Community Supported Agriculture

Agricultural 

Marketing 

Service

April 2017

New Models for Changing Markets
ii

Recommended Citation: Timothy Woods, Matthew Ernst, and Debra Tropp. Community Supported Agriculture – New 

Models for Changing Markets. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, April 2017. Web.

Acknowledgments: This work was funded by Cooperative agreement 12-25-A-5660 with the Agricultural Marketing 

Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This study necessarily involved extensive interviews with numerous 

Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) operators and builds on the previous case study of selected CSAs published as 

The Changing CSA Strategic Business Model. The authors would like to again acknowledge the contributions of many to 

that study that were used to frame the questions for this survey. James Barham with AMS provided regular guidance on 

the survey design and cases. 

Disclaimer: The opinions and conclusion expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture or the Agricultural Marketing Service.

Author Contact: 

Timothy Woods, tim.woods@uky.edu, 859-257-7270

USDA Contact: 

Debra Tropp, Debra.Tropp@ams.usda.gov, 202-720-8326

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, 

the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are 

prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender 

expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public 

assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity 

conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large 

print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program 

information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found 

online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and 

provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-

9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) 

email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender. 
iii

Community Supported Agriculture

New Models for Changing Markets

Timothy Woods and Matthew Ernst, University of Kentucky

Debra Tropp, USDA Agricultural Marketing Service
iv
v

Contents

Introduction 1

Background and Methods 2

What is the issue? 2

What did the study find? 3

How was the study conducted? 4

Changes in the CSA Model Over Time 6

CSA Growth Opportunities 7

CSA Business Models and Risk Management 8

Future of Community Supported Agriculture 9

CSA Manager Survey Design and Data 10

CSA Business Characteristics 11

Other Market Channels for CSAs 14

Changes in CSA Products, Business Functions, and Profitability 15

Evaluating Local Food Market Demand, Competition, and Shareholder Recruitment 19

Cooperation Potential for Multi-Farm CSAs 22

Discussion and Conclusions From the CSA Manager Survey 24

The Changing CSA Business Model – Six Case Studies 25

CSA Interview Question Themes 25

CSA Case Study 1: Elmwood Stock Farm 27

CSA Market Discovery 28

For Experienced Growers 28

Season Extension 29

Shareholders 29

Communication and Customer Connection to Farm 30

Regional Efforts, Multi-Farm CSAs and What is a CSA? 31

Growth Opportunities 31

CSA Case Study 2: Penn’s Corner Farmer Alliance 32

CSA Market Discovery 33

Relying on Experienced Growers 34

Quality Essential 34
vi

Season Extension and Value-Added Processing 35

CSA Growth Opportunities 36

Advantages of Being a CSA and How the Business Model is Shifting 37

Sidebar: CSAs and E-Commerce 37

CSA Case Study 3: Farmer Dave’s 38

Farmer Dave’s Sliding-Scale CSA Business Model 38

Reaching Low-Income CSA Shareholders With Urban Partners 39

CSA Case Study 4: FairShare CSA Coalition 43

Madison Eaters Revolutionary Front – The Beginning 43

Cash Flow by Cookbook 43

Community Connections 44

Health Rebate Program Keys 45

Outlook and Producer Perspective on Health Rebate Program 45

Other Functions of FairShare 46

Future of FairShare CSAs 47

CSA Case Study 5: Innovations in Denver Urban and Urban Fringe Markets 48

CSAs and Urban Agriculture 48

Granata Farms, Downtown Denver, Elaine Granata 48

Star Acre Farms, Arvada, CO

CSAs and Planned Urban Development Initiatives, Jackie Raehl 49

Issues for Denver Metro CSAs 50

Partnerships Viewed Essential to Growth 50

Peer-to-Peer Learning: Building Farmers Programs 51

Changes in CSAs over Time 51

Relation to Other Market Channels 51

Perspectives on the Future of Denver-Area CSAs 52

CSA Case Study 6: Fair Shares Combined CSA 53

An Innovative Local Food Retailer 53

Building Suppliers and Shareholders 53

Changes in Customers, Business 54

Producer Perspectives 55

Tips and Considerations for Enhancing CSA Success 

Through Strategic Business Practices 56

References 58

Photo Credits 60
1

A steady growth in CSAs and related marketing  structures has been observed concurrent with 

the growth in direct marketing and consumer interest in 

local foods. The CSA model has evolved from its original 

emphasis on organic and sustainable agriculture along 

with various measures of shareholder risk-sharing with 

producers (Ernst and Woods, 2009). Current business 

models for CSAs are diverse and innovative. Producers 

have adapted the CSA model to fit a variety of emerging 

direct marketing opportunities, including:

• Institutional health and wellness programs; 

• Multi-farm systems to increase scale and scope; 

• Season extension technologies; and 

• Incorporating value-added products, offering 

flexible shares, and flexible electronic purchasing 

and other e-commerce marketing tools.

A 2009 regional survey by Woods et al., revealed that 

CSA producers tend to have a diversity of market outlets 

and have used the CSA model to both scale up and to 

build a farm brand in community markets. Most CSAs, 

continuing with the current survey, are small (with some 

notable exceptions) but growing, maintaining fewer than 

80 shareholders. Most businesses have been started 

within the past 5 years. Producers have been able to 

diversify marketing channels readily from a CSA base to 

include direct to restaurants and small grocers and even 

work with wholesale distributors to reach a wider market 

area. However, the role and dynamics the CSA plays in 

helping producers to supply food competitively in the local 

food system is not very well understood as it is a relatively 

new business structure with a rapidly evolving model of 

operation. 

Introduction

This study proposed to identify the trends in CSA business 

model adaptation including changes in product innovation 

and profitability drivers as the CSA marketing model 

evolves to address emerging consumer preferences and 

direct marketing opportunities. By conducting a national 

survey of CSAs, researchers hoped to:

1. Describe the current use of the CSA business model, 

including scale and regional differences; 

2. Identify the role and strategic dynamics of the CSA 

model in a local foods business start-up; 

3. Identify the emerging and adapted uses of the CSA 

model to pursue scale individually and through 

cooperation and pursue alternative local foods 

markets; and

4. Examine perspectives of CSA operators on expected 

future business and market innovations. 

These objectives will yield important new knowledge 

regarding the trends and trajectory of CSAs, providing 

perspectives on changes in the CSA business model for 

consideration by current and prospective managers, and 

identifying future research and education program needs 

for CSAs for supporting agencies such as Extension, USDA, 

and local food Nongovernmental Organizations.

Many of the themes and issues featured in the national 

survey were informed by a series of focus group interviews 

conducted with CSA operators in six geographically diverse 

parts of the country. The results of these focus group 

interviews appear in summary format in the latter part of 

this report.
2

Background and Methods

What is the issue?

This project provides an analysis of the emerging 

marketing and business strategy trends of CSAs1

 in the 

United States. Regional studies (Strochlic and Shelly, 

2004; Oberholtzer, 2004; Woods et al, 2009; Galt et al, 

2012) have shed some light on trends with this business 

model, but have tended toward a narrower geographic 

analysis, have emphasized sociological elements, or had 

not explored CSAs as part of a comprehensive marketing 

strategy. These are important dimensions to CSAs given 

their historical roots, but their role as part of a producer’s 

local foods/direct marketing strategy is changing and 

not well understood. Regional and scale differences 

are evident. National studies, such as the Census of 

Agriculture, indicate 12,617 farms marketed through a CSA 

in the 2012 Census, up slightly from the 12,549 identified 

in 2007. Getting an accurate count on CSA businesses is 

more difficult than it may seem, given the expansion of 

multi-farm, food-hub, and non-farm-based CSA delivery 

models. The divergence in CSA counts across various 

public and private agencies has been addressed by Ryan 

Galt (Galt, 2011) and the measurement problem continues. 

The Biodynamics Association, one of a number of local 

food system advocacy groups, in an effort to provide a 

history of CSA, cites McFadden’s 2012 estimate of between 

6,000 and 6,500 CSAs, but also references LocalHarvest 

estimates at that time of 4,571 active CSAs2

 (Biodynamic 

Farming and Gardening, 2012). The CSA definition and 

counting has only become more difficult. The variations 

of the CSA value proposition and marketing strategy for 

producers are also not well understood. Some producers 

have used the traditional CSA model as a market entry 

point for local foods distribution and then graduated to 

other business models as scale allowed. Others have 

adapted the traditional CSA model to CSA-like models that 

better accommodate single or multi-farm scale economies.

This study utilizes a national survey of CSA managers 

conducted in 2014 to document changes in the CSA model 

with particular attention paid to regional differences, 

urban/rural location of the farm, and the age of the CSA. 

Given the rapid growth and increased diversity of business 

practices being observed, USDA/AMS, in partnership with 

the University of Kentucky, conducted the national survey 

of CSA managers. The survey’s aims were to document the 

emerging marketing and business strategies of producers 

using the CSA model and to understand the variations in 

performance and sustainability of the business model. 

Part of the analysis provides a current description of 

the CSAs across the country, but a further objective is to 

understand the dynamics of this model in the context of 

entry into the local foods market, including understanding 

the CSA manager perceptions of competing local foods 

delivery models in various market contexts. The study 

documents manager interest in multi-farm collaborations 

to pursue various innovations and adaptations of the 

traditional CSA model. The results should be instructive 

to CSA operators, policy makers, and support agencies 

working alongside various local foods efforts.

The CSA business model has evolved significantly 

as entrepreneurs and market forces have opened 

opportunities for the implementation of the model 

in ways quite unlike the early CSA operations. New 

products, season extensions, multi-farm collaborations, 

new shareholder groups, marketing collaborations with 

different organizations, innovative aggregation and 

delivery strategies, new urban production connections, 

and health and wellness alliances are among the current 

trends reshaping the CSA business. Neil Stauffer, General 

Manager for Penn’s Corner Farm Alliance in Pittsburgh, PA, 

noted that CSAs have changed from an emphasis on the 

farmer to the consumer. “When CSAs were first around, 

it seems like it was more like customers saying, ‘We really 

believe in you, the farmer, and how can we make this work 

for you?’” he observed. “Now, it seems like it has shifted 

and the farmers are saying, ‘How can we make the CSA 

work better for you, the customer?’”

A series of six case studies were completed based on 

interviews with farmers, managers, and customers who 

represented various models of CSA business organization, 

market focus, production and marketing innovation across 

the country. While the authors recognize that there are 

numerous cases of innovation across CSAs nationally – and 

1 Community Supported Agriculture (CSA), as used in this report, is defined as a producer-consumer local production and marketing partnership 

that involves a subscription-based contract for the delivery of seasonal products from the farm. The traditional CSA placed substantial emphasis 

on sustainable agriculture, shared production risk, consumer involvement with production activities, and authenticity of local sourcing (Bougherara, 

Grolleau, & Mzoughi, 2009; Henderson & Van En, 1999). A “shareholder” is defined here as a CSA subscriber, typically a consuming household and 

a “share” is the season subscription.

2 Localharvest is a web directory for local sourced foods through a variety of market channels. Their national active CSA count for April 2015 was 

5,638 according to www.localharvest.org
3

these aren’t exhaustive—they believe that these stories 

add texture and nuance to the changing character of CSAs 

in the United States, and help reveal how they are adapting 

to new opportunities, but also to new competition. Cases 

were selected for geographic diversity as well as types 

of innovation, including CSAs from Kentucky, Wisconsin, 

Pennsylvania, Missouri, Massachusetts, and Colorado.

A geographically diverse case-based approach can be 

particularly useful for gaining producer and agency 

perspectives on innovations in the CSA marketing model. 

To that end, a set of CSAs were selected nationally that 

represented traditional single farm models; co-operatives/

multi-farm CSAs; low-income consumer-targeted CSAs; 

multi-farm innovations targeting particular consumer 

segments with a unique health and wellness marketing 

partner; CSAs associated with urban market innovations; 

and a for-profit food hub concept that utilized a CSA 

aggregation and distribution model. Interviews with key 

informants affiliated with each CSA or CSA community 

were coordinated through a variety of agency contacts.

What did the study find?

The study documents important trends associated with 

the CSA business model nationally. The CSA model has 

been in place for many farms for some time now. The 

earliest CSAs established in the United States date back to 

the mid-1980s, and more than 25 percent of the managers 

who responded to the survey indicated their CSA had 

been in operation for over 10 years. CSAs have grown in 

number as documented in the Census of Agriculture, but 

the national CSA manager survey indicates they have also 

grown in shareholder size over the past 3 years (note 

table 4). 

The CSA business model has definitely evolved. Only about 

27 percent of the CSAs surveyed are certified organic, a 

departure from the focus of the earlier CSA movement (46 

percent were certified organic and 92 percent were at least 

using organic or biodynamic practices in the 2001 survey 

by Lass et al). Many of the surveyed CSAs have taken 

advantage of new direct marketing tools, including webbased sales, season extension technologies, and offering a 

greater diversity of products – including processed items. 

Most of them have a diversified marketing mix, utilizing 

a variety of other market channels. The majority of CSA 

managers who responded to our survey also sell through 

farmers markets and area restaurants, but often include 

other market channels, as well.

Surveyed CSA managers generally view their markets 

positively for growth potential and see the CSA distribution 

model as an important contributor to farm sales (58 

percent indicate that the CSA accounts for at least half of 

all their farm sales) and profitability. About 55 percent 

indicated that the profitability of their CSAs had at least 

increased to some degree since they had started their 

CSA – with 10 percent indicating that their profitability 

had “increased a lot.” Furthermore, more than half of 

surveyed managers expected their CSA sales to increase 

over the next 2 years.

There is some evidence of variability in perceived market 

demand and the profitability/performance outlook for 

CSAs depending on region, proximity to urban centers, 

and the CSA’s age, which are documented and discussed 

throughout the study. The CSA distribution model is 

being adapted to numerous products, markets, and 

groups of producers. This study found roughly similar 

utilization of various and alternative market channels 

for CSAs regardless of their proximity to urban locations. 

The differences were more evident in the production 

techniques, product markets, and business strategies 

implemented, highlighting the diversity of approaches 

CSA operators adopted depending on their specific 

market context.

CSAs use websites to sell product and give information 

on locations of farm stands, restaurants and wholesale 

markets where their product is sold.
4

The study documents differences in manager perceptions 

of competition for local food to local markets coming from 

new CSAs, expansion from existing CSAs, farm markets, 

and other retail channels that have also expanded local 

foods marketing. The determination of who is the 

competition seems to be largely influenced by proximity 

to urban markets and the age of the CSA, and to some 

degree, on the CSA’s location.

Surveyed CSA managers also seemed generally 

interested in exploring multi-farm business innovations 

and collaborations that enable them to pursue new 

markets, engage in more aggressive promotion, offer 

vouchers to select consumer targets, share logistics, 

and share production. However, the degree to which 

these innovations had been successfully adopted by CSA 

managers varied considerably. For example, the interest 

in voucher programs targeting low-income consumers and 

clients of health and wellness programs seemed to greatly 

outweigh current practice, suggesting that there seems to 

be room to help facilitate selected aspects of multi-farm 

CSA cooperation before it reaches its full market potential. 

The case studies provided numerous illustrations of 

business model innovation, underscoring the fact that the 

CSA marketing model continues to be adapted to fit many 

market circumstances. Based on manager perceptions 

of business growth, competitiveness, and profitability, 

there appears to be growth potential for a diversity of 

successful strategies within the CSA framework – including 

single farm, multi-farm, co-operatively owned, and even 

non-farm owned. The study also identified a diversity of 

market targets as yet untapped, including the traditional 

shareholder who prefers organic produce. However, it is 

clear from both our case studies and our survey that CSA 

managers are increasingly focused on using their CSA as a 

way to facilitate consumer access to local foods in general, 

rather than specifically targeting consumers of organic fruit 

and vegetables. Farms and farm networks are continually 

finding new ways to reach non-traditional market 

segments with CSA shares. This includes incorporating 

e-commerce, adding products through season extension 

and multiple season offerings, adding shares for alternative 

product lines beyond traditional produce, and working 

with urban, health/wellness, and community development 

partners to access a broader base of customers, including 

lower income shareholders. The Madison, WI, FairShare 

CSA Coalition has utilized wellness plan vouchers to 

substantially expand demand for share participation with 

local farmers. Coalition members, as still independent 

farm-CSAs, have organized to both collectively promote 

the voucher program and to provide quality standards 

critical to maintaining the program. Denver area CSAs 

have provided many of their own innovations including 

collaborations with city planning, urban markets, and 

peer-learning among CSA farmers. Non-farm aggregation 

models to deliver CSAs have been emerging as well, 

including the Fair Share CCSA in St. Louis where a small 

food retailer built a CSA business around a shared vision 

for local foods with area farmers.

How was the study conducted?

This study is a follow-on study that explored six cases in 

CSA innovation. The earlier study included both individual 

farm and multi-farm initiatives and explored a variety of 

non-traditional approaches to CSA products and target 

markets. The study utilized a web-based survey to explore 

national business development trends for CSAs based 

on observations in the initial case studies. We designed 

the survey instrument to examine current business 

characteristics, sales in related market channels, changes 

in production and marketing strategies, competition and 

local food demand, prospects for business cooperation, 

and shareholder recruitment. The target population was 

CSAs that had been in operation for at least 2 years, given 

the emphasis on changes in business activities.

3  The directory is based at the Robyn Van En Center at Wilson College at www.wilson.edu.

CSAs innovate to reach urban and non-traditional 

markets in East Boston.
5

There was no current national CSA database of addresses 

available from which to develop a distribution list. 

Therefore, a master list had to be compiled drawing from 

communications from State departments of agriculture, 

local foods registers, and food marketing databases. 

Many of these were out of date and required updating 

for current contacts. A database was assembled through 

a variety of earlier business lists assembled by the Robyn 

Van En Center,3 but expanded through updates provided 

by various State departments of agriculture, grower 

associations, and LocalHarvest.com listings. We assembled 

a database and sampling process that would provide equal 

representation in the final sample and allow comparison 

of regional differences. A balanced sample of 525 was 

therefore selected from each of the four regions of the 

country, using USDA designations for Southeast, Northeast, 

North Central, and West.

We sent a preliminary invitation to the CSA manager or 

lead operator requesting participation and explaining the 

goals of the survey. Any CSA could opt out. We followed 

up 3 weeks later with a second invitation. Surveys were 

distributed to 2,100 addresses that did not opt out of the 

study, 525 to each region. A total of 495 CSAs returned 

usable surveys during the period of February to July 2014, 

yielding an approximate 24 percent effective return rate. 

Usable responses regionally were collected from the 

Northeast (100), North Central (119), Southeast (87), and 

West (189), providing some differences in response rates 

by region.

We used a case-based approach to gaining producer and 

agency perspectives on innovations in the CSA marketing 

model ahead of the national CSA manager survey. A set of 

CSAs were selected nationally that represented:

• Traditional single farm models, 

• Cooperatives/multi-farm CSAs, 

• Low-income consumer-targeted CSAs, 

• Multi-farm innovations targeting unique consumer 

segments with a health and wellness marketing 

partner,

• CSAs associated with urban market innovations, 

and 

• A for-profit food hub concept that utilized a CSA 

aggregation and distribution model. 

These cases were selected to provide a diversity of market 

and geographic perspectives. We coordinated Interviews 

with key informants affiliated with each CSA or CSA 

community through a variety of agency contacts, including 

local Extension offices, producer associations, local food 

non-profits, and local government agencies.
6

Changes in the CSA Model Over Time

Farmers who have adapted and innovated to reach growing local market demand have found numerous 

ways to adapt the CSA subscription model in a way that 

fits their goals and unique market conditions. The model 

is highly flexible to accommodate a variety of products 

– produce, meat, dairy, eggs, as well as value-added and 

processed products coming from the farm. 

The definition of CSA has evolved as well. Farmers and 

shareholders both have adapted the concept to encompass 

and represent a variety of local food systems relationships. 

The more successful models, those CSAs characterized 

as sustainable business ventures while meeting the 

mutual mission goals of the farm and shareholders, have 

maintained a close farmer-consumer connection. The 

inclusion of urban community development and health 

care workers has actually added an interesting new 

dimension to the CSA community, as well as peer-to-peer 

learning. Many consumers view the CSA as an extension of 

the community farm market experience and seem happy 

to include other community partners. 

