United States

Department of

Agriculture

Rural Business–

and Cooperative

Programs

Research

Report 225

Dairy Cooperatives 

in the 21st Century —

The First Decade

Dairy Cooperatives 

in the 21st Century —

The First Decade

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Rural Business–

and Cooperative

Programs

Research

Report 225
Abstract Dairy cooperatives continued to dominate the milk industry at the first-handler level

during 2000-10. The number of dairy cooperatives shrunk by a net of 60 cooperatives

during 2000-10. Of the 83 cooperatives that exited, 49 were sold or otherwise went out

of operation, 30 had merged with another cooperative, and 4 no longer had producer

milk. Twenty-three new cooperatives formed during 2000-10. There were eight more

cooperatives with diversified operations, mostly due to existing cooperatives expanding the scope of their operations. There were few fluid processing cooperatives in both

2000 and 2010, even with a net decline of just one cooperative. Niche marketing cooperatives were the most dynamic among the manufacturing/processing cooperatives

with many entries, exits, and operational changes. The number of bargaining-only

cooperatives continued to far out-number the other operating types of dairy cooperatives, despite declining by a net 49 cooperatives during 2000-10. Small cooperatives

(those handling less than 50 million pounds of milk per year) no longer represented a

majority of the Nation’s dairy cooperatives. The North Atlantic region continued to have

the most dairy cooperatives headquartered there, though a majority of these were

small cooperatives. 

Key Words: Dairy cooperatives, milk, milk marketing, dairy producers, extra value

Dairy Cooperatives in the 21st Century—The First Decade

Carolyn B. Liebrand

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

RBS Research Report 225

July 2012

Cover photo by USDA photographer Lance Cheung
Preface The Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926 tasked the U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) to gather data on cooperatives and to conduct research on issues related to

the cooperative marketing of agricultural products and the cooperative purchase of

farm supplies and services. This project serves to document changes in the dairy

cooperative sector over the first decade of the 21st century. It follows the previous

report, Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBS) Research Report 187: Structural

Change in the Dairy Cooperative Sector, 1992-2000.

Information for this report comes primarily from data collected via surveys of U.S dairy

cooperatives conducted by RBS. In 1997, 2002, and 2007, surveys collected detailed

information on the marketing operations of dairy cooperatives. Dairy cooperatives’ size

categories were also based on information from these marketing operations surveys.

Financial data was collected from RBS’s annual surveys of all agricultural cooperatives.

For the periodic marketing operations surveys, any cooperative that marketed milk for

member-producers was considered a dairy cooperative. By necessity, the annual RBS

survey used a different criterion—if a majority of the cooperative’s sales were from the

sale of milk and dairy products, it was considered a dairy cooperative. 

Industry statistics were taken from various USDA agencies: Economic Research

Service, Foreign Agricultural Service, and the National Agricultural Statistics Service.

The extra value index calculations followed the methodology previously developed by

RBS (Research Report 212: Measuring Performance of Dairy Cooperatives by K.

Charles Ling, June 2006). 

i
ii
iii

Contents Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iv 

Iintroduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Milk production trends  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Dairy product production trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Marketing environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Dairy cooperative dynamics  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Operating types of dairy cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Changes by type of dairy cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

Changes by size of dairy cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Changes by regional headquarters of dairy cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Dairy cooperatives in 2010  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Financial Performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Extra Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

List of Tables

Table 1—Dairy cooperative exits and entries, 2000-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Table 2—Types of dairy cooperative exits and entries between 2000 and 2010 . . . . .6

Table 3—Dairy cooperative exits and entries, by size, 2000-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .8

Table 4—Dairy cooperative exits and entries, by region, 2000-2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Table 5—Status of 2010 dairy cooperatives, by mode of operation, size . . . . . . . . . .11

Table 6—Status of 2010 dairy cooperatives, by region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Table 7—Dairy cooperatives with positive average Extra Value Index, 2000-04 . . . . . .

and 2005-09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Table 8—Comparison of dairy cooperatives average Extra Value Index for . . . . . . . . . .

2000-04 and 2005-09, by operating mode and status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Appendix table 1—2010 dairy cooperatives by operating mode, status, size . . . . . . . . .

and region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

Appendix table 2—Ranking of manufacturing/processing dairy cooperatives by 

the Extra Value Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24

Appendix table 3—Ranking of bargaining-only dairy cooperatives by 

the Extra Value Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Map—Change in Number of Dairy Cooperatives Between 2000 and 2010 by 

Headquarters Region . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30
Highlights

In the first decade of the 21st century, dairy cooperatives lost a net of 60 cooperatives—dropping from 211 in 2000 to 151 in 2010. Of the 151 dairy cooperatives operating in 2010, almost 3 of every 4 had been in operation prior to 1992, but only a little

more than 1 in 7 had been formed since 2000. 

The number of dairy cooperatives that disappeared between 2000 and 2010 outpaced

the number of new cooperatives that were formed by nearly four to one. Almost two of

every five dairy cooperatives existing in 2000 had gone out of existence by 2010, averaging 7.5 cooperative exits per year between 2000 and 2010. About two new dairy

cooperatives were formed per year, on average.

Most of the 83 cooperatives that ceased to exist between 2000 and 2010 were sold or

otherwise went out of operation (49 cooperatives) while 30 merged with another cooperative. Four no longer handled member-producer milk. 

There were eight more cooperatives with diversified operations in 2010 than in 2000.

The increase was mostly due to cooperatives that broadened their operations to

become diversified, where there was just one newly formed diversified cooperative.

Three of the four exits of diversified cooperatives were by merger. 

All the other operating types saw declines in their numbers. The number of cooperatives that did not operate plants for manufacturing or processing milk products saw the

largest decline between 2000 and 2010, but continued to far out-number the other

operating types of dairy cooperatives.

There was ample adjustment among cooperatives that manufactured or processed

their members’ milk into specialty niche products. Over the 2000-10 decade, quite a

few cooperatives exited or ceased making niche products, while at the same time a

number of cooperatives began making niche products or were formed in order to make

niche products.

The small cooperatives (those handling less than 50 million pounds of milk annually)

had more exits and entries than either medium-sized cooperatives (50 to 1 billion

pounds) or large cooperatives (1 billion pounds or more). Furthermore, the net drop of

63 small cooperatives during 2000-10 was the largest change among the 3 size

groups. Accordingly, small cooperatives went from being a majority of the Nation’s

dairy cooperatives (60.2 percent in 2000) to 42.4 percent in 2010. 

Medium-sized cooperatives showed the smallest net change in numbers—a decline of

three cooperatives, while the number of large cooperatives grew by a net of six cooperatives, mostly due to increases in the amount of milk handled by existing cooperatives. 

Close to one-half of the 83 dairy cooperative exits were in the North Atlantic region. In

addition, the North Atlantic was the only region where a majority of the cooperative

exits were by merger. The South Atlantic region (with the fewest cooperatives of all the

regions in 2000) had no exits and added two cooperatives during 2000-10. The East

North Central region had 8 new cooperatives form between 2000 and 2010 while the

North Atlantic region had 7 new cooperatives form—accounting for almost two-thirds of

iv
all new dairy cooperatives. In contrast, the South Central region was the only region

with no new cooperatives.

The performance of dairy cooperatives was examined using a measure of financial

performance that takes into account the alternative cost of using member-supplied

capital, the extra value index. The results indicate that, on average, dairy cooperatives

generated extra value for their members for the entire decade, meaning their earnings

were able to cover a nominal charge for their use of member-supplied capital. The

results also indicated that for cooperatives that merged, financial performance was not

an obvious reason for their exit; rather, a strong position may have made them attractive merger candidates. On the other hand, for the cooperatives that dissolved by

2010, poor financial performance may have been a contributing factor. 

The changes outlined in this report reveal dairy cooperatives to be flexible, responsive

organizations that adapt to member needs in the marketplace. Dairy cooperatives represent a major share of U.S. milk production even as some have altered their operations to meet changes in the market environment and some have gone out of business. The cooperative model for U.S. milk producers appears resilient across a range

of operating types. 

v
Dairy Cooperatives in the 21st Century—The

First Decade

Carolyn Betts Liebrand

Agricultural Economist

Introduction

The beginning of the 21st century found dairy

cooperatives continuing to dominate the milk industry

at the first-handler level. Over this first decade of the

2000s, dairy cooperatives continued to adapt their

operations in order to best market their members’

milk. Some cooperatives expanded operations to handle increased member milk supplies by building or

expanding manufacturing plants. In addition, they

added equipment, facilities, and expertise to hone

product lines to better serve their customers.

Cooperatives merged and created alliances to increase

efficiency, in part by reducing marketing and administrative overhead expenses. Atypical events included a

dairy cooperative bankruptcy and the sale of a longenduring cooperative to an investor-owned dairy company.

This report examines and describes the changes

in the U.S. dairy cooperative sector that have occurred

in the first decade of the 21st century. The changes in

cooperative numbers according to their mode of operation, their size, and where they are headquartered are

documented. In addition, the financial performance of

dairy cooperatives is examined.

Background

Dairy cooperatives exist to serve their memberowner dairy producers. Dairy producers have long

looked to cooperatives to provide a market outlet for

the milk they produce and representation in the marketplace. Accordingly, conditions in the broader dairy

industry have direct implications for dairy cooperative

operations.

