conducted on-farm produce safety assessments on 22 farms (thus far) after the workshops and compared the differences on each farm from the first to the second assessment. In addition, we used some of these project funds to facilitate the attendance of KSU, MU, and Lincoln University Extension personnel to attend a FSMA produce safety Train the Trainer session so that these Extension personnel could also gain knowledge to teach on produce safety. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have carried out numerous produce safety trainings with farmers to disseminate information to them on produce safety regulations, best practices and available resources such as the availability of free water testing. After the completion of all the post-harvest assessments and further analysis of the data on training effectiveness, we plan to share that information with relevant stakeholders. We are currently sharing information about the availability of free microbial water testing through numerous venues, such as press releases, at workshops, through local Extension personnel, newsletters, and through partners such as State Departments of Ag and State Farmers Union. We will start sharing information about the app through similar channels as for the water testing. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We are planning to do at least one more post-workshop farm assessment during the next reporting period. As mentioned, we are more actively advertising the free microbial water testing and also plan to have Extension personnel take water samples at farms and send them in to the lab to help increase the number of water samples received. We also will continue to refine the app and provide information on it to farmers through various channels as previously discussed.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
The three objectives for this project and more information on how we have met them so far are listed below. Compare the effectiveness of hands-on produce safety training of small-scale farmers (supplementary to the certified FSMA training) delivered entirely in a farm setting to training delivered in a classroom setting in both states. 1a) Major activities completed: We developed an on-farm produce safety assessment tool and conducted this assessment on a total of 32 farms in KS and MO before farmers attended a produce safety workshop. We developed a half-day "Introduction to Produce Safety" grower training curriculum, intended to be complementary to the standardized FSMA Produce Safety Alliance grower training curriculum. We then implemented two farm-based "Introduction to Produce Safety" grower trainings (22 total participants) and six classroom-based trainings (70 total participants) in KS and MO. We administered a post-workshop evaluation to all workshop attendees, as well as an approximately 6-month follow up workshop evaluation. We conducted on-farm produce safety assessments on 22 farms (thus far) after the workshops and compared the differences on each farm from the first to the second assessment. 1b) Data collected: Change in produce safety farm assessment score from before to after attending training, based on type of training attended between the first and second assessment: Training attended: Farm Training Classroom training FSMA PSA training No training Average % improvement +10.2% +12.5 %, (+8.5% with farm with +57% removed) +25.3 % One farm +12%, one farm -12% Number of farms (n) 5 12 3 2 Approximately 6 month workshop follow-up (sent to all participants attending Intro to Produce Safety workshops) included statements such as the following: I can apply manure/compost safely I can collect a water sample using proper procedures Have you made food safety-related changes? Most respondents replied that they have done this or "I am sure I could do this". 1c) Summary statistics and discussion of results Overall, our data indicates that farmers did benefit from the training provided through the farm assessments and the workshops. We did see a 10.2% increase in farm assessment scores from before to after farmers attended the on-farm trainings. On average, all the farms that attended the classroom trainings had a 12.5% increase in assessment scores from before to after the workshops. However, one farm that attended the classroom workshop had a 57% improvement from before to after the workshop, so when that score is removed, the average improvement of all the other farms attending the classroom trainings was 8.5%. An impact story was written about the farm with this large improvement, which is available from: https://www.ncrfsma.org/brooks-and-mai Therefore, there seems to be a slightly greater improvement for the farms that attended the classroom training, but farms attending both types of training showed improvement. However, we recognize that the number of farms, particularly those attending the on-farm training is small. We have not yet conducted statistics on this data, but plan to in the future. In our approximately six month post-workshop follow-up survey, most farmers reported that they already have or "I am sure I could do this" to a number of different produce safety statements. Any remaining respondents said "I am fairly sure I could do this" to these questions. We did not differentiate between which workshop the respondents attended in these questionnaires, as it was intended to be completely anonymous. 1d) Key outcomes or other accomplishments realized Through conducting these on-farm assessments and the produce safety trainings provided, we were able to help most of these farmers improve the safety of the fruits and vegetables they produce. In addition, two KS farms were able to get GAP certified for the first time, partially through the efforts of this project. When developing the curriculum for these workshops, we wanted farmers to learn the basics of produce safety in these workshops, but also to encourage them to attend full-day FSMA PSA training and/or GAPs food safety plan workshops, which many farmers did. Objective 2: Provide free water testing to farmers attending the trainings to assist them in meeting the FSMA agricultural water requirements and build capacity for more economical future water testing. 