CSA Season in Review: Financial Analysis (Part I)
by Eric Richard
Well, the CSA season is behind us, so now it is time to look back and see how the season went. I’ll be posting a few summaries here to recap my wife and my thoughts on the season.
The first review will be a financial analysis.
Going into the CSA season, one of the things we promised to do was keep track of the actual value of the food that we got from the CSA and compare it to the amount we paid.
I detailed the approach we’d take in a previous post titled “Computing the Real Value of a CSA“.
In that post I said I’d take two different approaches to answering the question. And, now that the season is over, I can reveal the results of each methodology.
So, here are the results from methodology #1.
Method #1: Computing “Real Value” of the Food
When we joined the CSA, we paid $675 for the entire season. $50 of this was a fee for new members — if we had participated before, the cost would have only been $625.
According to our analysis, the food we got over the season was worth $731.53.
There are several nuances to be aware of in terms of how we computed this value.
- When we computed the value of the distribution, we used the prices for non-organic products. We did this for two reasons:
- It is very unlikely that we would have been able to find a single, consistent source of prices for organic equivalents of every distribution — we had a hard enough time finding prices for regular equivalents each week.
- When we went into the season, we were not looking for an organic CSA — that was just a bonus for us. Therefore, if we were purchasing the same foods in a grocery story, we wouldn’t have bought organic versions.
I am sure that if we had compared to organic prices, the actual value of the CSA would have significantly more. For example, a non-organic pint of cherry tomatoes runs for about $3.00 while the organic equivalent is $5.00. A lb. of non-organic tomatoes is $2.00 whereas the organic equivalent is $5.00.
The real point here is that if “organic” is important to you and you would have been buying this same organic produce in the store, then you can make a very strong argument that the CSA would be a fiscally smart way to buy this produce.
But, since that isn’t what we were looking for, we didn’t take it into consideration.
- There were several weeks where we did not take the entire distribution.In general, we tried to keep track of what we could have taken, but I am sure there are weeks that we missed things.Therefore, the value we computed is probably 5-10% lower than it actually should have been.
- There were a few cases where we could not find prices for the exact products we got and, instead, chose more common equivalents.For example, one week we got “tongue of fire beans”. I know this might surprise you, but you just can’t find those in the local grocery store. So, we priced them as edamame.I am guessing that, in general, this lead to a slightly lower computed value as compared to the actual value since I am guessing that because these items were “exotic” they would be slightly more expensive.
Putting all of this together, I think we can make a good argument that we got more than our money’s worth out of the season.
on November 5th, 2007 at 10:59 pm
Now you need to factor in the cost of the gas to get to and from the farm where you wouldn’t normally have gone, and you need to use the true cost of gas which I think is about $12/ gallon
on November 10th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Ok, this has to stir debate. One word: Newt!.
on November 11th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Ah, good old Newt. He forever convinced me that he is a kook who doesn’t understand science with his bizarro assertion that I am unfit for combat service because as a woman, I get monthly infections.
on November 13th, 2007 at 12:58 am
I love the bit about giraffes. I think, for me, that’s what really puts the comment over the edge. There are, unfortunately, lots of people who spout such nonsense about women being unfit for combat because of their biology. But he caps it off by talking about the masculine need to kill giraffes. As a man, all I can say is–never felt the urge. And, really, could he have chosen a less likely animal. Giraffes? Even the name sounds funny.
But, be that as it may, the fact that he is a unadulterated crazy who’s quite tapped into a largish bloc of crazy voters, is there some sense that this movement on his part is good? Or does his craziness detract? Or is it “the market will save everything” approach–which in some ways is not dissimilar to some of the thoughts put forth on this very blog? Has any one read the book? Does anyone dare?
on November 13th, 2007 at 4:14 am
I haven’t read Newt’s book, and honestly, I have no intention to. I have a low tolerance for crazy people and their writings, particularly as they apply to science. While as a feminist I can see the value of a conversation that talks about the pros/cons of having women serve in combat, as someone with a science/engineering background, I can’t deal with promoting junk science.
Newt went onto my personal list of dopes-who-have-no-idea-what-they-are-spouting-off-about with the statement about women and monthly infections referenced above. If he doesn’t understand the difference between hormones and bacteria/viruses and the role each play in the human body, he needs to go back to freshmen science.
on November 14th, 2007 at 1:30 am
I don’t believe that is a scientific thinker worth listening to. I don’t really believe that he’s a thinker worth listening to. But, he is taken seriously. And there are other ways to approach his book than as a scientific document. One is to consider it as an indicator of change in the debate over global warming. Can Newt make others, traditionally reluctant to accept global warming, accept i as a fact? Is he a spokesman with which environmentalists would like to be associated? Or is he too crazy?
The question, here, I think, is about colaition building. Is the fact that Newt is taking the matter seriously good news or not?
Second, the book can be read as a policy document. I noticed the other day at my local borders a bok called “the sky is not falling” which is a children’s book about how global warming is all a myth. but while dismisisng the matter, the book simultaneously offered a solution” enviropreneurs (a horrible neologism) could solve the problem by shucking off government regulation. Is that a good policy? I don’t think so? And so we’re back at colaition building.
Is it better that people are offerign solutions, even bad ones, or not?
on December 1st, 2007 at 12:52 am
I just happened on this review of Newt’s book by the folks at grist.org.
Doesn’t sound like a particularly strong endorsement of his book.
on February 3rd, 2008 at 12:18 am
[…] would break even, but to be honest, I was not sure what to expect. I was pleasantly surprised when we did the analysis and found that we actually saved money by joining the CSA. Granted, this was data from one CSA over […]