Milk production trends

The volume of milk marketed by U.S. producers

grew an average of 2.6 billion pounds annually

between 2000 and 2010 (box 1). Cow numbers

decreased by an average of 9,700 head annually, but

there were increases in 6 of the 10 years. In contrast,

the number of licensed dairy herds in the United

States continued on a steady downward trend.

Accordingly, the number of memberships in cooperatives with a majority of sales from milk and dairy

products shrunk by an average of 5,300 per year during 2000-10. The number of producer-members of

cooperatives that handled producer milk likewise

showed a drop between 2002 and 2007 to about 50,000

producer-members.

The volume of milk marketed by U.S. milk producers per licensed dairy herd nearly doubled from an

annual average of 2.4 million pounds per licensed

dairy herd in 2003 to 3.6 million pounds in 2010.

Likewise, the amount of milk produced per dairy

cooperative producer-member also increased between

2002 and 2007 (the years it was measured). Moreover,

cooperative member-producers marketed about 82

percent of all milk marketed by U.S. producers in both

2002 and 2007.

Dairy product production trends

The figures in box 2 provide a snapshot of production and marketing in the major dairy product categories with the volume marketed by cooperatives.

Notable is the continued growth in cheese production

for 2000-10. Cooperative marketing of cheese did not

follow suit. Cheese marketed by cooperatives was 435

million pounds lower in 2007 than in 2002, while U.S.

cheese production rose by 1.2 billion pounds between

1
those 2 years. Accordingly, the share of cheese marketed by cooperatives continued a downward trend,

falling to 26 percent in 2007. 

Nonfat dry milk (NFDM) production continued

on an upward trend. Likewise, dairy cooperatives

marketed 96 percent of U.S. NFDM production in

2007, up from 84 percent in 2002. U.S. butter production also increased an average of 30.7 million pounds

per year between 2000 and 2010. Dairy cooperatives

marketed 71 percent of the U.S. butter production in

2002 and 2007.

The volume of milk used for fluid products in the

United States increased 3 billion pounds from 2000 to

2010, while the cooperative share of the U.S. packaged

fluid milk volume was steady at 7 percent both in 2002

and 2007.

In total, the volume of milk cooperatives manufactured or processed rose somewhat from 56.2 million

pounds in 2002 to 57.5 million pounds in 2007.

However, dairy cooperatives’ share of the volume of

the total milk used in manufacturing processing in the

United States declined slightly from 33.1 percent in

2002 to 31.0 percent in 2007. 

Marketing environment 

The first decade of the 21st century was tumultuous for both the dairy industry and the United States

economy generally. The volatility of milk prices experienced in the 1990s only increased in the first decade

of the 21st century. Average monthly milk price

peaked in November 2007 at an all-time record of

$21.90 per hundredweight (cwt) and then fell to less

than $11.50 per cwt for June and July of 2009, reversing the fortunes of many a dairy farmer (box 3).

Month-to-month changes in average milk price were

greater than $2 per cwt 8 times in the decade. (In contrast, month-to-month changes were more than $2 per

cwt just 6 times from 1980 to 2000.)

While milk prices were swinging from record

highs to record lows, feed prices saw dramatic increases toward the end of the decade. As a result, annual

average income over feed cost (a measure of milk production profitability) was erratic, ranging by a margin

of $7.49 per cwt of milk from high to low between 2000

and 2010. (By way of comparison, it varied by just

$2.91 per cwt from high to low during the previous

decade.) 

Likewise, total sales (net of sales between cooperatives) for cooperatives with a majority of sales from

milk and dairy product sales fluctuated from year to

year over 2000-10. These cooperatives’ total sales fell in 

5 of the 10 years between 2000 and 2010 and ranged

from an increase of $8.1 billion in 2007 to a drop of

$9.9 billion in 2009. (In contrast, total sales for cooperatives with majority milk and dairy product sales fell

only once in the previous decade, with the largest

year-to-year change at only $1.9 billion). 

Regulations

In the regulatory arena, the Federal milk marketing orders were consolidated into 11 orders as this century began. In 2004, the Western order was terminated,

leaving 10 milk marketing orders in the United States.

The milk price support program was also altered to

support dairy product prices rather than milk prices.

The support purchase price for nonfat dry milk was

lowered while the purchase price for butter support

was raised. There were minimal government purchases of surplus dairy products during the decade. An

income support program was instituted where under

certain conditions the U.S. Government made direct

monthly payments to qualifying dairy producers. 

Dairy Cooperative Dynamics

Dairy cooperatives are vibrant organizations,

adapting to changes in the marketplace and member

needs while striving to maximize their efficiency and

effectiveness. The trend to fewer dairy producers producing larger milk volumes is mirrored by the net

decline of 60 cooperatives serving member-milk producers between 2000 and 2010 (table 1). Moreover, of

the 211 cooperatives operating in 2000, 83 cooperatives, or almost two of every five, had exited by 2010.

However, while a majority of cooperatives dissolved

(49 cooperatives), quite a few exits (30 cooperatives)

were by merger with other dairy cooperatives. The

mergers represent producer organizations realigning

themselves to address the increase in size of their customers and to improve efficiency in milk marketing

and handling operations. Only a handful of cooperatives (4 cooperatives) ceased handling producer milk

between 2000 and 2010.

As an indication of the vitality of the cooperative

form of business for milk marketing, 23 new cooperatives formed over the 2000-10 decade. And, of the 83

cooperatives that ceased to exist, one-third exited by

merging into another cooperative. Furthermore, the

members of cooperatives that were sold or ceased

operation often signed up with other coopertives.

Thus, the drop in the number of cooperatives does not

2
3

Table 1—Dairy cooperative exitsentries and , 2000-10

Total Net

2000 No longer Exits Entries4 2010 change

total Merged1 Dissolved2 "dairy”3 2000-10 2000-10 total 2000-10

___________________________________________________________________________________________ _______________

Number of dairy

cooperatives 211 30 49 4 83 23 151 -60

Percent of 2000

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Share 14.2 23.2 1.9 39.3 10.9 71.6 -28.41 Cooperatives that merged with another cooperative and were not the surviving entity.2 Cooperatives that were sold, dissolved, etc.3 Cooperatives no longer handling member milk.4 Includes cooperatives formed by merger of existing cooperatives when the new entity operated under a new name.
indicate a decline in the usefulness of dairy cooperatives, but rather points to their ability to adapt to market conditions and member needs. 

Operating types of dairy cooperatives

Over the years, dairy farmers have banded

together to form cooperative businesses to better market their milk. The methods these farmers directed

their cooperatives to use to ensure a market for their

raw milk varied widely. For this reason, dairy cooperatives have been broadly classified according to their

type of operations. 

Diversified cooperatives carry out a diverse set of

activities, such as making and marketing a variety of

dairy products while also selling a large portion of

their members’ milk as bulk, raw milk to other handlers to ensure that members have a place in the market. Their products may include butter, dried milk

powder(s), and cheese. The butter and cheese may be

produced in bulk for other manufacturers or in consumer-ready packages, or both. Some cooperatives

produce cheese or dry milk products with specific criteria as requested by their customers. Diversified

cooperatives may also bottle fluid milk and make

“soft” products such as yogurt, cottage cheese, and

sour cream. Typically, these cooperatives handle a

large volume of milk and have members in numerous

States. 

Fluid processing cooperatives process their members’ milk in bottling plants and market packaged beverage milk. In addition, they may make a variety of

soft products and/or ice cream. However, very few

cooperatives have gone this route exclusively. The

fluid processing sector is competitive and requires

ample financial resources and top-notch management.

Niche marketing cooperatives typically process

all of their members’ milk in the cooperative’s plants

to manufacture and market specialty or branded

cheese and other dairy products for particular markets. They often market their products directly to consumers and typically handle a relatively small volume

of milk. A few sell a portion of their milk raw, and in

some cases the cooperative does not have its own manufacturing facilities, but has made arrangements with

a processor (or processors) to make their specialty

products. 

Bargaining-only cooperatives are the most

numerous type of dairy cooperative in the United

States. They operate at the first-handler level in seeking to secure the most profitable outlets for their members’ milk and provide producers a say in the market.

They may negotiate prices and terms of trade, as well

as secure a buyer(s) for members’ milk. For the most

part, bargaining-only cooperatives do not own plants.

Some have members in multiple States and handle a

large volume of milk while others are quite small and

provide only basic marketing services for members.

Two other operating types, “bargaining-balancing” and “hard product manufacturing” are no longer

economically viable. Bargaining-balancing cooperatives were those that operated at the first-handler level

bargaining for their producer-members, but also had

plant facilities to accommodate handlers’ needs and/or

to balance milk supplies. Their manufacturing operations were generally used for manufacturing commodity dairy products (butter, powder, and sometimes

cheese) for last-resort balancing of surplus milk volume. The cost of inefficient plant utilization led this

type of cooperative to merge with other cooperatives,

alter their operations, or dissolve. 