The term “CSA” is becoming increasingly confusing to 

many. Most farmers and consumers recognize and 

understand the subscription model, but need additional 

reflection around the meaning of community as it relates 

to sustainability. As other business models emerge that 

are seeking to take advantage of the growing demand 

for local food, farmers will need to pay particularly close 

attention to the meaning of community as a means of 

differentiating themselves to their core consumers.

Most of the farmers we interviewed selling through CSA 

also had significant marketing activity in community 

farm markets, on-farm retail, direct to restaurants and 

grocers, and other market channels. Farmers were 

selling increasingly more through the CSA as the model 

was able to be adapted to their customer needs. Few 

farmers recommended the CSA as a starting point for new 

producers. The production management, distribution, 

and marketing require considerable expertise and benefits 

substantially from experience.
7

CSA Growth Opportunities

Growth opportunities fall in a number of categories – new products, season extension or year-round 

sales, scaling up through multi-farm partnerships, utilizing 

e-commerce, and connecting to new consumer segments. 

This can include low-income consumers or health and 

wellness programs. 

New product opportunities have emerged for CSA 

distribution of all different kinds of products – cheese, 

fish, flowers, wine, sauces, and other custom-processed or 

co-packed products have added to consumer interest and 

seem to relate to shareholder retention. Shareholders are 

drawn to greater variety, but farms must be cautious not to 

press for too great a variety. There are diminishing returns 

associated with greater inventory management.

Season extension is a great opportunity, allowing farms 

to significantly expand the scope, timing, and quality of 

products coming from protected agriculture environments. 

This makes part-season shares and specialty shares more 

feasible as well.

The role and effectiveness of multi-farm CSAs was mixed. 

There is a sacrifice in control and challenges with managing 

quality and consistency. There is a risk of loss in perceived 

value to the shareholder moving from a farm estate 

product to an aggregated “local” product that may not 

be identified with a specific farm. Still, many producer 

associations that are aggregating product through 

warehouses (e.g., Penn’s Corner) have found equitable 

ways to utilize their collective scale to put in place 

resources like managers and/or collectively promote their 

products to the local foods community. Others, somewhat 

aligned with the food hub model, have found volume and 

product variety advantages to aggregation, creating market 

opportunities for participating farmers who probably 

wouldn’t be there otherwise (e.g. Fair Shares in St. Louis).

E-commerce will likely play an increasingly important role 

in both logistics and marketing for CSAs. New firms like 

Farmigo and Small Farm Central are among a number of 

new private support ventures that help CSAs expand this 

means of shareholder and producer communication and 

trade. Social media connects closely with the community 

dimension of CSA and can also play a part in enhancing 

producer-shareholder linkages.
8

CSA Business Models and 

Risk Management

Many advantages to the CSA model were noted throughout the various interviews. Farmers in 

the more traditional single model continue to identify 

cash flow, relative profitability to other marketing 

channels, production planning, and product flexibility as 

main attractions. Farmers noted that, much like farmers 

markets, the CSAs can be a good platform to introduce 

new products on an experimental basis or to expand 

variations on share types (adding meat or egg shares, 

or offering half-shares), taking advantage of a highly 

interactive direct-to-consumer framework that can provide 

good feedback on demand. 

However, multi-farm models can be beneficial as well. 

Multi-farm CSAs have the potential to help farmers 

manage specialty crop risk by contributing to a more 

diverse portfolio of products that can collectively be 

more attractive to local food buyers. They can open new 

markets through expanded scale or scope. Developing this 

advantage requires having the right partners and not every 

CSA is willing to engage other producers where supply and 

quality may not be consistent. 

CSAs have also successfully worked through community 

partnerships with urban, land, or economic development 

agencies that help farmers access non-traditional markets. 

These partnerships make the CSA model attractive largely 

because products and services can be readily adapted to 

customer needs in markets not traditionally served by 

these farms. The CSA business model, whether single or 

multi-farm, has been adapted to allow farmers to make a 

stronger connection to their most loyal customers using 

more flexible products and services and cost-effective 

distribution models.

Farmers do many things to collaborate to make their CSA 

successful including coming together to market, sharing 

personnel resources, diversifying products, adding new 

product lines, developing shared e-commerce platforms, 

and providing greater supply assurance to shareholders 

and/or wholesale customers. Farmers also develop peer 

education and shareholder education on health and 

nutrition through collaborations with other communitybased partners.

CSAs diversify their products 

through meat and egg shares.
9

Future of Community 

Supported Agriculture

Most farmers in these cases remained very optimistic about the opportunities for growth and continued 

innovation. The CSA seems to be both flexible and 

effective as a means for connecting with consumers who 

value local products and closer relationships with farms. 

The future of CSAs will have to balance the economic 

benefits of various multi-farm and third-party aggregation 

strategies that necessarily place increased distance 

between the farm and the consumer and the challenges 

and growth limits of remaining very focused on a local 

community.

There is increasing competition for the local food dollar as 

consumer demand for local food expands. Other retailers 

see a range of preferences for local products – from a 

core group with very strong preferences and conceptions 

for local to those who might have some interest in local 

but may be more price-sensitive. Grocers, specialty 

wholesalers, and other dedicated distribution firms have 

tried to make inroads into these markets and provide some 

degree of new competition with CSAs.

Farms that are able to clearly differentiate their offerings 

through close or direct relationships with customers are in 

a good position to maintain their advantage, particularly 

with the core consumer. There are strategic questions 

farmers must address as they consider multi-farm models 

and the future of CSA, particularly as individual farm 

identity is lost. These types of aggregation models place 

them closer in concept to the retailers that are pursuing 

the loyal local foods customer.

The inclusion of new community partners that may not 

have been previously associated with CSA offers substantial 

promise for CSA farms to build on their value proposition. 

This includes collaborations with health and community 

agencies, economic development partners, low-income 

support agencies, urban development projects, community 

property development projects, and other local food 

marketing partners, all of which can contribute to new 

opportunities for CSA farms.

The balance between building toward a critical mass of 

local food awareness distributed through a variety of local 

channels and actual market competition will be a factor 

CSAs will have to watch closely. They will need to pay 

attention to their unique value proposition and how the 

CSA can uniquely deliver that – particularly to the core 

local foods consumer who places very high value on a 

close relationship with the farmer. The strategic reach of 

retailers and other aggregators is generally more mediated 

as they try to reach local consumers, but they are getting 

better at it. Figure 1 suggests a conceptual framework 

for considering the spectrum to local food marketers and 

their strategic reach against the local food consumer value 

proposition. 

Figure 1. Local Food Strategic Reach and Value Proposition to CSA Shareholders
10

CSA Manager Survey Design and Data

We utilized a web-based survey to explore national business development trends for CSAs. The survey 

instrument was designed to examine current business 

characteristics, sales in related market channels, changes 

in production and marketing strategies, competition and 

local food demand, prospects for business cooperation, 

and shareholder recruitment. CSAs that had been in 

operation for at least 2 years were the target population, 

given the emphasis on changes in business activities.

There was no current national CSA database of 

addresses, so we compiled a master list drawing from 

communications from State departments of agriculture, 

local foods registers, and food marketing databases. Many 

of these were out of date and required updating. We 

selected a sample of 525 from each of the four regions 

of the country, using USDA designations for southeast, 

northeast, north central, and west.

We sent a preliminary invitation to the CSA manager or 

lead operator requesting participation and explaining the 

goals of the study. Any CSA could opt out. Three weeks 

later, we followed up with a second invitation. Surveys 

were distributed to 2,100 addresses that did not opt out 

of the study, 525 to each region. CSAs returned a total of 

495 usable surveys, yielding an approximate 24 percent 

effective return rate. We collected usable responses 

regionally from the northeast (100), north central (119), 

southeast (87), and west (189), providing some differences 

in response rates by region.

Demographic characteristics of the CSA managers 

responding to the survey suggested a relatively large share 

of female managers, younger, and generally well-educated. 

These are summarized in table 1.

Table 1. CSA Manager Characteristics

Gender

 Female 259

 Male 171

Age

 18-24 7

 25-34 102

 35-44 116

 45-54 92

 55-64 87

 65+ 26

Education

 Less than high school 0

 High school graduate or equivalent 16

 Some college/associate’s degree 94

 Bachelor’s degree 187

 Graduate or professional degree 131
11

CSA Business Characteristics

Seasons in Operation

Many CSAs have been around for a while, over 26 percent 

having been in business for over 10 years. The survey 

targeted CSAs that were more established with a view 

to looking at business trends over recent years. This 

population was screened to only include those that 

had been in existence for at least 2 years – a handful 

of respondents indicated only one season of actual 

production. There is evidence of a cluster of CSAs that 

have been around for 3-5 years and another for 10+ years. 

The CSA typically involves a few years to establish to 

plan for production and to recruit shareholders. Figure 2 

provides a summary of the distribution of CSA seasons of 

operation. 

Figure 2. How many seasons has your CSA been in operation?

Characterization of Production Methods

Organic production may have been the focus of CSAs early 

in the CSA movement, but there has been a clear shift 

to non-certification; only 27.2 percent indicated organic 

certification of production. Most managers indicate they 

are implementing production systems at least according 

to organic standards or certified (86.2 percent). Table 2 

summarizes production methods. 

Table 2. How would you characterize your 

production methods?

Production N* Percent

Certified organic 134 27.2%

According to organic standards, but 

not certified 291 59.0%

Incorporate some organic along with 

conventional methods 61 12.4%

Primarily conventional growing 

techniques 7 1.4%

Total 493
12

Farm Sales Share from CSA

The average share of sales to the farm operation coming 

from the CSA was reported to be 53.2 percent. The 

CSA was the major market channel for 58.1 percent 

of those reporting. The role and changes with other 

market channels is taken up in more detail later. Table 3 

summarizes the share of farm sales from CSA. 

Table 3. Percent of total farm sales comes from CSA

% Farm Sales from CSA N* Share of Responses

less than 25 120 25.5%

25-49 77 16.4%

50-74 117 24.9%

75-100 156 33.2%

Total Responses 470 100.0%

Average % of Farm Sales 

From CSA 53.2

Shareholders Enrolled

CSA managers were asked to provide observations in the 

number of shareholders during the last 2 years and an 

estimate for 2014. Average growth in participation was +6 

percent in 2013 and another +11 percent in 2014 (table 

4). It is especially interesting to look at where they have 

grown faster by proximity to urban areas. CSAs with more 

of an e-commerce orientation in another recent survey 

were observed to be larger and growing at an even faster 

rate. Huntley observed in CSAs participating with Small 

Farm Central, 248 CSA farms that were also part of the 

memberassembler.com E-commerce support network 

reported larger share sizes among this group – averaging 

213 shareholders with an average CSA income of $30,342 

and an average 79 percent sales growth over 2013 sales 

(Huntley, 2014).

Table 4. How many CSA patrons did you have 

enrolled in...

2012 2013 2014

— Shareholders —

Average All CSAs 120.4 127.4 140.9

Although average shareholder size has been growing, 

there are a large number of relatively small CSAs. The 

average shareholders reported for 2014 was 140.9, but 

the median response was 60 shareholders. Shareholders 

numbers reported at each quintile suggest a wide range 

between the smaller and larger CSAs – a long left tail in the 

distribution from the mean, as noted in figure 3. In 2014 

61 percent of the CSAs reported under 100 shareholders 

(down from 65 percent in 2012).

Figure 3. Distribution of Shareholders Across Sample
13

CSA Proximity to Urban Communities

Farms utilizing the CSA distribution model locate in a 

variety of settings. We explored the proximity of the 

CSA to urban areas through the survey instrument. 

Responses indicated a fairly even distribution between 

urban and rural locations. Location will likely have 

implications for distribution and collaboration tendencies, 

as well as general shareholder growth, sales volume, 

and opportunities to develop various markets. Table 5 

summarizes CSA farm location information.

Table 5. Which of the following best describes 

where your CSA is located?

Location N* Percent

Near (within 50 miles) a large city 

(over 1 million) 104 24.2%

Near (within 50 miles) a small city 

(250,000-1,000,000) 143 33.3%

Small town 114 26.5%

Countryside 69 16.0%

*N= 430

Regional analysis of the data suggests considerable 

geographic differences, summarized in table 6. CSA 

shareholder size was larger in the Northeast and smaller 

in the Southeast. Probably related, the average age of 

the CSA was older in the Northeast and smaller in the 

Southeast compared to the national average. Westernbased CSAs were slightly more likely to be certified organic, 

and less so in the Southeast. CSAs in the Southeast were 

more likely to be located within 50 miles of an urban 

center, while rural settings for production were more likely 

in the other regions.4

Differences in the expected profitability of the CSA looking 

ahead to the next 2 years were most striking between 

those on the lower end of the range in the Northeast (39 

percent) to the high end of the range in the North Central 

region where 59.7 percent of respondents expected 

increased sales. Sales growth expectation is an important 

variable and reflects the manager’s perception of 

competition, local demand, and opportunities to innovate.

4  A previous national survey of CSAs by Lass, Stevenson, Hendrickson, and Ruhf in 1999 noted 41% of the CSAs as certified organic – although this 

was prior to the USDA certification. The median respondents sold 29 full shares and 23 half shares, and 70% reported operating on 49 acres or less 

– at a median of 18 acres. 

Table 6. CSA Business Characteristics by Region

Region*

Northeast North 

Central Southeast West Overall

Average CSA Size (shareholders estimated for 2014) 203.8 154.5 105.9 125.7 144.8

Age of CSA**(years) 7.8 6.5 6.0 6.8 6.8

Certified Organic (%) 28.0% 22.7% 19.5% 32.8% 27.2%

Share in Urban Location*** 54.7% 54.7% 67.1% 56.5% 57.4%

Expect Increasing CSA Sales Next 2 Years 39.0% 59.7% 52.9% 51.3% 51.1%

N 100 119 87 189 495

*Regional designations of various states in this study follow those made by USDA – Northeast, North Central, Southeast, and West.

**The average age of CSAs by region used an imputed value of 13 years for the categorical variable “10+ years” for the purposes of estimating an 

average over each group.

***A significant number of respondents reported their CSA location close to urban population centers. Urban here means located near (within 50 

miles) of a large city – over 1 million or small city – 250,000 to 1,000,000. Specific responses related to location by region are reported as follows:

Northeast North Central Southeast West All

Urban 47 58 47 95 247

Total 86 106 70 168 430
14

Other Market Channels for CSAs

The CSA marketing channel was clearly a substantial focus 

and priority among those managers responding to the 

survey. Many CSAs utilize additional market channels 

to diversify and to complement their CSA market. Low 

and Vogel (2011) discuss many of the issues relating to 

direct and intermediated markets. This survey did not 

explore the specific use of and relationship to intermediary 

market partners, although specialty wholesalers and food 

hubs have certainly ventured into the CSA subscriptiontype delivery model, sourcing from local producers and 

aggregating products for delivery. Wholesalers have 

increasingly partnered with growers to better serve area 

grocers and restaurants with local products. It is evident, 

however, that other direct marketing channels (community 

farmers markets and on-farm retail) are more common 

marketing venues for CSAs. 

Table 7 summarizes the level of activity that survey 

respondents reported in various marketing channels. 

One of the more striking results was the extent to which 

CSAs sell to restaurants – over half of them. The specific 

use of direct-store deliveries versus using intermediaries 

in delivery was not explicitly addressed, although it is 

not surprising to see restaurants and farmers markets 

dominate the list of alternative market outlets for CSAs 

given the complementary distribution strategies typical 

of CSAs. 

We conducted an analysis of the data to explore possible 

differences in market channel strategy by urban versus 

rural location of the CSA. This value does not necessarily 

correspond to actual sales by channel, which may still 

be different by business location. But, as noted in the 

summary on table 8, the marketing channel mix broken 

out by proximity to population centers seems to be 

approximately the same with only slight variations.

Table 7. Indicate which markets you used to sell 

farm products

Market N* Percent

CSA 469 100.0

Farmers market 304 64.8

Restaurants 258 55.0

On-farm retail 194 41.4

Grocery 180 38.4

School/institutions 92 19.6

Contract to processors 17 3.6

Auction sales 12 2.6

Other (please specify) 76 16.2

Table 8. Market Channel Participation by CSA Location

Location Near large city Near small city Small town Countryside

CSA 100% 100% 100% 100%

Community farmers market 60% 69% 69% 68%

On-farm retail market 47% 37% 35% 56%

Grocery 32% 38% 44% 43%

Restaurants 58% 61% 54% 47%

Schools/Institutions 19% 17% 26% 19%

Auction sales 4% 2% 2% 0%

Contract to processors 3% 5% 4% 3%
15

Managers were asked to provide an outlook for the various 

market channels, looking ahead to sales changes in the 

various markets over the next 2 years. Managers were 

provided a “does not apply” option for each market where 

they either may not be selling or don’t have a good feel for 

the channel. The majority of responses expected increases 

in each of the market channels with the exception of 

auction markets. 

Sales to schools/institutions were noted most frequently 

as being expected to increase, followed by on-farm retail, 

restaurants, grocery, CSAs, contracts to processors, and 

farmers markets. Only about 10 percent or fewer expected 

to see decreasing sales in any of these markets. Table 9 

summarizes these observations. 

Table 9. How do you expect sales to change in these markets over the next 2 years?

Sales Change CSA 

Channel

Community 

Farm Market

On-farm 

Retail 

Market

Wholesale 

to Grocery

Wholesale 

to 

Restaurant

Wholesale 

to Schools & 

Institutions

Auction Contract to 

processors

Decreasing 51 33 8 24 31 6 5 4

About the 

same

163 123 78 72 92 33 8 16

Increasing 253 175 158 132 182 98 5 23

N 467 331 244 228 305 137 18 43

By Percent

Decreasing 10.9% 10.0% 3.3% 10.5% 10.2% 4.4% 27.8% 9.3%

Same 34.9% 37.2% 32.0% 31.6% 30.2% 24.1% 44.4% 37.2%

Increasing 54.2% 52.9% 64.8% 57.9% 59.7% 71.5% 27.8% 53.5%

Changes in CSA Products, 

Business Functions, and 

Profitability

The CSA model has evolved in recent years through 

a variety of production and marketing innovations. 

Part of the survey explored specific additions to the 

traditional CSA model or whether the CSA has observed a 

continuation of practices that were commonly associated 

with the CSA business model.

Changes to Products and Production

Managers were asked to reflect on changes in functional 

aspects of their CSA from when it began, focusing 

particularly on a variety of production-oriented activities, 

indicating whether the type of activity was decreasing, 

increasing, or did not apply. Specifically, we examined 

changes in scale, the variety of products offered, 

incorporation of processed products, season extension, 

sourcing from other producers, on-farm shareholder 

activities, and share packing on the farm. These are 

summarized in table 10.
16

Table 10. Manager Response to: Changes in Your CSA Operation Since It Began 

CSA Production Function Decreased 

a lot

Decreased 

some

Stayed 

about the 

same

Increased 

some

Increased 

a lot N

Scale and variety of products 

offered

7 22 94 194 126 443

1.6% 5.0% 21.2% 43.8% 28.4%

Processed products offered

2 8 76 101 28 215

0.9% 3.7% 35.3% 47.0% 13.0%

Season extension technologies

2 3 97 178 102 382

0.5% 0.8% 25.4% 46.6% 26.7%

Product sourcing from other 

producers

10 10 74 98 31 223

4.5% 4.5% 33.2% 43.9% 13.9%

On-farm shareholder activities

9 30 140 99 25 303

3.0% 9.9% 46.2% 32.7% 8.3%

Share packing on the farm

13 9 176 45 33 276

4.7% 3.3% 63.8% 16.3% 12.0%

Note: Percent represents of those that indicated the function applied to their CSA

The trend toward increasing scale and variety of products 

was fairly pronounced and widely applicable. More than 

28 percent of the CSAs indicated that the scale and variety 

of products offered had increased a lot since their CSA 

started, and 72 percent indicated it had at least increased 

somewhat. This development suggests that CSAs are 

discovering certain scale and scope economies in their 

product lines and are diversifying their product offerings 

more over time. The addition of processed products was 

not as widespread, but certainly increasing among those 

CSAs where processed product had been introduced.

Season extension technologies were also widely utilized 

and were increasing in use by more than 72 percent of 

the CSAs using them. Season extension technologies help 

expand both the scale and scope of products available to 

shareholders.

