Progress 07/15/18 to 03/14/19
Outputs
Target Audience:The vast majority of farms in Hawai'i are smaller than 10 acres (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014b), unlike the contiguous 48 US states where large farms now dominate crop production (MacDonald, Korb, & Hoppe, 2013). There are 7,000 farms in Hawai'i, almost 4500 of which are less than 10 acres in size (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2014a) and 3,512 are food producers. According to Farm Safe Hawai'i, the state's official listing of food-safety audit certifications, only 27 companies (producers, packers, wholesalers) have food safety certification completed by a third-party auditor (Food Safety Certified Farms in Hawai'i). With the FSMA compliance deadline for small businesses and for very small businesses, Oahu farmers and many other small farmers around the nation are ill prepared to meet these new federal requirements. It is predicted that up to 30% of the small farms in Hawai'i may go out of business due to the cost and administrative overhead required to secure GAP certification (Enright, 2016). Within this farm population, we find the market is naturally segmented by geography, topography, crop type, and micro-climates. Through conversations with local farmers, unions and cooperatives / food hubs, we found that the vast majority of small- to medium-sized farms are looking for agtech solutions, but adoption of technology is constrained based on cost and ROI, ease of use, and complications in connectivity in rural areas. Small- and medium-sized farms are often constrained to small markets by the volume and lack of consistency in their crop production. Farmers, reluctant to produce more than what their markets can buy, are adopting participation in food hubs to access a new sales channel that is more receptive to variations in production. Language presents a larger barrier for education, with 59% of the primary farm operators of ethnic minorities. As such, food hubs and cooperatives play a large roll supporting small- to medium-sized farming operations, allowing them to realize economies of scale as well as providing access to larger markets and distribution channels with higher profits. The regional economic impact can be profound as higher production leads to increased sales, additional jobs, a growing tax base, and increased investment in agriculture. Many of these farms are adopting or plan to adopt programs like Group Good Agricultural Practices (GroupGAP). Strategic alignment with food hubs provides an ideal alignment between their collective objectives and ours and also provides a means to enter and serve a large regional market and attain traction quickly. Our Phase I project partner, the North Shore Economic Vitality Partnership (North Shore EVP), provides GroupGAP services to its supplying growers via a training program. This program is focused on assisting farms that have a high probability of completing the training, implementing GAP practices, and subsequently attaining and maintaining their certification. Affordability is a primary motivation for farmers adopting GroupGAP. To keep costs low, GroupGAP organizers may seek to increase the number of farms in the group so that the shared resources (internal auditors, trainers, etc.) are used most efficiently. Based on this strategic partnership, the profile of a potential GAP-App customer includes: Small- to medium-size farm generating $10K-$500K annually in sales. Already in production and selling into established markets. May now be required by their customers to have GAP certification. Have land that is not in production (opportunity to scale). Eager to access new markets and increase sales. Want a head start preparing for full FSMA compliance. Supporting cooperatives and their suppliers plays a critical role in supporting small- to medium-sized farming operations. During training of their first cohort, North Shore EVP realized that the resources needed to manage log sheets on each farm were quite significant and that the effort required to manage paperwork for over 100 farms would likely require additional personnel dedicated to managing documents. The target audience of our current efforts have been focused on interviews with stakeholders and include: NSEVP farms from cohort 1 and 2 - 20 Farms 20 Other Hawaii Farmers not in Group GAP Auditors: Hawaii Department of Agriculture - Jeri Kahana, Albert Loui Joshua Silva (University of Hawaii Extension), Luisa Castro, Produce Safety Coordinator, Hawaii Audrey Draper, USDA Audit Programs Coordinator, Specialty Crops Inspection Division and USDA GroupGAP Coordinator National private cooperative Jacobs Farm Delcabo (500+ acres outdoor, 22+ acres greenhouse covering California, Mexico). Changes/Problems:Regulatory Market Changes: Midway through Phase I (August 2018) U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) announced that the Harmonized Good Agricultural Practices (GAP) Plus+ audit program for specialty crops is now accepted as technically equivalent by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI). This means that producers who use this audit program now also meet other U.S. and international regulatory and market requirements. This international recognition cuts down on paperwork, saves money and time, and ultimately grows markets for American farmers. Additionally, Technical Equivalence means USDA can now provide a single audit that meets U.S. and international regulatory and market-driven food safety requirements. The USDA program fulfills the technical requirements of the GFSI, the Food and Drug Administration's Food Safety Modernization Act Produce Safety Rule, the industry-driven Produce GAP Harmonization Initiative and industry best practices in the United States. Harmonized GAP as the central agenda for training. Pulling standard GAP out and allowing a premium model using Harmonized GAP. USDA Harmonized GAP Audit Produce Safety Rule Inspection Market Access Audit USDA Harmonized GAP audits are a way to demonstrate to buyers that you have met the requirements of the Harmonized GAP Initiative and essentially implemented the requirements of the Produce Safety Rule Regulatory Inspection Regulatory inspections are a way to demonstrate to Federal or State regulators that you are complying with the requirements of the Produce Safety Rule. - Confirms compliance with Produce Harmonized GAP Standard - Aligns with Produce Safety Rule technical requirements - Confirms compliance with Produce Safety Rule - Voluntary - Mandatory - Annually upon request - No predetermined frequency - Fee for service - No cost to producer - USDA-licensed auditor - Regulatory inspector - USDA certification of meeting audit standard and acceptance criteria - Result on USDA website - Documentation provided - Significant deficiencies recorded for correction USDA GAP Service Tiers Market Access Need: Global Food Safety Equivalence FDA FSMA Produce Safety Rule Produce GAP Harmonization Industry & FDA Best Practices USDA Harmonized GAP Plus + X X X X USDA Harmonized GAP X X X USDA GAP & GHP X Changes in cohort structure and training. Cohort 1 farmers met in a group for every class but few in the group actually attended all sessions. For Cohort 2 we moved to online meetings, and this enabled farmers to attend independent of physical constraints (i.e. traffic, attending an event off farm, out of town, etc). While the online class meeting seems to be more convenient, we did facilitate a physical meeting space with a laptop or computer to access the online class platform as well so that farmers could meet together if they wished, so that there was a designated place to go, and in case someone did not have a way to get online and join the meeting on their own. Cohorts 1 and 2 both met over the course of a few months, with 2-3 weeks in between class meetings. This was planned to try to prevent overload and to allow for flexibility with farm schedules, family, and holidays. Despite this planning, some farmers had to miss class due to work schedules (with their other jobs) and other obligations.We will attempt to move through the class material more quickly in Cohort 3 by planning for the class meetings to be held weekly or at most every other week, reducing the overall spread of time that the group will meet all together. Challenges with North Shore EVP cohort farms not ready for audit. Delays, farms not keeping logs for audit. Refocus efforts on the process first, gain a better understanding of the barriers to farmers in record keeping with how things are currently done. Background Tech and Food Safety: Survey finds slow take-up of digital methods to enhance food safety The survey by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and DNV GL, a certification body, published at the recent GFSI conference in France found that almost four in 10 companies plan to use technology to ensure food safety in the long term. Less than one in 10 companies said new digital technology is playing a role to a "great extent' in food safety, according to a survey of more than 1,600 industry experts. Uncertainty of utilizing any technology, even presenting mockups etc adds little value in getting to the UX/UI. Adjusted objectives and tasks, we brought in Lisa Brett, a UX/UI expert to support the process flow. Technology Testing within farmer cohort: Training time is spent on teaching farmers how to record the necessary logs (restroom cleaning, harvest, worker training, and pesticide logs) --2-3 hours easily spent on introduction (and repetition) of each log and what information needs to be included plus time spent with individual farmers who have more questions/need more help. Electronic logs could take less farmer time especially if they can include prompts (did you record your restroom cleaning today?) and if they are mobile (no need to wait until you are back at a desk or the packing shed, you can record in real time in the field) plus they have a time/date stamp. Electronic logs can be sent directly to partners and auditors via email without needing to scan paper documents, and can be easily organized by type of log/month/year. Testing to see how easy it is for farmers in GroupGAP to collaborate and share app training information Compare cohort 1 vs 2? what worked vs what didn't work? Cohort 1 farmers met in a group for every class but few in the group actually attended all sessions. For Cohort 2 we moved to online meetings, and this enabled farmers to attend independent of physical constraints (i.e. traffic, attending an event off farm, out of town, etc). While the online class meeting seems to be more convenient, we did facilitate a physical meeting space with a laptop or computer to access the online class platform as well so that farmers could meet together if they wished, so that there was a designated place to go, and in case someone did not have a way to get online and join the meeting on their own. Cohorts 1 and 2 both met over the course of a few months, with 2-3 weeks in between class meetings. This was planned to try to prevent overload and to allow for flexibility with farm schedules, family, and holidays. Despite this planning, some farmers had to miss class due to work schedules (with their other jobs) and other obligations. We will attempt to move through the class material more