Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in California: findings from the CSA farmer/operator survey

Transcription

1 Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) in California: findings from the CSA farmer/operator survey Libby Christensen,^ Ryan E. Galt,*^ˇ Katharine Bradley,^ Natasha Simpson,ˇ & Kate Munden-Dixon^ University of California, Davis,*Department of Human Ecology, ^Geography Graduate Group, ˇCommunity Development Graduate Group UC Davis-CAFF CSA Workshop, Sebastopol Grange, Sebastopol 9/28/15

2 Outline Farm details CSA farmer/operator details CSA characteristics CSA shares CSA membership & retention Farm finances Farm labor Farmer satisfaction Regional comparisons

3 Farm details

4 Ownership structure of the farm Partnership (no limited liability) 20% Family corporation ( 51% of ownership) 9% Sole proprietorship (no limited liability) 56% Non-profit organization 7% Independent Corporation 7% One Two Three Four Five Ten Number of farm partners 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

5 Farm land Acres Mean Median % of farms Total Owned % Rented % Cropland % Rangeland/pasture % Certified organic % Subsidized land access 48%

6 Production mix: crops & livestock 4% Numbers of farms with 44% 52% specific production mixes veg + fruit 18 veg only 12 veg + fruit + flower 10 Crops only Mixed crops & livestock Livestock only veg + fruit + flower + layer veg + fruit + layer veg + grain + flower veg + fruit + grain + feed + flower + layer

7 Farm practices in relation to organic Practices % of farms certified organic 44% follow organic rules but the farm is not certified 38% consider practices to be beyond organic 42% biodynamic 8% most but not all of practices comply with organic 8% use synthetic pesticides 2% use synthetic fertilizers 4%

8 CSA operator details

9 CSA operators beginnings What year did you... Average Median start farming/gardening (even if as a hobby)? start farming as a profession (or start selling your farm's products)? start your CSA?

10 CSA operator demographics Mean Median Percentage Age Gender: female 53% Race: white 84% Race: POC 14% Undergraduate degree Graduate degree 73% 19%

11 CSA characteristics

12 Types of CSAs by organization 9% 6% 85% Single-farm CSA CSA independent of farm Multi-farm CSA Management structure of non-single-farm CSAs CSAs indep. of farm Multi-farm CSAs jointly run 1 core group runs 2 2 staff independent of a farm 6 one farm runs 1 run by my farm 2 3

13 The CSA shares production risk w/ members Strongly disagree Disagree Mixed feelings/neutral Agree Strongly agree n=97 4% 21% 14% 33% 28% 0% 30% 60% Members form a supportive community Strongly disagree Disagree Mixed feelings/neutral Agree Strongly agree n=99 2% 11% 8% 42% 36% 0% 30% 60% Members get a good value for their money Strongly disagree Disagree Mixed feelings/neutral Agree Strongly agree n=99 0% 1% 5% 37% 57% 0% 30% 60% Members cover costs of production Strongly disagree Disagree Mixed feelings/neutral Agree Strongly agree n=99 10% 17% 15% 27% 30% 0% 30% 60%

14 Characteristics of member relationship (% of farms) Members pre-pay in advance for shares 90% We host events related to our CSA 56% A core member group helps with CSA share distribution A core member group helps with production decisions We use participatory budgeting with members Members must work on the farm 10% 5% 1% 0% 0% 30% 60% 90%

15 Characteristics of shares (% of farms) Deliver to drop-off locations Share is consistent Farm pickup Items reflect seasons of abundance and scarcity Multiple shares available (e.g., full, half) Regular add-ons available Various delivery frequencies Deliver to individual homes Shares are customizable 18% 33% 39% 43% 42% 65% 61% 58% 53% 0% 30% 60%

16 Community food security strategies Donate CSA shares or food (to food banks, etc.) 46% Maintain low share prices to increase food access 38% Lower-priced shares for low-income households Allow gleaning by those in need or org s serving them Accept EBT (for CalFresh, WIC etc.) 18% 18% 16% n=103 Other 9% 0% 25% 50%

