Talk:Community-supported agriculture

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not sure about the clarity or slant of a some of the current version. Beginning with the intro paragraph, the "quality of care given the land, plants and animals" is unsupported (but implies a more organic, environmentalist approach). Later on, the "whole-farm, whole-budget" area seems to imply that there is a highest-order type of CSA, and that the CSA approach becomes weaker the further from this model a particular program gets. Given A) that there is NO formal CSA model that I know of, and B) that many, if not the majority, of CSA farms, in N. America at least, appear to be functioning on a looser model than having budgets and shareholder steering committees (instead, simply offer a share of what's available for X dollars, for Y period), the focus of the article should be on the general principles, and not particularly the more involved and structured approaches. Also, the CSA model (as is indicated in an unemphasized way in the article) seems to be developing as a general alternative business model for small, independent farms, that is not necessarily tied to organics or environmentalism per se (e.g. a way to be viable in small-scale, local, fresh produce by whatever methods).

I'll try a rewrite at some point, but if there's a supportable, contrary opinion that could be posted here, or clarified in the article, that'd be good to see. Tsavage 03:26, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Tsavage -- There are formal models of CSAs that exist in Michigan and some eastern states. In the Midwest, most CSAs (that identify themselves as such and not as a direct marketing-delivery service) are based on the looser model identified in the article. Also, most of the self-identified CSAs do have mission statements or marketing materials that emphasize natural, organic or other forms of environmentalism. I agree that there are other ideas of direct farmer marketing that share many similarities with CSAs but many of these farmers do not self-identify as CSAs. -- Mary Hendrickson, Univ. of Missouri.

Thanks for the reply. You should add to the article, info on the more formal models would be interesting (are you talking about formal guidelines used by more than one farm?). At the stage the article's at, which is kind of the gathering info on the way to a rewrite stage, the more stuff the better, even if it's kind of just appended. IMHO. --Tsavage 20:55, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] more community

I think there is a huge piece missing from this article about the community-building aspect of CSAs. The original term for CSA in Japanese literally translates as "Food with a Farmer's face on it." Similarly, many CSA shareholders join, in addition to their want for fresh local produce, because it connects them to a community built around food and care for it. At many CSAs in the North East at least, the pick up sight is the farm itself. Shareholders come, tour the farm and talk with the Grower as they sort out their share. Many farms have U-pick areas so that shareholders may even participate in the harvest of crops such as peas, berries, and flowers. Some CSAs have systems where shareholders have the opportunity, or occasionally, are bound to help volunteer out on the farm. I believe a greater emphasis should be put on the social and idealogical inspiration and function of CSAs