[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

More on Pricing



Leigh --

I'm sorry to hear that your core group experience was not a positive one.
Yours is certainly not the first testimony I've heard to that effect, and
I'm aware that many CSA farms operate without core groups.  Just Food's CSA
program is set up to help New Yorkers establish core groups, to connect
regional farmers with NYC core groups, and to help the core groups and
farmers sustain mutually beneficial relationships (which generally requires
a good deal of education on both sides).  I mentioned the Just Food
materials, not to suggest that you work with a core group, but because the
tip sheet on budgets is very specific about how farmers can reach a share
price and what information they may choose to share with their members.  Due
to the nature of the Just Food program, the tip sheet assumes core groups as
an audience; the information, however, is directly relevant to farmers (and
discusses the whole-farm budget method in some detail).

I didn't mean to start a conversation about core groups at all, and I hope
this clarifies my earlier message.

Sarah

At 04:53 PM 9/18/98 +0100, you wrote:
>Sarah,
>Another comment. I've worked both sides of the fence on CSA's. I've managed
>programs for nonprofit that had CSA's a a component, I've managed CSA's with a
>core group, and for the past several years I have farmed my own land using a
>share structure.  Of the three ways I like the last way the best. From my
>personal experience, I have no use for a core group directed CSA. Maybe it was
>a poor experience but I felt the core group exploited the farmer, the
>landowner, the labor and didn't really have an understanding of what was
>involved in growing vegetables. And this isn't just my opinion. I can name half
>a dozen people who have been associated with core group directed CSA's (from
>the farmers side) and it wasn't a very pleasant experience. Most CSA's, no
>matter what the theory is, are not reciprocal arrangements.
>
>Sarah Milstein wrote:
>
>> >CSA is a reciprocal arrangement - yes, if its a good year shareholders
>> >can make out like bandits.  You, on the other hand, knew upfront how
>> >much money you were going to make and didn't have to worry about selling
>> >whatever grew to a frequent fickle public.
>>
>> I agree with Debbie's point and would add that your share price should
>> reflect what it costs you (including living-wage salaries) to grow and
>> harvest the food your members receive.  One of the opportunities afforded by
>> a CSA arrangement it doesn't pressure you to make the most money you can --
>> or encourage consumers to get the best deal possible -- from your farm, but
>> rather enables you to know that your costs are covered.
>>
>> Was your share price determined by creating an annual budget for the farm
>> (with inputs, labor, capital expenses, etc.) and then dividing it by the
>> number of shares you wanted sell (plus other income)?  If not, that might be
>> a helpful way to think through what you need from the share price -- rather
>> than wondering what the market will bear or whether your price is in line
>> with other CSA growers.  CSA is not about cheap food, and in my experience,
>> many, maybe most, consumers will respond positively to explanations about
>> share increases if they understand how the money is being spent.
>>
>> Just Food, a New York non-profit organization, has a tip sheet on CSA
>> budgeting that was written for core groups, but covers farm expenses and
>> share pricing.  It can be requested from Just Food: 212/674.8124 x109, or by
>> snail mail:  625 Broadway, Suite 9C, NY NY  10012.  Whether requesting the
>> tip sheet via phone or mail, include your full contact information, with fax
>> and email if applicable.
>>
>> Sarah Milstein
>> Roxbury Farm Core Group/New York City
>> (and late of Just Food)
>
>
>
>


Follow-Ups: