Livestock and Wd

Cooperatives

FARMER COOPERATIVES IN THE UNITED STATES

COOPERATIVE INFORMATION REPORT 1

SECTION 14

US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

ECONOMICS, STATISTICS, AND COOPERATIVES SERVICE
Contents

Page

Cooperative activities prior to the 1970’s .................. 4

Livestock ............................................ 4

Wool ...............................................

II

Cooperative activities in the 1970’s ........................ 13

Livestock.. .......................................... 13

Marketing ......................................... 13

Integrated operations ............................... 19

Other services ...................................... 23

Producer investment in livestock marketing ............ 25

Wool ............................................... 26

Marketing ......................................... 26

Other services ...................................... 29

Challenges and opportunities in the future ................. 29

Livestock ............................................ 29

Wool ............................................... 33

Summary and conclusions ............................... 34

Cooperative Information Report Section 14 May 1979
Several cooperatives, such as Farmland Foods, Inc., slaughter,

process, and package members’ livestock as brand name consumer

meat products.
Livestock and Wool

CooperaWes

Livestock sales accounted for 28.8 percent of farmers’ cash

receipts in the United States in 1975, more than any other commodity or commodity group. In 1975-76, cooperatives marketed

an estimated 11.6 percent of all livestock marketed, or $3.0 billion

worth (table 1). In 1973-74, cooperatives marketing livestock

accounted for 7.1 percent of the dollar volume marketed by all

marketing cooperatives. During the same period, 818 livestock

cooperatives, including an estimated 374 that were temporarily

inactive, had a combined membership of 697,600 livestock producers from 42 States.

Of the 572 cooperatives handling livestock in 1973-74, 539

or 94.2 percent were local associations. However, they accounted

for only 10.8 percent of $373.6 million of livestock sales by cooperatives. Therefore, 33 regional cooperatives or 5.8 percent of

cooperatives handling livestock accounted for 89.2 percent or $3.1

billion of cooperative livestock sales.

The four largest regional cooperatives in 1973-74 (in order

of dollar sales): Central Livestock Association, St. Paul, Minn.;

Interstate Producers Livestock Association, Peoria, Ill.; Producers

Livestock Marketing Association, North Salt Lake, Utah; and

Producers Livestock Association, Columbus, Ohio, handled $1.3

billion worth of livestock or 38.9 percent of cooperative sales. The

12 largest cooperatives handled $2.5 billion worth of livestock or

71.4 percent of cooperative sales.

Livestock cooperatives, their members, and sales volume

are concentrated in 11 States, 10 of which are in the North Cen-

‘Livestock includes cattle and calves, hogs and pigs, sheep and lambs, and meat

and byproducts derived from those livestock classes; wool includes wool and mohair.

1
Table I-Farmer cooperatives marketing livestock and livestock products: Number, memberships, and total sales of livestock and livestock products, 1930-31 to 1975-76’

Period

Primarily livestock All cooperatives Value of livemarketing cooperatives marketing livestock stock and liveduring specified stock products

Number* Membership3

...... 2,014

1940-41 ...... 800

1950-51 ...... 536

1960-61 ...... 456

1970-71 ...... 461

1971-72 ...... 450

1972-73 ...... 448

1973-74 ...... 444

1974-75 ......

1975-76 ......

Number 1,OOOdollars

400,000 N.A. 300,000

600,000 N.A. 292,000

953,125 753 1,407,026

784,760 532 1,567,434

699,380 696 2,388,866

684,585 613

692,710 575

697,635 572

2,414,992

2,871,064

3,446,706

62,871,349

63,006,568

llncludes Alaska and Hawaii from 1950-51 on.

21ncludes local, regional, and national cooperatives whose sales of livestock and livestock

products exceeded 50 percent of total sales.

31ncludes some duplication where 2 or more cooperatives are in same town or in nearby town.

41ncludes primarily marketing cooperatives and supply cooperatives with livestock marketing

operations.

