USDA / Rural Development November/December 2012

Rural

COOPERATIVES COOPERATIVES

Preserving

Common

Ground

Page 18
2 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

Commentary

‘How Can a Bunch of Farmers Do It?’

By Dan Campbell, Editor

he question above is what some bankers

asked when approached by Virginia poultry

growers about financing their takeover of a

major turkey processing plant in the

Shenandoah Valley seven years ago. After all,

one of the nation’s largest poultry corporations had not been

able to make a go of the operation, the bankers reasoned, so

how could a bunch of farmers possibly make the operation

fly?

Farmers may know how to grow verdant fields of grain and

raise livestock, but when it comes

to further processing and

marketing, those tasks are best left

to “real business people,” some

have long reasoned. Never mind

that farming today is a highly

complex business undertaking,

some still feel a farmer’s place is

on the tractor, not in the board

room.

But the Virginia Poultry

Growers Cooperative (VPGC)

was not about to take “no” for an

answer. There was no other

processing plant they could

economically ship their flocks to,

so they had to find a way to keep

the plant open or face possible ruin. Fortunately, the farmers

were able to tap other sources of financing, including USDA

Rural Development (through its Rural Economic

Development Loan and Grant program), the Farm Credit

System (itself a producer-owned cooperative) and some other

funding sources.

There are other examples in the turkey industry — in

Iowa, Michigan and South Dakota — where growers assumed

ownership of processing plants and are successfully operating

these businesses. These examples show that growers can

guide their own destiny through expanded entrepreneurial

ownership, rather than becoming “piece-wage” growers.

As you can read in this issue (“Flying High,” page 4) seven

years after its founding, the co-op is thriving and still playing

a vital role in the economy of the Shenandoah Valley region.

As co-op member David Hughes said when leading a tour of

his farm: “This co-op is a true, grassroots success story.”

Indeed, there is no more dramatic example of the value of

cooperatives than in a situation such as this, involving a

processing plant or other critical facility which, if shuttered,

would likely also put producers out of business and hurt the

rural economy.

There are many valuable lessons in this story, including:

• Farmers can better control their own fate when they own

the processing and marketing infrastructure that is critical to

their survival. There is no guarantee of success with a co-op,

but at least farmers themselves will be making the key

decisions about whether to make

investments or changes needed to

keep the plant in business.

• Farmers don’t run the

processing plant or make day-today decisions. They employ

skilled management to do that

for them. The board establishes

policy, directions and goals, then

holds management accountable

for performance.

• Use of outside (non-farmer)

directors on a board of directors

is always a source of debate in

co-op circles, but VPGC is a

proponent of the practice, based

on its experience with three

outside directors and the wider industry, financial and

regulatory experience they bring to board meetings.

• While co-ops are sometimes criticized for being too slow

to adapt to change, VPGC managers, who have worked

under both co-op and corporate ownership, stress that red

tape has been cut under the co-op, so decisions can be made

much more quickly.

• In developing a new production contract, farmers never

overlooked the need to ensure that the interests of the co-op

were given as much emphasis as were farmer needs.

How can a bunch of farmers do it? If you are ever in the

vicinity of Hinton, Va., check out the VPGC plant or its feed

mill or rail facility and see for yourself. Need further proof?

Visit the American Crystal Sugar Company processing plant

T

Some still feel

a farmer’s place

is on the tractor, not

in the board room.

continued on page 36
Features

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 3

Volume 79, Number 6

November/December 2012

Rural Cooperatives (1088-8845) is

published bimonthly by USDA Rural

Development, 1400 Independence Ave.

SW, Stop 0705, Washington, DC. 20250-

0705.

The Secretary of Agriculture has

determined that publication of this

periodical is necessary in the transaction

of public business required by law of the

Department. Periodicals postage paid at

Washington, DC. and additional mailing

offices. Copies may be obtained from the

Superintendent of Documents,

Government Printing Office, Washington,

DC, 20402, at $23 per year. Postmaster:

send address change to: Rural

Cooperatives, USDA/RBS, Stop 3255,

Wash., DC 20250-3255.

Mention in Rural Cooperatives of

company and brand names does not

signify endorsement over other

companies’ products and services.

Unless otherwise stated, articles in this

publication are not copyrighted and may

be reprinted freely. Any opinions expressed are those of the writers, and do not

necessarily reflect those of USDA or its

employees.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of

race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex, marital

status, familial status, parental status,

religion, sexual orientation, genetic

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or

because all or part of an individual’s

income is derived from any public

assistance program. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons

with disabilities who require alternative

means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape,

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET

Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write

to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (800)

795-3272 (voice), or (202) 720-6382 (TDD).

USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.

Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture

Dallas Tonsager, Under Secretary,

USDA Rural Development

Dan Campbell, Editor

Stephen Hall / KOTA, Design

Have a cooperative-related question?

Call (202) 720-6483, or email:

coopinfo@wdc.usda.gov

This publication was printed with vegetable oil-based ink.

p. 18

04 Flying High

Key to success for turkey producers is their willingness to put co-op first

By Dan Campbell

10 Minnesota home to largest number of ag co-ops;

Iowa tops for business volume

By E. Eldon Eversull

18 Preserving Common Ground

Co-ops play key role in preserving shared grazing and fishing resources

Bruce J. Reynolds and Alan D. Borst

24 The Many Faces of Cooperatives

By Charles Ling

30 Mine tailing sites tested for growing miscanthus grass for biofuel

Departments

02 COMMENTARY

12 UTILITY CO -OP CONNECTION

14 CO -OPS & COMMUNITY

16 LEGAL CORNER

31 NEWSLINE

37 2012 ARTICLE INDEX

p. 18

ON THE COVER: The “Tragedy of the Commons” is a classic study

describing what happened to English pasturelands, such as this, used as

a common resource. The result was often over-grazing and depletion of

the resource. Many farmers and fishermen are using cooperatives to

help preserve resources for future generations.

p. 40
By Dan Campbell, Editor

he success of few

agricultural sectors and

marketing days are as

closely linked as are the

turkey industry and

Thanksgiving. But the turkeys being

raised on David Hughes’ farm in

Virginia’s beautiful Shenandoah Valley

aren’t destined for the holiday platter.

Rather, they will be processed into a

variety of turkey cuts, marketed

nationally and internationally to

further-processors. These food industry

customers may buy the co-op’s breast

meat and turn it into a deli item, or buy

drumsticks for ground turkey or scores

of other food products.

So, if your drive to Granny’s house

for Thanksgiving dinner involved a pit

stop for a sliced turkey and cheese

sandwich, there’s a chance your lunch

may have originated on the farm of

Hughes or one of the other growers in

his co-op.

Hughes says he has much to be

grateful for this Thanksgiving. But

seven years ago, he was staring at

possible financial ruin when the word

came down that the poultry company

he shipped to was shutting down its

processing plant in Hinton, Va., leaving

him with few other marketing options

for his birds.

4 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

Key to success for turkey producers is their willingness to put co-op first

Flying High

TA

A tunnel ventilation system — employing seven, 52-inch fans — can completely exchange the air

inside one of David Hughes’ (left) poultry houses in only about a minute. Keeping his birds cool and comfortable is

the best way to ensure they thrive. USDA Photos by Dan Campbell
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 5

Stunning news

When he first heard the news in April

2004, that the Pilgrim’s Pride turkey

processing plant would be closed in just

five months, Hughes wondered if it

would be the end of his Rivermont

Farm. There was only one other turkey

processing plant in the area, but after it

signed up a dozen or so of the 160

Pilgrim’s growers, it had all the turkey

supply it needed. That left Hughes and

the vast majority of other growers out in

the cold, without a home for their birds.

“I didn’t know what to think at first; it

was like, well, what can I do?” Hughes

recalls of that fateful day. Chickens were

the only other “crop” his four poultry

houses could be efficiently used to raise.

But new feeding, watering and

ventilation systems would have been

needed.

“The conversion cost was

astronomical,” he says. “People also

suggested raising goats or calves, even

catfish or tilapia; but I never considered

any of those as serious options.”

Although they were well aware that

the plant had been losing money for

some time, news of the looming

shutdown was also a shock for plant

management.

“Plant managers were called into a

room and told that the plant would

continue processing through September

(when the last of the birds it was under

contract for would be harvested) and

would then be closed,” recalls Charlotte

Waller, director of quality assurance and

technical services at the plant. “It

wouldn’t have surprised me to hear that

the plant was being sold, but it was a

shock to be told it was being closed.”

Community leaders were also

stunned. In 2004, a Virginia Tech study

estimated that the turkey plant and all

the farming and related businesses it

supports were generating about $200

million in annual economic activity in

the region. Even with the rapid growth

of James Madison University in nearby

Harrisonburg and many other non-farm

businesses and institutions, agriculture is

still a cornerstone of the Shenandoah

Valley economy. To lose such a critical

Nearly two years ago, work began on a new grower contract

that would replace the contracts first signed when the Virginia

Poultry Growers Cooperative (VPGC) was formed. The new

contract, developed by the co-op’s grower council, board of

directors and management team, was completed last summer.

“More than half the committee members were growers,” says

Mickey Baugher, VPGC’s complex manager. Growers also

completed surveys to see what changes they hoped to see in the

new contract. Members were given regular updates through the

co-op newsletter and other means to keep them apprised of the

progress.

“In the end, it didn’t change a whole lot,” Baugher says.

“Growers wanted to be paid more if they did better. Our contract

is probably still a little friendlier [for producers on the lower end

of productivity] than you would find in non-co-ops. It’s based on

production cost. We have a prime cost, based on feed,

medication and poult costs. If a grower does better than average,

they make more money. But we put in a nice floor price, so you

can only go down so far.”

“I worked for integrators most of my career, and the big

difference here is that growers not only participated in writing the

contract, they all got copies before it was done and were able to

comment,” says co-op President Jimmy Mason. “That just doesn’t

happen in the integrator world. It’s the first time I’ve ever seen

that done.”

The vast majority of growers on the committee did a good job

wearing their co-op hat vs. their grower hat during the talks,

Mason says.

“Different segments of growers wanted to see different things

in the contract, sometimes unrealistic but other times very

realistic things,” says John King, vice president for sales and

marketing. “No one got everything they wanted, but the

collaborative process used was very educational for all.”

“The old contract was pretty cut and dried,” Mason says. “If

you had a disaster on the farm that wasn’t your fault, you still

didn’t get paid very much.” Now pay will be based on a four-flock

average – an idea put forward by a grower.

“It was important that everyone got to hear each other’s

concerns, and it was important that it was the growers

themselves who said ‘no’ to a lot of proposals,” says Charlotte

Waller, the co-op’s director of quality assurance and technical

services. “Management’s role was to be a facilitator and provide

data. Growers had to ultimately decide what made sense and

what didn’t, and what the impact was on their co-op.” ■

New contract was

a cooperative effort
6 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

part of the ag industry would have dealt

a serious blow to the economy.

Co-op saves the day

But the plant didn’t close and the

Shenandoah Valley did not lose one of

its most important agricultural

industries. It was saved when turkey

farmers formed the Virginia Poultry

Growers Cooperative (VPGC), forged

in a matter of just five months from the

initial growers’ meeting to the day

when co-op leaders signed the purchase

agreement.

The effort involved strong support

from local, state and federal

government leaders, with crucial

financial help coming from USDA

Rural Development’s Rural Economic

Development Loan and Grant

(REDLG) program. The plant began

processing under co-op ownership on

Nov. 29, 2004.

Seven years later, Hughes says he

still feels a real sense of pride of

ownership every time he drives into

town and sees the plant humming like a

well-oiled machine. Hughes was raised

on a beef, dairy and pork farm, but

decided to try raising poultry after he

graduated from Virginia Tech. He says

he finds being a poultry grower more

enjoyable. He also belongs to farm

supply, fuel and credit co-ops. “So I was

very familiar with the concept of a coop and how profits flow back to

growers instead of to a CEO and

distant shareholders.”

Hughes has served two terms on the

co-op’s grower council, and “was there

for the birthing process” of VPGC. “I

helped write the code of best practices,”

he says, which addresses topics such as

humane treatment of the birds. “Being

on the council helps producers learn

how the business works, and learn more

about how we can work together to be

successful.”

Late last summer, the co-op

completed overhauling the grower

contract (see sidebar, page 5) for the

first time since VPGC was formed. “I’m

very satisfied with the new contract —

it treats everyone fairly,” Hughes says.

“As grower-owners, we’re no longer

looking at the business just as a matter

of ‘what’s in it for me,’ but rather

‘what’s in it for the co-op.’ We want this

co-op to succeed.”

Controlling their own destiny

The ability to better control their

own destiny through ownership of

processing and marketing of their crops

and livestock has always been the

primary motivator for farmers to form

co-ops. It was no different for the

Virginia Poultry Growers Cooperative,

although the urgency to form it in such

a short timeline, and for such a large

enterprise, is certainly remarkable.

“It was a risky venture,” says

Hughes. Growers had to invest equity

in the co-op, based on the size of their

operations, and many outside resources

also had to be tapped, he recalls. “We

eventually made it, but there were some

sleepless nights, not knowing if I would

have to put the farm on the market or

not.”

“All the growers were under a lot of

pressure at that time — they initially

didn’t know whether there would be a

co-op to keep the plant running,” says

VPGC President Jimmy Mason.

At the time of the announced shut

down, there were 169 turkey producers

supplying the plant, most of them with

farms within a 65-mile radius of the

plant. “When the co-op started, we had

146 producers, but have since grown to

157,” says Mason.

“If we hadn’t got the REDLG loan

from USDA, we wouldn’t be here,”

Mason says. “We didn’t have the

capital, and banks would not go with us.

Pilgrim’s had been losing millions of

dollars, so banks would say: how in the

world are these farmers going to make a

go of it when Pilgrim’s couldn’t do it?”

The co-op is still repaying the

REDLG, but otherwise it has been able

to operate using only member equity.

“Right now, we are our own bank; we’re

not financing with anybody,” Mason

says, adding that “the co-op is always

evaluating market conditions and capital

requirements.”

More focused industry niche

The co-op processes about 250

million pounds of turkey annually, up

from 180 million pounds when it

started in 2004. One of the main ways

VPGC has been able to turn the plant

into a money maker is by focusing on a

narrower niche of the industry, Mason

explains.

Co-op producers are growing bigger

By focusing on tom turkeys weighing about 40 pounds for the further-processing food trade,

the co-op has found a successful market niche.

“We were emphasizing our commitment to the local community

long before the ‘local movement’ really caught on.”
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 7

If you’re in the turkey business, you

are also in the corn business, whether

you grow corn or not. Corn-based feed is

the “fuel” that poultry farms run on, and

the Virginia Poultry Growers Cooperative

(VPGC) goes through about 125,000

bushels of it each week. It mills corn into

turkey feed at its feed mill in Broadway,

Va., where it is mixed with soybean meal,

vitamins, fat, trace minerals and protein

supplements, in varying formulas.

The vast majority of that grain is

delivered via the Norfolk-Southern

Railroad.

Until a few years ago, the co-op

received grain deliveries via trucks from

another local integrator. The co-op

management did not feel comfortable

with this arrangement long term, says

Mickey Bauger, complex manager for

VPGC.

In 2007-08, the co-op spent $10 million

to build a grain-unloading and storage

facility at Linville, Va., about 8 miles from

its feed mill. The facility has enough rail

siding to handle a 125-car train. It can

unload 75 cars in 16 hours. The 80-acre

site has space to add a feed mill or for

other expansions in the future, Mason

notes.

The co-op needs a delivery from a 75-

car unit train (or 300,000 bushels of grain)

about every eight days, so it also built

two, 300,000-bushel grain silos at the

site. Using shuttle cars, grain is then

transported to the co-op feed mill and to

other grain customers, which pay the coop a handling fee.

The Broadway mill makes about 5,000

to 6,000 tons of turkey feed per week. The co-op had

looked at replacing the facility, but the cost would have

been $15 million to $20 million. So it instead spent $3

million to modernize the existing feed mill, Baugher says.

“Besides getting our corn a little cheaper with the 75-

car discount rate, it also better secures our corn supply,”

Baugher says. “Railroads, good as they are, are not as

reliable as trucks. With a truck, if you tell them you need

them here Wednesday morning at 9 a.m., they will be

here. With rail, your delivery might show up Monday, or it

might show up Friday. There are just so many more

variables. So the extra storage gives us a buffer, because

if we run out of corn, there is no way to feed our

turkeys.” ■

— Dan Campbell

Co-op rail facility boosts feed security

The co-op’s rail facility at Linville, Va., has enough rail siding to store a 125-car

train. It can unload 75 cars in 16 hours.
8 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

birds these days, thanks to a combination of improved genetics, carefully

formulated feeds and more comfortable

housing conditions for the birds, which

thrive best when not under stress.

Only large toms, weighing about 40

pounds, are grown and sent to the

plant. That has helped increase tonnage

and to produce the type of turkey cuts

desired by further-processor customers,

which are its sole market focus now.

Birds of that size are too large for the

retail trade, which usually wants smaller

hens.

The narrower product mix allows the

plant to operate with a smaller work

force of about 500 (down from as many

as 900 before the purchase). Because

the co-op is not geared toward the

holiday trade, it maintains a consistent

volume flow through the plant all year.

“Pilgrim’s really was primarily a

chicken company, and in this day it is

very difficult to be both a chicken and a

turkey company,” Mason says.

Citing high-debt level and soaring

feed prices, Pilgrim’s Pride filed for

bankruptcy in 2007 and was purchased

in 2009 by JBS S.A., the Brazilianowned food company that is the largest

chicken producer in the United States.

Now known as Pilgrim’s Corp., it continues to operate as a subsidiary of JBS.

Does being a co-op help with

marketing?

“I think it does,” says John King,

vice president for sales and distribution.

“We do get questions about the makeup of the company, and we stress that

we are a true co-op, with profits that

flow back to our growers.” Customers

seem to like that concept, he says.

Supplying only further processors, not

the retail trade, means VPGC is not in

competition with its customers,

something they appreciate, he adds.