quickly in Cohort 3 by planning for the class meetings to be held weekly or at most every other week, reducing the overall spread of time that the group will meet all together. ? Testing how easy it is to pull up the types of information needed for an audit on-the-fly (re: time savings, accuracy of data search, accuracy of response data coding) ? Understanding the impact of an electronic data input system on adherence and compliance Farmers in our cohorts have consistently communicated that an electronic system for record keeping would be easier for them to fill out, records will be more accurate because they're being filled out on time, and could potentially help them remember what records need to be filled out on a daily/monthly basis. They also report that paper records become so cumbersome, either because they require such a large quantity of records &/or because they run out of/need more copies, that they stop using them. An electronic system doesn't take up room, can be mobile, and can also be designed to prompt the farmer to log an activity, amendment, task, etc. Additionally electronic record keeping provides a time/date stamp to the log sheet, reducing the potential for falsifying records and provides the farm with accuracy in recording.? What opportunities for training and professional development has the project provided?During the Phase I period of performance, we realized that current technologies are not supporting small farmers. The survey by the Global Food Safety Initiative (GFSI) and DNV GL, a certification body, published at the recent GFSI conference in France found that almost four in 10 companies plan to use technology to ensure food safety in the long term. Less than one in 10 companies said new digital technology is playing a role to a "great extent' in food safety, according to a survey of more than 1,600 industry experts. Add HAACP training elements in the design and flow of product and people. Getting them to think about design and risk will help them assess current process flows and procedures. Train farmers through the auditor process, help them audit each other's farms in the GroupGAP program - train-the-trainer, allowing them to also become teachers. GroupGAP requires that at least one person on the farm, typically the owner or farm manager, has completed the training. It is the responsibility of that person to train the remaining workers on that farm To that end, our GroupGAP training is process focused to the owner / manager, and outcome focused to help them educate and manage the workers. We have found that providing un understanding of the dependencies between the group's quality management system and the farm's individual farm food safety plan, the GAP data log sheets, and the auditor checklists helps instill a deeper understanding of why certain data are recorded. More importantly, the trainees begin to think like auditors instead of record keepers. Accompany each lesson with 2 minute videos. 2 minutes is the optimal length for a use to consume a video with the most retention and comprehension. (Many already exist at State of Agriculture, USDA, University of Hawaii) If food safety documentation must occur concurrently with the farmer's chores, match a partner / ag student (FFA/4H) with the farmer to do the documenting as the farmer moves though the field. Begin the learning and familiarity at the beginning of a farmer's career, through Centers of Excellence, technical training, high schools. How have the results been disseminated to communities of interest?Results have been disseminated to the following communities of interest NSEVP GroupGAP GoFarm Early Farmer training Hawaii Farm Bureau Federation Hawaii Farmers Union United Hawaii Department of Agriculture Quality Control Division ? 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 goals of Phase I focused on gaining a deeper understanding of how the components of data and record keeping of GAP within the GroupGAP structure are conducted, specifically from the farmer needs in how they record data and how it is organized and then used for logs and reports. The key emphasis on the user interface to input data either through timed entry using paper records as well as assessing what's currently out there: software, apps and other record keeping tools. Also, what farmers, food hubs - internal auditors and external auditors see value, usability and what current tools they using, what these tools lack and how best the GAP App would support the process. A core lesson learned in this research is the process is more important than the technology, and the technology must allow for flexibility based on how the farmer interacts with the tool. Something clearly evident when testing other tools and the lack of use from the farmers side.? 1) Process, Time & Value Accomplishment: Quantitatively documenting how much time is spent on training for data entry and record keeping and maintaining logs and time required for reporting amongst the cohort 1 and 2 farmers was crucial to attain a baseline time value. This contributed to where and how the technology can support the process, thereby reducing the time required to successfully maintain these records, making reporting a simple process. During training of their first cohort, North Shore EVP saw that the resources needed to manage log sheets on each farm were quite significant and that the effort required to manage paperwork for over 100 farms would likely require additional personnel dedicated to managing documents. This opened up a key perspective of using technology to help manage the reviewers both internal and external auditors. Hours Cost Current Method 725 $18,119 