Product sourcing from other producers was less common, 

although the data suggest this practice is increasing 

somewhat. This is an alternate strategy to achieving 

product diversification and scale. Participants in focus 

group interviews voiced mixed opinions about multi-farm 

CSAs, particularly related to quality control, reputation 

and customer relations management, and diluting the 

farmer-shareholder connection (see more on this topic in 

5  Only 4 of the 200 CSAs surveyed by Woods et al in 2009 used workshare or barter agreements.

the Elmwood Stock Farm case study). Other CSA operators 

were able to very effectively use multi-farm scale and 

scope to access markets they would not otherwise be able 

to achieve on their own (Penn’s Corner Farm Alliance).

On-farm shareholder activities that invite CSA members 

to visit and/or work on the farm is an historical practice 

of CSAs commonly used in the spirit of building the 

community part of community supported agriculture. 

While many CSA operations still incorporate this to some 

extent, nearly a third of the CSAs surveyed indicated that 

these types of activities didn’t apply to their operation. 

Shareholder packing on the farm and other similar workfor-product type of arrangements, once a common part of 

the CSA, are similarly becoming less commonplace.

5

A summary of these production activities across regions 

and between newer (in operation 5 years or fewer) is 

provided in table 11. Key regional differences appear 

to relate to observed changes in season extension – 

substantially greater frequency of increases in the North 

Central region of the United States and less frequent in the 

Northeast. This result may be due to Northeast producers 

either already having implemented some of these season 

extension practices or, possibly, reflects differences in 

production and marketing cultures or observed demand 

between the regions (see table 6).
17

Younger CSAs seem more inclined to adopt processed 

products as part of their marketing mix and more likely 

to favor sourcing from other producers than their older 

peers Another somewhat counter-intuitive observation is 

the indication that younger CSAs are more likely to report 

increasing use of on-farm shareholder activities than 

CSAs that have been in operation longer than 5 years. It 

is unclear whether or not these differences in preference 

reflect differences in targeted marketing strategies or 

simply reflect changes that naturally occur during the 

business life cycle of a CSA. 

Changes to Business and Marketing

CSA managers were also asked to reflect on how a series of 

CSA business functions have changed since the inception 

of their business. Specifically, managers were asked 

to consider the changes to the sales and profitability 

of their CSA associated with adding share purchase 

options, cooperative marketing, flexible payment options, 

shareholder turnover, shareholder communications, and 

web-based sales. We then asked managers to summarize 

the overall contribution of the CSA to overall farm sales 

and the overall profitability of the CSA. An overall 

summary from all CSAs to changes in these business 

functions is summarized in table 12.

Table 11. Proportion Indicating Production Function “Increasing Some” or “Increasing a Lot” by Region and 

CSA Age

Region CSA Age

CSA Production Function NE NC SE W Newer 

CSA

Older 

CSA

Scale and variety of products offered 71.6% 76.1% 75.7% 68.6% 71.0% 73.5%

Processed products offered 60.0% 56.6% 64.9% 60.0% 65.5% 54.3%

Season extension technologies 61.8% 85.0% 73.8% 71.0% 70.3% 76.5%

Product sourcing from other producers 55.6% 58.6% 58.8% 58.1% 63.3% 53.6%

On-farm shareholder activities 40.3% 34.1% 46.3% 44.1% 47.6% 34.8%

Share packing on the farm 27.1% 28.0% 31.0% 28.0% 26.5% 29.9%

Note: Percent represents of those indicating the production function applies to their operation. Increasing is relative and not an absolute measure 

here. “Newer CSA” is defined here as having been in operation 5 years or less.
18

Table 12. Consider the following potential changes to your CSA sales and profitability since it began – please 

indicate where they may apply

CSA Business Function Decreased 

a lot

Decreased 

some

About the 

same

Increased 

some

Increased 

a lot N

Share purchase option 

(part-season or special shares)

6 20 135 144 61 366

1.6% 5.5% 36.9% 39.3% 16.7%

Marketing cooperation with other producers

7 11 103 104 26 251

2.8% 4.4% 41.0% 41.4% 10.4%

Flexible payment (i.e., installment plans)

2 9 187 138 46 382

0.5% 2.4% 49.0% 36.1% 12.0%

Shareholder turnover

13 48 276 68 20 425

3.1% 11.3% 64.9% 16.0% 4.7%

Communication with shareholders

0 11 174 184 66 435

0.0% 2.5% 40.0% 42.3% 15.2%

Web-based sales

1 3 92 112 82 290

0.3% 1.0% 31.7% 38.6% 28.3%

Contribution of CSA to overall farm profits

13 38 167 146 71 435

3.0% 8.7% 38.4% 33.6% 16.3%

Overall profitability of CSA

11 26 157 197 44 435

2.5% 6.0% 36.1% 45.3% 10.1%

Note: Percent represents of those that indicated the function applied to their CSA

Table 13 summarizes these business functions across 

regions and CSA operation age. There was some regional 

variation with more frequent reports of increases in 

shareholder turnover issues in the Southeast, and 

relatively greater increases in web-based sales, overall CSA 

profitability, and the contribution of the CSA to overall 

farm profits in the North Central region. Meanwhile, 

greater CSA age seems to be positively associated with 

increases in communication with shareholders and webbased sales. 

Table 13. Proportion Indicating Business Function “Increasing Some” or “Increasing a Lot” by Region and 

CSA Age

Region CSA Age

CSA Business Function NE NC SE W Newer 

CSA

Older 

CSA

Marketing cooperation with other producers 45.8% 47.9% 55.3% 56.4% 51.6% 52.0%

Flexible payment options (i.e., installment plans) 43.2% 53.0% 49.1% 47.0% 46.0% 50.3%

Shareholder turnover 22.6% 16.8% 28.2% 19.0% 19.0% 22.4%

Communication with shareholders 55.2% 58.7% 52.8% 59.9% 53.6% 61.4%

Web-based sales 55.8% 74.3% 69.6% 66.1% 63.8% 70.2%

Contribution of CSA to overall farm profits 47.1% 57.1% 52.1% 45.9% 51.6% 48.1%

Overall profitability of CSA 48.8% 65.1% 54.1% 53.2% 53.9% 56.9%

Note: Percent represents of those indicating the production function applies to their operation. Increasing is relative and not an absolute 

measure here. “Newer CSA” is defined here as having been in operation 5 years or less.
19

Evaluating Local Food Market 

Demand, Competition, and 

Shareholder Recruitment

Market demand and competition for local food in a CSA’s 

primary trade area can substantially influence the kind of 

business strategies the CSA employs, its mix of product 

offerings, and its emphasis on CSA-based marketing 

compared to other distribution options. Demand and 

competition measures presumably have an impact on 

shareholder recruitment and the staying power of the 

CSA. In the national survey, CSA managers were asked to 

evaluate the overall demand situation in their immediate 

trade area and to also rank the relative importance of 

existing competitors for local food sales. Geographic 

differences related to regional location and proximity to 

urban centers were also considered.

In general, CSA managers were very optimistic about 

demand for local food in their market area. The 

percentages of managers expecting continued demand 

growth was very strong – around 25 percent reporting 

that they expected demand in their area to increase 

significantly, and 85 percent expecting demand to increase 

to some degree. Only 3.5 percent of surveyed managers 

indicated that they expected the current level of demand 

to decline. These overall results are summarized in 

table 14.

Comparisons of perceptions of demand for local food 

varied slightly by region, proximity to urban areas, and 

age of the CSA. CSA managers in the Northeast were 

more likely to report local food demand as unchanging or 

declining. Managers of younger CSAs and CSAs in rural 

locations also reported less robust demand for local food 

than their industry peers. This could partly reflect attrition 

of older CSAs in less-than-desirable market situations 

or older CSAs that have adapted their business over 

time to better fit the current market situation. Table 15 

summarizes these perceptions. 

Table 14. How would you rate the demand for local food in your market area?

Declining 

significantly

Declining 

somewhat

Staying 

about the 

same

Increasing 

somewhat

Increasing 

significantly N

4 11 48 257 106 426

0.9% 2.6% 11.3% 60.3% 24.9%

Note: Percent represents of those that indicated they had a basis for knowing demand for local food

Table 15. Local Food Demand Perceptions by Region, Population Proximity, and CSA Age

Demand Changes NE NC SE W Rural Urban Newer 

CSA

Older 

CSA

Same or declining 22.4% 14.0% 14.1% 11.7% 18.8% 11.6% 17.6% 11.9%

Increasing Somewhat 55.3% 62.6% 57.7% 62.6% 58.6% 61.6% 60.6% 60.0%

Increasing Significantly 22.4% 23.4% 28.2% 25.8% 22.7% 26.9% 21.8% 28.1%

N 85 107 71 163 181 242 216 210
20

Another important issue facing CSA operators is the level 

of nearby competition for the consumer’s local food 

dollar in their immediate trade area. To obtain a better 

understanding of how CSAs view their primary sources of 

market competition, surveyed CSA managers were asked 

to rank the relative importance of emerging sources of 

competition facing their CSA. The overall rankings are 

summarized in table 16. New CSAs entering the trade area 

and the expansion of established CSAs in the same trade 

area were ranked as the highest sources of competition, 

followed by farm markets. Natural food stores that 

typically offer both organic and local products followed 

next in the rankings roughly equal with traditional and 

high-end grocers offering local food. Restaurants selling 

local food and home food delivery services ranked near 

the bottom of the list for emerging sources of market 

competition.

Interestingly, several of the survey respondents included 

written comments regarding competition for local food 

sales, noting that in their area they perceived little 

threat from competition in the marketplace, as the 

emergence/expansion of other CSAs and the increased 

number of retailers offering local foods actually served 

to raise awareness of local food among consumers and 

subsequently drove up interest in CSA participation. 

Consequently, they saw the overall expansion in local 

food market outlets as essentially complementary to 

their business rather than a source of direct competition. 

Other industry representatives noted the importance of 

establishing a critical mass of CSA operations in order to 

implement related programs that served to boost demand 

(Fair Share Coalition and wellness voucher programs, for 

example). 

Perceptions about competition are quite variable across 

geographic regions, proximity to population centers, and 

between newer and more established CSAs. CSAs in the 

Northeast and North Central regions identified new CSAs 

entering the market as the most significant source of 

emerging competition, those in the Southeast and Western 

regions ranked farm markets were ranked as the most 

significant source of market competition for local foods. 

Home food delivery services were rated as a source of 

more significant influence on market competition in the 

Western region than anywhere else in the Nation.

Table 16. Ranking of the Significance of Emerging 

Sources of Competition Relating to the CSA 

Business Mean 

rank

Standard 

deviation

New CSAs entering the market 3.47 2.16

Farm markets 3.48 2.02

Established CSAs Expanding 3.90 2.23

Natural food stores 4.65 1.99

Other home food delivery 

services 4.65 2.47

Traditional grocers offering 

local food 4.73 2.14

High-end grocers 5.25 2.06

Restaurants offering local food 5.87 2.13

Note: (rate highest = 1 to lowest = 8); N = 433

Differences were noted between rural and urban markets 

as well. Managers of rural CSAs ranked farm markets 

as a greater influence on local food market competition 

than urban markets, while urban markets ranked home 

delivery services and high-end grocers higher than their 

rural counterparts (using t-tests comparing average ratings 

between the two groups). Newer CSAs rated natural food 

stores as relatively greater sources of market competition 

than older CSAs while older CSAs rated home delivery 

services as greater sources of market competition than 

younger CSAs. These comparisons are highlighted in 

table 17.
21

Table 17. Emerging Competition Rankings by Region, Population Proximity, and CSA Age

NE NC SE W Rural Urban Newer 

CSA

Older 

CSA

New CSAs entering market 3.01 3.27 3.65 3.76 3.33 3.57 3.55 3.40

Farm markets 3.37 3.42 3.56 3.55 3.26 3.64** 3.55 3.42

Established CSAs expanding 3.66 3.66 4.18 4.06 3.83 3.98 3.74 4.07

Natural food stores 4.67 4.59 4.94 4.54 4.52 4.76 4.43 4.87**

Other home food delivery services 5.21 4.64 4.77 4.33 4.96 4.44** 4.87 4.43*

Traditional grocers offering local food 5.06 4.59 4.59 4.70 4.86 4.62 4.67 4.78

High-end grocers 5.06 5.74 4.76 5.24 5.54 5.02** 5.28 5.21

Restaurants offering local food 5.95 6.09 5.54 5.82 5.69 5.98 5.91 5.82

Note: t-tests were conducted for mean ranking levels for each market type between two group sets for rural-urban and newer-older CSAs. 

* and ** indicate statistical significance at the 10% and 5% levels.

Following the questions on market demand and 

competition, managers were asked to evaluate shareholder 

recruitment for their CSA for 2014 compared to previous 

years. Overall, about an equal number reported 

recruitment to be more difficult and less difficult. Table 18 

summarizes these results. 

As illustrated in table 19, shareholder recruitment was 

explored across regions, rural/urban areas, and CSA age, 

and revealed relatively minor differences in responses. 

The CSAs in the North Central and Southeast regions 

seemed to have generally less difficulty with recruitment, 

consistent with the demand observations noted earlier. 

Newer CSAs also expressed slightly less recruitment 

difficulty – 35 percent reported recruitment to be 

“somewhat less” or “much less” difficult in 2014 compared 

to previous years, as opposed to 20 percent among 

managers of older CSAs. This latter result is not surprising 

given that older CSAs presumably have to deal more with 

replacement due to subscriber attrition in their designated 

market areas.

Table 18. CSA shareholder recruitment for 2014 

compared to previous years has been....

Recruitment Difficulty N Percent

Much less difficult 43 11.2%

Somewhat less difficult 62 16.1%

About the same 180 46.9%

Somewhat more difficult 78 20.3%

Much more difficult 21 5.5%

N = 384 does not include 12 that indicated question doesn’t apply.
22

Table 19. CSA shareholder recruitment for 2014 by Region, Urban Proximity, and CSA Age

Recruitment Difficulty NE NC SE W Rural Urban Newer 

CSA

Older 

CSA

Much less difficult 8% 16% 16% 8% 13% 10% 14% 8%

Somewhat less difficult 13% 20% 17% 15% 16% 16% 21% 12%

About the same 49% 39% 44% 52% 48% 46% 43% 51%

Somewhat more difficult 22% 18% 22% 20% 17% 23% 18% 23%

Much more difficult 8% 7% 2% 5% 5% 6% 4% 7%

N 76 88 64 156 164 220 194 190

Cooperation Potential for 

Multi-Farm CSAs

CSA business model innovations take many forms. They 

include business models built on a foundation of multifarm sourcing and/or regional CSA cooperation to either 

access non-traditional markets or build scale and scope 

economies to overcome distribution and promotion 

challenges. 

There are a variety of ways farms can collaborate to 

pursue their CSA mission with both informal and formal 

partnerships, ranging from informal shared methods of 

distribution to the creation of formalized cooperatives 

like those featured as a case study in this report - Penn’s 

Corner Farm Alliance and the FairShare Coalition in 

Wisconsin. 

In the survey we explored a series of prospective 

CSA business activities that could potentially involve 

cooperation, focusing particularly at the level of CSA 

manager interest in engaging in a specific range of 

cooperative activities. The survey did not attempt to 

explore an exhaustive list of potential business functions 

but rather focused on selected cooperative activities 

observed in earlier CSA site visits. Specifically, the 

prospective cooperative business activities addressed 

in the survey included adding specialty food products, 

supplementing inventory as needed, shared delivery 

practices, shared educational resources, low-income 

voucher programs, health and wellness voucher programs,6 

and regional recruitment fairs.

Among those CSAs that were already engaged in multifarm activities, the most common multi-farm activities 

already being pursued included supplementing new 

specialty products (27.8 percent) and supplementing 

inventory when short (21 percent). Relatively small 

numbers of CSA reported cooperating on recruitment 

fairs (15.9 percent), low-income voucher programs (14.4 

percent), and shared educational programs (11.4 percent).

Interest in pursuing selected multi-farm collaborations 

was relatively high for several of the multi-farm activities 

listed in the survey – particularly health and wellness 

vouchers and low-income voucher programs, where 

the most common response was “very interested.” 

Shared educational resources and shared recruitment/

promotional fairs also indicated having at least possible 

interest (or current multi-farm participation) from about 85 

percent of the managers. In addition, joint marketing with 

other producers was on the increase, as noted elsewhere 

in this survey (see table 12).

Activities where there was demonstrably less interest 

in multi-farm cooperation included shared delivery and 

supplementing delivery when short (response was “not 

interested”). Interest and participation in these selected 

multi-farm activities is summarized in table 20.

6  See also Greg Jackson, Amanda Raster, and Will Shattuck (2011) for an extended discussion of the health insurance rebate initiatives in 

Wisconsin.
23

Table 20. Please indicate your interest in cooperating with other producers on aspects of your CSA

Activity Not 

interested

Possibly 

interested

Very 

interested

Already 

doing this N

Adding specialty products I don’t carry

104 161 44 119 428

24.3% 37.6% 10.3% 27.8%

Supplementing inventory when short

166 124 48 90 428

38.8% 29.0% 11.2% 21.0%

Shared delivery

196 149 57 27 429

45.7% 34.7% 13.3% 6.3%

Shared educational resources

68 193 119 49 429

15.9% 45.0% 27.7% 11.4%

Low- income voucher programs

77 136 155 62 430

17.9% 31.6% 36.0% 14.4%

Health and wellness voucher programs

76 139 188 28 431

17.6% 32.3% 43.6% 6.5%

Area CSA promotional recruitment fairs

63 178 120 68 429

14.7% 41.5% 28.0% 15.9%
24

Discussion and Conclusions From the 

CSA Manager Survey

This study represents an important documentation of trends in the CSA business model. The CSA concept 

has been around for many years. Markets, technology, and 

marketing strategies, however, have changed, including 

new opportunities to connect with demand for local food 

and for farmers to innovate through new products and 

new forms of collaboration. The traditional CSA consumer 

has become more diverse, moving beyond a focus on 

certified organic products and close engagement with 

the farm. 

The data further reveals substantial regional differences 

in how CSAs are operating and performing. While most 

managers point to steady shareholder growth, expected 

continued CSA sales growth and profitability, and strong 

demand in their markets for local products, there is 

evidence of variability in this outlook regionally and based 

on where the farm may be located. 

The CSA business model has evolved significantly, 

as entrepreneurs and market forces have opened 

opportunities for the implementation of the model 

in ways quite unlike the early CSA operations. New 

products, season extensions, multi-farm collaborations, 

new shareholder groups, marketing collaborations with 

different organizations, innovative aggregation and 

delivery strategies, new urban production connections, 

and health and wellness alliances are among the current 

trends reshaping the CSA business.
25

The Changing CSA Business Model – 

Six Case Studies

The CSA marketing model continues to be adapted to fit many market circumstances. There is room 

for a diversity of strategies – single farm, multi-farm, 

co-operatively owned, and even non-farm owned. There 

is room for a diversity of market targets, including the 

traditional shareholder who prefers organic produce, but, 

increasingly, the focus is on using the CSA as a way to 

facilitate consumer access to local foods in general. Farms 

and groups of farms are becoming increasingly innovative 

finding ways to reach non-traditional market segments 

with CSA shares. This includes incorporating e-commerce, 

adding products through season extensions, adding 

shares for alternative product lines beyond traditional 

produce, and working with urban, health/wellness, and 

community development partners to access lower income 

shareholders. The Madison, WI, FairShare CSA Coalition 

has utilized wellness plan vouchers to substantially 

expand demand for shares among local farmers and has 

collectively promoted and provided quality standards 

critical to maintaining the program. Denver, CO, area 

CSAs have pursued many of their own innovations with 

CSA farmers by creating peer-learning opportunities and 

collaborating with city planners and urban markets. Nonfarm aggregation models to deliver CSA shares have been 

emerging as well, including the Fair Share Combined 

CSA in St. Louis, MO, where a small food retailer built a 

CSA business around a shared vision for local foods with 

area farmers.

These case studies more deeply illustrate observations 

noted from the national survey on CSA business 

innovations and marketing trends. The study doesn’t 

propose to document every possible innovation in 

products sold using the CSA model or provide the full 

scope of business hybrids that are in some way related 

to the original CSA concept. Rather, the study provides 

documentation of innovations and opportunities 

recognized across a number of CSA communities that could 

potentially be adapted to other farms or communities 

with a shared vision. There are many excellent examples 

of CSA innovators. These particular cases were selected 

to illustrate some of the changes taking place and to look 

with the case subjects at the trajectory of the CSA concept. 

