crreo report on csas

8/6/2019 CRREO Report on CSAs

1/20

Agriculture Supporting Community

in the Mid-Hudson Region

Discussion Brief #5 Spring 2011Brian Obach and Kathleen (KT) Tobin

C T O S C , O D C T O D O T C

S T T v S T y O w y O K T w T z


2/20

>

The growing vitality of smallfarms and Community Support-

ed Agriculture (CSA) is helpingfarming to reclaim its central

place in the economic and sociallives of our regions communi-ties. The valleys farmers have

been tenacious and entrepre-neurial in nding ways to makea living from the land. More-over, environmental and healthconcerns among farmers andconsumers have been drivingforces supporting a renaissancein small-scale farming. Nowthe regions challenge, building

upon its centuries-long agricul-tural legacy, is to make smart

policy choices to reinforce thesehard won successes.

Agriculture has long beencentral to the Mid-Hudson Val-leys way of life, and farmershave played important leader-ship roles in our communities.In recent decades, however,changes in the industry anddevelopment pressures havecombined to threaten this coreenterprise. Although popula-tion is declining across rural

New York State, this is not thecase in Dutchess, Orange, Sul-livan and Ulster counties. As

technology has facilitated workat a greater distance from the

metropolitan center, familieshave moved northward from

New York City in search ofsecure and affordable homes.Meanwhile, the increased coststo sustain working farms haveled to the sale of very produc-tive farm land across our re-gion for housing, commercial,and industrial uses. Too oftenthis has challenged our agri-cultural economy, altered anddamaged the natural environ-ment, diminished the vitality

of our cities and villages andthreatened the rural characterof our communities.

As we will show, farming bringswith it not just economic andenvironmental benets, but alsostrengthened community tiesand increased civic engagement.Well established farmers andyoung new comers drawn tothe agricultural lifestyle havemade an enormous contributionto reinvigorating agriculture inthe Mid-Hudson Valley. Theyhave used innovative marketingstrategies and business modelsthat emphasize ecological sus-tainability and regional identity.

Brian Obach received his Ph.D. fromthe University of Wisconsin, Madison in2000 and came to SUNY New Paltz thesame year. He currently serves as chair ofthe Sociology department. Brian special-izes in the study of social movements,environmental sociology and politicaleconomy. He is the author of severalarticles and a book entitled,Labor andthe Environmental Movement: The Quest

for Common Ground(MIT Press 2004).He is currently conducting research onthe sustainable agriculture movement.

Kathleen (kt) Tobin is the Assistant Di-rector of CRREO where she is responsi-ble for designing, conducting, managing,and producing studies on regional issuesand concerns. Her most recent work in-cludes directing the Regional Well-BeingProject and the Power of SUNY & Well-Being in NYS Counties Project. KT is aPh.D. candidate in Sociology at SUNYAlbany, has an M.S. in Social Researchfrom CUNY Hunter and is a graduateof SUNY New Paltz (92, Sociology).

The principal authors of this report areBrian Obach (Sociology) and KT Tobin(CRREO). In addition to RegionalWell-Being/CRREO funds, Obach andTobin were awarded United University

Professions (UUP) grants and Obachutilized a grant from the National

Science Foundation (Award #: 0550550)to complete this work.

There was considerable student contri-bution to this project:

Survey Development/Field Interview-ers: Chris Utzig (Philosophy, 09),Carolyn Burgess (Sociology, 09), &

Jenna Dern (Sociology, 09). Survey Data Entry and Management: Layla Al Qaisi (Political Science, 10) &Maria Davila (Political Science,10). Secondary Data Research:

Emily Sobel (Political Science, 11).Cartography: Ryan Ruetershan (Geo-

graphy, 12).

2

Therehasbeensomeencouraging

newslaTelyforThosewhowishTo

preserveTheruralcharacTerofThe

mid-hudsonvalley.

The alles farmers hae been tenacious and

entrepreneurial in nding as to make a liing

from the land.


3/20

centur ago, 74%of the land in our region as deoted to farming.

n 2007, this as don to 13%.

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

RegionNYS

19301910 1950 1969 20071987

74%

73%

60%

51%53%

41%

34%

21%

16%

13%

28%

24%

New York State Land in Farms:Century Long Trends

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Ulster

Sullivan

Orange

Dutchess

Region

19301910 1950 1969 20071987

90%

74%72%70%68%

20%16%

13%10%8%

Regional Land in Farms:Century Long Trends

3

to 13%. In 1910, there wereover 16,000 farms in our region;in 2007 there were fewer than2,200.

Dutchess County experiencedthe largest decrease in the per-centage of land in agriculture,with a decline from 90% to 20%.Sullivan Countys farm acre-age decreased from 70% to 8%,Ulster Countys from 68% to10% and Orange Countys from72% to 16%.

Looking just at the last twentyyears, in Orange County, thesouthernmost county in the re-

gion and the one with the highestnet domestic population in-mi-gration rate in all of New YorkState, the proportion of landdevoted to farming dropped six

This report will focus on waysto build upon existing achieve-ments to further revitalize theMid-Hudson Valleys agricul-tural economy and to preserveour rural character and workinglandscape.

AGRICULTURE IN THEREGION: A CHANGINGLANDSCAPE

Declining FarmlandNew York State has experi-

enced a century long declinein the number of its farms andthe proportion of its land undercultivation, as Americas agri-cultural production has come to

be concentrated in the mid-westand west. Following the CivilWar, New York State led the na-tion in farmland acreage (Bills,2010). In 1910, there were over200,000 farms across our state;farms occupied nearly threequarters (73%) of state land.By 2007, there were fewer than

40,000 farms and only 24% ofthe states land was agricultural.

Historically, the Mid-Hudsonregion has been particularlyimportant in the states agri-cultural landscape, both for thehigh quality of our soil and our

proximity to markets. But in thepast century, the percentage ofland devoted to farming in ourregion has declined even more

precipitously than in the state asa whole.

Nearly three quarters (74%) ofthe four-county regions landwas farmland one hundred yearsago, but by 2007 this had fallen

percentage points, or more than25%, from 22% to 16%.

Rising Agricultural

RevenuesDespite the decrease in acreageunder cultivation, the economicvalue of New Yorks agricul-tural products has been increas-ing in recent years; farming stillrepresents an important elementin our statewide and regionaleconomy.

In 2007, the value of sales ofagricultural goods in New YorkState was over $4.4 billion,up from $2.8 billion a decade

earlier. When support industriesand the processing of agricul-tural goods are factored in, theindustry generates $31.2 billionannually. In our region, sales of

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture



4/20

nnual sales of agricultural products total oer

$226 millionin our region.

