In these times, I believe we are witnessing a number of concurrent trends that may eventually have a profound effect on our lives – depending on what action we take. I see three developments:

• The decline of the family farm
• Concern that industrial farming is depleting the land
• The growth in demand for organic foods

Let me briefly provide more detail:
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, from 1992 to 1997 there was a steady decline in the number of farms in Wisconsin, from over 46,000 in 1992 to under 40,000 in 1997. This decline is consistent with trends in Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota and Iowa as well. One of the primary reasons for this decline is the low price farmers get for the fruits of their labor. This results in low farm income and little incentive for individuals to take up agriculture as a career. This decline in the number of farms is accompanied by a trend in the growth of large, corporate farms.

A second trend, industrial farming, is characterized by high mechanization and dependence on chemicals and fertilizers to increase crop yields. Genetically engineered crops, about which much has been written, is the next major trend in industrial farming. Many of these practices have lead to an over-abundance of agricultural commodities – which has, in part, led to low prices. Some of these practices have also left the land depleted of natural fertility.

A final trend is the increase in demand for natural and organic foods. This segment of consumer buying has continued to grow at phenomenal rates – over 20% per year for the last several years. Growth in demand may currently exceed growth in supply. At North Farm, organic butter has been difficult to supply for more than a year as our primary suppliers have only been able to meet a small part of our current demand.

I believe it is time for a new phase in cooperative development – dedicated to helping small farmers convert from traditional farming methods to organic. Organic farming, and the premiums paid to farmers, could do much to enhance farm income and provide greater incentives for farmers to remain in business. Organic farming techniques are environmentally sound, and the demand for organic foods is well documented. So, the crux of the problem is – why haven’t farmers shifted to organic production already? 

There are two barriers:
One is the loss of income in the transition phase to organic certification. Organic techniques can result in a loss of yield per acre, a critical factor in farm profitability. Organic certification requires three years of organic farming techniques – and there are few specialized markets for products grown during this organic transition phase. Many farmers simply cannot afford this loss of income and have been unable to make the transition to organic.

The second barrier is more ironic – limited organic processing capability. There simply aren’t enough mills and dairies in the upper Midwest to produce organic foods from organic crops. Most organic processing facilities are in California and other regions where organic production is well established. This has been our experience at North Farm related to shortages of organic butter. Farmers produce enough organic milk: however CROPP (the Coulee Region Organic Produce Pool, commercially known as Organic Valley) does not have the necessary production facilities to meet the demand for organic butter.

To connect these trends, I see the need for two concurrent developments. First, there is a need for the development of cooperatives geared toward the production of organic foods. Farmers lack the infrastructure to produce consumer goods from their organic production. Organic crops cannot be economically transported to the existing processing facilities in other regions. There is need for local production.

The second need is “brand development” for transitional organic products. If transitional organic production can be awarded even a small premium, then more farmers may make the decision to produce organically. Creating a consumer brand advertised as “transitional organic” could yield an increase in demand for these types of products. I have discussed this with members of North Farm; they have indicated an interest in buying transitional organic products.

My hope is the activists in our cooperative community can pursue these issues. For our part, North Farm does represent a significant resource in the distribution of natural and organic products to consumers. Not only do we possess our own distribution infrastructure, but we also have relationships with other cooperative distributors around the country. We can help bring products to market.

Individuals at the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives are working on ways to develop programs to add value to production agriculture. Their primary goal is to help retain more of the revenue from agriculture in the local economy. Organic farmers are seeking markets for their products; they have devoted their operations to the production of organic crops, but ironically struggle to find profitable ways to bring their products to market.

First hand, I know there is significant demand for organic products. I would love to see North Farm facilitate the growth of local, cooperative-based, organic agricultural production.

If you have any interest in these issues, please feel free to contact me directly (wlathrop@northfarm.com). I have a strong interest in helping to facilitate this movement.

...Back to Top...

