Food Protection Trends - November/December 2022 - 462

to agricultural water use in both production and postharvest
stages, as well as their understanding of the microbial quality
of agricultural water. Questions included grower age, farm
location, water testing frequency, and water usage for both
production and postharvest activities.
The data were analyzed in Qualtrics using the cross-tabulation
analysis method (10, 11) (also known as contingency
table analysis) to identify the growers' knowledge of microbial
risks related to different water sources and how they handle
those risks. Cross-tabulation analysis compares the results of
different questions from the same respondent to gain more
insight into grower water quality management behaviors based
on the risk of their water source. For example, growers who indicated
that they did not treat their water source but indicated
that they used a municipal water source (which is treated by
a third-party company) were considered to have a safe water
management practice. The responses from questions related
to production or postharvest water uses, treatment application
status, and microbial water quality test frequency were classified
by use of different water sources (surface, ground, and
municipal water). The data from any questions that allowed
respondents to provide an open-ended response were added to
existing responses, or a new category of responses was added
to the question, based on the key words in those responses.
For example, a separate category was created for growers who
wrote they used water from a rain barrel when selecting " other "
water for their water source.
Growers were asked whether they were good agricultural
practices (GAP) certified (rather than whether they were
covered by the FSMA PSR) because the project team felt
that growers would be more comfortable responding to
the question of GAP certification, rather than FSMA PSR
coverage. Accordingly, responses to the questions about
water testing and water treatment were stratified based on
grower GAP certification status. Although GAP certification
is generally a produce buyer requirement and is not a
regulatory requirement, many growers view certification as an
opportunity to improve their likelihood of compliance with
the PSR. Thus, many growers covered by the PSR also obtain
GAP certification.
Because some respondents did not answer all of the survey
questions, the total number of responses to each question
related to water sources in the cross-tabulation analysis may
be different. Additionally, the total number of responses for
questions regarding agricultural water source use could differ
because growers may have reported using more than one water
source for one or more pre- or postharvest activities. To reduce
item nonresponse bias, surveys with fewer than two-thirds of the
questions completed were excluded from the final data analysis.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Results
A total of 106 survey responses were received. Of the 103
responses included in the final data analysis, 51 (49.5%) were
462 Food Protection Trends November/December
from Kansas, 50 (48.5%) were from Missouri, one (1.0%) was
marked as unknown, and one (1.0%) did not complete the
question. Growers completing the survey were in these age
ranges: 18 to 29 (n = 18, 17.5%), 30 to 39 (n = 15, 14.6%), 40
to 49 (n = 26, 25.2%), 50 to 59 (n = 19, 18.5%), and above 60
(n = 25, 24.3%) years old. Most respondents (n = 90) were
currently selling or planning to sell their produce to others.
Most respondents (n = 87) were currently not GAP certified,
as shown in Table 1.
Participants who indicated that they were currently growing
fresh produce (n = 101) reported frequency of generic E. coli
testing as follows: more than once a year (n = 14, 13.9%), once a
year (n = 11, 10.9%), two to three times in the last 10 years (n =
11, 10.9%), once in the last 10 years (n = 7, 6.9%), never tested (n
= 39, 38.6%). Some reported that a third-party water source tested
their water (n = 19, 18.8%). Of Kansas growers, 31.4% (n = 16)
said that they had tested their water in the past 10 years, compared
with 55.1% (n = 27) of Missouri growers (Table 1). Of the growers
indicating they were GAP certified (n = 14), 10 (71.4%) reported
testing their water more than once a year and six (46.2%) reported
that they treated their postharvest water sources. Of the non-GAPcertified
growers (n = 87), four (4.6%) tested their water more
than once a year and 15 (17.4%) treated their postharvest water
sources (Tables 2 and 3). Because the questions inquiring about
the type of water source used for production and postharvest
applications allowed for more than one response, the total number
of responses varied by question, as shown in Fig. 1.
Municipal (n = 48, 35.6%), well (n = 34, 25.2%), pond
(n = 23, 17.0%), and rain barrel (n = 20, 14.8%) water sources
were the most commonly reported sources of production water
(Fig. 1). Municipal (n = 67, 59.8%) and well water (n = 25,
22.1%) were the most commonly reported water sources for
postharvest water. Based on the number of responses for each
water source, respondents appeared to commonly utilize more
sources of water for production applications (n = 135) than
postharvest (n = 113) applications.
Participants also reported their applications of production and
postharvest water (Fig. 2). Of the survey respondents (n = 101),
90 (89.1%) indicated that they used production water in their
operation. The three main reported uses of production water
included irrigation (n = 90, 100%), mixing with crop sprays
(n = 38, 42.2%), and mixing with fertilizers (n = 38, 42.2%).
Of those growers that reported using water for irrigation, 70
(77.8%) reported using drip irrigation, 37 (41.1%) reported
using overhead irrigation, and 20 (22.2%) reported using drip
irrigation under plastic. Furthermore, 90 (89.1%) indicated
that they used postharvest water in their operation. These
growers reported their main uses of postharvest water to be for
handwashing (n = 77, 85.6%), rinsing and washing produce
(n = 73, 81.1%), and cleaning and sanitizing of food contact
surfaces (n = 68, 75.6%). Other uses of postharvest water
reported included ice making (n = 7, 7.8%), dunk tank cooling
(n = 6, 6.7%), single pass or spray cooling (n = 4, 4.4%), and
postharvest fungicide or wax applications (n = 3, 3.3%).
Food Protection Trends - November/December 2022

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Food Protection Trends - November/December 2022
