|  |
Small Farm Food Safety, Fresh Produce, Part 4: Farm Map Activity1
Brian Lapinski, Amy Simonne and M.E. Swisher 2Time Required: 8 minutes
Materials for Trainer
- Farm Map Activity
Advance Preparation for Trainer
- Review "Guide to Minimize Microbial Food Safety Hazards for Fresh Fruits and Vegetables," U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, October 1998.
- Preview materials in this section to prepare yourself to facilitate the learning experience.
Materials for participants
- Farm Map Activity worksheet
Objectives
- Application objective
Participants will be able to manage the physical characteristics of their farms to minimize microbial contamination hazards.
- Learning objective
Participants will be able to identify potential contamination points in a farm operation.
Procedure
- Make copies of the farm map located at the end of this document for all participants.
- Distribute one map to each participant.
- Draw participants' attention to the numbered items on the map.
- This is an individual exercise. Have each participant write down all of the potential hazards for microbial contamination that they can identify for each of the numbered items on the map.
- Lead a group discussion. Ask individual participants to describe the potential hazards for each numbered item. Get them to describe potential solutions as well. Call on as many participants as possible.
- The key points for discussion are provided in this guide. If these points are not brought up by participants, bring them up yourself.
Key points
1. Surface water source for irrigation
2. Overhead irrigation piping
- This is a potential hazard for microbial contamination, principally because the water source is open to livestock, which creates a potential hazard of fecal contamination.
- Adequate fencing around the water source is one potential solution.
- Additional methods for protecting surface waters are diversion berms, runoff control structures and vegetative buffers.
3. Unmanaged forest
- This method of irrigation can have an effect on food safety if the water quality is poor. The producer needs to test for potential microbial contaminants.
- Growers may want to consider irrigation practices that minimize contact between water and the edible portion of the crop.
- Growers may want to consider low-volume sprays, drip, furrow or underground irrigation as part of their overall program, where available and appropriate.
4. Compost heap
- This land use creates minimal risk, but if the area harbors large concentrations of wildlife (such as deer or waterfowl) that enter the field, there is the possibility of animal fecal contamination.
- Control of wild animal populations may be difficult. However, to the extent possible, growers should try to use agricultural practices to deter or redirect wildlife to areas that are not used to produce fresh produce. Federal, state, or local animal protection rules and regulations must be observed, including those that protect endangered species.
5. Covered washbasin
- Manure storage or treatment sites close to fresh produce fields or packinghouses increase the risk of microbial contamination. Manure storage and treatment sites should be situated as far as practicable from these areas.
- The minimum distance necessary will depend on many factors, including farm layout and the slope of the land, what runoff controls are in place, the likelihood of wind or heavy rainfall, and the quantity of manure and how it is contained.
- Some method of physical containment should also be considered. Examples include concrete blocks, soil berms, pits or lagoons.
6. Orchard
- The triple wash sink shown is located in a convenient location to the field and is in a covered area that can minimize contamination from wildlife and other sources.
To obtain copies of the DVD that accompanies this publication, please contact A. H. Simonne at asim@ufl.edu or 352-392-1895 x 232, or M.E. Swisher at mesw@ufl.edu or 352-392-2202 x 256.
- The location of the orchard next to the field should not lead to microbial contamination.
Footnotes
1. This document is FCS8845, one of a series of the Family, Youth and Community Sciences Department, Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. Original publication date October 5, 2007. Visit the EDIS Web Site at http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu.2. Brian Lapinski, graduate student, Amy Simonne, associate professor and M.E. Swisher, associate professor, Department of Family, Youth and Community Sciences, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida, Gainesville, 32611.
The Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) is an Equal Opportunity Institution authorized to provide research, educational information and other services only to individuals and institutions that function with non-discrimination with respect to race, creed, color, religion, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, political opinions or affiliations. For more information on obtaining other extension publications, contact your county Cooperative Extension service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Cooperative Extension Service, University of Florida, IFAS, Florida A. & M. University Cooperative Extension Program, and Boards of County Commissioners Cooperating. Larry Arrington, Dean.
Copyright Information
This document is copyrighted by the University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) for the people of the State of Florida. UF/IFAS retains all rights under all conventions, but permits free reproduction by all agents and offices of the Cooperative Extension Service and the people of the State of Florida. Permission is granted to others to use these materials in part or in full for educational purposes, provided that full credit is given to the UF/IFAS, citing the publication, its source, and date of publication.