We do not know the fate of 15 ghost CSAs, as no definite statement of closure could be found and all contact attempts failed. Of the other 13, some left farming, some were still farming but without CSAs, and one moved out of state and continues to farm. Removing all of these from the study left 74 CSAs that met our definition. Primary data collection occurred from January 2010 to April 2011 and involved two components: a semistructured interview and a survey conducted through an online questionnaire. All 74 CSAs were contacted by phone and e-mail. Fifty-four CSA farmers and two CSA organizers, together representing 55 CSAs, agreed to participate in the study and were interviewed. In most cases, we interviewed the farmers directly responsible for the CSA operation, but two cases were different. In one, a CSA organizer worked with two farms to create an independent CSA; one of these farms also had its own CSA, while the other farm only sold through the CSA run by the organizer — these two farms and the organizer count as two CSAs. In the other case, the CSA organizer brought many farmers, none of whom have their own CSA, together to form one CSA. Forty-eight of the 54 CSA farmers interviewed completed the survey; the others did not after repeated reminders. We did not request survey responses from the CSA organizers. We used the qualitative data from farmers and the two CSA organizers who did not complete the questionnaire, but we were unable to include their information for most quantitative data.We analyzed the quantitative data by creating summary statistics of various characteristics, with some bivariate statistical analysis.
In the interviews, we asked CSA farmers about the prices for their CSA shares, how their CSA delivery systems worked,vertical hydroponic whether they bought supplemental produce from other farms, and the extent that they used volunteers on the farm; and in the survey, we asked about the types of food and other products in their shares, minimum payment periods and events hosted at the CSAs. As a result, CSA types emerged that differed from our original conception of a CSA — that members shared risk with the farm and paid for a full season up front. None of the CSAs had a formal core member group deciding what to produce, none had mandatory member workdays, and many did not require long minimum payment periods or share production risks with members.The membership/share model requires customers to make an upfront membership or share payment. It is rare; only four of the 48 CSAs operated this way. Two of the four CSAs used only the membership model; the other two combined it with the box models by offering member discounts. The membership payment is paid prior to actually picking up the produce. Members give the farmer some amount of money, which becomes credit for use at the farm’s U-pick, farm stand or farmers market stall. Members do not pick up a set amount of produce but are able to pick and choose, and receive a discount by paying in advance. With share payments, members can sign a contract to own a share of a farm animal, and the share payment covers the animal’s feed. The member then purchases that animal’s products. The member does not get any discount for their share but is able to gain access to locally raised and processed animal products, which are not widely available in the region. He or she is also sharing the risks associated with raising livestock with the rancher or farmer.These differently arranged enterprises, all called CSAs by their operators, demonstrate a central finding: Much innovation is occurring in how farmers and consumer members connect through a CSA.
Farmers have adapted the CSA model to their ambitions for their farm, to innovative products and to regional conditions. CSA farmers have different preferences for their operations. Some want to remain small, while others want to grow; these goals require different strategies. Farmers have added new products, especially meat and dairy, into their CSAs, although the processing of those products does not fit easily with handling practices developed for fruits and vegetables. Other innovations include changing CSA payment and delivery systems so that they are more attractive and accessible to people who are not familiar with the concept and to consumers who cannot afford a large upfront cost, both of which are important realities in the Central Valley. For example, 20% of CSAs in the study had no minimum payment period, allowing week-by-week payments, which extends membership to a broader population, including those hesitant or unable to commit to extended payments. Requiring no long-term commitment was also a common practice among meat CSAs in our sample, which often do not know exactly which products will be available and when, including both individual cuts and type of meats. This uncertainty stems from maturation, slaughtering and butchering processes. Few slaughter and butcher facilities serve small-scale producers. Consequently, CSA meat producers compete with large-scale operations for limited processing capacity, and there is greater variability in their animals’ maturation because they are raised primarily on pasture. Scheduling difficulties can result; for example, during the summer, CSA ranchers may need to schedule slaughtering months in advance, but their animals may not be ready by the scheduled date. Meat CSAs rely on committed customers who agree, typically on a monthly basis, to buy some amount of a variety of meat.To understand their economic viability, we asked CSA farmers about gross annual sales and net profits in 2009, the CSA’s contribution to the total economic activity of the farm, other marketing channels used and how the farmers valued their labor.
