|
|
|
|
Rural Churches and
Rural Values: Building Blocks to the Future?
Rural churches could play a pivotal role in
addressing the future of rural communities and family farming and ranching.
The choices confronting rural America are fundamental choices of values. They
are judgments about what is good and what constitutes a just, fair, caring, and
responsible basis for the economy and communities.
The church is one of the few places in America where we talk about what is
right, good, and just – about what should be and could be, as opposed to what
is.
The biblical tradition is rich with stories and lessons about land, how it
should be cared for and held. It calls for justice for the poor and for treating
our neighbors as ourselves.
It forewarns of the woe that comes from adding field to field, in the words of
the prophet Isaiah, “until there is no more room and you are made to dwell alone
in the midst of the land.” |
|
IFARM (Integrated Farm and Resource Management) workshop
is August 27, 2003 at the RC&D office in Plainview, Neb. from 9 to 3.
Participants will examine risks associated with their farm and identify
how to minimize those risks for peak performance and optimal financial
returns. For more details and to pre-register contact Joy Johnson,
402.846.5428 or e-mail joyj@cfra.org.
The 2003 Nebraska Grazing Conference will be held
August 11-12, 2003 at the Holiday Inn in Kearney. The conference features
low-cost grazing strategies; building local, producer-based coalitions;
stewardship and biodiversity. Register at
www.grassland.unl.edu/grazeconf.htm or call 308.236.1235.
Executing Vision & Strategy for Success, the sixth
annual Farmer Cooperatives Conference will be held October 29-31, 2003 at
the Fairmont Kansas City at the Plaza, Kansas City, Missouri. For more
information, contact Dawn Danz-Hale, University of Wisconsin Center for
Cooperatives at 608.262.3981 or
danz-hale@aae.wisc.edu .
The Center is taking nominations for the National
Seventh Generation Research Award for farmers, ranchers, or research
scientists who have performed outstanding sustainable and systems-oriented
agriculture research. The nomination deadline is August 31.
Learn more about how to submit nominations on our website at
www.cfra.org/award_application.htm or contact Kim Leval,
kimleval@qwest.net or
541.687.1490. |
The rural church can be the place where we bring that tradition to bear on
issues confronting rural America today. I met recently with a group of rural
lay people who have a strong sense that the situation in rural America is
urgent and that the church cannot be silent. They are looking for ways for the
church to engage its members in applying the biblical tradition to the rural
future.
There is talk of developing a study guide that local congregations could use
to reflect on the implications of biblical lessons for the situation in rural
America today.
Perhaps a new organization could be formed as the voice of the rural church –
not for any one denomination but rather for the rural believers who make up
the church in its many denominations.
Perhaps participating parishes could each name representatives who would
participate in conventions where positions on critical rural issues are taken
and then take the lead in educating policy makers and other church members on
those positions.
Our democracy is not fully functioning in rural America today. Most rural
people don’t like and don’t believe in the direction we are moving. Yet most
feel powerless to affect it and have no place to engage the issue. The rural
church could be that place.
Contact us -- we want your ideas! Tell us
your view on the role of the rural church in addressing the future of rural
America. Call or email Chuck Hassebrook,
chuckh@cfra.org or 402.846-5428, ext. 28.
Global Warming
Isn’t Cool
Meteorologists say unstable world climate
resulting from global warming is a reality
While preparing to celebrate the anniversary of our independence earlier last
month, you may have missed a truly astonishing announcement from the World
Meteorological Organization (WMO) warning that the world’s weather is no
longer stable. This stoic group of scientists rarely makes headlines and often
reports outcomes only once a year, then mostly after the fact, with its staid
summary data.
The WMO, a Geneva-based body of scientists, monitors weather services of 185
countries. It says that the weather events in Europe, Asia, and the United
States so far this year are so beyond the normal that the world needs to be
informed now. Southern France recorded June temperatures exceeding 104 F (9
-13.6 F above the average). Switzerland has had the hottest June in 250 years.