Frequently Asked Questions
By Evan McAteer, Member Services Representative

I want to add an item to my order. Is this possible? You may add or make changes to your order if Member Services is still able to access your order. To do this you should call with any changes before 4 p.m. on the day that your order is due at North Farm. After that time the orders are transferred to the Warehouse for printing the next day’s picks.

How can I find Hain products when the Index no longer lists vendors as a category? Just think opposite—What type of Hain product are you looking for—Crackers? Oil? Cereal? Look up that category. This applies only to the January/February Price List. The Index in the March/April Price List will return to the old format due to popular request.

 ...Back to Top...

Board Recommends Bylaw Changes
By William O’Donnell, Board President

At our November Board meetings the North Farm Board of Directors concluded a review of our cooperative’s bylaws. This review was sparked by a motion presented at our May, 1999 General Membership Meeting (GMM) to change the way the Board is composed, specifically to change to all at-large representatives. Even though this motion was defeated, it also brought out the fact that we have not set procedures on how to amend the bylaws. At this time the North Farm Board recommends the following changes and will submit these for a membership vote this Spring.

GMM Meeting Date
The first change is a simple one to Article III, Section C. The second sentence currently reads: “The General Membership Meeting will be held annually in April and will include chapter meetings”. The Board is recommending that this be changed to read: “The Membership Meeting will fall within the first 6 months of each fiscal year on a date set by the Cooperative’s Board of Directors.” Reasoning: The GMM has been held in May for some time now. Making this change will allow us the flexibility to hold the meeting at the best possible time as decided by the Board.

Bylaw Amending Procedure
The second change sets the procedure for amending the bylaws. This may be one of the most important actions that our membership may take. Our bylaws are our working rules and the ability to amend them should be well defined and set a high standard. Our current bylaws read in Article I, Section E: “Amendments: The membership of the cooperative may amend these bylaws and may establish procedural changes through the mechanism of passing bylaws.” The recommended change would read: “Amendments. The Board of Directors, or 5 percent of the North Farm Cooperative voting membership by petition to the Board, may propose an amendment to these bylaws to be considered at the next annual or at a special meeting called for the purpose. The proposed amendments must be announced in the notice of the meeting. Two-thirds of the valid votes cast, including mail ballots, being cast in favor of the proposed amendment in the presence of a quorum shall make the amendment immediately effective”. Reasoning: The change clarifies our procedures (currently there are none) and at the same time sets a high standard of two-thirds affirmation to make a change to the bylaws.

Board Representation
The third change is more complicated. At the present time our Board is made of 10 member-representatives: 6 are elected by chapter voting, 2 are at-large and 2 are staff representatives. This configuration has been in existence for 5 years now. Prior to that we had a large Board, at times numbering over 20 members. The Board made the last change to create a more efficient, less expensive Board.

We made the change to our current model by simply lowering the number of chapters, which the Board is given authority to do within our current bylaws. At that time the staff representation was not lowered in proportion to the rest of the membership: prior to this change they made up 10% of the Board; currently they make up 20% of the Board. Another issue, and this is the one discussed at our last GMM, was that our current model only allows for 2 at-large representatives and only 2 representatives from any one chapter. This has limited our ability to find members to run for the Board if more than 2 are from any one chapter.

It is the Board’s recommendation that the size of the Board be lowered to 9. The way that we would accomplish this is by:

1. lowering the number of chapters from 6 to 4
2. increasing the number of at-large positions elected by the whole membership from 2 to 4
3. lowering the number of staff representatives from 2 to 1.

The Board has authority to do 1 and 2, but a membership vote must be taken for 3. The chapters can presently be changed by the Board and would become: 1) the Michigan Chapter made up only of members residing in Michigan; 2) the Wisconsin Chapter, again encompassing Wisconsin only; 3) the Big West Chapter made up of the states of Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming; and 4) the Midwest Chapter covering the states of Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and Illinois. The Board decided on this breakdown in an attempt to evenly distribute our members by number of members and amount of sales per chapter.

...Back to Top...

Upcoming North Farm Board of Directors Meetings:

• March 24/25, 2000
• May 12/13, 2000