Skip to main content

Community-Supported Agriculture (CSA) for Restaurants

Image
By
I like the CSA idea in Pennsylvania. A family pays $500 a season for weekly delivery of fresh produce. Then, the family is guaranteed to have fresh vegetables and sometimes fruits. Eating fresh and supporting local farmers are the biggest advantages. The challenge, however, is that the family cook has to be very creative because the kind of vegetable and the amount of produce being delivered may vary every week according to the weather conditions.

I see the potential of applying this CSA idea to independent restaurants. Well, if an urban restaurant can count on its rooftop garden for greens, why can’t an independent restaurant reply on local farmers? In fact, growing vegetables on one’s own has become the hottest restaurant trend of the year. By using local ingredients, talented chefs can show off their creative culinary arts skills; an independent restaurant may also find a niche to “distinguish” itself from other restaurant chains.

What do you think of this CSA idea in restaurant business? If local ingredients are used, what measures will you use to control the quality of food? As a consumer, will you prefer to eat in a local restaurant where you find unfamiliar menu items? Or would you rather eat in a restaurant chain that serves you a standardized menu? Why?

Labels:

Comments

  1. JiMin LeeDecember 15, 2010 at 3:02 AM

    I think it would be a nice idea. For purchasing products, good quality always comes first than price. Even if A product in better quality costs more than B, the restaurant should go for product A because it serves to customers.
    For CSA, if it costs not too high and the quality is great and fresh then there is no reason not to accept CSA to purchase items in restaurant industry.
    As a consumer, I would rather eat in a restaurant chain that serves a standardized menu because it is a bit cumbersome to go to other local restaurants to try unfamiliar menu even if it is much healthier and fresh. It is not easy to change things that once used to for quite a long time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Angel WanDecember 15, 2010 at 6:23 PM

    For an independent rFor an independent restaurants to “find a niche to 'distinguish' itself from other restaurant chains” would probably require a lot more work for their business. The CSI is a wonderful idea but it would be more work on top of the work load the business has already. To take care of a rooftop farm is a very interesting idea, I would like to try that to but that would require more labor, more care in each vegetable they plan to grow. Not only would it require more care, it would require more round the clock watch since in the city, for a rooftop farm, mice would be a factor to take into consideration. A rooftop garden would be wonderful in a suburban area but definitely not for an urban restaurant. estaurant to

    ReplyDelete
  3. MattDecember 15, 2010 at 8:36 PM

    CSA seems to have a good idea, the only problem is how will most people react to it. When people enter a restaurant it generally is for a reason, they want a good meal, they have heard good reviews, or the ingredients are so fresh and tasteful. On one hand you can say if a product is "better quality" then see you should spend the extra money as you owe it to your customer. On the other hand if you already have a nice restaurant with a broad cliental there is no reason to start changing things around now. " If it aint broke don't fix it" Me being a consumer walking into a restaurant would try a new item on the menu if it says fresh grown ingredients. From the restaurants perspective it would be rather expensive to start purchasing fresh goods from new suppliers. Overall even though the CSA seems to have a good idea, I think it still needs more time to be developed and in the end only certain restaurants would want to adopt this "Fresh Food Plan"
    Matthew B

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is It OK for Hotel Staff to Wear Piercings and Tattoos?

By
Time has changed. I see more and more college students wearing piercings and tattoos nowadays, but is it OK for hotel staff to wear piercings and tattoos? The answer is “no, no, no.” According a report at USAToday.com, customers across the board do not want to see any hotel workers with pierced eyebrow, pierced tongue, tattooed arm, or nose ring. Some may argue that tattooed and pierced workers may seem more acceptable in edgy boutique hotels as compared to the big franchised hotels, but the survey results did not find any differences among a variety of lodging products. Many respondents believe people who wear visible tattoos and piercings are taking a high risk of their professional lives. If you stay in a hotel, do you mind being served by tattooed and/or pierced staff? What if you are the one who makes the hiring decision? References: USAToday.com: http://tinyurl.com/linchikwok08042010 Picture was downloaded from http://tinyurl.com/linchikwok08042010P
28 comments
Read more

Where Coffee Meets Culture: My Experience with Orientation, Socialization, and Culture at Dutch Bros (by Karina Martinez)

By
When people think of Dutch Bros, they usually picture colorful drinks, loud music, free stickers, and baristas so friendly they’ll jump in the car with you.  As someone who has had the opportunity to work for Dutch Bros, I can say that the energy customers feel isn’t an act; it is the result of intentional and effective HR practices that are focused on orientation, socialization, and culture. From your very first day, you experience how these practices shape the entire Dutch experience.  Orientation, Socialization, Culture   In HR management, orientation is the introduction of the role and company to new hires. This is intended to help them feel welcomed and informed. Socialization goes beyond the initial training process; it’s how new hires grasp the organization’s values, behaviors, and traditions over time. Together, these fun...
5 comments
Read more

Average/Below-Average Looking People Can Earn as Much as the Attractive Ones

By
Research has shown that attractive people can not only charm interviewers (and thus get hired easier), they are also more likely to earn more as compared to those with average or below-average looks. Accordingly to a Wall Street Journal report , attractive people can earn 3% - 4% more than a person with below-average look. If such difference adds up over a person’s lifetime, an attractive person can earn up to $230,000 more than an ugly worker; even an average-looking person can make $140,000 more. Another relevant Wall Street Journal report also suggests that workers who exercise regularly can earn 9% more than those who do not. If that is the fact (I believe it is), is it legal? Can employers do that? Linchi Kwok and Otto @SyracuseU Career Fair To my knowledge, no law or regulation under EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) considers a person’s look as a protective class. It is true that people in general have an idea of what kind of person they feel attract...
33 comments
Read more