The Pilgrim’s Pride operation

included a turkey hatchery, but it was

sold separately to AgForte. “That

meant the turkey breeders had to follow

the hatchery. Even though they work

for AgForte, most of the eggs they

produce still come back to the co-op,”

Mason says, which helps the co-op with

its “large toms-focused” business model.

Flexible business model

Having worked under both corporate

and co-op ownership, the VPGC

management team offers valuable

perspective into the differences. A

common criticism of co-ops is that they

are slow to react to market changes, but

the co-op’s management says its

experience has been quite the opposite.

“The levels of authority above

management have decreased a lot,”

Waller says.

Management follows policy and

directions as set by the board, but has

leeway to make the day-to-day decisions

in how to best run the operation.

“When a customer needs something,

we can usually give him an answer in

five minutes,” Mason says. “Some of

our corporate competitors might need

five days to get that same answer.

There’s just a lot less bureaucracy with

this co-op — our corporate office is

right here.”

The co-op’s nine-member board

includes six growers and three “outside”

members — one each representing the

financial sector, poultry buyers and the

county board of supervisors. “They

bring so much expertise to our board

room and lend a whole new

perspective,” Mason says.

The grower board members

represent broad diversity — both by

production niche and geography —

King says. Directors are elected to

three-year terms, with a slate of four

candidates nominated for every two

seats on the board.

Board President Steve Bazzle is

involved with member relations,

fielding dozens of calls from members

with questions during a typical week.

“Members are welcome to call

management directly, but most tend to

go through the chairman,” Baugher

says.

“Our member-growers feel the

freedom to call and discuss any topic —

and they do,” says Bazzle. “Some call

to discuss the financial performance of

the cooperative, while others will call to

discuss the economic impact of recent

changes on their farms, or even issues

with their current flock.” Other

producers call just to express

appreciation for the cooperative or to

compliment a particular employee, he

adds. “The important take away is that

the growers have the opportunity to

“I tell everyone I can about the co-op, because

it is a true, grassroots success story.”

About 5,000 to 6,000 tons of turkey feed are produced every week at the co-op’s feed mill in

Broadway, Va. The co-op spent $3 million to modernize the facility rather than up to $20 million to

replace it.
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 9

communicate and engage in the

functioning of the cooperative.”

Plant improvements, audits

Plant improvements in recent years

include a $2.5-million project to reduce

levels of phosphorous and nitrogen in

wastewater discharges. Continual

investments are made to improve food

safety throughout the plant. “We are

staying on the cutting edge of

technology,” King says.

“Pilgrim’s left us a pretty good

facility,” Baugher adds, noting that the

prior owner made some major

improvements to the facility before the

sale. “Based on audits and feedback

from customers, we feel our facility is in

the top 10 percent of plants nationally.”

Plant audits (or inspections) are an

increasing part of life for meat

processors today. USDA has four fulltime inspectors stationed at the plant,

and many customers, animal welfare

organizations and others want to do

their own plant audits. “We average six

or seven audits each year, and have

achieved 95 percent or better scores on

all of them,” Waller says.

“We are very proud this year that we

passed an audit conducted by Silliker

for BRC (British Retail Consortium)

certification,” Waller says. BRC is part

of the Global Food Safety Initiative,

and passing the audit means the co-op

adheres to International standards, she

adds.

Even more audits are now conducted

in the field, King says. Animal welfare

audits look at the conditions the birds

are raised in on the farm.

VPGC has a certified organic

program, and although still a small part

of the business, it is growing. All of the

organic growers are in Pennsylvania,

where they must pass an audit and be

certified by Pennsylvania Certified

Organic.

VPGC also has a much larger

antibiotic-free program. “If a bird in

this program gets sick, it is treated, but

it is then out of the program,” says

King. “The co-op absorbs the cost of

moving these birds into our

conventional program.”

Baugher says plant jobs pay better

than most people think. “Base wage for

a processing line worker is $11.15 per

hour, with the chance to earn

premiums,” he notes. For example,

workers who handle live turkeys make

$15 per hour. More highly skilled

workers, such as those who maintain

plant machinery and refrigeration

systems, earn from $16-$22 per hour.

“We also offer a 401-K plan, paid

vacations and a very competitive health

insurance plan,” Baugher notes.

The co-op spent $100,000 the past

several years on scholarships for grower

and employee family members. It

supports United Way, Relay for Life

and other local charities.

“We were emphasizing our

commitment to the local community

long before the ‘local movement’ really

caught on,” King says. “We try to buy

as much as we can locally, and strive to

do business with minority-owned

businesses when we can.”

It all starts on the farm

All the progress that has been made

in the plant and with the co-op

marketing efforts won’t add up to much

if the members don’t produce quality

turkey. As with any agricultural co-op,

success starts on the farm.

Back on Hughes’ farm, he says there

has been a big push to improve the

comfort of the flocks. “When we

started, it was like the dark ages

compared to now.”

The biggest improvement in the

poultry houses is the installation of

tunnel ventilation. Hughes points to

seven, 52-inch fans at one end of the

poultry house that can completely

exchange the air inside in only about a

minute. This system replaced a single

row of smaller fans hanging from the

center of the roof.

“The only birds that benefitted from

that were the ones right in front of a

fan.” Hughes plans to improve cooling

further this year with the installation of

foggers which emit a high-pressure mist

in the houses.

Keeping the birds cool in summer is

a much bigger challenge than keeping

them warm in winter, he says. But great

progress has been made there, too. In

the past, area heaters were placed in

the center of the houses with fans

blowing both ways, but that wasn’t very

effective or energy efficient. “Now we

have space heaters around the houses

that keep them uniformly warm in

winter.”

Litter quality has also been

improved, and the feeds are continually

rebalanced based on the age of the

birds.

“Animal welfare is huge with us —

you can tell just by looking that these

birds are comfortable,” he says.

Modern poultry production is highly

automated, so much so that Hughes

needs only two helpers to produce

108,000 pounds of turkey per year.

While feed and watering systems are

automated, drive belts can break or

other things can go wrong, causing a

feed line to stop or watering troughs to

overflow.

Frequent walk-throughs of each

house are thus a must, he says, because

if the birds aren’t comfortable, the

growers won’t be for long either.

“The formation of the co-op was a

god-send for growers,” Hughes says,

looking back at the past seven years. “I

tell everyone I can about the co-op,

because it is a true, grassroots success

story. Many others would like to do

something similar.” ■

“When a customer needs

something, we can usually

give him an answer

in five minutes.”

Co-op managers such as Mickey Baugher,

left, say they have greater flexibility now to

run the operation than under corporate

ownership.
Figure 1 — Top 10 States’ Number of Cooperatives, 2011

Iowa, 97

Texas, 187

Wisconsin, 115

North Dakota, 159

Illinois, 118

Minnesota, 203

California, 120

10 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

By E. Eldon Eversull, Ag Economist

Cooperative Programs, USDA Rural

Development

Editor’s note: For USDA’s annual look at

the top 100 ag co-ops, see the Sept.-Oct.

2012 issue, available online at:

www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_RurCoop

Mag.html.

innesota continues to

be home to more

agricultural

cooperatives than any

other state, a

distinction it has held since 1900

(according to the first USDA survey of

cooperatives in 1913). In 2011,

Minnesota had 203 ag cooperatives

headquartered within its borders,

ranging in size from 14 cooperatives on

the top 100 ag co-op list to much

smaller local farm supply and grain coops. Texas ranks second among the

states, with 187 cooperatives, followed

by North Dakota with 159 farm co-ops.

(figure 1).

There are about 2,200 U.S.

agricultural cooperatives in USDA’s data

base.

The top 10 states for number of

agricultural cooperatives has remained

the same since 2007, with the exception

of the No. 4 and No. 5 slots, where

California and Illinois have twice traded

places. California, with 120 ag co-ops,

Minnesota home to largest number of

ag co-ops; Iowa tops for business volume

M

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota

Texas Texas Texas Texas Texas

North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota

California California Illinois Illinois California

Illinois Illinois California California Illinois

Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin Wisconsin

Iowa Iowa Iowa Iowa Iowa

Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas

South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota

Tennessee Tennessee Tennessee Tennessee Tennessee

Table 1—Top 10 States by Number of Cooperatives, 2011-2007

Figure 2—Top 10 States’ Cooperative Gross Business Volume, 2011 (billion $)

Kansas, 91

South Dakota, 73

Tennessee, 64

Iowa, $22.4

Texas, $7.3

Minnesota, $22.0

Illinois, $15.5

Wisconsin, $12.0

Nebraska, $11.3

California, $11.1

Missouri, $9.6

North Dakota, $8.8

Kansas, $7.9
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 11

2011 2010 2009 2008 2007

Iowa Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota Minnesota

Minnesota Iowa Iowa Iowa Iowa

Illinois Illinois Illinois Wisconsin Wisconsin

Wisconsin California Wisconsin Illinois Illinois

Nebraska Wisconsin California California California

California Nebraska Nebraska Missouri Missouri

Missouri Missouri Missouri Nebraska Nebraska

North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota North Dakota

Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas Kansas

Texas South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota South Dakota

Table 2—Top 10 States by Cooperative Business Volume, 2011-2007

is currently ranked 4 while Illinois, with

118 ag co-ops, is now No. 5. (table 1).

Iowa No. 1 for

business volume

Iowa leads all states with $22.4

billion in gross business volume

generated by ag co-ops (this includes

sales to other cooperatives for resale)

and also has 14 cooperatives in USDA’s

top 100 ag co-op list. Minnesota, which

had ranked No. 1 the four previous

years, was a close second in 2011 (figure

2) with $22 billion in gross business

volume.

The top 10 states account for about

60 percent of sales by agricultural

cooperatives.

There is a $15 billion difference

between the No. 1 and No. 10 ranked

states on the business volume list.

Numerous position changes occurred

on the co-op business volume list

between 2007 and 2011, with only

North Dakota holding steady at No. 8

and Kansas at No. 9 (table 2).

Minnesota had been ranked No. 1 the

four previous years. Texas has moved

steadily up the list, from No. 13 in 2007

to No. 10 in 2011.

Gross business volume of the top five

co-op states is shown in figure 3, with

all five having record volume in 2011.

Iowa and Minnesota had almost equal

sales volume in 2010, while Iowa holds

a slight volume advantage in 2011.

Illinois trailed Wisconsin in 2007 and

2008 but pulled ahead in 2009 and

widened the gap in 2010 and 2011. ■

25

20

15

10

5

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Minnesota

Illinois

Wisconsin

Nebraska

Iowa

Billion dollars

Figure 3—Top 51 Cooperative State Gross Business Volume, 2007 – 2011

1

Top 5 based on 2011 cooperative gross business volume
By Anne Mayberry,

USDA Rural Utilities Programs

Editor’s note: Energy efficiency will be

among the many agricultural and rural

development topics addressed during

USDA’s 2013 Ag Outlook Forum, Feb.

21-22, in Washington, D.C. For details,

visit: www.usda.gov/oce/forum/.

an energy efficiency

programs reduce

consumers’ electric

bills, curb billion-dollar

investments in power

generation for rural utilities and boost

the economies of rural communities?

Rural electric cooperatives nationwide

say that these programs have been

doing that for years. They’re also

paying close attention to a proposed

rule that would increase investment in

energy efficiency programs.

“Investment in energy efficiency can

save money, curb emissions and help

boost rural economies,” says Dallas

Tonsager, the U.S. Department of

Agriculture’s under secretary for Rural

Development. “Our rural electric coops are leading the way in

implementing energy efficiency

programs and have accumulated

extensive data that demonstrate the

benefits of these programs.”

Most co-ops promote

energy efficiency

Currently, 96 percent of rural

electric cooperative utilities have some

form of energy efficiency program and

70 percent offer financial incentives to

promote energy efficiency, according to

the National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. Many of USDA’s

Rural Utilities Service (RUS) borrowers

— predominantly rural electric

cooperatives — have a history of

offering energy efficiency programs to

reduce costs for their business, farm and

residential members, helping them

better manage power use during periods

of peak demand while also offering new

efficiencies for utilities.

Rural communities may see an

increase in energy efficiency programs

because of a proposed regulation to

help fund affordable, energy efficient

improvements for rural business and

residential consumers. The proposed

rule would allow the Rural Utilities

Service of USDA Rural Development

to finance energy efficiency

improvements that are aligned with

USDA’s Rural Economic Development

Energy Efficiency Effort (REDEE).

This effort is designed to create jobs in

the energy efficiency market by

building on rural electric cooperatives’

programs that help consumers —

including homeowners, farmers and

ranchers and other business owners —

improve their energy efficiency.

The proposed rule stems from the

2008 Farm Bill, which identified energy

efficiency as an eligible purpose for

RUS funding. As a result, RUS electric

borrowers may be able to use their

loans to fund energy efficiency projects

for their business and residential

consumers.

Designed to leverage and expand

energy efficiency programs for existing

RUS borrowers, the proposed rule

includes a re-lending program that

enables rural utilities and cooperatives

to lend to homeowners or businesses.

Eligible projects include efforts that

improve consumer energy efficiency,

modifications that reduce electricity

consumption, that increase use of

renewable fuels, or that increase the

efficiency of electric generation,

transmission and distribution.

Improving home energy efficiency is

expected to boost energy savings and

expand job opportunities in rural areas.

“Rural electric cooperatives have

been promoting energy efficiency

programs for eons,” notes Aaron

Ridenour, manager of marketing and

economic development at Prairie Power

Inc., a rural electric generation and

transmission cooperative in Illinois. “A

meeting of our distribution co-op

members’ marketing staffs led to our

focus on how we could help consumers

address energy costs.”

Energy walls show the way

As a result of that meeting, the

cooperatives built two “energy walls,”

complete with doors, windows, ducts,

light fixtures, various types of insulation

and other features designed to show

how becoming more energy efficient is

a wise investment.

“The energy wall travels to annual

meetings and actually shows consumers

real life examples of how co-ops can

help save energy,” Ridenour explains.

“The energy walls have been to 22

different venues, including annual

meetings, community colleges, expos,

state fairs, farm progress shows and

schools. The display has even been to

12 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

C

Utility Co-op Connection

The First Fuel: co-ops view energy

efficiency, conservation as priorities
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 13

the U.S. Senate to help explain the

value of energy efficiency to members

of Congress and their staffs.”

Over 912,000 people have been

exposed to the energy wall this year, he

says. “During the past 2 1⁄2 years, about

2.7 million consumers have seen the

wall.”

One of the more popular features of

the energy wall demonstrates the value

of cellulose, or foam insulation,

Ridenour says. While air blows through

fiberglass, foam fills cracks and helps

save heating and cooling dollars.

“The value of the energy wall is that

once people see the difference, they get

it. The response to the wall has been

terrific.” Ridenour says that his

statewide co-op conducts training,

including how to audit for energy

efficiency, what’s needed to apply for a

rebate and certification of the results.

The expense of energy

improvements often prevents

homeowners and businesses from

investing in cost-effective, energy

efficiency upgrades, Tonsager says.

“This rule will help make those costs

more affordable through increased

availability of financing.”

The Eastern Illini Electric

Cooperative’s energy efficiency program

provides loans for up to $10,000 for the

purchase of a geothermal power unit.

The units can help customers reduce

heating and cooling costs by about

$1,200 annually. The loan cost is

recovered in nine years.

Why co-ops want

to lower demand

Why would a rural electric

cooperative promote energy efficiency

if it results in reduced demand, which

results in reduced revenue? In South

Carolina, once energy efficiency

programs are fully operational, they are

expected to help rural electric

cooperatives avoid having to build or

invest in costly new generation

facilities. The potential result is a

savings of $4 billion during a 10-year

period — that’s one-half the cost of a

new nuclear unit.

Mike Couick, president and CEO of

the Electric Cooperatives of South

Carolina, credits members as a driving

force in South Carolina rural electric

utility cooperatives’ investment in

energy efficiency programs.

Energy efficiency programs can help

rural electric utilities avoid buying or

building additional electricity, which

can be expensive. Ridenour explains

that if the average home uses 1,000

kilowatts (kw) per month, or 12,000 kw

per year, the energy efficiency projected

from this program would be enough to

provide electricity to another 125

houses each year. “That’s the

significance of this program,” he says.

Energy efficiency is typically defined

as the use of technology to reduce

energy use, while energy conservation

refers to changes in behavior to reduce

energy consumption. At the national

level, an energy efficiency program can

help remove one of the barriers to

efforts to reduce energy use and waste

in rural areas. Tonsager is optimistic

that the new source of funding can help

rural consumers reduce energy costs

and boost rural economies through

increased purchase of goods and

services to implement energy efficiency.

“For example,” Tonsager notes,

“projects to conduct home energy

audits and finance improvements

necessary to reduce energy use would

be eligible for financing, as would

demand side management projects that

are designed to more efficiently control

the use of electricity during peak

periods.

Great River Energy, a generation

and transmission cooperative utility that

provides electricity to its 28 distribution

member cooperatives in Minnesota and

Wisconsin, included energy efficiency

in a plan filed with the Minnesota

Public Utilities Commission four years

ago. The plan identifies the need to

meet members’ increasing demand for

electricity with aggressive conservation

and efficiency. It says reducing future

electricity demand needs to be their

“first fuel.”

Increasing electric grid reliability

while reducing greenhouse gas

emissions and lowering energy costs for

consumers are benefits of energy

efficiency programs. Ridenour puts it

another way: “The cheapest kilowatt is

the one that you don’t purchase or

build. So we work hard to save it.” ■

The co-op built two “energy walls” — with doors, windows, ducts, light fixtures and various types of insulation — to show consumers

how energy efficiency is a wise investment. Photo courtesy Prairie Power Inc.
14 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

Co-ops & Community

Land O’ Lakes’ nutrition program

helps thousands in Pakistan

By Sarah Ali, Ag Economist

Cooperative Programs

USDA Rural Development

Editor’s note: The “Co-ops &

Community” page spotlights co-op efforts

that fulfill the mission of “commitment to

community.” Regardless of whether these

efforts make a co-op’s home town a better

place to live and work, or are helping people

on the other side of the world, co-ops are

reaching out to make a difference. If you

know of a co-op, a co-op member or co-op

employee whose efforts deserve to be

recognized on this page, please contact:

dan.campbell@wdc.usda.gov. Reprint

articles from co-op publications are welcome.

and O’Lakes — the

nation’s third largest

cooperative, with

annual sales of $13

billion — has made

international development and aid to

struggling farmers one of its top

corporate responsibilities. Farmers in

developing countries face many critical

problems, such as a scarce amount of

arable land (compounded by rising

populations in many areas) and lack of

access to sources of credit.