51ncludes intercooperative business, i.e., sales of regional or terminal sales cooperatives for

local cooperatives.

Tstimated.

NA=Not Available.

tral United States (in order of cooperative sales: Minnesota, Iowa,

Illinois, Wisconsin, Ohio, Missouri, California, Indiana,

Nebraska, Michigan, and Kansas). In 1973-74, $2.5 billion or 73.9

percent of cooperative livestock sales were in those States.

Cooperatives rapidly increased in number prior to and

through the 1920’s and 1930’s. But due to consolidations, mergers,

and acquisitions, and in response to changing conditions, the

number of cooperatives handling livestock has since declined, as

table 1 indicates. Membership in livestock cooperatives has

declined also, as a result of declining numbers of farms and

ranches. However, the dollar volume of business has increased.

Part of the increase is due to a rising price level. The combined

result of declining numbers and increasing volume has been fewer,

larger, and more efficient cooperatives.

2
Farmers’ cash receipts for wool in 1975 were less than 0.1

percent of farmers’ total cash receipts for all commodities in the

United States. In 1975-76, cooperatives marketed an estimated

30.1 percent of all wool marketed, or $21.2 million worth (table

2). In 1973-74, cooperatives marketing wool accounted for less

than 0.1 percent of the dollar volume marketed by all marketing

cooperatives. During that period, 154 wool cooperatives had a

total membership of 59,700 wool proQucers from 32 States.

In 1973-74, 150 or 92 percent of the 164 cooperatives handling wool were local associations. They marketed $9.3 million or

23.1 percent of the volume of wool sales by cooperatives. Fourteen regional cooperatives, 8 percent of cooperatives handling

wool, had sales of $30.9 million or 76.9 percent of cooperative

Table 24armer cooperatives marketing wool and mohair: Number, memberships,

and total sales of wool and mohair, 1930-31 to 1975-76’

Period

Primarily wool and mohair

marketing cooperatives

Number2 Membership3

All co-ops Value of

marketing wool wool and mohair

and mohair4 marketed 5

Number 1,000 dollars

1930-31 . * . * . . 136 64,000 N.A. 26,000

1940-41 . . . . . * 136 74,000 N.A. 17,000

1950-51 . . . . . . 110 98,393 258 29,270

1960-61 . . . . . . 182 102,020 284 22,463

1970-71 . . . . . . 161 64,385 177 19,252

1971-21 ...... 158 62,830 194 15,521

1972-73 ...... 161 60,510 173 21,858

1973-74 ...... 154 59,700 164 40,184

1974-75 ...... 623,546

1975-76 ...... 621,157

‘Includes Alaska and Hawaii from 1950-51 on.

4ncludes local, regional, and national cooperatives whose sales of wool and mohair exceeded

50 percent of total sales.

31ncludes some duplication where 2 or more cooperatives are in same town or in nearby town.

41ncludes primarily marketing cooperatives and supply cooperatives with wool marketing

operations.

51ncludes intercooperative business, i.e., sales of regional or terminal sales cooperatives for

local cooperatives.

Wimated.

NA=Not Available.
wool sales. Currently, all 14 regional wool cooperatives are members of two interregional wool marketing cooperatives, the North

Central Wool Marketing Corporation in Minneapolis, Minn., and

the National Wool Marketing Corporation in Boston, Mass.

Wool cooperatives’ sales are concentrated in 11 States (in

order of cooperative sales: South Dakota, Nebraska, Wyoming,

Montana, Iowa, California, Utah, Minnesota, Ohio, Texas, and

Idaho). In 1973-74, $26.3 million or 85.1 percent of cooperative

wool sales were in those States.

As synthetic fibers were introduced, the demand for wool

declined, followed by a decline in the number of producers and

wool cooperatives. As table 2 indicates, dollar volume of sales by

wool handling cooperatives fluctuates but number of cooperatives

and membership continue to decline. Pounds of wool marketed is

declining also, though inflated and fluctuating prices may give the

opposite impression.

