The project surveyed a variety of CSA collaborators and participants to determine whether CSAs could serve as business incubators for small-scale, rural enterprise in Iowa

Bregendahl, Corene M.

Flora, Cornelia

English

The project surveyed a variety of CSA collaborators and participants to determine whether CSAs could serve as business incubators for small-scale, rural enterprise in Iowa.</p

Bregendahl, Corene

Digital Repository @ Iowa State University (ISU)

Volume 16  (2007) •Leopold Center Progress Report • page 44Question & AnswerQ: What do producers gain from participating in collabo-rative marketing arrangements like cCSA?A:  This project demonstrates that collaborationhelps producers start new farm-related enterprises orexpand existing ones. Collaboration also allowsproducers to reduce their risks by providing instantaccess to markets, create stronger relationships withconsumers, increase practical farming knowledge,improve marketing skills, and ultimately help produc-ers decide if direct marketing (collaborative orotherwise) is right for their operation.Abstract: The project surveyed a variety of CSA collaborators and participants to determine whether CSAs could serve as business incubators forsmall-scale, rural enterprise in Iowa.Competitive Grant Report M01-2005Grinnell Area Local Food System InitiativeThe role of collaborative community sup-ported agriculture: Lessons from IowaPrincipal Investigator:Cornelia FloraDirectorBackgroundCommunity supported agriculture (CSA) is one type ofalternative food enterprise that helps consumers seefood production in local terms. CSA members pay for a“share” of the harvest prior to start of the growing sea-son. In return, they receive a box of fresh, often organic,produce regularly throughout the growing season.Membership often produces increased health benefits;improved knowledge about food production, and strongercommunity relationships.There are various kinds of CSA arrangements and manydifferent types of expected impacts a CSA can have on acommunity and its members. While most for-profit CSAsare owned and operated by a single proprietor or familyCo-investigator:Corry BregendahlAssistant ScientistNorth Central Regional Centerfor Rural DevelopmentBudget:$13,429 for year onefarm, a few are comprised of a well-defined coalition ofsmall, collaborating producers. In 2003, there were nearly50 CSAs in Iowa, with four formally organized as collabora-tive CSAs.The study objectives were to:1. Define the role of collaborative CSA (cCSA) inIowa as a business incubator for single family/individually-owned CSA,2. Define other roles that collaborative CSA plays ininforming the business decisions and actions of localagricultural entrepreneurs,3. Identify the characteristics of collaborative andsingle family-owned CSA models that appeal to theirrespective members and determine how those characteris-tics meet or do not meet member needs,4. Determine participation of current and former CSAmembers in local food systems such as farmers’ markets,and5. Determine whether high membership turnover incollaborative CSAs creats high demand for/participation inmore single family-owned CSAs.Approach and methodsTo meet the research objectives, investigators used amixed methods approach. For objectives 1, 2, and 5, theyused a survey instrument for producers to complete onlineor as a hard copy, and a telephone survey for producerswho also were coordinators. For objectives 3, 4, and 5,they developed a survey instrument for cCSA members tocomplete online or by mail.Volume 16 (2007) •Leopold Center Progress Report • page 45With the help of an advisory committee formed in coopera-tion with the Iowa Network for Community Agriculture(INCA) and a group of central Iowa CSA producers andmembers, four formal cCSAs were identified in Iowa.Coordinators for three of the four groups agreed to takepart in the study.Initially, project organizers planned to survey all collabora-tive CSA coordinators in Iowa, all former and currentproducers, and a sample of 10 current and 10 formermembers from each CSA. Ultimately, they included theentire population of Iowa cCSA members to ensure thatthey had a sample of sufficient size to draw conclusions.Results and discussionThe overall producer response rate to the surveys was 70percent, and member response rate was 46 percent.Producer demographics revealed that a majority of cCSAproducers in Iowa are female, and they also sell farmproducts through local food markets but cannot sustainhousehold income solely through CSA or farm sales. Theaverage cCSA member is female, urban, middle-aged, andlives in an upper-income household. This suggests that inIowa, cCSA is not yet an effective mechanism to providefood access to lower income families, even though it doesmake significant contributions to community development.One community benefit of cCSA is business incubation.Nearly half of the producers said that CSA participationhelped them start, expand, or plan new farm-relatedenterprises. Among these new ventures were single-proprietor-owned vegetable CSAs and enterprises relatedto agri-tourism. Participation in cCSA also helps producersexpand and diversify farm operations.Participation in cCSA also has influenced business deci-sions made by producers. They cited increased practicalfarming knowledge, improved marketing skills, help infocusing on specific crops, increased confidence and pridein their operations, assistance in making decisions, andsupport for producers who are beginning local food produc-tion.The researchers also linked producers’ reasons for gettinginvolved with benefits they received as a result of participa-tion to explain why producers might choose to expand,diversify, or even shut down their operations. Resultsshowed that producers experienced the greatest benefitsin natural, social, and cultural “capital,” while participationbrings them the fewest benefits in terms of political andfinancial gain. That is, producers believe their activitieshave a positive impact on the environment in terms ofimproving soil health, biodiversity, water quality, wildlifehabitat and landscape appearance. Social capital ben-efits include access to support networks and strongerrelationships and trust with other producers, CSA mem-bers and the community. Cultural capital includes the setof values, customs, and traditions that defines whatpeople believe is important. Cultural capital benefitsproducers received were linked with a stronger identityand ties to the land, farming, food, and others who holdsimilar beliefs, ethics, values and philosophies. Produc-ers reported few, if any, gains in their ability to influencethe distribution of resources, often achieved by havingaccess or opportunities to interact with elected officials.CSA participation was limited in its ability to increasefinancial capital, which includes money, debt capital, taxbreaks, and any other source of currency that can beused for business investments or household gain.However, CSA participation did help producers stabilizeand diversify farm income. Thus, it was not surprising that with nearly two in fiveproducers no longer participating in cCSA, investigatorswere able to link turnover to lack of financial benefits.Women producers cited more cultural and social benefitsthan men. And all producers agreed that their participationbrought more benefits to the community than to them-selves individually.In stark contrast to producers, members ranked financialcapital as the greatest benefit of participation. However,this was measured in terms of economic benefits to thecommunity, not to members themselves. Political capitalbenefits were ranked last among members. Nearly half ofthe member respondents were former members; their topreasons for dropping out were related to coordinationissues, and level of involvement was no guarantee ofstaying power. Current members were more likely thanformer members to supplement their share by raising theirown food.  