Agricultural Products

agricultural goods totaled over$226 million in 2007 (USDACensus of Agriculture, 2007).

Dairy production has the mostoverall economic importancestatewide, constituting overhalf of all agricultural productssold. While dairy comprisedover half of our regions farmoutput in the mid-twentiethcentury, it was down to a quar-ter at the close of the century,and today only represents

16% of our agricultural sales.Currently, in our region thedistribution of farm output is

more diverse compared withthe statewide emphasis ondairy, with each county havingits own unique mix and spe-cializations.

Ulster County is one of thenations leading producers ofapples; fruit, nuts, and berriescomprise about two-thirds ofits agricultural output. Sul-livan County is among thestates leading poultry and egg

producers; this category rep-

resents over two-thirds of itsagricultural products. OrangeCounty has a sizable vegetable

and nursery industry inaddition to dairy produc-

tion. Dutchess Countyis the most diversied,with dairy and nursery

products, vegetables, andhorse farms representingthe largest sectors.

Farm Size TrendsReecting a general

pattern in the Northeast-ern United States, NewYork farms are smallercompared with thenational average. Whileaverage farm sizesincreased considerablyduring the mid- to latetwentieth century, theyhave been decreasing inthe past twenty years orso. In 2007, the average

New York farm was 197acres while the national

average was 418 acres.Two decades earlier, thestate average was 223acres; nationally it was462 acres. Using another

measure, the median farm sizein our state dropped from 131acres in 1997 to 95 acres in2007.

However, this focus on aver-ages and medians obscures thestory of growth on either endof the spectrum. The propor-tion of both large and smallfarms is growing in the UnitedStates; there are many fewermid-sized farms. And despitean increase in the small farm

sector, the increase in acreagewas mostly concentrated invery large farms. Thus, overall,nationwide, agricultural pro-duction continues to be furtherconcentrated in large agricul-tural enterprises.

Large farms are able to captureeconomies of scale that make

4

OtherFruits & Nuts

Vegetables

Nursery & greenhouse Dairy products

Poultry & Eggs

Horses, ponies, etc.

Hay

Cattle

Grains

Region

OrangeDutchess

Sullivan Ulster

22%

18%

16%

16%

14%

2%2%

3%3%

4%

36%

35%

24%

1%

1%

3%2%

9%

14%

17%

17%

22% 2%

9%

7%

68%

18%

65%

14%

7%

4%1% 2% 2%

1%4%

1%1%

1%

6%

2%2%

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture 2007. Percentages based onvalues of sales by commodity group.

Average Farm Size:Hundred Year Trends

19301910 1950 1969 20071987

100

200

0

300

400

500

418

197

156156

150148126

138

129117

110

102

99

98



5/20

ationide, and in our region, hile the oerall number of farms has

decreased dramaticall, the proportion of both large and small farms

has gron, and mid-sied enterprises hae been squeeed out.

Number of Farms and Farm Size:Statewide and Regional Trends

5

it difcult for mid-sized farmsto compete. The use of verycostly advanced farm machin-ery that enables the efcientcultivation of huge tracts ofland, typically dedicated to justone or a few crops, is con-ned to industrial scale farms.Improvements in transportationhave created a single national,and for some crops, a global

market in which individualfarmers must compete againstevery other farmer in theworld. Government subsidieshave also tended to favor largeoperations, further weakeningthe competitive position ofmid-sized farms (USDA Eco-nomic Research Service, 1984).

Many operations outside NewYork State and abroad oftenenjoy economies of scale,lower labor and production

costs and more favorable soiland climactic conditions. Thisplaces farms in our state at acompetitive disadvantage. Inour region in particular, resi-dential development pressureshave driven up land values and

property taxes. Faced with eco-nomic pressures and an attrac-tive nancial alternative, manyfarmers on mid-size farms havesold their land and left farm-ing. Mid-sized New York farmshave been nding it harder and

harder to compete given thenew structure of the market foragricultural goods.

In 1910, a majority of the farmsin our state and in our region

were medium sized farms,55% and 54%, respectively. By2007, these percentages haddecreased to 38% and 35%.Further, while the proportionof small and very small farms(totalling about a third) re-mained stable across the state,in our region this grew from31% to 43%.

Also, while the percentage oflarge farms doubled across thestate, coming to represent threein ten, it increased by abouthalf in our four counties, whereonly 22% of farms are catego-rized as large. With differencesin detail, these hundred-yeartrends were consistent in allfour of the regions counties.

Looking at the most recenttwenty years statewide andacross our region, while the

overall number of farms hascontinued to decline, theproportion of mid-size farmshas been somewhat stable, withdecreases in the percentage oflarge farms and increases in the

proportion of very small andsmall farms.

ORGANIC & LOCAL:THE REBIRTH OFSMALL SCALEFARMING

The Organic FoodMovementThe growth in small farms is in

part attributable to a nationalconsumer movement favoringlocally grown or slow food,

Source: USDA Census of Agriculture 1

1 For 1910 and 1930 USDA Census of Agriculture gures: very small fa rms are less than 10acres; small farms are 10-49 acres; medium size farms are 50-175 acres; large farms are 176acres or more. For gures 1940 or later: very small farms are less than 10 acre s; small farms are10-49 acres; medium size farms are 50-179 acres; large farms are 180 acres or more. Data for1969 was unavailable and values were imputed.

0

20000

40000

60000

80000

100000

120000

Very Small

Small

Medium

Large

117,852 55%

46,630 21%

32,510 15%

18,655 9%13,847 38%10,792 30%

8,799 24%2,914 8%

Total number of farms in 1910: 215,647

Total number offarms in 2007: 36,352

19301910 1950 1969 20071987

NYS

Very Small

Small

Medium

Large

Total number of

farms in 2007: 2,122

19301910 1950 1969 20071987


Region

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

8,829 54%

3,550 22%

2,487 15%

1,542 9% 750 35%658 31%460 22%254 12%


6/20


Number of Farms and Farm Size:County Trends

6


Dutchess County

0

500

1000

1500

2000

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

Very Small

Small

Medium

Large

19301910 1950 1969 20071987

Very Small

Small

Medium

Large

19301910 1950 1969 20071987

Very Small

Small

Medium

Large

19301910 1950 1969 20071987

Very Small

Small

Medium

Large

19301910 1950 1969 20071987

Total number of farms

in 2007: 656


Sullivan County

2,477 64%


in 2007: 323

Dutchess County

1,707 47%


in 2007: 656

Sullivan County


in 2007: 323

850 24%

617 17%

426 12%

85 13%146 22%

207 32%218 33%

19 6%81 25%89 28%134 41%

694 18%

524 14%

156 4%


Orange County

2,115 54%

861 22%

505 13%

216 34%206 32%

128 20%92 14%

454 12%

1,378 27%

608 12%

506 10%


in 2007: 642


Ulster County

2,530 50%


in 2007: 501

193 39%153 31%

97 19%58 12%


7/20

n 2008, e york State as ranked #3in the nation for the number

of certied organic operations, and #10for the total number

of acres dedicated to organic farming.