Proposed using GAP App 408 $10,203 Potential Savings 317 $7,916 Table 1: Comparing current method of GAP certification vs proposed with the GAP App Time Value (Hours) Proposed Time Savings using GAP App (Hours) Create Food Safety Plan 100 100 Establish documentation and record keeping process 12 12 Worker Education & Training Manager Training 10 annual 8 annual Harvest & Handler Training 3 annual 2.5 annual Pesticide Training 2 annual 1.5 annual Visitor & Contractor Training 0.5 each visit 0.5 each visit Lab Sampling & Testing Process & Data Storage Traceability Inputs Documentation 1 daily 0.25 daily Farm information, field & harvest date 1 daily 0.25 daily Recall & Corrective Action Process and Plan 2 annually 1.5 annually Self Audit 3 annually 2 annually Field History & Assessment Health / Hygiene & Toilet / Handwashing Facilities Restroom cleaning and restocking logs 1 daily 0.25 daily Map of field sanitation 1 daily 0.5 daily Field Sanitation service contract report 0.5 weekly 0.25 weekly Employee Food Safety Training log 0.5 monthly 0.5 monthly Chemical and Plant Protection Pesticide Record Book 1 quarterly 0.5 quarterly Certificate license and information 3 annual 0.5 annual Water Risk Assessment Sources & Uses Documentation 3 monthly 2 monthly Water Management Plan 2 annual 1 annual Animal Control Risk Assessment Annual Self Audit 10 annual 10 annual Animal & Wildlife Monitoring Logs 0.5 daily 0.5 daily Pre-Harvest Risk Assessment 0.5 daily 0.5 daily Farm Map 2 monthly 1.5 monthly Soil Amendment Risk Assessment Manure Application Records 0.5 as required 0.5 as required Purchased compost records and certificate of analysis 1 annual 0.5 annual Farm Map 1 annual 0.5 annual Vehicles, Equipment, Tools and Utensils Agricultural inputs list 0.5 annual 0.5 annual Equipment list 0.5 monthly 0.25 monthly Equipment cleaning logs 0.5 daily 0.25 daily Pre-Harvest Risk Assessment Pre-Harvest Checklist 0.5 each harvest 0.5 each harvest Water treatment logs 0.5 each harvest 0.5 each harvest Employee Food Safety Training log 1 each harvest 1 each harvest Transportation Vehicle checklist 0.5 as required 0.25 as required Table 2: Deeper assessment of current method of GAP certification vs proposed with the GAP App 2) Technical Software Accomplishments: During the Phase I project, we performed a feasibility study of the software implementation. We managed to identify software architecture and key software components. The software design for this project constitutes two main distinct sections: the back-end (Service Layer) and the front-end (User Interface -UI). We have identified the architecture and various software components and implementation environments for each of these sections: Back-end. Main components for the back-end are the service layer, database and the API. The back-end resides in the cloud (server space). The service layer is the behind the scenes storage, logic and command center for the system. The back-end is the part in the system that is hidden to most users (except expert users). The service layer communicates with databases (DB) which store all the data vital to the system and the user. This data includes information entered by the users (form data), authentication (username, password), and data automatically collected by the application (such as geotagging). Database: There are two main database implementation schemes in use currently: a) the Data First method (older architecture) and b) the Code First method (newer architecture). Each method has its benefits and complications related to short term implementation and long term maintenance. During the Phase I feasibility study we implemented a prototype Code First database which seemed to satisfy the needs of the project. We will continue this route for the Phase II project. Application Programming Interface (API): The API opens the back-end to the outside world (e.g. front-end). The API provides a unified set of functions and methods to call those functions that will allow the front-end to interact with the service layer and the database. We will use proper documentation using modern languages to maximize flexibility and minimize the need for re-coding. Front-end. The main components for the front-end is the User Interface (UI). The UI resides on the user's PC, tablet or mobile device and includes the following components: Graphical User Interface (GUI) Local storage Peripherals (geotagging, voice commands,...) Figure 2 shows the overall architecture and various software components as discussed in this narrative. 3) UX & Methodology Assessment Accomplishments: See Methodology Accomplishments: Key learnings about the farmers: Primary motivation: the satisfaction they get when their produce is appreciated, and the collaboration with customers. Money is a factor to care for their families and keep the farm business going. There is much confusion between the various certifications (i.e., FSMA, GAP, GROUP GAP, HARMONIZED GAP). The challenge for each farmer is their own perception of capabilities. To create useful and usable tools and solutions, a baseline for each farmer has to be quickly and accurately understood: the farmers' day-to-day processes crop cycles Situational context: Feelings of burnout Loss of compassion Financial stresses Fears: Security issues Inability to find enough time to treat their land well. Farmers do not learn best through book learning, in a classroom setting. Understanding: these cognitive factors will influence their receptiveness to anything new and different; user experience and design is crucial. See Recommendations. 4) Food Safety Competitive Analysis Accomplishment: See Full document.
Publications
|