Higher producer turnover was related to highermember turnover; perhaps because CSA membersappeared to value their relationships with CSA producersmore than those with other CSA members.ConclusionsCSA is more than an opportunity for direct marketing; italso is an opportunity for to grow relationships. How CSAproducers invest their time communicating with others isimportant to their business success. Here are strategiesused by some CSA producers to build stronger enterprisesand communities:• Relationship brokering.  Some producers rely onrelationship brokers to dedicate the time and energynecessary to build relationships with members and otherproducers. They recognize that strengthening social capitalis critical to the fiscal health of their business.• Unconventional labor inputs and management.Producers of collaborative CSAs can share their laborresponsibilities by turning to unconventional sources oflabor, such as their members and the larger community.• Producing and partnering for inclusion. Someproducers participate in ventures that appeal to differentkinds of eaters—those who can afford the cost andadventure of CSA membership and those who cannot. Oneexample is working with nonprofits that use CSA shares forfamilies who might not have access to CSA products.• Members as co-creators. CSA producers areunusually well-connected to their members and tend togenerate unconventional relationships that give rise tonew food-related businesses.• Members as marketers. Many producers recog-nize the valuable role that members play in advocatingand marketing for the CSA. They may help draw in newmembers or educate their friends and family about fooddecisions.• Creative producer partnerships. CollaborativeCSA producers initiate unconventional, creative relation-ships with other producers to better serve their members.These partnerships serve as the CSA producers’ versionof agricultural efficiency. Producers may out-sourceproduction of certain crops, livestock or food products toother growers or processors who have their own ideasabout what they want to grow.Impact of study results1. When one of the cCSAs participating in the studydissolved, investigators worked closely with a small groupof coordinators and producers interested in establishing anew multi-producer marketing initiative. In cooperationwith NCRCRD, this group used relevant results of themember survey to organize and design a local foodsystem market with features that were termed appealingin the 2005 study. More households were enrolled in2006 than in the previous year’s CSA.2. In March 2006, NCRCRD, along with two produc-ers who had CSA experience, held a workshop in south-east Minnesota for a group interested in organizing amulti-producer association.  Two months after the work-shop, the group took tentative steps toward collaborativemarketing to individuals, buying clubs, and other groups.3. A key contact for one of the participating cCSAssaid that results from this study served as the “first majorsystematic information [our local food system group] hadon how successful our efforts have been.” The group wasable to use member feedback from the cCSA study aspart of its evaluation of broader local food system activi-ties which, in turn, affects where the group will focusfuture efforts.4. The project has allowed NCRCRD to formalizeits involvement in local food system development as anVolume 16 (2007) •Leopold Center Progress Report • page 46Volume 16 (2007) •Leopold Center Progress Report • page 47For more information contact Cornelia Flora, NCRCRD, IowaState University, Ames, Iowa  50011; (515) 294-1329, e-mailcflora@iastate.eduengine for rural and community economic developmentin the region. The study allowed NCRCRD to establishand cement more than 10 new working relationships andan estimated 25 new relationships with Extensioneducators and local food system advocates in our regionto support their work in developing local food systems intheir service areas.Education and outreachReports, publications and presentations from this projectcan be accessed online at http://www.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/projects/csa/.Eleven informational presentations were made aboutproject findings in 2005 and 2006. Among the presenta-tion venues were the 2006 National SARE Conference inWisconsin, the Community Development Society AnnualMeeting in Missouri, the National Small Farm Confer-ence in North Carolina, and Iowa Network for Commu-nity Action annual conference in Des Moines.A publication, “How Can Extension Educators Promoteand Support Local Food System Development?” wasdistributed at the 2006 meetings of the Illinois CountyExtension Directors, the National Extension Women inAgriculture Education Conference, and the NationalAssociation for Community Development ExtensionProfessionals. It is available online atwww.ncrcrd.iastate.edu/projects/csa/index/html.An article about the project appeared in Rural Develop-ment News in 2005.A presentation on the project can be viewed at http://www.leopold.iastate.edu/research/marketing_files/workshop06/index.htmLeveraged fundsThis project leveraged funds from the North CentralRegional Center for Rural Development greater thanthose provided by the grant.Photos in this section courtesy of Corry Bregendahl of theNorth Central Regional Center for Rural Development.

The role of collaborative community supported agriculture: Lessons from Iowa

Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture serves as a business incubator for new growers, helps existing growers expand and diversify, and offers a host of other benefits to Iowa communities.</p

The Role of Collaborative Community Supported Agriculture: Lessons from Iowa

https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1281&amp;context=leopold_grantreports

The role of collaborative community supported agriculture: Lessons from Iowa

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Digital Repository @ Iowa State University (ISU)

Digital Repository @ Iowa State University (ISU)