7

rooted in health considerations,environmental concerns anda growing interest in regionalidentity. Initially, the focus ofthis alternative agriculturemovement was on organicfoods, those produced in waysmore compatible with naturalsystems and which shunnedthe use of synthetic pesticidesand fertilizers. Proponents of

alternative agriculture werereacting to the feared negativeeffects of synthetic chemicalsused in the large-scale mono-culture farming that becamewidespread in the UnitedStates following World War II.

By 1983, the North EastOrganic Farming Associationof New York (NOFA-NY)was established, operating inafliation with six other NOFAchapters in the northeastern

United States. This provideda stronger organizational basefor proponents of alternativeagriculture. Occasional scaresabout food safety elevatedinterest in organic products,moving it beyond its counter-cultural roots. For example,in the late 1980s, a widely

publicized report linked theplant growth regulator, Alar, tocancer. Because Alar was com-monly used on apples, this hada major impact in the Hudson

Valley. There was a dramaticboost in organic consump-tion nationwide. Respondingto these market trends, moreregional farmers began to usemore natural, less chemically-

based approaches to agriculturalproduction.

During this era some states(but not New York) assumeda regulatory role in regard toorganic practices and market-ing claims. They passed laws toassure that products so labeledwere produced in accordancewith certain criteria, yet the

specic standards that denedorganic varied nationwide. In1990, the federal governmentinitiated a process to createnational standards for organicagriculture. Twelve years later,after much debate and delibera-tion, the US Department of Ag-riculture launched the NationalOrganic Program, ensuring a

single nationwide standard andfederal oversight of organic

production. This providedanother signicant boost to theorganic food sector. As a resultof this heightened interest andinstitutional support, existingorganic farms ourished. Manyconventional small and medi-um sized farms converted to or-ganic production to capture the

price premiums that consumerswere willing to pay for foodconsidered healthier and pro-duced under more ecologicallysound conditions. Yet, some ofthese benets were lost as someorganic enterprises grew in sizeand started to adopt industrialstyle methods.


8/20

Source: USDA 2007

Sociodemographic Characteristics of Organic Farms

National Farm Size: Organic 2007


Thus while organic farmingwas originally the provinceof small scale farmers sell-ing fresh produce directly toconsumers through farmersmarkets and local coops, today

organic foods of all sorts areproduced on a large scale anddistributed through conven-tional national and internationalsupply chains. Large nationalretailers specializing in naturaland organic foods, such asWhole Foods, moved in andcaptured a signicant share ofthe retail market. These chainstores can mostly be found indensely populated urban andsuburban centers, e.g. NewYork City and on Long Island.

Although there are still nonational natural foods retailerslocated in our region, organicgoods may now be found invirtually all conventionalsupermarkets and in a number

of smaller independent naturalfoods retailers.

Despite the conventionaliza-tion of organic agriculture, agreat majority of organic farmsin the US still tend to be verysmall or small (70%), whereasa majority of farms in generalare medium or large (61%).And given the overall growthin the organic sector, there areindicators that traditional smallscale organic farmers are able

to survive even in the face ofcompetition from industrialscale organic producers.

In some instances, small scalefarmers may have reaped a

comparative advantage as aresult of the conventional foodindustrys migration into theorganic market. Many longtime proponents of organichave reemphasized the localcomponent that was inherent toorganic production before theentrance of the conventionalfood industry. Thus, perceivedshortcomings of organic pro-duction as currently practicedhave bolstered a new move-ment that focuses specically

on the benets of local, smallscale production. Mid-HudsonValley farmers stand to reap therewards of this development.

A promising sign for the futureof small scale farming is that,compared with farmers ingeneral, organic farmers tend to

be younger, and are more likelyto consider their farm their

primary residence and farmingtheir primary occupation. Thereare also a larger percentage of

female farmers entering thissegment of the industry.

The Benets of Local FoodPopular interest in local food,

partly arising from the organicmovement, offers additionalhope for small farmers. Localfood appeals to consumers notonly for the perceived healthand environmental benets,

but also because it advancescommunity values and invigo-rates regional economies. When

consumers of both local andorganic foods in our regionwere asked about which they

prioritize, a majority indicatedthat buying local was more

8

0

20

40

60

80

100

Very Small

Small

Medium

Large

OrganicAll Farms

31%

30%

28%

11%

17%

25%

45%

13%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All Farms

Organic

Considers farm

to be primary

residence

Considers farming

primary occupation

Farmer is under age 55

Farmer is a woman22%

14%

52%

43%

60%

45%

84%

77%


9/20

eople choose to bu local food to support local farmers

and the local econom.

To support local food

and the local economy

Because it is healthier

To get higher quality,

better tasting food

Because it is better for

the environment

49%

22%

9%

20%

Reasons for Purchasing Local Foodimportant to them than buyingorganic.

Supporting Local EconomiesMany people want to supporttheir local economy throughtheir food purchases. In oursurvey of local and organicfood consumers (furtherdetailed below), to supportlocal farmers and the localeconomy was cited by 49%of consumers as their primaryreason for purchasing local

food.

There is clear evidence of theeconomic benets of localconsumption. One recent studyfound that for every $100 spentin local stores, $68 stays in thecommunity while for every$100 spent in a national chain,only $43 stays within the localeconomy (Baxter, 2010). Withregard to agriculture specical-ly, on average, farmers receiveonly twenty cents of every

dollar spent on food (USDA,2010). But when they selldirectly to consumers, farmersare able to capture virtually allof the return on their products,thus bolstering the economicviability of their farms.

Agricultural tourism also ben-ets local economies. Touristsfrom New York City and itssurrounding suburbs love to

pick apples and pumpkins inour elds, wander through our

corn mazes, tour our vineyardsand taste our wines (the rstwineries in the country wereestablished in our region dur-ing the 1600s). In 2008, tour-

ism was a $1.7 billion industryin our four-county region. Ourfarms and farm-scapes are one

big reason for this success.