In fact, between 2000 and 2010, five bargainingbalancing cooperatives expanded their operations to

the point that they are considered diversified cooperatives while one merged with a diversified dairy cooperative. And since 2000, three bargaining-balancing

cooperatives closed their plants to focus on bargaining

only while two dissolved. However, dairy cooperatives continue to provide the balancing function in

milk markets—now it is mostly provided by the diversified cooperatives. The diversified cooperatives direct

varying volumes of milk through their systems of

plants to accommodate the ebb and flow of milk production and demand.

Similarly, hard-product manufacturing cooperatives have adopted diversified operations. Previously,

these cooperatives used most of their members’ milk

in their own manufacturing plants to make undifferentiated, commodity dairy products. These cooperatives

had the opportunity to capture processor margins by

operating well-run, large-scale modern plants, but

found that their margins became very narrow. Some

found it more advantageous to diversify their product

lines and to formulate products to unique customer

specifications. One hard-product manufacturing cooperative merged with other cooperatives and through

the combination of operations, gained the advantages

of diverse operations. Interestingly, none of the hardproduct manufacturing cooperatives went out of business altogether in the 10-year period. 

Changes by type of dairy cooperative

There was substantial adjustment in dairy cooperative operations between 2000 and 2010. In fact,

there were as many changes in operating focus as

4
there were new cooperatives formed (23). There were

net declines in the number of cooperatives according

to all operating types, except for diversified dairy

cooperatives—the only type that saw an increase in

their numbers (table 2).

Even so, three diversified cooperatives merged to

better position their producer-members in the marketplace while one diversified cooperative was sold to a

privately owned dairy company (its members then

joined alternative dairy cooperatives, for the most

part). Another diversified cooperative became predominately focused on its fluid operations and so is

classified as a fluid processing cooperative. Therefore,

of the 14 diversified cooperatives in 2000, five were no

longer counted in the diversified category in 2010.

One new diversified cooperative was formed in

the 2000-10 decade by a merger of three manufacturing/processing dairy cooperatives (diversified, fluid

processing, and hard-product manufacturing). There

were a dozen cooperatives that expanded the scope of

their operations to become categorized as diversified,

with the bulk of these (seven cooperatives) being former bargaining-balancing or hard-product manufacturing cooperatives. Three niche marketing cooperatives grew into diversified operations and two

formerly bargaining-only cooperatives added manufacturing/processing operations between 2000 and

2010. Remarkably, a majority of the diversified cooperatives in 2010 (13 out of 22 cooperatives) were not

operating as diversified cooperatives a decade earlier. 

Of the four fluid cooperatives operating in 2000,

three went out of existence by 2010—one by merger

and two through dissolution. Furthermore, no new

cooperatives were formed to operate primarily in the

fluid milk processing arena. However, notably, one

bargaining-only cooperative did add fluid milk bottling operations during the decade and a diversified

cooperative became more appropriately classified as a

fluid processing cooperative. So, there were three fluid

processing cooperatives in 2010, only one of which had

been a fluid bottler the entire decade.

The niche marketing category saw quite a bit of

change between 2000 and 2010, despite the net decline

of just four cooperatives. Of the 23 niche marketing

cooperatives in 2000, eight went out of operation by

2010. Three of these were relatively short-lived cooperatives, as they were formed after 1992 and went out of

operation by 2010. Furthermore, another five cooperatives moved out of niche operations over the decade.

Three medium-sized niche marketing cooperatives

added additional product lines and became diversified, while two small niche cooperatives ceased manufacturing operations but continued to exist as bargaining-only cooperatives. As a result, by 2010 a majority

of the niche marketing cooperatives in existence 10

years earlier (13 cooperatives) had either exited or

ceased manufacturing niche products.

At the same time, five new niche marketing cooperatives were formed between 2000 and 2010 to make

and market niche dairy products. Mostly they sought

to capitalize on unique milk production characteristics

such as “organic” or “grass-fed.” In addition, four

small cooperatives that had been performing only bargaining services in 2000 began manufacturing specialty cheese by 2010. In some cases, these cooperatives

were returning to the cheese manufacturing business. 

As mentioned above, there were no longer any

cooperatives that fit in the bargaining-balancing or

hard-product manufacturing categories. Most of these

(10 cooperatives) altered their operations to continue

in operation—7 as diversified and 3 as bargaining-only

cooperatives. 

Fittingly, the most numerous type of dairy cooperative, bargaining-only, saw the largest decline in

numbers between 2000 and 2010. The largest number

exited by dissolving (36 cooperatives) while 24

merged, mostly into diversified cooperatives.

Bargaining-only cooperatives were the only type

where some (four cooperatives) no longer handled

producer milk. Seven bargaining-only cooperatives

added manufacturing/processing operations to

become niche marketing cooperatives (four cooperatives), fluid processing cooperatives (one cooperative),

or diversified cooperatives (two cooperatives).

Meanwhile, there were 17 newly formed bargaining-only cooperatives. In addition, as mentioned

above, five cooperatives got out of the manufacturing

business to focus solely on their bargaining functions.

Despite the net decline of 49 cooperatives over the

decade, bargaining-only cooperatives continue to far

out-number the other operating types of dairy cooperatives in 2010. 

Changes by size of dairy cooperative 

Dairy cooperatives were also classified according

to the amount of milk they handled. (However, milk

volume is not necessarily a proxy for the number of

member-farms since the amount of milk produced on

any given farm varies widely, with some cooperatives

dominated by members with large herd sizes, others

with smaller, and some with mixed farm sizes). 

The small cooperatives (those handling less than

50 million pounds of milk annually) continued to be

the most numerous size of cooperative, but the num5
6

Table 2—Types of dairy cooperative exits and entries between 2000 and 2010

Exits Net

No Mode plus Mode change

2000 longer Total changes mode changes Total 2010 2000-

Operating Mode co-ops Merged1 Dissolved2 "dairy"3 Exits from changes Entries4 to additions co-ops 10

Number of dairy cooperatives

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Diversified 14 3 1 0 4 1 5 1 12 13 22 8

Fluid 4 1 2 0 3 0 3 0 2 2 3 -1

Niche 23 0 8 0 8 5 13 5 4 9 19 -4

HPM, BB 5 14 2 2 0 4 10 14 0 0 0 0 -14

Bargaining-only 156 24 36 4 64 7 71 17 5 22 107 -49

Total 211 30 49 4 83 23 23 23 n/a 151 -60

Percent of 2000 cooperatives, by type Percent of 2010 cooperatives, by type Percent

         _ of 2000

Diversified 21.4 7.1 0.0 28.6 7.1 35.7 4.5 54.5 59.1 57.1

Fluid 25.0 50.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 75.0 0.0 66.7 66.7 -25.0

Niche 0.0 34.8 0.0 34.8 21.7 56.5 26.3 21.1 47.4 -17.4HPM, BB 5 14.3 14.3 0.0 28.6 71.4 100.0 n/a n/a n/a -100.0

Bargaining-only 15.4 23.1 2.6 41.0 4.5 45.5 15.9 4.7 20.6 -31.4

Total 14.2 23.2 1.9 39.3 10.9 15.2 15.2 -28.4

Note: Mode of operation was determined from the marketing operations survey data of 1997, 2002 and/or 2007.1 Cooperatives that merged with another cooperative and were not the surviving entity.2 Cooperatives that were sold, dissolved, etc.3 Cooperatives no longer handling member milk.4 Includes cooperatives formed by merger of existing cooperatives when the new entity operated under a new name.5 Hard Product Manufacturing and Bargaining Balancing cooperatives
ber dropped sharply from 127 small cooperatives in

2000 to 64 in 2010 (table 3). In fact, most of the 83 dairy

cooperative exits between 2000 and 2010 were in the

small cooperative category (62 cooperatives). Most of

the small cooperatives exited by dissolution (41 cooperatives), while 17 small cooperatives merged with

other cooperatives and 4 no longer handled producer

milk. At the same time, 14 small cooperatives grew in

size. 

Despite the large number of exits, 12 new small

cooperatives were formed over 2000-10, representing a

majority of the 23 newly formed dairy cooperatives.

Regardless, the net decline of 63 small cooperatives

was the largest among the size groups.

There was quite a bit of adjustment among the

medium-sized cooperatives (those handling from 50 to

1 billion pounds of milk annually), yet the number of

medium-size cooperatives declined by just 3 cooperatives in the 2000-10 period. Nineteen medium cooperatives went out of operation—12 by merger while 7 dissolved. Seven changed size category where six

medium-sized cooperatives grew into large cooperatives and just one shrank. As noted above, 13 small

cooperatives grew into medium-sized cooperatives.

Finally, 10 new medium-sized cooperatives were

formed during the decade. 

In contrast, the number of large cooperatives

(those that handled 1 billion pounds or more of milk

annually) grew by a net of six cooperatives. This

growth was due to increases in the amount of milk

handled by seven existing cooperatives, with just one

newly formed large cooperative. Otherwise, there was

little change among the large cooperatives, where just

one cooperative exited by merger and one by dissolution and none shrunk in size.

Changes by regional headquarters of dairy

cooperatives

Dairy cooperatives continue to have a presence in

every region of the United States. The most dairy

cooperatives were headquartered in the North Atlantic

region, both in 2000 and in 2010. This region also had

the most cooperative exits among the regions (table 4).