These statistics indicate the relative importance of livestock

and wool cooperatives nationally but fail to recognize their absolute and relative importance to producers in local and regional

areas. For example, cooperatives in two major livestock-producing States, Minnesota and Ohio,’ handled about 45 percent of the

livestock marketed in these States in 1975. Their presence affects

the competitive environment in which producers operate and they

perform valuable services for their members.

Cooperative Activities Prior to the 1970’s

Livestock cooperatives were organized in response to

changing needs of producers, and changes in economic conditions

and technology.

Livestock

Societies for importing purebred cattle were organized in

1785 and were among the earliest cooperative activities recorded.

In about 1794, community livestock drives began in Virginia and

the Carolinas to move livestock from farm to slaughter centers. In

1836, cooperatives were organized to conduct public auction sales

of purebred cattle in Ohio.

Most livestock was ‘sold at terminal markets in the late

1800’s and through the first three decades of the 1900’s. Nebraska

and Kansas producers organized the first local livestock shipping

association, Farmers Shipping Association of Superior, Nebr., in

1883. It assembled and shipped livestock by rail to central markets and operated continuously for more than 50 years.

In 1889, the first organized attempt to establish a cooperative sales agency at a terminal market resulted in the formation

of the American Livestock Commission Company with sales

offices in Chicago, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Omaha. It operated successfully for 1 year before its membership in the Chicago

Livestock Exchange was denied. This eventually resulted in the

cooperative’s dissolution.

A second attempt was made in response to increased commission rates at terminal markets. The Cooperative Livestock

Commission Company was organized in 1906 with sales offices in

Chicago, Kansas City, and St. Joseph, but was forced to close its

last office in 1909 because of buyers’ resistance to the cooperative.

Despite disappointments, the first three decades of the

1900’s were an important period for successful development and

growth of livestock marketing cooperatives. Local shipping associations developed rapidly and by 1916, more than 600 were operating. By 1924, about 5,000 associations were assembling and

shipping livestock by rail from country points to terminal markets, with most associations located in the upper Midwestern

States. Early shipping associations provided shipping services for

producers in a limited area around a rail loading point at a time

when transportation to market was a problem, especially for

smaller producers. Associations consigned most livestock shipped

to commission sales agencies for sale on terminal markets. Proceeds from the sale of livestock were distributed to producers by

the association. Shipping associations were a major factor in

reducing margins between local and terminal market prices and

provided a sound foundation for establishing cooperative sales

agencies on terminal markets.

Many local shipping associations later joined to form

countywide federated or centralized cooperatives. With the federated type, local associations assembled and shipped livestock from

local assembly points, and the federation’s central office received

and forwarded all returns to the local association. The centralized

type, found primarily in Ohio, was the forerunner of concentration yards. Livestock was assembled from a relatively wide

6
Early livestock cooperatives operatedprimarily on terminal markets

(above). Later, auction markets were built to bring marketing

services closer to members’ farms.
area, making more frequent shipments and carload shipments Possible.

In 19 17, a successful cooperative sales agency was organized

by the Farmers Union of Nebraska. It began operating in Omaha

and by 1920 had established agencies in St. Joseph, Sioux City,

Kansas City, and Denver. Cooperative commission firms at terminal markets received livestock consigned by local shipping associations as well as individual producers. These cooperatives fed,

watered, sorted, and sold livestock; prepared account sales; and

forwarded net proceeds to local associations or producers.

The California Farm Bureau Marketing Association was

established at Hanford, Calif., in 1918 and operated auctions at

Hanford and several branch locations in the San Joaquin Valley.

The American Farm Bureau Federation began sponsoring the

organization of livestock marketing cooperatives around 1920 and

by- 1927, 13 cooperative sales agencies were formed. These associ-

‘ations organized the National Livestock Producers Association, a

federation headquartered in Chicago, in 1930.