Connection to PlaceProponents of slow foodtout the virtues of enjoyingin-season local foods and thesense of place and identitythat such consumption fosters,

compared with the anonymityassociated with homogenousmass produced fare availableinternationally through theconventional food industry. Eat-ing local keeps people in touchwith the change of seasons,an awareness that is lost whenrelying on food provided at asupermarket, imported from allover the globe. Growing inter-est in regional foods locally isevident from several cookbooks

based on Hudson Valley foods

that have been published inthe last decade (Malouf, 1998;Pensiero, 2009; Rose, 2009).

Curtailing OverdevelopmentNationally, on average, in 2002,two acres of farmland were lostto development per minute.

New York State was in the topve states that have lost thegreatest percentage of their bestfarmland (Becker, 2002). Hav-

ing witnessed this loss through-out the downstate region, andnow experiencing it closer tohome, many Mid-Hudson Val-ley communities are seeking

9

Buying Organic

Buying Local

80%

20%

Alternative Food Consumer Priorities

Source: CRREO/Siena Research Institutesurvey March 2010. Asked of regionalresidents who purchase both local andorganic food. Question wording: When

buying food, which is more important toyou: buying local or buying organic?

Source: CRREO/Siena Research Institute survey March 2010. Question wording: Please rank the followingreasons for purchasing local food from 1 to 4 in order of their importance to you. Percentages reported are forthose who responded #1 for each reason.


10/20

ways to preserve open spaceand the scenery represented byworking farms. Buying locally

produced goods is one way todo this.

Moreover, farms requirefewer municipal services thanresidences, and place a lesser

burden on local tax bases. Lowdensity residential develop-ment, or sprawl, in traditionallyrural areas not only increasesthe cost of government, butcontributes to trafc congestionand environmental degradation.

Energy EfciencyConsuming local fooddecreases food miles, the

distance goods have to travelfrom farm to table. This meansless reliance on fossil fuels,a concomitant reduction inthe amount of energy used totransport food and less of thetypes of pollution associatedwith transportation. In short,eating local foods reduces ourcarbon footprint.

Air and Water QualityAlthough there is no necessaryconnection between local small

scale food production and theusage of synthetic pesticidesand fertilizers, many smallfarmers targeting local marketsutilize organic techniques orintegrated pest management forenvironmental reasons. Suchmethods reduce the negative airand water-borne impacts asso-ciated with most conventionalfood production.

Fresher, Healthier, BetterTasting Food

In many cases local food canbe purchased on the same dayas it is harvested and consumedshortly thereafter. This reducesthe loss of nutritional value

that can occur when food mustbe shipped or stored for longperiods. The application ofchemicals designed to forestallripening is rendered unneces-sary, thus reducing exposure to

potentially harmful substances.Many slow food advocatespoint out that less time fromeld to table and less chemi-cal usage also translates intotastier food.

Food SecurityAccording to the World HealthOrganization, a large portion ofthe worlds people lack accessto sufcient, safe, nutritiousfood to maintain a healthy andactive life. We think about

this as mostly an issue in lessdeveloped countries, yet theabsence of access to nutritiousfood in many communities inthe United States is an emerg-ing national issue. Access tolocal farm products can pro-vide the urban and rural poorwith fresh nutritious foods thatare often unavailable throughthe conventional food distribu-tion system.

Emergency Preparedness

The further food has to travel,the greater the opportunity forbio-terrorism. Many recent policy recommendationsregarding emergency prepared-ness include plans for regionalfoodsheds, so that in the eventof a crisis that impedes travelor communication over longdistances, food will be readilyavailable to local populations.

Getting Back to LocalWhen independent locally

owned grocery stores domi-nated the market, many foods,especially fresh produce, werelocally sourced when in season.Modern techniques for preserv-

ing and quickly transportingperishables across the globe ledconsumers to expect access toall foods at any time of year.

National food distributorsestablished year-round supply

networks and close ties withsupermarkets while connec-tions between retailers andlocal farmers declined. Still,some independent grocersand even supermarkets carrysome locally produced goods.As interest in local foods hasgrown, larger scale retailersroutinely tout the local originof some of their products. Butfor these actors, price remainsa dominant concern, and inthe international food market,

smaller local producers cannotalways compete against lowcost bulk importers. This hasled some farmers, especiallysmall ones, to focus on othermarketing approaches.

Farmers markets are a tradi-tional outlet for locally

produced goods. Their popular-ity has grown in recent years asinterest in local foods has risen.Selling directly to consumerson their farms, and in now

well-established greenmarketsin heavily populated areas,allows Mid-Hudson farmersto capture almost 100% of theretail sale price of their goods.The number of farmers marketsin the United States rose from1,755 in 1994 to 6,132 in 2010.In our four-county region, therewere over 40 farmers marketsin 2010.

Many farmers markets nowinclude much more than just

fresh produce. They offer ahost of locally processed and

prepared ready-to-eat foods.In addition to summer marketsfeaturing fresh produce, year

10


11/20

Length of CSA Memberships

round farmers markets havebegun to appear in the region,selling items such as cheeses,honey, maple syrup and, some-times, frozen locally producedfruits and vegetables. Today

farmers markets attract not justconsumers looking for itemsto buy, but those who want anexperience that connects themto their food, their communi-ties and their region. Farmersmarket shoppers value meetingthe people who grow their foodand want to learn more aboutwhat they are eating. Thereshopping is not just routine,

but a recreational activity thatmay include having a meal onsite, live entertainment and

informational tables about localagriculture, events or commu-nity issues.

COMMUNITYSUPPORTEDAGRICULTURE

Perhaps the most signicantagricultural marketing innova-tion in recent decades is com-munity supported agriculture,or CSAs. The origin of thisapproach can be traced to Japan

during the 1970s. Residents inrural areas, seeking to main-tain traditional access to freshlocally grown food, formedteikeis in response to theincreasing departure of farmersto take up employment oppor-tunities in nearby urban areas(Parker, 2005). Their approachwas to pay farmers for a shareof the harvest in advance. Thisarrangement provided securityfor farmers. It also gave themaccess to the resources they

needed at the beginning of thegrowing season without thecost and risk of bank loans,which might plunge them intodebt and force them out of

operation in the event of a badseason or two.

This approach was soonemulated in the United Statesthrough the creation of CSAs.

Here, too, CSA members areoffering small farmers a kind ofinsurance, sharing the risk thatthe farmer would otherwisefully bear. An occasional poorseason may mean a smallersingle year return, but thisloss is distributed across many

people. Farmers are thus ableto continue in the next season.In addition, because of thegreater diversity of crops thatCSA farmers commonly grow,losses in one or a few crops due

to weather or adverse growingconditions still represents rela-tively little risk for members.

The rst CSAs in the UnitedStates began to appear in theearly 1980s (Adam, 2006).They now abound. In 1990,there were approximately 60CSAs in the country. Todaythere are an estimated 12,549(US Department of Agriculture,2010). Over 350 of these are in

New York State, 54 in our four-

county region.