In India, a heat wave with temperatures of 113 F (4 - 9 F above normal) caused
the death of at least 1,400 people.
Recent weather anomalies are not limited to temperature. The U.S. had a record
number of tornadoes in May – 562 – beating the previous record of 399 set in
June 1992. In Sri Lanka, unusually wet conditions that preceded a cyclone
caused flooding and landslides, killing at least 300 people. In the U.S.,
heavy rainfall events (2 inches or more per day) have increased 20 percent
since 1900.
Supercomputer models show a link between atmospheric warming and violent
weather. The WMO report says, “Recent scientific assessments indicate that, as
the global temperatures continue to warm due to climate change, the number and
intensity of extreme weather events might increase. New record extreme events
occur every year somewhere on the globe, but in recent years the number of
such extremes has been increasing.”
It is possible that 2003 will be the hottest year ever recorded. The 10
hottest years in the 143-year-old global temperature record have now all been
since 1990, with the three hottest being 1998, 2002, and 2001.
The possibility that the world’s climate might become unstable as the earth
warmed was a much-disputed prediction. Now, the WMO says, it is a reality.
For background information on national and international efforts to address
global warming issues, visit these web sites:
www.usgcrp.gov/ and
www.pointcarbon.com
Contact: Martin Kleinschmit,
martink@cfra.org or 402.254.6893
for more information. Adapted from The Independent (UK), 03 July 2003
Help Influence
Rules for Value-Added Grants
Email public comments to USDA by August 12, 2003
for consideration in the rulemaking process.
The Value-Added Producer Grants (VAPG) program awards federal competitive
grants to farmers, ranchers, cooperatives, and others to assist in new product
development and marketing to add value on the farm and ranch.
USDA has issued a proposed rule for implementing the program. The Center is
encouraging as many comments as possible to USDA urging the final rule to link
evaluation criteria for awarding grants to the program’s original purpose. The
program was designed to increase farm/ranch profit, increase self-employment
opportunities, and enhance natural resources and the environment.
Talking points and an action alert
with Center recommendations for public comments are available. A copy of the
proposed rule can be found on
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/vadg.htm .
Contact: Kim Leval,
kimleval@qwest.net or 541.687.1490 for
more information on the proposed rule or the program.
House, Senate Tackle Ag
Approps
Congressional appropriations committees divided
in support of innovative programs
The fiscal year 2004 agricultural appropriations bill forwarded by the
appropriations committee and approved by the full House of Representatives
eliminated funding for the most innovative and meaningful programs passed under
the 2002 farm bill.
According to an analysis by the Sustainable Agriculture Coalition based on
Congressional Budget Office figures, the House bill slashed funding for key
family farm, rural development, conservation, and research farm bill programs by
$445 million.
The bill would reduce rural development farm bill funding by 99 percent,
agricultural research by 98 percent, and conservation by at least 17 percent.
The bill also prohibits funding for implementation of country-of-origin labeling
for meat.
The House bill proposes to zero out funding for two programs that stand to make
a difference for small and medium-size farms and ranches – the Conservation
Security Program and the Value-Added Producer Grants program.
The new Conservation Security Program will reward farmers and ranchers who
historically have been willing to care for the land by implementing sound
conservation-based farming practices. It will also support the farmers and
ranchers who want to begin implementing such methods.
The Value-Added Producer Grants program provides grants for development of new
markets, products, and cooperatives to strengthen family farms and ranches,
increase their share of the profit in the food system, and help them earn income
from the market and thrive in the 21st century.
The agricultural appropriations funding problem – an allocation $456 million
below the current year’s levels – is real, but cutting programs such as
Conservation Security and Value-Added Producer Grants program is not the answer.
A far better answer is to implement an effective payment limitation for
commodity payments.
The programs the House is willing to sacrifice are the very programs that stand
to increase farmer and rancher incomes – unlike unlimited commodity program
payments that do nothing to increase income but do everything to increase costs
because they are bid directly into higher cash rents and land values.