2a) Major activities completed / experiments conducted: After FDA updated their list of water testing methods acceptable under the FSMA Produce Safety Rule, we acquired the necessary materials, supplies, and training to be able to conduct microbial water testing using the IDEXX Colilert Test Kit Quanti-Tray 2000 for generic E. coli quantification. We initially offered free water testing to only people attending the workshops associated with this project to encourage farmers to attend the workshops. We offered each workshop participant up to 10 free water tests and provided water collection bottles to those interested. Researchers generally recognize that testing samples within 24 hours of collection will produce accurate results, even though it is preferred to get the samples to the lab within 6 hours of collection. 2b) data collected: So far, we have tested 39 water samples from produce farms, including surface water, ground water, and rain barrels. All results to date have been far below 126 MPN generic E. coli/ 100 mL water. 2c) Summary statistics and discussion of results Many KS and MO growers will not need to comply with the FSMA Produce Safety rule water testing requirements until 2024 (if they are not already exempt), so many farmers are likely waiting until later to test their water. It is challenging for many farmers to get the sample to the lab within 24 hours of taking the sample, and many farmers would need to pay for shipping, so we are trying to provide Extension personnel to sample and ship the water samples for the farmers to overcome this barrier. 2d) Key outcomes or other accomplishments realized. We have been able to establish a water testing protocol for farmers that are interested in getting testing and we have educated many farmers about the need for water testing and the methods needed to test water. We plan to work in the upcoming year to test more water samples. Objective 3) Develop/expand a smartphone application (app) to assist produce growers in meeting FSMA traceability requirements and to input other data to document compliance with FSMA requirements. 3a) Major activities completed / experiments conducted; We developed a smart phone application to assist farmers with traceability of their produce. The app was developed jointly with another KSU NIFA project (Eleni Pliakoni, PI) which is an AFRI Reduction of Post-harvest Food Losses grant. Their project developed an app to help farmers trace post-harvest food losses at each stage of production and post-harvest handling. We expanded the app to include information to assist farmers with traceability. The app is currently available from app.farmament.com. The app requires the farmer to create an account to use the app. The app can generate a traceability QR code and a traceability search is also available. 3b) Data collected; We have not yet collected any data on the use of the app or detailed data on growers' feedback on the app, but plan to do so in the future. 3c) Summary statistics and discussion of results We have been pleased so far with the development of the app and plan to continue to work with the developer and possibly with other grant projects to continue to develop the app. 3d) Key outcomes or other accomplishments realized. We feel that the app will be useful to farmers to help them with traceability requirements related to FSMA. We are continuing to work with the app developer to make improvements to the app and hope to get more farmer feedback on the app in the future.
Publications
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2016
Citation:
www.ksre.k-state.edu/foodsafety/produce/
- Type:
Websites
Status:
Published
Year Published:
2018
Citation:
https://app.farmament.com/farm/
|
Progress 09/01/16 to 08/31/17
Outputs
Target Audience:We held a produce safety train-the-trainer session in November 2016 where 40 Extension personnel from Kansas State University, University of Missouri, and Lincoln University were trained on produce safety, so that they will be able to carry out the grower trainings and other activities in this project. The Extension personnel are from various parts of KS and MO and have either a horticulture/agriculture or food safety background. Changes/Problems:We are planning to wait to hold the grower trainings until the end of the main growing season for Kansas produce growers, which normally is in November. We are also waiting as the NASDA On-Farm Readiness Review tool that we are planning to use is not yet completed, but hopefully it will be in time for us to use before training sessions this fall. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?We used some funds from this project to hold a Produce Safety Alliance Train-the-Trainer session which was offered for free to interested Kansas State University, University of Missouri, and Lincoln University personnel. Other partners also were able to attend the session at a reduced rate. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We have been sharing information the produce safety rule, resources we have developed, and upcoming training opportunities to growers through presentations at workshops and conferences and through grower email list serves, and through various partner organizations. We also attended the regional NIFA Food Safety Outreach Program meeting in St Louis and continue to work closely with the North Central Regional FSMA training center at Iowa State University to discuss issues and work together to accomplish the project objectives. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?We plan to begin holding grower trainings through this project, most likely starting in November 2017. We will be carrying out the on-farm FSMA readiness assessments before and after those trainings. We will begin testing water samples after the workshops have completed. We will continue work on the smartphone app.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
During this reporting period, we have been beginning to educate farmers in KS and MO about produce safety in various ways. Many of the personnel that attended the produce safety train-the-trainer provided short presentations to farmers about FSMA and general produce safety in various presentations they gave to produce growers, including at farmers market workshops and grower conferences. We are also working on developing the curriculum for the training sessions, and are beginning to set dates for the trainings. We are also working on developing our capacity for water testing. Further, progress on the smartphone app is well underway. We are alsoleveraging funds from other sources and connections through this and other projects todevelop other resources and building partnerships that will help with the continued implementationof this project.
Publications
|