The Mid-Hudson Valley has5% of the states populationand 16% of its CSAs. Farmsmore often than not have wait-ing lists for new memberships.An estimated 2150 regional

households hold CSA member-ships; of these, nearly one inten rst joined a CSA morethan ten years ago, while sevenin ten have become members

just in the past ve years.

About two in three CSAs reportthat while they use organicgrowing practices, they arenot ofcially certied by theUSDA (Woods et al, 2009).(Farms grossing less than$5,000 annually are allowed to

use the term organic even with-out ofcial certication.) Butdue to their small size and thedirect personal trust relation-ships established between CSAfarmers and members, outsideoversight of organic practices isconsidered less essential.

CSA farms tend to be verysmall; in New York the mediansize is three acres (NortheastOrganic Farming Association,Inc.). Some specialize in par-

ticular products such as meat

11

More than ten years ago

Five to ten years ago

Past ve years

Past year

Past two years

9%

20%

17%

24%

29%

Source: CRREO Alternative Food Consumer survey Summer 2009. Asked of CSA mem-bers. Question wording: When did you rst join a CSA: within the past year, in the pasttwo years, in the past ve years, ve to ten years ago, or more than ten years ago?


12/20

The Mid-udson valle has 5%of the states population

and 16%of its CSs.

Source: Data provided byLocal Harvest, 2010.Map created

by Ryan Reutershan. Size of farmrepresents number of farms in the zip code.

or herbs, but most offer a widevariety of fresh produce thatis distributed weekly at somecentral location or from thefarm itself. Often, groups offarmers will collaborate to dis-tribute their food at one loca-tion. For example, at TaliaferroFarms in New Paltz, memberscan pick up their produceshare as well as purchase localcheeses, meats, and wines fromother vendors. CSAs also haveclose ties to farmers markets.

About six in ten report sellingexcess product at such venues(Woods et al, 2009).

Building CommunitySociologist Thomas A. Lysoncoined the term civic agricul-ture, to describe the linkages

between local agriculture anda communitys social andeconomic development (Lyson,2004). Civic agriculture, Lyton

posits, is epitomized by com-munity supported agriculture.

Like farmers markets, CSApick-up days provide anopportunity for consumers tointeract directly with thosewho grow their food and to so-cialize and cultivate a sense ofcommunity among members.So does the element of sharedrisk among members; if theweather impedes the harvestand the loss must be spreadacross all shares.

Our abundance of Commu-

nity Supported Agriculture ledCRREOs Well-Being Projectto test some ideas about thecivic effects of this develop-ment in the Mid-Hudson re-gion. Surveys were conducted

12

Farming as Social Policy

Many CSAs in our region have programs designed to address the

needs of those in poverty. In 2004, Cheryl Rogowski, of Orange

County, was the rst farmer ever awarded a MacArthur Foundation

fellowship, in recognition of her creation of a CSA targeted to provide

low income households with local produce. The Phillies Bridge Farm

Project, in Ulster County, has a Farm to Families program that

provides free or subsidized shares to low income families. The pro-

gram also hosts farm visits and provides cooking demonstrations for

participants in order to raise awareness about nutrition and agriculture

in underserved communities.

Some CSAs have policies or programs, like sliding scale pricing,

designed to provide low income people with access to quality food.About four in ten CSAs report donating excess product to food banks

(Woods et al, 2009). Often, as well, farmers will allow their members

to donate part of their shares to food pantries and soup kitchens.


13/20

Nearly eight in tenCS members feel the can hae a big impact in

making their communit a better place to lie.

in the four counties to examinethe reasons behind peoplesfood purchasing decisions,especially as they relate to localand organic food and participa-tion in CSAs. We also soughtto understand the relationship

between the values that informfood consumption and civicengagement, another importantwell-being element.

In order to measure CSA mem-bers connectedness to com-

munity and civic engagement,we conducted two surveys. Therst was done at CSAs, healthfood stores, and farmers mar-kets. 887 people were surveyedin this portion of the study, 440of whom were CSA members.The second survey involvedtelephone interviews of 423randomly selected residentsfrom throughout the region.In our region, CSA membersrate their communities andtheir own personal efcacy

0

20

40

60

80

100

Poor

Fair

Good

Very Good

Excellent

CSA MembersRegion

4%

9%

24%

34%

30%

2%

19%

44%

36%

0

20

40

60

80

100

None

Small

Moderate

Big

CSA MembersRegion

10%

22%

37%

32%

1%2%

18%

79%

Rating the Community Making an Impact

Source: CRREO/Siena Research Institute survey March 2010. Question wording: Overall, how would you rate your community as a place tolive? Would you say it is excellent, very good, good, fair or poor? Overall, how much impact do you think people like you can have in makingyour community a better place to live: a big impact, a moderate impact, a small impact, or no impact at all?

0

20

40

60

80

100Yes

No

CSA MembersRegionUSA

27%

48%

73%

52%

78%

22%

13

Volunteerism

Source: CRREO/Siena Research Institute survey March 2010. CRREO Alter-native Food Consumer survey Summer 2009. Question wording: In the pastyear have you done any volunteer activities through or for an organization?

more positively comparedwith residents of the region asa whole. Four fths of CSAmembers, but fewer than twothirds (64%) of regional resi-dents, rate their communities asan excellent or very good placeto live. About the same propor-tion of CSA members, nearlyeight in ten (79%), feel thatthey can make a big impact ontheir communities, comparedto about one third (32%) ofregional residents in general.

We also found that CSAmembers have signicantlyhigher rates of voluntarism and

participation in local politics.Nationally, 27% of the popula-tion volunteers at least someof their time through or foran organization. Our regionhas a considerably higher rateof civic engagement; nearlyhalf of our residents (48%)volunteer their time. However,CSA members in our area are

particularly involved, with 78%

reporting that they engage involunteer work.


14/20

CS members hae high rates of olunteerism

and political participation.

Source: Siena Research Institute survey March 2010. CRREO Alternative Food Consumer survey Summer 2009.Question wording: In the past year have you done any volunteer activities through or for an organization?

Political Activities

14

CSA members also tend to bemore politically engaged. In the

past year, 76% of them havesigned a petition, and 50% havewritten a letter to a legislator or

policy maker, also nearly half(48%) worked on a community

project and 46% attended apolitical meeting. While CSAmembers and regional residentswere similarly likely to contrib-ute money to a cause, a larger

proportion of CSA members

were inclined to take action inother ways.