At this writing, the Senate Agriculture Appropriations Subcommittee voted on
their version that will go to the full Senate Appropriations Committee. The
Senate subcommittee rejected House actions and spared any cuts to the
Conservation Security Program and the Value-Added Producer Grants program.
Contact: Traci Bruckner,
tracib@cfra.org or 402.846.5428, ext. 21
Clues to Gauge the Chances for
Small Town Community Survival
Detect if your community has what it takes to
survive with a list of 20 clues from the Heartland Center for Leadership
Development.
Why does one community fare better than another? No significant differences
appear, yet one town prospers while another withers.
In 1987, the Heartland Center for Leadership Development produced Clues to Rural
Community Survival. This book is priceless because the information it provides
on survival for small communities is ageless. Every model of community
development that spews forth a new way of working actually owes its roots to
some very basic principles.
Authors Vicki Luther and Milan Wall list 20 clues to the survival of small rural
communities. These clues act as a map for people to use to look at their own
community and grade it accordingly. They are:
- Evidence of community pride
- Emphasis on quality in business and community life
- Willingness to invest in the future
- Participatory approach to community decision making
- Cooperative community spirit
- Realistic appraisal of future opportunities
- Awareness of competitive positioning
- Knowledge of the physical environment
- Active economic development program
- Deliberate transition of power to a younger generation of leaders
- Acceptance of women in leadership roles
- Strong belief in and support of education
- Problem-solving approach to providing health care
- Strong multi-generational family orientation
- Strong presence of traditional institutions integral to community life
- Sound and well-maintained infrastructures
- Careful use of fiscal resources
- Sophisticated use of information resources
- Willingness to seek help from the outside
- Conviction that, in the long run, you have to do it yourself
Any community can use these points to assess their situation. Many small
rural communities do very well in some but fall short of others. Take a look at
your own community and use these 20 clues to see if you have what it takes to
survive.
Contact: Michael L. Holton,
michaellh@cfra.org for information.
USDA Report Identifies Increased
Costs for Manure Application
New study analyzes land needs for waste disposal
from animal feeding operations and says more land is needed
The USDA Economic Research Service (ERS) has released a report on livestock
operations’ management of manure. The report, Manure Management for Water
Quality: Cost to Animal Feeding Operations of Applying Manure Nutrients to Land,
addresses the farm-level implications of nutrient management plan
implementation.
The authors note livestock and poultry farms generate over 350 million tons of
manure annually. Given the trend of fewer, larger operations concentrating in
specific regions, the risk for land application of manure exceeding the nutrient
needs of vegetation is increasing.
Without sufficient land to allow for agronomic application rates, the excess
nitrogen and phosphorus will
harm water resources through runoff and leaching.
The study found concentrated animal feeding operations (CAFO) need more land on
which to spread manure than they are currently using. Most will also need to
move their manure off the farm where it is being produced because of the need
for more land.
According to the researchers, “only 18 percent of large hog farms and 23 percent
of large dairies are currently applying manure on enough cropland to meet a
nitrogen nutrient plan. Even if large hog farms spread manure over their entire
land base, only 20-50 percent operate enough land to meet land application
standards, depending on whether a nitrogen- or phosphorus-based plan is to be
met.”
Subsequently, ERS determined that competition for land in areas where animals
are highly concentrated could become severe. As noted in their findings: “Animal
feeding operations in 2 to 5 percent of U.S. counties produce more manure
nutrients than can be absorbed by total cropland and pasture in each county.”
Another factor is the willingness of proximate crop producers to even accept
manure from a CAFO due to such concerns as odor and uncertain nutrient content.
With various factors impacting costs for land application, the analysis found
the largest operations often have the highest per-unit costs for meeting manure
management plans. Those costs could “instigate structural and geographic shifts
in livestock and poultry,” and impact “whether smaller operations (non-CAFOs)
not affected by current regulations become more competitive.”
The full report can be found on the ERS website at
www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer824 .
