Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023 - 146

EA checklist), developed by the research team. The checklist
was based on the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Harmonized GAP standards and the Produce Safety Alliance
grower training curriculum (58, 68). It included items in
eight categories: (i) farm information; (ii) worker health
and hygiene; (iii) agricultural water; (iv) animal control; (v)
BSAAO; (vi) harvesting and packing; (vii) storage and transportation;
and (viii) miscellaneous. A postharvest addendum
checklist (Supplemental Material for the postharvest addendum
checklist) was also created to assess PA on farms engaged in
postharvest practices. This checklist was completed if growers
responded to selected items in the EA checklist. In the
postharvest addendum checklist, there were three assessment
postharvest categories: (i) handling and sanitization; (ii) processing;
and (iii) storage and transportation. Both checklists
were reviewed by two produce safety experts for relevance
and clarity of all items, and revisions were made on the basis
of feedback. Both checklists were then pilot tested on two
Florida strawberry farms. A coding manual (Supplemental
Material for Coding Manual) was also developed to define
the coding process of categorical data into numeric values.
Data collection
On-farm assessments were conducted between June
2020 and October 2020. Each farm was assigned a unique
identification number. Data collection started with the
EA checklist. Data were recorded by checking " yes " if
PA were present and " no " if PA were absent. Additional
details relevant to items in each category were recorded in
the " comments " or " additional comments " sections of the
checklist. A map of the farm layout was also drawn, including
location of all farm features, such as strawberry production
fields, potential contamination sources (e.g., BSSAO piles,
animal enclosures), and farm structures (e.g., agriculture
water well, postharvest facility, bathrooms, handwashing
stations [HWS], and fences). A farm layout for 18 farms
was drawn on a downloadable 0.25-cm grid sheet (https://
willcarletonacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/
small-graph-paper.pdf), and the layout for six farms was
prepared by using Google Maps (29); both methods were
used for 4 (20%) of 20 farms. The shortest and longest
distances between toilets and/or HWS and produce
handling areas were measured by using a Zozen collapsible
measuring wheel (ACOOJ, Hebei SNDAS Survey and
Draw, Hebeisheng, China). The shortest distances between
contamination sources and produce handling areas and
water sources were also measured by using the same Zozen
collapsible measuring wheel. The PSR currently does not
state how far contamination sources (e.g., animal enclosures
and BSAAO storage areas) should be from production fields
or agricultural water sources; therefore, alternative sources
were used to identify safe distances. According to the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, a drinking water well
should be located a minimum of 50 ft (15.2 m) and 250 ft
146 Food Protection Trends March/April
(76.2 m) from a livestock yard and manure pile, respectively,
to minimize potential contamination (12). In this study, we
defined a safe distance from strawberry production fields
and agricultural water sources as >50 ft (15.2 m) from an
animal enclosure and >250 ft (76.2 m) from the BSAAO
storage area. Data collectors completed a data collection form
checklist to ensure all steps of the data collection process
were finalized before leaving the farm. The tools required
for data collection were provided to data collectors by the
research team to better ensure consistency of assessments.
Data management and analysis
All data were entered into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet
(Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA) and coded according
to the coding manual. All entered data were checked for
accuracy by one research team member. Descriptive statistics
on all variables were performed to determine frequency (i.e.,
presence) of PA by using JMP software (version 14.1; SAS
Institute Inc., Cary, NC). The PA score was calculated on
the basis of the presence or absence of observed PA for each
checklist category. A value of 1 was assigned, if the PA was
present, and a value of 0 was given, if the PA was not present.
To calculate the PA score for each category, the number of PA
present was divided by the total possible for each category.
This value was expressed as a percentage. Selected farm PA,
not having an impact on RMP implementation, were not
used to calculate PA scores. For example, the availability of
a harvest cart on a farm to harvest strawberries was not used
to calculate the PA scores, because its purpose is to increase
worker productivity, rather than decrease food safety risks
(4). Practices reported by growers to implement RMP were
also not used to calculate the PA scores (e.g., collecting water
samples for testing), because our aim was to report PA associated
with implementation of RMP, not actual implementation
of a specific practice.
RESULTS
A total of 20 farms from 10 SE states (Alabama, Arkansas,
Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma,
Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia) participated in the study.
These 20 farms included 2 farms each from Alabama,
Arkansas, Georgia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas,
and Virginia, 3 farms from North Carolina, and 1 farm
from Mississippi. The assessment data from those 20 farms
were used for the analysis. Responses for each item varied,
as all items in the EA checklist and postharvest addendum
checklist were not applicable to all farms or were not
recorded. For the latter, although this could have been due to
the absence of the PA, the study team did not assume this;
thus, in those instances, data were coded as missing.
Farm characteristics
Farm characteristics, including farm size, worker number,
and worker type are in Table 1. The average acreage was
https://willcarletonacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/small-graph-paper.pdf https://willcarletonacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/small-graph-paper.pdf https://willcarletonacademy.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/small-graph-paper.pdf
Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - March/April 2023