CSA membership is likely tobe, at least in part, a product ofthe greater community orienta-tion found among those whoself-select into this relation-ship. But, the effect of CSA

participation on communityengagement should not beunderestimated, and is pres-ent irrespective of income oreducation levels.

It should not come as a sur-prise that CSA members aremore engaged in their com-munities. CSA food distribu-tion brings local memberstogether on a regular basis. Itis an opportunity for people toconverse and share informationabout the community that isnot found to the same degreein a supermarket setting, oreven at a local grocery store.Farmers markets have been

found to generate more socialinteraction than conventionalfood shopping, but the effectof CSA membership is evengreater. Regular social interac-

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%

CSA Members

Region

Signed a petition

Contributed money to a cause

Written a letter to a

legislator or policy maker

Worked on a community project

Attended a political meeting

Participated in anydemonstrations, protests,

boycotts, or marches

Written a letter to the

editor of a newspaper13%

24%

9%27%

21%46%

32%48%

34%50%

76%69%

45%76%

The CRREO Regional Well-Being Project is focused on measures

of Mid-Hudson Valley communities social, economic, and environ-

mental character that are broadly accepted and allow the trackingof change over time. Our study area includes Dutchess, Orange,

Sullivan and Ulster counties. The research team includes members

of the CRREO staff, SUNY New Paltz faculty and students, and

community leaders. Community leaders were recruited from among

business persons, professional practitioners, environmentalists,

economic developers, local governmental ofcials and educators. As

part of this research we are guiding students in project-related work

and working with faculty in the development of related teaching

materials for use in courses. The rst report, which includes a

Regional Well-Being Index, was released in June 2010 and was

distributed to decision makers in the region. Regularly appearing

follow-up reports will be central to the continuing work of CRREO.

The project is funded by a grant from the United States Department

of Education, obtained with the assistance of New Yorks UnitedStates Senator Charles Schumer.


15/20

15

tion in groups builds social tiesand networks that facilitate, orat least reinforce, communityengagement. Social clubs,

political parties and civicorganizations have been in

decline for decades and socialtheorists have linked this withdiminished civic engagementgenerally (Putnam, 2001).There are few other environ-ments that foster the type ofinteraction that is commonamong CSA members. The evi-dence presented here suggeststhat CSAs may be a means of

providing a new civic engage-ment pathway.

In fact, many CSAs consider

it part of their organizationalmission to build communityidentity and involvement. Inaddition to educational ma-terials about local agriculturefound in CSA newsletters,

pick-up locations may alsoinclude tabling and literaturedistribution by other commu-nity groups. In short, CSAs

both offer a viable model foreconomically and ecologicallysustainable development, andserve as incubators for civic

engagement and communitybuilding.

SUPPORTING SMALLFARMS, LOCALFOOD, & CSAs

The many social, economic,health, environmental andcommunity benets of smallfarms and CSAs in our regionsuggests that these effortsshould be supported throughindividual and organizational

action and public policy.

Institutional BuyingIndividuals can support localagriculture by shopping at

farmers markets, joining CSAsand purchasing locally pro-duced goods from retailers thatcarry them. Institutional buyerscan also play an important rolein strengthening the sustainable

agriculture industry. Schools,colleges, hospitals, retirementcommunities and others institu-tions that provide food servicerepresent a signicant untappedmarket for locally producedgoods.

One challenge associated withthe transition to local foodsfor institutional buyers inthe region is that they oftensubcontract food service tonational corporations such as

Sodexo and Aramark. Theserms typically have their ownnational supply networks andstandardized menus. Decentral-ized local purchasing threatensestablished relationships withnational food distributors withwhom food service providershave protable nancial ties.Variability in the availability oflocal goods in different regionsalso impinges upon their abilityto offer standardized productsthroughout their national or

international operations.

In order for local institutionalbuyers to increase their use oflocally produced goods theywill either have to shift tosmaller independent food ser-vice companies willing to workwith local farmers or else apply

pressure on their corporate foodservice providers to amend

policies in order to allow morelocal purchasing. Commitmentsto buying local goods by these

institutions will provide bothexisting local farms and pro-spective farmers with assurancethat there will be a market fortheir products.

There have been successfulinitiatives in our region tofoster more local food provi-sion through institutional foodservice providers. Local foodactivists have organized meet-

ings among famers, institu-tional food service managersand wholesalers. Local foodwholesalers provide a cruciallink between small growersand large buyers. In somecases it is simply the absenceof a local wholesaler that pre-vents institutional buyers fromutilizing more local goods.Local food advocates at SUNY

New Paltz were successful insubstantially increasing localfood provision in the campus

cafeteria once a wholesalerwas found to serve as a bridgebetween small local farms andthe institutional buyer.

Some parents and other childadvocates in the region havealso been seeking ways tolink schools and local farms.Healthy Food, Healthy Kidsin New Paltz and From theGround Up in the RondoutValley have pressed schooldistricts to provide more nutri-

tious food options for students,including more fresh local andorganic produce. Research onstudent learning has shownthat a sense of place is centralto students awareness aboutenvironmental issues andtheir budding connections tocommunity. Curriculum andeld trips that involve localfarms facilitate the teaching of

place, binding students to theorigins of their food.

Yet local food advocates havefaced barriers in their attemptsto get more local food incorpo-rated into school lunch menus.This is rooted in current school


16/20

district budget constraints,coupled with federal agricultur-al policy that makes availableinexpensive foods subsidized inways that favor large commod-ity crop producers. This is one

indication that optimizing localagriculture will necessitatepolicy reforms at the national,as well as the state level.

Policy ReformTaxation and AgriculturalSubsidiesReform of federal agriculture

policy is needed. Over the pastten years, an increased propor-tion of federal farm subsidies(76% in 2008) has gone tosupport large scale commodity

production. Federal governmentsupport for agriculture shouldbe shifted away from industrialscale commodity crop produc-tion and redirected towardssmall scale community basedfarming. Policies should be de-veloped that allow local schoolsand anti-hunger programs to

benet from local ecologically-sound production.Food advocates in the Mid-Hudson Valley have theopportunity to be a powerful

voice in federal policy reform.U.S. Senator Kristen Gillibrandis the rst senator from NewYork to serve on the AgricultureCommittee in forty years. Anew Farm Bill is scheduled foradoption in 2012. The Senatorhas initiated a series of listeningsessions across the state, focus-ing on changes that should beconsidered in national agricul-tural policy. She has stated, Ifthe only farms that exist in thiscountry are on the west coast,

we are in a national security cri-sis because we need to producefood in every part of this coun-try. Local residents need toencourage Senator Gillibrand to

16

Working on the Farm

Farms in the Mid-Hudson region rely on a variety of sources for labor. Small

organic and CSA farms are typically run by a single grower aided by interns

seeking an educational experience who may only receive room and board

and a small stipend as compensation. Other small farms are family owned

and operated with family members doing much of the labor, supplemented

with hired workers who are often seasonal migrant laborers from Mexico

or the Caribbean. Larger operations rely more heavily on the migrant labor

population, many who entered the country legally as guest workers with pre-

arranged employment, but some of whom are undocumented.