Contact: Brad Redlin,
bradr@cfra.org for more information.
|
|
Corporate Farming Notes
Farmland sells out to Smithfield; Tyson admits
guilt in Clean Water Act violations; North Carolina still doesn't want any more
hogs.
On July 15 Smithfield Foods announced it had entered a purchase agreement
with Farmland Industries, Inc. Smithfield will acquire substantially all of the
assets and certain liabilities of Farmland Foods, Farmland’s pork production and
processing business, for approximately $363.5 million in cash.
With annual sales of approximately $1.8 billion, Farmland Foods is the sixth
largest pork producer in the nation. Smithfield Foods, with annual sales of
about $8 billion, is the leading processor and marketer of fresh pork and
processed meats in the U.S., as well as the largest producer of hogs.
Successful Farming reported that among those immediately voicing
opposition to the purchase were Iowa’s senators. Tom Harkin said the sale was
“bad news for the future of our nation’s independent pork producers.” Charles
Grassley said, “Smithfield has no appreciation for family farmers whatsoever,”
and called on Attorney General Ashcroft to not allow the purchase.
What may be most remarkable is what little appreciation Farmland Industries has
shown for its mission as a family farmer cooperative. It is disturbing when an
organization formed to provide market access and self determination for farmers
ultimately sells out to the single largest controlling corporate entity in both
hog production and processing.
If the Justice Department approves the sale, it would be final within two to
three months of the announcement.
Tyson Foods Inc. pleaded guilty June 25, 2003 to 20 felony violations of
the federal Clean Water Act and agreed to pay $7.5 million in criminal and civil
fines.
The fines are the largest environmental penalties in the history of the Western
District of Missouri. Tyson admitted that it illegally discharged untreated
wastewater from its poultry processing plant near Sedalia, Mo., into a tributary
of the Lamine River. – Kansas City Star
North Carolina has extended its moratorium on new or expanding hog farms
through 2007. The state legislature passed its fourth consecutive extension of
the original 1997 moratorium, with this year’s being the first four-year
extension.
Contact: Brad Redlin,
bradr@cfra.org or 402.846.5428, ext. 24 for
more information.
|
|
Feature article:
Strategies to Revitalize Rural Communities: A
Regional Cooperative with a Different Stripe
A new kind of regional cooperative could be a
powerful force for revitalizing family farms and ranches.
Such a cooperative could capture high-value “niche” markets for family
farmers and ranchers, bargain collectively on their behalf, provide technical
assistance in meeting quality and production standards, and provide capital for
new farmers and ranchers to serve these markets.
The Mondragon cooperative in Spain demonstrates the potential of a cooperative
to create genuine opportunity in a depressed region.1 It was
established in 1956 by five engineers inspired by the ideas of a Catholic priest
about creating a business model responsive to the needs of working people and
communities. The cooperative has created 30,000 jobs in 67 enterprises, each
owned by its employees in the economically depressed Basque region of Spain.
Mondragon is a worker-owned industrial cooperative – not a family farmer-owned
cooperative. In spite of that difference, it offers some useful insights that
can be applied by family farmers and ranchers.
Cooperatives can be effective instruments for social change if they have
a clear sense of purpose and remain true to it. Mondragon began with a
commitment to building a worker-owned and -controlled company dedicated to the
well being of its members and their communities.
A new farm cooperative with a commitment to strengthening owner-operated family
farms and ranches and their communities could be a powerful force in creating a
better rural future.
Cooperatives can be engines of development. The Mondragon cooperative
works as an umbrella. It spurs formation of new member cooperatives – each with
no more than 500 employees – and services them.
A regional family farm and ranch cooperative could spur formation of smaller
cooperatives, each focused on helping family farmers and ranchers secure a
particular market. Equally important, it could assist new family farmers and
ranchers by linking them to markets, capital, and technical assistance.
