When things go very wrong: Community Supported Agriculture and shared risk

An experienced CSA farmer who’s heard many stories finds that it takes tight relationships for the “support” part to be real during a crisis.

By Jim Sluyter

When innocent farmer error threatens the harvest Rachel Bynum and Eric Plaksin have used hay mulch on Waterpenny Farm in Virginia for many years, purchasing from the same trusted grower every year. Early in the 2007 season they noticed that many crops were doing poorly. The problem was finally traced to the mulch: the grower had used Grazon (with the active ingredient picloram), a powerful herbicide that contaminated all of the mulched crops—about half of the farm. Even those crops that were not destroyed could not be distributed, even if they had wanted to: Selling produce contaminated with picloram, which is not rated for human consumption, is illegal. When the problem became known in the area, 60 people—including many of the couple's 150 CSA shareholders—helped to remove the 50,000 pounds of messy wet hay from 3.5 acres. The couple cancelled two months of their CSA deliveries and offered refunds. Is this a different kind of case? Maybe, or maybe not. Though there is no suggestion of negligence on the part of the grower, it is a case of farmer-error, not natural disaster. Even so, many of their members seemed to “get it.” They were given two options. Some took the 80-percent refund to cover the balance of the season. A 40-percent refund was offered to cover the loss of harvests until the re-start of harvests in August. About half of the membership took a third, unstated, option: They did not accept any refund. Some even complained that this option should have been stated. At the time of the incident, the growers did not know how long the effects of the contamination would last, or the true extent of the damage. “It felt like a violation,” says Rachel. They were angry with themselves: Should they have known, or suspected a problem? “We even got mad at each other. It was hard to know how to go forward.” But members have been extra supportive, according to Rachel, which “helped us a lot to get through it…and now we are back in stride.” Rachel and Eric were careful to explain the problem fully and honestly to their membership – and to acknowledge what they didn’t know. “Explaining things felt good, even cathartic,” Rachel recalls. “It was best to just come to terms with it.” This situation was not as obvious and simple as a flood or hail storm. There was a greater obligation to clarify the situation to farm members. Going forward, Rachel and Eric have a new sense of how interconnected the whole community of growers and eaters really is. One question that comes to mind regarding mistakes made by the grower: Where do you draw the line? Unprotected crops in a frost, inadequately irrigated crops in a drought, insufficient response to insect or other pests…any of these could be deemed farmer-error. CSA growers takes on a large responsibility for their members. We owe it to them to be good at it! ~ JS

One of the cornerstones of Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) is shared risk. “The essence of the relationship,” as Elizabeth Henderson states in Sharing the Harvest (see a review of the book in the sidebar here) “is the mutual commitment: The people support the farm and share the inherent risks and potential bounty.”

But what happens when the CSA arrangement goes from this admirable premise to the real-life hail, flood, drought or hurricane that wipes out part—or all—of the crop? When push comes to shove, will the farm’s supporters continue to uphold the farm? And indeed, will the grower be willing to ask for the full measure of support that she needs?

No two CSAs are exactly alike, and there is no set of rules that either growers or sharers can use as a standard for the development of a CSA project. Most growers agree with the concept of shared risk, and usually make an effort to ensure that their members are aware of it. But when things go very wrong, many are loath to actually enforce the ‘”risk clause” in their formal—or informal—contract.

“I don't have the confidence to tell folks ‘tough,’” says Beth Spaugh of Rehoboth Homestead in New York, who operates what she calls a Farm Fresh Food Club. Other growers agree. “If we are trying to be the farmer....we have to provide the food,” is a sentiment commonly expressed by growers.

There are, of course, many factors that impact the ability and willingness of the CSA farmer to ask for significant “risk-sharing.” These include:

• A grower who is just starting out in CSA may not want to taint a new relationship with farm members and her community.
• Growers may believe—and may be right—that their members don’t really get it and are simply seeking clean, healthy produce.
• None of us will feel good about taking money in advance only to have disappointing harvests, no matter how dire the situation.

Circumstances matter, too. The loss of the last harvest of the season to hail differs from the flood that wipes out the farm in the second week. The failure of a few crops—even “high value” ones—differs from the loss of the most of the season’s produce. And, as one incident illustrates, there may be a difference if the growers brought on their own losses, even if there is no reasonable suggestion of negligence or inexperience (see sidebar).

Buy in, refund or not?

Faced with unacceptable crop losses, some growers will simply buy in produce. “When I was short I bought from other organic farms,” says Spaugh of Rehoboth Homestead, “but my members were looking for convenient, pesticide-free food, and not [so much to support] a small farm.”

Another grower, faced with crop failures, will take part of the farm’s profit this year to buy other produce from nearby organic farms to add variety and dependability. “It will pay off in the future as our members know we will do all we can to feed them.”

Some growers will offer a refund in the face of crop loss. Nancy Roe took this route with members of Green Cay Produce on southern Florida’s Atlantic coast, when faced with severe damage from hurricanes in 2004 and 2005. Refunds are offered when there is no harvest for part of the season, and prices are reduced when the boxes are skimpy. While most subscribers accept the refunds, about 25 percent do not, and “a few even sent us extra money!”

As a CSA farmer myself, I will admit to being uncomfortable with buy-ins and refunds. If CSA means shared risk, well, then, we should share the risk. An unwillingness to share may suggest that other types of marketing may be more appropriate for the members, or the grower.