The competitive landscape is also changing. In some 

cases, this is a positive for farm-based CSAs; in other cases, 

it presents a threat. These ideas are examined across a 

variety of business models and markets.

A case-based approach can be particularly useful for 

gaining producer and agency perspectives on innovations 

in the CSA marketing model. We selected a set of CSAs 

nationally that represented traditional single farm models; 

cooperatives/multi-farm CSAs; low-income, consumertargeted CSAs; and multi-farm innovations targeting 

unique consumer segments with a unique health and 

wellness marketing partner. We also included CSAs 

associated with urban market innovations, and a for-profit 

food hub concept that utilized a CSA aggregation and 

distribution model. These cases were selected to provide 

diverse market and geographic perspectives. Through a 

variety of agency contacts, we coordinated interviews with 

key informants affiliated with each CSA or CSA community. 

CSA Interview Question Themes

The approach used to collect data through the case studies 

involved a baseline of themes of inquiry. We adapted 

these to some extent depending on the context, but 

applied the basic themes to each case. The approach 

for this study is to use a case-based approach to identify 

challenges and opportunities for various models and 

markets for CSAs and to use the case observations as 

a foundation for a national survey of CSAs to quantify 

generally some of the things observed in specific cases.

CSA managers, support agencies, Extension and 

government agencies, customers, and farmers were 

interviewed with a view toward gaining a better 

understanding of their perceptions of the changes and 

marketing/institutional innovations corresponding with 

their CSA. 
26

The study themes led us to frame the following interview 

themes, posed in various ways to the corresponding 

producers, community of producers, and support agencies 

in order to document the variety of approaches to 

organizing CSAs for various market environments. The 

interview themes follow:

1. How has your CSA changed over time? How do you 

define CSA, and how does that impact the mission 

and marketing plan for your farm?

2. What have you observed to be the relationship 

between your CSA and other market channels, and 

how has this changed?

3. What are your CSA growth opportunities?

4. What do you see as the distinctive advantages 

for a CSA over other marketing methods? What 

advantages have you observed for your farm?

5. Are there opportunities for CSAs to collaborate to 

pursue markets or manage risks? What are some of 

your ideas? 

6. What improvements or changes might occur that 

could create future opportunities for your CSA? 

What current/future efforts in local food marketing 

in your region could create opportunities for other 

CSA efforts?

The cases are based on producer and market partner 

conversations and are written conversationally. We 

provided summary observations for each of these themes 

drawing on each of the interviews.
27

CSA Case Study 1

CSA SNAPSHOT: Elmwood Stock Farm

Georgetown, KY

Traditional Single Farm Model CSA, Certified Organic

Elmwood Stock Farm possesses many distinctive 

characteristics: it is one of Kentucky’s largest CSA 

operations, is among the State’s largest certified organic 

farms, and is a multi-generational, Bluegrass-region farm 

that has successfully diversified from tobacco and beef 

production. Sound management and extensive experience 

in direct marketing make Elmwood Stock Farm a prime 

example of a farm adopting a large-scale CSA to deliver 

certified organic and sustainably grown food to a diverse 

clientele while maintaining farm profitability.

Farm: 375-acre farm (360 acres certified organic) 

diversified from family beef/tobacco operation

Year CSA Started: 2005 (40 shares)

Current Size: 400+ shares for 2013

Market: Lexington, KY, metro area

Share Structure: Summer, Fall, Winter shares; beef, egg, 

poultry add-ons

Notable Products: All CSA products certified organic; 

strawberries and raspberries; winter shares include farmbrand processed products, like catsup, and frozen berries.

Ann Bell, marketing and customer relations director for Elmwood Stock Farm, served tea on a midwinter 

morning in the farm’s kitchen. It is here where the 

produce harvest crew eats lunch during picking season. 

“It’s one of the benefits we can offer them,” she said. 

A lunch kitchen in the middle of their produce packing 

shed is no surprise; Elmwood is a family affair. Bell and her 

brother, John, are the eighth generation of Bells to farm 

near Georgetown, KY. Their father, Cecil, maintains an 

Angus herd and oversees the farm’s hay production. John 

Bell grows produce, row crops and cattle and manages the 

farm’s labor. Ann Bell focuses on retailing produce through 

the farm’s CSA and farmers market sales. Ann’s husband, 

Mac Stone, oversees their pastured poultry and sheep 

production. The farm employs at least one additional fulltime employee year-round.

Direct marketing and diversification, and especially 

managing the farm’s labor supply and costs, have driven 

this CSA’s development. “The CSA matches our labor,” said 

Ann Bell. “We have over 400 summer shares, 22 weeks 

from mid-May to mid-October.” The farm has 100 fall 

shares (September/October) and around 30 winter shares. 

To make it all happen, the farm employs 12 full-time 

harvest workers and 4 to 8 part-time seasonal workers. 

The total labor is similar to what the farm employed 

when it grew more wholesale produce and tobacco, “but 

now we’re using our harvest labor over fewer acres of 

vegetables,” said Ann Bell. 
28

Table 21. Changes in Elmwood Stock Farm Produce Production

2005 2015

Total Acreage 60+ produce 37 vegetable; 1-3 berries 

and high tunnel

CSA 5% 50-55%

Farmers Market 30-35% 30-35%

Restaurant, Specialty Grocer, Multi-farm Buying Club 15-20% 10%

Wholesale –Local Producers Co-op (through 2012) and Supermarkets 50% 5%

Managing labor costs, for example, spurred Elmwood to 

find more ways to add value to lower grade produce. In 

turn, those value-added products have helped extend 

their CSA season. “Just over 50 percent of our produce 

will be #1, prime for the farmers market and CSA,” said 

Bell. “So we’re always looking for ways to use our #2s 

because we already have the cost of harvest labor in 

them.” Cases of catsup and marinara sauce with a new 

Elmwood Stock Farm label, processed at a nearby smallscale processor, are stacked in the kitchen this winter day. 

These tomato products are included in the CSA winter 

shares, and will help the farm cover the higher harvest 

and growing labor costs associated with maintaining 100 

percent certified organic production. Season extension 

opportunities are extremely important in order to maintain 

a relational connection to shareholders. Attrition is a 

common problem for many CSAs, but Bell is convinced 

that providing short fall meat share options, using high 

tunnels, and launching processed products using their farm 

brand help build loyalty by allowing them to keep a longer 

presence on the market.

CSA Market Discovery

Elmwood came to a CSA as an experienced produce 

grower, but that experience was in conventional, wholesale 

vegetables. Twenty years ago, the farm was producing 

some 60 acres of vegetables, most sold through a local 

co-op or delivered direct to grocery stores. In the early 

1990s, Bell returned to the family farm and began selling 

vegetables at the Lexington Farmers Market. By 2005, 

direct marketing accounted for a minority of the farm’s 65 

vegetable acres but was contributing half the profit from 

the produce enterprise.

“Wholesale resulted in a loss each year in some crops, 

and that pulled the overall net down every year,” said Bell. 

The reliability of the profit margins in direct marketing 

kept Elmwood seeking to grow its direct market channels. 

Having connected with CSA practitioners through the 

Southern Sustainable Agriculture Working Group (SSAWG) 

and other farm meetings, the Bells decided to launch a CSA 

in 2005. The 40-member CSA became 120 shares in 2006 

and grew to 400 members by 2010.

The Bells emphasize that their CSA has not resulted in 

dramatic increases in net farm income, but it has allowed 

them to ensure that the costs of vegetable production 

will be covered. “There’s not a lot of increase in net over 

the ‘good years’ of wholesaling because expenses of 

production for retail are higher,” said Bell. “However, there 

is predictability and consistency from year to year (for 

the CSA and farmers market), which does equal increased 

net income over a several-year period. The [net income] 

reality meets the expectation more often now.”

For Experienced Growers

Elmwood sees the CSA as a progression of both production 

and marketing experience, and Bell said the model is not 

for beginners. “Farmers market is the best (entry to direct 

marketing) because it’s the best learning opportunity – you 

get the direct feedback, you know how big to pick your 

okra, you know what the customer’s wanting, you can 

try out different sizes and varieties, and you learn from 

the other vendors...if you don’t feel like going, you don’t 

have to, and you get immediate payment. So for anybody, 

starting, to me that’s where they need to go.” She also 

noted that the growth of farmers markets takes the burden 

off growers to organize and develop the markets while also 

learning how to sell locally.
29

Premature entry to a CSA model can be a disservice to 

both farmers and customers. Bell expressed concern 

about the management intensity and production risks 

associated with subscription programs. “I don’t think 

anybody should do CSA until they’ve grown a couple years. 

I think you’re doing a huge disfavor by taking their money. 

You’ve made a commitment that nobody, including 

yourself, knows you can fulfill,” she said. One of the main 

hesitations for involving other farms in the marketing of 

their CSA is the lack of control over quality and supply 

coming from another producer. 

The growth of Elmwood’s certified organic meat 

enterprises illustrates how the farm has discovered the 

CSA complements the farm’s sales of other products at the 

Lexington Farmers Market. Beef add-ons for CSA members 

are limited to ground beef and roasts. By limiting CSA 

meat shares to those cuts, “we’ve retained the flexibility 

that we needed to have in marketing the whole animal,” 

said Bell. Farmers market meat sales are also higher 

margin, and Elmwood has seen recent higher demand for 

organic meat. By limiting CSA meat shares to 75 annually, 

the farm helps ensure enough organic beef is available for 

all customers.

Bell noted that offering the CSA meat shares does translate 

to higher CSA gross sales, but not necessarily greater 

profitability for the farm’s meat enterprise. “Expenses of 

selling meat through CSA are higher than expenses of meat 

at market or freezer meat,” she said. It is more expensive 

to deliver individual coolers of CSA shares than to pull the 

meat out of a mobile cooler at the farmers market, where 

the farm is already selling vegetables.

The greatest growth point for their CSA, in Elmwood’s 

Central Kentucky location, is that their products are local 

and certified organic. “Certified Organic has helped 

the increase in our CSA interest,” said Bell. “Many CSA 

members do not find a farmers market convenient, so CSA 

is the option for purchasing local organic [food].”

Elmwood has one final field, 15 of the farm’s 375 acres, 

that is in transition to certified organic. The farm grows 

sustainably managed cucumbers, eggplant, and squash in 

that field. “We let our CSA and farmers market customers 

know of this distinction,” said Bell. “We expect this to 

transition to organic in 2014 or 2015, as all of Elmwood 

has been in a long-term transition from conventional to 

organic, more acreage each year.”

Season Extension

Greenhouses formerly growing tobacco transplants now 

produce the organic transplants Elmwood needs. A high 

tunnel, won from Bell’s entry at a trade show contest, is 

used for strawberries and tomatoes. Again, labor cost 

management has driven the CSA’s expansion into yearround offerings. Storage crops, like hard squash, potatoes, 

and sweet potatoes, help anchor the CSA’s winter shares. 

“We haven’t done as much with season extension as we 

might,” said Bell, “because we try to match it with our 

labor.”

Shareholders

With 420 summer shareholders, there is bound to be 

turnover. Elmwood has some annual attrition, but does 

not have a problem filling its shares. “We have heard of 

some area CSAs that have had trouble filling shares,” said 

Bell, “but our customer base has stayed full so far.” She 

attributed that to the farm’s certified organic status.

Certified organic turkeys for the CSA.
30

Keeping their CSA at full capacity involves more than 

marketing and communication with customers; it 

requires offering a consistent, high-quality product. Their 

certified organic products appeal to many different kinds 

of customers in the greater Lexington area. The most 

common value aspects shareholders have communicated 

with Bell include -

• Desire for local organic food

• Convenience for fresh local product—“They can 

pick it up in (town); they don’t care about ever 

coming to the farm; they like the idea of what 

they’re doing.”

• Peer trial/word of mouth—“Some are doing (CSA) 

because their friend does it in another city, and 

they like the idea.”

• Health issues—“Their doctor has told them this, so 

they’re trying to do everything they can at the last 

minute.”

• Eating local, connecting to the farm

• Religious reasons from all sorts of faith perspectives 

—“And some customers are non-religious.” 

Different faith-based groups are highly engaged in 

the local food community as part of their views on 

food justice, the environment, and food access for 

the poor.

“Very few (customers) have all of those things,” said Bell. 

“They’re often competing interests within our whole 

community of shareholders.”

“And then there’s some that I wonder how they can afford 

it. A big part of their budget is being spent on this. But 

that’s because it’s a different priority in their home, and 

they’ve been with us for years.”

Communication and Customer 

Connection to Farm

Bell handles all the communication and marketing for the 

CSA. The farm’s newsletter remains central, and a blog 

offers more instant updates. “I didn’t realize going in 

about how big a deal the newsletter is, how much they rely 

on us (for preparation and recipe tips),” she said. 

One of their challenges is matching newsletter and blog 

content with the content of the CSA boxes. The CSA offers 

share delivery on 4 days at 12 different locations, including 

at the farm and the Elmwood farm stand at the Lexington 

Farmers Market. That means different kinds of crops may 

end up in different shares from day to day, with different 

content required for preparation and cooking instructions 

in the newsletter.

In addition, some members may want to start thinking 

about how they are going to use their share before they 

pick it up. Bell ties the farm’s content on blogspot.com 

with its Facebook page and anticipates customer needs as 

much as possible.

Elmwood was among the first Central Kentucky farms to 

have a website, and blog-style entries continue to anchor 

the farm’s communication. “We didn’t get on Facebook 

quickly because we thought it would pass by, but that 

didn’t happen!” laughs Bell. She is now largely bypassing 

Twitter but is starting to post some on Pinterest. 

In addition to communicating share use and farm news, 

social media is more important for attracting new, younger 

customers. “A lot of people that are recently married, 

usually when the wife’s expecting...then that becomes a 

reason to eat better,” she said. “And I realize that there 

is a kind of customer that will be attracted through social 

media.”

Elmwood also hosts an annual farm day exclusively for its 

CSA members. Some members--a small minority said the 

Bells—are very interested in being connected to the farm, 

even showing up unannounced. On the other hand, many 

Ann Bell promoting the CSA at the 

farmers market.
31

members would rather not have to travel up the farm’s 

gravel driveways to pick up their food. “Some are (CSA 

members) because they live here and work somewhere 

else and they don’t like their car getting dirty when they 

come in the gravel driveway, but they like having the 

organic food that we grow,” said Bell.

Regional Efforts, Multi-Farm 

CSAs and What is a CSA?

At many levels, Elmwood has vested interests in developing 

the Kentucky local food economy. Elmwood is Kentucky’s 

largest certified organic farm. Mac Stone is also director 

of the Center for Sustainability of Farms and Families at 

Kentucky State University (KSU) and former manager of 

the KSU research farm. “I train our (farm’s) competition,” 

Stone has said. Elmwood is a prominent member of the 

Lexington Farmers Market, and the farm was a longtime 

member of the Central Kentucky Growers Cooperative, a 

wholesale vegetable cooperative that closed its doors in 

2012.

For Elmwood, the key opportunities for cooperation 

include efforts that develop avenues for many growers 

with differentiated product. This preference may, in part, 

be attributed to the farm’s size and scale of production, 

supporting all or part of the three family households and 

more than a dozen employees. 

Bell said the preference for developing avenues for 

differentiated products relates to some of her concerns 

with “multi-farm CSAs” that deliver orders or shares filled 

with product from many different farms. In Kentucky, 

she said, these efforts have so far been contained to the 

Louisville and Lexington metro areas and more resemble 

online buying clubs than CSAs.

“CSA is not the reality of what (the current multi-farm 

model in Kentucky) is doing,” said Bell. “Most of this is 

being done sight unseen, and they’re operating out of a 

warehouse and not off the farm.”

In Kentucky, the multi-farm model includes two groups 

that take orders from customers and ship fresh and valueadded farm products from a warehouse setting. “We 

sell to both of them when we have excess product,” said 

Bell. “But we also don’t want to be competing against 

ourselves.” She is concerned that both groups consistently 

use “CSA” in their marketing. “If there was another 

name for those type of entities, I think it would be more 

7 A detailed study on the Grasshopper, Inc., closure of what was formerly the largest multi-farm CSA in Kentucky was completed by Brislen, Woods, 

Meyer, and Routt in 2015. 

realistic about what is happening,” said Ann. Blurring the 

definition of CSA in the customer’s mind, she said, creates 

a challenge for farms that still offer CSA, in some form or 

fashion, true to the original CSA concept of shared risk 

between producer and consumer.

Growth Opportunities

Retaining current customers is the main strategy for the 

future of Elmwood’s CSA. The certified organic meat 

business is growing, and despite the high production costs 

that accompany certified organic meats, the Bell family 

sees that as a way of improving future farm profits. 

Elmwood Stock Farm also believes it could benefit from 

advocacy and education specific to CSAs in the Central 

Kentucky area, much like the well-developed efforts 

that Bell cited in the Madison, WI, market (case 4 in 

this report). Bell suggested CSA fairs and regional CSA 

cookbooks as efforts that could benefit Central Kentucky 

CSAs.

Another key ingredient in CSA success in Central Kentucky, 

she said, would be efforts to coordinate a pool of potential 

employees and farm workers. She said this could 

potentially be tied to beginning farmer efforts to help 

those interested in using direct marketing and small farm 

production assume management or ownership of farms 

from older owner-operators.

Elmwood sees favorable policy developments for CSA 

participation, especially related to health and healthy 

eating, as very desirable. Ann said insurance CSA costshares similar to the Wisconsin program would be 

wonderful, but she also realizes many more local farms 

offering CSA options would be needed to offer such a 

service to new customers.

Several CSAs in the area discontinued in 20137

. A few 

others have just started. Grasshoppers, a large multi-farm 

aggregator in Louisville with a CSA base, had expressed 

some intent to move into Lexington, but just recently 

discontinued its venture altogether, citing challenges with 

scale and operating margins. Grasshoppers transferred 

its client base to Green Bean Delivery, another local 

foods distributor selling in the area. The subscription and 

delivery model continues to evolve for Elmwood. They 

have maintained a somewhat traditional CSA model but 

have grown it and adapted it with additional products and 

longer marketing season.
32

CSA Case Study 2

CSA SNAPSHOT: Penn’s Corner Farmer Alliance (PCFA)

Pittsburgh/Western Pennsylvania

Multi-Farm CSA Model8

Timeline:

1999 Formed marketing co-op to restaurants; 

$16,000 in sales

2003 Started CSA; 10 grower members

2007 Hired Neil Stauffer as general manager

2008-2011 +20% sales growth annually

2012

Added flower, winter CSA program; started 

processing tomatoes; four full-time 

staff; acquired 3,800 sq. ft. Pittsburgh 

warehouse, office, cooler space

2012: Share types: 509 8-week spring shares; 630 24-week 

harvest shares; 237 biweekly winter shares; 15 flower shares; 

~30 egg shares

Shareholder Growth Trajectory: 2007 - 200; 2008 - 400; 

2009 - 500; 2010 - 600; 2011 - 700;

Current Size: 36 farms, including 10 farms from an Amish/

Mennonite cooperative (Clarion River Organics)

CSA Members: ~700 

Other Outlets: Direct-to-restaurant, online ordering 

“Farm Stand”

Sales: $1.4 million in 2012; about 20% annual sales growth 

2008-12

Future Plans: Continuing CSA; expand Farm Stand online 

ordering; dabbling in providing locally sourced foods to 

universities, private schools; developing gift basket line; 

adding to value-added food line; encouraging high-end 

cheese making in the region.

8 The authors would like to acknowledge the authorship contribution for the Penn’s Corner Farm Alliance case by Miranda Hileman, Extension 

Associate, University of Kentucky, but also part of the Hileman Farm operation in Apollo, PA that participates in Penn’s Corner.
33

Pam Bryan is bemused by the beginnings of Penn’s Corner Farm Alliance. “All I wanted was something 

to help me sell lamb to restaurants in Pittsburgh!” said 

the owner of Pucker Brush Farm in Shelocta, PA, 50 miles 

northeast of Pittsburgh. She and a handful of other small 

farms got together in 1999, forming a marketing co-op 

to sell into Pittsburgh. That first year, they sold a total of 

$16,000 in product. “We thought it was the best thing 

ever,” said Ken Marshall, also a member of the original 

group and now board president of the Penn’s Corner Farm 

Alliance (PCFA).