Cooperatives can be most effective when they bring together an array of
services. Mondragon has its own bank that lends to the cooperative
enterprises under its umbrella, runs its own research and development arm, and
operates its own university for training cooperative managers. A regional
cooperative could be a one-stop shop for family farmers and ranchers to enter
premium markets.
The Need for a New Cooperative
Great opportunity for family farms and ranchers waits in high-value markets –
but that opportunity is at risk of being lost.
The nationwide Hartman Survey of American consumers found that about half would
pay a premium for food produced in ways they support – particularly food
produced in an environmentally responsible manner.
About two-thirds of participants in a Better Homes and Gardens consumer panel
said they would pay a premium for pork raised on a small farm, on an
environmentally responsible farm, or humanely. Others will pay a premium for
antibiotic-free meat or products with unique flavor or other special attributes.
But family farmers and ranchers who want to enter special markets with premium
prices – sometimes called niche markets – often find it very difficult. They
frequently must develop their own marketing channels from scratch and must also
develop new production methods. Those just starting have to line up capital.
It’s much harder than walking into the office of a corporate integrator and
signing up as a contract producer.
A cooperative could make it more feasible for family farmers to enter high-value
markets and, in the process, capture this opportunity for them. If family farms
and ranches don’t capture it quickly, it may be lost to corporate farms. They
have taken note of organic, natural, and other niche markets and responded.
Corporate farms are attractive suppliers to food companies wanting to put
natural and other specialty products on supermarket shelves. It is cheaper and
easier to go to one large corporate supplier for raw farm products than to find
hundreds or thousands of small farmers who can certify that they meet quality
and production standards and provide a steady and adequate supply when it’s
needed.
But a cooperative that markets for many family farmers and ranchers would have
those advantages and more. Like a large corporate farm, a family farm
cooperative could offer food companies a guaranteed and steady supply of farm
products that meet niche market standards in one stop.
That would make it far easier for food companies to develop products to serve
niche markets, encourage more of them to enter, and in turn create more
opportunities for family farmers to sell in these markets.
Securing raw farm products from a family farm cooperative would give food
companies an added advantage with consumers who want to vote for what they
believe in with their food dollars. They could say their food was raised on a
small family farm – something many consumers would like to support.
For example, there could be a significant market advantage for a cooperative
selling high-quality meat, certified as raised on small family farms and ranches
without hormones or feed antibiotics, and meeting objective standards for
stewardship of the environment and humane treatment of animals.
The cooperative with the ability to provide a steady supply of products offering
that market edge would be able to secure a significant premium for its members.
What Services Should Such a Cooperative Provide?
A cooperative could help family farmers and ranches secure premium markets
without raising large amounts of capital to build or purchase processing
facilities or even a brand name. The key would be offering a core set of
strategic services.
First, the cooperative would need to provide marketing and collective
bargaining services. It would be the vehicle for family farmers and ranchers
to collectively market products that meet specific standards – for taste,
quality, and for the way they were produced. By pooling a steady supply of
production from many farmers, the cooperative could gain the economic power to
secure markets and negotiate good prices.
The cooperative could go the full step of selling its own branded products to
retail stores. Or, it could take the less expensive and less risky approach of
selling livestock or crops that meet exacting standards to food companies
already familiar with branding products and getting them on supermarket shelves.
Cooperative members would receive a premium because their production methods
increase the price the food company could charge for its product.
Second, the cooperative could provide technical assistance on niche market
production. Niche markets offer premiums because producing for them requires
specialized knowledge and, generally, more intensive management. It is not
practical for every family farmer to search out that knowledge and develop those
skills from scratch. A cooperative could help by providing information and
technical assistance.
Third, the cooperative could help link new producers to capital. For
example, it might link beginning farmers who want to produce for a niche market
with supportive land owners willing to rent to them. It might link beginning
farmers and ranchers with socially motivated investors who would buy breeding
stock and lease it to them in return for a percentage of production. Or it might
find socially motivated investors willing to make loans to beginning farmers in
return for a federal income tax break.