Of the 41 cooperative exits in the North Atlantic during the decade, 21 were by merger. Most of those that

merged had been members of a federation that disbanded, and they subsequently merged into a large

diversified cooperative, also headquartered in the

North Atlantic. While most of those merging were

small bargaining cooperatives, three medium and 

large manufacturing/processing cooperatives headquartered in the North Atlantic went out by merging.

There were seven newly formed dairy cooperatives in the North Atlantic region. One was the result

of the merger between the three manufacturing/processing cooperatives mentioned above. Most were

newly formed, small bargaining-only cooperatives,

some organized by organic milk producers. Still, there

was a net reduction of 34 cooperatives from 2000 to

2010, more than in any other region. 

The South Atlantic region was unique in being

the only region not to have any dairy cooperative exits

and to see an increase in the number of dairy cooperatives headquartered there. Two new medium-sized

bargaining-only cooperatives formed between 2000

and 2010, giving the South Atlantic a total of five dairy

cooperatives, the second-fewest dairy cooperatives in

2010, rather than the fewest as in 2000.

The East North Central region had 14 dairy cooperatives exit—almost all by dissolution, where just 1

merged and 2 no longer handled producer milk. Yet,

there were eight entries—three of which were small

niche marketing cooperatives and the remaining five

were bargaining-only cooperatives. So, there was a net

decline of six cooperatives in the East North Central

region.

Similarly, the West North Central region had 19

dairy cooperatives exit. Most dissolved and two no

longer handled producer milk, but five had merged

with other cooperatives. Only two new cooperatives

were formed in the West North Central region.

Therefore, the West North Central region had the second-largest decline in number of dairy cooperatives

(17 cooperatives) among the regions.

In contrast, the South Central region saw just one

cooperative merge with another dairy cooperative and

another dissolve between 2000 and 2010. Furthermore,

it was the only region with no new cooperatives. The

net decline of two dairy cooperatives meant the South

Central region had the fewest dairy cooperatives in

2010.

The Western region had 2 cooperatives exit by

merger and 5 that dissolved, so 7 out of the 16 dairy

cooperatives headquartered there in 2000 had exited

by 2010. Most of those that dissolved were small and

medium bargaining-only cooperatives, but one was a

fluid processing cooperative that went bankrupt. Four

bargaining-only cooperatives were formed between

2000 and 2010—all in the Mountain States of Idaho,

New Mexico, and Utah.

7
8

Table 3—Dairy cooperative exits and entries, by size, 2000-10

Exits Entries

No Size plus 2000- Size plus Net

Size 2000 longer Total changes size 2010- changes size 2010 changecategory co-ops Merged1 Dissolved2 "dairy"3 Exits from changes Entries4 to changes co-ops 2000-10

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Number of cooperatives

Small5 127 17 41 4 62 14 76 12 1 13 64 -63

Medium6 62 12 7 0 19 7 26 10 13 23 59 -3

Large7 _22 _1 _1 0 _2 _0 2 _1 _7 8 28 6

Total 211 30 49 4 83 21 23 21 151 -60

Percent of 2000 cooperatives, by size Percent of 2010 cooperatives, by size Percent

                                                                         _ of 2000

Small5 13.4 32.3 3.1 48.8 11.0 59.8 18.8 1.6 20.3 -49.6

Medium6 19.4 11.3 0.0 30.6 11.3 41.9 16.9 22.0 39.0 -4.8

Large7 4.5 4.5 0.0 9.1 0.0 9.1 3.6 25.0 28.6 27.3

Total 14.2 23.2 1.9 39.3 10.0 15.2 13.9 -28.4

Note: Size category was determined from the marketing operations survey data of 1997, 2002 and/or 2007.1 Cooperatives that merged with another cooperative and were not the surviving entity.2 Cooperatives that were sold, dissolved, etc.3 Cooperatives no longer handling member milk.4 Includes cooperatives formed by merger of existing cooperatives when the new entity operated under a new name.5 Cooperatives that handled less than 50 million pounds of milk annually.6 Cooperatives that handled 50 to 999 million pounds of milk annually.7 Cooperatives that handled 1 billion or more pounds of milk annually.
9

Table 4—Dairy cooperative exits and entries, by region, 2000-10

No longer Total 2000-10 2010 Net

2000 coops Merged1 Dissolved2 dairy3 exits Entries4 coops change

Number of cooperatives

North Atlantic 88 21 20 0 41 7 54 -34

South Atlantic 3 0 0 0 0 2 5 2

East North Central 41 1 11 2 14 8 35 -6

West North Central 55 5 12 2 19 2 38 -17

South Central 5 1 1 0 2 0 3 -2Western _19 _2 _5 0 _7 _4 _16 -3

All regions 211 30 49 4 83 23 151 -60

Percent of Percent of

Percent of 2000 cooperatives, by region 2010 2000

______________________________________________________________ _________ _________

North Atlantic 23.9 22.7 0.0 46.6 13.0 -38.6

South Atlantic 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 66.7

East North Central 2.4 26.8 4.9 34.1 22.9 -14.6

West North Central 9.1 21.8 3.6 34.5 5.3 -30.9

South Central 20.0 20.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 -40.0

Western 10.5 26.3 0.0 36.8 25.0 -15.8

All regions 14.2 23.2 1.9 39.3 15.2 -28.4

1 Cooperatives that merged with another cooperative and were not the surviving entity.2 Cooperatives that were sold, dissolved, etc.3 Cooperatives no longer handling member milk.4 Entries include cooperatives formed by merger of existing cooperatives when the new entity operated under a new name.
Dairy cooperatives in 2010

Of the 151 dairy cooperatives operating in 2010,

almost 3 of every 4 (110 cooperatives) had been operating since prior to 1992 (table 5). Most of these cooperatives had been operating since well before 1990s,

where at least a dozen had been operating for over 75

years. Eighteen cooperatives were relatively newer

cooperatives, having been formed during 1992-99,

while 23 cooperatives were newly formed during 2000-

10.

As the marketing environment and needs of the

producer-members changes, dairy cooperatives adjust

their operations. Some cooperatives significantly

altered their operations such that they were identified

as a different operating type. Nineteen of the cooperatives that had been operating since prior to 1992 had

changed their mode of operation during 2000-10.

Moreover, four of the newer cooperatives had also

changed their mode of operation during 2000-10.

However, 91 of the Nation’s dairy cooperatives in 2010

had been in operation since prior to 1992 and had continued in the same mode of operation durinng 2000-10.

While these cooperatives likely expanded, altered, and

adapted their operations over the years, they remained

in the same category of operations.

Furthermore, a majority of the cooperatives of

each operating type had been in operation since prior

to 1992. However, bargaining-only cooperatives were

the only type of dairy cooperative where a majority

(71.0 percent) had been operating since prior to 1992

and had not changed from focusing solely on bargaining functions over the 2000-10 decade. In contrast, only

a minority of the manufacturing/processing cooperatives (diversified, fluid processing, and niche marketing cooperatives) that had been in operation since

prior to 1992 had continued operating within the same

mode of operation during 2000-10. For example, only

27.3 percent of the 22 diversified cooperatives, had

been operating with diversified operations since prior

to 1992. Similarly, while all three of the fluid processing cooperatves had been in operation since prior to

1992, just one had been identified as a fluid processing

cooperative since prior to 1992.

Among the manufacturing/processing cooperatives, niche marketing cooperatives were remarkable

because they had the highest proportion of cooperatives (42.1 percent) that had been in operation since

prior to 1992 and that had remained niche marketers

for the 2000-10 decade (where 3 cooperatives had

niche operations for 100 years or more). At the same

time, niche marketing cooperatives also had the largest

proportion of entries (26.3 percent) during 2000-10.

The proportion of cooperatives in 2010 that had

been in operation since prior to 1992 was similar

among the size groups. Yet, the small cooperatives had

the largest proportion (71.9 percent) of cooperatives in

continuous operation since prior to 1992 that were still

in the same size category in 2010 as in 2000. Barely

over one-half of the medim and large cooperatives

(54.2 and 53.6 percent, respectively) had been operating since prior to 1992 and were still within the same

size category as in 2000. Furthermore, a number of the

newer medium and large cooperatives had changed

size category over the 2000-10 decade.

At the end of the decade, almost all of the small

cooperatives were niche marketing and bargainingonly cooperatives, with three out of four small cooperatives being the latter (where the operating modes and

size categories are based on 2007 survey data; appendix table 1). Conversely, a majority of the large cooperatives were diversified cooperatives (60.7 percent),

while 35.7 percent were bargaining-only cooperatives.

The medium-size category was dominated by bargaining-only cooperatives (84.7 percent). There were no

small diversified cooperatives or large niche marketing cooperatives by 2010.

Finally, a majority of dairy cooperatives in every

region except the Western and South Atlantic regions

had been in operation since prior to 1992 (table 6). The

West North Central and North Altantic regions had

the largest proportion of cooperatives that had been in

operation since prior to 1992 (84.2 and 79.6 percent,

respectively). In contrast, one-fourth of the dairy cooperatives in the Western region, and 40.0 percent in the

South Atlantic, had entered during 2000-10. Also,

nearly one-fourth of the cooperatives (22.9 percent) in

the East North Central region had entered during

2000-10.

