CSA statistics at a glance
Community supported agriculture has a simple idea behind it: farms sell shares or direct produce to members, and the numbers show that the model has stayed large enough to matter while still being specific enough to reveal sharp differences between years, regions, and farm types.
The strongest signal in the dataset is scale. U.S. producers sold $17.5 billion in food through direct marketing channels in 2022 (USDA NAL CSA page), and that total was up 25% from 2017 (USDA NAL CSA page). Within that broader direct-marketing picture, community supported agriculture remains a smaller slice, but it has its own long-running footprint: 7,244 U.S. farms sold products through a CSA arrangement in 2020 (USDA NAL CSA page), with CSA sales totaling $225 million that year (USDA NAL CSA page).
Table of contents
- Direct marketing and CSA scale
- What the U.S. totals show over time
- What surveys say about CSA farms and members
- Profitability, labor, and farm structure
- Membership growth and operational patterns
- How to read these CSA statistics
Direct marketing and CSA scale
The national direct-marketing numbers give the cleanest big-picture context for CSA statistics. In 2022, 116,617 farm operations sold directly to consumers (USDA NAL CSA page). That count was 10.3% lower than in 2017 (USDA NAL CSA page), which shows that more farms were not necessarily entering this channel even as dollar volume rose.
That split matters because CSA is not just a sales label. It sits inside a wider direct-to-consumer ecosystem that includes sales through multiple channels, and the national figures show that the money side of the market can expand even when the farm-count side contracts.
Fast facts from the dataset
- 2022 direct-marketing sales reached $17.5 billion (USDA NAL CSA page).
- That total was 25% higher than in 2017 (USDA NAL CSA page).
- 116,617 farm operations sold directly to consumers in 2022 (USDA NAL CSA page).
- The 2022 direct-to-consumer farm count was 10.3% below 2017 (USDA NAL CSA page).
- 7,244 farms sold through a CSA arrangement in 2020 (USDA NAL CSA page).
- CSA sales totaled $225 million in 2020 (USDA NAL CSA page).
- Total direct-to-consumer sales reached $2.9 billion in 2020 (USDA NAL CSA page).
What the U.S. totals show over time
A compact comparison helps show the pattern more clearly.
| Year | Metric | Value | Source label |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | Direct marketing sales | $17.5 billion | USDA NAL CSA page |
| 2022 | Direct-to-consumer farm operations | 116,617 | USDA NAL CSA page |
| 2020 | CSA farms | 7,244 | USDA NAL CSA page |
| 2020 | CSA sales | $225 million | USDA NAL CSA page |
| 2020 | Total direct-to-consumer sales | $2.9 billion | USDA NAL CSA page |
| 2015 | CSA farms | 7,398 | USDA NAL CSA page |
| 2015 | CSA sales | $226 million | USDA NAL CSA page |
| 2012 | Farms reporting CSA marketing | 12,617 | USDA NAL CSA page |
| 2007 | Farms marketing through CSAs | 12,549 | USDA NAL CSA page |
The table does not tell a story of a single straight line. Instead, it shows a channel that can remain meaningful even when counts move around.
In 2015, 7,398 U.S. farms sold through CSA arrangements (USDA NAL CSA page), and those CSA sales totaled $226 million (USDA NAL CSA page). By 2020, the farm count had slipped to 7,244 (USDA NAL CSA page), while sales were still in the same general range at $225 million (USDA NAL CSA page). That kind of stability in sales paired with a small change in farm count suggests that the channel held steady in economic terms even as participation shifted.
The long-run farm count data also show an earlier high-water mark. In 2012, 12,617 U.S. farms reported CSA marketing (USDA NAL CSA page), compared with 12,549 farms in 2007 (USDA NAL CSA page). The 2012 count was only 0.5% above 2007 (USDA NAL CSA page), which means the early 2000s already had an established base of CSA activity.
A useful way to read the national trend
The national USDA NAL CSA page numbers support three practical takeaways:
- CSA is not a niche that appeared and disappeared quickly. It has recurring national-scale presence across multiple years.
- Sales and farm counts do not always move in lockstep. A channel can be economically important even when the number of farms shifts.
- The broader direct-marketing market is much larger than CSA alone, so CSA statistics should usually be read as part of a wider direct-sales landscape.
What surveys say about CSA farms and members
The survey data in this dataset add texture that national totals cannot provide. One 2009 University of Kentucky CSA survey covered 205 CSA producers in 9 states (2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers). That sample gives a practical view of how CSA operations were organized and how members behaved.
The average CSA in that survey had operated just over 4 seasons (2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers), which suggests many operations were still relatively young. The average operator was 45 years old (2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers), and 25% of respondents had no farming experience before starting their CSA (2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers). Another 25% said CSA was their first horticulture direct-marketing experience (2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers).
Those figures matter because they show CSA as an entry point as much as an endpoint. The model was not only for long-established farms. It also served operators who were new to farming or new to direct sales.
Membership patterns from the 2009 survey
Membership was moving upward in that survey sample:
- Average CSA membership rose from 59 patrons in 2007 to 80 in 2008 (2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers).
- Average CSA membership rose again to 89 in 2009 (2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers).
That rise is important because CSA is built around member commitment, and growing membership can be a sign that buyers were willing to stick with the model across seasons.
Contracting and production practices
The survey also shows how structured CSA arrangements often were:
- 43% of survey CSAs required members to sign a contract (2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers).