Finally, the cooperative could have market research staff to search out new
premium markets family farmers and ranchers could serve. As potential new
markets are identified, the cooperative could organize interested producers and
work with them to develop and capture that market. For example, a cooperative
with roots as a livestock cooperative might also discover an opportunity in
organic medicinal herbs and help a new group of family farmers capture that
market.
A New Model for the 21st Century
The opportunities for family farmers and ranchers in producing undifferentiated
commodities are declining. But new opportunities exist in niche markets. To
capture them, family farmer and ranchers need a new type of cooperative.
1 The discussion of Mondragon draws on the book, From Mondragon to
America: Experiments in Community and Economic Development, by Greg MacLeod.
For more information on the Mondragon cooperative, visit their website at
http://www.modragon.mcc.es .
Contact: Chuck Hassebrook,
chuckh@cfra.org or 402.846.5428, ext. 28
for more information. This is the sixth article in our series on
Strategies to Revitalize Rural
America.
|
|
|
USDA Publishes Final
Crop Insurance Policy Rule
After much citizen persuasion, the new crop
insurance regulations treat sustainable and organic agriculture more fairly.
On June 25, USDA published its final rule for the Common Crop Insurance
Policy (Basic Provisions). These are the general rules and terms applicable to
most crop insurance policies issued under the federal crop insurance program
administered by USDA’s Risk Management Agency.
This final rule was necessitated because of changes to the crop insurance
program in the Agricultural Risk Protection Act of 2000 adopted by Congress.
That law contained many favorable provisions for farmers employing sustainable
and organic practices and systems. The Center and many others fought hard for
these provisions, which will remove the bias against sustainable and organic
practices in crop insurance policies and practice.
Or so we thought. Frankly, the proposed rule released by USDA in the fall of
2002 was dreadful in how it proposed implementing the law concerning sustainable
and organic practices. The law, in our view, clearly stated that such practices
were to be considered “good farming practices” for crop insurance purposes,
thereby removing any bias against such practices in crop insurance policies and
payments under them. USDA’s proposed rule, however, would have perpetuated the
bias.
The Center and many others protested this interpretation, and we are happy to
report USDA heard us. The final rule contains specific language that
conventional, sustainable, and organic practices should be generally treated
equally for crop insurance purposes, and that “good farming practices” include
any practice that is generally recognized as “agronomically sound.”
Though not a perfectly clear statement on the scientific soundness of
sustainable and organic practices, and more cumbersome than need be, the final
rule places sustainable and organic practices on equal crop insurance footing
with conventional practices.
Crop insurance providers will still have the final say into what constitutes
“good farming practices,” but the final rule also adds an appeal process for any
farmer who receives a negative ruling. Upon a farmer appeal, the Federal Crop
Insurance Corporation (FCIC) will make a determination and will seek input from
agricultural experts, including academic and public agency employees involved
with sustainable and organic agriculture.
These victories again demonstrate that committed people can influence their
government if they get involved and are prepared to participate. We must also
remember that winning provisions in law is only half the battle.
Through the rulemaking process, federal agencies are afforded the opportunity to
re-do what Congress made. As many farm bill provisions await USDA rules and
regulations, we must remember these lessons.
Contact: Jon Bailey,
jonb@cfra.org
for more information.
|
|
Value Chains versus
Supply Chains
Developing value chains with others in the food
system could help family farms and ranches become stronger businesses. We share
The Corner Post’s viewpoint.
A June 23 column of Corner Post, Farm and Countryside Commentary by Elbert
van Donkersgoed of Ontario, Canada compared value chains to supply chains. “On
the surface a value chain may look like a supply chain, but its structural
framework – and who benefits – differs profoundly.”
Van Donkersgoed cited two examples of supply chain developments: McDonald’s
restrictions on its supplier’s use of antibiotics in livestock and Maple Leaf
Pork, Ontario’s largest processor of pork, requirement that their contract
producers remove all meat and bone meal from rations for their brand-approved
hogs.
