ABSTRACT

The USDA SBIR Research Request for the Farm Network Digital (FND) project must clearly address the small-farm need for a cohesive digital infrastructure covering inventory, operations, and buyer coordination, emphasizing the socio-economic impact of this rural problem. Phase I technical goals, spanning eight months, are to design and implement the novel, open-source, semantic, and decentralized Mycite Framework data schema; prototype a platform for farm inventory and data sharing; and pilot test the solution with at least three farms to evaluate interoperability and user feedback, laying essential groundwork for Phase II. The approach's novelty lies in Mycite's architecture, which directly addresses the lack of interoperability in existing tools. Major activities include schema design, prototype development, pilot integration, and data analysis. Success will be measured by a working, interoperable prototype, positive pilot feedback, and a solid Phase II plan, with the potential market opportunity focused on enabling local food networks to significantly enhance their competitive edge.

§1. RESPONSIVENESS TO USDA NIFA SBIR PROGRAM PRIORITIES

Demonstrate alignment with the USDA SBIR program’s strategic goals and Topic 8.6 priorities. As the SBIR tutorial explains, this section should identify the topic number, mention any relevant cross‑cut areas (such as energy efficiency or climate‑smart agriculture), and tie your project to NIFA’s strategic goal.

1.1 TOPIC & RESEARCH PRIORITY

State that the proposal addresses Topic 8.6 – Rural and Community Development. Briefly note the relevant research priority—for example, creating technologies that enable rural communities and small farms to better coordinate and access markets. If your technology supports climate mitigation (e.g., reduced food miles) or energy efficiency, mention these cross‑cut areas.

1.2 ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN

Reference USDA/NIFA strategic goals such as strengthening rural economies, supporting climate‑smart agriculture, and enabling resilient supply chains. Explain how open‑source, decentralized data systems align with these goals by empowering small farms to remain independent yet interconnected. Past winners like Rooted Farmers and Food4All demonstrated alignment by showing how their platforms improved small‑farm profitability and local food systems.

1.3 EXTERNAL ENDORSEMENT

Mention any engagement with USDA’s National Program Leader (NPL) or local extension services. The RFA encourages applicants to send project summaries to the NPL for feedback.

§2. IDENTIFICATION & SIGNIFICANCE OF THE PROBLEM OR OPPORTUNITY

Persuade reviewers that there is a compelling rural/community problem and that your technology addresses it. The SBIR tutorial warns that reviewers must leave this section with no doubt about the problem’s importance.

2.1 PROBLEM STATEMENT

Describe how fragmented data and lack of interoperable tools prevent small farms from participating in centralized food systems. Quantify the impact using facts from past research and winners—for example, Good Agriculture estimated that small farms lose $50 billion in productivity due to lack of data analysis, and Food4All noted that local farms are shut out of a $30 billion local food market.

2.2 TARGET BENFICIARIES

Identify the affected stakeholders: small and mid‑size farmers, rural cooperatives, local food hubs, and community institutions. USDA notes that Topic 8.6 projects need not be centered on agriculture but must benefit rural Americans. For FND, the beneficiaries are independent farmers who wish to maintain autonomy while coordinating supply.

2.3 MARKET & SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONTEXT

Discuss demand trends for local, sustainably produced foods and the public’s interest in transparent supply chains. Reference FND notes that small farms under‑perform industrial farms by ~10 % per acre due to coordination barriers. Highlight rural development challenges such as loss of local food outlets and declining rural banking access (as AgCredit documented). This establishes urgency and relevance.

§3. BACKGROUND & RATIONALE

Show that you understand the state of the art, end‑user needs, and gaps in existing solutions. According to USDA guidance, this section should summarize prior technologies and literature and explain why current solutions are inadequate.

3.1 EXISTING SOLUTIONS & RESEARCH

Review current farm management tools, local food marketplaces, and data standards. Discuss examples from past SBIR winners. Summarize their strengths (e.g., e‑commerce integration, AI analytics) and limitations (e.g., proprietary platforms, limited interoperability, or focus on specific commodity types). This demonstrates that you have surveyed the landscape.

3.1.1 Food4All:

Food4All created a virtual food hub for dispersed rural producers; it integrated wholesale and retail transactions but charged buyers a transaction fee.

3.1.2 Rooted Farmers:

Rooted Farmers adapted its flower marketplace to produce, offering inventory management and networked sales.

3.1.3 SPIDER:

SPIDER by Big Data in a Box digitized organic farm record‑keeping, turning compliance data into usable analytics.