- About two-thirds of respondents grew produce according to organic standards without certification (2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers).
- 87% also marketed through another channel (2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers).
The last point is especially useful. It shows that CSA rarely stood alone. Most operators were combining it with other sales channels, which helps explain why CSA statistics often need to be read together with broader direct-marketing statistics.
Profitability, labor, and farm structure
The regional studies in the dataset highlight how much CSA outcomes depend on farm structure, market context, and the size of the operation.
In the Upper Midwest survey, researchers mailed questionnaires to 144 operators (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization), received 62 completed responses (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization), and ended with 55 usable surveys (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization). That study found the typical CSA farmer was 45 years old (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization) and had 14 years of farming experience (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization).
The farm scale in that study was modest. The average Upper Midwest CSA had just over 30 acres including the CSA operation (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization), and CSA land averaged 37% of total land farmed (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization). For farms with additional operations beyond CSA and market garden production, CSA land averaged 12% of total land farmed (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization).
Compact comparison of the Upper Midwest study
| Measure | Value | Source label |
|---|---|---|
| Mailed questionnaires | 144 operators | Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization |
| Completed responses | 62 | Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization |
| Usable surveys | 55 | Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization |
| Typical farmer age | 45 years | Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization |
| Farming experience | 14 years | Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization |
| Average acreage | Just over 30 acres | Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization |
| Average members | 33 | Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization |
| Hired-labor spending | $2,920 per season | Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization |
| Net return per acre | $2,467 | Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization |
The labor and return figures are especially revealing. Average hired-labor spending was $2,920 per season (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization), and average net return per acre was $2,467 (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization). Those are the kinds of numbers that show why scale, labor structure, and crop mix matter so much in CSA economics.
The same study also captured a tension that is common in direct agriculture: 57% of farmers said their share price did not provide a fair wage (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization). At the same time, 97% said they were completely satisfied or satisfied most of the time with their CSA operations (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization). Within that 97%, 17% said their members were completely satisfied (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization), and 83% said members were satisfied most of the time (Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization).
That combination is notable. Farmers can feel underpaid while still believing the model works operationally or relationally. CSA statistics are often strongest when they separate economic satisfaction from mission satisfaction.
Membership growth and operational patterns
The Central Valley study adds another layer by showing how quickly membership can expand in a favorable context. Researchers surveyed and interviewed 54 CSA farmers and 2 CSA organizers, representing 55 CSAs in total (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley). The study initially contacted 74 CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley), which gives some sense of the sampling frame.
In that sample, 46 of the 48 survey-responding farms used the box model (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley). Of those box-model farms, 34 were single-farm box CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley) and 7 were collaborative box CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley). The average minimum payment time in the box model was 8 weeks (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley), while the median minimum payment time was 1 month (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
Membership and revenue signals from the Central Valley study
- 54% of CSAs reported being profitable (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
- Average gross sales per acre were $9,084 (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
- Median CSA size was 20 acres (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
- Median membership was 60 (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
- Average membership was 585 (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
The gap between median membership of 60 and average membership of 585 (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley) suggests a highly uneven distribution, where a small number of much larger operations can pull the average upward. That kind of spread is important when interpreting CSA data because medians and averages can tell very different stories.
A deeper look at growth in that study shows how fast some CSA systems can scale:
- CSA membership increased 49-fold from 1990 to 2010 (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
- That 49-fold increase equals 4,900% growth (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
- Membership grew 3.4x from 1990 to 2000 (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
- Membership grew 14.2x from 2000 to 2010 (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
The year-to-year changes from 2008 to 2009 also show a mixed but active market:
- 22 farms gained members (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
- 6 farms maintained member counts (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
- 8 farms lost members (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
- The median annual growth rate for growing CSAs was 50% from 2008 to 2009 (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
- The median loss rate for declining CSAs was 24% from 2008 to 2009 (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
Those figures reinforce a central point: CSA is not static. It can grow rapidly in some places and years, while individual farms move in different directions at the same time.
How to read these CSA statistics
A good reading of CSA statistics should separate four layers.
First, there is the national direct-marketing layer. The 2022 numbers show that direct marketing itself was large, with $17.5 billion in sales (USDA NAL CSA page) and 116,617 direct-to-consumer farm operations (USDA NAL CSA page). That is the macro frame.
Second, there is the CSA-specific national layer. CSA sales of $225 million in 2020 (USDA NAL CSA page) and 7,244 CSA farms in the same year (USDA NAL CSA page) show a channel that is established but still much smaller than all direct marketing combined.
Third, there is the survey layer. The 2009 University of Kentucky survey and the Upper Midwest study show how age, experience, contracts, and mixed marketing channels shape CSA operations (2009 Survey of Community Supported Agriculture Producers; Community Supported Agriculture in the Ecolabel Midwest United States: A regional characterization).
Fourth, there is the growth-and-profitability layer. The Central Valley study shows that membership can rise quickly, profitability can exist for a majority of farms in some samples, and averages can conceal large gaps between farms (Community Supported Agriculture is thriving in the Central Valley).
If you want the shortest possible summary from the dataset, it is this: CSA remains a durable direct-marketing model, but its economics vary sharply by region, scale, and operation type. The source labels in the dataset matter because they remind you that the headline numbers come from different study designs, different years, and different measures.