Common use of Lessons learned Clause in Contracts

Lessons learned. Lessons learned by the project staff are numerous. The best way to be able to help producers is to “do it ourselves” so we can really know the production challenges that are being faced by growers. The experimental hopyard is helping us collect valuable data but also allowing us to “experience” hops just like a grower. Through this process we are able to alert growers when pests arrive and/or share our mistakes with new growers. Hops are a complex crop. There are significant startup costs, both economically and in time and labor. Constituents have commented how invaluable they have found the Building a Hopyard YouTube videos and construction costs fact sheets, and how much they have appreciated the opportunity to be able to visit a hopyard prior to constructing one themselves. Variety selection is a major decision, and we are proud to be able to offer some baseline data on variety suitability through our research. Hops are very disease susceptible, particularly to downy mildew, which is a consideration that every grower should be undertaking, but other pest factors seem to be worth consideration as well. There are numerous hop pests and beneficial insects specific to the Northeast that are not found in the main hops production areas of the world. Further work is certainly needed in this domain. Planting varieties that don’t thrive or yield well in this climate is economically unsound. Our first year harvest data is an indicator of the potential of each of the 20 varieties trialed, but as hops take three years to reach peak production, further research is needed. Small-scale infrastructure is a continued stumbling block in hops production in the Northeast. The mobile hop harvester designed courtesy of a SCBGP grant has taken steps to alleviate this issue, as has UVM Extension’s work with small-scale hops balers and oasts. The future bears great promise once these works have been completed and made publicly available. CONTACT PERSON Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, UVM Extension Agronomist, (000) 000-0000, xxxxxxx.xxxxx@xxx.xxx

Lessons learned. Lessons learned The need for GAP audits and practical food safety trainings will continue to grow as the industry requirements for increased reporting, traceability, and food safety practices expand. More producers are looking to wholesale markets to expand their operations and add new customers. Additional farms feel driven to participate in GAP audits for liability purposes. Regardless, the need to support GAP auditors and alleviate the initial costs associated with the food safety third-party audits will continue to be a requirement of the produce industry. Additional distributors and retailers are pushing for GAP certification and the industry’s trend may require USDA GAP auditors to become trained in harmonized GAP audits, requiring additional travel and trainings. This will also translate into additional literacy training for growers who will need to meet additional reporting and record keeping requirements. CONTACT Xxxxx Xxxxxxx, Local Foods Administrator, Vermont Agency of Agriculture Xxxxx.xxxxxxx@xxxxx.xx.xx PROJECT 8: Hop Production Systems Research – Previously Accepted PROJECT SUMMARY New England is home to many high-quality microbreweries. With the popularity of the local food movement reaching into the beverage market, many local breweries have expressed interest in encompassing local ingredients in their beers. As hops haven’t been commercially grown in this area for over a hundred years, the purpose of this grant was to provide high-quality local research and technical assistance to farmers looking to diversify with hops. It is projected that in the upcoming year, the number of microbreweries across the nation will increase by the project staff are numerous25%. The best craft beer industry is highly competitive and brewers are always looking for something that will give them an edge over the competition. Brewing beers with terroir is one of these ways. In these tough economic times, diversifying in agriculture is a good way to ensure economic stability. Hops sold locally have a high economic return, grossing between $10,000 and $20,000 per acre, and provide an excellent new market. However, the vast majority of hops research and outreach has been developed for the arid Pacific Northwest, where 99% of commercial hops are produced. The applicability of this research is limited in the humid Northeastern climate, fostering the need for locally relevant, high-quality research based information and a source through which that information can be able to help producers distributed as it is developed. PROJECT APPROACH The objective of this program is to “do it ourselves” so we can really know the production challenges that are being faced by growers. The experimental hopyard is helping us collect valuable data but also allowing us develop local and relevant research and outreach applicable to “experience” hops just like a grower. Through this process we are able to alert growers when pests arrive and/or share our mistakes with new growers. Hops are a complex crop. There are significant startup costs, both economically and in time and labor. Constituents have commented how invaluable they have found the Building a Hopyard YouTube videos and construction costs fact sheets, and how much they have appreciated the opportunity to be able to visit a hopyard prior to constructing one themselves. Variety selection is a major decision, and we are proud to be able to offer some baseline data on variety suitability through our research. Hops are very disease susceptible, particularly to downy mildew, which is a consideration that every grower should be undertaking, but other pest factors seem to be worth consideration as well. There are numerous hop pests and beneficial insects specific to the Northeast that are not found in the main hops production areas of the world. Further work is certainly needed in this domain. Planting varieties that don’t thrive or yield well in this climate is economically unsound. Our first year harvest data is an indicator of the potential of each of the 20 varieties trialed, but as hops take three years to reach peak production, further research is needed. Small-scale infrastructure is a continued stumbling block in hops production in the Northeast. The mobile hop harvester designed courtesy of a SCBGP grant Through this project research on hops production has taken steps to alleviate this issue, as has UVM Extension’s work with small-scale hops balers been initiated and oasts. The future bears great promise once these works numerous educational materials and programs have been completed and made publicly available. CONTACT PERSON Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, UVM Extension Agronomist, (000) 000-0000, xxxxxxx.xxxxx@xxx.xxxdelivered to stakeholders.

