The CSA model in which the consumer shares the risk of production with the farmer presents each farm with a tricky situation – how do we share the reward, if there is one in good times. This might seem straightforward, except when the reality of “too much food” sets in.

We have seen time and again that one of the fundamental problems in running a CSA is simply giving people too much food. Whether this problem stems from our inability to set limits on distribution, shareholders’ difficulty in using certain crops, farms producing too much of certain undesirable crops (kale always comes to mind), or to shareholders’ lifestyles not lending to the more domestic arts of cooking and preserving food, we see consistently that too much food is a liability, not an asset. Given this as a backdrop, the idea of sharing a surplus by giving overstuffed shareholders more food seems to be putting the CSA in jeopardy of shooting itself in the foot in an attempt to live up to its bargain.

We need to deal with this surplus, when it arises, in order to keep the promise of the CSA alive. How are we to ask our shareholders to weather the weather, as we did in 1999, when yields were down on our farm 13%, if we can’t give them access to the surplus in flush years, like we had in 1998?

On our farm there are two main ways the surplus can be shared by shareholders without jeopardizing the long-term health of the farm. We use a “mix and match” system for distribution – not decreeing which vegetables shareholders take, but letting them choose up to a certain volume limit. The surplus raises the amount of produce available in each share a moderate amount, but is most clearly felt at distribution in the form of increased selection and quality. In a lean year, the more favored crops are in high demand and can’t meet the needs of shareholders. In a flush year, the increased selection leads to a greater ability for the farm to meet the demands of higher “value” crops. We don’t run out of tomatoes, or put limits on them in flush years.

Similarly, since we don’t grade our product, increased production naturally means that there are more “#1’s” for people to choose from. To a large degree people don’t seem to mind too much if they get a carrot that isn’t perfectly straight, or a tomato with a small blemish, but they are certainly more satisfied and preparation is simpler if they can receive tasty, fresh, AND cosmetically perfect crops. This is much easier to accomplish as a grower when there is more product to choose from.

Secondly (and this is the most important one because it is somewhat hidden from view), is the fact that the primary beneficiary in a flush year is the farm, the land, and the overall productive capacity. If there’s more produce and we can meet shareholders’ needs (which don’t really change much over the years) with a smaller fraction of our production, then we are free to plow those nutrients (un-needed vegetables) back into the soil. In leaner years, this unused production becomes a bank of fertility that we can draw on, instead of using farm resources to buy fertilizer. With careful management we can maintain higher fertility and turn that into “interest bearing loans” when they become due in a drought or flood.

This answers the other dilemma of the surplus as well.It has been proposed to sell the surplus and turn over the financial rewards to the shareholders. This usually does not work in practice, however. When our farm has a surplus of one crop, generally other farms in the area do as well. The market is glutted, the prices are dropping, and finding markets for product is time-consuming and difficult. Considering that the workload of farmers doesn’t change much whether there is a surplus or a shortage, adding the extra work of marketing a product can be a further drain on the finite resources of the farm.

The important point is that when the fertility (the productive capacity of the farm) is increased, shares are more valuable over time. When surplus is used to increase the long-term carrying capacity for the farm, the value of the share rises over time. This can also help cement in shareholders’ hearts and minds that they are not just joining the farm for one season. The real benefits from joining the farm will be felt over time, over a period of sustained involvement with the farm.

What about the people who are not overloaded – who really want more tomatoes? We have answered this question by making surplus or bulk crops available to people for a wholesale price. Shareholders who don’t want the product don’t feel “forced to take it.” And those who do are given the opportunity to purchase bulk crops at a good price. This is a way the farm can say “Thanks for sticking with us in lean times.” Those people who do want the crops to preserve or just use have access and can feast in that way if they choose.

Those that have enough with the basic share do not have an inordinately high share price.
As with everything related to CSAs, it’s all somewhat of a work-in-progress. As a new marketing model for agriculture there are many answers to these questions that will be changed and modified over time. This model works for our farm both as a production strategy and as a guiding philosophy. So far, our shareholders have been satisfied with the solution.

Dan Kaplan manages Brookfield Farm, in Amherst, Massachusetts, where he grows 20 acres of vegetables for a 425-member CSA.