As the use of truck transportation increased and the meatpacking industry decentralized, cooperatives adjusted their operations to meet producers’ changing marketing needs. They continued to serve their members on major terminal markets and

established branch sales agencies at smaller terminal markets.

They also organized to better serve members at country points by

establishing local concentration yards, country buying stations,

and local auction markets. To coordinate sales, several selling

agencies exchanged market information daily.

During the 1950’s and 1960’s, producers marketed a larger

proportion of their livestock directly to packers and through

country agents, rather than through public auctions and terminal

markets. Cooperatives responded to producers’ needs by

increasing their order-buying and order-selling programs for members. They filled purchase orders for feeder cattle from terminal

markets or directly from feeder cattle producers. They carried out

orders to sell members’ feeder cattle and slaughter livestock by

contacting buyers via telephone. Slaughter hogs were sold largely

on a commission basis but cooperatives gradually moved to purchasing and reselling hogs rather than acting in an agency role.

Between 1923 and 1933, producers capitalized several livestock credit corporations as subsidiaries of their marketing coop-
eratives. They were organized to provide loans to producers with

funds obtained by discounting borrowers’ notes with the federal

intermediate credit banks.

The Wisconsin Feeder Pig Marketing Cooperative marketed

slaughter hogs by a relatively new marketing method in early

1965. They auctioned slaughter hogs by conference telephone, recognizing the need to attract buyers from a wider area to bid on

their livestock. MFA Livestock Association began marketing

feeder pigs by teleauction in late 1965 and since then, cooperatives

in 10 States have sold nearly all species and classes of livestock

via teleauction.

Cooperatives first entered livestock slaughtering and processing in 1914 at La Crosse, Wis. Between 1914 and 1919, 13

cooperative slaughtering and processing plants were organized,

mostly in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the Dakotas. Early cooperative meatpacking efforts were unsuccessful and all organizations

failed, most of them shortly after being started. Principal causes

of failure were: unsound promotion by nonfarm interests, lack of

producer support, insufficient capital, inability to obtain capable

management, and unsatisfactory sales outlets.

Other cooperatives attempted to enter slaughtering and processing, and though these efforts had a sounder economic basis

and plants were smaller, most were unsuccessful. The first successful operation was the Detroit Packing Company, which operated

a medium-sized plant as a cooperative from 1933 to 1954, when it

was sold to private interests. Though no longer operating, the

Detroit Packing Company provided some of the early commercial

operating results that encouraged producers to raise meat-type

hogs. Also, while it operated, producers received higher prices and

no producer-investors lost any of their capital investment when it

ceased operations.

Missouri Farmers Association purchased a plant at Springfield in 1946, marking its entrance into meatpacking. Other successful cooperative meatpacking ventures have begun since that

time, such as Shen-Valley Meat Packers, Inc., in 1949 and Farmland Industries, Inc., in 1959.

In 1924, producers formed the first cooperative to manufacture livestock byproducts, the Farmers Union Processing Association of Redwood Falls, Minn.

In 1941, the National Livestock Commission Association of

Oklahoma City began custom feeding cattle in its National Feedlot. By the mid-1960’s, cooperatives were operating six commer9
She&- Valley Meat Packers, Inc., is the oldest meatpacking

cooperative still operating. The MFA Meatpacking Division began a

few years earlier but after operating for more than 30 years ceased

operations in 1977.
cial feedlots in seven States, and two cooperatives were feeding

hogs.

By the mid-1960’s, farmers and ranchers had organized

cooperative grazing associations in about 10 States. Grazing associations enabled livestock producers to improve the quality and

yield of their pastures and facilitate grazing on the public domain.

They entered into grazing agreements with Government land-management agencies and private landowners and, in turn, issued

grazing permits to users of that land. In addition, many constructed fences and water reservoirs, provided range riders, and promoted use of purebred bulls, among other activities.