Lessons learned. Lessons learned were outlined earlier in this report in the activity summary. These included:  It was good approach to select a location within a new target country that is already an established market for U.S. wines. This was the case with Cancun and Delhi and Mumbai, though volumes sold in those cities are small.  Follow up is critical to ensure that new distribution is achieved. In India, one Washington winery missed out on a significant sales opportunity because an export contact at the winery was not identified. The original winery contact that was in place at the outset of these activities left her position shortly after completion of the India events. Indian importers interested in wine from that company attempted to reach the winery to discuss sales possibilities but a suitable replacement for these negotiations was never identified.  For future events, sample shipment should include a larger buffer time, preferably three weeks to ensure sample delivery.  For future activities, a communications calendar between WSWC, wineries, their distributors, and in-country contractors working on the projects should be put in place to make sure that details and information is appropriately shared between all parties.  There is interest in Washington wine among Indian trade and recognition that Washington wineries make premium products. However, the market’s tax structure is extremely difficult to work with and prices most Washington wines out of reach for importers and retailers.  India’s regulatory requirements for wine import are also cumbersome to deal with and discourage wineries from pursuing the market.  Advance press outreach is critical to trade and media attendance.  The WSWC cannot count on industry representatives attending international events despite expressions of interest and/or intent at the outset of a project.  Further activity in India is not recommended until such time that India’s regulatory environment improves. However, India importers should continue to be encouraged and invited to visit Washington State. Further activity in Mexico should be considered if Washington State wineries already doing business there show substantial sales growth over the next few years. The WSWC successfully implemented tastings and seminars in both markets and there was solid interest among the trade and media. Participation among the Washington wine industry was reasonable, though a bit lower than anticipated in India where original projections suggested a few more wineries would join the program. What was perhaps more surprising was the lack of direct winery representative attendance. Despite initial feedback that winery representatives would travel to the events on behalf of their brands, this was not always the case. In India specifically, only one representative attended the tastings. Other brands were represented generically by WSWC staff. This likely diminished the effectiveness of the presentation to importers and undermined the message of commitment to the market. The WSWC’s expected measurable outcomes were not achieved for this project. A few key lessons learned include:  Ensure broad support in advance for the project staff are numerous– in the WSWC’s case firm support existed among a small number of wineries in the activities in both countries. The best way to be able to help producers is to “do it ourselves” so we can really know Initial surveying suggested that more wineries would participate but their participation did not materialize. Their interest in these markets was lukewarm and the production challenges that are being faced by growerstravel distance (and cost) at least for India was prohibitive. The experimental hopyard is helping us collect valuable data but also allowing us to “experience” hops just like a grower. Through  Identify realistic measures – the WSWC set lofty goals for this process we are able to alert growers when pests arrive and/or share our mistakes with new growers. Hops are a complex crop. There are significant startup costs, both economically and in time and labor. Constituents have commented how invaluable they have found the Building a Hopyard YouTube videos and construction costs fact sheets, and how much they have appreciated the opportunity to be able to visit a hopyard prior to constructing one themselves. Variety selection is a major decision, and we are proud to be able to offer some baseline data on variety suitability through our research. Hops are very disease susceptible, particularly to downy mildew, which is a consideration that every grower should be undertakingproject, but other pest factors seem to be worth consideration as well. There are numerous hop pests and beneficial insects specific to the Northeast that are not found in hindsight an expectation of 6-10 new wineries in each market was unrealistic, at least in the main hops production areas sense of new distribution agreements during the worldcourse of this project. Further work is certainly needed Wineries that participated in this domain. Planting varieties that don’t thrive or yield well in this climate is economically unsound. Our first year harvest data is an indicator of the potential of each of the 20 varieties trialedtastings may still secure new agreements over time, but as hops take three years to it was unlikely that so many wineries would reach peak production, further research agreements after only one tasting event in each market. More of a sustained presence is likely needed. Small-scale infrastructure is  Economic factors matter – this project occurred during a continued