Other challenges include lack of

access to fertilizer, crop protectants and

other farm inputs; inexperience in

marketing; and the need for general

agricultural skills training, among other

barriers to production efficiency and

market entry.

Most of the co-op’s international aid

efforts have focused on areas where

these problems are most dire: SubSaharan Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia. The emphasis of Land O’

Lakes’ aid initiatives has been on:

agricultural productivity and

competitiveness; business and

cooperative development; improved

food systems and food safety; food

security; and nutrition and health.

Subsistence farmers often need

agricultural training or extension-like

services to help them adopt improved

agricultural technologies and practices.

The services that Land O’Lakes

provides to subsistence farmers are one

of the many ways that these farmers are

learning about new farming techniques

and gaining a greater understanding of

how to increase their agricultural

productivity. When their production

rises, they are more likely to have a

surplus (beyond their own family’s

needs) that they can market, leading to

increased incomes and a better quality

of life.

Pakistan floods

create critical needs

In March 2010, Land O’Lakes

L

Students in classrooms such as this are benefiting from the Pakistan School Nutrition Program, a

three-year effort centered in the Sindh province. The Jacobabad area of the province suffered

severely in the floods of 2010. Photo courtesy Land O’ Lakes
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 15

initiated a new food security program:

the Pakistan School Nutrition Program.

This three-year program is centered in

the Sindh province, district of

Jacobabad, and has been pursued in

conjunction with the USDA’s Food for

Education Program.

Jacobabad suffered severely in the

floods in 2010, which left many families

displaced. According to the nation’s

Office for the Coordination of

Humanitarian Affairs, 70 percent of

district villages in Jacobabad were

flooded and 95 percent of the

population was affected. Nearly 9,300

livestock were lost due to floods. Many

children were not able to attend school

due to infrastructure damage.

Under the Pakistan School Nutrition

Program, female students and teachers

take home a ration of soybean oil each

month if they meet the program’s

attendance requirements. This gives

them an incentive to stay in school,

rather than working at home or outside

the home as domestic servants. The

soybean oil is also given to pregnant

and lactating mothers who opt to

participate in a health program.

Land O’Lakes first started school

nutrition programs in Pakistan in 2002

and it has implemented similar

programs in Bangladesh, Colombia,

Honduras, Indonesia, Malawi, the

Philippines, Uzbekistan and Vietnam.

The Pakistan School Nutrition

Program aims to assist about 30,000

students, 700 teachers and 2,500 pregnant women; 141,000 family members will

benefit from the distribution of cooking

oil.

In the short run, food assistance

programs help alleviate some of the

uncertainty and improve societal

welfare. In the long run, the

governments of countries such as

Pakistan may need to develop more

programs and cooperation with local

residents to tackle the problems. Land

O’Lakes is committed to leveraging its

expertise in agriculture and investing

time and money in programs such as

The Pakistan School Nutrition

Program to improve the quality of life

for people in developing nations.

Land O’Lakes International Development recently

launched a new USDA-funded Food for Progress

Program, as well as a “Buy Malawi” public awareness

campaign designed to boost domestic demand for locally

grown and processed farm products. Representatives

from Malawi’s Ministry of Industry and Trade, the U.S.

Embassy to Malawi and Land O’Lakes International

Development all spoke at the launch event in Blantyre,

Malawi.

The nearly four-year program will work to improve

agricultural productivity in the Nkhotakota and Salima

districts by expanding irrigation opportunities and taking

private sector-led approaches to revitalizing how rice,

cassava and small livestock are farmed. Valued at $18

million, the Food for Progress program will train 51,000

farmers, particularly female farmers, on best production

practices, improved farming technologies and the

importance of maintaining a diverse diet.

“More Malawian investments need to be locally

owned, and more local entrepreneurs need to be at the

helm of businesses that employ locals as they prepare

for growth,” says Nebert Nyiranga, principal secretary

for Malawi’s Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Building on Land O’Lakes’ agribusiness cooperative

heritage, more than 200 farmer associations will be

trained in International Development's AgPro

methodology through the program. AgPro is a training

tool that strengthens the efficacy, as well as the

organizational and financial management, of farmerowned producer groups and cooperatives. It was

developed by Land O’Lakes under the United States

Agency for International Development (USAID)-funded

Cooperative Development Program.

Strengthening farmer groups, associations and

cooperatives will enhance commercialization capacities

and market linkages, giving farmers greater negotiating

power. The program will also engage financial service

providers in increasing access to insurance, credit and

other financial services for smallholder farmers.

As insufficient domestic demand for local products

remains a key constraint to agricultural production, the

event in Blantyre also launched a Buy Malawi campaign.

Employing TV, radio and billboard ads, in-store events

and social marketing tools and tactics, the campaign will

be followed by three other campaigns that specifically

target rice, cassava and small livestock value chains.

On Aug. 5, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham

Clinton announced a $46 million expansion of U.S.

government investment in Malawi during a visit to the

Lumbadzi Milk Bulking Group, one of 23 dairy producer

groups assisted.

USDA program helps expand ag production in Malawi
By Alan Borst, Ag Economist

Cooperative Programs

USDA Rural Development

hen the CapperVolstead Act was passed

in 1922, agricultural

producers were facing

severe economic

hardship. They were small and

numerous relative to the few large firms

to which they had to sell their

commodities. Farmers also produced

relatively uniform commodities, and

were rarely involved in the value-added

processing that many farmer co-ops are

engaged in today. A market power

imbalance thus prevailed in which

farmers had little market leverage.

Stronger buyers used their power to pit

farmers against each other in a “race to

the bottom.”

Capper-Volstead was passed to

increase agricultural producer market

power by enabling farmers to engage in

“collectively processing, preparing for

market, handling and marketing” their

products.

Capper-Volstead has a long history

of being the target of legal and political

challenges that have clarified its

boundaries. This dynamic process has

continued into recent times, with new

questions rising and old questions

evolving. One of the most salient recent

legal questions has been the question of

whether a cooperative can lawfully limit

its membership’s production.

The term “supply controls” in the

context of U.S. agriculture has usually

been associated with a history of

mandatory or voluntary federal farm

programs involving allotments, setasides, planting restrictions, diversions,

buy-outs or quotas. These programs

were controversial and are mostly gone,

but the term is also being applied to

cooperative efforts to limit member

production.

Cooperatives in the egg, potato,

mushroom and dairy sectors have all

been subject to recent antitrust suits

that have challenged their supply

management activities. Antitrust

plaintiffs have argued that these efforts

to limit production are not “processing,

preparing for market, handling, and

marketing” activities protected under

Capper-Volstead.

Cooperatives have responded by

saying that such activities — which

enable them to function as a unified

business in pricing and marketing —

necessarily provide for the ability to

limit member production in order to

influence pricing. Thus, the cooperative

has the same right as a corporation to

engage in advance planning and

agreement among its membership for

the amount of product that it will

produce and market.

A fundamental part of a cooperative’s

mission is securing better prices for its

membership. An individual corporation

can adjust its production to serve its

economic interests, and cooperatives

have argued for the same right. The

case has also been made by some that

because members in a cooperative can

work together on price with CapperVolstead protection that they should

also be allowed to restrict production.

Some cooperative advocates have

argued that “preparing for market”

inherently includes making decisions

about what quantity to produce.

Supporters have made the argument

that cooperative efforts to limit member

production to a level that serves

member’s economic interest is more

economically efficient and less wasteful

than these other activities. The

argument is that if Capper-Volstead

protection is lost, it would limit

cooperatives’ ability to avoid

economically inefficient and wasteful

production decisions.

Cooperatives and their membership

face considerable uncertainty at the

present time as to whether or not the

protection of Capper-Volstead extends

to their supply management programs.

In the 90-year history of CapperVolstead, there has been no definitive

answer to this.

In USDA’s 2002 publication,

“Antitrust Status of Farmer

Cooperatives: The Story of the CapperVolstead Act” (Cooperative Information

Report 59), Donald Frederick, then an

attorney with USDA’s Cooperative

Programs, examined some of the same

arguments that are being made today

about what the legislation allows. The

entire publication is posted online at:

www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/cir59.pdf.

For a hard copy, send e-mail to:

coopinfo@wdc.usda.gov, or call: (202)

720-8381. The remainder of this article

is excerpted from Frederick’s report.

“One way to raise prices in the

marketplace is to reduce available

supply. Certainly a cooperative entity,

whether selling raw product it controls

or processed products made from raw

commodities provided by its members,

has the right to resell its inventory

whenever it chooses. But it is less clear

whether producer members can,

16 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

Legal Corner

Capper-Volstead protection

and co-op supply management

W
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 17

through the mechanism of a producer

association, agree among themselves to

withhold product from the market to

force buyers to pay a higher price for

their products.

“One administrative opinion

interpreting the Fisherman’ s Collective

Marketing Act suggests cooperative

members may limit production. The

Washington Crab Association was

organized to negotiate higher prices

and fairer terms of trade for its

members from the processors who

purchased their catches. When a

stalemate developed, the fishermen “sat

on the beach” for nearly a month,

refusing to fish.

“FTC Chairman Paul Rand Dixon

found nothing wrong with the

cooperative members limiting

production, either by refusing to fish at

all or by sending only a few boats out

each day on a rotating basis to supply

those processors willing to pay the

association’s requested price. He wrote:

‘To be sure, this is a “limitation on

production” and, except for the

exemption afforded... by the (FCMA)...

would be a per se violation of the

Sherman Act and the Federal Trade

Commission Act... Thus, so long as the

members of a cooperative are acting

pursuant to an agreement voluntarily

entered into among themselves, they

are to be considered a single entity for

antitrust purposes, the same as an

ordinary business corporation with a

number of divisions. There is no

obligation on the single corporation to

produce at capacity; it may produce any

volume that it likes and allocate

production among its several divisions

in such proportions as it sees fit... We

see nothing unlawful in their limiting

production by agreement among

themselves, or in their “boat rotation.’

“Another case involved a dairy

producers’ association that sponsored a

two-week milk withholding action to

attempt to raise the price of milk for its

members. The 8th Circuit Court of

Appeals determined that since no

member was coerced into participating

and the action was not intended to

eliminate competition, it fell within the

scope of conduct protected by the

Capper-Volstead Act.

“In another action against crab

fishermen, the U.S. Department of

Justice said that commercial crab

harvesters who simply agree among

themselves to refrain from fishing while

negotiating prices with buyers were

engaged in a conspiracy to restrain

trade in violation of Section 1 of

Sherman. However, such conduct was

protected by the Fisherman”s

Collective Marketing Act if the

commercial crab fishermen formed a

fishermen’s marketing association

before agreeing to limit production.

“Using the rationale of Chairman

Dixon, a value-added cooperative can,

just like its non-cooperative

competitors, limit the amount of

product it offers for sale.” ■

President Warren G.

Harding signs the

Capper-Volstead Act,

which provides

farmer cooperatives

with limited

exemptions from antitrust laws in

marketing their

products.
Bruce J. Reynolds and Alan D. Borst

Cooperative Programs

USDA Rural Development

reserving common-use

agricultural resources,

such as grazing lands

and fisheries, for

current and future

generations is an intractable challenge,

often referred to as “the tragedy of the

commons” (see sidebar, page 23, for

background). Despite the pessimism

implied by this term, local stakeholders

can successfully coordinate their

individual interests in ways that

improve the quality and economic value

of a community resource.

Group action for resource

preservation often takes the form of a

cooperative or a nonprofit association

that usually has a cooperative form of

governance. Cooperatives manage the

shared use of common-pool resources

for the benefit of their members’ own

agricultural and fishing enterprises.

Controlled group use of a resource is

combined with sharing operating costs.

Cooperatives can even manage

controlled use of a resource, along with

other joint business activities, such as

marketing and purchasing.

Democratic governance is the key

attribute for successful management of

common-pool resources. Grazing

associations and fishery cooperatives are

two general types of local democratic

governance that are having a positive

impact.

Livestock grazing presents the

classic, and perennial, challenge for

sustaining a common-pool resource.

Cooperatives have been involved with

grazing for many decades and continue

to be a key institutional stakeholder in

conserving America’s grasslands.

Fishing cooperatives are an example

of local governance of common-pool

resources that operate within relatively

complex and changing regulatory

institutions. This article provides a

18 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

P

Preserving

Common Ground

Co-ops play key role in preserving

shared grazing and fishing resources

Fishing cooperatives are helping avoid resource depletion caused by

over-fishing. A fishing boat trawls off the coast of Alaska (above).
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 19

summary of the role of grazing and

fishing cooperatives.

Grazing cooperatives

Public interest in preventing overgrazing of America’s vast grasslands

became a federal government policy

with the issuance in 1897 of the USDA

Forest Service (FS) directives for

grazing permits. The Taylor Grazing

Act of 1934 provided a grazing permit

system administered by the U.S. Bureau

of Land Management (BLM).

An ancillary objective of these

regulations was to reserve public

grasslands for controlled use by local

ranchers. During the late 19th and early

20th centuries, large cattle companies

grazed vast herds across multi-state

regions, crowding-out local ranchers

and resulting in over-grazing (for more

background, see: www.fs.fed.us/

rangelands/uses/allowgrazing.shtml).

Several western states also issued

regulations for their grasslands and

supported the organization and

incorporation of grazing cooperatives

during the 1930s and 1940s. Some of

the western grazing areas can

accommodate only very few, often

relatively large, ranchers. So, they

operate as direct recipients of permits

from the FS and BLM.

Today, 60 grazing associations are FS

permit holders, many of them

incorporated as cooperatives. They

receive an allotment of permits which

are allocated among their members.

The associations coordinate both public

land use and access to other lands,

either through leases, grazing

agreements or, in some cases,

cooperatives purchase pastureland.

Grazing cooperatives typically have

between 30 to 100 members. They not

only implement controlled grazing but

also oversee grassland maintenance

projects. These co-ops share the costs

of range riders, who move herds in a

rotational grazing system, and for the

provision of water and minerals. The
cooperatives are also a conduit for

implementing technical information

and recommendations from USDA’s

Natural Resources Conservation

Service (NRCS).

There are variations in how grazing

cooperatives operate based on

institutions, markets and grassland

conditions in different localities. Many

co-ops operate controlled grazing in

areas under conservation

easements held by various

entities, such as NRCS, or in

land trusts owned by

environmental groups, such as

The Nature Conservancy.

Grazing cooperatives also

provide members with

organizational capacity to

negotiate long-term leases on

private lands. Some

cooperatives have purchased

grasslands that member

ranchers could not afford on

their own. An example is the

Chimney Canyon Grazing

Association in Iliff, Colo. An

article in the Denver Post about

the association was reprinted

in Rural Cooperatives,

March/April 2001 issue (see

magazine archives web page

at: www.rurdev.usda.gov).

The association purchased

37,000 acres in Logan and

Weld counties in 1965. It

provides opportunities for

many of its members to

expand their ranching

enterprises, not only by having

access to more grassland but

also by sharing operating costs,

such as herd grazing

management expenses.

Some of the association’s 37

members grow crops on their

individually owned land and rely on the

association manager to tend to their

livestock in the grasslands. About five

years ago, the association paid off its

loan and took out another

loan for buying an additional

6,000 acres.

Governing the ocean commons

Over-fishing of the oceans will

eventually lead to a global “tragedy of

the commons” (see page 23), some

resource scientists predict. Traditional

management of fisheries has been

described as a derby, or Olympic-like

event, characterized by short seasons

and extreme competition for fish. This

often results in low profits and harvests

that exceed sustainable levels.

Individual operators face an incentive

to harvest as many fish as quickly as

possible in order to preempt the

activities of other operators. Such

fisheries are inherently inefficient and

wasteful, as fishing industry participants

over-invest in harvesting and processing

capacity in an effort to maximize

resource capture. The result is a

“fractionalized fishing derby.”

Catch share

“Catch share” is a general term used

in fisheries management strategies that

dedicate a secure share of fish to

individual fishermen, cooperatives or

fishing communities for their exclusive

use.

At the state level, the Wisconsin

Great Lakes Individual

Transferrable Quota Program

was the first catch-share

program, started in 1971 and is

still operating. The first

program of this type in U.S.

federal fisheries was an

individual fishing quota

program for the Mid-Atlantic

Surf Clam and Ocean Quahog

Fishery, implemented in 1990.

Currently, six of the Regional

Fishery Management Councils

have adopted 15 catch-share

programs across the country.

Individual fishing quotas

(IFQs) are one kind of catch

share, a means by which

governments may regulate

fishing. The regulator sets a

species-specific total allowable

catch (TAC), typically by

weight and for a given time

period. A dedicated portion of

the TAC, called quota shares,

is allocated to individuals.

Quotas can typically be

bought, sold and leased, a

feature called transferability.

Concerns about distributional

impacts led to a moratorium

on moving other fisheries into

IFQ programs that lasted from

1996 to 2004.

Harvesting cooperatives

Harvesting cooperatives are another

type of catch share in which groups of

organized fishery participants jointly

manage secure and exclusive access to

fishery resources. In return for this

privilege, cooperatives are accountable

for operating a sustainable fishery

Some cooperatives, such as the Chimney Canyon Grazing

Association in Iliff, Colo. (above), have purchased grasslands that

member ranchers could not afford on their own. Photo courtesy

Denver Post

20 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 21

within the scientifically determined

catch limit or dedicated area.

Harvesting cooperatives form when

the government directly allocates shares

to a group of fishermen or when

individual fishermen pool existing

individually allocated shares.