3.1.4 AgCredit:

AgCredit developed a digital lending platform to address declining rural banking access.

3.1.5 Onda Vision:

Onda Vision explored IoT wearables for farmworker safety.

3.2 NEED FOR A NEW APPROACH

Explain why FND’s Mycite Framework is distinct. Use points from FND notes: current systems lack indiscriminate interoperability due to absence of a universal data standard; centralization creates drag and waste; and farmers lack tools to self‑organize. Emphasize that your open‑source semantic architecture allows heterogeneous farm data to be recombined and shared without central control. Tie this to the Mycite Framework components (Universal Language of Information, Mycelium Schema Standardization) to show technical rationale.

3.3 END-USER REQUIREMENTS

Describe how farmers currently manage data (inventory, scheduling, tax, website, event management) through disparate systems. Show how FND’s unified schema and platform will reduce time spent on paperwork and improve coordination. Draw parallels to SPIDER’s insight that record‑keeping is a major pain point for organic farmers.

3.4 LITERATURE & SCIENTIFIC UNDERPINNING

Briefly cite relevant research on decentralized data systems, semantic web technologies, and supply‑chain analytics. Use citations as appropriate from external literature (not provided here) to show scholarly foundation. Note that all literature must be properly referenced in the Bibliography.

§4. RELATIONSHIP TO RESEARCH & PHASE II

Describe how Phase I results will provide the foundation for Phase II. USDA guidance stresses that the narrative should discuss anticipated results and benefits if Phase I is successful.

4.1 EXPECTED PHASE I OUTCOMES

List measurable outputs—e.g., design specifications for the Mycite schema; a working prototype with basic modules (inventory management, supply sharing); pilot results from partner farms; and a needs assessment for Phase II scaling.

4.2 VISION FOR PHASE II

Explain how Phase I informs a larger Phase II effort, such as expanding the prototype into a fully operational platform, integrating additional modules (e.g., logistics optimization, financial management), and conducting multi‑region pilots. Reference past winners who progressed successfully from Phase I to Phase II; Food4All expanded its pilot into a nationwide marketplace facilitating more than 1,700 farms, and SPIDER planned to add AI decision support and multi‑tier access.

4.3 ECONOMIC & SOCIAL BENEFITS

Discuss how a decentralized data network will enhance rural economies, reduce waste, and enable farmers to remain independent. Tie benefits to national priorities (e.g., improving rural quality of life and climate mitigation ). Indicate potential cost savings or productivity gains, similar to Good Agriculture’s claim of recovering $50 billion in lost productivity.

§5. TECHNICAL OBJECTIVES

Present clear, testable objectives and the questions that must be answered to demonstrate technical feasibility. USDA guidance advises listing objectives and associated research questions.

5.1 DESIGN AN OPEN-SOURCE AGRICULTURE DATA SCHEMA

Define the minimal elements, syntax, and SSID layering required to represent farm operations, inventory, and transactions. Objective metrics: a technical specification document and prototype schema library.

5.2 DEVELOP A PROTOTYPE-FARM MANAGEMENT PLATFORM

Build a desktop/web application that allows farmers to enter operations data (planting schedules, crop inventories, expected yields) and share selected information with buyers. Objective metrics: functioning modules for inventory management, order reporting, and user authentication.

5.3 PIOLET TEST WITH PARTNER FARMS

Recruit 3–5 local small or mid‑size farms to use the prototype during Phase I. Collect usability feedback, measure data entry times, assess improvements in coordination, and refine the schema. Objective metrics: number of pilot farms engaged, surveys collected, and demonstration of data interoperability across farms.

5.4 EVALUATE FEASIBILITY & PREPARE FOR PHASE II PLAN

Analyze pilot results, identify technical challenges (e.g., interoperability issues, network performance), and define requirements for scaling. Produce a feasibility report summarizing findings and recommendations for Phase II. These objectives mirror past winners’ approaches—e.g., SPIDER defined milestones for adding receipt capture and AI decision support, while Good Agriculture planned successive releases culminating in a “digital twin”.

§6. WORK PLAN

Provide a detailed, step‑by‑step plan for accomplishing the technical objectives. Reviewers want clarity and realistic scope.

6.1 TASK 1 ~ SCHEMA DESIGN & DOCUMENTATION (Months 1–2):

Conduct stakeholder interviews with pilot farmers and industry advisors to refine data requirements.

Design the Mycite Framework schema, including ULI notation and Mycelium Schema Standardization rules. Prepare a technical specification and open‑source license documentation.