stumbling block in hops production downturn in the NortheastUS economy that likely caused many wineries to re-focus attention domestically. The mobile hop harvester designed courtesy of a SCBGP grant has taken steps Wineries that would otherwise have participated in the project elected not to alleviate this issue, as has UVM Extension’s work with smallbecause the timing was not right to pursue these less-scale hops balers and oasts. The future bears great promise once these works have been completed and made publicly availabletraditional wine markets. CONTACT PERSON Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Xxxxx, UVM Extension Agronomist, Deputy Director Washington State Wine Commission Phone: (000) 000-0000, xxxxxxx.xxxxx@xxx.xxx0000 Email: xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Cash and in-kind match totaled approximately $49,000. See Report 12-25-B-0957 Attachment D for the following

Lessons learned. Lessons learned by Forty percent of SNAP participants not completing the project staff are numerousfirst season was an unexpected problem. Reasons for not completing the season included price, transportation, and not knowing what to do with all of the produce. In 2012 and 2014 Xxxxxx farmers provided pre-season education about seasonality and share size and spent more time explaining how CSAs work and what to expect. As a result, in 2013 the retention rate has increased to 97%. The best way 2012 Xxxxxx Farm post-survey asked participants what was the “biggest challenge” for participating in the program. Nineteen of the twenty-eight respondents (67.9%) stated that getting to be able the pickup time was the biggest challenge. Primary reasons for this included the limited window for pick-up (i.e., 4–6pm) and the time of pick-up (i.e., rush hour on Friday). Other challenges included “using all the food in each week’s share” (2), “weighing items” (1), and “not forgetting to help producers pick up the share each week” (1). It is interesting that the cost was not one of the biggest challenges, as we originally assumed. As more farmers begin accepting SNAP we will share with them what our member’s challenges have been so that they are prepared to “do it ourselves” so we can really know the production challenges that are being faced by growersmanage similar challenges. The experimental hopyard SNAP office was inundated with requests from farm direct applicants this year. Farmers are having to wait 6-8 weeks to get their SNAP permits approved, thus many of the CSA farmers who planned to start accepting SNAP in 2013 are now waiting until 2014. The biggest challenge is helping us collect valuable data but also allowing us the inability for farmers to “experience” hops just like accept pre-payment for CSA shares with SNAP. If a growerSNAP member does not arrive to pick up a share on any given week that money is lost to the farmer. Through this process Though we are able providing a model that demonstrates how to alert growers have a very high retention rate of SNAP members, policy change is necessary so that farmers do not have to take on a risk when pests arrive and/or share our mistakes with new growersaccepting SNAP-paying members. Hops are a complex cropODA-S14 Growing Through the Seasons: Developing Shoulder-Season Markets and Growing Techniques for Gorge Vegetable Producers – Final Report PROJECT SUMMARY Vegetable producers in the Columbia Gorge lacked season extension skills and infrastructure, impeding their ability to fully access local direct markets and provide local produce year- round. There are significant startup costs, both economically Area farmers’ markets opened later and in time ended earlier than many Portland and labor. Constituents have commented how invaluable they have found the Building a Hopyard YouTube videos and construction costs fact sheets, and how much they have appreciated the opportunity to be able to visit a hopyard prior to constructing one themselves. Variety selection is a major decision, and we are proud to be able to offer some baseline data on variety suitability through our research. Hops are very disease susceptible, particularly to downy mildew, which is a consideration that every grower should be undertakingWillamette Valley markets not because there were no shoppers, but because there was not enough produce – Columbia Gorge’s slightly cooler climate requires that producers adopt season extension techniques. A 2011 survey of area restaurants and other pest factors seem direct produce purchasers indicated most would like to be worth consideration as well. There are numerous hop pests and beneficial insects specific to the Northeast that are not found in the main hops production areas of the world. Further work is certainly needed in this domain. Planting varieties that don’t thrive or yield well in this climate is economically unsound. Our first year harvest data is an indicator of the potential of each of the 20 varieties trialedpurchase local produce throughout a longer growing season, but as hops take three years to reach peak production, further research is needed. Small-scale infrastructure is a continued stumbling block in hops production in the Northeast. The mobile hop harvester designed courtesy of a SCBGP grant has taken steps to alleviate this issue, as has UVM Extension’s work with small-scale hops balers and oasts. The future bears great promise once these works have been completed and made publicly if it were available. CONTACT PERSON Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, UVM Extension Agronomist, (000) 000-0000, xxxxxxx.xxxxx@xxx.xxx.