Cooperative members usually share a

common feature, such as vessel type,

location, community affiliation or target

species.

Harvesting cooperatives provide a

second type of catch share program.

The first of these — the Yaquina Bay

Roe-herring Cooperative Program —

was organized at the state level in

Oregon in 1989 and is still operating,

according to Donald Leal, research

director for the Property and

Environment Research Center. Fishermen, who had been operating in a

limited-entry fishery for several years,

in 1989 concluded a private harvest

agreement and formed the cooperative

Yaquina Herring.

As a result, the “catch race” among

members has stopped, their season has

been lengthened and members are able

to more optimally time their fishing.

There have also been significant cost

savings, with less race pressure to

upgrade vessels and equipment and less

need for gear and labor.

The first harvesting cooperatives to

be organized as Federal Catch Share

programs were the Pacific Whiting

Conservation Cooperative in 1997 and

the Bering Sea Pollock Cooperative in

1998. These cooperatives were

organized under the North Pacific

Fishery Management Council.

In May 2010, New England’s

groundfish fleet shifted from days-atsea controls to sector management —

an output-control regulatory system

that allocates a portion of the TAC to

harvest cooperatives. The Northeast

Council has enabled groups of

fishermen to apply for allocations of

catch (based on history) and to develop

their own plans for managing those

catches within those allocations.

Individual quotas

vs. harvest co-ops

The Catch Share Design Center of

the Environmental Defense Fund

compared the outcomes associated with

IFQ programs with those of harvesting

cooperatives (also see: http://

blogs.edf.org/edfish/files/2010/07/CSC

_Cooperative-Introduction_July2010.pdf). This report identifies these

advantages of harvest cooperatives:

• Coordinating efforts and sharing

information. Many cooperatives

Common resources, such as pastureland and fisheries, can be sustainably managed by local stakeholders using cooperative governance.
22 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

effectively coordinate participants’

efforts, including managing the

timing, location and amount of each

harvester’s catch. Prior to

implementing a cooperative, the

Alaska offshore pollock fishery

experienced intense harvesting that

led to a glut of product. Since the

cooperative formation in 1999, the

season has slowed and participants

have increased the amount of

product recovered from landings by

over 50 percent, reducing biological

waste and increasing fishermen

revenues.

• Improve sustainability.

Cooperatives often coordinate the

effort of participants to ensure the

sustainable use of fish stocks, reduce

waste and improve fishery research

and data. Both the Pacific Whiting

Conservation Cooperative and the

Pollock Conservation Cooperative

pool real-time bycatch data through a

third-party vendor, Sea State Inc.,

which in turn uses this information

to advise vessel captains where

bycatch hot spots are likely to occur,

so that they can avoid these areas.

Cooperatives in the Northeast

Multispecies Sector Management

Program can choose to pool quota of

depleted stock.

• Economic viability of fishing

communities. By receiving a secure

share of fish, a community may be

able to enhance its economic

viability. The Community

Development Quota (CDQ) program

of western Alaska allocates a portion

of the catch limit to community

cooperatives to promote jobs and

economic development. The Central

Alaska Rockfish pilot program

divides catcher vessels and the

catcher-processor vessels into

separate cooperatives, with

restrictions on trading.

• Cooperative governance. Well-run

cooperatives can perform many

functions of traditional government

and ultimately reduce management

costs. The Northeast Multispecies

Sector Management Program

requires each sector to coordinate its

own monitoring and catch reporting.

This requires increased effort by the

cooperatives, but has reduced the

government’s role in administering

the fishery.

The economic successes of quotabased harvest cooperatives highlight the

potential for more extensive forms of

collective behavior afforded by the

Fishermen’s Collective Marketing Act

(FCMA) of 1934. The lack of controls

on entry and harvests in the mostly

open access fisheries has limited the full

potential of the FCMA. With more

fisheries now being managed by limited

access and quotas, fishery cooperatives

will be better able to reduce fishing

costs and increase the value of their

catch. They can also minimize the

transaction costs of negotiating,

monitoring and enforcing contracts

among themselves.

Co-ops help find

common ground

Cooperatives are involved in

managing the use of many types of

agricultural resources, in addition to

grazing and fish harvesting. The

challenges of sustaining common

agricultural resources require users to

work together and share information.

The capacity to resolve member

differences and implement unified

planning is one of the strengths of

democratically controlled cooperatives

that favor a long-term view in

preserving common resources. ■

1997 — Pacific Whiting Conservation Cooperative (cooperative)

1998 — Bering Sea & Aleutian Islands American Fisheries Act Pollock

Cooperatives (cooperative)

2001 — North Pacific Scallop Cooperative (cooperative)

2005 — Bering Sea & Aleutian Islands Crab Rationalization Program (IFQ and

cooperative)

2007 — Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Pilot Program

2008 — Groundfish (Non-Pollock) Cooperatives (cooperative)

2010 — Northeast Multispecies Sectors (cooperative)

2011 — Pacific Groundfish Trawl Rationalization Program (IFQ and

cooperative)

2011 — Central Gulf of Alaska Rockfish Program (cooperative)

Federal Catch Share programs involving harvest cooperatives
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 23

Protecting agricultural resources from over–use is a

perennial challenge. While there is general agreement on

the benefits of controlled use of common-pool

agricultural resources, there are conflicting ideas about

best practices and the theories behind them. One of the

contending ideas is to have stakeholders organize

cooperatives or similar types of associations to

democratically control utilization of local resources.

At least one barrier to wider application of

cooperatives for resource preservation is a general lack

of understanding of how local users can organize and

govern the use of resources. Cooperative education to

remedy this weakness has taken a back seat in

academic circles after several decades of contentious

debate, starting in the late 1960s, between advocates of

privatizing public resources vs. those defending

government regulation (Demsetz, Alchian and Hardin).

This debate has been named after the so-called

“tragedy of the commons” history lesson. This “tragedy”

is based on a much-debated history, spanning more than

three centuries, about the failure of English villagers to

preserve their common lands from over-grazing,

excessive hunting or forest clearing.

The extent that rural villagers over-used the commons

has itself been a long-standing debate and is often

incorrectly linked with the transition from open field

farming to the fencing of individually owned farm land

(Thirsk). Nevertheless, the term “tragedy of the

commons” lives on as a slogan for skepticism of any

attempt by local users to share and conserve resources.

Elinor Ostrom

The narrow debate between government regulations

vs. private property rights for preserving common-pool

resources began to open up to more alternatives to these

polar extremes during the late 1990s, thanks in large part

to the late Elinor Ostrom (Carson). She produced an

extensive body of research on local collective action for

managing shared use of resources. Ostrom received the

Noble prize in economics in 2009 and passed away in

June of this year.

Her major work, Governing the Commons: The

Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action (1990),

applied economic theory to examples of group formation

to ration use without either concentrating decisionmaking power in either individual property rights or in

government regulations. The field studies by Ostrom and

colleagues are from foreign countries, but the United

States also has a long

history of collective

action strategies for

preserving common-pool

resources.

U.S. cooperatives

have been organized for

managing several types of

resource-using activities,

such as grazing, timber

harvesting, irrigation and

fishing. See page 18 of

this issue for a small

sampling of U.S. experience with some of the grazing

cooperatives and the burgeoning application of

cooperatives for addressing the critical issue of

preserving the coastal stocks of seafood.

— By Bruce Reynolds

References

• Alchian, Armen A. (2008- based on his article from

1965) “Property Rights,” The Concise Encyclopedia of

Economics. Library of Economics and Liberty

(http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights

.html

• Carson, Kevin A. (2010) “Common Versus

Government Property,” The Freeman-Ideas on

Liberty. V.60/Issue 4

(http://www.thefreemanonline.org/features/common

-versus-government-property).

• Demsetz, Harold (1967) “Toward a Theory of

Property Rights,” American Economic Review. V.57, p.

347-72.

• Hardin, Garrett (1968) “The Tragedy of the

Commons,” Science. V. 162, p 1243-48.

• Ostrom, Elinor (1990) Governing the Commons: The

Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action.

Cambridge University Press.

• Thirsk, Joan, ed. (1967) The Agrarian History of

England and Wales. Cambridge University Press. ■

Making the case for democratic

governance of the commons

Elinor Ostrom
24 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

The Many Faces

of Cooperatives
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 25

By Charles Ling, Ag Economist

Cooperative Programs

USDA Rural Development

ooperatives are a model of business that are

owned, controlled and used by members and

that accrue benefits to members. Outwardly,

cooperatives may seem to be all alike, except

in the products (commodities, supplies or

services) handled or provided. In reality, the cooperative

business model has many variations.

This article briefly describes dairy cooperatives to

showcase the cooperative business model; other types of

cooperatives are then shown to be variations of the model.

Dairy cooperatives have been previously demonstrated to

exemplify the attributes that are prescribed by classic

cooperative theories (Ling, The Nature of Cooperatives, CIR

65, pp.10-15).

Uniqueness of cooperative model

Cooperative organizations represent the aggregates of

economic units (Emelianoff). In the agricultural sector,

cooperative associations are aggregates of member-farms.

The intrinsic cooperative structure entails the uniqueness of

the cooperative’s organization, governance, equity financing

and operation.

Unique cooperative structure — Dairy

cooperatives represent aggregates of dairy farms,

organized to market milk produced by members.

Members’ farming operations are not under the

cooperative’s administrative control. Therefore,

the cooperative is neither a horizontal

integration of its member-farms nor a vertical

integration between member-farms and the

cooperative. It is a third mode of organizing

coordination (Shaffer).

Unique cooperative organization — Cooperatives are

business organizations of member-patrons. They can be of

any size and can be local, regional or national in scope. All

dairy cooperatives in the United States are known to be

centralized organizations with direct members.

Unique cooperative governance — Members of dairy

cooperatives exercise ownership and business controls

through a board of directors that is elected from among

member-farmers. The board makes major decisions, sets the

policy and determines the overall direction of the cooperative

for the management to follow in its day-to-day operations.

Effective communication with members to foster sound

governance is emphasized.

Unique cooperative equity financing — Equity for dairy

cooperatives is supplied and owned by members. It can be

grouped into four categories (percentages are averages as

reported by 94 cooperatives (Ling, 2009)): common stock (0.1

percent of total equities) is for witnessing membership and

carries nominal value; preferred stock (7 percent) is mostly

for witnessing retained patronage refunds; retained earnings

(10.8 percent) could be earnings from incidental nonmember businesses and net savings yet to be allocated; and

allocated equities (82.1 percent) include retained patronage

refunds, capital retains and/or base capital.

Unique cooperative operation — Being an aggregate of

member-farms usually requires the cooperative to be the

exclusive marketing agent of members’ milk. This operating

mode entails its own unique economics (Ling, CIR 65, pp.

16-20) that comprises the following elements: (1) the milk

volume the cooperative has to handle continually fluctuates;

(2) the cooperative does not have its own milk production

functions, milk production cost curves, or milk supply curves;

and (3) the mismatch between seasonal milk supply and

demand requires cooperatives to handle the inevitable

seasonal surplus milk volume at a substantial supplybalancing cost.

Cooperative roles in transaction governance

In marketing members’ milk, dairy cooperatives interact

with other market participants to bring about mutual

adaptation so that transactions can take place in the most

economical and mutually advantageous way; the transactions

are under all possible governance modes listed in table 1 (see

page 27). (For a concise explanation of table 1, see Ling, CIR

65, pp. 21-24.)

Spot milk sales and retail dairy product sales are most

likely under transaction governance Mode B — where a

competitive market without credible contractual safeguards

may expose members’ investments to unrelieved hazards.

Regular milk marketing is usually conducted under the

credible contracting mode (Mode C) in order to stabilize the

C
26 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

relations between the cooperative and the milk buyers

(processors) and to protect members’ investments. If a dairy

cooperative forward-integrates into processing dairy

products, the processing enterprises are under the

cooperative’s hierarchical administrative control (Mode D).

Most wholesale dairy product sales are under credible

contracting, but some may be under Mode B (unrelieved

hazards).

Variations on the cooperative model

Different commodities have their own characteristics, and

different types of cooperatives have their own special

features. They all represent variations on the cooperative

business model.

Marketing cooperatives — Marketing cooperatives share

the uniqueness of dairy cooperatives in structure,

organization, governance and equity financing that stems

from their being aggregates of member-farms. The unique

economics of dairy cooperative operation is applicable in the

situation where the cooperative is the exclusive marketing

agent of the milk produced by members.

Other agricultural commodities (such as fruits, vegetables,

nuts, poultry, sugar, etc.) that exclusively rely on a

cooperative to market members’ products would have unique

cooperative operations similar to that of dairy cooperatives.

However, they differ from dairy cooperatives in some

important aspects.

For example, milk is produced every day while other farm

commodities are harvested in concentrated time spans of

several weeks or months toward the end of the growing

season. In the economic analysis of the supply and demand

situation of milk marketing operation, the unit of time used is

per-day (cwt/day). The same analysis of other commodities

has to use a unit of time that is appropriate for a particular

commodity.

Some producers of commodities that are storable and have

a long marketing season (such as grains and oilseeds) may

view the cooperative as but one of multiple outlets and

market through it only if the cooperative offers the best

terms and services among all alternatives. In such a case, the

cooperative may still maintain its uniqueness in its

cooperative structure, organization, governance and equity

financing. Its marketing operation, however, is not different

from other (non-cooperative) marketing firms.

New-generation cooperatives — Many new-generation

cooperatives were formed in the 1980s and 1990s in the

belief that this form of cooperative organization would solve

the problem of depressed farm income by engaging in valueadded processing and capturing processor margins.

A distinct feature of the new-generation cooperative is its

equity financing method. It is unique even among

cooperatives:

• It requires significant equity investment as a prerequisite to

membership and delivery rights to ensure that an adequate

level of capital is raised.

• The delivery right is in the form of equity shares that can

be sold to other eligible producers at prices agreed to by

the buyer and the seller, subject to the approval of the

board of directors — to satisfy members’ desire of having

the freedom to cash in on the hoped-for increases in the

value of the cooperative.

A new-generation cooperative is organized to market

members’ commodities through its main function of valueadded processing. By bringing processing functions under

internal administrative control, the cooperative’s transaction

governance mode is Mode D (table 1). For wholesale

distribution of finished products, transaction governance is

usually Mode C (credible contracting) but some may be

Mode B (unrelieved hazard).

The delivery right is instituted to ensure that the capacity

of the processing plant is fully utilized. A member delivers to

the cooperative according to the volume conferred by such

right, which may be more or less than the volume the

member produces. Under such terms, the cooperative is not

an exclusive marketing agent of members’ total production.

Though the cooperative is still an aggregate jointly owned

and operated by members to process and market their farm

production, the volume the cooperative handles is

predetermined. This should minimize the cooperative’s

volume variation uncertainties.

Purchasing cooperatives — Farm supply cooperatives

are organized to procure production supplies and services for

sales (mainly) to members. Many also handle farm and home

items, such as heating oil, lawn and garden supplies and

equipment, and food. Most supply sales to farmers are at the

retail level by local cooperatives that are centralized

organizations with direct members.

Many local cooperatives also federate with other

cooperatives to form regional cooperatives to achieve

economies of scale in sourcing major supply items, such as
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 27

seed, feed, fertilizer and petroleum products. Some federated

cooperatives also have individual farmers as members and are,

therefore, a hybrid organization of centralized and federated

forms.

Many supply cooperatives also market members’ crop and

livestock production, just as marketing cooperatives may also

have supply and service businesses. Supply cooperatives share

marketing cooperatives’ unique structure, organization,

governance and equity financing. However, their operations

are unique in their own way, because supply cooperatives’

main business of procuring supplies for members operates on

the buying side of market transaction. Transaction

governance mode for sourcing products is most likely under

credible contracting (Mode C).

Here, they serve as focal points for credible contracting

with suppliers and economizing on transaction costs on

behalf of individual members. If they integrate upstream and

bring the business of producing supply items under the

cooperative’s administrative control, then the mode of

transaction governance for this part of the operation is Mode

D.

Their transaction governance mode in selling products to

members depends on the degree of member loyalty. If

members are loyal patrons, or if the cooperative is the only

Transaction

governance mode

A: Unassisted market

B: Unrelieved hazard

C: Hybrid

(Credible contracting)

D: Hierarchy

(Administrative)

Asset specificity

0

>

>

>

Investment hazard

safeguard

0

0

>

>

Incentive intensity

High

<

<

Low (Pricing for

successive stages is

cost plus)

Administrative control

Little

>

>

Considerable (by fiat)

Contract law regime

Competitive norm

Legal rules contract

regime

Credible contracting

Internal implicit contract

law (Forbearance)

Table 1―Transaction governance modes and attributes

Source: Adopted from Williamson, 2005, Figure 1: Simple Contractual Schema.

Note: ">" indicates a mode having a higher intensity of the particular attribute than the mode above it.

"<" indicates a mode having a lower intensity of the particular attribute than the mode above it.
28 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

store in the relevant market area, the cooperative would

resemble a buying club. Utility cooperatives and many service

cooperatives are also in this category.

If member loyalty is low, then the cooperative would

operate as any other firm in selling supplies, although it may

still maintain its uniqueness in its cooperative structure,

organization, governance and equity financing.

Consumer cooperatives and credit unions are similar to

supply cooperatives, except that consumer cooperatives’ main

business is in consumer products: foods, groceries, etc., while

the business of credit unions is satisfying members’ credit

needs. There are many more types of purchasing

cooperatives.

Local-food cooperatives — In recent years, consumers

have shown increasing interest in locally produced food.

Because production of locally marketed food is more likely to

occur on small farms located in rural regions near

metropolitan areas, local-food cooperatives may have a

limited geographical scope. However, they should be

classified as marketing cooperatives.

Multi-stakeholder cooperatives — Along with local food

demand, some multi-stakeholder cooperatives have been

formed that comprise everyone who has a stake in the local

food chain, including farmers, processors, distributors,

truckers, buyers, etc.