Long hours and hard work typify agricultural labor. The motivations for

the adoption of this lifestyle by family members who wish to maintain a

multi-generational business or by young farming interns drawn to voluntary

simplicity are clear. The situation for migrant laborers is more complex.

These workers come from less developed countries seeking economic

opportunity and wages that are relatively high based on the standards of their

homelands. Many are well treated. However, their status makes them vulner-

able to exploitation and there have been cases of labor abuse.

Beginning in the 1990s a campaign by farm workers along with allies in

the religious community has led to some changes in the rules governing

agricultural labor, including requirements that farm workers be given access

to fresh water and sanitary facilities in the elds and a minimum wage equal

to that of other workers in the state. Farm worker advocates have so far

been unsuccessful at securing legislation that would provide overtime pay,

a weekly day of rest or collective bargaining rights. The New York Farm

Bureau has opposed such measures, claiming that they would place New

Yorks agricultural industry at a competitive disadvantage with Canada

and neighboring states. Legislation designed to extend these rights to farm

workers is routinely proposed, but has yet to garner a majority in both houses

of the state legislature. As we seek to encourage viable economically, socially

and environmentally sustainable agriculture in our region both the need for areliably affordable labor supply and the ethics and economics of labor have to

be included in policy considerations.

photo credit: Brook Frm Project


17/20

be a voice for increasing federalemphasis on small farms, farm-to-school efforts, and commu-nity supported agriculture.

Policy makers at the state level

can also do much to supportlocal agriculture. Tax creditsand abatements are commonways to encourage desirableeconomic activity. The rst tax

provisions designed to supportfarming in New York Statewere enacted by the state legis-lature in 1969. The AgriculturalDistricts Act passed two yearslater allowing for the creationof districts in which farmlandis subject to reduced propertytax assessments. Over eight

and a half million acres of landare currently in agriculturaldistricts. Approximately 71%of this land is actively farmed(Bills, 2010).

Properties included in an ag-ricultural district in New YorkState must be at least sevenacres in size, farmed for atleast two years, and generate aminimum of $10,000 in yearlyincome. There is also a farmersschool tax credit through which

the state funds a portion of theschool tax owed to local schooldistricts by farm owners (Bills,2010). A recent report released

by the New York State Comp-troller on the economic ben-ets of open space suggestedconsideration of additional taxabatement programs that recog-nize the value that undevelopedland contributes to storm watercontrol and water purication(NYS Comptroller, February2010). Tax reforms that speci-

cally support very small scaleagricultural production, suchas that commonly practiced byCSA farmers, should also beconsidered.

Agricultural EasementsTax provisions do not ensurethe long term protection offarmland. Owners may beinclined to sell if other -nancial incentives encourage

development. Conservation oragricultural easements, whichhave become more common in

New York State, can providemore permanent protectionfor agricultural lands (Bills2010). Through this approach,development rights are pur-chased from farmers in orderto ensure that land remains inagricultural use. Land ownersreceive payment for the valueof their property if developed,in exchange for foregoing

development and permanentlydedicating the land to agricul-tural purposes. This restrictionthen transfers with the prop-erty if sold, ensuring that newowners will keep the land inagricultural production.

Since 1996, the New York StateDepartment of Agriculture andMarkets has run a programthrough which developmentrights have been purchased for29,000 acres in New York State.

Local municipalities have pur-chased rights to an additional46,300 acres (Bills, 2010). Fed-eral funding is also availablefor this purpose. A $440,000matching grant from the USDepartment of Agricultures

Natural Resources Conserva-tion Service was recently se-cured to purchase developmentrights for a farm in the Townof Gardiner in Ulster County(Finger, 2010). But federalgrant programs are highly com-

petitive and the funds availablethrough the state program have

been insufcient to meet thedemand. According to the NewYork State Comptrollers Oc-

tober 2010 report, Bet on theFarm: Farmland Protection as aStrategy for Economic Growthand Renewal, between 1996and 2008 farmland protection

projects totaling $547 million

in value went unfunded. Andof the $205.6 million Farm-land Protection Program fundsavailable, only $95.5 millionhas been distributed. Half of theremaining dollars are allocated,

but awaiting approval fromeither the local municipalityor the Department of Agricul-ture and Markets (48% of thecontracts are three years old orolder). The process needs to beaccelerated to keep farms intactand otherwise undeveloped.

Private land trusts also playan important role in protectingfarmland. These organizationsalso purchase easements inorder to ensure that agriculturaluses of the land are protected.The Open Space Institute,working in conjunction withThe Wallkill Valley Land Trust,

purchased an easement for twofarms in New Paltz in UlsterCounty. The easement project,named the Two Farms Cam-

paign, protects 180 acres of

farmland and the future of localfood production in the NewPaltz area.

State policy makers can do evenmore to support local initiativesdesigned to protect agriculturalland from development. In

New York almost all land usedecisions are made at the locallevel. Though localities mayuse general revenues or issue

bonds to purchase easementsthat protect agricultural land,

the state lacks a general law thatpermits the creation of on-goingmunicipal funding streamsdedicated to this purpose. Thestate legislature has granted

17


18/20

the right to create Commu-nity Preservation Funds to ahandful of local governmentsthrough specic legislation,including two municipalitiesin our four-county region: the

towns of Red Hook in DutchessCounty and Warwick in OrangeCounty. Financed through mon-ies generated by the real estatetransfer tax, these programswere instituted after approval atthe polls by local residents. Ageneral law extending the rightto create such funds and/or toimplement them at a county orregional level would greatlyenhance the ability of munici-

palities to protect and preservelocal agriculture, and other

open space.

Further, these funds need to begranted conditional upon anagreement that goes with theland binding current and futurelandowners to continue to farm.For example, the Massachu-setts Agriculture PreservationRestriction (APR) Program

pays farmers, between the fairmarket value and the agricul-tural value of their farms inexchange for a permanent deed

restriction which precludes anyuse of the property that willhave a negative impact on itsagricultural viability.