Lessons learned. Lessons learned The Farm to School pilot program with Xxxxxxx Avenue Elementary School proved to be very successful. MDAC hopes to use this to further enhance the Mississippi Farm to School Program. Well over half of the posters printed, 5,176 have been distributed to schools all across the state. These posters provide a colorful representation and educational resource of the produce grown by our state’s farmers and consumed by MS children. There have been several requests for more posters featuring other produce; hopefully, the variety of produce available for schools will also grow and MDAC can increase educational efforts to include a broader range of MS grown fruits and vegetables. The brochures have also been a useful tool for those interested in the Farm to School program; they have been distributed at workshops held by MDAC, MSU, and MDE, to further increase the voice and awareness of this program Contact Person Xxxxx Xxxx Mississippi Department of Agriculture and Commerce 000-000-0000 xxxxx@xxxx.xx.xxx Additional Information Farm to School Brochure: Farm to School Posters: EDUCATIONAL BEEKEEPING PROGRAMS 2011-2013 Project Summary The specific purpose of the project, implemented by the project staff are numerousMississippi Beekeepers Association was to provide educational opportunities for beekeepers. The best shortages of honeybees, both wild and domestic, have been attributed to diseases and parasites. The need of educational workshops and materials are needed to increase the knowledge and support beginner beekeeping to meet pollination needs of crops across Mississippi. The public’s awareness of the decline in bee population has spurred an increase of beginner beekeeping interest to pollinate their gardens and orchards. It is pertinent that populations of honey bees be maintained as they are the most economically viable way to be able pollinate agricultural crops. This program allowed for the MBA to help producers is secure professional speakers of beekeeping management to “do it ourselves” so we can really know maintain the production challenges that are being faced by growersquality and integrity of this workshop. The experimental hopyard practice of beekeeping requires extensive knowledge and hands on training to master the intense management necessary to maintain viable colonies; new diseases and unknown causes of population decline (CCD) make beekeeping a challenge. This project does build upon previously funded Specialty Crop Block Grant projects, from years FY2007 and FY2009. This project is helping us collect valuable data but also allowing us a continuation of the FY2009 SCBGP; funds for FY2009 project were allocated for educational workshops for beekeepers and proved to “experience” hops just like be a growersuccess all across the state. Through Demand for continuing this process we are able program prompted the submission and acceptance of this FY2010 grant project. Project Approach Workshops listed in the table below show the attendance and topics discussed at each event. Five workshops were held during 2011 and one workshop was held during 2012. Due to alert growers the retirement of Xxxxx Xxxxxx, no spring or summer workshops were held in 2012 except for the annual workshop held in conjunction with the Mississippi Beekeepers Association annual convention. Several out-of state quest speakers were invited to speak at the workshops and annual meetings to ensure the quality of the program. Date/ Location Attendance Topics April 7, 2011** Jackson, MS 175 Beginners workshop. Some of the topics included: managing hives to optimize small hive beetle damage, low budget beekeeping, bee management 101, the beekeepers calendar, how and when pests arrive and/or share our mistakes with new growersto get bees. Hops are Field exercise topics included: the art of beekeeping, importance of honey bee population control in the hive and how to judge a complex crop. There are significant startup costscolony’s strength, both economically and in time and labor. Constituents have commented how invaluable they have found the Building a Hopyard YouTube videos and construction costs fact sheetsfeeding bees, and how much they have appreciated finding queens/making splits. May 13-14, 2011** Jackson, MS 130 Some of the opportunity to be able to visit a hopyard prior to constructing one themselves. Variety selection is a major decisiontopics included: basic bee biology, honey plants and honey flows, getting started in beekeeping, swarm management, nucs vs. packages, keeping bees alive, managing small hive beetles, and we are proud diseases of concern. Hands-on field exercise topics included: how to work bees, types of equipment for bee hives, basics of bee rearing, and honey harvesting and processing, requeening/how to find queens, queen rearing- final steps, finding the queen and requeening. June 3-4, 2011** Verona, MS 72 Some of the topics included: basic bee biology, nectar flows and food sources for bees, getting started in beekeeping, spring management/swarm prevention, small hive management, harvesting, handling, and processing honey, honey marketing, fall/winter management, hive pest and diseases, IPM for beekeeping, and feeding/nutrition for bees. Hands-on field exercise topics included: how to work bees, types of equipment for bee