Frost, floods force the question

The night of July 2, 2001, was predicted to be colder than normal in southern Michigan. No forecasters warned of frost. But freeze it did, in many parts of the state. It was cold enough in Lansing that Sue Houghton, in her first year of CSA at Giving Tree Farm, found that she could not even make the attempt at spraying the ice off of the tender crops because the hoses were frozen solid.

“This still brings thoughts of horror to me,” Houghton now says of the experience. Beans, tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers and squash—everything tender—was destroyed by what might be described as a “rogue frost,” that is to say, an unseasonable frost that could not be predicted.

“We replanted most things, but then it froze again the first week of September. Shareholders ended up with mixed greens, lettuce, onions, beets, carrots and green tomatoes,” according to Houghton.

Farm members pitched in when she needed help. “They saved me—they helped replant, re-weed, and had been at the farm enough to really understand how devastating and unexpected this was. They also understood that I (and some of them) had worked hard to produce those crops, and that I really needed to be paid, even though there were no crops,” Houghton recalls. “The real test was the next year.” Most came back.

It was excess moisture that damaged crops at Vermont Valley Community Farm in Wisconsin last summer. The farm did not flood—as many farms did in Wisconsin—but David Perkins, who farms Vermont Valley with Barbara, his wife, lost much of the late-season produce.

“Due to the saturation of the soil, our fall greens—spinach, salad mix, lettuce heads—just died in place,” says Perkins. “Carrots and potatoes rotted in the ground [and we lost] green beans that we couldn't get to or which got too diseased from the constant moisture.”

“Our members were supportive before they even knew what they would not be getting…I will be very surprised if the rains impact our signups for 2008.”

The summer of 2007 also brought too much rain to Needle Lane Farms in Michigan’s southeastern corner. “We had some severe crop losses due to flooding,” says grower Beverly Ruesink. This resulted in “major losses in cabbage, broccoli, beans, summer squash, kale and collards.”

Ruesink’s members may have hardly noticed. “I plant an honest twice as much as I think we will need for our CSA share boxes.”

Her approach highlights the importance of planning ahead for the inevitable challenging seasons.

Planting strategically for a CSA

Growing crops for a CSA—while needing to provide as much variety as possible over a long season, for a specific number of people who have probably paid in advance—is already a challenging proposition. Some growers, attracted by the very real advantages and benefits of growing for a community, start their CSA project with too little experience.

Grower naiveté—or outright bad judgment—is a ”risk” that members should not have to bear. But even experienced growers will agree that it is wise to build in some surplus to cover unexpected losses. Many suggest planting a 20-percent buffer. The doubling of the crops the CSA needs at Needle Lane Farms might sound extreme, but “I have some tremendous markets for our ‘extra’ stuff via our roadside stand, farmers’ market, restaurant accounts and co-op,” says Ruesink.

This illustrates the strength of having multiple markets for supply beyond what shareholders need. Like most CSA growers with market outlets for the CSA overflow, she fills the CSA boxes first. “What [is] affected most is our additional sales to these outlets.”

Of course, much of the resilience of the CSA farm is contained in its very nature. Most of us, given enough seasons in the business, will experience a disappointing yield or outright crop failure. In truth, with the 30 or more different crops in the season’s total harvest, almost every season’s combinations of factors will favor certain crops, as others suffer. At Vermont Valley Community Farm, Perkins does not look for specific yields: “Our goal is a good weekly delivery, not specific yields of specific crops… CSA is a package deal.”

Other planning needs may be more regional. Many of us probably have to plan for irrigation to get through a dry spell (or outright drought), but only some need to consider hurricanes.

At Green Cay Produce in Florida, two seasons of loss due to hurricanes taught the growers to plant unstaked tomatoes. Even though tomatoes growing on the soil do not yield as well, they fare better in high wind. “I call them our hurricane tomatoes,” says Nancy Roe, and since “Zucchini does better in the wind than yellow squash… we plant more of it early in the fall.”

Communication and Connection

Working on the farm gives sharers a better understanding of the risks, work and complexity of producing food from the soil.

Many growers agree that sharers should be involved in the farm’s problems well before things go wrong. “I really try to make it crystal clear that we are at the mercy of the weather, and that we will do the best we can to keep their boxes full,” emphasizes Ruesink of Needle Lane Farm. The website, brochures and newsletters are the main vehicle for information.

Houghton, of Giving Tree Farm, agrees. “Communication—and the contract we had the members sign—made all the difference.”

Many farms try to go beyond communication with closer personal links to the farm. “We do a lot to allow people to connect with the farm,” Perkins says. “We have a large worker-share program [and] had events of some sort on the farm during nine weekends; we communicate with our newsletters, email and more…[Vermont Valley is] a community farm and we are established.”

Perhaps this core connection is the key. When the CSA farm is truly integrated into its community of members, the relationship goes beyond produce. Says Perkins: “From the very beginning, we felt the vegetables bring the people to the farm, but they are not what keep the people with the farm.”

Jim Sluyter has served the membership at Five Springs Farm CSA with Jo Meller, his spouse, since 1994 and has been publishing The Community Farm newsletter for CSA growers since 1998. He and Jo have created, with a group of CSA growers and advocates, CSA-MI to promote CSA in Michigan. The group has sponsored two major conferences and many training sessions.