Food Protection Trends - March/April 2018 - 120

use of pesticides, soil amendments or other chemicals. Ice was
the lowest-reported source of microbiological contamination
in the current study. Wild animal intrusion was identified as a
source of contamination by a majority of participants, similar
to the results of a 2013 survey of growers in Maryland and Delaware, in which 76% of participants reported awareness of the
implications of wild animal intrusion and exclusion on their
farms (18). Previous research has indicated that growers may
possess a fatalistic attitude about wild animal intrusion on farm
land, with surveyed growers in a 2012 study reporting that they
believed they could not control the presence of wild animals
on their farm (21). A second 2012 survey of growers in the
Midwest United States found that growers often believed that
wild animal exclusion required too great an economic investment for them to implement it on their farm (14).
Respondents perceived cost and lack of time to be
considerable obstacles to GAPs certification on their farm.
This finding is in agreement with findings of a 2007 multistate survey of growers that also found cost and lack of
time to be the two most commonly perceived barriers to
audit completion (15). Surprisingly, surveys conducted
in Delaware and Maryland in 2013 reported that cost of
auditing was believed to be a barrier by less than 10% of
participants, with the majority of participants believing
that their farm was too small to qualify for a GAPs audit or
that they did not possess enough knowledge to satisfy the
GAPs criteria (18). Additionally, a 2012 study conducted
across the Midwestern United States found that the majority
of participants did not perceive costs to be a barrier (14).
Previous case studies of the cost of GAPs certification in
the Northeastern United States found that the mean cost
of certification was $3,268 for each crop certified, with a
mean of 322 hours of labor per year needed for GAPs-related
labor (2). The third most highly reported perceived barrier
to GAPs certification was the belief that money invested in
GAPs would not provide a useful return on investment to the
farmer. However, previous case studies have indicated that
in the event of a foodborne illness traced to a GAPs-certified
farm, the farm suffers significantly less economic impact
than a non-GAPs certified farm, raising the possibility that
further education on the benefits of GAPs certification may
encourage auditing (23). However, market volatility in the
aftermath of a foodborne illness outbreak linked to produce
sold at a farmers' market may nullify the positive effects of
GAPs certification (24).
More than 85% of participants indicated interest in training
opportunities to enhance their knowledge of GAPs. When
asked what types of training they preferred, more than 90%
indicated that they would like online training on a website
or videos, and about 65% indicated that they were interested
in workshops. Results support the need for development of
educational materials and practical training for producers.
Similar findings indicated that 40% of surveyed farmers
wanted food safety education materials that they could

120

Food Protection Trends March/April

give to their workers (12). Increasing training programs
for farmers who are not GAPs certified but are selling their
produce directly to consumers could enhance the safety of
locally grown produce.
This study has some strengths and limitations. One limitation is that these results cannot be generalized to a larger population because of the relatively low overall response rate and
non-probability sampling technique employed to gather data
from participants. However, our use of purposive sampling
design provided information-rich cases, which allowed for the
examination of patterns among farmers included in our analysis. The farmers' markets were selected from different regions
in Kentucky with varying degrees of population size and density. For example, farmers' markets in Louisville and Lexington
were included in our sample as these two cities represent the
largest metropolitan areas in Kentucky; farmers' markets in
Bowling Green, Elizabethtown, Owensboro, and Paducah were
included because they represent medium-sized metropolitan
areas surrounded by rural counties; and farmers' markets
located in rural counties in different regions of the state were
included. The intent of this purposive sampling strategy was
to ensure that we obtained data from a sample of farmers who
work and grow their produce in different regions in Kentucky
and sell their produce in markets of different sizes.
CONCLUSION
This survey research returned mixed results, indicating
a wide range of food safety practices and attitudes present
on Kentucky farms. In general, respondents appeared
to have a relatively little understanding of food safety
practices. Results indicated that respondents possessed
relatively little understanding of behavior of pathogens
in environments found on farm operations, including
sources of contamination in water, soil, and manure; during
transportation, and by other means. The utilization of GAPs
reported by respondents in the survey indicated relatively
little general usage of GAPs, with some severe deficiencies,
particularly in water usage and soil safety practices. The
study also found that the obstacles perceived by farmers
to GAPs certification are cost and lack of time, suggesting
that food safety educators in Kentucky must overcome
these perceptions to increase acceptance of GAPs among
Kentucky farmers. The findings support the conclusion that
further educational outreach to Kentucky farmers is needed
to ensure safer fresh produce in the farmers' market farm-tofork supply chain in Kentucky.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This research was supported by Agriculture and Food
Research Initiative Competitive Grant no. 2014-69003-21583
from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - March/April 2018