Financial performance

Agricultural marketing cooperatives with a

majority of their sales from milk and dairy products

averaged nearly $400 million annually over 2000-09 in

total net income before taxes (NIBT). In 2009, cooperatives with a majority of their sales from milk and dairy

products reported a decade-high $742.9 million in net

income. Furthermore, 2008 total NIBT of $533.3 million

10
11

Table 5—Dairy cooperatives, by length of time in operation, mode of operation and size, 2010

Mode of operation Size category

___________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________

Bargaining

All Diversified Fluid Niche only Small Medium Large

___________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________

Number of cooperatives

Dairy cooperatives, 2010 151 22 3 19 107 64 59 28

Continuous operation1

Mode changed 2 19 10 2 4 3 1 11 5

Same mode 3 _91 _6 1 _8 76 46 32 15

Total, continuous operation 110 16 3 12 79 47 43 20

Newer4

Mode changed 2 4 2 0 0 2 0 2 2

Same mode 3 14 3 0 2 _9 5 4 5

Total, newer 18 5 0 2 11 5 6 7

Entries 2000-10 23 1 0 5 17 12 10 1

Percent of 2010 cooperatives Continuous operation1

Mode changed 2 12.6 45.5 66.7 21.1 2.8 1.6 18.6 17.9

Same mode 3 60.3 27.3 33.3 42.1 71.0 71.9 54.2 53.6

Total, continuous operation 72.8 72.7 100.0 63.2 73.8 73.4 72.9 71.4

Newer4

Mode changed 2 2.6 9.1 0.0 0.0 1.9 0.0 3.4 7.1

Same mode 3 _9.3 13.6 0.0 10.5 _8.4 7.8 _6.8 17.9

Total, newer 11.9 22.7 0.0 10.5 10.3 7.8 10.2 25.0

Entries 2000-10 15.2 4.5 0.0 26.3 15.9 18.8 16.9 3.6

1 Cooperatives in existence since prior to 1992 and in continuous operation through 2010.2 Mode of operation (size category) changed during 2000-10.3 Operated with same mode of operation (size category) during 2000-10.4 Cooperatives entering during 1992-99 and in operation through 2010.
12 Table 6—Dairy cooperatives, by length of time in operation and region, 2010

North South East North West North South

Atlantic Atlantic Central Central Central Western

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Number of cooperatives

Continuous operation1 43 2 24 32 2 7

Newer 2 4 1 3 4 1 5

Entries 2000-103 _7 _2 _8 _2 0 _4

2010 coops 54 5 35 38 3 16

Percent of 2010 cooperatives

_____________________________________________________________________________________

Continuous operation1 79.6 40.0 68.6 84.2 66.7 43.8

Newer 2 7.4 20.0 8.6 10.5 33.3 31.3

Entries 2000-10 3 _13.0 _40.0 _22.9 __5.3 __0.0 25.0

2010 coops 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

1 Cooperatives in existence since prior to 1992 and in continuous operation through 2010.2 Cooperatives entering during 1992-99 and in operation through 2010.3 Cooperatives beginning operations in 2000-10 period, including cooperatives formed by merger of existing cooperatives when the new entity operated under a new name.
was the second highest for dairy cooperatives in the

years 2000-10 (figure 12). The low NIBT was $283.6

million in 2002.

Extra Value

The “extra value” measure was developed by

USDA Rural Development Cooperative Programs

staff. This measure allows the evaluation of cooperatives’ use of member-supplied funds—whether members’ capital is earning more, or less, than it could in

alternative investments. A positive extra value indicates that a cooperative has created value by its operations, while a negative extra value means that a cooperative has actually diminished the value of members’

investment.

The diverse operations of dairy cooperatives

require different levels of capital usage. One way to

neutralize the effect of this diversity of cooperative

operations is to express extra value as a ratio. Extra

value divided by the cooperative’s operating capital

indicates the rate at which a cooperative is creating

extra value. Operating capital represents the financial

resources available to cooperative management to run

the business. 

Extra value is calculated by subtracting an interest charge on equity from net savings. The interest

charge on equity is found by multiplying member

equity by a charge for member equity. “LIBOR plus 2”

is used to represent the charge for member equity

because the charge is not commonly found on cooperatives’ balance sheets. The LIBOR-plus-2 rate used is

the December average British Banker’s Association’s

London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (BBA Libor for U.S.

dollar loans with a 12-month maturity) plus 200 basis

points. Libor plus 2 represents the commonly held

opinion that banks in the United States generally will

extend loans to a firm with a better-than-average credit rating, at an interest rate of about 200 basis points

above the LIBOR. This is the same charge for equity

capital that was used in previous applications of the

extra value measure. 

The Extra Value Index (EVI) is calculated by

dividing the extra value by operating capital.

Operating capital is simply fixed assets plus net working capital (current assets minus current liabilities).

For this report, sufficient financial information

for the extra value to be calculated was available for

only a portion of the dairy cooperatives. Nonetheless,

the results indicate that on average, both the manufacturing/processing cooperatives (diversified, fluid processing, and niche marketing cooperatives) and bargaining-only cooperatives generated positive extra

value for their members for almost the entire decade

(fig 13). (Bargaining-only cooperatives together averaged a slightly negative EVI in 2005.) Dairy cooperative earnings, on average, were able to cover a nominal

charge for their use of member-supplied capital

throughout the decade.

Individual cooperatives’ EVI were also averaged

for 2000-04 and for 2005-09 to get a picture of dairy

cooperatives’ performance during the decade. For the

2000-04, EVI was calculated for 141 cooperatives with

sufficient data, while for 2005-09, the EVI could be calculated for 110 cooperatives. Table 7 shows the number of cooperatives with positive average EVI for 2000-

04 and 2005-09, and the individual cooperatives’

rankings can be found in appendix table 2.

Most manufacturing/processing cooperatives

operating in 2010 that had been in continuous operations since prior to 1992 had positive EVI for both

halves of the 2000-10 decade. In fact, only one of these

manufacturing/processing cooperative had negative

average EVI for 2005-09. Likewise, a majority of the

bargaining-only cooperatives operating in 2010 that

had been in continuous operation since prior to 1992

had positive average EVI during the decade, but the

proportion was smaller than for manufacturing/processing cooperatives.

The cooperatives that dissolved had smaller proportions with positive average EVI. In particular, just

one-third and one-fourth of the bargaining-only cooperatives that dissolved averaged positive extra value

for 2000-04 and 2005-09, respectively. In contrast, a

majority of the cooperatives that merged averaged

positive EVI whether manufacturing/processing or

bargaining only.

Only two manufacturing/processing cooperatives

were in the top 10 percent of the EVI ranking of all

cooperatives for 2000-04. One of these was a cooperative operating in 2010 that had been in continuous

operation since prior to 1992 and the other a cooperative that dissolved prior to 2010. The same manufacturing/processing cooperative also ranked in the top 10

percent for 2005-09. Meanwhile, there was just one

manufacturing/processing cooperative that ranked in

the bottom 10 percent, and it was a cooperative operating in 2010 that had been in continuous operation

since prior to 1992, and ranked in the bottom 10 percent for 2005-09 only. 

Most of the cooperatives ranking in the top or

bottom 10 percent by average EVI were bargainingonly cooperatives for both 2000-04 and 2005-09. In

2000-04, six bargaining-only cooperatives operating in

2010 that had been in continuous operation since prior

13
14 Table 7—Dairy cooperatives with positive average Extra Value Index, 2000-04 and 2005-09

2005-09

2000-04

_________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________

Type/status Cooperatives 1 Average EVI > 0 Cooperatives 2 Average EVI > 0

_________________ _______________________________ ________________ ___________________________

Number of Number of Percent Number Number Percent

co-ops co-ops of co-ops of co-ops

Manufacturing/processing cooperativesContinuous operation3 25 21 84.0 24 23 95.8

Newer 4 5 4 80.0 7 4 57.1

Entries 2000-10 n/a n/a n/a 1 1 100.0

Merged 5 6 5 83.3 2 1 50.0

Dissolved 6 _5 _3 60.0 n/a n/a n/a

41 33 80.5 34 29 85.3

Bargaining-only cooperatives

Continuous operation3 58 42 72.4 51 33 64.7

Newer 4 5 4 80.0 5 4 80.0

Entries 2000-10 3 2 66.7 11 7 63.6

Merged 5 15 10 66.7 5 4 80.0

Dissolved 6 _19 _6 31.6 _4 _1 25.0

100 64 64.0 76 49 64.5

1 141 cooperatives had sufficient data for Extra Value Index (EVI) calculation.2 110 cooperatives had sufficient data for EVI calculation.3 Cooperatives in existence since prior to 1992 and in continuous operation through 2010.4 Cooperatives entering during 1992-99 and in operation through 2010.5 Cooperatives that went out of business by merger between 2000 and 2010.6 Cooperatives that went out of business between 2000 and 2010, not including those that merged.
15

to 1992 and five bargaining-only cooperatives that

merged by 2010 were in the top 10 percent of the cooperatives, according to average EVI. Alternatively, for

2005-09, five new bargaining-only cooperatives ranked

in the top 10 percent, according to average EVI. The

relatively large number of bargaining-only cooperatives ranking in the top or bottom 10 percent may be

due in part to the nature of the bargaining-only operations. Many of the bargaining-only cooperatives had

relatively few assets, which resulted in rather large

EVIs when a moderate amount of extra value was

divided by a relatively small value for operating capital.