Other State Policy SupportIn addition to facilitating localland protection initiatives,state lawmakers can instituteother policies that support smallfarm enterprises. For example,Governor Andrew Cuomo has

proposed the Share NY Foodprogram which would allow

low-income food purchase sup-port programs to be integratedinto CSA memberships. Thus,for example, Special Supple-mental Nutrition Payments

(SNAP) and Women, Infantsand Children (WIC) benetswould be accepted at CSAs.Share NY Food would alsosupport CSA development onsite at public schools, pave the

way for more and easier CSAdistribution at public institu-tions (e.g. colleges, hospitals,

prisons), and assist with build-ing partnerships between CSAsand non-prots or governmentagencies such as communityorganizations, housing authori-ties, and food banks.

Local agriculture may alsobenet from still other forms ofpublic support. The federal landgrant university system was de-

signed to provide states with anumber of research and supportservices. In New York State, theCornell Cooperative Extension

provides such services. Amongits other responsibilities, theExtension provides supportto farmers and to the statesagriculture industry as a whole.Extension programs have onlyrecently begun to offer as-sistance to small scale farmersseeking to operate as CSAs.Cornell Cooperative Extension

can play a very important rolein strengthening sustainable ag-riculture, and its efforts in thisregard should be encouraged.

Although local agriculture isexperiencing a renaissanceof sorts, these kinds of pub-lic policies will be needed tosustain this development andto correct the policy imbalancethat has long favored large scaleindustrial food production at theexpense of small scale, local,

sustainable agriculture.

Marketing to the MetroRegionIncreasingly, local agricultural

producers in the Mid-HudsonValley are marketing theirgoods based upon their regionalidentity. Some have even orga-nized more concerted market-ing campaigns. For example,

the Rondout Valley GrowersAssociation is an alliance of lo-cal farmers and their supportersformed in 2003 to more aggres-sively market regional goodsand to promote agri-tourism.Given the Mid-Hudson Valleys

proximity to one of the mostdensely populated metropolitanareas in the country, there isgreat potential for small andmidsized farmers to marketregional goods in the New YorkCity area. Local food has

been dened in various ways.By many denitions (e.g. thepopular 100 Mile Diet andEat Local Food programs)the entire four-county regionwould be within the denitionof local for those residing in

New York City. A concertedHudson Valley Local brand-ing campaign could greatlystrengthen the market down-state for agricultural goods fromthe region.

Indeed, New York City isbecoming increasingly aware ofthe breadbasket in its backyard.In November 2010, New YorkCity Council Speaker ChristineQuinn released FoodWorks: AVision to Improve NYCs FoodSystem. Her plan includesinitiatives to strengthen urban-rural linkages and regional foodsupply chains to help farmers

bring and sell their food in citymarkets. She also supports leg-islative action to revise procure-

ment regulations to facilitatecity government purchasingfrom Mid-Hudson Valley farms.

18


19/20

CONCLUSION

The long-term perspective wehave taken in this review showsagriculture to be a still vital partof our economy, though chal-

lenged by development pres-sures. This industry produceshundreds of millions of dollarsannually, and contributes veryimportantly to our identity andthe vitality of our communities.Our farms are smaller than inthe past, but more diverse intheir output and more produc-tive. Community supportedagriculture has brought renewedenergy to making use of ourland for farming while alsostrengthening community and

civic engagement. For numer-ous reasons, we want local foodand the benets that accruefrom its production.

Regional Well-Being involvescommitment to a Triple Bot-tom Line: social, economic,and environmental outcomesthat are not mutually exclusive,

but are complementary. Sup-porting small farms, local food,and CSAs adds value to thetriple bottom line. That is why

we must support local, state-wide, and national initiativesto preserve and nurture oursmall farms.

19

S T AT E UNI VE R S I T Y OF NE W Y OR K

Photo Credit (front cover):Brook Farm Project

Sources

For a complete list of sourcesfor this paper please referencethe electronic version on theSUNY New Paltz CRREO web-

site: www.newpaltz.edu/crreo

The State University of NewYork at New Paltz is a highly

selective college of about 8,000undergraduate and graduatestudents located in the Mid-Hudson Valley between New

York City and Albany. One ofthe most well-regarded publiccolleges in the nation, New

Paltz delivers an extraordinary

number of high-quality majorsin Business, Liberal Arts &Science, Engineering, Fine &

Performing Arts and Education.

The Power of SUNY, the StateUniversity of New Yorks Stra-tegic Plan adopted in 2010, hasas one major purpose reinforc-ing SUNYs role as an enduringenriching presence in communi-ties across our state. In SUNY,We want to create a broader

sense of common ground andmake a lasting difference foreveryone in the places we callhome. Publication of this Dis-cussion Brief is one way thatCRREO at New Paltz seeks tocontribute to the further devel-opment of a vibrant communityin our region.

CitationObach, Brian and KathleenTobin (2011) Agriculture Sup-

porting Community (CRREODiscussion Brief 5, Spring2011). New Paltz, NY: SUNY

New Paltz Center for Research,Regional Education and Out-reach.

CommentTo comment, write to CRREOat [email protected].

ThanksThe authors wish to thank the

farmers, business owners andfarmers market managers who al-lowed us to survey their membersand customers including Bloom-ing Hill Farm, Eats Village Farm,

Fruitful Harvest Farm , GorzynksiOrnery Farm, Harmony Farm,

Huguenot Street Farm, the Phil-lies Bridge Farm Project, ShovingLeopard Farm, the PoughkeepsieFarm Project, Colonial HealthFood Center, Earthgoods, New

Paltz Health & Nutrition Center,Mother Earth, Natures Pantry,the Rhinebeck Health Food Storeand the Florida, Kingston, Rhine-beck and Eco-Fabulous farmers

markets.

We would also like to thank JerryBenjamin and Farmer Dan Gun-ther for their guidance and inspi-ration, Jim Marion for reviewingand providing invaluable feed-back on early drafts, and our ownfarmers Ron and Kate Kholsa andPete and Robin Taliaferro.

The Center for Research,Regional Education andOutreach (CRREO) conducts

studies on topics of regionalinterest; brings visibility and

focus to these matters; fosterscommunities working togetherto better serve citizenry; andadvances the public interest inour region.


20/20

CRREO

1HawkDrive

NewPaltz,NY12561-2443

860350

STATEUNIVERSITYOFNEWYORK

NonproftOrganization

U.S.Postage

PAID

Permit#6127

Newburgh,NewYork

n

dependentlyandincollaborationwith

lo

calgovernments,businessandnot-

fo

r-protsacrosstheHud

sonValley,

Cr

reO:conductsindependentresearch

on

topicsofregionalinterest;brings

visibilityandfocustothesematters;

fo

sterscommunities

workingtogether

to

betterservethecitizenry

;andseeks

to

advance

the

public

interest

in

ou

rregion.

crreo report on csas

Documents