Food Protection Trends - March/April 2018 - 117

some college practiced packing facility GAPs. Those with
an education level of high school or less reported the lowest
usage of packing facility GAPs (38%).
Farmers' knowledge of on-farm sources of
contamination
Respondents were given a list of microbiological contamination sources and asked to select all that they believed
were a risk on a farm. Each contamination source on the list
is a risk identified in the USDA GAPs audit checklist, and
consequently, the correct answer would have been to select
all of the items on the list. However, survey results indicated that many sources of contamination were not believed
by respondents to be potential sources of microbiological
contamination (Table 5). Wild and domestic animal intrusion on farm-use land was most commonly identified as a
source of microbiological contamination, with three-quarters
(75%) of respondents identifying this risk. Animal manure
was the second most commonly identified risk, among 65%
of respondents. Only 58% of respondents identified workers'
clothing and hands as possible sources of microbiological
contamination. Slightly more than half (52%) of respondents
identified transport containers, irrigation water (51%), and
cross-contamination in storage, display, or preparation
(51%) as possible vectors for microbiological contamination. Less than half of respondents believed transport
vehicles (45%), inadequately composted manure (44%),
harvesting equipment (42%), or soil (41%) to be possible
sources of microbiological contamination. Only 36% of
respondents indicated that produce wash and rinse water
can be potential cause of microbiological contamination.
Furthermore, a relatively small number of respondents indicated that microbiological contamination could come from
refrigeration or cooling (28%) and ice (26%).
No relationship was found between the respondents'
knowledge of sources of microbiological contamination
and level of education (Table 6). Although sources of
contamination were generally identified by a larger
percentage of respondents with a college degree than of
those with only a high school diploma or less, no significant
differences were observed, and a minority of respondents
answered in the affirmative on more than half of all data
categories. These findings closely support the data presented
in Table 6 and continue to suggest that Kentucky farmers
are inadequately informed on the risks of pathogenic
transmission present on their farm operation.
Obstacles in GAPs implementation
Growers were asked about the obstacles that prevented
them from implementing GAPs (Fig. 1). Lack of time (68%)
to undergo auditing and the cost of certification (67%) were
the two most salient perceived barriers. Forty percent of the
respondents believed that investing in GAPs certification
would not provide a worthwhile return, while 35% of

respondents believed that a lack of access to training and
educational opportunities on GAPs would be an obstacle
to certification. Slightly more than a quarter of respondents
(27%) believed that being unsure of how to prioritize
GAPs would be a barrier to certification, while 26% of
respondents identified a lack of technical solutions as a
barrier to a GAPs audit. Lack of knowledge of GAPs was the
least-selected perceived barrier to GAPs certification among
respondents (17%).
DISCUSSION
Although 90% of fresh produce growers surveyed indicated
familiarity with GAPs, current farming practices used on
farms may increase the potential for on-farm pathogenic
contamination and subsequent risk of foodborne illnesses.
Water is necessary for the production of fresh produce;
however, poor quality water can be a direct cause of
contamination of agricultural crops. Water quality is vital
to effective food safety practices on a farm, as irrigation
and post-harvest water both provide common vectors for
pathogens to contaminate fresh produce (3) and spread
contamination from one location to another. Salmonella and
E. coli O157:H7, the pathogens most often associated with
fresh produce contamination, can survive at 5°C for over 9
months (25). In the current study, reported adherence to
water quality management was found to be low, with only
47% of respondents choosing to mitigate microbiological
contamination in farm use water with GAPs. Only 29%
of the participants used tested well water on their farms.
These results are similar to results of previous surveys in
other regions that have reported low rates of routine testing
of irrigation water. Marine, Martin, Adalja, Mathew, &
Everts (18) reported that 48.5% of growers in 2010 and
23.4% of growers in 2013 used surface water at least some
of the time. The same survey also found that only 25% of all
growers tested their irrigation water at least once a year for
generic E. coli as an indicator of fecal contamination (18).
Bihn et al. (2013) reported that more than half (57%) of
New York fruit and vegetable growers used surface water to
irrigate their crops, but less than 19% of those who applied
surface water overhead reported testing the water for any
indicators of fecal contamination (3). Additionally, a 2005
study found that only 18% of small-scale farmers tested
groundwater (6). Surface water is recognized to be the source
most likely to be contaminated. Potential sources of surface
water contamination include raw human and animal wastes,
sewage water discharges, manure storage or waste disposal.
Wildlife is an additional source of contamination that is very
difficult to control. Surface water was found to be the main
Salmonella reservoir in Mid-Atlantic tomato farms (19).
In 2005, a Salmonella Newport strain isolated from pond
water used to irrigate tomato fields on the eastern shore of
Virginia was traced back to a multistate outbreak strain (11).
Under the FSMA produce safety rule, the FDA set food

March/April Food Protection Trends

117

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