Finally, some 90 cooperatives had data for both

time periods—30 manufacturing/processing cooperatives and 60 bargaining-only cooperatives. Of these, 23

of the manufacturing/processing cooperatives and 45

of the bargaining-only cooperatives were cooperatives

operating in 2010 that had been in continuous operation since prior to 1992. Seventy percent of these manufacturing/processing cooperatives had higher average

EVI in 2005-09 over 2000-04, and none averaged negative EVI for 2005-09. In contrast, less than one-half of

the bargaining-only cooperatives operating in 2010 that

had been in continuous operation since prior to 1992

saw an improvement in their average EVI for 2005-09

compared to 2000-04. On top of that, a smaller proportion of these bargaining-only cooperatives had positive

average EVI for 2005-09 than for 2000-04 (Table 8). One

bargaining-only cooperative operating in 2010 that had

been in continuous operation since prior to 1992

ranked in the top 10 percent of all cooperatives for both

2000-04 and 2005-09, (as did one enduring manufacturing/processing cooperative, mentioned above.)

It appears that many cooperatives of both types

(manufacturing/processing and bargaining-only cooperatives) were able to perform well in volatile economic times, with manufacturing/processing cooperatives

perhaps a bit better off in the second half of the decade.

The new entries and newer dairy cooperatives

had mixed results. Some had their average EVI

improve between 2000-04 and 2005-09, while at the

same time fewer had positive extra value in 2005-09

compared to 2000-04. However, the newer bargainingonly cooperatives had the same number with positive

extra value for both time periods.

Only one of the bargaining-only cooperatives that

merged saw an improvement in average EVI between

2000-04 and 2005-09, and none of those that dissolved

had positive average EVI for 2005-09.

These results indicate that for cooperatives that

merged, poor financial performance was not an obvious reason for their exit. In fact, a strong position may

have made them attractive merger candidates. But it

should be noted that only one cooperative that merged

saw its average EVI improve for 2005-09 over 2000-04.

On the other hand, for the bargaining-only cooperatives that dissolved over 2000-10, poor financial performance may have been a contributing factor. Just

one-third of the bargaining-only cooperatives that dissolved had positive extra value for 2000-04 and none

had positive EVI for 2005-09.

Summary

The changes outlined in this report reveal dairy

cooperatives to be flexible, responsive organizations

that adapt to members’ needs in the marketplace and

continue to take a variety of paths in marketing members’ milk. Some dairy cooperatives have longendured. Others continued in operation by significantly altering their operations. And also, new dairy

cooperatives formed during 2000-10. 

Like their dairy-farmer owners, dairy cooperatives declined in number even as the amount of milk

they produced and marketed continued to grow. Small

cooperatives declined to less than one-half of the

Nation’s dairy cooperatives, even though a majority of

the North Atlantic cooperatives continue to be small.

Much of the adjustment in dairy cooperative numbers

was in the small category where a majority went out of

business, but quite a few merged or grew into medium-sized cooperatives.

Modes of operation that were successful in previous decades have given way to alternative operating

types. Some dairy cooperatives adapted to a changed

marketplace by shifting out of bargaining-balancing

operations and from a limited hard-product manufacturing focus over the 2000-10 time period. Other dairy

cooperatives left manufacturing-processing operations

behind altogether whereas others added plant operations over the decade. Bargaining-only cooperatives

were perhaps the most flexible operating type as evidenced by the numerous entries and exits. This could

be in part due to their having few fixed assets. 

On the other hand, over one-half of the niche

marketing cooperatives in existence in 2000 went out of

business or out of niche marketing operations by 2010,

while over one-fourth of the 2010 niche marketing

cooperatives had adopted niche marketing operations

during the decade. 

At the same time that some dairy cooperatives

have made marked adaptations to their marketing 
16 Table 8—Comparison of dairy cooperatives average Extra Value Index for 2000-04 and 2005-09, by operating mode and status1

Extra value index

________________________________________________________________________________

Cooperatives 2000-2004 2005-2009 EVI improved

Operating mode/status EVI>0 EVI>0

Number of cooperatives

_______________________________________________________________________________________________

Manufacturing/processing cooperatives

Continuous operation 2 23 20 23 16

Newer 3 5 4 2 2

Merged 4 _2 _2 _1 _0

30 26 26 18

Bargaining-only cooperatives

Continuous operation 2 45 32 30 22

Newer 3 4 3 3 2

Entries 2000-10 3 2 1 2

Merged 4 5 3 4 1

Dissolved 5 _3 _1 _0 _0

60 41 38 27

Percent of cooperatives in category

_______________________________________________________________

Manufacturing/processing cooperative

Continuous operation 2 87.0 100.0 69.6

Newer 3 80.0 40.0 40.0Merged 4 100.0 50.0 0.0

Bargaining-only cooperatives

Continuous operation 2 71.1 66.7 48.9

Newer 3 75.0 75.0 50.0Entries 2000-10 66.7 33.3 66.7

Merged 4 60.0 80.0 20.0

Dissolved 5 33.3 0.0 0.0

1 Includes only those dairy cooperatives with data for both time periods (2000-04 and 2005-09).2 Cooperatives in existence since prior to 1992 and in continuous operation through 2010.3 Cooperatives entering during 1992-99 and in operation through 2010.4 Cooperatives that went out of business by merger between 2000 and 2010.5 Cooperatives that went out of business between 2000 and 2010, not including those that merged.
situations, many cooperatives have long-endured

within a particular marketing mode or size category.

That is not to say that they have not made adjustments

to address changes in the marketplace. These cooperatives have modernized their plants and equipment,

built or acquired new plants, expanded product lines,

entered joint ventures, and/or broadened member services, even as they continued with the same general

type of operations.

While the dairy cooperative sector is buffeted by

the same economic storms as the broader economy

and impacted by changes in milk production, the

financial performance data suggests that dairy cooperatives on average are able to use member capital effectively. However, the economic environment, to the

extent that is common to all dairy cooperatives, may

impact each cooperative’s performance differently. In

the distressful economic times of the later part of the

decade, some dairy cooperatives made additional payments to their members to help them through the difficulties of record-low pay prices and record-high input

costs. This type of assistance boosted members’ bottom

lines but likely reduced the cooperatives’ NIBT.

All this attests to the viability of the cooperative

model in dairy marketing while at the same time highlighting that there is no one ideal mode of dairy cooperative operation. The fact that dairy cooperatives

have been able to thrive using a variety of operating

modes and under a broad range of economic conditions indicates that dairy cooperatives are likely to

continue as the marketing organizations of choice for

many dairy farmers in the years to come.

17
18

Box 1–U.S. milk production, 2000-10

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Thousands

Fig 2–U.S. licensed dairy herds; cooperative memberships, 2000-10

Milk producer-members

Licensed Dairy Herds 

Memberships in co-ops with 

majority milk and dairy 

product sales

70

90

110

130

150

170

190

210

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Fig 1–U.S. milk marketed by producers and milk cow inventory, 2000-10

Billion 

pounds

100,000 head

Sources:

USDA/National Agricultural Statistics Service, Quick Stats Operations with Milk Cows, Milk Production

http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/F57EF7D3-3F2D-3BB6-B257-851485453586

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/dairy.htm

USDA/Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Cooperative Programs National Data

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/data.htm

Downloaded 09/14/2011

USDA/Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Marketing Operations of Dairy Cooperatives–Historical 

Summaries

Notes: Dairy cooperative memberships numbers are from RBS’s annual survey of farmer cooperatives and include all 

voting members in cooperatives where 50 percent or more of their sales came from milk and dairy products—so some 

members may not be milk producers. The milk producer-members numbers are gathered by RBS’s survey of dairy 

cooperative marketing operations, conducted in 5-year intervals, and reflect the milk producing members of all 

cooperatives that handled milk and had producer-members. Data for licensed dairy herds not available prior to 2003.

40

90

140

190

240

290

340

390

Fig 3–Milk cow inventory and milk marketed per licensed dairy herd; milk marketed per 

member-producer, 2000-10 Milk per 

producermember (10,000 

lbs)

Milk marketed by 

producers per 

licensed 

operaƟon

Cows per licensed 

herd (head)
19

Box 2–U.S. dairy product production and use, 2000-10

1,500 

2,000 

unds

Fig 6–Butter

-

50,000 

100,000 

150,000 

200,000 

250,000 Million pounds

Fig 4–Cheese

Milk marketed by 

producers

Marketed by dairy 

cooperatives

-

200 

400 

600 

800 

1,000 

1,200 

1,400 

1,600 

1,800 

2,000 

Million pounds

Fig 5–Nonfat dry milk

U.S. production

Exports

Marketed by dairy 

cooperatives

Sources:

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service

http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdDownload.aspx

USDA/Rural Business-Cooperative Service–Marketing Operations of Dairy Cooperatives-Historical Summaries

ŚƩƉ͗ͬͬǁǁǁ͘ƌƵƌĚĞǀ͘ƵƐĚĂ͘ŐŽǀͬƌďƐͬĐŽŽƉƐͬĚĂŝƌLJ͘Śƚŵ

Downloaded 09/21/11

-

500 

1,000 

1,500 

Million ƉŽƵŶĚs

U.S. production

Marketed by dairy 

cooperatives

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

Million ƉŽƵŶĚs

Fig 7–Fluid milk

U.S. 

consumption

Packaged by 

cooperatives

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

Million pounds

Fig 8–Milk, factory use

U.S. factory use

Manufactured by 

cooperatives
20

Box 3–Milk marketing–economic data, 2000-10

$0

$5

$10

$15

$20

$25

$/cwt

0

5

10

15

20

25

Dollars per cwt

Fig. 10–Milk production income and feed costs

Milk production 

income

Total Feed costs

Income over 

feed cost

30

35

40

$

Fig. 11–Dairy cooperatives, total net sales 1/

Total net sales

1/ Total sales excluding sales between cooperatives.