These “bold” moves were designed to protect market share, and the sole winner is
“the firm with enough clout to manage the supply chain.” The column goes on to
explain that value chains work differently.
“First, a value chain is a real partnership between all players in the chain,
from farmers and their input providers to wholesalers and the firm dealing
directly with consumers. The ideal value chain will even have consumers as
partners. Real partnership means all participants benefit and all have a say in
developments.
Second, a value chain is built on trust. Value chains are as strong as the
confidence that the contributors have in each other. They too need to be bold,
but their emphasis is on collaboration, building relationships and creating
social supports.
Third, value chains – add value. They are not caught in the cheap food syndrome,
the race to the bottom, the chase for the lowest cost of production globally.
They apply market knowledge to develop storied food that brings consumers back,
again and again.”
Elbert van Donkersgoed is Strategic Policy Advisor
of the Christian Farmers Federation of Ontario, Canada. The Corner Post is
archived at
www.christianfarmers.org/commentary/Corner-Post.htm. To be added to the
electronic distribution list of Corner Post send an email to
evd@christianfarmers.org with
“subscribe” as the message. Reprinted with the author’s permission.
|
|
Profitable Practices Series: Neighbors and Friends Work Together
Informal equipment and cost-sharing strategies
form the basis for a successful partnership that benefits all members in the
North Star Neighbors cooperative.
North Star Neighbors is a marketing cooperative organized in the late 1990’s
and formally incorporated in 2000. The cooperative is made up of seven family
farms in Nance, Boone, and Greeley counties in Nebraska.
North Star offers a large selection of beef, pork, and poultry products. Some
products are designated “natural”; the animals are never given antibiotics or
growth implants. “Premium natural” indicates that, in addition, none of the feed
grain is treated with chemical pesticides, herbicides, or synthetic fertilizers.
The cooperative markets in three main venues: Farmers Markets in Lincoln and
Grand Island, their direct-marketing customer base, and retail grocery outlets
in Omaha, Lincoln, and Grand Island.
Summer 2000 sales averaged about $500 per week. Sales in 2001 averaged over
$3,000 per week – a six-fold increase. In fact, North Star product sales have
increased so rapidly that the group is looking for new members.
Sharing Expense and Success
Equipment and cost-sharing arrangements between members of the cooperative have
been two of the keys leading to the success of North Star Neighbors. Members
agree that their greatest challenge has been raising enough money to get North
Star Neighbors off the ground.
In the beginning, members loaned individually-owned equipment to the
cooperative. One couple purchased chicken processing equipment; another family
purchased the first van used at the farmers markets; and a third family bought
the coolers and tables.
As sales increase, income will be used to reimburse members for that equipment,
and title will pass to the cooperative. Members don’t charge for the use of that
equipment, but all maintenance and repair expenses are reimbursed by the
cooperative. Big-ticket items have required “advances” by members.
A Financial Shot-in-the-Arm
North Star Neighbors, in partnership with the Center and two other small
meat-marketing cooperatives, received a grant from the State of Nebraska’s
Agricultural Opportunities and Value-Added Partnership Program in January 2001.
North Star’s share of the grant went toward equipment, marketing, and legal
expenses.
Like any group, members sometimes have different points of view. If faced with a
problem, members “talk it out.” Discussion, compromise, and consensus have
solved all problems to date. Most of the credit for the smooth ride goes to the
wives, who “have a real knack at maintaining good relationships within the
group,” according to Board president Jim Knopik.
Jim says members deal with each other as “neighbors,” and live by the Golden
Rule. All members realize that everyone must share in both the risks and the
benefits of marketing through the cooperative. No one benefits at the expense of
another member. Working together for the common good is the foundation for this
resourceful and promising business venture.
Contact: Mike Heavrin for more information on
cooperatives, mikeh@cfra.org or
402.846.5428, ext. 15. This is the 12th installment from Profitable Practices
and Strategies for a New Generation, available on the web at
www.farmprofitability.org for for
$5.00 from the Center for Rural Affairs office.
|