Responsibility: Principal Investigator (PI) leads schema design; data architect validates semantic consistency. Provide rationale: a well‑defined schema is foundational to interoperability.

6.2 TASK 2 ~ PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT (Months 2–5):

Build core software modules (inventory management, website integration, user interface). Follow iterative development, releasing internal builds for feedback. Use open‑source stacks to facilitate community contributions. Integrate sensors or hardware (if relevant) to capture real‑time inventory or environmental data. Reference Onda Vision’s IoT approach as inspiration for affordable sensor integration.

Responsibility: Software engineer(s) develop code; PI oversees architecture; UI/UX consultant ensures usability (similar to how some SBIR budgets include UI/UX specialists). Rationale: early prototypes enable rapid testing and refinement.

6.3 TASK 3 ~ PILOT IMPLEMENTATION & DATA COLLECTION (Months 5–7):

Onboard partner farms to the prototype; provide training sessions. Collect operational data, feedback, and metrics such as time saved on record‑keeping or improvements in supply coordination. Include letters of support from pilot farms to demonstrate commitment (echoing past winners like Food4All partnering with MarketMaker and Rooted Farmers working with university extension). Conduct focus groups or surveys to evaluate user satisfaction and gather feature requests, similar to SPIDER’s planned focus groups. Responsibility: PI manages pilot coordination; statistician analyzes data; extension partners assist with outreach. Rationale: end‑user engagement is critical for demonstrating feasibility and ensuring Phase II relevance.

6.4 TASK 4 ~ DATA ANALYSIS AND FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT (Months 7–8):

Analyze pilot data to determine whether the schema improves coordination and reduces administrative overhead. Compare performance metrics with baseline. Use statistical methods to evaluate significance. Identify technical challenges, unanticipated user needs, and design improvements. Develop a Phase II plan detailing expanded features (e.g., logistics optimization, financial modules) and broader deployment.

Responsibility: PI and statistician synthesize results; business development consultant prepares Phase II commercialization roadmap. Rationale: summarizing findings supports a strong Phase II application.

6.5 TIMELINE

Present a Gantt chart or table showing tasks, responsible parties, and duration. Use clear milestones and deliverables (e.g., month‑2 schema documentation; month‑5 functioning prototype). Past winners like Good Agriculture and USB planned phased releases and incremental feature additions.

§7. RELATED RESEARCH & COMPETITION

Demonstrate awareness of other research and commercial products, including your own prior work. USDA guidance calls for describing significant R&D activities related to the proposed effort and how your innovation is distinct.

7.1 PRIOR WORK (internal)

Summarize any preliminary development or pilot studies FND has conducted with local farms or markets. Mention contributions like website hosting, data organization, and operational tools (as noted in FND notes) to show credibility.

7.2 EXTERNAL COMPETITION

Describe existing farm management or marketplace platforms (Food4All, Rooted Farmers, SPIDER, USB). Compare their features, target users, business models, and limitations. For example, Food4All provides a low‑cost virtual hub but is a proprietary marketplace; Rooted Farmers expanded from floriculture to produce with help from university partners; SPIDER addresses organic certification record‑keeping. Explain how your open‑source, schema‑first approach differentiates you by enabling decentralized coordination across multiple tools and domains.

7.3 UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS

§8. Market Opportunity and Commercialization Plan

Illustrate the market potential, customers, competition, and plan for commercialization. The USDA template asks for estimates of the addressable market and a go‑to‑market strategy.

8.1 MARKET SIZE & DRIVERS

Use data from past winners and external sources to quantify the market. For example, Food4All’s Phase II report indicated a $30 billion local food market and documented over $1.26 million in sales through its platform. Good Agriculture highlighted a $50 billion productivity gap in small farms. Use such numbers to estimate the potential impact of a decentralized data network.

8.2 TARGET CUSTOMERS

Identify primary users (small and mid‑size farms, farmers’ markets, cooperatives, rural food hubs) and secondary customers (local grocers, community institutions, supply‑chain partners). Explain how each benefits from improved data interoperability—e.g., farmers gain market access, buyers gain transparency, and logistics providers can plan routes more efficiently. USDA expects Topic 8.6 projects to assess impacts on rural socio‑economic development.