Source: USDA/National Agricultural Statistics Service Quick Stats National Milk Price Received, $/CW

 Downloaded 9/14/2011

http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/results/F0FEA479-A822-31C6-A3AE-F4CC3E930261

Source: Economic Research Service

http://www.ers.usda.gov/Data/CostsAndReturns/testpick.htm Downloaded 09/19/11

Source: USDA/Rural Business Cooperative Service

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/data.htm Downloaded 09/21/11

Net business volume excludes sales between cooperatives. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Billion $

Total net sales

Fig. 9–Average monthly prices received for all milk, United States 
21

Box 4–Dairy cooperative financial performance, 2000-10

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

Million

Fig. 12–Net income before taxes for dairy cooperatives

Cooperatives with 

majority milk and 

dairy product sales

-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

EVI

Fig. 13–Dairy cooperatives 1 average extra value index

Bargaining only

ManufacturingProcessing

1 Cooperatives with producer-member milk.

Source: USDA/Rural Business-Cooperative Service

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/coops/data.htm Downloaded 09/21/11

-10.0%
22 Appendix table 1—2010 dairy cooperative by operating mode, status, size, and region

Small Medium Large Total Small Medium Large Small Medium Large 

Operating mode, Size, distribution

Number of cooperatives distribution by size by operating mode 

Percent Percent 

Continous operation1

Operating mode: 31 19 4 54 57.4 35.2 7.4 48.4 32.2 14.3

Diversified 0 5 11 16 0.0 31.3 68.8 0.0 11.6 55.0Fluid 1 1 1 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 2.1 2.3 5.0Niche 9 3 0 12 75.0 25.0 0.0 19.1 7.0 0.0Bargaining only 37 34 8 79 46.8 43.0 10.1 _78.7 _79.1 _40.0

Total, enduring 47 43 20 110 42.7 39.1 18.2 100.0 100.0 100.0Newer cooperatives2

Operating mode:Diversified 0 0 5 5 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 71.4

Fluid 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Niche 2 0 0 2 100.0 0.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 0.0Bargaining only 3 6 2 11 27.3 54.5 18.2 _60.0 100.0 _28.6

Total, newer 5 6 7 18 27.8 33.3 38.9 100.0 100.0 100.0

Entries 2000-103 

Operating mode:Diversified 0 0 1 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

Fluid 0 0 0 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0Niche 5 0 0 5 100.0 0.0 0.0 41.7 0.0 0.0Bargaining only 7 10 0 17 41.2 58.8 0.0 _58.3 100.0 __0.0

Total, new 12 10 1 23 52.2 43.5 4.3 100.0 100.0 100.0

2010 dairy cooperatives

Operating mode:Diversified 0 5 17 22 0.0 22.7 77.3 0.0 8.5 60.7

Fluid 1 1 1 3 33.3 33.3 33.3 1.6 1.7 3.6Niche 16 3 0 19 84.2 15.8 0.0 25.0 5.1 0.0Bargaining only 47 50 10 107 43.9 46.7 9.3 _73.4 _84.7 _35.7

Total 64 59 28 151 42.4 39.1 18.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

Continued—
Appendix table 1 (cont.)—2010 dairy cooperatives, by operating mode, status, size, and region

Small Medium Large Total Small Medium Large Small Medium Large 

Region, Size, distribution

Number of cooperatives distribution by size by region

Percent Percent 

Regions

North Atlantic 31 19 4 54 57.4 35.2 7.4 48.4 32.2 14.3

South Atlantic 0 3 2 5 0.0 60.0 40.0 0.0 5.1 7.1East North Central 16 12 7 35 45.7 34.3 20.0 25.0 20.3 25.0West North Central 16 15 7 38 42.1 39.5 18.4 25.0 25.4 25.0South Central 0 2 1 3 0.0 66.7 33.3 0.0 3.4 3.6Western 1 8 7 16 6.3 50.0 43.8 __1.6 _13.6 _25.0

All regions 64 59 28 151 42.4 39.1 18.5 100.0 100.0 100.0

Notes: Small: handled less than 50 million pounds of milk per year; Medium: handled 50 to 999 million pounds of milk per year; Large: handled 1 billion or more pounds of milk per year. 

Mode of operation and size category based on 2007 marketing operations survey data.

1 Cooperatives in existence since prior to 1992 and in continuas operation through 2010.2 Cooperatives entering during 1992-99 and in operation through 2010.3 Includes cooperatives formed by merger of existing cooperatives when the new entity operated under a new name.

23
24 Appendix table 2—Ranking of manufacturing/processing1 dairy cooperatives by the Extra Value Index

First half of decade (2000-04)      Second half of decade (2005-09) 

Rank

Extra among Rank Top/ Extra Rank among Rank Top/

value mfg/proc. among all bottom value mfg/proc. among all bottom

Status/coop code index coops 2 coops 3 10% index coops 2 coops 3 10%

Continuous operation 4E-MP 1 + 2 14 TOP + 1 3 TOP

E-MP 17 + 5 26 . + 22 61 .

E-MP 4 + 6 35 . + 8 26 .

E-MP 7 + 7 36 . + 11 36 .

E-MP 19 + 8 37 . + 24 68 .

E-MP 18 + 9 40 . + 23 65 .

E-MP 6 + 10 42 . + 10 33 .

E-MP 9 + 12 45 . + 13 41 .

E-MP 13 + 13 46 . + 17 52 .

E-MP 5 + 14 47 . + 9 32 .

E-MP 2 + 15 48 . + 4 16 .

E-MP 16 + 17 60 . + 20 57 .

E-MP 14 + 18 63 . + 18 54 .

E-MP 11 + 19 66 . + 15 48 .

E-MP 8 + 20 67 . + 12 40 .

E-MP 22 + 21 71 . + 28 74 .

E-MP 15 + 23 78 . + 19 56 .

E-MP 10 + 24 79 . + 14 46 .

E-MP 20 + 25 81 . + 25 69 .

E-MP 26 + 27 85 .

E-MP 21 + 30 91 . + 27 73 .

E-MP 3 - 34 102 . + 7 25 .

E-MP 23 - 37 110 . + 29 78 .

E-MP 12 - 39 119 . + 16 50 .

E-MP 25 - 41 125 .

E-MP 24 - 34 101 BOTTOM

Continued—
25

Appendix table 2 (con’t)—Ranking of manufacturing/processing1 dairy cooperatives by the Extra Value Index

First half of decade (2000-04)      Second half of decade (2005-09) 

Rank

Extra among Rank Top/ Extra Rank among Rank Top/

value mfg/proc. among all bottom value mfg/proc. among all bottom

Status/coop code index coops 2 coops 3 10% iindex coops 2 coops 3 10%

Newer 5NR-MP 1 + 3 15 . + 2 14 .NR-MP 2 + 11 43 . + 3 15 .NR-MP 6 + 28 86 . - 31 85 .NR-MP 7 + 32 93 . - 32 86 .NR-MP 5 - 35 103 . - 30 81 .NR-MP 3 + 6 22 .

NR-MP 4 + 21 59 .

Entries 2000-10

NEW-MP 7 + 5 20 .

Merged 6

M-MP 4 + 4 20 .

M-MP 1 + 16 55 . + 26 72 .M-MP 2 + 22 76 . - 33 97 .M-MP 5 + 26 83 .

M-MP 3 + 31 92 .

M-MP 6 - 38 112 .

Dissolved 7

D-MP 1 + 1 12 TOP

D-MP 2 + 29 90 .

D-MP 3 + 33 97 .

D-MP 4 - 36 104 .

D-MP 5 - 40 121 .

1 Includes diversified, fluid processing and niche marketing cooperatives.2 5-year average EVI rank among all manufacturing/processing cooperatives with EVI data.3 5-year average EVI rank among all 141 cooperatives for 2000-04 and all 110 cooperatives for 2005-09.4 Cooperatives in existence since prior to 1992 and in continuous operation through 2010.5 Cooperatives entering during 1992-99 and in operation through 2010.6 Cooperatives that went out of business by merger between 2000 and 2010.7 Cooperatives that went out of business between 2000 and 2010, not including those that merged.
26 Appendix table 3—Ranking of bargaining-only dairy cooperatives by the Extra Value Index 

 First half of decade (2000-04)   Second half of decade (2005-09) 

Rank

Extra among Rank Top/ Extra Rank among Rank Top/

value bargaining- among all bottom value bargaining- among all bottom

Status/coop code index only co-ops 1 co-op 2 10% index only co-ops 1 co-ops 2 10%

Continuous operation 3E-BO 33 + 1 1 TOP + 49 77 .