On the surface, this brings together the successive stages

of the transaction into the organization and appears to be

Mode D transaction governance. In reality, members are

economic units that independently operate their respective

business. The importance of their stakes in the cooperative to

their economic well-being may vary widely.

By organizing all stakeholders in the successive stages of

the supply chain under one roof, the cooperative becomes a

framework for mutual adaptation and for multi-party, multistage credible contracting among members (Mode C) only

when they deal with each other in attending to the

cooperative’s business of moving products from farmermembers to buyer-members. The durability of the

cooperative is dependent on the stability of the collective

credible contracting relationships.

Farm production cooperatives — Several farmers can

form a co-op and pool resources to operate a farm. This is

one way of organizing and managing inputs for production at

a larger scale than the members could as individuals.

The structure, organization, governance and financing

may be the same as a cooperative. Its operation, however,

needs to have overall coordination for it to be a coherent and

efficient production entity. Management oversight and

administrative control over members’ participation in the

farming operation is necessary, although the management and

administrative rules may be determined by members themselves.

Members cannot make farming decisions independent of

the farm, and they do not represent independent profit

centers. In essence, the production operation is a vertical

integration between producer-members and the cooperative.

Cooperatives with non-patronage members — Some

states have enacted new cooperative laws in recent years that

allow cooperatives to have non-patron members (investors) as

well as patron members. These laws vary from reserving the

voting power only for member-patrons to setting a minimum

level of voting power for member-patrons. Requirements

regarding earning distribution between patron members and

non-patron members also differ substantially.

Differences in governance and earning distribution rules

and the type of non-patron members involved (for example,

for-profit investors, nonprofit economic development

organizations, community supporters, etc.) will cause the

cooperative’s structure, organization, governance, equity

financing and operation to deviate in various ways from the

uniqueness of the cooperative model that was described

earlier in the article. These organizations have to be analyzed

case by case because of the variety of state laws.

Conclusions

Variations on the uniqueness of the cooperative business

model are summarized in table 2, using dairy cooperatives as

the reference “point” for the model.

Laying out each type of cooperatives (or, for that matter,

each cooperative) in the format of table 2 provides a

comprehensive view of their respective structure,

organization, governance, equity, and operation, and their

similarities and differences from one another:

• Structure: Cooperatives are aggregates of economic units.

However, the economic units can come in many “stripes.”

Also, the coordination between the economic units

(members) and the cooperative and between members

through the cooperative can vary substantially.

• Organization: Cooperatives are organized by members to

serve some specific purposes, and the purposes can be very

different from one cooperative to another. Cooperatives

may have different sizes and geographical scopes. They

may be centralized, federated or hybrid organizations.

• Governance: The directors of cooperative boards are

supposed to be elected from among members, although

different cooperatives may have different election

procedures. Each cooperative may also see the

responsibilities of the board and the roles of management

somewhat differently. The degree of transparency and

accountability of the board and management to

membership may also vary.

• Equity: The composition (categories) of the equities, the

proportion of equities that is owned by members, the

rights that are bestowed on equity ownership and the

mechanisms that are employed to ensure that ownership is

in the hands of current members can vary among

cooperatives.
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 29

Type of cooperatives

Dairy

cooperatives1

Marketing cooperatives2

New-generation

cooperatives

Purchasing

cooperatives3

Multi-stakeholder

cooperatives4

Farm production

cooperatives

Cooperatives with nonpatronage members

Structure

Aggregates of

economic units

Aggregates of

economic units

Aggregates of

economic units

Aggregates of

economic units

Aggregates of

economic units

Aggregates of

economic units that are

not independent in

production operation

Mixture of patron and

non-patron members

Organization

Centralized member

organizations

Mostly centralized

member organizations;

some are federated

Centralized member

organizations

Local (retail)

cooperatives are

centralized; many

federated with other

locals; federated

cooperatives may have

direct members

Centralized member

organization

Centralized member

organization

Defined by state laws

Governance

Member- governed

Member- governed

Member- governed

Member- governed

Member- governed

Member- governed

Defined by state laws

Source of equity

Members

Members

Members; tied to

delivery rights

Members

Members

Members

Defined by state laws

Operation

Members' exclusive

marketing

agent―unique

economics

Unique economics if

exclusive marketing

agent; otherwise, like

other firms

Business volume

defined by delivery

rights

Sourcing supplies or

services for sale to

members and patrons

A framework for multiparty, multi-stage

credible contracting

among members

A vertical integration

between members and

the cooperative in

production

Defined by state laws;

most likely memberpatrons’ business

Table 2―Variations on the uniqueness of the cooperative business model

• Operation: The products handled or provided by various

cooperatives are very different and, therefore, the

cooperatives’ operations can vary widely. They source their

products differently, prepare the products for the market

differently, and adapt to their respective market differently.

The variety of cooperative operations can be discerned

through the lens of transaction governance (the transaction

cost economics approach advanced by Williamson and

schematically adopted in table 1). ■

References

• Emelianoff, Ivan V. Economic Theory of Cooperation: Economic

Structure of Cooperative Organizations, Washington, D.C.

1942 (litho-printed by Edwards Brothers., Inc., Ann Arbor,

Michigan), 269 pages. (A reprint by the Center for

Cooperatives, University of California, 1995, may be

accessed at: http://cooperatives.ucdavis.edu/reports/

index.htm.)

• Ling, K. Charles. Marketing Operations of Dairy Cooperatives,

2007, U.S. Department of Agriculture, RBS Research

Report No. 218, July 2009.

• Ling, K. Charles. The Nature of the Cooperative, USDA

Rural Development, Cooperative Information Report

(CIR) No. 65, February 2012.

• Ling, K. Charles. The Nature of the Cooperative: A Dairy

Cooperative Case Study, USDA Rural Development, RBS

Research Report No. 224, April 2012.

• Shaffer, James D. “Thinking about Farmers' Cooperatives,

Contracts, and Economic Coordination,” Cooperative

Theory: New Approaches, ACS Service Report Number 18,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Cooperative

Service. July 1987, pp. 61-86.

• Williamson, Oliver E. “The Economics of Governance,”

American Economic Review, 95 (May 2005), pp. 1-18.

1 Separately listed due to dairy cooperatives’ role in explaining the cooperative business model.

2 Include local-food cooperatives.

3 Include farm supply cooperatives, utility cooperatives, service cooperatives, consumer cooperatives, credit unions, etc.

4 As defined in this article.
30 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

Editor’s note: This article was provided by

MFA Oil Biomass and the Doe Run

Company.

FA Oil Biomass LLC

and the Doe Run

Company are

participating in a pilot

project with Missouri

University of Science and Technology

(Missouri S&T) to help transform mine

tailings sites into potential biofuel crop

sites. In April, Doe Run planted a test

plot of 11 acres of miscanthus grass at

the company’s Viburnum Mine 28

tailings site in Missouri. If the test plot

grows successfully, additional acres will

be planted next year at other closed

tailings sites.

“Doe Run saw this test program as

an opportunity to potentially bring new

purpose and productivity to former

mine sites,” says Chris Neaville, asset

development director at Doe Run.

“This restoration approach may create

new economic and environmental

benefits and supports our commitment

to operating sustainably.”

MFA Oil Biomass LLC (a division of

MFA Oil Company, a Missouri-based

fuel cooperative) is looking to

miscanthus to eventually utilize land at

mine tailings sites across Missouri.

Since March, MFA Oil Biomass has

planted more than 12,000 acres of

miscanthus in Missouri and Arkansas.

MFA Oil Biomass is working to secure

federal grants to fund the expansion of

miscanthus planting to other locations,

possibly including other Doe Run sites,

during the next planting season.

“The energy market is changing, and

it forces us all to find ways to decrease

our dependency on foreign oil and turn

to homegrown energy sources,” says

Jared Wilmes, project coordinator at

MFA Oil Biomass. “Manufacturing

fuels locally is a win-win situation: it

M

Mine tailing sites tested for growing miscanthus grass for biofuel

Verdant stands of miscanthus grass for bioenergy production, such as this University of Illinois

test plot (top), are the goal of tests being conducted to grow the grass on mine wastes.

Miscanthus is irrigated after planting on mine tailings (lower photo).

continued on page 36
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 31

Newsline

Send co-op news items to: dan.campbell@wdc.USDA.gov

Co-op developments, coast to coast

Beall named NCBA president

The National Cooperative Business

Association (NCBA) has announced the

appointment of Michael V. Beall as its

president and CEO. Beall (pronounced

Bell) was previously president and CEO

with the Missouri Credit Union

Association (MCUA). Beall has also

held leadership positions in the state

credit union associations in

Maryland/District of Columbia and

North Carolina, as well as the World

Council of Credit Unions

(an international credit

union development

organization).

“Mike Beall’s selection

was based on several key

factors: his extensive

experience in providing

advocacy and development

services to credit unions

through state, national and

international associations;

his familiarity with

international development

administration; and his transactional

and business process experience,” says

NCBA Chairman Wilson H. Beebe.

“Combined with Mike’s demonstrated

commitment to the cooperative

principles of economic selfdetermination, his career background

made him the outstanding and

unanimous choice of the board of

directors to lead NCBA’s revitalization

of its domestic mission and the

diversification of its work abroad.”

Beall brings to NCBA a broad

understanding of the cooperative

business model and a commitment to

core cooperative principles, Beebe

notes. Beall has been a leader in credit

union advocacy in the halls of

government at both the state and

federal levels. He also has been a

driving force in the expansion of the

credit union community’s Development

Educator program, a professional

development program that instills the

cooperative principles in senior

cooperative and credit union executives

in the United States as well as abroad.

During his tenure as president/CEO

of the Maryland and

District of Columbia

Credit Union Association,

he presided over the first

merger between state credit

union associations.

“I am honored by the

NCBA board to be chosen

to lead the organization

towards stronger domestic

development initiatives that

support the strong

cooperative business model so

necessary for the success of the U.S.

economy and working families,” Beall

says. NCBA’s work during the next few

years will focus on strengthening efforts

to “cross-pollinate” business

opportunities between cooperative

sectors. Beall says the organization will

also strive to raise awareness of the

cooperative business model on Capitol

Hill and throughout the federal

government by showcasing the role

cooperatives play in the domestic and

worldwide economies and tying

international cooperative development

initiatives to the membership of NCBA.

“I look forward to enhancing the

value of NCBA membership with all

sectors of cooperatives,” says Beall, who

assumed his new duties Nov. 16.

Liz Bailey, who had been interim

CEO and president, will continue to

serve as NCBA’s vice president for

public policy and domestic

development, as well as executive

director of the Cooperative

Development Foundation (CDF).

Beall holds a bachelor’s degree in

government and politics from the

University of Maryland and a law

degree from the University of

Richmond, T.C. Williams School of

Law. He is a member of the Virginia

State Bar.

Liz Bailey honored as

NAHC Outstanding Leader

Liz Bailey, who had been serving as

interim president and CEO of the

National Cooperative Business

Association, has been recognized for

outstanding leadership by the National

Association of Housing Cooperatives.

NAHC President Vernon Oakes

presented Bailey with the NAHC

President’s Award during its annual

meeting in Reno, Nev.

“Liz has demonstrated outstanding

leadership in engaging with the Obama

administration over the role that all

types of cooperatives play in our

economic recovery,” Oakes says. “Her

vision for the cooperative sector in the

U.S. and her dedication in keeping the

conversation going at the national level

further demonstrate her dedication to

cooperative enterprise.”

NAHC, founded in 1960, in

particular saluted Bailey for taking 150

leaders of the U.S. cooperative

Michael V. Beall
32 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

community to the White House on

May 4 to let top-level administration

officials know that co-ops are valuesbased businesses and engines of

economic growth.

Accelerated Genetics launches

international subsidiary

AGSP Global is a new, wholly owned

subsidiary of Accelerated Genetics, a

Baraboo, Wis.-based livestock genetics

cooperative. The company will bring

bovine health products, featuring both

Accelerated Genetics and TechMix

products, to the international

marketplace.

“International product sales are not

brand new to Accelerated Genetics;

however, we defined the need to

globally expand our product exposure

and support,” says AGSP Global

General Manager Jill Strangstalien. “In

developing this subsidiary, our priority

was to identify a business partner who

shared our vision. Combining the

specialty products of both AGSP

Global and Tech Mix allows us to share

technical expertise, manufacturing,

distribution, sales and support efforts

around the globe.”

“As a subsidiary of a leading AI

[artificial insemination] organization,

we at AGSP Global recognize the value

of genetics and the importance of herd

health,” Strangstalien adds. “Offering

superior quality products to maximize

production and reproduction is our

primary focus.”

PCCA pays net

margins despite drought

Plains Cotton Cooperative

Association (PCCA) announced at the

cooperative’s 59th annual stockholders

meeting in Lubbock, Texas, that it will

pay net margins of $8.4 million from

fiscal 2011-2012 operations despite an

80-percent reduction in cotton volume

due to last year’s drought. Further cash

distributions to members of $13.6

million were made in September,

comprised of $6.8 million in cash

dividends and $6.8 million in

retirement of per-unit retains.

“We began planning ahead in early

spring 2011 for the anticipated effects

of the drought by cutting our budget 20

percent; at year-end, actual expenses

came in even lower than that,” said

PCCA President and CEO Wally

Darneille. “There were some bright

spots this year as both marketing pools

paid out the highest equities in their

histories, and the volume of cotton

marketed over The Seam [an online

marketing system that provides co-op

members with access to a large number

of cotton buyers] remained near the

previous year’s level. This showed the

value that our electronic platform

provides to producers who wish to

market some of their cotton at harvest

or later.”

Darneille also reported the

Marketing and Warehouse Divisions

came close to breaking even due to cost

control. “Saving money can be equally

important as making it.

“Our Textile and Apparel Division

did not make money this year,”

Darneille said. “However, over a threeyear period, we have seen a net positive

cash flow of $14.8 million in this

division due to depreciation and shared

expenses. Innovation and our

technological expertise continue to

provide new opportunities.

“We now have jeans on the shelf at a

major retailer with PCCA’s “total

traceability” system on a hang-tag that

enables customers to use a cell phone

with a scanning application to track the

garment back to some of the farmers

who produced the cotton.”

In other PCCA news, the co-op’s

Denimatrix division recently was named

Exporter of the Year in Textiles and

Apparel for 2012 by the Guatemalan

Association of Exporters (AGEXPORT)

in recognition of the company’s 25

percent growth in the value of jeans

exports.

Adelstein saluted for work

as RUS administrator

Jonathan Adelstein in August left his

position as administrator of the Rural

Utilities Service of USDA Rural

Development to take a job in the

telecom industry.

“I want to thank Jonathan Adelstein

for his stellar service as administrator

over the past three years,” said Dallas

Tonsager, under secretary for USDA

Rural Development. “His calm and

steady leadership, especially through

challenging budget times, and his

remarkable telecommunications policy

expertise have served us all well.”

Under Adelstein’s stewardship, RUS

made historic investments in the

deployment of broadband in rural

America, which Tonsager said could be

compared to the Rural Electrification

Administration’s expansion of rural

electric infrastructure in the 1930s that

helped build the rural economy.

“Beyond his rural broadband

accomplishments, he led RUS to make

unprecedented investments in critical

rural water and waste systems, as well as

Photo courtesy PCCA
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 33

efforts to modernize the rural electric

grid and expand investments in

renewable energy, energy efficiency and

the smart grid,” Tonsager said.

Adelstein has spent more than 25

years in public service, including 15

years as a staff member in the U.S.

Senate, a seven-year appointment as

commissioner on the Federal

Communications Commission and the

past three years with USDA Rural

Development.

“Throughout his career, he has

proven himself as a strong public

servant and as someone you can rely on

to do right by rural America,” Tonsager

said. “As a fellow South Dakotan and as

his colleague, it has been an honor to

serve rural America alongside

Jonathan.”

John Padalino, who had been acting

administrator of the Rural BusinessCooperative Service, is now acting

administrator of RUS. Lillian Salerno is

the new acting administrator of the

Rural Business-Cooperative Service.

AGP expanding operations

at Dawson plant

Ag Processing Inc (AGP) has

approved a multi-million-dollar capital

project for construction of an

AminoPlus production facility at its

soybean processing plant in Dawson,

Minn. AminoPlus is a patented, highperformance soy by-pass product that

AGP produces and markets to the dairy

industry. The project is scheduled to

begin by winter (subject to gaining

needed permits).

“The additional production capacity

at our Dawson location will serve our

expanding customer base in the upper

Midwest, Canada and overseas

markets,” says co-op CEO Keith

Spackler.

The addition of AminoPlus

production to the Dawson facility

represents the fourth major production

expansion for the product, which AGP

currently manufactures at its soybean

processing plants in Mason City, Iowa;

Hastings, Neb.; and Sgt. Bluff, Iowa.

The AminoPlus expansion follows on

the heels of another major plant

improvement project recently

completed at Dawson. That project

included installation of new processing

equipment, the addition of more

storage capacity and expansion of plant

handling capability. Operations at the

plant will not be affected during

construction of the new AminoPlus

production line.

AGP is the largest farmer-owned

soybean processor in the world, owned

by 175 local and five regional

cooperatives that represent 250,000

farmers.

Chelan Fruit Co-op

acquires Orondo Fruit Co.

Chelan Fruit Cooperative in Chelan,

Wash., has acquired the Orondo Fruit

Co. packing plant in Orondo, Wash.,

from the Griggs and Clennon families.

Along with this purchase comes the

opportunity to pack and market the

Orondo Ruby cherry, as well as some of

the state’s premier Rainier cherries.

The Orondo Ruby cherry was

discovered in 2001 and boasts early

ripening, an exceptionally sweet, juicy

and delicious flavor, with tremendous

consumer appeal, according to the coop. Chelan Fruit Cooperative will be

packing and shipping the Orondo Ruby

cherry in the summer of 2013.

Chelan Fresh Marketing, a major

marketer of Washington state tree fruit,

has marketed all of Chelan Fruit

Cooperative’s tree fruits under the

Trout Label for the past nine years.

