Conny Graumans introduced himself and the purpose of the meeting, as well as a bit about AgGateway and the role of Dan Berne and Kristi Block.

Introductions were made.

• Working Group Objectives 
• Scope
• Deliverables
• Timeline
• Commitment of Resources

Conny Graumans led attendees through a PowerPoint. (pdf download)

• Reviewed the differences in work packages that would need to be developed. Gave examples of what could be included; how it might be accomplished; and ideas/thoughts/feedback on what else might need to be added.
• Reviewed functional/technical requirements currently used, and those that might be in place at a regional and global perspective to make use of modern standards to be supported worldwide and be applicable to other crops, in addition to the potato.
• Timeline: start with a charter of interested companies, each work package take 3-6 months and work in short sprints. Work Groups will select a chair and shall expect to meet every two weeks with each meeting to take a maximum of 2 hours or less.
• Ideas are contributed by the AgGateway member within a working group. Associate members can not contribute to Intellectual Property (IP) as they have not officially as a member agreed to the Intellectual Property (IP) rights.

Response Date for initial interest/more information: Friday, July 23 

Conny facilitated a round-robin of feedback: 

Gert-Jan Smelt: Important to expand the group to include companies from France & Germany. This call seems heavily attended by the Dutch & North American companies.

Hannes: Need a more clear description of what's to be accomplished to report back to leadership. Needs to know, "What's the benefit for FMIS company." Seems like the initial proposal may lead to a better connection to OEM and the ag industry.  Include how this helps the farmer connect data with seed, chemical data, up to potato harvester.

Need to bring in the German FMIS companies to this discussion and maybe involve AEF? Thinks a better solution will be developed if we get more FMIS companies to participate.

Conny: How does this gain prioritization?  Would having the large potato processors asking for a specific standard for the FMIS companies to use be a good enough reason for the standard?

Priority is higher if the producers are asking for it. The participants are important but the business case is can as an FMIS company acquire customers then it will be a higher priority.

Asked group for caution, encouragement, thoughts on the process, work packages, timeline, etc. presented thus far.

• Dirk: Questions regarding objectives presented. Seems like there are two primary objectives.:1) Global data standard objective and 2) track and trace.
• Conny:  Clarifies the first objective seems to be to gather as much information about how the potatoes were grown and cared for in the field. The second was for certificates of where the potatoes were coming from. There is some overlap in the information of the data needed to be exchanged.
• Dirk:  To summarize, the first objective would be to gather as much information about the potatoes as possible. The 2nd objective would be more track and trace to supporting food safety. 2nd objective might be more of a competition standpoint for FMIS companies. In Dirk's opinion, the highest priority would be a field-level gathering of information.
• Gert-jan Smelt: Not useful if the German and French are not part of the workgroups.  The first objective is most important. Field operations on the parcels. Track and Trace is done internally with some companies. There is a need for parcel info: name, location, the geometry of field. not soil info.
• Ivor Bosloper: Provide a real example of a producer data gathered to know the level of the detail.  Add an interest to producer has for quality information to the processor. How does this assist the farmer to fully use the FMIS system? Quality of information - the amount of yield and amount paid is reported back to FMIS system so it helps him to analyze the data for him to pick the best processor to sell to. Make it a two-way exchange of information.
• Jolyn R.: Potato production in N.America and Australia. Feel really strong about the data we are gathering from our growers internally. Caution: privacy and accessibility of information. Data management policy is needed first.
  • Not to have a data warehouse.
  • Data reported by the producer would travel through the FMIS to the processor of the potato.
• N. America: it's part of contractual agreements to get the information into our system. The APIs used are proprietary to the software companies that provide these services.
• Leon Brooijmans: Supported to reduce the farmer recording data twice. Field information is primary too. Track and trace are of interest but FMIS. If a producer is taking potatoes to more than one producer, it would simplify the process for the producer and we would support the standardization.
• Leon Spatjens: See need for clients to import data from farmers in Germany, Belgium, or France. Would be beneficial to have a more standardized. Needs involvement of more FMIS companies representing more countries. Priority is field data.
• Soma: Support with primary being on field data. Followed by traceability. The concern is data security for producers and following EU data-sharing laws. The big concern would be the FMIS systems - deal with 3 FMIS primarily. All have different data sets. Would like to have one data set for simplicity and safety perspective. Standard integration for the information would be beneficial.
• Olav: Storage could be a challenge. Multiple potatoes from multiple fields may be stored in one warehouse. 
• Joe T.: Focus is on the data standards that allow the FMIS solutions to work.  A lot of this data starts in the field with equipment. AEF's participation will be critical for equipment data collection. AgGateway has some projects which might be applicable.  Processors who may have input and insight that drives what we're doing. Traceability has its own data and may need to be it's own charter or as an out of scope but for future projects. There is an overlap in data needed that would be gathered at the field level to better define traceability. Need to get some growers involved. 

Left - Brent, Jolyn, Cannon Gammill

Was brought up in wrap-up discussion by Ivor. Ivor suggested that the companies involved invite their colleagues who work for FMIS potato providers, potato processors, and some potato producers to be involved for the best resource of individuals to solve the objectives determined by the work group.

Today's participants are asked to indicate whether they are interested in joining this Potato Initiative and/or what information you'd like to have to progress by Friday, 23 July 2021.

From today, we will see if we are aligned on a charter. If not, we will take the next steps. If so, Conny and Dan will complete the charter and submit it for approval and the start of a new AgGAteway working group.

Next Meeting:  Possibly, last week of July?

Next Steps/Action Items (see below)