Re: FW: CSA's

[Leigh Hauter]

Hey Allan,

It's an interesting discussion about the history of CSA but we need to constantly remember that CSA is an evolving concept. (in fact, if I had my druthers I would completely do away with the term CSA because it is so unintuitive and because of so much of the baggage it carries from the past).

I think a lot of the original theory of CSA was, in practice, extremely anti-farmer. I know when I started out managing a CSA a decade ago our farmer was not paid a liveable wage but she was expected to work from sun up to sun down and then some. My second year, the foundation that owned the farm where we operated out of told me that I would have to take over another CSA because their farmer had quit (she was also paid an unliveable wage). This second CSA was structured along textbook lines with a controlling core group etc and was Waldorf school based. At the time, its ten or so year history was marred with fights with farmers and landowners. Their interest was providing low cost wholesome vegetables for their subscribers. But really could care less about the farmers or farm workers, or for that matter, landowners

I think the future of CSA is really farmer owned and lead subscription vegetables. These have to be farmers that are very much in touch with the interests and needs of their subscriber. The old CSA model assumed, in large part, that farming wasn't a profession. that farm work wasn't skilled, and that the doctor and lawyer subscribers could do the work and give the orders as well as the farmer could. That they would just hire a farmer as they hired a house cleaner. (do I sound bitter? I don't mean to, just the facts).

I, also think Allan made a good point about farms that sell to markets and then operate a CSA. I wouldn't do it. Don't support it, and don't think its a good idea. Several people around here do, though, besides Blue Ridge. The drawbacks are:
1. they are inclined to only grow vegetables that sell at market. If there isn't a good market, market for it (say fennel or tomatillos) they aren't inclined to grow much or any of the non 'American' vegetables.
2. they look at their shares in reference to how much it will bring at market. There is a CSA around here, run by a good woman who prides herself on making sure her CSA basket is worth $17 and some cents per week. She gets this price by how much those vegetables are selling at her roadside market. 3. Finally, what Allen said, if there is only so much of something, and I can sell all of it at a premium price at market, the shareholders aren't going to get any.

I do like the one aspect of the 'old time' CSA theory in that the subscribers share in the success and failure of the program. This means, no outside sales. What you grow goes to your subscribers. This works to make the subscribers feel more part of the farm, and it does work to educate the people who eat the food about what farming is (though I just got an e-mail from a last year subscriber who was looking over this year's seed list and said 'Oh, I'm glad you are growing corn this year.' Where last year I said over and over and over that 'the corn is planted on unirrigated land and we are having a major drought. This means, the corn isn't growing.'
Oh well.