The co-op had sales of $1.4 million in 2012 with 36 

member farms. Revenue has grown about 20 percent 

annually during the past five seasons. “We had no idea 

it would ever be like this,” said Beth Marshall, Ken’s wife. 

“And it was the CSA that has really driven the growth.”

CSA Market Discovery

From its inception until 2006, Penn’s Corner remained 

a marketing co-op that sold product exclusively to 

restaurants. The development of the Penn’s Corner CSA, 

to reach consumers in the 2.4 million Pittsburgh metro 

area population, arose as the co-op brainstormed ways 

to grow income while capitalizing on growing consumer 

appetites for local food.

“We (the co-op) started off with no money when we 

formed to sell to restaurants,” said Ken Marshall. “We 

weren’t going to put in any capital and instead would take 

turns doing everything...and that didn’t work. Then we 

were going to work off 5 percent commission, then 10 

percent...and that didn’t work. Then we went through a 

series of co-op manager candidates...and it’s a crazy job.”

The original members of PCFA remember filling orders 

for restaurants in Pittsburgh, loading them onto a truck in 

Indiana, PA, and making the hour-plus drive into the city. 

“Then someone would call that night because the order 

was a dozen eggs short, and we’d have to drive to deliver 

a dozen eggs into the city!” remembered Marshall. “It 

was a tremendous variety of products and an information 

nightmare.”

Members of the group were active in the Pennsylvania 

Association for Sustainable Agriculture (PASA) and 

somewhat familiar with CSA marketing. The Marshalls had 

tried establishing a CSA at the farmers market where they 

were a vendor in Pittsburgh, and thought it could work for 

the co-op. So they launched a CSA in 2003. 

“We had no idea how hard it would be, just getting shares 

together!” said the early members. They assembled CSA 

boxes at Indiana, PA-area farms, then delivered them along 

with the restaurant runs. Marshall, a retired R&D manager 

and engineer, designed a spreadsheet to help manage the 

co-op’s restaurant orders. “It was clunky, but it took away 

75 percent of the chance for screw-up,” he laughed. 

Upon a recommendation from one of the chefs buying 

their product, they interviewed Neil Stauffer for the job 

of co-op manager, to develop the CSA, in 2006. “We had 

$2000 in the bank that we had borrowed to fix the coop’s truck,” said Bryan. “When we interviewed Neil, we 

thought he just might work...so we told him we could hire 

him for 2 months at $1,000 per month!”

Having a full-time manager that understood chefs, 

consumers and farmers was a key point in the co-op 

developing the CSA program. “Having a manager took the 

[responsibility of marketing] off of us,” said Marshall. By 

2010, Penn’s Corner had three full-time staff members, 

and added another full-time employee in 2012. 

The co-op’s current full-time CSA manager, Karlin 

Lamberto, said that the CSA market has matured in 

Pittsburgh, but there are still opportunities for Penn’s 

Corner to grow. “We’ll have a pickup location (in 2013) 

at the Steelers training camp,” she said. “We also see 

working more closely with companies and private schools 

interested in local products.” 

The Porch Restaurant in Pittsburgh, PA, a Penn’s 

Corner Client.
34

The co-op has also streamlined its operations, increasing 

the efficiency and ease of building CSA shares, when it 

acquired a 3,800 square foot warehouse, office, and cooler 

space in 2012. “Having one location to assemble all the 

CSA shares has been very helpful,” said Lamberto. “It gives 

us some centralization—we can be putting together shares 

for another delivery run while the truck driver is delivering 

to others.” 

Penn’s Corner has about 45 delivery locations throughout 

the Pittsburgh metropolitan area, including their 20 CSA 

drop sites, something that Penn’s Corner CSA customers 

say is very helpful. “I like to be able to tell my friends that 

there’s a delivery location near them,” said one three-year 

Penn’s Corner CSA member. “I do value the community in 

seeing other shareholders, and the Penn’s Corner staff, all 

around town.”

Relying on Experienced Growers

Originally all certified organic or naturally grown, the co-op 

reached out to other fruit and vegetable growers in the 

Indiana County (PA) area in 2003, recognizing the need to 

supply a consistent stream of high-quality product for both 

the restaurant and CSA channels.

“What grew the co-op was the CSA,” said Beth 

Marshall. “There is a limit as to how far you can take the 

restaurants.”

Finding experienced growers can be difficult, said Penn’s 

Corner staff. Some growers do not want to pay the 

commission required to maintain the co-op’s staff and 

facilities. “We’re up to 25 percent for commission. Some 

people claim that’s too high and they can’t afford it and 

take it on their own. But I don’t think I can take orders, 

deliver, collect and do all that’s needed for 25 percent,” 

said Ken Marshall. Setting a commission rate that will 

adequately provide for the co-op’s operating expenses is 

absolutely critical. Other CSA growers with less experience 

have not been realistic about the margins required to 

support distribution. This includes good management that 

can help growers sort through production planning, deal 

with distribution logistics, manage other PCFA staff, and 

help with the marketing. As PCFA has grown, it has added 

key staff to focus attention on the expanding business 

functions.

Another problem, early on, was that some new members 

would actually undercut the co-op’s prices to sell to 

restaurants. New co-ops need to guard against that, said 

Pete Beccari, a Penn’s Corner member since 2007. “Make 

sure there is a rule that once the cooperative is selling to 

a restaurant, that individual growers from the cooperative 

are not allowed to undersell the cooperative price to the 

restaurant or chef. That will kill a cooperative,” he said.

But some of the Penn’s Corner members also operate their 

own independent CSAs, including Clarion River Organics, 

a certified organic 12-farm Amish cooperative in Sligo, 

almost 2 hours from Pittsburgh. Ten farms in the Clarion 

River Organics co-op are also individual members of Penn’s 

Corner. 

Clarion River Organics, in addition to marketing 

partnerships with Penn’s Corner for the Pittsburgh 

market, also sells into the Clarion and Erie markets in 

northwestern Pennsylvania. Clarion River Organics also 

has a CSA delivering into the Pittsburgh market, the same 

territory as Penn’s Corner. “There was a little bit of tension 

with Penn’s Corner about us taking our own CSA into 

Pittsburgh,” said Nathan Holmes, Clarion River Organics 

distribution manager. “But we find that our two CSA 

businesses don’t overlap much.” And, according to longer 

time Penn’s Corner members, being able to source from 

Clarion River Organics has helped provide and stabilize 

product volume. 

New growers are encouraged to join Penn’s Corner and 

have the benefit of drawing on the experience of the 

founding growers. PCFA has a $1,000 initiation fee for 

prospective new grower members that can be spread over 

3 years. Penn’s Corner retains the right to inspect each of 

its affiliated growers, and co-op members must individually 

maintain a $2 million product liability insurance policy 

beyond PFCA coverage. They recognize they are building 

and protecting a valued local foods brand for the mutual 

benefit of all the growers involved.

Quality Essential

“We pretty much beat the bushes to find growers,” 

said Ken Marshall. “You have to get someone with the 

right size operation, who is consistent.” All of the PCFA 

members are selling through farmers markets, on-farm 

stores, or other direct markets.

Several of the growers have their own CSAs, and they all 

have their own market outlets as well. “The advantage to 

Penn’s Corner is for the small grower,” said Beth Marshall. 

“I always say that if your farm is big enough to buy your 

own (refrigerated) truck, then you don’t need Penn’s 

Corner,” added Ken Marshall.
35

In short, the multi-farm CSA model provides a welcome 

outlet for many of the smaller farms in the region. The 

greater scale and scope has helped them to do many 

things as a co-op with local food marketing into Pittsburgh 

individual producers could not do. Kevin Jaronski, a new 

Penn’s Corner producer in 2012, said the CSA is crucial 

to growing his free-range egg farm in Sarver, PA, 30 miles 

from downtown Pittsburgh. “Multi-farm CSAs are a 

win-win situation for the buyers and the farmers,” said 

Jaronski, who said selling was not his strong point and that 

he is very satisfied with the prices that PCFA could get for 

his products.

Learning the value of having the co-op “sell,” the CSA was 

an important lesson for the original members. “One of 

the hardest lessons [we growers had to learn] was that 

we didn’t have time to do the selling,” said Beth Marshall. 

“We really rely on the staff,” said Ken.

But the key to the co-op’s growth is product quality. “You 

have to have really, really good quality,” said Ken Marshall.

All Penn’s Corner members received GAP training in 2012, 

and food safety continues to be emphasized. 

Season Extension and 

Value-Added Processing

Penn’s Corner members are all involved in their own 

season-extension efforts, from high-tunnel greens 

production to inspected apple cider processing. Two 

key season-extension initiatives at the co-op level have 

included tomato processing and the biweekly winter CSA, 

with 237 shares sold during the winter of 2012-13. 

The co-op recently started outsourcing processing of its #2 

tomatoes to Stello Foods, a specialty food manufacturer 

founded in 1990 in Punxsutawney, PA. Prior to this, many 

growers had no market for #2 tomatoes, and simply 

composted them. In contrast, during 2012, the co-op’s 

profit from canned products exceeded $10,000. The 

products included:

• 3,650 pounds of chopped tomatoes in quart jars

• 3,076 pounds of tomato juice in 10-pound cans for 

restaurant sales

• 2,508 pounds of tomatillo salsa in small jars for CSA 

shares

Handling crops for processing admittedly presents the coop with a new set of challenges, said Ken Marshall. “You 

are obviously not able to pay a high price for crops that will 

be processed,” he said. “And there is a lot of coordination 

needed between growers to get enough of a batch size 

to make processing [economically] worthwhile. But our 

members can see the value in sending some product 

for processing.” Overall, the co-op has found that the 

inclusion of processed products to their CSA product line 

is a convenient way to boost grower income, provide some 

less perishable product options to their shareholders, 

complement their existing fresh product selection, 

and enable small producers to offer new items to the 

Pittsburgh market at a relatively low additional cost.

Expanding both the range of products offered and the 

length of the marketing window helps Penn’s Corner 

remain competitive. “The main change I’ve seen (in CSAs) 

is a change in the number of options that CSAs offer,” said 

Karlin Lamberto. “It started out offering a winter share, 

then adding on an egg share option and a flower share 

option. For the first time, this year (2013), we’re offering 

an every-other-week share during the regular season.”

Relationship Between CSAs and 

Food Service Businesses

Penn’s Corner original focus was restaurants. While the 

co-op’s growth has primarily emerged through the CSA, 

PCFA staff—as well as the chefs it sells to—do not see the 

restaurant and CSA markets as mutually exclusive.

Penn’s Corner offers a variety of 

processed product options to their shareholders.
36

Diversifying the mix of products for the CSA shares has also 

allowed some growth in the restaurant sales, such as the 

10-pound cans of tomato juice packed for local restaurant 

use in 2012. “I put a lot of trust in Penn’s Corner, 

knowing that they stand behind their products,” said 

Kevin Hermann, Executive Chef at The Porch at Schenley, 

a restaurant located by the Schenley Park “green space” 

between the University of Pittsburgh and Carnegie Mellon 

University campuses. 

Hermann regularly serves PCFA products, and the 

restaurant also serves as a delivery point for the CSA. “To 

me, it’s all connected to having more people eating local 

food,” he said. “I can’t wait until I can get high-quality local 

cheese through Penn’s Corner.”

Trevett Hooper is owner and chef at Legume, one of 

Pittsburgh’s notable white tablecloth restaurants. He 

said the information Penn’s Corner provides him about 

its farms is important. “I like the information about the 

farms,” he said. “I like being able to put Penn’s Corner on 

the menu.”

CSA Growth Opportunities

Growth opportunities abound for this multi-farm CSA as 

they build on scale and diversity of fresh and processed 

products difficult for one producer to supply. They are 

able to capture efficiencies through collaboration beyond 

what would be happening if the 35 farms marketed and 

delivered separately. The PCFA strives to keep the local 

farm connection authentic because they recognize this 

is a key part of the value proposition they provide. The 

alliance has discovered opportunities to leverage their 

CSA drop site network to facilitate a la carte purchases 

and manage more affordable delivery to other Pittsburgh 

clients outside the CSA.

“One of the reasons that people go with CSA is that they 

want to support local farmers,” said Beth Marshall.

Extending the options for that support, such as the egg 

share and a new cut flower share, is important for PCFA. 

“Another thing we would like to do is to get people who 

can’t necessarily afford a CSA share into the CSA,” said 

Beth.

“We have seen leveling off on the CSAs, but I think that 

might be temporary too,” said Beth. “If we’re going to 

grow the CSA, we’re going to have to have more products.”

They are reconfiguring drop sites and CSA distribution.

In other words, becoming more efficient at moving all 

the CSA shares and products can help streamline the 

operations—and improve customer satisfaction. The new 

PCFA warehouse, leased in 2012, provides about 5,000 

total square feet crucial to that end.

“It’s not much to look at, but our building we got last year 

is a major step forward,” said Ken Marshall.

Food safety and quality assurance are also seen as 

important to the CSA growth. “We already have a tracking 

system, and that is good for looking ahead to food safety 

issues,” said Beth. “All of our farms are going to be exempt 

from the proposed food safety (FSMA) legislation,” said 

Beth. “But Penn’s Corner is not exempt,” she explained, 

since Penn’s Corner exceeds the size and sales thresholds 

to be exempted in FSMA.

They are also looking at some processed foods that put 

a Penn’s Corner label on products to put on the shelves. 

These less perishable and branded processed products 

keep the Penn’s Corner name in the market place longer. 

But production and marketing of these products needs 

to be done intentionally. “Our members are glad to find 

an outlet for seconds,” said Beth. “But it brings its own 

challenges—when you’re processing seconds, you need a 

lot of very perishable tomatoes.”

Penn’s Corner offers a cheese 

share option in their CSA.
37

One of the fastest growing distribution channels for 

Penn’s Corner is the on-line Farm Store. E-commerce 

and social media have become very important means for 

communicating information about products, individual 

farms, and events. The Farm Store was put in place as 

almost an add-on for the site primarily directed to CSA 

shareholders and wholesale buyers. Individuals can order 

products offered by Penn’s Corner producers through the 

Farm Store a la carte without necessarily having to be 

CSA shareholders. Product ordered through this venue 

is distributed along with the CSA weekly deliveries to 

one of the 20 drop sites around the Pittsburgh area. This 

arrangement has helped keep marginal distribution costs 

for the added product very low and the products are 

accessed with relative ease by individual consumers.

Advantages of Being a 

CSA and How the Business 

Model is Shifting

Penn’s Corner farmer members have a pragmatic view of 

what constitutes a CSA. For them, CSA means getting local 

products from local farmers to local consumers. “Paying 

at the beginning of the season is important for us and our 

cash flow,” said one member.

“My reason for being in it is to sell the stuff,” said Ken 

Marshall, Board President. “If you don’t have the 

organization, you can’t sell your stuff.”

Neil Stauffer, Penn’s Corner’s General Manager, said that 

CSAs have changed from an emphasis on the farmer to the 

consumer. “When CSAs were first around, it seems like it 

was more like customers saying, ‘We really believe in you, 

the farmer, and how can we make this work for you?’” 

he observed. “Now, it seems like it has shifted and the 

farmers are saying, ‘How can we make the CSA work better 

for you the customer?’”

Stauffer continued, “Penn’s Corner focuses primarily on 

the farmer. We make sure that what we’re selling and the 

prices we’re charging make sense for the farmer. From 

there, we go and try to find customers who are willing to 

support what the farmer needs,” he said. “CSA is now one 

of a diversified mix of marketing channels for the co-op.” 

The value of connection to farms is indicated by some 

PCFA shareholders. “I like to send my dollars to farms,” 

said one CSA member. “Penn’s Corner is like the bridge to 

the local farm.”

It is still undetermined overall how much of a direct 

connection Penn’s Corner CSA members wish to have 

with the local farm. The co-op has promoted a picnic at 

an area farm and other “meet the farmer” events but has 

been disappointed by the lack of turnout. There is also 

the challenge of coordinating farmer schedules with CSA 

shareholder schedules. 

Branding can be a unique challenge for multi-farm 

CSA entities like Penn’s Corner. Locavores who place a 

particularly high value on connections with local farmers 

are removed one step relationally and by brand. It’s 

difficult to cross-promote farm estate brands directly 

associated with a specific farm and the collective products 

from the cooperative. Still, in the case of Penn’s Corner, 

the improved supply connections with restaurants (more 

products available for a longer period and less interruption 

of supply) along with the efficiencies of joint CSA delivery 

seems to outweigh the benefits of the direct connections 

typical of individual farm CSAs or other direct marketing 

venues. The traditional cooperative business model seems 

to be working relatively well in this case.

CSAs and E-Commerce

Simon Huntley, Small Farm Central

Not only is Simon Huntley a Pittsburgh-area CSA 

shareholder, but he also provides website design and 

product management software to hundreds of CSAs 

and direct farm marketers across the country. The 

Pittsburgh operator of smallfarmcentral.com provides 

a unique perspective into how CSAs can harness 

technology, and he said that most CSAs including 

Penn’s Corner still need to get to know their members 

better.

“We definitely see lower CSA retention rates among 

non-true believers, people new to the whole concept 

of local foods,” said Huntley. “We still need to teach 

many CSA members how to cook, and I think there 

will be value in using technology to get feedback 

on different items in each share.” To that end, his 

company launched a “CSA Farmhand” platform 

in June 2013 that allows CSAs, large and small, to 

easily provide specific instructions and recipes while 

receiving member feedback on share items. 

Huntley suspects many newer or “non-core” CSA 

members will be willing to pay a small premium for 

such content, and he hopes to pass that income 

along to the CSAs themselves. “My company exists 

to help create profitable small farms, and I think the 

technology can help us create some more income for 

CSAs through (content management),” he said.
38

Farmer Dave’s on-farm retail market in Dracut, MA, 

north of Boston.

CSA Case Study 3

CSA SNAPSHOT: Farmer Dave’s 

Northeast Organic Farming Alliance-Massachusetts

Boston, MA

Low-Income CSA Program

Farmer Dave’s CSA is a Boston, MA-based program that 

endeavors to bring CSA shares to residents of lowincome neighborhoods. By combining stakeholders 

from the housing, public health and sustainable 

agriculture sectors, Farmer Dave’s seeks to meet the 

shared aim of the farm and these urban partners: 

improved access to organic food, “with a consciousness 

of reaching low-income and marginalized people.” 

Expanding to multiple sites in its second season, the 

program has thus far leveraged a team of committed 

individuals and agencies to create a successful model 

for delivering CSA shares into low-income Boston 

neighborhoods.

Farmer Dave’s Sliding-Scale CSA 

Business Model

Farmer Dave’s CSA, in Dracut, MA, is about 30 miles from the low-income neighborhoods being served. 

The farm is operated by Dave Dumaresq, a Dracut native 

who returned to farm in Dracut in 1997 after serving as an 

organic crop extension educator with the Peace Corps in 

Ecuador. He also completed winter education assignments 

in sustainable greenhouse in the Republic of Georgia from 

2011 to 2013.

With more than 20 CSA delivery points in Dracut and the 

greater Boston area, Farmer Dave’s is able to offer some 

economies of scale that benefit low-income consumers. 

The farm started delivering CSA shares to a specific lowincome clientele in Lawrence, MA, in 2007. “The key there 

was that we were offering the CSA to the low-income 

population but not solely for the low-income population,” 

said Dumaresq, who adds that having customers with 

various income levels all picking up their CSA shares at the 

same location makes the program seem more egalitarian. 

Groundwork Lawrence, the farm’s community partner, 

assists with program administration.

The local administration and support has been crucial 

for the farm to deliver CSA shares into the low-income 

programs in Roxbury and Boston. Ginger Turner, Farmer 

Dave’s CSA Manager, said the administration provided by 

the East Boston Neighborhood Health Center (EBNHC) 

helped them enter a market smaller than they might 

normally. “Alison (Smizer) has built in the flexibility in 

that program for people paying with SNAP to order shares 

weekly,” she said. The EBNHC makes sure each of the CSA 

shares is used and paid for—administration that the farm 

could never justify. “The way the low-income program 

works for us is having these community partners,” said 

Demaresq. “They’re already there, they’re on the ground, 

and they’ve been able to put in the time and effort to do 

the outreach.” 