17 CSA membership & retention

18 CSA membership Recruitment strategies word of mouth (member to member) LocalHarvest or similar web profile posting or distributing pamphlets or fliers farmers' market booth community groups and institutions Internet advertising (e.g. through Google) print advertising (e.g. newspaper magazine) rewarding members for bringing new members on-farm advertising social media radio and/or press n=102

19 CSA membership Cumulative change in membership, ,000 12,000 8,000 4, ,434 12,708 10,463 2, n=97 100% communicate in English 9% communicate in Spanish Mean membership size: 159 Median membership size: 50 Change in membership, Growth Same Decrease % 22% 53% 0% 30% 60% n=93 Do not want more members 31% Want more members 69%

20 CSA membership retention Retention rates, % 90-99% 80-89% 70-79% 60-69% 50-59% 40-49% 30-39% 20-29% 10-19% 0-9% n=80 Mean = 62.9% Median = 62.7%

21 CSA shares

22 CSA characteristics Minimum pre-payment period 1 week 18 2 weeks 3 3 weeks 1 1 month months 2 2 months 6 3 months 7 half-season 2 full season n=81

23 Share characteristics Duration of shares, in months Weekly value of shares $ $ $ $35 $30-34 $ $20-24 $ Mean = $ $ n= n=100

24 Farm finances

25 Off-farm income 50% of CSAs have at least one farm partner working an off-farm job Off-farm income covers farm expenses Off-farm income covers household expenses Not at all 54% Not at all 35% Moderately 23% Moderately 21% Heavily 14% Heavily 12% Completely 9% Completely 32% 0% 20% 40% 60% n=78 0% 20% 40% 60% n=85

26 Market outlets Average % of sales Mail order On-site sales 1% Farmers market 8% CSA 42% 22% Other direct sales 7% Direct-to-retail 14% Wholesale 6% Services 1% % of farms using various CSA Farmers market On-site sales Mail order Other direct sales Direct-to-retail Wholesale Services market outlets 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Market outlets per farm: mean = 2.6, median = 3

27 Profitability of market outlets CSA Farmers market On-site sales At a loss 16% At a loss 18% At a loss 11% Break even 30% Break even 27% Break even 25% Profitable 46% Profitable 33% Profitable 47% Very profitable 8% Very profitable 22% Very profitable 17% 0% 25% 50% 0% 25% 50% n=93 n=60 n=36 0% 25% 50% Other direct Direct-to-retail Wholesale At a loss 0% At a loss 17% At a loss 17% Break even 42% Break even 35% Break even 17% Profitable 50% Profitable 41% Profitable 56% Very profitable 8% Very profitable 7% Very profitable 11% 0% 25% 50% 0% 25% 50% n=24 n=54 n=18 0% 25% 50%

28 Farm budgets Ave. Median Min. Max. Operating expenses $223,125 $51,500 $1,000 $4,156,182 Per partner earnings $14,258 $2,750 $0 $148,000 Capital expenses $22,162 $5,000 $0 $250,000 Gross income $544,883 $57,500 $0 $20,000,000 Net profit (- earnings) $4,221 $0 -$324,000 $240,000 Net profit + earnings $26,628 $4,000 -$323,300 $444,306 Grants $701 $0 $0 $13,978

29 Views of CSA profitability 72.6% of CSA farmers are not satisfied with their CSA s profitability Of these, the percentages below feel they can t raise their CSA prices due to: competition 52% market size 23% other reasons 14%

30 Farmers' perceptions of competition within their CSA market region with other CSAs with other direct marketing channels 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% Nonexistent Mild Moderate Strong Very strong 0% Nonexistent Mild Moderate Strong Very strong with retails market channels with grocery home delivery services 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% Nonexistent Mild Moderate Strong Very strong 0% Nonexistent Mild Moderate Strong Very strong

31 Farm labor

32 Employees Average wages Types of employees (% of farms) of employees Farmworker(s), seasonal 45% $9.22 Farmworker(s), year-round 39% $11.03 Intern(s)/apprentice(s) 34% $3.60 Non-farm-partner manager(s) Administrative/logistics position(s) n=82 10% 21% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% $13.14 $0.00 $7.00 $14.00 n=35