CoBank announces

board election results

CoBank — a Denver-based

cooperative bank serving agribusinesses,

rural infrastructure providers and Farm

Credit associations throughout the

United States — has announced results

of shareholder elections for the bank’s

board of directors. Nine seats were

open due to the transition to a new

governance structure adopted as part of

the bank’s recent merger with U.S.

AgBank. The board will now have 24

elected directors from six regions, as

well as between three and five

appointed directors.

The winning candidates are: East

Region — James Kinsey, owner/operator

of a purebred Angus seedstock ranch in

Flemington, W.V.; South Region —

George Kitchens, general manager &

CEO of Joe Wheeler EMC, Decatur,

Ala.; Robert Behr, chief operating

officer of Citrus World, Lakeland, Fla.;

Central Region — James Magnuson,

general manager and CEO of Key

Cooperative in Sully, Iowa; David

Kragnes, owner of a diversified grain,

sugarbeet and soybean farm in Felton,

Minn.; Mid-Plains Region — Clint

Roush, owner of a wheat, alfalfa and

stocker cattle operation in Arapaho,

Okla.; Scott Whittington, general

manager, Lyon-Coffey Electric in

Burlington, Kan.; West Region — Jon

Marthedal, owner of a grape, raisin and

blueberry farm in Fresno, Calif.; and

Northwest Region — Erick Jacobson,

retired president and CEO of

NORPAC Foods Inc. in Bend, Ore.

Term expiration dates for these

directors vary from 2013 to 2016.

CoBank also announced that Barry

Sabloff has been re-appointed to a fouryear term as an outside director. Sabloff

was formerly executive vice president

with Bank One in Chicago and is

currently vice chairman of Marquette

Bank, a Chicago-based community

bank.

CoBank uses an independent

nominating committee to develop a

slate of qualified director candidates for

each election. No current board

member may serve as a member of the

committee, and no member of

management sits on the CoBank board.

Land O’Lakes helps fight hunger

The Land O’Lakes Foundation will

donate $150,000 to Indianapolis-area

food-relief services over the next three

years to help fight domestic and global

hunger. The donation was announced

in conjunction with FFA Rally to Fight
34 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

Hunger, held in October during the

first day of the 2012 National FFA

Convention and Expo, held Oct. 24-26.

During the event, about 10,000 FFA

members and volunteers from across

the country packed 1 million meals to

distribute through Gleaners Food Bank

in Indianapolis. The other half was

shipped for distribution in Haiti.

Purina Animal Nutrition, a wholly

owned subsidiary of Land O'Lakes, was

honored with the FFA Distinguished

Service Citation recognizing its 60

years of supporting agricultural

education and leadership. FFA —

formerly known as Future Farmers of

America — works with agricultural

education students to develop their

leadership potential, personal growth

and career success through agricultural

education.

While donations play a role in

fighting hunger, Land O’Lakes

President and CEO Chris Policinski

says it will take a broader effort.

Speaking at “Feed the Future,

Partnering with Civil Society,” an event

sponsored by the United Nations

General Assembly in September, he

stressed the importance of the private

sector in creating shared value through

hands-on commitments that

simultaneously advance agricultural

development, food security and

investment opportunities for the private

sector.

“It’s about transitioning from writing

a check to working in tandem with

people around the world,” Policinski

said. “Land O’Lakes helps farmers in

developing countries move from

subsistence farming to farming as a

business, helping the private sector gain

traction and grow a reliable customer

base. It’s authentically sustainable

corporate social responsibility —

helping people move up the value chain

and providing real opportunities for

public-private partnerships that

promote sustainable food security. The

development community and private

sector win.”

The U.N. event was hosted by U.S.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham

Clinton and Malawi President Joyce

Banda.

NMPF revitalizing REAL Seal

The National Milk Producers

Federation (NMPF) is engaged in a

revitalization and makeover effort for

REAL Seal, a food label used to identify

real, U.S.-made dairy products. The

effort began with the launch in October

of a revamped website: www.realseal.com.

The previous website functioned

primarily as a resource for dairy

product manufacturers and marketers

interested in putting the REAL Seal on

their packaging. The new website will

contain more content to educate

consumers about why they should look

for the REAL Seal on the foods they

buy, while also continuing to provide

information for those companies using

the REAL Seal to enhance their

product marketing.

“Research has found that 93 percent

of consumers know of the REAL Seal,

and that many people find it useful in

making buying decisions,” says Jerry

Kozak, president and CEO of NMPF.

Management of the REAL Seal

program was transferred from the

United Dairy Industry Association to

NMPF last March. The two

organizations agreed that the transfer

would create an opportunity to place a

renewed emphasis on highlighting the

importance and value of Americanmade dairy foods.

Kozak says use of the seal can help

consumers differentiate between real

dairy foods and imitation dairy products

that are not made from milk.

Washington meat

co-op formed

North Cascades Meat Producers

Cooperative, formed to provide

processing and marketing services to

pasture-raised livestock operations in

Washington, is raising capital by selling

member equity shares. It hopes to begin

operations in the first half of 2013.

The co-op says it plans to initially

offer slaughter and processing services

to farm members and non-members for

beef, pork, lamb and goat in Whatcom,

Skagit and Island counties. Pat Grover,

president of the Washington co-op, told

the Capital Press that the co-op is

looking to rent a facility that can be

converted into a processing plant.

The co-op plans to do wholesale

meat distribution under the North

Cascade Meats brand. Products will

include pasture-raised, grass-finished

beef and lamb as well as pasture-raised

pork. No antibiotics or hormones can

be used by producers, and no

petroleum-based fertilizers can be used

on pastures. No detrimental impacts to

riparian areas are permitted.

The cooperative plans to use a selfcontained, mobile processing unit for

USDA-inspected slaughter. The unit

will be stationed at farms in Whatcom

and Skagit counties six days per month.

Finished carcasses will be transported in

a refrigerated truck to the co-op

processing plant.

Swiss Valley Farms

sells Platteville facility

Swiss Valley Farms, Davenport,

Iowa, has announced the sale of its

Platteville, Wis., cheese manufacturing

facility to Tritent International

Agriculture Inc., which was effective

Sept. 1. Details of the transaction are

not being publicly disclosed. Operations

were halted at the Platteville facility in

October 2011 after Swiss Valley

transferred production of its Baby Swiss

wheels, loaves and no-salt-added Swiss

blocks to White Hill Cheese Co. LLC,
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 35

Co-op Hall of Fame winners announced

Four outstanding cooperative leaders will receive the

cooperative community’s highest honor on May 8, 2013,

when they are inducted into the Cooperative Hall of

Fame. The induction ceremony will be held at the

National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The

ceremony will be preceded by a cooperative issues forum

(for more information, visit: http://heroes.coop/).

The 2013 inductees are: credit union leader Joy

Cousminer, worker cooperative leader Steven Dawson,

cooperative financer Rebecca Dunn and cooperative

educator Leland Ruth. These cooperative leaders will be

recognized at the annual Cooperative Hall of Fame

Dinner.

“The roster of the Cooperative Hall of Fame tells the

story of the U.S. cooperative community through the

lives and accomplishments of extraordinary individuals,”

says Gasper Kovach Jr., chairman of the Cooperative

Development Foundation, which administers the Hall of

Fame. “Induction to the Cooperative Hall of Fame is

reserved for those who have made genuinely heroic

contributions to the cooperative community.”

Following are brief biographies of this year’s

inductees:

■ Joy Cousminer — Cousminer has spent 58 years

breaking down economic and educational barriers for

those in need and improving the lives of the people of

New York’s South Bronx, one of the most economically

distressed urban areas in the country. First as a teacher,

then as a founder and now president and CEO of Bethex

Federal Credit Union, she helped bring banking to an

area that had no banking facilities and no access to

credit. The many innovative programs and partnerships

offered by Bethex reflect her recognition of the financial,

educational and business needs of the people of the

South Bronx and her efforts to meet them. Her work

embodies the ideals of community spirit, determination,

vision and cooperation. She is a leader with a

quintessentially cooperative spirit.

■ Steve Dawson — Dawson was a key figure in laying the

intellectual and structural groundwork of the worker

cooperative movement. He helped found two nationally

significant organizations: the ICA Group, the first

professional consulting group for worker ownership, and

Cooperative Home Care Associates, the largest worker

co-op in the nation. His work has changed the lives of

thousands of workers. Some of the foremost worker coops in the nation attribute their success to his influence.

Dawson also understands that much of what affects the

quality of work for direct- care workers emanates from

public policy. He thus helped start the Paraprofessional

Healhthcare Institute, a national research, policy analysis

and technical assistance organization that works for the

benefit of all direct-care workers.

■ Rebecca Dunn — Dunn is a leader in cooperative

financing, devising innovative products and methods that

are useful to the entire co-op economy. During her 26-

year tenure, she oversaw a fund that has grown from

$130,000 to almost $15 million and has expanded from

lending mostly to food co-ops to all types of co-ops —

all while never losing an investor dollar. Her skills in

banking, communication and borrower relations and

development, her steady recruitment and training of

outreach workers, her inclusive decision-making, her

ability to innovate to address diverse and multiple needs

and her dedication to the co-op model have been

instrumental in starting many co-ops throughout New

England. Most recently, she was responsible for the

Cooperative Fund on New England’s selection as one of

20 recipients nationally of the Small Business

Administration’s (SBA) pilot Intermediary Lending

Program (ILP), a first use of SBA funds for the benefit

of cooperatives.

■ Lee Ruth — Ruth’s service on the Agricultural Council

of California led to his commitment to the cooperative

business model. He helped found the California Center

for Cooperative Development — twice — and the

California Association of Cooperatives. He has always

used his service on various boards to promote the

cooperative way of business. As co-chair of the national

Rural Cooperative Development Task Force, he was

instrumental in creating the Rural Cooperative

Development Grant program, a USDA source of

funding for rural cooperative development that now

supports the work of 29 cooperative development

centers across the country. Demonstrating commitment,

innovation and leadership, he has mentored cooperative

developers, started cooperatives, developed resources for

cooperatives and won favorable legislation for

cooperatives in California.
36 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

in Shullsburg, Wis.

Hispanic, women farmers

may seek compensation

Hispanic and women farmers and

ranchers who believe that the U. S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA)

improperly denied them farm loan

benefits between 1981and 2000 because

they are Hispanic or female may be

eligible to apply for compensation if:

1) They sought a farm loan or farmloan servicing during that period;

2) The loan was denied, provided

late, approved for a lesser amount than

requested, approved with restrictive

conditions or USDA failed to provide

appropriate loan service; and

3) They believe these actions were

based on their being Hispanic or

female.

To receive a claims package, visit:

www.farmerclaims.gov, or call 1-888-

508-4429.

For further guidance, you may

contact a lawyer or other legal services

provider in your community. USDA

cannot provide legal advice. If you are

currently represented by counsel

regarding allegations of discrimination

or in a lawsuit claiming discrimination,

you should contact your counsel

regarding this claims process. ■

creates jobs and, in this case, puts these otherwise un-utilized

properties to productive use while simultaneously improving

the composition of the soil.”

Miscanthus is proven to be one of few plants that can

thrive in challenging soil conditions, such as tailings, which

are the ground-up rock byproducts created when separating

metal from ore during mining and milling. Miscanthus crops

have been in development for 30 years as commercially

harvested fuel crops and produce more biomass per acre than

any other energy crop, yielding up to 15 feet of growth per

year as a mature plant.

Because it is not needed as a food source, miscanthus

offers an alternative to other biofuel crops, such as corn and

soybeans. Miscanthus roots also penetrate deep into the soil

and deposit nutrients, which restores soil over a 20- to 30-

year span.

Working alongside Doe Run, Missouri S&T is examining

the ability of miscanthus to restore nutrients to the soil at

Mine 28. Missouri S&T is conducting further research to

find the best methods to optimize the growth of miscanthus

in tailings sites, to improve soil quality and to increase the

soil’s capacity to grow biofuel crops.

“While we’ve studied other processed biofuels, like corn

ethanol and biodiesel, and biomass such as poplar and willow

trees, this miscanthus study is the first of its kind at Missouri

S&T,” said Joel Burken, professor of civil, architectural and

environmental engineering at Missouri S&T. “Growing

miscanthus crops in the region could help develop industries

to utilize the biomass fuel, which is efficient in terms of

nutrient and water inputs.”

“It takes organizations like Doe Run, which are deeply

invested in their communities, to carry out this type of

project successfully,” Wilmes says. “We are excited to develop

a long-lasting partnership with Doe Run in what we hope

will be a series of renewable energy projects.”

MFA Oil Biomass LLC, formed in 2011, is based in

Columbia, Mo. MFA Oil teamed up with Altoterra Energy

LLC to form a fully integrated biomass company that is

involved in the research, farmer relationships and planting of

the biomass crop all the way to the marketing and

development of products manufactured from the biomass.

MFA Oil Biomass has three project areas in central

Missouri, southwest Missouri and northeast Arkansas.

Based in St. Louis, the Doe Run Company is a privately

held natural resources company and the largest integrated

lead producer in the western hemisphere. Dedicated to

environ-mentally responsible mineral and metal production,

Doe Run operates one of the world’s largest, single-site lead

recycling facilities located in Boss, Mo. ■

Mine tailing sites tested for growing

miscanthus grass for biofuel

continued from page 30

in Minnesota’s Red River Valley, which

also converted to farmer co-op

ownership when faced with closure. Or

visit the Cabot Cheese plant in

Vermont, or any of the hundreds of

other state-of-the-art ag processing

plants owned and operated by farmer

co-ops across the nation.

Farm supply co-ops can provide just

as many examples of “how a bunch of

farmers can do it.” The Seiver Farmers

Co-op center in Seiver County, Tenn.,

(Jan.-Feb. 2012 issue) and Producers

Cooperative Association supply

complex in Bryan, Texas, (Sept.-Oct.

2011 issue) show how co-ops are not

just serving their traditional farmerowners, but also successfully competing

with the big box stores for the home,

garden and ranchette trade.

So, how do farmers operate their

own modern processing and supply

operations? Very well. ■

Commentary

continued from page 2
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 37

2012 Article Index

Information appearing in Rural Cooperatives magazine during calendar

year 2012 has been indexed to help you find past articles. Articles are

indexed by issue and page. Back issues can be found on-line at:

www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_RurCoopMag.html

TITLE FEATURES ............................................................................................ISSUE / PAGE

A Taste of Gold

Co-ops’ world-class cheeses help U.S. dominate international

competition ........................................................................................................May/June 16

Annie’s Project helps women farmers .................................................................March/April 6

‘Because we’re all in this together’

Sandhills Farm to Table Co-op’s goal: ‘Meeting local food needs

with local food’ ......................................................................................................Jan./Feb. 4

Business owner benefited from LEDC .............................................................March/April 14

Can co-ops help drive global recovery?

Quebec City to host international co-op conferences ...........................................July/Aug. 31

Capital Ideas

Lessons offered by dairy co-ops shed light on important equity

capital issues .......................................................................................................May/June 30

CCA salutes those who excel at telling the co-op story ........................................July/Aug. 32

Central Kentucky Growers helps members transition from tobacco

to vegetables ......................................................................................................Sept./Oct. 29

C-FARE meeting shows progress made in co-op goals, values ............................July/Aug. 24

Changing course

Milk producers tackle dairy policy, other key issues at annual meeting ...........Jan./Feb. 16

Cherry Central adds Canadian member ...........................................................March/April 41

CoBank announces drought assistance initiatives ................................................Sept./Oct. 45

Colorado launches health insurance co-op ...........................................................Sept./Oct. 25

Comparative performance reports help co-ops learn from peers .........................July/Aug. 17

Continental movement: worker co-ops join forces in Quebec ..............................Jan./Feb. 28

Co-op Hall of Fame winners announced .............................................................Nov./Dec. 35

Co-op leaders confer with White House officials .................................................July/Aug. 22

Co-op oil mills play vital role in sustaining cottonseed value ...............................July/Aug. 14

Co-op rail facility boosts feed security ...................................................................Nov./Dec. 7

Co-ops of all types benefit from USDA’s value-added grants ..........................March/April 26

Co-ops respond to consolidation, global volatility ...........................................March/April 36

Creating a roadmap for food hub development ....................................................July/Aug. 18

Dairy co-ops in the 21st century: the first decade ............................................March/April 32

Disasters spur co-op formations

Louisiana co-op association helps fishermen, farmers recover

following hurricanes and oil spill .........................................................................July/Aug. 4

Equity financing issues ...........................................................................................May/June 31

Farm co-ops set sales, income records

Number of full-time jobs up 1,800 ....................................................................Sept./Oct. 4

Feed mill seen as key to success of Amish dairy farms .........................................Sept./Oct. 32

Flint Energies turns 75 ...........................................................................................May/June 43

Flying High

Key to success for turkey producers is their willingness to

put co-op first .....................................................................................................Nov./Dec. 4
38 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

Flying High

Key to success for turkey producers is their willingness to

put co-op first ...........................................................................................Nov./Dec. 4

Former MFA President Bud Frew dies .......................................................Jan./Feb. 41

From workers to owners

LEDC helps Latino immigrants launch wide variety of

businesses in Minnesota ..................................................................March/April 10

Gearing Up the Co-op Economy

Co-op Month Special Section .............................................................Sept./Oct. 20

Hispanic, women farmers may seek compensation ...............................July/Aug. 39

How a REDLG works .....................................................................................July/Aug. 11

Iowa State students team with co-ops to develop

new businesses .....................................................................................Sept./Oct. 27

Jersey shellfish co-op well situated for growth .....................................Sept./Oct. 35

Keep the co-op candle burning!