Dumaresq said he usually needs 50 shares to justify a 

delivery into a community. “It’s difficult for us to start 

in a community, but once we start, we tend to stay 

there because our prices are lower than other CSAs,” he 

said. The weekly share price in 2012 was $21.50, and 

that lower share price likely helps Farmer Dave’s to be 

involved in low-income programs. Though Dumaresq is 

deeply committed to organic and sustainable production 

practices, Farmer Dave’s CSA is not USDA certified organic. 

Dumaresq, who has an excellent handle on his production 

costs and market, believes there is plenty of room in the 

Boston market for a CSA model that utilizes subsidized 

shares and adapts to allow weekly payment to work, and 

the farm’s growth indicates such. Community partners 

that understand both farmers and prospective members 

is the key to making this work. Dumaresq and Turner 
39

have observed a higher attrition rate in the low-income 

CSA members they have served in Boston and Lawrence, 

compared to other members. “Sometimes we’re providing 

food they’ve never seen before, like broccoli rabe,” said 

Turner. “That’s not very popular in East Boston.”

Dumaresq believes that low-income people might be 

more willing to enroll in a CSA program if payments could 

be spread out so that a smaller amount is paid per week, 

possibly from April to October. “But the Supplemental 

Nurtrition Assistance Program (SNAP) doesn’t want 

anything paid unless the product is being received,” he 

said. And because he relies on the community partners to 

handle payments and then cut the farm a lump check, he 

has to work within different accounting systems. “At one 

site, we receive all their SNAP payments as one check at 

the end of the season because that’s how they’re set up,” 

he said. While that is far from the CSA model of upfront 

payments to mitigate risk, “You do what you have to do to 

make it work.”

Whether low-income or more traditional CSA market 

channels, Dumaresq said the CSA is not leaving the Boston 

market any time soon. “I see it as here to stay,” he said. “I 

think the rate of growth is definitely down, because it used 

to be in and hip,” he said. Turner, the farm’s CSA manager, 

agreed that growth is slowing from past years. “But once 

you explain the CSA model, it resonates with potential 

customers,” she said.

To keep his CSA sustainable, Dumaresq has focused 

production on perennial fruit and herb crops to supply 

future CSA shares and retain CSA members. For 

Dumaresq, the CSA model will continue to be central to 

the farm’s marketing plan. “To a certain extent, [CSA] 

has been a trend, but it’s not going to disappear,” he 

said. Making CSA work for low-income residents in urban 

Boston neighborhoods is fully in the spirit of the mission 

of CSA, but it helps to have partners that can make it work 

financially.

In sum, the program in Boston marketing CSA into lowincome urban communities is successful because of the 

commitment to health and wellness education from 

urban community and food relief partners. Staff time 

and financial cost-sharing lower the barriers to make 

distribution into these non-traditional markets more 

feasible. 

Reaching Low-Income CSA 

Shareholders With Urban Partners

“This program just wouldn’t work if we didn’t have the 

quality of partners that we have,” said Drew Love, LowIncome CSA Program Coordinator for Northeast Organic 

Farming Alliance-Massachusetts (NOFA/Mass).

Loading up the 

week’s CSA shares 

for delivery.
40

Key success factors for this CSA innovation include: 

1. Cultivating key agency partners that have a shared 

mission to help urban consumers gain access to 

local, fresh food as affordably as possible, in a way 

that also makes it economically compelling for the 

CSA supplier farms

2. Developing and facilitating payment mechanisms 

that work with cash-flow limits of low-income 

buyers

3. Exploring CSA access health benefits with local 

health care partners, and 

4. Providing program evaluation that can frame the 

justification for public support.

Begun in two low-income Boston neighborhoods in 2012, 

the program has a wide range of cooperators. In East 

Boston, MA, cooperators include:

• Alison Smizer at the East Boston Neighborhood 

Health Center

• Maria Infante at Project Bread, a hunger advocacy 

group

• Ginger Carver, Farmer Dave’s CSA Coordinator

Cooperators in the program’s Roxbury, MA, location, at 

Madison Park Development Corporation, include:

• Lisa Moris at Trinity Property Management, LLC

• Elizabeth Gonzalez Suarez at Dana Farber Cancer 

Research Institute

• Julie Rawson, Many Hands Organic Farm

Local contacts in both neighborhoods work with Drew Love 

of NOFA/Mass to educate potential participants about 

CSAs while publicizing the availability of subsidized CSA 

shares for the season. NOFA/MASS coordinates share 

deliveries, while housing authority staff or wellness center 

staff conduct local educational programs about how to 

use the shares. Staff at the Madison Park Development 

Corporation are especially active in incorporating the CSA 

program into other health and wellness initiatives that 

have been launched within that community.

In order to make the CSA shares manageable to facilitating 

partners and affordable to shareholders, the marketing 

of the CSA has had to be adapted. With the support and 

cooperation of numerous neighborhood partners from 

the targeted communities, there have been a few other 

key steps to making this program work by overcoming 

traditional barriers to lower income consumers: 

•Weekly share payments and Electronic Benefits 

Transfer (EBT) acceptance

Community partners help collect weekly share payments 

and process EBT payments for programs like SNAP that 

can be used to make weekly payments rather than onetime seasonal payments.9

 The community partners help 

manage the cash flow and collection at the local level that 

would otherwise be impossible for Farmer Dave’s. Maria 

Urban CSA shareholder targets reached by NOFA and 

local housing and authority partners.

9 CSAs can be licensed to accept SNAP payments, but payment must be made upon delivery of the product and SNAP funds are limited to the kinds 

of fees and services they can cover. Details on SNAP guidelines for CSAs are summarized at: http://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/CSA.pdf.
41

Infante of Project Bread said that the flexibility of weekto-week share ordering and payment was key to starting 

the CSA program in East Boston. “Flexibility is important 

for the low-income demographic,” she said. “Weekly 

payments make it easier (for low-income customers) to 

understand the buy-in.” 

Weekly CSA commitments are harder to organize but are 

key to this clientele, said organizers at both locations. Ali 

Smizer, who works in the EBNHC Let’s Get Movin’ program, 

said, “In the past, where we were not asking as much of 

the members financially, they would sometimes forget, 

because they weren’t paying a lot.” Smizer provides active 

leadership with the City Health Center and with schools, 

including after-school activity and feeding programs. 

Smizer’s center is one of 35 such centers in the greater 

Boston area. These programs provide excellent venues to 

explain the nutritional benefits of products delivered with 

CSA shares. The pilot program in Smizer’s center looked 

promising for expansion, but it would require additional 

producer and urban agency partner coordination.

• Partial share subsidies

Both locations offered partial share subsidies in 2012. In 

East Boston, where the share price was $21.50 per week, 

Let’s Get Movin’ provided a $6 weekly subsidy in 2012; CSA 

members would pay the remaining $15.50 weekly. Smizer 

said the constant commitment was key. “When you come 

every week and you understand the value of what you’re 

purchasing, it becomes a weekly routine.” Project Bread is 

committed to finding ways to continue providing a similar 

subsidy in East Boston into the future. 

In Roxbury, the Dana Farber Cancer Institute subsidized 

nine full shares, used to provide CSA shares to peer 

educators for healthy eating. “We used the CSA as an 

incentive to get people on board with the peer leadership 

program,” said Lisa Moris, social worker and community 

educator for Trinity Property Management which manages 

the properties offering CSA. 

The strategy of starting small, with peer educators, seems 

to have worked in Roxbury. An additional 7-12 shares 

were offered in 2012, and 10 more shares were added 

in 2013. “What we know is that if there are community 

ambassadors of health and wellness that are focused in a 

holistic way around this issue of preventative care, we tend 

to have better outcomes,” said Moris. Peers help with 

recruiting, cooking demonstrations, delivery, and anything 

else that can help build the success of the program. Moris 

noted that the area around the properties served by Trinity 

Property Management had relatively few fresh produce 

market options and the CSA boxes were being delivered 

into a real food desert.

• Administrative support for share ordering and 

payment processing

Administrative support, both in ordering shares and 

processing EBT payments, was critical for linking the 

program to farms. Since there is a farmers market at the 

East Boston Neighborhood Health Center, weekly CSA 

payments could be processed using the market’s EBT 

machine. At the Roxbury location, participants filled out 

SNAP vouchers and returned them to Many Hands Organic 

Farm, the CSA provider in 2012. Payments for the CSA 

shares were later deducted from their SNAP accounts. 

Having the ability to work closely with neighborhood 

partners is a key success factor for CSA producers 

seeking to sell CSA shares to these kinds of low-income 

households. Ginger Turner, CSA Manager at Farmer Dave’s 

CSA, said the administrative help with processing the EBT 

payments on-site is essential for making low-income CSA 

payments work for the farm. “Ali Smizer in East Boston 

will swipe the SNAP card for those members, collect the 

funds—just like she would take cash or check from another 

member—and then she cuts us a check for the whole 

amount.” 

Such administrative staff time is crucial to the program 

working for farmers already making many deliveries, said 

Dave Dumaresq, owner of Farmer Dave’s CSA. “It’s their 

staff time, and they’ve committed to using their staff time 

to making that happen,” he said.

• Program evaluation 

The community stakeholders, the health care community, 

and the farms have undertaken program evaluation, 

each with a slightly different agenda. At the time of 

the interviews, this was still a very new effort and the 

approaches to evaluation were just being developed. The 

results of these evaluations are central to maintaining the 

engagement of program partners. 
42

Project Bread in East Boston conducted program 

evaluation with focus group members recruited from the 

number of low-income consumers that had purchased 

the CSA shares. Evaluation of the CSA program in the 

housing units in Roxbury was incorporated into the overall 

evaluation of the effectiveness of the community peer 

leaders. Demonstrating impact through increased use 

and access to fresh and local produce is seen as key to 

continuing the program.

Meanwhile, health researchers in the Dana Farber Cancer 

Research Institute focused on measuring the apparent 

health outcomes of CSA patronage. They were excited 

about budding evidence of improved access to nutritious 

food available through this partnership and were exploring 

opportunities to measure longer term physical changes 

(e.g., body mass index (BMI), blood pressure, cholesterol, 

and blood sugar) and food behavior choices resulting from 

individuals in the East Boston community participating in 

a CSA.

CSA pick-up in East Boston. 

For NOFA/Mass, the success of the program is measured in 

how the program is duplicated in other communities and 

how it expands the market for local food. Jack Kittredge, 

NOFA/Mass Policy Director, operates Many Hands Organic 

Farm in Barre, VT, with his wife, Julie Rawson, NOFA/

Mass Executive Director. Many Hands provided CSA 

shares for the pilot program in Roxbury in 2012; in 2013, 

a larger farm closer to Boston provided shares. “There 

are business opportunities that will be created by some 

of these programs, and NOFA/Mass welcomes new 

entrepreneurs supplying local food,” said Kittredge.
43

CSA Case Study 4 

FairShare CSA Coalition

Madison, WI

CSA Farm Coalition to Reach Health and 

Wellness Demand

Madison Eaters Revolutionary 

Front – The Beginning

Eight people interested in developing a more vibrant 

local food system around Madison, WI, met in 

late 1992 to discuss an idea new to the upper Midwest: 

Community Supported Agriculture. The group, “Madison 

Eaters Revolutionary Front,” or MERF, included no 

farmers.10

“What was unique was that we contacted a whole slew 

of farms to see if they were interested in trying CSA,” said 

John Hendrickson, a member of that original group and 

now outreach coordinator at the University of Wisconsin’s 

Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems. 

Eight Madison-area farms decided to try CSA in 1993. 

Rather than remain as a core group for a single farm, each 

MERF member “adopted” a farm, establishing eight core 

groups around each CSA. The CSA farms all cooperated, 

through the coalition. “From the get go, the idea was that 

these CSA farms would work together,” said Hendrickson.

The Madison CSA coalition, first known as “Madison 

Area Community Supported Agriculture Coalition,” or 

(MACSAC), is now called FairShare, and now includes more 

than 50 CSA farms as members. Much of the growth 

in farm membership has been the result of expanded 

demand, an increase in shared marketing services, and 

economic gains linked to cooperation around selected 

business functions. Kiera Mulvey, FairShare Executive 

Director, said FairShare provides its member farms with 

strategic benefits in education, marketing, and promotion. 

“We can do this collaborative marketing and then bring 

it down to the individual farm,” Mulvey said. FairShare 

member farms are also able to access highly specific legal 

and accounting help particular to CSAs provided in local 

workshops. 

This case study focuses on FairShare’s Health Insurance 

Rebate program for Madison-area HMO members, a 

program the coalition’s members consider key to the 

growth of CSA in southeastern Wisconsin. We’re also 

summarized FairShare’s other collaborative activities, 

emphasizing the advantages of the coalition’s broad 

membership and geographic/cultural location. 

Cash Flow by Cookbook

From the first eight CSA farms in 1993, the Madison Area 

Community Supported Agriculture Coalition’s synergetic 

combination of consumers, advocates, and producers 

remained committed to open sharing of information about 

CSA. The goal was to advocate local, sustainable food 

production in the Madison area. “From the beginning, 

there was the idea that CSA farms were more than just 

vegetables,” said John Hendrickson.

10  Hendrickson, John. “FairShare Community Supported Agriculture Coalition...A Retrospective.” http://www.csacoalition.org/about/history/.
44

Still, one of the key developments in the group’s early 

years was the development of a vegetable cookbook, 

“From Asparagus to Zucchini,” a resource to help CSA 

shareholders use their CSA shares. The first edition was 

a three-ring binder with recipes. “There were tons of 

volunteer hours that went into developing that cookbook,” 

said Hendrickson. A bound, second edition soon evolved. 

The cookbook, now in its third edition, is ordered by CSA 

farms all over the country. A second cookbook, Farm Fresh 

and Fast, was published in 2013.

“The cookbook sales provide something like $70,000 in 

annual operating capital for FairShare,” said Tony Ends, a 

FairShare Board member who, with his wife Dela, operates 

Scotch Hill Farm, located between Madison and Chicago.

Community Connections

While developing resources like a cookbook to benefit 

member farms, the coalition’s membership grew slowly. 

When Laura Brown became the coalition’s coordinator in 

2005, she did not anticipate that the charge of promoting 

CSA shares for MACSAC’s 12 member farms would lead to 

developing a health insurance rebate program that would 

stimulate the Madison market for CSA shares. 

The idea for the Eat Healthy Rebate program originated 

through a community connection. One of MACSAC’s 

board members, Kathryne Auerback, was also marketing 

director for Physicians Plus, one of Madison’s three Health 

Maintenance Organization (HMO) providers. “To me, the 

CSA rebate program did not seem like a big deal in terms 

of getting approval from the HMO,” said Auerback, now an 

instructor and program consultant for the Sustainability 

Leadership Graduate Certificate Program at Madison’s 

Edgewood College. “The CSA rebate just seemed like the 

right thing to do to help improve health in various ways for 

people, farms, and our community, and (Physicians Plus) 

had the agility to do it.”

Physicians Plus is one of the Madison-area HMOs that 

University of Wisconsin and Wisconsin State employees 

may choose from annually as their healthcare provider. 

The area’s healthcare system is regional, with a low 

penetration of national providers. “Local providers had 

the agility to create and launch this kind of community 

program more easily than a national provider might have,” 

said Auerback and Brown, as the other three regional 

providers sought to offer the same benefit as Physicians 

Plus.

The rebate program had a soft pilot launch in 2005.11 

Two of the coalition’s member farms, Vermont Valley 

Community Farm and Harmony Valley Farm, were the 

initial providers for the program at Physicians Plus. “We 

launched it as a pilot to work out any issues before 

promoting it more broadly,” said Auerback. “One thing we 

changed was that, in the beginning, some of the rebate 

went directly to the farm. We modified the administration 

to simplify the process for everyone, and to reduce any 

administrative burden on the farmers,” she said.

The year Physicians Plus HMO took the CSA benefit “live,” 

it was the thrust of their marketing. “It was the main story 

we were telling in all our marketing and promotion,” said 

Auerback. “It got a lot of incoming media interest, and we 

saw a rise in enrollment.”

11  The rebate is coordinated between the insurance provider and the wellness program of participating firms. Employees are offered a rebate 

voucher based on household size that can be redeemed through participation in any FairShare CSA. The voucher provides for part of the season 

share cost for the shareholder and is provided on a reimbursement basis. Additional details on the health insurance rebate program can be viewed 

at the FairShare site: http://www.csacoalition.org/about-csa/csa-insurance-rebate/.

Table 22. FairShare (FS) Health, Rebate Program Growth

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Estimated total rebates issued 96 972 1,282 3,550 6,100 6,800 7,300 7,200

Approximate # of total shares 

available via FS farms 2,000 2,800 3,500 4,500 6,950 8,650 8,733 9,700
45

The impact on area CSAs was even greater. “After that 

first year, the farmer members sold out their shares,” 

said Auerback. Barb and Dave Perkins, who operate the 

1,250-member Vermont Valley Community Farm, said that 

the entrance of other HMO companies was key. “Every 

year, suddenly there was competition between providers,” 

said Barb Perkins. “We saw our membership grow, and 

the rebate program really helped.” Rebates issued leveled 

out at 7,300 in 2011 and 7,200 in 2012 even while the 

number of CSA shares available from FairShare farms have 

increased. Growth in the program and the impact of the 

voucher program on total shares in the area are noted in 

table 22.

Health Rebate Program Keys

One of the keys to the program’s success, said Auerback, 

was the coalition’s ability to vet farms to qualify. “We 

(Physician’s Plus HMO) did not want to be in the business 

of determining which farms were bonafide CSA farms 

using sustainable practices,” she said. FairShare’s ability to 

vet farms was viewed as key by Physicians Plus, she said. 

Another key success factor was having a critical mass of 

CSA options and a choice of farms for voucher holders in 

different parts of the community through the coalition’s 

networks.

Kiera Mulvey said that the principle of streamlining 

administration for both benefit providers and farms 

extends beyond the health rebate program. “Our Partner 

Shares (low-income rebate) program is primarily funded 

through a “Bike the Barns” benefit ride between member 

farms,” said Mulvey. “But processing and administering 

the 200 Partner Shares is staff-intensive, and I doubt that 

many farms would find the time to do it on their own.”

Until 2013, all four Madison-area HMOs provided a CSA 

rebate ($200 for a family, $100 for an individual). One 

HMO discontinued the CSA program in 2013 in favor 

of an alternative health-tracking program. Interviews 

with FairShare member farms indicated mixed views on 

whether that development could portend a scaling-down 

of the rebate program.

Mike Noltnerwyess, a Madison-area native and a fifthyear CSA operator, said he is “lucky” to be farming 

near Madison. He said the health rebate program has 

undoubtedly increased demand for CSAs. “I think I 

would still fill my shares (without a rebate program),” 

said Noltnerwyess who, with his wife Cassie, operates a 

300-member CSA. Like most of FairShare’s other members, 

they also retail at farmers markets and wholesale some 

organic produce. “If the rebate went away, there would 

have to be some effect (on the CSAs), he said.”

The qualifications for a farm to receive the CSA rebate 

are set by the insurance company. As of 2013, two 

Madison-area HMOs also accepted CSA reimbursement 

from another, smaller farm coalition, FRESH. “The HMO 

that limits its rebates to FairShare farms has told us it’s 

doing that because it doesn’t want to make things any 

more complicated,” said John Binkley. The 28-year-old 

farmer at Equinox Community Farm is a member of both 

FairShare and FRESH, the smaller of the two groups. The 

main difference between the two groups is that FairShare 

now requires its members to be USDA certified organic or 

transitioning to USDA certified organic, while FRESH does 

not have this requirement.

Outlook and Producer Perspective 

on Health Rebate Program

Producers and insurance providers agree that FairShare 

plays a critical role in the health rebate program’s success. 

“As more companies came on board, we continued to 

serve as an intermediary and encouraged the companies 

to be as similar in their programs as possible,” said Mulvey.

A transition by the insurance providers to online signup 

for the CSA reimbursement helped both FairShare and 

the HMOs to streamline administration. “We transitioned 

in 2007/08 to work even more with the marketing 

departments,” said Mulvey. “The downside is that the CSA 

rebate may not be as integrated into the HMO wellness 

program,” she said.