33 Farmer satisfaction

34 Farmer satisfaction Maintenance or improvement of soil quality Community involvement Workload for other workers Farmer stress level/quality of life Financial ability to meet annual operating costs Compensation for other workers Workload for the farmer Financial ability to build and maintain physical farm infrastructure Farmer compensation Financial security for farmer (health insurance, retirement, etc.) Average satisfaction =very unsatisfied, 2=unsatisfied, 3=mixed feelings/neutral, 4=satisfied, 5=very satisfied

35 Discontinuation of their CSA 8 of the 111 CSAs had discontinued in the previous year Insufficient income for the amount of work Other Lack of members/demand Left farming for a new profession (did not retire) Lost faith in the CSA model Relocated Health reasons Change in family circumstances Retired

36 Regional comparisons

37 Northern California Central Coast Central Valley Southern California Base map:

38 FOUR REGIONS IN CALIFORNIA Table&1:&Regional&characteristics Region Population %.of.state. Population Square. Miles %.of.state. Area Population. Density Southern.CA 22,175,462 58% 45,083 29% 1,031 Central.Coast 8,045,956 21% 14,556 9% 2,203 Central.Valley 6,843,613 18% 42,162 27% 238 Northern.CA 1,267,490 3% 54,271 35% 39 Total/Average 38,332, % 156, % 685

39 ANALYSIS OF CSA CHARACTERISTICS BY REGION ANOVA tests were performed on a wide range of variables: farmer demographics: age, gender, race, education, number of partners farm characteristics: start year, acres, subsidized rent, organic certification, grows crop, raises livestock, diversity, employee numbers, membership size farm finances: income from CSA, profitability of CSA, profit rate, index of perceived competition, retention rate CSA characteristics: risk sharing, member support, member loyalty, event hosting, core group, member participation in distribution, length of pre-payment community food security strategies: accepts EBT, sliding scale pricing, donations, gleaning, low prices for low-income families farmer satisfaction: income, financial security, maintaining infrastructure, stress, soil building, workload, compensation for workers, worker benefits, community

40 Table&2:&Significant&differences&in&variables&between&the&regions Southern(CA Central(Coast Central(Valley Northern(CA ANOVA(test Variable(&(type^ mean st(dev n mean st(dev n mean st(dev n mean st(dev n F povalue^^ Farmer&demographics Female(head(farmer((b) 31% % % % * Farm&characteristics Total(employees((i) ** Farm&finances&(none&significant) CSA&characteristics Shares(risk((L) *** Members(are(supportive((L) * Host(farm(events((b) 60% % % % * Core(group((b) 0% % % % *** Length(of(preOpay(period((c)( ** Community&food&security&strategies Community(food(security( strategies((%(index) 28% % % % *** Farmer&satisfaction with(covering(costs((l) * with(maintaining( infrastructure((l) ** with(workers'(pay((l) ** Average((L(index) * ^(b=binary,(c=categorical,(index=combined(variables,(i=integer,(l=likertoscale,(%=percentage ^^(povalues(shown(as(<0.10(=(*,(<0.05(=(**,(<0.01(=(***

41 Conclusion: CSA farms & farmers Farms running CSAs are small and medium size, using organic production CSA farmers are younger on average than other farmers, and tend to have higher levels of formal education Most CSAs engage in one or more community food security strategies

42 Conclusion: membership CSAs are unlikely to share production risk with members, and for only 45% members clearly cover the costs of production Retention rates vary widely, but are 63% on average The average membership size is 159, while the median is 50

43 Conclusion: shares The most common pre-payment length is 1 month, followed by 1 week and full season The average full-share price is $26 per week

44 Conclusion: finances 54% of CSA farmers/operators report their CSA is profitable, yet 72.6% of CSA farmers are not satisfied with their CSA s profitability CSA farmers/operators perceive strong competition, especially with retail outlets CSA farmers/operators report highest satisfaction with building soil quality, and lowest with farmer compensation and financial security

45 Acknowledgements We would like to thank: the CSA farmers and CSA members (current and former) who participated in the study UC Cooperative Extension Advisors Rachel Surls, Julia Van Soelen Kim, Ramiro Lobo, Cindy Fake, Aziz Baameur, and Richard Molinar, who have helped the project greatly the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources for its generous funding through a competitive grant