E-BO 64 + 5 5 TOP

E-BO 63 + 6 6 TOP

E-BO 2 + 8 8 TOP + 8 9 TOP

E-BO 59 + 10 10 TOP

E-BO 56 + 12 13 TOP

E-BO 7 + 16 19 . + 14 18 .

E-BO 5 + 17 21 . + 11 12 .

E-BO 45 + 19 23 . - 63 95 .

E-BO 52 + 20 24 .

E-BO 54 + 21 25 .

E-BO 16 + 22 27 . + 28 39 .

E-BO 14 + 23 28 . + 26 37 .

E-BO 60 + 24 29 .

E-BO 18 + 29 34 . + 31 44 .

E-BO 13 + 30 38 . + 25 35 .

E-BO 12 + 31 39 . + 23 31 .

E-BO 28 + 32 41 . + 43 66 .

E-BO 49 + 33 44 . - 69 103 BOTTOM

E-BO 20 + 35 50 . + 33 47 .

E-BO 47 + 39 54 . - 66 99 .

E-BO 39 + 40 56 . - 55 87 .

E-BO 46 + 41 57 . - 65 98 .

E-BO 10 + 42 58 . + 18 24 .

E-BO 9 + 43 59 . + 17 23 .

E-BO 29 + 44 61 . + 44 67 .

E-BO 57 + 45 62 .

E-BO 26 + 46 64 . + 41 63 .

E-BO 30 + 47 65 . + 46 71 .

E-BO 22 + 48 68 . + 35 51 .

E-BO 23 + 49 69 . + 36 53 .

Continued—
27

Appendix table 3 (cont.)—Ranking of bargaining-only dairy cooperatives by the Extra Value Index

 First half of decade (2000-04)   Second half of decade (2005-09) 

Rank

Extra among Rank Top/ Extra Rank among Rank Top/

value bargaining- among all bottom value bargaining- among all bottom

Status/coop code index only co-ops 1 co-ops 2 10% index only co-ops 1 co-ops 2 10%

E-BO 6 + 51 72 . + 13 17 .

E-BO 19 + 52 73 . + 32 45 .

E-BO 58 + 53 74 .

E-BO 32 + 54 75 . + 48 76 .

E-BO 3 + 55 77 . + 9 10 TOP

E-BO 25 + 56 80 . + 39 60 .

E-BO 34 + 58 84 . - 50 79 ..

E-BO 31 + 59 87 . + 47 75 .

E-BO 53 + 60 88 .

E-BO 38 + 63 95 . - 54 84 .

E-BO 4 + 64 96 . + 10 11 TOP

E-BO 40 - 66 99 . - 57 89 .

E-BO 61 - 67 100 .

E-BO 36 - 68 101 . - 52 82 .

E-BO 17 - 69 105 . + 29 42 .

E-BO 62 - 70 106 .

E-BO 27 - 75 113 . + 42 64 .

E-BO 21 - 76 114 . + 34 49 .

E-BO 44 - 78 116 . - 62 94 .

E-BO 24 - 79 117 . + 37 55 .

E-BO 42 - 80 118 . - 60 92 .

E-BO 48 - 85 126 . - 67 100 BOTTOM

E-BO 43 - 87 128 BOTTOM - 61 93 .

E-BO 50 - 91 132 BOTTOM - 71 105 BOTTOM

E-BO 55 - 94 135 BOTTOM

E-BO 51 - 95 136 BOTTOM - 72 106 BOTTOM

E-BO 15 - 97 138 BOTTOM + 27 38 .

E-BO 1 + 1 1 TOPE-BO 11 + 22 30 .E-BO 35 - 51 80 .E-BO 37 - 53 83 .E-BO 41 - 59 91 .E-BO 8 + 15 19 .

Continued—
28 Appendix table 3 (cont.)—Ranking of bargaining-only dairy cooperatives by the Extra Value Index

 First half of decade (2000-04)   Second half of decade (2005-09) 

Rank

Extra among Rank Top/ Extra Rank among Rank Top/

value bargaining- among all bottom value mfg/proc. among all bottom

Status/coop code index only co-ops 1 co-ops 2 10% index co-ops 1 co-ops 2 10%

Newer 4NR-BO 1 + 7 8 TOPNR-BO 2 + 14 17 . + 30 43 .

NR-BO 3 + 34 49 . + 24 34 .

NR-BO 4 + 36 51 .

NR-BO 5 + 50 70 . + 38 58 .

NR-BO 6 - 83 123 . - 68 102 BOTTOM

Entries 2000-10

NEW-BO 2 + 27 32 . + 3 4 TOP

NEW-BO 11 + 37 52 . - 75 109 BOTTOM

NEW-BO 8 - 86 127 . - 56 88 .

NEW-BO 1 + 2 2 TOPNEW-BO 3 + 4 5 TOPNEW-BO 4 + 5 6 TOPNEW-BO 5 + 6 7 TOPNEW-BO 6 + 12 13 .NEW-BO 7 + 40 62 .NEW-BO 9 - 58 90 .NEW-BO 10 - 70 104 BOTTOMMerged 5

M-BO 1 + 3 3 TOP

M-BO 2 + 4 4 TOP

M-BO 3 + 7 7 TOP

M-BO 4 + 9 9 TOP + 16 21 .

M-BO 5 + 11 11 TOP

M-BO 6 + 25 30 . + 21 29 .

M-BO 7 + 26 31 . + 20 28 .

M-BO 8 + 38 53 .

Continued—
29

Appendix table 3 (cont.)—Ranking of bargaining-only dairy cooperatives by the Extra Value Index

 First half of decade (2000-04)   Second half of decade (2005-09) 

Rank

Extra among Rank Top/ Extra Rank among Rank Top/

value bargaining- among all bottom value bargaining- among all bottom

Status/coop code index only co-ops 1 co-ops 2 10% index only co-ops 1 co-ops 2 10%

M-BO 8 + 38 53 .

M-BO 9 + 57 82 .

M-BO 10 + 61 89 .

M-BO 11 - 72 108 . - 73 107 BOTTOMM-BO 12 - 74 111 .

M-BO 13 - 89 130 BOTTOM

M-BO 14 - 98 139 BOTTOM + 19 27 .

M-BO 15 - 99 140 BOTTOM

Dissolved 6

D-BO 1 + 2 2 TOP

D-BO 2 + 13 16 . - 76 110 BOTTOMD-BO 3 + 15 18 .

D-BO 4 + 18 22 .

D-BO 5 + 28 33 .

D-BO 6 + 62 94 .

D-BO 7 0 65 98 .

D-BO 8 - 71 107 . - 64 96 .D-BO 9 - 73 109 .

D-BO 10 - 77 115 .

D-BO 11 - 81 120 . - 74 108 BOTTOMD-BO 12 - 82 122 .

D-BO 13 - 84 124 .

D-BO 14 - 88 129 BOTTOM

D-BO 15 - 90 131 BOTTOM

D-BO 16 - 92 133 BOTTOM

D-BO 17 - 93 134 BOTTOM

D-BO 18 - 96 137 BOTTOM

D-BO 19 - 100 141 BOTTOM

D-BO 20 + 45 70 .

1 5-year average EVI rank among all bargaining-only cooperatives with EVI data.2 5-year average EVI rank among all 141 cooperatives for 2000-04 and all 110 cooperatives for 2005-09.3 Cooperatives in existence since prior to 1992 or in continuous operation through 2010.4 Cooperatives entering during 1992-99 and in operation through 2010.5 Cooperatives that went out of business by merger between 2000 and 2010.6 Cooperatives that went out of business between 2000 and 2010, not including those that merged.
30

Map—Change in Number of Dairy Cooperatives Between 2000 and 2010 by Headquarters Region

West North Central

-17 (30.9%)

Western (including

Alaska and Hawaii)

-3 (-15.8%)

South Central

-2 (-40.0%)

South Atlantic

+2 (+66.7%)

North

Atlantic

-34 (-38.6%)

East North Central

-6 (-14.6%)
31
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Business–Cooperative Service

Stop 3250

Washington, D.C. 20250-3250

Rural Business–Cooperative Service (RBS) provides research, management, and educational assistance to cooperatives to strengthen the economic position of farmers and other rural residents. It works directly with

cooperative leaders and Federal and State agencies to improve organization, leadership, and operation of cooperatives and to give guidance to

further development.

The cooperative segment of RBS (1) helps farmers and other rural residents develop cooperatives to obtain supplies and services at lower cost

and to get better prices for products they sell; (2) advises rural residents

on developing existing resources through cooperative action to enhance

rural living; (3) helps cooperatives improve services and operating efficiency; (4) informs members, directors, employees, and the public on how

cooperatives work and benefit their members and their communities; and

(5) encourages international cooperative programs. RBS also publishes

research and educational materials and issues Rural Cooperatives magazine.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in

all of its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex (including gender identity

and expression), marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,

sexual orientation, political beliefs, genetic information, 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

Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Stop 9410

Washington, DC 20250-9410

Or call toll-free at (866) 632-9992 (English) or (800) 877-8339 (TDD) or

(866) 377-8642 (English Federal-relay) or (800) 845-6136 (Spanish Federalrelay). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.