2012 International Year of Co-ops perfect time to gear-up

co-op education ....................................................................................May/June 38

Keeping the ‘open’ sign on

Canadian conference promotes employee ownership as

alternative to business closures ..........................................................Jan./Feb. 27

Largest 100 ag co-ops post near-record sales, margins ...................March/April 16

Laying groundwork key to successful launch ............................................Jan./Feb. 6

Learning from co-op closure

Dissolution of Producers & Buyers Co-op holds lessons

for others pursuing institutional market ..............................................Jan./Feb. 10

Making the case for democratic governance of the commons ...........Nov./Dec. 23

Midwest co-op centers share strategies at regional roundtable ........July/Aug. 35

Mine tailing sites tested for growing miscanthus grass for biofuel ....Nov./Dec. 30

Minnesota home to largest number of ag co-ops; Iowa tops

for business volume ...............................................................................Nov./Dec. 10

Moark donates 1 million eggs ....................................................................May/June 44

Montana’s small-scale poultry growers struggle to find

economic way to process, market birds ...........................................Sept./Oct. 23

NCB Co-op 100 shows revenue near $194 billion ....................................Jan./Feb. 39

Nebraska town striving to recover from loss of grocery store ............Sept./Oct. 34

New contract was a cooperative effort .....................................................Nov./Dec. 5

New life for a lifeline

Cooperative effort in Iowa keeps trains on the tracks ......................July/Aug. 8

New processing facility should improve outlook for fishing co-op .......July/Aug. 7

Northwest co-ops forge new links for local foods .................................Sept./Oct. 21

Organic federation seen as a strategy for family farm survival,

regional competitiveness ......................................................................Jan./Feb. 20

Preserving Common Ground

Co-ops play key role in preserving shared grazing and

fishing resources ...................................................................................Nov./Dec. 18

Public garden latest addition at resident-owned community

in Maine ...................................................................................................Sept./Oct. 31

Select Education Initiative Statistics ..........................................................Jan./Feb. 26

She’s taking care of business

Montana producer Mary Fritz paves a trail for women

leaders in Farm Credit System ..........................................................March/April 4

Some like it hot

Mary Alice Garay continues family tradition of growing

and processing chile peppers ...........................................................March/April 7

Spawning a solution

Farmers, Indian tribes, environmentalists form co-op to

restore Washington salmon run ...........................................................May/June 4

Students explore world of co-ops .........................................................March/April 39

Study raises important questions about co-op education efforts ........Jan./Feb. 25

The Many Faces of Cooperatives ..............................................................Nov./Dec. 24

The Nature of Cooperatives

Roles in economizing transaction cost a new dimension

for understanding value of co-ops .......................................................Jan./Feb. 32

“The pillar of my home”

Coffee co-ops brew better quality of life for Ethiopian

farm families ...........................................................................................Sept./Oct. 40

Top 100 ag co-ops eclipse previous sales record by $18 billion ............Sept./Oct. 8

USDA funds renewable energy efforts .....................................................July/Aug. 41

USDA program helps expand ag production in Malawi ........................Nov./Dec. 15

USDA Value-Added Producer Grants awarded to farmer

cooperatives .......................................................................................March/April 29

Use of joint ventures by ag co-ops on rise ..............................................Sept./Oct. 37

Vilsack: Farm exports creating jobs ...........................................................July/Aug. 40

When it comes to local food, co-ops are on the map .............................May/June 8

World Wide Web goes local

How the Oklahoma Food Cooperatives uses the Internet

to bring farmers, consumers together ...............................................May/June 12

USDA program helps expand ag production in Malawi ........................Nov./Dec. 15

MAGAZINE DEPARTMENTS

COMMENTARY

Co-ops: Don’t overlook Rural Development financial programs .............Jan./Feb. 2

If only Abe could see us now! .....................................................................May/June 2

Local food is a cooperative venture ........................................................March/April 2

National Cooperative Month proclamation.................................................Sept./Oct. 2

What Main Streets have over Wall Street ..................................................July/Aug. 2

“How can a bunch of farmers do it?” ..........................................................Nov./Dec. 2

CO-OP DEVELOPMENT ACTION

USDA co-op funds leveraged to create resident-owned

communities ...........................................................................................May/June 28

CO-OPS & COMMUNITY

CoBank program will help co-ops build stronger communities ............July/Aug. 27

Co-op safety director offers aid in tornado-ravaged communities ........Jan./Feb. 9

Georgia electric co-op supports equine therapy program,

other community causes ......................................................................May/June 20

Iowan shares skills with African farmers ............................................March/April 30

Land O’Lakes’ nutrition program helps thousands in Pakistan ............Nov./Dec. 14

FOCUS ON

Co-Alliance LLP

Partnership delivers returns for members of five co-ops ..............May/June 36

Sevier Farmers Co-op

Renovated Tennessee supply co-op attracts 3,000 to

‘reopening’ event ....................................................................................Jan./Feb. 30

IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Brian Henehan

Senior Extension Associate, Cornell University ................................July/Aug. 12

Richard Cotta: a life devoted to dairy and co-ops ...................................Jan./Feb. 19

LEGAL CORNER

Capper-Volstead protection and co-op supply management ...............Nov./Dec. 16

Legislative, regulatory, court actions in 2012 impact cooperatives .....Jan./Feb. 15

MANAGEMENT TIP

Thoughtful succession planning keeps families farming for

generations .............................................................................................Sept./Oct. 18

NEWSLINE

Mikhalevsky to lead California Dairies ......................................................Jan./Feb. 38

CHS posts record earnings, revenue

Wisconsin co-ops to merge with United Co-op subsidiaries

USDA grant to help create Great Lakes Co-op Center

Snokist files for bankruptcy

Record sales for Blue Diamond

RFA: report shows ethanol not leading to cropland expansion

CoBank closes merger with U.S. AgBank

CDF cites achievements in 2011

Liz Bailey named interim CEO at NCBA; search firm hired

USDA REAP funds create jobs while reducing energy costs

Coopeative Network elects two new directors

Proposed rule extends minimum wage to home care workers

Land O’Lakes sets sales record .............................................................March/April 38

Federated Co-op tops Canadian co-op list

CoBank earnings rise 15 percent; patronage tops $340 million

Ocean Spray and PepsiCo pursue Latin America markets

Frank Bragg to lead FRC

NCBA videos explore thriving food co-ops

Co-ops and trade focus on WIIT

OCDC names Hazen executive director

NMPF supports USDA school meal standards

Wisconsin co-ops announce merger plan

IDEA to help African dairy co-ops

Mark Ventry to lead Ontario Co-op Assoc.
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 39

Organic Valley reports record sales year ................................................May/June 40

Survey: Americans rate consumer co-ops highly

Blue Diamond begins plant construction

Banner sales year for sugar co-op; Contreras succeeds Wedgworth

Jacobs to fill key co-op role at Iowa State

AMPI reports $2 billion in sales

USDA rural-sociologist receives honor

Gabriel new chief economist at FCA

FAO opens co-op office ................................................................................July/Aug. 37

DFA building Nevada dairy plant

Land O’Lakes, Eggland’s Best announce egg joint venture

Beef co-op leader Doc Hatfield dies

NFU releases free co-op curriculum

Ocean Spray building new plant in Pennsylvania

Accelerate Genetics saluted for export success

Oregon grain co-ops purchase Cargill terminal

Feit to lead United Cranberry Co-op

Montana food co-op being organized

Dairy: a $14.7 billion Michigan industry

Snokist assets go to PCP, Del Monte

Land O’Lakes acquires Kozy Shack ..........................................................Sept./Oct. 44

Co-op conference to explore global market trends, innovation

Linn Co-op to get boost with E15 sales

Robert Hawk new CEO at blueberry co-op

MFA expands operations in Kansas

USDA loans to help co-ops deploy smart grid technology

Farm Credit supports Gardening for Greenbacks

Book says co-ops best way to re-charge U.S. economy

Minn-Dak expanding sugar plant

Eric Erba new strategy officer at California Dairies

USDA issues expanded farmers market directory

CHS, Mountain View Co-op building warehouse

USDA helping Minn. co-op build feed mill

Hispanic, women farmers may seek compensation

Beall named NCBA president .....................................................................Nov./Dec. 31

Accelerated Genetics launches international subsidiary

Adelstein saluted for work as RUS administrator

PCCA pays net margins despite drought

AGP expanding operations at Dawson plant

California dairy co-op leader Brain Pacheco honored by UC

Chelan Fruit Co-op acquires Orondo Fruit Co.

CoBank announces board election results

Co-op Hall of Fame winners announced

Land O’Lakes helps fight hunger

NMPF revitalizing REAL Seal

Washington meat co-op formed

Swiss Valley Farms sells Platteville facility

UTILITY CO-OP CONNECTION

Carolina water co-op plays key role in driving economic

development ............................................................................................July/Aug. 28

Co-ops view energy efficiency, conservation as top priorities ............Nov./Dec. 12

Surging oil industry sparks economy, but also creates

challenges for co-op .............................................................................May/June 24

Telephone co-ops build broadband, create rural jobs ............................Jan./Feb. 36

Virginia co-op’s biomass project creating jobs, along

with renewable energy .....................................................................March/April 15

SUBJECTS

Aquaculture/Fishery

Disasters spur co-op formations

Louisiana co-op association helps fishermen, farmers

recover following hurricanes and oil spill ............................................July/Aug. 4

Federal Catch Share programs involving harvest cooperatives ..........Nov./Dec. 22

Jersey shellfish co-op well situated for growth .....................................Sept./Oct. 35

New processing facility should improve outlook for fishing co-op .......July/Aug. 7

Preserving Common Ground

Co-ops play key role in preserving shared grazing and

fishing resources ...................................................................................Nov./Dec. 18

Spawning a solution

Farmers, Indian tribes, environmentalists form co-op to

restore Washington salmon run ...........................................................May/June 4

Broadband

Telephone co-ops build broadband, create rural jobs ............................Jan./Feb. 36

Communications

CCA salutes those who excel at telling the co-op story ........................July/Aug. 32

Community Support

Carolina water co-op plays key role in driving economic

development ............................................................................................July/Aug. 28

CoBank program will help co-ops build stronger communities ............July/Aug. 27

Georgia electric co-op supports equine therapy program,

other community causes ......................................................................May/June 20

Conferences

Can co-ops help drive global recovery?

Quebec City to host international co-op conferences .....................July/Aug. 31

CCA salutes those who excel at telling the co-op story ........................July/Aug. 32

Changing course

Milk producers tackle dairy policy, other key issues

at annual meeting ...................................................................................Jan./Feb. 16

Continental movement: worker co-ops join forces in Quebec ..............Jan./Feb. 28

Co-ops respond to consolidation, global volatility ..............................March/April 36

Keeping the ‘open’ sign on

Canadian conference promotes employee ownership

as alternative to business closures .....................................................Jan./Feb. 27

Midwest co-op centers share strategies at regional roundtable ........July/Aug. 35

Co-op Development

‘Because we’re all in this together’

Sandhills Farm to Table Co-op’s goal: ‘Meeting local food

needs with local food’ ..............................................................................Jan./Feb. 4

Business owner benefited from LEDC ..................................................March/April 14

Central Kentucky Growers helps members transition from

tobacco to vegetables ..........................................................................Sept./Oct. 29

Colorado launches health insurance co-op ............................................Sept./Oct. 25

Creating a roadmap for food hub development .......................................July/Aug. 18

Disasters spur co-op formations

Louisiana co-op association helps fishermen, farmers

recover following hurricanes and oil spill ............................................July/Aug. 4

Feed mill seen as key to success of Amish dairy farms ........................Sept./Oct. 32

From workers to owners

LEDC helps Latino immigrants launch wide variety of

businesses in Minnesota ..................................................................March/April 10

Gearing Up the Co-op Economy

Co-op Month Special Section .............................................................Sept./Oct. 20

Flying High

Key to success for turkey producers is their willingness

to put co-op first .......................................................................................Nov./Dec. 4

Iowa State students team with co-ops to develop new

businesses ..............................................................................................Sept./Oct. 27

Iowan shares skills with African farmers ............................................March/April 30

Jersey shellfish co-op well situated for growth .....................................Sept./Oct. 35

Land O’Lakes’ nutrition program helps thousands in Pakistan ............Nov./Dec. 14

Laying groundwork key to successful launch ............................................Jan./Feb. 6

Learning from co-op closure

Dissolution of Producers & Buyers Co-op holds lessons

for others pursuing institutional market ..............................................Jan./Feb. 10

Midwest co-op centers share strategies at regional roundtable ........July/Aug. 35

Montana’s small-scale poultry growers struggle to find

economic way to process, market birds ...........................................Sept./Oct. 23

Nebraska town striving to recover from loss of grocery store ............Sept./Oct. 34

New life for a lifeline

Cooperative effort in Iowa keeps trains on the tracks ......................July/Aug. 8

New processing facility should improve outlook for fishing co-op .......July/Aug. 7

Northwest co-ops forge new links for local foods .................................Sept./Oct. 21

Organic federation seen as a strategy for family farm survival,

regional competitiveness ......................................................................Jan./Feb. 20

Public garden latest addition at resident-owned community

in Maine ...................................................................................................Sept./Oct. 31
40 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

Spawning a solution

Farmers, Indian tribes, environmentalists form co-op

to restore Washington salmon run .......................................................May/June 4

Surging oil industry sparks economy, but also creates

challenges for co-op .............................................................................May/June 24

‘The pillar of my home’

Coffee co-ops brew better quality of life for Ethiopian

farm families ...........................................................................................Sept./Oct. 40

USDA co-op funds leveraged to create resident-owned

communities ...........................................................................................May/June 28

USDA program helps expand ag production in Malawi ........................Nov./Dec. 15

When it comes to local food, co-ops are on the map .............................May/June 8

Co-op Principles/Advantages/Impact

Brian Henehan

Senior Extension Associate, Cornell University ................................July/Aug. 12

Can co-ops help drive global recovery?

Quebec City to host international co-op conferences ...........................July/Aug. 31

C-FARE meeting shows progress made in co-op goals, values ...........July/Aug. 24

The Many Faces of Cooperatives ..............................................................Nov./Dec. 24

Co-op Statistics

Dairy co-ops in the 21st century: the first decade .............................March/April 32

Farm co-ops set sales, income records

Number of full-time jobs up 1,800 .........................................................Sept./Oct. 4

Largest 100 ag co-ops post near-record sales, margins ...................March/April 16

Minnesota home to largest number of ag co-ops; Iowa

tops for business volume.......................................................................Nov./Dec. 10

NCB Co-op 100 shows revenue near $194 billion ....................................Jan./Feb. 39

Top 100 ag co-ops eclipse previous sales record by $18 billion ............Sept./Oct. 8

Cotton

Comparative performance reports help co-ops learn from peers .......July/Aug. 17

Co-op oil mills play vital role in sustaining cottonseed value ...............July/Aug. 14

Dairy

A Taste of Gold

Co-ops’ world-class cheeses help U.S. dominate

international competition .....................................................................May/June 16

Capital Ideas

Lessons offered by dairy co-ops shed light on important

equity capital issues .............................................................................May/June 30

Changing course

Milk producers tackle dairy policy, other key issues at

annual meeting ........................................................................................Jan./Feb. 16

Dairy co-ops in the 21st century: the first decade .............................March/April 32

Feed mill seen as key to success of Amish dairy farms ........................Sept./Oct. 32

The Many Faces of Cooperatives ..............................................................Nov./Dec. 24

Richard Cotta: a life devoted to dairy and co-ops ...................................Jan./Feb. 19

The Nature of Cooperatives

Roles in economizing transaction cost is a new dimension

for understanding value of co-ops .......................................................Jan./Feb. 32

Directors/Governance

Co-op leaders confer with White House officials ...................................July/Aug. 22

She’s taking care of business

Montana producer Mary Fritz paves a trail for women

leaders in Farm Credit System ..........................................................March/April 4

Some like it hot

Mary Alice Garay continues family tradition of growing and

processing chile peppers ...................................................................March/April 7

The Nature of Cooperatives

Roles in economizing transaction cost is a new dimension

for understanding value of co-ops .......................................................Jan./Feb. 32

Disaster Recovery

Co-op safety director offers aid in tornado-ravaged communities ........Jan./Feb. 9

Disasters spur co-op formations

Louisiana co-op association helps fishermen, farmers

recover following hurricanes and oil spill ............................................July/Aug. 4

Education

Brian Henehan

Senior Extension Associate, Cornell University ................................July/Aug. 12

Keep the co-op candle burning!

