Progress 09/01/16 to 08/31/18
Outputs
Target Audience:-Small and medium scale produce growers and food processors -County and State Food Safety Regulators -Extension educators Changes/Problems:
Nothing Reported
What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?- Two extension agents received teaching credientials in FSMA regulations who can peptuate this program within the state. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?We presented the results of this study at Northeast Center for Agricultural and Food Safety (NECAFS) meeting and 1st USDA-NIFA FSOPPD meeting held in Virginia Tech in August 2018. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?
Nothing Reported
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
OBJECTIVES 1and 2 We selected three training locations across the state of Maryland (Table 1). We selected these locations to address the regional differences in production of various fruits and vegetables and associated value added products. We held the trainings in a narrow window between February 2017 and March 2017 to ensure maximum participation from growers. We advertised the workshops through University of Maryland Extension agents, Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and targeted publications such as DelMarVa farmer. The duration of each workshop was four days where we taught the standardized curriculum for the Produce Safety rule on the first day and the standardized curriculum for the preventive controls rule on days 2 through 4. We performed instructor evaluations and administered an optional knowledge test at the end of the HARPPC training to reinforce the curriculum. The participation statistics for each of the workshops is in Table 1. We were able to achieve a healthy and targeted enrollment into each program by adopting the following strategies: (a) Advertising the program through diverse channels that are relevant to the target audience, (b) Allowing for a long lead time between advertisement and the actual workshops, (c) Holding the workshops at the time of the year when growers have more time available, (d) Partnering with state regulatory agencies (the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) and the MD Department of Health (MDH)), (e) Offsetting a significant portion of training costs through the USDA-NIFA grant, a specific cooperative agreement between University of Maryland and MDA and private sponsorship. Although we advertised the program as a hybrid curriculum, we allowed participants to attend either PS or HARPC curriculum. Following each PS training, many participants expressed a strong interest in HARPC trainings and were accommodated. The participants were diverse including growers, fruit juice and cider operations, baking operations, seafood processing facilities, on farm dairy (milk, cheese and ice cream) facilities, farm-to-fork operations and state regulators. Table 1 Enrollment Statistics for the Training Programs Produce safety training (PS), preventive controls rule training (HARPC), combined (hybrid) Baltimore County office: PS:22, HARPC: 26, Hybrid: 7 Wye Research Center: PS: 40, HARPC: 16, Hybrid: 7 Western MD Center: PS: 41, HARPC: 26, Hybrid: 5 Western MD Center in 2018: PS: 35, HARPC: 24, Hybrid: 8 TOTAL: PS: 138; HARPC: 91, Hybrid: 27 IMPLICATIONS Regardless of the scale operation, there is a deep interest among growers and processors in reducing the food safety risks associated with their operations. While the PC training is extensive, the prescribed curriculum does not emphasize strategies to reduce the food safety risks in small operations. There is a need to develop a hands-on training module that can enable small processors to improve the safety of their operation. Examples include demonstration of allergen and environmental monitoring test strips, and writing standard sanitary operating procedures. Complexity of food supply chain warrants that a substantial fraction of small and medium scale growers and processors who otherwise may not be covered under the PS and HARPC rules would be required to adhere to the stipulations of the rules. Therefore, there may be a sustained need for these programs and cooperative extension programs across the nation would be well suited to address these needs. OBJECTIVE 3 The quality of HARPC training was measured through participants feedback. The results are summarized below. Scale 1-5 with 1=strongly disagree, 2=disagree, 3=neither agree nor disagree, 4=agree, 5=strongly agree Aspect Average score Overall quality of classroom instruction 4.48 Professional behavior of instructors 4.84 Instructors were well prepared 4.72 Instructors' knowledge of the content 4.73 Instructors' abilities to interact with participants 4.72 Information delivered will be very useful 4.55 Evaluations ofproduce safety training was performed using Produce Safety Alliance's (PSA) format and evaluations were submitted directly to PSA. We presented the results of this study at NECAFS meeting and 1st PD FSPO PD meeting held in Virginia Tech in August 2018.
Publications
|
Progress 09/01/16 to 08/31/17
Outputs
Target Audience:Small and medium scale produce growers and food processors County and State Food Safety Regulators Extension educators Changes/Problems:The enrollment into the training program was lower than expected. This will be addressed in the next year by more targetted advertising of the training program. What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?Those involved in projects were cross-trained in either produce safety or preventive controls rules curricula How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?The publication based on the results of this pilot project is being prepared for submission to Journal of Extension. A planning grant is also being prepared to disseminate this model across the nation. What do you plan to do during the next reporting period to accomplish the goals?The enrollment was lower than anticipated. We will run another round of training at 2-3 locations throughtout the state in Spring 2018 to disseminate this curricula.
Impacts
What was accomplished under these goals?
MATERIALS AND METHODS We selected three training locations across the state of Maryland (Table 1). We selected these locations to address the regional differences in production of various fruits and vegetables and associated value added products. We held the trainings in a narrow window between February 2017 and March 2017 to ensure maximum participation from growers. We advertised the workshops through University of Maryland Extension agents, Maryland Department of Agriculture, Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene and targeted publications such as DelMarVa farmer. The duration of each workshop was four days where we taught the standardized curriculum for the Produce Safety rule on the first day and the standardized curriculum for the preventive controls rule on days 2 through 4. We performed instructor evaluations and administered an optional knowledge test at the end of the HARPPC training to reinforce the curriculum. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The participation statistics for each of the workshops is in Table 1. We were able to achieve a healthy and targeted enrollment into each program by adopting the following strategies: (a) Advertising the program through diverse channels that are relevant to the target audience, (b) Allowing for a long lead time between advertisement and the actual workshops, (c) Holding the workshops at the time of the year when growers have more time available, (d) Partnering with state regulatory agencies (the Maryland Department of Agriculture (MDA) and the MD Department of Health (MDH)), (e) Offsetting a significant portion of training costs through the USDA-NIFA grant, a specific cooperative agreement between University of Maryland and MDA and private sponsorship. Although we advertised the program as a hybrid curriculum, we allowed participants to attend either PS or HARPC curriculum. Following each PS training, many participants expressed a strong interest in HARPC trainings and were accommodated. The participants were diverse including growers, fruit juice and cider operations, baking operations, seafood processing facilities, on farm dairy (milk, cheese and ice cream) facilities, farm-to-fork operations and state regulators. Table 1 Enrollment statistics for the training programs Location PS rule HARPC rule Hybrid Baltimore 22 26 7 Wye Center 40 16 7 Western MD Center 41 26 5 IMPLICATIONS (a) Regardless of the scale operation, there is a deep interest among growers and processors in reducing the food safety risks associated with their operations. (b) While the PC training is extensive, the prescribed curriculum does not emphasize strategies to reduce the food safety risks in small operations. There is a need to develop a hands-on training module that can enable small processors to improve the safety of their operation. Examples include demonstration of allergen and environmental monitoring test strips, and writing standard sanitary operating procedures. (c) Complexity of food supply chain warrants that a substantial fraction of small and medium scale growers and processors who otherwise may not be covered under the PS and HARPC rules would be required to adhere to the stipulations of the rules. Therefore, there may be a sustained need for these programs and cooperative extension programs across the nation would be well suited to address these needs.
Publications
|