Some of the providers that participate 

in health rebate programs.
46

That lack of integration bothered some FairShare members 

from the beginning, said Laura Brown. “The voucher 

program was tremendous,” she said. “But many farms 

felt they were getting members that weren’t good CSA 

members,” added Brown. That is, new members attracted 

by the health rebate were not as invested in knowing the 

farm and the farmer and are less likely to exhibit loyalty to 

a certain CSA. “You wouldn’t think that people would shell 

out $600 for a CSA membership and not know the farm 

name,” said John Binkley, “but we’ve heard that story from 

different farms more than once.”

In general, FairShare and its members see that lack of 

connection as both a departure from the original CSA 

values and an opportunity to “put the community back 

in CSA.” That may be seen in perspectives from four 

FairShare’s younger farmers:

Kristen Kordet, owner of Blue Moon Community Farm 

and a FairShare board member, said her CSA’s 88 percent 

retention rate is tied more to her emphasis on building 

member community than any health rebate incentive. 

“I’m somewhat unique in that all my members pick up at 

the farm, and they build their own shares by selecting their 

own produce,” said Kordet. “But that is my preference: to 

be very connected to my CSA members. CSA has allowed 

me to farm in this way.”

Dennis Fiser and Anne Drefahl are FairShare members 

from Jefferson, about 30 miles from Madison. They are 

focused on growing their CSA, Regenerative Roots, through 

marketing to their local area. “Our goal is to really provide 

food for the people in this (Jefferson) community,” said 

Anne. But the CSA rebate program does help that effort. 

“A lot of our CSA members work in the Madison area, so 

they’re eligible for the rebates,” said Dennis. But these 

second-season farmers see more benefit for them in the 

networking available through the coalition. “Just knowing 

the other farms, having people we can talk to about CSAs, 

that’s huge for us,” said Anne.

Mike and Cassie Noltnerwyess operate Crossroads 

Community Farm, a few miles from Madison. Mike noted 

that the CSA program has, in his view, spurred the growth 

of so many CSAs in the Madison area. He thought that 

their 300-member CSA would still fill without the rebate 

program, and he also sees huge benefits from FairShare 

beyond vetting for the rebate program. Specifically, he is 

involved in helping develop communication from members 

about production practices and other on-farm issues. 

Other Functions of FairShare

The health rebate program and the cookbook continue to 

be major activities of Madison’s FairShare CSA Coalition. 

Kiera Mulvey, the Executive Director, said the group is 

continuing to focus on other strategic, education and 

marketing/promotion activities. There is also a great deal 

of benefit to the expertise within the coalition, with much 

information sharing from the coalition to farms and farmto-farm. 

“Our strategy is mainly to coordinate the expertise that is 

out there,” said Mulvey. “We have 50 farmers, and 30 of 

them have more than 10 years organic growing experience. 

So we’re really focused on grower-led productionbased workshops.” FairShare has also started having its 

members submit annual “fact sheets” of new ideas that 

they adopted and that worked. Business development 

resources for CSAs have been made readily available 

through Wisconsin Department of Agriculture programs. 

Consequently, FairShare focuses on production education 

and facilitates a few social networking events for the farm 

members each year.

Strategically, FairShare has shared a part-time staff 

member with Dane County Extension. Laura Witzling 

works as Institutional Food Market Coalition Coordinator. 

Housed in Dane County’s Extension office, half of her 

appointment is focused on, and funded by, FairShare. “I 

work with institutional buyers to determine sources and 

new markets for local products,” said Witzling. Carrie 

Crossroads Community Farm CSA, is a member of the 

FairShare Coalition in Madison, WI.
47

Edgar, Dane County Extension Department Head, said 

Witzling’s appointment allows both Extension to leverage 

resources and benefits the large number of CSA farms in 

the county.

FairShare also provides a staff member to administer 

the Partner Shares (low income) program, some 200 of 

the total 9,700 CSA shares available in the Madison area 

in 2013. “You really need a staff person to administer 

Partner Shares,” said Kiera Mulvey. She also cautions that 

the group’s activities, including the unique health rebate 

program, take advantage of many of the characteristics 

within the region. “Just because this worked in Madison 

doesn’t mean it will work other places,” she said, qualifying 

her comment by noting that institutional support could 

significantly help to replicate the program in other regions.

Both FairShare staff and farmer members said that the 

advantages to the coalition are very strategic. “We have 

the capacity to leverage a lot more,” said Kiera Mulvey. 

It is easier to represent a public benefit than individual 

farm benefit, and that allows FairShare to gain access to 

innovations like the health rebate program. 

FairShare also continues to market and promote the CSA 

model in the Madison area. “We can do this collaborative 

marketing and then bring it down to the individual farm,” 

said Mulvey. “The non-profit exists to educate and tell why 

CSA is good,” she added. The farms then benefit as more 

members sign up.

Future of FairShare CSAs

Southeast Wisconsin is unique, east of the Rockies, for its 

concentration of CSA shares and number of farms focused 

on CSA marketing. But transitions and future trends seen 

by the FairShare CSAs are similar to those in east coast 

markets. “We’re seeing a lot of people adding value to 

their shares,” said Mulvey, noting offerings of bakery 

goods, cheese, coffee, and even organic fruit from North 

America in off-season shares. Meat is another emerging 

product in the FairShare CSAs: beef, pork, chicken and 

some lamb.

The FairShare Coalition provides a unique multi-farm CSA 

initiative that creates shared business function but also 

strives to maintain the uniqueness of each CSA farm. 

Wisconsin CSAs are also building their capacity for utilizing 

technology with Internet signup, ordering add-ons, and 

other products. The Milwaukee market is viewed by 

some FairShare members as underserved, and although 

the Chicago metropolitan area market may also be 

underserved by CSAs more competition exists there from 

other subscription and produce delivery services.
48

Innovations in Denver Urban and Urban Fringe Markets 

Denver, CO, area

CSA Case Study 5 

CSAs and Urban Agriculture

Community Supported Agriculture operators in the Denver, CO, area regard their market ripe for new 

and expanded CSA operations but remain concerned 

that growth needs to be strategic, given land, water, 

and market infrastructure constraints. Affluent, healthconscious consumers in the Fort Collins, Boulder, and 

the eastern suburbs of Denver have contributed to a 

multiplication of CSA and local food distribution in those 

localities. Meanwhile, CSA is playing a role in marketing 

plans for urban farms sprouting in downtown Denver. 

This case will summarize two CSA approaches in Denver: 

an urban farm in downtown Denver and a farm focused on 

CSA production on city-owned land in suburban Arvada. 

It also presents a summary of a broader set of key issues 

facing CSA operators in Denver, based on a focus group 

conversation with CSA operators from the greater Denver 

area in April 2013.

Granata Farms, 

Downtown Denver,

Elaine Granata

Granata Farms may be at the epicenter of urban farming 

in the Rockies. Reclaimed, repainted shipping containers 

house the wash and packing facilities for Elaine Granata to 

deliver food to 20 CSA members and a host of restaurants 

and local grocers. Granata’s CSA farm is located on the site 

of a demolished Denver Housing Authority (DHA) public 

housing site. “The soil was awful,” she said. She has a 

multiple-year lease with the agency, has constructed an 

extensive series of raised beds, and she said her farm is 

likely not to move. Granata benefits from support from 

the Denver Housing Authority (DHA) and said the agency 

has given every indication her farm site will continue 

even after the back half of the lot is developed into new 

housing. “We’re being painted as an amenity to new 

housing,” she said. But while agency and community 

Granata Farms in the shadow of the Denver, CO, skyline.

support may offset some capital costs, urban farming has 

its risks. “Vandalism is real,” she said, grimly recalling an 

incident where someone defecated in her tomato beds. 

“I’ve had several power tools stolen, and the greenhouse 

had a $1,600 equipment theft one time.”

Granata shares the site with a greenhouse flower grower 

and another CSA, run by a non-profit with local youth 

providing labor with a vocational development mission. 

“It is challenging, when I’m selling raspberries for $4.50 

and the non-profit has them for $2.50,” she said. “I think 

it creates confusion to the public about what this food is 

worth.”

Pricing discrepancies are nothing new to CSA operators. 

Farmers across the country have noticed lower CSA prices 

from those operations that are less tuned to their costs 

of production, which are operating CSAs more for lifestyle 

or hobby purposes, or are simply less business savvy. 

Grananta is far from a hobbyist. Like several other Denver 

urban farmers interviewed, she is well in tune with her 
49

costs of production. “I made $6.35 an hour last year,” she 

said, “but I also view what I’m doing as having considerable 

community benefit, and it is a model for what urban 

farming can be.”

Granata said her CSA customers are more likely to connect 

with her because of desire to connect with their food and 

to let their children know where food comes from. “I’m 

not sure that the (urban farm/community) mission speaks 

to many of my shareholders. A lot of them will say they 

want their kids to know where the food comes from. I 

would say maybe half of them get the local food thing...the 

others, it’s a commitment to their kids.”

Her CSA is the focus of her farm. “The restaurants 

understand that I have a CSA and that’s my priority,” 

she said. “I rarely have to recruit for the CSA. I have a 

90-percent+ renewal rate. I pamper my people at some 

level. I am there (in-person) for (each) distribution, and 

I tell them the name of the tomato and I give them a 

recipe.”

Now in her 12th year as a CSA operator, she sees her 

hourly wage improving from its 2012 level. “A part of my 

mission is to make a living wage as an urban farmer,” she 

said.

Star Acre Farms, Arvada, CO

CSAs and Planned Urban 

Development Initiatives,

Jackie Raehl

New farmers in the West can find accessing water a 

challenge as great, or greater, as accessing land. “My first 

farm was basically a three-acre plot of land in someone’s 

front yard,” said Jackie Raehl, co-founder of Star Acre 

Farms. “It was irrigated with ditch water.”

Access to more land and more reliable water, in part, 

attracted Raehl to a call for proposals for a CSA farmer to 

lease land on a 15-acre city park site in the city of Arvada, 

a suburb about 10 miles northwest of downtown Denver. 

“The city already leased land for hay and grazing,” said 

Jessica Prosser, the city’s sustainability coordinator. “We 

thought ‘why couldn’t we lease some land for vegetables 

and see how it goes?’”

Raehl’s proposal was accepted and, with a business 

partner, she began Star Acre Farms. The four-acre CSA 

farm is located beside a four-acre community gardens site, 

directly behind a large suburban development in Arvada. 

The site is part of Arvada’s city park system, and much of 

the site’s general maintenance is funded through that city 

department.

For Raehl, operating a CSA on city-owned land has brought 

her CSA to the next stage. “The biggest questions we got 

(at their first CSA site) were: can we come see your farm? 

Do you guys have classes? Can I bring my kids?” she said. 

Her Arvada site is built around community participation; 

some terms of her lease with the city even stipulate 

community outreach and involvement in exchange for 

favorable lease terms. “That’s how the city was able to 

address some legal concerns with leasing parks land to 

a for-profit business,” said Blake Angelo, Colorado State 

University Extension.

Being on city land has its benefits. The farm pays the 

city’s internal water rate, a 30- to 40-percent discount 

over municipal rates. And the city has helped establish 

some permanent infrastructure on the farm, including a 

building to be used as a farm stand with a cooler. “We 

found the freezer in city property that was not being used,” 

said Raehl. She also said that the city advertising the 

farm as part of its parks program has been beneficial. The 

farm also partners with the adjacent community garden, 

providing plants and seedlings for sale to the gardeners.

Star Farms leasing land in a planned suburban 

community outside of Denver, CO.
50

But the public-private partnership also brings challenges to 

the CSA farm. “It’s a 3-year lease, so we haven’t invested 

in a lot of perennial crops yet,” said Raehl. Because the 

farm is located on city park land, there can be issues 

related to access that disrupts the production site. “People 

come around, they might bring their dogs, they might 

not understand the difference between the farm and the 

garden,” she said. “We do offer tours and ways people 

can come out and see the farmer and do volunteer days so 

that they can feel that it’s their farm.”

Raehl believes that the sense of community ownership is 

crucial for the farm’s success at its current site. “We’re 

trying to cut down on our farmers market attendance and 

then kind of expand our farm stand offering here,” she 

said. “We really want to be the super local farmer for a 

(customer base) one to two mile radius from here.” 

Issues for Denver Metro CSAs

Community Supported Agriculture operators in the Denver 

and Colorado Springs areas faced a major opportunity 

in the spring of 2013. The country’s largest CSA, the 

4,500-member Grant Family Farm CSA, went bankrupt 

during the winter of 2012-13. That created a potential 

pool of thousands of “CSA orphans” in the area.12

In early April 2013, 10 CSA farmers, as well as 2 local 

food processors who offer a preserved foods CSA share, 

gathered at a Denver restaurant to lend their perspectives 

on accomplishments and challenges for the area’s CSAs. 

Farm sizes ranged from an acre to a large orchard operator 

whose CSA shares accounted for 10 to 15 percent of sales. 

While only one farmer who attended marketed solely 

through CSA, all the operators said that they viewed their 

CSA as a major growth opportunity for their farm and 

business.

Partnerships Viewed Essential 

to Growth

Farmers noted several ways that CSA farms are engaging 

in formal and informal partnerships, especially to help 

expand and diversify the products offered through CSA 

shares. A common way was offering Colorado-grown fruit 

from the State’s orchard region located some distance 

from metro Denver. Key to that relationship, said the 

orchard representative, was providing value to the CSAs 

that provide delivery of the fruit share. “We understand 

that our partners spend time and effort in obtaining those 

members for us, so we share a profit with them.”

Partnering with farmers outside of direct marketing is 

another approach one CSA used. One farmer recalled 

how a neighboring beef farm was really struggling. “We 

asked him if he would grass-feed a beef for us, because we 

were strictly vegetables. And now he’s doing more, he is 

branding through the CSA. It’s really been helpful to him, 

and it’s been beneficial to us because now we can offer 

some things that we just aren’t able to grow.”

Many of the farms represented had either processed 

products or encouraged their CSA members to patronize 

MM Local, a Denver company processing local farm 

products. “We put a sticker on every jar, that tells the 

name of the farm that grew the produce in that jar, so 

people have a connection,” said company personnel. The 

company said a major portion of its sales come from a 

CSA-type share sold annually.

12  The Grant Family Farm CSA is a complicated legal story that, according the Denver Post, filed three bankruptcies and has had a series of onagain, off-again efforts to try and jumpstart one of the nation’s largest organic CSAs, a diversified products cooperative aiming to provide shares 

throughout the greater Denver area. (Miyoga, 2013). The multi-farm was still active, targeting organic produce, poultry and eggs through CSA and 

wholesale distribution in 2015.

One way CSAs expand is to offer fruit from orchard 

regions to metro areas, sharing the profits with CSAs 

that provide delivery of the fruit.
51

Unconventional partnerships with landowners who 

provide a farmer with access to land and water are also a 

part of several successful Denver CSAs. One farmer utilizes 

production from about 20 urban yards. Other farms, 

such as the two profiled in this case, utilize city or agencyowned land which was otherwise underutilized, so it was 

in less direct competition with development interests. 

Peer-to-Peer Learning: Building 

Farmers Programs

All of the focus group farmers had participated in the 

Building Farmers program, a local variation on the USDA 

Beginning Farmers and Ranchers program; some had 

served as instructors. “Building farmers is like a business 

school for farmers,” said one. Participants give especially 

good reviews for the peer-to-peer learning used by the 

program. “To hear from someone who has been in the 

field and done that is really helpful,” said one alumni.

Younger CSA farmers in the group agreed that learning 

from more experienced CSAs is critical, even for 

those coming to their CSA with prior farm and garden 

backgrounds. “I think (Building Farmers) is really 

important, because farmers used institutional knowledge 

that was passed down through families, and very few of 

the people I see starting farms have any sort of knowledge 

that they grew up with, or very little,” said one young 

farmer.

Changes in CSAs over Time

Producer CSA experience in the focus group ranged from 4 

years to more than 20 years. Obvious changes in CSAs, they 

said, included the move toward more producer delivery 

as well as a wider consumer exposure to the CSA concept. 

“We have come to the point where we don’t really try to 

sell the CSA too much. We feel like in this area there is a 

pretty big understanding of CSA,” said one farmer. Other 

farmers noted that more education about what CSAs are 

is still needed. Any consumer education that can come 

from outside the farm such as that from university and 

government agencies, said some, is welcome. 

There were mixed responses to whether CSA shareholders 

have changed in what they value over time. 

• “I feel like it’s almost unlimited the number of 

customers we could sell to. It’s more a matter of 

how many relationships we can support.” 

• “Customers are not looking so much for a sense of 

ownership but a sense of belongingness.”

• “You have to have a foundation where you are 

returning a fair value, because from that point then 

you can have a real relationship. People that stay do 

have absolutely a feeling like a member of the farm, 

a part of the farm.”

Relation to Other Market Channels

Most farms were involved in one or more farmers markets, 

and those markets contributed to the growth of the CSA. 

One producer noted the marketing function their farmers 

market stand provides for their CSA: “I really feel like the 

farmers market served as a place for people to sample our 

product before they got to the point where they invested a 

larger amount of money.”

The CSA market channel, noted one producer, eases 

transaction times and costs for the farmer. “We have 

drifted toward increasing the CSA aspect of our farm 

because it’s more convenient for us, we have found.” For 

larger farms, CSA is an important diversification tool. “We 

strategically diversify our marketing. We rely on farmers 

markets, CSA, wholesale, and then we process as well.”

Farmers markets give potential CSA customers a chance 

to sample farm products.
52

Producers also note the interaction between wholesale 

production, whether for larger grocers or small 

restaurants, and the CSA. “The way that wholesale comes 

together with CSA is really nice, because we can grow a lot 

and we can grow more of something than we think we can 

sell through the CSA. We have a production buffer, but 

we made a commitment early on that CSA would always 

come first.”

Relationship was emphasized by the producers. One 

newer CSA producer said, “Most of our relationships are 

at farmers markets. And sometimes we would sell out of 

things and then customers that were so loyal for so many 

years would come up. So I wanted a way to say, ‘I will 

always have it for you.’ And the CSA format provides that.”

The CSA also offers growers some flexibility. “The CSA 

is a chance for me to do some experimenting,” said one 

producer, laughing. “If I want to grow something new 

and I’m not sure that other markets are going to buy it, I 

think, “well, I can always give it to the CSA.’ It’s clear to me 

that the CSA is always the priority, but I also grow certain 

varieties for my (wholesale) customers too.”

Perspectives on the Future of 

Denver-Area CSAs

Many CSA producers are committed to the cultural and 

community benefits they believe CSA brings to their 

customers. “We recreate the culture, creating community 

around food,” said one producer, who talked about 

their perceived need for CSAs to be more integrated 

with providing food to underserved and underprivileged 

populations.

Meat, eggs, and dairy were seen as products where 

CSAs in the Denver area could grow. “It has significant 

growth hurdles, with processing and all that, but there 

are significant growth opportunities in meat that are still 

untapped,” said a grower.

Regional collaboration between CSAs is also seen as 

a growth area for the future. Groups like FairShare of 

Madison, WI, could help with marketing the CSA to new 

consumers, said one Denver-area producer familiar 

with Madison. “FairShare is a place that you know as a 

consumer you’re going to be joining a CSA that has a track 

record. That kind of vetting is super important.”

Collaborative efforts could also benefit growers who need 

specialized supplies or pieces of equipment. “We need a 

potato plow once per year,” noted one farmer. In addition, 

a CSA community could help coordinate donations to 

community groups and food banks. One farmer noted a 

common frustration: “There are days when I have extra 

everything, and it’s at the height of the season when 

everything is so busy, and I don’t have that one person to 

call to say ‘Can you come over today and pick up these 

four coolers worth of food that I have to donate, because it 

has to be emptied right now, because I have to empty my 

cooler to put the new stuff in.”

Finally, growers noted that there may be a shift in the way 

that CSA farmers are viewed by larger produce operations. 

“We actually have direct connections with a lot of people 

that bigger farmers do not,” noted one farmer. That 

could be used to benefit the entire Denver and Colorado 

community of farmers on issues where farms large and 

small find common ground, issues like land and water 

accessibility.
53

CSA Case Study 6 

variety or overabundance. “Fair Shares, being a Combined 

CSA (CCSA), gathers food from a plethora of farmers, 

offering fantastic diversity with little risk,” they say.

The business was developed with both financial 

sustainability and development of a local food culture (in 

Greater St. Louis) in mind. “Membership in Fair Shares 

is a commitment to the farmers so they have the security 

of knowing what we ask them to grow will be sold. We’re 

sharing their risk and their bounty, and we’re encouraging 

more farmers to grow food (vegetables), instead of 

commodity (corn, soy).”