2012 International Year of Co-ops perfect time to gear-up

co-op education ....................................................................................May/June 38

Study raises important questions about co-op education efforts ........Jan./Feb. 25

Employee-Owned Co-ops

Continental movement: worker co-ops join forces in Quebec ..............Jan./Feb. 28

Keeping the ‘open’ sign on

Canadian conference promotes employee ownership

as alternative to business closures .....................................................Jan./Feb. 27

Environment/Energy

Co-ops view energy efficiency, conservation as top priorities ............Nov./Dec. 12

Making the case for democratic governance of the commons ...........Nov./Dec. 23

Mine tailing sites tested for growing miscanthus grass for biofuel ....Nov./Dec. 30

Preserving Common Ground

Co-ops play key role in preserving shared grazing and

fishing resources ...................................................................................Nov./Dec. 18

Spawning a solution

Farmers, Indian tribes, environmentalists form co-op to

restore Washington salmon run ...........................................................May/June 4

Virginia co-op’s biomass project creating jobs, along with

renewable energy ..............................................................................March/April 15

Farm Credit

She’s taking care of business

Montana producer Mary Fritz paves a trail for women

leaders in Farm Credit System ..........................................................March/April 4

Some like it hot

Mary Alice Garay continues family tradition of growing

and processing chile peppers ...........................................................March/April 7

Farm Supply and Services

Co-Alliance LLP

Partnership delivers returns for members of five co-ops ..............May/June 36

Co-op rail facility boosts feed security .......................................................Nov./Dec. 7

Farm co-ops set sales, income records

Number of full-time jobs up 1,800 .........................................................Sept./Oct. 4

Iowa State students team with co-ops to develop new

businesses ..............................................................................................Sept./Oct. 27

Largest 100 ag co-ops post near-record sales, margins ...................March/April 16

Minnesota home to largest number of ag co-ops; Iowa

tops for business volume ......................................................................Nov./Dec. 10

Sevier Farmers Co-op

Renovated Tennessee supply co-op attracts 3,000

to ‘reopening’ event ................................................................................Jan./Feb. 30

Top 100 ag co-ops eclipse previous sales record by

$18 billion ...................................................................................................Sept./Oct. 8

Use of joint ventures by ag co-ops on rise ..............................................Sept./Oct. 37

Farmers Markets

Nebraska town striving to recover from loss of grocery store ............Sept./Oct. 34

Finance

Capital Ideas

Lessons offered by dairy co-ops shed light on important

equity capital issues .............................................................................May/June 30

Co-ops respond to consolidation, global volatility ..............................March/April 36

Equity financing issues ...............................................................................May/June 31

Flying High

Key to success for turkey producers is their willingness

to put co-op first .......................................................................................Nov./Dec. 4

Food Co-ops

Gearing Up the Co-op Economy

Co-op Month Special Section .............................................................Sept./Oct. 20

Nebraska town striving to recover from loss of grocery store ............Sept./Oct. 34

Northwest co-ops forge new links for local foods .................................Sept./Oct. 21

Foreign Co-ops

Iowan shares skills with African farmers ............................................March/April 30

Land O’Lakes’ nutrition program helps thousands in Pakistan ............Nov./Dec. 14

“The pillar of my home”

Coffee co-ops brew better quality of life for Ethiopian farm

families .....................................................................................................Sept./Oct. 40
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 41

USDA program helps expand ag production in Malawi ........................Nov./Dec. 15

Grains/Oilseeds

Co-Alliance LLP

Partnership delivers returns for members of five co-ops ..............May/June 36

Comparative performance reports help co-ops learn from peers .......July/Aug. 17

Co-op rail facility boosts feed security .......................................................Nov./Dec. 7

Feed mill seen as key to success of Amish dairy farms ........................Sept./Oct. 32

Iowa State students team with co-ops to develop new

businesses ..............................................................................................Sept./Oct. 27

New life for a lifeline

Cooperative effort in Iowa keeps trains on the tracks ......................July/Aug. 8

Use of joint ventures by ag co-ops on rise ..............................................Sept./Oct. 37

Health & Home Services

Colorado launches health insurance co-op ............................................Sept./Oct. 25

Housing

Public garden latest addition at resident-owned community

in Maine ...................................................................................................Sept./Oct. 31

USDA co-op funds leveraged to create resident-owned

communities ...........................................................................................May/June 28

Joint Ventures

Co-Alliance LLP

Partnership delivers returns for members of five co-ops ..............May/June 36

Use of joint ventures by ag co-ops on rise ..............................................Sept./Oct. 37

Legal/Legislative

Capper-Volstead protection and co-op supply management ...............Nov./Dec. 16

Colorado launches health insurance co-op ............................................Sept./Oct. 25

Legislative, regulatory, court actions in 2012 impact

cooperatives ............................................................................................Jan./Feb. 15

Thoughtful succession planning keeps families farming for

generations .............................................................................................Sept./Oct. 18

Livestock & Poultry

Co-op rail facility boosts feed security .......................................................Nov./Dec. 7

Flying High

Key to success for turkey producers is their willingness

to put co-op first .......................................................................................Nov./Dec. 4

Making the case for democratic governance of the commons ...........Nov./Dec. 23

Montana’s small-scale poultry growers struggle to find economic

way to process, market birds ..............................................................Sept./Oct. 23

New contract was a cooperative effort .....................................................Nov./Dec. 5

Preserving Common Ground

Co-ops play key role in preserving shared grazing and

fishing resources ...................................................................................Nov./Dec. 18

Management

Capital Ideas

Lessons offered by dairy co-ops shed light on important

equity capital issues .............................................................................May/June 30

Comparative performance reports help co-ops learn from peers .......July/Aug. 17

Learning from co-op closure

Dissolution of Producers & Buyers Co-op holds lessons

for others pursuing institutional market ..............................................Jan./Feb. 10

Richard Cotta: a life devoted to dairy and co-ops ...................................Jan./Feb. 19

Surging oil industry sparks economy, but also creates

challenges for co-op .............................................................................May/June 24

Thoughtful succession planning keeps families farming

for generations .......................................................................................Sept./Oct. 18

Top 100 ag co-ops eclipse previous sales record by $18 billion ............Sept./Oct. 8

Marketing

A Taste of Gold

Co-ops’ world-class cheeses help U.S. dominate

international competition .....................................................................May/June 16

‘Because we’re all in this together’

Sandhills Farm to Table Co-op’s goal: ‘Meeting local

food needs with local food’ .....................................................................Jan./Feb. 4

Co-Alliance LLP

Partnership delivers returns for members of five co-ops ..............May/June 36

Co-ops of all types benefit from USDA’s value-added grants ..........March/April 26

Co-ops respond to consolidation, global volatility ..............................March/April 36

Creating a roadmap for food hub development .......................................July/Aug. 18

Farm co-ops set sales, income records

Number of full-time jobs up 1,800 .........................................................Sept./Oct. 4

Largest 100 ag co-ops post near-record sales, margins ...................March/April 16

Minnesota home to largest number of ag co-ops; Iowa

tops for business volume ......................................................................Nov./Dec. 10

The Many Faces of Cooperatives ..............................................................Nov./Dec. 24

Top 100 ag co-ops eclipse previous sales record by $18 billion ............Sept./Oct. 8

World Wide Web goes local

How the Oklahoma Food Cooperatives uses the Internet

to bring farmers, consumers together ...............................................May/June 12

Minority/Women

Business owner benefited from LEDC ..................................................March/April 14

Disasters spur co-op formations

Louisiana co-op association helps fishermen, farmers

recover following hurricanes and oil spill ............................................July/Aug. 4

From workers to owners

LEDC helps Latino immigrants launch wide variety of

businesses in Minnesota ..................................................................March/April 10

Hispanic, women farmers may seek compensation ...............................July/Aug. 39

She’s taking care of business

Montana producer Mary Fritz paves a trail for women

leaders in Farm Credit System ..........................................................March/April 4

Some like it hot

Mary Alice Garay continues family tradition of growing

and processing chile peppers ...........................................................March/April 7

Specialty Crops

Some like it hot

Mary Alice Garay continues family tradition of growing

and processing chile peppers ...........................................................March/April 7

Sustainable/Local/Organic

‘Because we’re all in this together’

Sandhills Farm to Table Co-op’s goal: ‘Meeting local food

needs with local food’ ..............................................................................Jan./Feb. 4

Central Kentucky Growers helps members transition from

tobacco to vegetables ..........................................................................Sept./Oct. 29

Creating a roadmap for food hub development .......................................July/Aug. 18

Gearing Up the Co-op Economy

Co-op Month Special Section .............................................................Sept./Oct. 20

Laying groundwork key to successful launch ............................................Jan./Feb. 6

Learning from co-op closure

Dissolution of Producers & Buyers Co-op holds lessons

for others pursuing institutional market ..............................................Jan./Feb. 10

Northwest co-ops forge new links for local foods .................................Sept./Oct. 21

Organic federation seen as a strategy for family farm survival,

regional competitiveness ......................................................................Jan./Feb. 20

Public garden latest addition at resident-owned community

in Maine ...................................................................................................Sept./Oct. 31

When it comes to local food, co-ops are on the map .............................May/June 8

World Wide Web goes local

How the Oklahoma Food Cooperatives uses the Internet

to bring farmers, consumers together ...............................................May/June 12

Technology

Virginia co-op’s biomass project creating jobs, along with

renewable energy ..............................................................................March/April 15

World Wide Web goes local

How the Oklahoma Food Cooperatives uses the Internet

to bring farmers, consumers together ...............................................May/June 12

Transportation

Co-op rail facility boosts feed security .......................................................Nov./Dec. 7

How a REDLG works .....................................................................................July/Aug. 11

New life for a lifeline

Cooperative effort in Iowa keeps trains on the tracks ......................July/Aug. 8

2012 International Year of Co-ops

Keep the co-op candle burning!

2012 International Year of Co-ops perfect time to

gear-up co-op education .....................................................................May/June 38
42 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

Urban Co-ops

Flint Energies turns 75 .................................................................................May/June 43

From workers to owners

LEDC helps Latino immigrants launch wide variety of

businesses in Minnesota ..................................................................March/April 10

Utility Co-ops

Carolina water co-op plays key role in driving economic

development ............................................................................................July/Aug. 28

Co-ops view energy efficiency, conservation as top priorities ............Nov./Dec. 12

Flint Energies turns 75 .................................................................................May/June 43

Georgia electric co-op supporters equine therapy program,

other community causes ......................................................................May/June 20

Surging oil industry sparks economy, but also creates

challenges for co-op .............................................................................May/June 24

Telephone co-ops build broadband, create rural jobs ............................Jan./Feb. 36

Virginia co-op’s biomass project creating jobs, along with

renewable energy ..............................................................................March/April 15

Value Added

Co-op oil mills play vital role in sustaining cottonseed value ...............July/Aug. 14

Co-ops of all types benefit from USDA’s value-added grants ..........March/April 26

Flying High

Key to success for turkey producers is their willingness

to put co-op first .......................................................................................Nov./Dec. 4

AUTHORS

Ali, Sarah

Land O’Lakes’ nutrition program helps thousands in Pakistan ............Nov./Dec. 14

Largest 100 ag co-ops post near-record sales, margins ...................March/April 16

Top 100 ag co-ops eclipse previous sales record by $18 billion ............Sept./Oct. 8

Bau, Margaret M.

Learning from co-op closure

Dissolution of Producers & Buyers Co-op holds lessons

for others pursuing institutional market ..............................................Jan./Feb. 10

Bergstrom, Amanda Lynne

Nebraska town striving to recover from loss of grocery store ............Sept./Oct. 34

Borst, Alan D.

Capper-Volstead protection and co-op supply management ...............Nov./Dec. 16

Preserving Common Ground

Co-ops play key role in preserving shared grazing and

fishing resources ...................................................................................Nov./Dec. 18

Campbell, Dan

Co-op rail facility boosts feed security .......................................................Nov./Dec. 7

If only Abe could see us now! .....................................................................May/June 2

Flying High

Key to success for turkey producers is their willingness

to put co-op first .......................................................................................Nov./Dec. 4

“How can a bunch of farmers do it?”

She’s taking care of business

Montana producer Mary Fritz paves a trail for women

leaders in Farm Credit System ..........................................................March/April 4

Some like it hot

Mary Alice Garay continues family tradition of growing

and processing chile peppers ...........................................................March/April 7

A Taste of Gold

Co-ops’ world-class cheeses help U.S. dominate

international competition .....................................................................May/June 16

Canales, Judith

Co-ops: Don’t overlook Rural Development financial programs .............Jan./Feb. 2

Chesnick, David

Largest 100 ag co-ops post near-record sales, margins ...................March/April 16

Top 100 ag co-ops eclipse previous sales record by $18 billion ............Sept./Oct. 8

Cook, Chris

Creating a roadmap for food hub development .......................................July/Aug. 18

Cummings, Carly

Iowa State students team with co-ops to develop

new businesses .....................................................................................Sept./Oct. 27

Diamond, Adam

World Wide Web goes local

How the Oklahoma Food Cooperatives uses the Internet

to bring farmers, consumers together ...............................................May/June 12

Eversull, Eldon E.

Minnesota home to largest number of ag co-ops; Iowa tops

for business volume ...............................................................................Nov./Dec. 10

Egerstrom, Lee

What Main Streets have over Wall Street ..................................................July/Aug. 2

Gray, Thomas W.

Organic federation seen as a strategy for family farm

survival, regional competitiveness ......................................................Jan./Feb. 20

Hogeland, Julie

C-FARE meeting shows progress made in co-op goals, values ...........July/Aug. 24

Jones, Karen

Co-op safety director offers aid in tornado-ravaged communities ........Jan./Feb. 9

Keeton, Kara

Central Kentucky Growers helps members transition from

tobacco to vegetables ..........................................................................Sept./Oct. 29

Liebrand, Carolyn

Changing course

Milk producers tackle dairy policy, other key issues

at annual meeting ...................................................................................Jan./Feb. 16

Dairy co-ops in the 21st century: the first decade .............................March/April 32

Ling, K. Charles

Capital Ideas

Lessons offered by dairy co-ops shed light on important

equity capital issues .............................................................................May/June 30

The Many Faces of Cooperatives ..............................................................Nov./Dec. 24

The Nature of Cooperatives

Roles in economizing transaction cost is a new dimension

for understanding value of co-ops .......................................................Jan./Feb. 32

Livingston, Jane

Can co-ops help drive global recovery?

Quebec City to host international co-op conferences .....................July/Aug. 31

Mann, Laurel

Co-Alliance LLP

Partnership delivers returns for members of five co-ops ..............May/June 36

Matson, James

‘Because we’re all in this together’

Sandhills Farm to Table Co-op’s goal: ‘Meeting local food

needs with local food’ ..............................................................................Jan./Feb. 4

Creating a roadmap for food hub development .......................................July/Aug. 18

Mayberry, Anne

Carolina water co-op plays key role in driving economic

development ............................................................................................July/Aug. 28

Co-ops view energy efficiency, conservation as top priorities ............Nov./Dec. 12

Telephone co-ops build broadband, create rural jobs ............................Jan./Feb. 36

Virginia co-op’s biomass project creating jobs, along

with renewable energy .....................................................................March/April 15

Merrigan, Kathleen A.

Local food is a cooperative venture ........................................................March/April 2

When it comes to local food, co-ops are on the map .............................May/June 8

Pike, Sarah

USDA co-op funds leveraged to create resident-owned

communities ...........................................................................................May/June 28

..........................................................Nov./Dec. 2

New contract was a cooperative effort .................................................Nov.Dec. 5
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2012 43

Look for it online at:

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_LibraryOfPubs.htm

Or get your free hard copies by e-mailing coopinfo@wdc.usda.gov, 

calling (202)720-8381, or writing:

USDA Co-op Info, Stop 0705, 1400 Independence Ave., SW,

Washington, DC 20250

The new 2011 Cooperative Statistics Report is now available.

Look for it online at:

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_LibraryOfPubs.htm

Or get your free hard copies by e-mailing coopinfo@wdc.usda.gov, 

calling (202)720-8381, or writing:

USDA Co-op Info, Stop 0705, 1400 Independence Ave., SW,

Washington, DC 20250

IT’S HERE!

The new 2011 Cooperative Statistics Report is now available.

IT’S HERE! IT’S HERE!

Pickler, Alice

Midwest co-op centers share strategies at regional roundtable ........July/Aug. 35

Pitman, Lynn

Co-ops respond to consolidation, global volatility ..............................March/April 36

Rafferty, Meredith

Northwest co-ops forge new links for local foods .................................Sept./Oct. 21

Reynolds, Bruce

Co-op oil mills play vital role in sustaining cottonseed value ...............July/Aug. 14

Keeping the ‘open’ sign on

Canadian conference promotes employee ownership

as alternative to business closures .....................................................Jan./Feb. 27

Making the case for democratic governance of the commons ...........Nov./Dec. 23

Preserving Common Ground

Co-ops play key role in preserving shared grazing and

fishing resources ...................................................................................Nov./Dec. 18

Use of joint ventures by ag co-ops on rise ..............................................Sept./Oct. 37

Schepp, Angela

Surging oil industry sparks economy, but also creates

challenges for co-op .............................................................................May/June 24

Smith, Cathy

Jersey shellfish co-op well situated for growth .....................................Sept./Oct. 35

Smith, Stephanie M.

Legislative, regulatory, court actions in 2012 impact cooperatives .....Jan./Feb. 15

Stevenson, Bill

Colorado launches health insurance co-op ............................................Sept./Oct. 25

Sullins, Martha

Creating a roadmap for food hub development .......................................July/Aug. 18

Sutton, Karl

Montana’s small-scale poultry growers struggle to find

economic way to process, market birds ...........................................Sept./Oct. 23

Thayer, Jeremiah

‘Because we’re all in this together’

Sandhills Farm to Table Co-op’s goal: ‘Meeting local food

needs with local food’ ..............................................................................Jan./Feb. 4

Thompson, Stephen

Co-ops of all types benefit from USDA’s value-added grants ..........March/April 26

New life for a lifeline

Cooperative effort in Iowa keeps trains on the tracks ......................July/Aug. 8

Spawning a solution

Farmers, Indian tribes, environmentalists form co-op to

restore Washington salmon run ...........................................................May/June 4

Todd, Anne

Disasters spur co-op formations

Louisiana co-op association helps fishermen, farmers

recover following hurricanes and oil spill ............................................July/Aug. 4

From workers to owners

LEDC helps Latino immigrants launch wide variety of

businesses in Minnesota ..................................................................March/April 10

Tranovich, Anja

“The pillar of my home”

Coffee co-ops brew better quality of life for Ethiopian

farm families ...........................................................................................Sept./Oct. 40

Trocha, Debbie

Feed mill seen as key to success of Amish dairy farms ........................Sept./Oct. 32

Villines, Chris

Sevier Farmers Co-op

Renovated Tennessee supply co-op attracts 3,000 to

‘reopening’ event ....................................................................................Jan./Feb. 30

Wadsworth, James

Keep the co-op candle burning!

2012 International Year of Co-ops perfect time to gear-up

co-op education ....................................................................................May/June 38

Study raises important questions about co-op education efforts ........Jan./Feb. 25

Zenk, Andrew

Thoughtful succession planning keeps families farming

for generations .......................................................................................Sept./Oct. 18
Periodicals Postage Paid

U.S. Department of Agriculture

United States

Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC 20250

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for private use, $300

NOTICE:

❑ Check here to stop receiving this publication and mail this

sheet to the address below.

❑ NEW ADDRESS. Send mailing label on this page and changes

to:

USDA/Rural Business—Cooperative Service

Stop 0705

Washington, D. C. 20250-3255

44 November/December 2012 / Rural Cooperatives

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. 

!"#$%&$'()*+)),()-*.

/$'01&2(3&1"4&'(5&$$6711(871"2

9$26:;17:,(<6$;6:6&

!!!"#$%&"'()*(+,*-(.#/0