hives, basics of queen rearing, making splits and requeening, how to start new hives, surveying and treating for mites, and queen rearing-final steps. June 16-17, 2011 Columbia, MS 102 Some of the topics included: basic bee biology, honey flows and food sources for bees, getting started in beekeeping, queen rearing basics, small hive management, bee compatibility plants, spring management, IPM for bees, nucs vs. packages, diseases of concern, mite control, and feeding bees. Hands-on field exercise topics included: how to work bees, types of equipment for bee hives, honey bee trapping, how to trap/treat for SHB, splitting hives, surveying and treating for mites, equipment needs for collecting bees, and finding queens an requeening. October 28-29, 2011 Gautier, MS 138 Beginners workshop. Some of the topics included: making bee equipment, living with small hive beetles, what’s involved in purchasing, picking up and/or delivering a hive of bees, a nuc, a queen, or package of bees, nucs vs. packages, and making candles, soaps, an cosmetics with honey and beeswax. October 26-27, 2012 Mississippi State University 145 Both beginning and experienced workshops. Topics included: bee colony health, nutrition, current research of reducing the levels of agricultural chemicals that accumulate in xxxxx to improve colony health, controlling for pests, parasites, diseases, by using integrated pest management, economic impact of beekeeping industry, seasonal management, swarming biology and queen rearing. TOTAL 762 ** Workshop funded partially by both Specialty Crop Block Grant Program – FY2009 and FY2010 A management booklet titled “Small Hive Beetle,” was created and printed as a collaborative effort between MBA and MSU Extension to educate beekeepers on the growing problem of the Small Hive Beetle. This was distributed to beekeepers at workshops, local club meetings, and other events upon request. “Beekeeping in Mississippi” was a booklet created and printed to teach new beekeepers general practices in beekeeping. This educational resource is provided for participants at workshops, meetings of local bee clubs, and available upon request. A recipe book, “Golden Treasures Recipes” was developed and distributed to increase the awareness of honey and its benefits. It was distributed at the Mississippi State Fair, local club meetings, promotional events, and available upon request. In addition to workshops, MBA members also spoke to various children groups at schools and libraries to educate them on the importance of bees and beekeeping. Goals and Outcomes Achieved This grant trained a total of 762 beekeepers on beekeeping basics. Since 2008, the total number of beekeepers trained from this program is 1,956. The increased average attendance at workshops indicates a continued and expanding interest in starting beekeeping in ages 10 and up. A raise of hands at the workshops continues to show that 30% to 50% of attendees do not have bee hives and want to get started. The goal to increase attendance at workshops and increase the number of beekeepers by 450 for 2011 has been achieved; this information is evidenced in the table below. Year Workshop Attendance No. of workshops Avg. Attendance 2008 317 4 63 2009 372 4 93 2010 505 5 101 2011 617 5 121 2012 145 1 145 The goal of increasing membership in the Mississippi Beekeepers Association was also achieved. Since the onset of the block grant program, membership has doubled. Attendance for 2011 rose to 512 but fell in 2012 to 260; this however, is still greater than when the grant was initiated. Membership decline may possibly be able to offer some baseline data on variety suitability through our research. Hops are very disease susceptible, particularly to downy mildew, which is a consideration that every grower should be undertaking, but other pest factors seem to be worth consideration as well. There are numerous hop pests and beneficial insects specific due to the Northeast that are not found retirement of Xxxxx Xxxxxx and the decreased efforts of attaining new members. Educational materials for beginning beekeepers were created, printed, and distributed at workshops and meetings. MBA members also spoke to children groups at schools and libraries to reach a variety of audience members. The original proposal aimed for four workshops for years 2011-2013. After the retirement of Xxxxx Xxxxxx in 2012 and due to the main hops production areas popularity of the world. Further work is certainly needed in this domain. Planting varieties that don’t thrive or yield well in this climate is economically unsound. Our first year harvest data is an indicator of workshops, the potential of each of budget was exhausted earlier than anticipated and the 20 varieties trialed, but goals and outcomes were achieved as hops take three years to reach peak production, further research is needed. Small-scale infrastructure is a continued stumbling block in hops production in the Northeast. The mobile hop harvester designed courtesy of a SCBGP grant has taken steps to alleviate this issue, as has UVM Extension’s work with small-scale hops balers and oasts. The future bears great promise once these works have been completed and made publicly available. CONTACT PERSON Xx. Xxxxxxx Xxxxx, UVM Extension Agronomist, (000) 000-0000, xxxxxxx.xxxxx@xxx.xxxplanned.