8.3 BUSINESS MODEL

Propose a revenue strategy that aligns with an open‑source platform. Options include offering the core schema and basic tools for free (stimulating broad adoption) while monetizing premium features (e.g., logistics optimization, analytics dashboards), paid support, or transaction services. Past winners illustrate varied models—Food4All charges buyers a small transaction fee; Rooted Farmers likely collects subscription or transaction fees; AgCredit licenses its platform to community banks. Choose a model that sustains the platform while keeping it accessible to farmers.

8.4 COMPETITIVE ANALYSIS

Summarize the competitive landscape and highlight barriers to entry (technical complexity, network effects). Explain how open‑source governance and partnerships with extension services or farmer cooperatives provide a competitive advantage by fostering trust and widespread adoption.

8.5 REGULATORY & POLICY CONSIDERATIONS

Note any regulatory issues (data privacy, ag data ownership) and how the Mycite Framework addresses them by preserving local autonomy. Discuss how compliance with USDA data standards or organic certification requirements can be simplified (similar to SPIDER’s approach).

§9. RESOURCES, FACILITIES, & TEAM

Demonstrate that you have the technical and organizational capability to perform Phase I. The RFA emphasizes describing facilities, equipment, personnel, and consultants and justifying costs.

9.1 Company overview

Describe FND’s history, mission, and capabilities. Emphasize strengths such as prior work with local farms, software development experience, and existing clients. Keep the past performance modest; SBIR suggests listing pilot projects and prototype work rather than overstating achievements (as noted in FND notes).

9.2 Personnel

Introduce the Principal Investigator (PI) and key team members. Describe their roles (schema design, software development, pilot coordination) and relevant experience. Align with SBIR notes: “The PI will perform core system architecture, prototype development, data integration testing, and analysis of pilot study results.” Include consultants (statistical analysts, UI/UX specialist, business development) and justify their involvement.

9.3 Facilities and equipment

Specify development environment (cloud infrastructure, local workstations), any sensor hardware for pilot farms, and physical workspaces. Demonstrate access to necessary resources without overspending; Phase I rarely funds major equipment. Note that you have access to pilot farms willing to test the prototype, akin to how Food4All leveraged MarketMaker’s network and Rooted Farmers partnered with UNH.

9.4 Partnerships and letters of support

Outline relationships with local farms, cooperatives, extension services, and potential customers. Mention plans to include letters of support from pilot farms and community organizations, which are particularly encouraged for Topic 8.6. Past winners consistently cited letters or collaborations: Food4All partnered with MarketMaker; SPIDER planned surveys and focus groups; AgCredit collaborated with community banks.

9.5 Financial and administrative capability

Demonstrate your ability to manage federal funds—e.g., a business bank account, accounting systems, and time tracking. Highlight your plan to track expenses and produce required reports. The SBIR notes stress that reviewers assess your ability to manage federal funds and that many Phase I awards go to single‑founder companies with a laptop and a focused plan.

§10. BUDGET & BUDGET JUSTIFICATION (separate document)

Provide a detailed budget for the requested $125 k (typical Phase I limit for topics 8.6 and 8.12). This section is often submitted as a separate attachment but should align with your work plan.

10.1 Personnel costs

Allocate hours for PI and team members based on tasks (e.g., PI at $50/hr for 480 hours). Justify each role in relation to objectives.

10.2 Consultant/services

Up to 33 % of the total budget can be used for consultants or subcontractors. Include statistical consultant, UI/UX specialist, business development advisor, and possibly a university lab to conduct small tests. Provide hourly rates and deliverables.

10.3 Equipment and materials

Explain any minor equipment purchases (e.g., laptops, development servers, sensors). Phase I rarely allows items >$5,000.

10.4 Indirect costs

If you do not have a negotiated rate, you can claim up to 40 % of modified direct costs to cover overhead (rent, utilities, administration).

10.5 Travel

Include minimal travel expenses for meeting with pilot farms or attending SBIR workshops, if necessary.

10.6 Justification narrative

For each cost category, explain how it supports the technical objectives and why it is reasonable. Reviewers need to see that every dollar contributes to demonstrating feasibility.

§11. BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCHES

Provide concise CVs for key personnel and list all citations. The USDA requires proper citations and warns that plagiarism or lack of referencing can cause rejection.

Prepare a two‑page (or shorter) sketch for each key team member, highlighting relevant education, experience, and publications. Emphasize technical and entrepreneurial expertise in software development, data architecture, and agricultural systems.

REFERENCES CITED

Compile a bibliography of all works referenced in the narrative. Use consistent citation style and include sources such as the USDA RFA, academic papers, and SBIR award abstracts. Ensure that citations used in this outline (e.g., for past winners) are properly included.