The Opening Markets project Audrey Kreske Family and Consumer Sciences North Carolina State University *Funded by Carolina Farm Stewardship Association*

Jaquith Strawberry Farm  Rural Washington county, Oregon  35 acre strawberry producer – 4 rth generation  Escherichia coli O157:H7 outbreak  15 sick  4 hospitalized  2 suffered kidney failure  1 died

Jaquith Berries  Sold to nearly 20 buyers and to the public at the farm or roadside stands, farmers markets and retail outlets  Hand written lists of buyers – sometimes only first names  Berries changed hands often – Buyers to Farmers Markets to Consumers  Lab tests confirmed that deer feces found in fields was the source  Deer – natural reservoir for E. coli O157:H7  Pickers should have noticed deer feces  Recalls of 4,800 flats announced by Ron Spada Farms of Portland and Growers Outlet

The Process  USDA GAP certification  Good agricultural practices Parts 1 and 2  Good handling practices Parts 3 and 4  Grading (80% to pass)  Points 5, 10, 15, no partial points  N/A  $92/hour  Conducting the audit, travel time and preparatory time  Unannounced 2 nd visit (separate cost )  In operation less than 30 days  Submit food safety manual for review

GAP certification

Opening Markets project  12 farms across NC with <30 acres  One hour visits  Survey and onsite evaluation  Self diaries  Flip cam  Providing food safety manual templates and other documents  Determining economic impact

Participating farms  Growing method  Labor  Full/part-time  Seasons in operation  Commodity diversity  Livestock  Current markets  Direct to market, wholesale  Water source  Bathrooms  Liability insurance

Farm characteristics  Growing method  7 out of 12 certified organic  House bathroom  7 out of 12  Dog on property  5 out of 12  Fencing  3 out of 12 with no fencing  Irrigation water  4 out of 12 well water only  Livestock on property  5 out of 12  Employees  9 out of 12

Risk reduction on the farm  Water source (production and wash water)  Application method (microsprinkler/drip)  Testing/treatment  Animals  Domestic and wildlife  Livestock  Used for weed/pest control  Worker health and hygiene  Traffic patterns

Risk reduction on the farm  Manure/composting  Definitions (raw manure/green)  Composting method  Active/passive  Application time  90/120 days  Crop rotation  Bathroom and hand washing  House bathroom

Risk reduction on the farm  Equipment/containers  Cleaning/sanitizing  Packaging  Reuse  Facilities/storage  Cleaning/sanitizing  Pest control  Traceability  Mock recalls  Quality  Sprouts

Barriers identified ① Language of the document ② Misinformation ③ Time ④ Documentation ⑤ Buyer expectations ⑥ Site specific risk recognition/audit requirements

Next steps  GAP guidance document  Economic impact of GAPs  Summer 2012 certification

Conclusions  Several routes of contamination….  No kill step when produce is consumed raw  Outbreaks have shown that microorganisms survive and cause infection  Good Agricultural Practices can be attained  Ultimately reducing risks on the farm regardless of GAP implementation is important

Thank You Audrey Kreske, PhD Questions?? *Funded by Carolina Farm Stewardship Association*