Building Suppliers and 

Shareholders

Hale and Choler remember plenty of skepticism as they 

approached area farmers in 2007 to gauge interest in 

supplying products for the type of combined CSA they 

envisioned. “The first season, we were barking up all 

these farmers’ trees and it seemed like they were thinking, 

CSA SNAPSHOT: FAIR SHARES COMBINED CSA (CCSA)

St. Louis, MO

Multi-Farm Sourcing by Entrepreneurial Non-Farm 

Food Retailers to Deliver CSAs

Distributes local food in weekly and bi-weekly shares to 

members in Greater St. Louis, MO

Year CSA Started: 2008 (started at 170 shares, reached 

225 in 1 month)

Current Size: 350 shares in 2013; 2014: 450 shares

Share Structure: 46-week full share ($52.75/week); 26-

week half share ($54 per week); also offers “Gardener” 

share for shopping a la carte to former members; items 

available a la carte; various installment plans (up to 10 

payments); share value is $50 per week (plus tax)

Notable Products: Many value-added local products; 

sources local meat from variety of farms; fresh pasta; nonGenetically Modified Organisms and gluten-free items.

An Innovative Local Food Retailer

In 2007, St. Louis natives Sara Hale and Jamie Choler 

shared a CSA membership. While shopping at the 

Maplewood Farmers Market to supplement their CSA 

share, the sisters – also active in the Slow Food St. Louis 

group – wondered if there could be a way to more easily 

combine a “market basket” of local food products. The 

following year, with 170 first-time members signed up, 

Sara and Jamie launched Fair Shares, a CSA providing fresh 

and preserved local food to its members. The business 

now serves 400 members and staffs 6 employees.

“In a way, what we’re doing is really self-serving,” laughs 

Sara Hale. “We’ve found all this great food and now we’re 

sharing it with others.”

At its core, Fair Shares is a local food aggregator and 

distributor. Sara Hale and Jamie Choler note that is 

different from the traditional CSA model, where members 

share the risks as well as the benefits of the farmer. Fair 

Shares notes on its website limitations, such as limited 
54

“You girls don’t know what you’re talking about,” said Hale. 

“And now they’re giving up farmers market and selling 

directly to us so that they don’t have to stand outside for 

four hours on a Saturday morning.”

While the business does not provide money before the 

season to farmers, they are paid upon delivering goods 

at the 2,700 sq. ft. storage and distribution point located 

at the confluence of I-44 and Kings highway, right outside 

Washington University’s medical complex in St. Louis. 

That likely helped dispel the initial farmer skepticism. “It’s 

a lot of paperwork, because we pay them each week when 

they bring us the food. And they love that,” says Hale.

Sara and Jamie were not new to starting businesses; Hale 

worked for St. Louis’ Schlafly Beer for 16 years, helping to 

grow the first new brewery in St. Louis since Prohibition. 

Choler, a social services professional in the health industry, 

was interested in getting people to eat better. Hale and 

Choler had started a small, natural-bath product business 

when the idea for a combined CSA hit. “I quit my job to 

work on it full-time, and Jamie worked part-time from 

November until the season started in April 2008, when we 

were then both on over-time” said Hale. Their sister, Lindy 

Sullivan, has worked for Fair Shares since 2008.

They sold 170 memberships before the first season began, 

growing to their first-year goal of 225 members within 

the first month of being open in 2008. Like a traditional 

CSA, the sisters discovered relying on local sources 

opened them up to risks unknown by commercial produce 

wholesalers. “2008 was a flood year,” remembered 

Hale. “It seemed like all we had the whole summer were 

zucchini and squash. It’s a wonder anyone came back!” 

She adds, “And I had to forget all my Excel spreadsheet 

(product flow) projections.”

Still, the timing was good. Interest in local food was 

increasing in the St. Louis region in 2008, and the midtown 

area where the sisters were based was especially ripe 

with interest. “I think what helped make Fair Shares 

so successful is the local connections that had been 

developed over the years, with knowing the farmers 

through Slow Food, and all the resources through 

connections at the brewery.” says Arianna Aerie, who is 

married to Choler’s son, Kevin Warner. Aerie and Warner 

joined the Fair Shares staff in the 2010 season, after 

moving to St. Louis in 2009.

Changes in Customers, Business

Hale and Choler note that the business is now quite 

different from their original intent, which was to benefit 

lower income families. “We really thought we were 

going to start this and be a 501(c)(3); we thought we 

were going to be a non-profit and really help some lowincome families get good food,” said Hale. Choler, who 

had observed dietary challenges among some of her social 

service clients, said this did not occur. “We had a number 

of families that were going to come and get their free 

shares. But they just stopped coming. They didn’t know 

how to cook the food.”

In order to maintain a viable organization and business, 

Hale and Choler had to shift from their original aim of 

bringing local food to those who could not afford to 

eat locally. They also discovered a market reality that 

discovered them: only a minority of CCSA customers 

wished to be connected to the farms growing their food.

“Everything that we put into the shares has the farm name 

on it,” says Hale. She says that, while there are some 

customers who do care about where the food is grown, 

there are not nearly as many customers as they thought. 

That’s not to say all customers don’t care; one, says Choler, 

tells them, “This is like having your best friend do your 

grocery shopping for you.”

Fair Shares CCSA makes sure the name of the farm 

is on every item in a share so customers know 

where their food originated.
55

Kevin Warner says they have seen the kinds of members 

change. “It’s like the lazy locavore sort of thing,” he says. 

“The first members were really into doing their own 

canning, cooking, connecting with the food. There’s a 

whole different population we’re serving now, there’s been 

a big shift. Which is weird to deal with, because they’re 

not as tolerant of things that aren’t perfect.

Growing Local Food Culture

While Hale, Choler, and their employees were at first 

surprised at the relative lack of interest among their 

customers in connecting with their farmers, promoting 

that connection remains central to their business. “We 

do what seems like thousands of hours of research each 

year into where our products are coming from,” says 

Warner, “and our members know that we’re doing the 

legwork for them.”

That has benefited some farms, creating improved 

relationships between Fair Shares and its farmer-vendors. 

“A number of our customers shop at the farmers markets 

and they do make the connection, and the farmers love to 

hear that they’ve bought (that farm’s) products through 

Fair Shares,” said Hale.

Becoming a sort of clearinghouse for local products – a 

food hub – has also helped Fair Shares advance its goal 

of increasing locally produced products. “Our fresh pasta 

supplier is now using our local eggs,” said Hale. “That’s 

more money from that pasta that is staying in the local 

economy.”

This helps Fair Shares in St. Louis meet its original goal. 

“We want everyone to eat this food,” says Choler. “And 

one of the ways we’re progressing is we’re getting 

farmers to grow food for us that was just not available 

before,” says Hale. “We have more and more farmers 

asking ‘What do you want us to grow for you? We’re going 

to start this, we’re plowing out this field...what do you 

want us to grow?’”

Producer Perspectives

Fair Shares CCSA, in St. Louis, sources local food products 

from farmers, market gardeners and food manufacturers 

of varying sizes. Within an hour, on a Tuesday in October 

2013, the CCSA received a box of coffee from a local 

boutique coffee roaster; several boxes of shiitake and 

oyster mushrooms; standard commercial produce boxes 

packed with tomatoes, squash and other items from a 

100-acre vegetable and livestock farm west of St. Louis; 

and two boxes of winter squash from a 1 1⁄2 -acre market 

gardener nearly an hour and a half away. Sellers of all 

sizes are attracted to Fair Shares immediate payment and 

willingness to work with food producers of various sizes.

With his family, Rusty Lee raises 20 to 30 acres of 

vegetables on their farm in Truxton, MO., 60 miles 

northwest of St. Louis. The farm’s vegetable sales 

are about 60 percent wholesale and 40 percent retail. 

The farm used to focus entirely on wholesale tomato 

production and diversified into retail in 2008. Lee Farms 

now operates a farmers market stand in Lake Saint Louis 

and has its own 132-member CSA. 

The farm is certified by PRO*ACT – a third party quality 

assurance certifier that facilitates food safety programs for 

foodservice distribution. Its wholesale accounts include 

a distributor on St. Louis’ Produce Row, and it supplies 

produce to St. Louis’ Whole Foods stores. The 100-acre 

farm also raises livestock and poultry, leasing additional 

crop acreage to grow corn and soybeans for livestock feed. 

A St. Louis artisan tofu-maker customer requested the 

farm supply non-GMO tofu soybeans in 2013; Leey planted 

two acres. “We’re able to try smaller markets like that,” 

he says.

Fair Shares CCSA receives product from producers 

varying in size from gardeners to large-scale farms.
56

Interestingly, Lee Farms has operated its own CSA since 

2008, when it started selling to Fair Shares. “We were all 

at the same CSA meeting that winter!” says Lee. Neither 

he nor Fair Shares staff said competition is created; this 

may be mainly due to their focus on different trade areas. 

“I was kind of surprised at the popularity of our CSA in our 

local area,” says Lee. 

For Lee Farms, Fair Shares is a niche customer, sort of a 

high-end wholesale account. “I consider Fair Shares part 

of our ‘retail’ sales, because the prices paid are still at that 

level,” says Lee. He coordinates his Tuesday deliveries to 

Fair Shares with St. Louis drops for the farm’s CSA shares 

and deliveries to other St. Louis accounts.

Lee says that prices paid by Fair Shares have adjusted 

downward since 2008, as more local growers have supplied 

the business with product. “But it’s still worth it for us 

to sell here. The prices are still above regular wholesale 

prices, and I’m already coming into the city to make 

deliveries,” he says. Lee also appreciates the deliveryday payment. “That’s very different from your typical 

wholesale deal,” he notes.

Bob Lober has grown vegetables for sale to St. Louis-area 

restaurants since 1996, at St. Isidore Farm in Moscow 

Mills, MO, about an hour’s drive north of St. Louis. He 

focuses on specialty, heirloom crops and extends his sales 

season by supplying crops like lettuce and beets. Formerly 

an information technology consultant, Lober has devoted 

his full time to producing about one-half acre for sale to 

restaurants during the last 11 years.

Fair Shares is Lober’s only current customer that is not 

a restaurant. He says he has appreciated being able to 

increase the product volume sold to Fair Shares since CCSA 

began in 2008. “They take a lot of different products and 

are fair in pricing,” says Lober. Delivery-day payment is 

also a plus, he says, especially for smaller and beginning 

farms.

Keys to Success

Hale and Choler both reflected on what they would 

consider to be the keys to success for this type of retailing 

operation – these would include the following:

• Partnership with farmers – gathered feedback on 

product sourcing and payment, structured how 

requested

• Local ties – local roots gave credibility and 

promotional clout in St. Louis, MO, area

• Backup farmers, for when regular suppliers have 

crop failures or fall short

• Good member services—allowing swaps/trades of 

non-produce items to accommodate families who 

are vegetarian, vegan, gluten free, etc.

• Good relationship with Eat Here St. Louis, local 

wholesale business supplying local food to 

restaurants/chefs. Pool orders on items requiring 

bulk quantities or across-state shipping.

• Knowing the numbers. “We’re not making CEO 

salaries here. Our markup started at 25 percent, 

then 30 percent and now it’s 32 percent. And our 

health insurance is eating good food.”

• Deciding distribution based strictly on member 

demographics. “When we started, we let the 

members decide (where the pickup would be).”

Tips and Considerations for 

Enhancing CSA Success Through 

Strategic Business Practices

CSAs are diverse in their business models and generally 

adapted to their surrounding markets and business 

opportunities. It’s very difficult to offer simple formulas 

for success that apply everywhere. Interesting patterns are 

emerging however as observed in the national survey and 

case studies that might be useful to consider as part of a 

strategic business model for CSAs moving forward.

Production and Product Mix

• Season extension technologies add scale, scope, 

and market presence. Protected agriculture 

systems can also improve consistency of quality for 

weekly deliveries.

• More value-added products are being added as 

complements to traditional fresh produce offerings. 

Such products can better utilize overproduction and 

seconds while contributing farm- branded products 

that shareholders can hold longer.

• Product line diversification beyond fresh produce 

(eggs, meat, flowers, etc.) can be used as either 

higher value shares or separate specialty shares to 

add value and appeal to shareholders.
57

• Sourcing specialty items from trusted partners 

can be used as a means to supplement product 

offerings when these partnerships can still support 

the CSA mission. Quality and consistency need to 

be managed carefully in these circumstances.

Marketing

• The CSA requires considerable marketing and 

relationship building skills as an advanced 

direct marketing option, in addition to complex 

production planning – not really lending itself 

very well to farmers just starting out with direct 

marketing.

• More CSAs are using partial shares and payment 

options, moving away from the single earlyseason payment as a means of better accessing 

shareholders with their own cash flow challenges.

• Complementary product lines can be developed for 

CSAs that help product development designated to 

other direct to consumer or retail customers.

• Partnerships with community groups that are 

focused on food access, nutrition, youth, urban land 

use planning, or food education/food justice can be 

used to create important marketing relationships to 

reach new consumer groups. Many agencies have 

the existing personnel resources and funding in 

place that can be leveraged to reach non-traditional 

CSA clients.

• Partnerships with wellness programs to pursue 

voucher and other CSA promotions have substantial 

potential for building shared marketing objectives 

locally.

• A number of fee-based e-commerce service 

providers are available specifically for CSAs adopting 

on-line payments, more advanced logistics, and 

other web-based business functions that are 

important to CSAs.

Distribution and Logistics

• Some CSAs can pursue collaboration to consolidate 

packing, grading, cooling, and delivery. While 

maybe not formally organizing to the extent of 

Penn’s Corner or FairShare, infrastructure resource 

sharing can still be pursued to manage post-harvest 

and distribution costs.

• CSA drop points can be leveraged for spot farm 

market “a la carte” purchases utilizing on-line 

ordering for both existing shareholders and 

interested local patrons.

• Peer-to-peer CSA farmer learning can help new 

farmers realize efficiencies sooner and identify 

feasible target markets and distribution options.

• Many CSAs have identified local food retail partners 

(restaurant, farm markets, food co-ops, etc) willing 

to help find various logistics solutions.

• Innovative food retailers and food hub concepts are 

increasingly available and open to partnering with 

farms to distribute shares and help with some of 

the intermediate marketing services. 

Communications and Customer Service

• Most CSAs are very active already with social 

media. E-commerce applications are increasingly 

being developed to help better service shareholders 

with supplemental purchases, product information, 

food pairings, and other services that could be 

considered part of a larger customer relations 

management program.

• Newsletters and other communications that 

highlight unique aspects about the farm, farm 

activities, and other community-building efforts are 

still highly valued by shareholders.
58

References

Biodynamic Farming and Gardening. 2012. “Community Supported Agriculture: An Introduction to CSA” http://www.

biodynamics.com/csa.html.

Bougherara, Douadia, Grolleau, Gilles, & Mzoughi, Naoufel. 2009. Buy local, pollute less: What drives households 

to join a community supported farm? Ecological Economics, 68(5), 1488-1495. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.

ecolecon.2008.10.009

Brislen, Lilian, Timothy Woods, Lee Meyer, and Nathan Routt. 2015. “Grasshoppers Distribution: Lessons Learned and 

Lasting Legacy,” University of Kentucky Experiment Station Special Report Series, SR-108, 26 p., January, http://www2.

ca.uky.edu/agc/pubs/SR/SR108/SR108.pdf

Brusch, Megan and Matt Ernst. 2010. “A Farmer’s Guide to Marketing Through Community Supported Agriculture 

(CSAs)”, Center for Profitable Agriculture Publication PB 1797, University of Tennessee Extension, December.

Ernst, Matt and Timothy Woods. 2009. “Community Supported Agriculture (CSAs)”, New Crop Opportunity Center 

Marketing Bulletin, University of Kentucky, August. http://www.uky.edu/Ag/NewCrops/csareport.pdf

Galt, Ryan E. 2011. “Counting and mapping Community Supported Agriculture in the United States and California: 

contributions from critical cartography/GIS”. ACME: An International E-Journal for Critical Geographies 10(2):131-162

Galt, Ryan E., Libby O’Sullivan, Jessica Beckett, and Colleen Hiner. 2012. “Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is 

thriving in the Central Valley”. California agriculture 66(1):8-14. http://californiaagriculture.ucanr.org/landingpage.

cfm?article=ca.v066n01p8&fulltext=yes

Henderson, Elizabeth, & Van En, Robyn. 1999. Sharing the Harvest: A Citizen’s Guide to Community Supported 

Agriculture. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.

Huntley, Simon. 2014. “The 2014 CSA Farming Annual Report”, http://www.memberassembler.com/hub/csa-report

Jackson, Greg, Amanda Raster, and Will Shattuck. 2011. “An analysis of the impacts of health insurance initiatives 

on community supported agriculture in southern Wisconsin”. Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community 

Development. http://dx.doi.org/10.5304/jafscd.2011.021.002

Lass, D., G.W. Stevenson, J. Henrickson, and K. Ruhf. 2003. “CSA Across the Nation: Findings from the 1999 CSA 

Survey”, Madison, WI: University of Madison-Wisconsin, Center for Integrated Agricultural Systems. http://www.cias.

wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/csaacross.pdf

Lass, Daniel, Ashley Bevis, G.W. Stevenson, John Hendrickson, and Kathy Ruhf. 2003. “Community Supported 

Agriculture entering the 21st century: results from the 2001 national survey”, University of Massachusetts, Department 

of Resource Economics staff paper. http://www.cias.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/csa_survey_01.pdf

Low, Sarah A. and Stephen Vogel. 2011. “Direct and Intermediated Marketing of Local Foods in the United States,” 

USDA-ERS Economic Research Report No. ERR-128. November 2011. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/erreconomic-research-report/err128.aspx

Miyoga, David. 2013. “Grant Family Farms comes back with new CSA called Grant Farms”, Denver Post, July 3, 2013. 

http://www.denverpost.com/ci_23595232/grant-family-farms-comes-back-new-csa-called
59

Oberholtzer, Lydia. 2004. “Community Supported Agriculture in the Mid-Atlantic Region: Results of a Shareholder 

Survey and Farmer Interviews,” Small Farm Success Project, http://www.winrock.org/wallace/wallacecenter/documents/

wc-CSAReport.pdf, July 2004.

Strohlic, Ron and Crispin Shelley. 2004. “Community Supported Agriculture in California, Oregon and Washington: 

Challenges and Opportunities.” California Institute for Rural Studies. http://www.cirsinc.org/Documents/Pub0504.1.pdf

USDA. 2009. 2007 Census of Agriculture, Selected Marketing Practices, Table 44. May. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2007/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_2_US_State_Level/st99_2_044_044.pdf.

USDA. 2014. 2012 Census of Agriculture, Selected Practices, Table 43. May. http://www.agcensus.usda.gov/

Publications/2012/Full_Report/Volume_1,_Chapter_1_US/usv1.pdf

Woods, Timothy, Matt Ernst, Stan Ernst, and Nick Wright, “2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers,” 

Ag Economics Extension Series 2009-11, University of Kentucky, July, 2009. http://www.uky.edu/Ag/NewCrops/

csareport.pdf
60

Photo Credits

Cover

USDA

Cover

USDA

Cover

Fair Shares CCSA

Cover

USDA

Cover

Neil Stauffer

Page 3

Rachel Hoffman 

East Boston Neighborhood 

Health Center

Page 4

USDA

Page 6

USDA

Page 7

USDA

Page 8

USDA

Page 24

USDA

Page 26

USDA

Page 27

Tim Woods

Page 29

Tim Woods

Page 30

Tim Woods

Page 32

Neil Stauffer
61

Page 33

Tim Woods

Page 35

Lydia Vanderhill

Page 36

Karlin Lamberto

Page 38

Tim Woods

Page 39

Tim Woods

Page 39

Tim Woods

Page 40

Tim Woods

Page 42

Rachel Hoffman 

East Boston Neighborhood 

Health Center

Page 42

Rachel Hoffman 

East Boston Neighborhood 

Health Center

Page 43

FairShare CSA Coalition

Page 46

Tim Woods

Page 47

FairShare CSA Coalition

Page 48

Tim Woods

Page 49

Tim Woods

Page 50

USDA

Page 51

USDA

Page 53

Fair Shares CCSA

Page 54

Fair Shares CCSA

Page 55

Fair Shares CCSA