In the survey, we asked about whether partners held off-farm jobs and the CSA’s general profitability. We found that the CSA was a crucial direct to-consumer marketing channel for the small- and medium-scale farmers in our study. On average, the farmers obtained 58% of gross sales from their CSA. In general, small-scale farmers were more dependent on their CSA than larger-scale CSA farmers. Most farmers also sell into other channels, including wholesale and direct-marketing venues, especially farmers markets. Some farm-linked aggregator box CSAs act as wholesale outlets for small farms with their own CSAs. Farmers in our study commonly chose the CSA as a marketing outlet to diversify their income channels. Some had little access to organic wholesale markets, while others wanted to increase sales beyond farmers markets and other direct sales. Some newer farmers started with a CSA to help raise needed capital. As motivations for choosing a CSA, most respondents mentioned the advantages of knowing sales volumes in advance and being paid up front, before the growing season begins. Assessing the economic viability of CSA operations is difficult because it involves both the baseline profitability of the business and the need to generate sufficient income for retirement, health insurance, college for children, land purchases and so on. In addition, farmers conceptualize profit differently. Some consider their salaries as profit, while others set aside a salary for farm partners and consider profit to exclude this salary. Not all farmers amortize their accounting, and many reinvest surpluses in the farm to make it more productive or reduce taxes. Consequently, we asked a variety of questions about farm economics.When we asked farmers in the interviews why they wanted to do a CSA and the general philosophy behind their farm and CSA operation, most were not interested solely in maximizing sales,vertical farming supplies profit or their salaries. When asked about their motivations and farming philosophy, CSA farmers said they loved farming, felt satisfaction in providing fresh food to their communities and educating people about food and agriculture, and wanted to make positive change. As one farmer noted, “The world’s messed up, and we’re fixing it — one family at a time, one farm at a time” . Although that sentiment was common, CSA farmers’ political commitments ranged from libertarianism to socialism to evangelical Christianity to feminism. We also found a diversity of views on the CSA as a business: Many saw their CSA as promoting their deeply held values, independent of maximizing profit. For example, one newer CSA farmer said: “I really want to empower other women to work in sustainable agriculture . . . Almost all our applications for internships are from women, probably 75%, but there aren’t that many women farmers” . CSA farmers frequently mentioned receiving nonmonetary forms of compensation: tangible benefits such as living and/ or raising children on a farm, benefiting from improvements to the property, eating well and living healthfully; and intangible ones such as the lifestyle and deeply rewarding hard work. One farmer noted: “We don’t keep track of hours ‘cause that would be depressing from a pay standpoint. But we just love it. We probably should [do time tracking], but on the other hand, it’s part of the lifestyle. It isn’t jobby at all.
We have what we need to get by, but we don’t pay ourselves an official wage” . Some farmers in our study ran their CSAs to make money, although all did so within the context of broader social and environmental commitments. As an example, farmer 39A and farmer 39B, a husband and wife team, respectively said their philosophy for the CSA was to “make money to send children to college,” and “capitalism — you have to be greedy, grubbing capitalists.” However, they went on to illustrate their underlying environmental and social commitments. When farmer 39A said, “We always try to be the top of the market in terms of quality and price,” farmer 39B added that they value growing the “most nutrient-dense food [and] finding a supportive community to reward us for doing it.” Driving home the point that their profit orientation is securely underpinned by a broader ethos, farmer 39A added, “We are also committed to offering our employees year-round employment in a toxic-free environment.”We asked many questions about the CSA farms, including survey questions about start year, farm size, area in various land uses, number and kinds of crops and farm animals, general practices in relation to the federal organic standard, electricity generation, farm inputs, water use and land tenure. In the interview, we asked open-ended questions, including “How did you get access to the land you’re currently using for your CSA?” and “What practices do you do that you think are most beneficial to the environment?” We found out that most CSAs in our study were relatively new, in existence for 5.7 years on average. CSA farms shared certain core features, especially a commitment to environmental conservation, agroecology and agrobiodiversity . The farms were diverse across a range of characteristics, including farm size, land ownership, organic certification and membership numbers.CSA farmers in our study cultivated a tremendous amount of agrobiodiversity, growing 44 crops and raising three types of livestock on average. Most CSAs studied focused on vegetables, although some were exclusively focused on fruit, one on grain, and a handful on meat and other animal products. About half of CSAs studied had livestock in 2009. The most common animals were layer chickens , followed by hogs and pigs , goats and kids and broilers, sheep and lambs, and beef cattle . Many CSA farms also had some land devoted to conservation plantings, such as hedgerows where birds and beneficial insects can live. As one farmer noted, “I have a very strong view that agriculture doesn’t need to and shouldn’t decrease the vitality, the biodiversity of the environment . . . [agriculture] can actually enhance it” . In the Central Valley, the CSA farmers’ commitment to agrobiodiversity contrasts with the monocultures that dominate the landscape. Agrobiodiversity is supported by the unique nature of CSAs. Many farmers noted that providing diversity in the box is a key strategy for maintaining CSA members, and that this had translated directly into diversity in crops and varieties on the farm. Regarding her CSA’s first member survey, one farmer noted that members wanted “more fruit and more diversity. We immediately planted fruit trees and told our members, ‘We are planting these fruit trees for you; wait 4 years for some peaches’” .