Over time, producers have benefited from their livestock

cooperatives in many ways. Cooperatives have saved patrons

thousands of dollars through lower commission charges, recovery

of overcharges in freight, and claims for livestock losses during

shipment. They have helped obtain better market procedures,

improved facilities, and more efficient services from stockyards

and transportation agencies, besides developing additional buyer

competition at several markets. Some cooperatives have provided

credit, research, market information, and legal assistance; performed educational activities; and represented members in legislative matters.

Wool

As early as the 1840’s, New York State producers cooperated in selling wool through “depots.” In 1873, patrons of the

Grange organized wool pools in Ohio. In 1877, Tennessee producers organized the Goodlettsville Lamb and Wool Club of Goodlettsville to sell lambs and wool and it continued to operate for 90

years.

Most early cooperative activity was carried on through

local wool pools. Many pools were informal cooperatives, though

some were incorporated. An elected committee or board of directors, which often included county extension personnel and local

bank employees, employed or appointed a part-time manager.

Annually, directors decided whether to sell pooled wool before or

after shearing; to consign it to a merchant, warehouseman, or

regional cooperative; sell members’ wool individually or in a single lot; and to price on the basis of private negotiation or sealed

bids. Wool was usually brought to a local point for weighing,

sometimes repacking, and shipping. If producers consigned wool,

rather than selling it for cash at the time it was shipped, they

1 1
received an advance payment on the shipping date and a final

payment after wool was sold. These wool pools enabled producers

to sell wool in sufficient volume to attract buyers, enhance their

bargaining power, save transportation and other costs, and market wool on a merit basis.

County or local wool pools were the foundation for

organizing early State or regional wool marketing cooperatives in

the Dakotas, Iowa, the Virginias, and other States. These associations were organized to serve a larger area and provide more

complete marketing services to both individual producers and

local wool pools. Most regionals grew and became important

wool handlers in their given trade- areas, but some lacked competent management and failed.

State and regional cooperatives usually served one or more

States. They stressed orderly marketing, marketing wool on a

merit basis, encouraged members to improve wool quality, often

operated their own warehouses, and shipped wool to larger market centers for storage and sale. They provided field services, such

as purchasing wool for forward sales to manufacturers, and

offered educational and promotional services. Though most wool

was handled on consignment, some wool was purchased from

growers to fill forward sales. Most wool was sold to buyers after

they physically inspected it, but some sales were made based on

description without buyers present.

In 1909, the National Wool Warehouse and Storage Co.

was organized in Chicago by western wool growers dissatisfied

with selling wool to dealers for cash. The company sold stock to

build a 25-million-pound warehouse in Chicago, and handled

wool on consignment for local pools and producers. It worked

with leaders among wool growers in organizing several State wool

cooperatives. During the spring of 1920, wool prices dropped

drastically after advance payments had been made to producers.

Advances proved to be more than sales value of the wool, which

caused the firm to go into debt and ultimately resulted in its liquidation in 1924.

A successor to the defunct organization, the National Wool

Exchange, began operating in 1925 in Boston. It handled and sold

wool on consignment from local and State cooperatives and large

producers, but made no advances. Financing services were handled by producers and State cooperatives. The Exchange fostered

organization of several State wool cooperatives and handled wool

1 2
for cooperatives in the Mountain and Upper Plains States plus

Illinois and New York.

Organization and operation of the National Wool Exchange

was an important chapter in the history of cooperative wool marketing. It was strictly a sales organization that operated during a

period of declining prices when consignment selling was

unattractive. However, it demonstrated that producers could

improve their bargaining position by selling cooperatively.

With financial and organizational support from the Federal

Farm Board, the National Wool Marketing Corporation in Boston, Mass., was organized by producers in 1929-30. In 1930, it

sold nearly one-third of the Nation’s shorn wool crop and during

World War II handled more than 40 percent of all shorn wool. By

1963, it was handling only about 14 percent of the Nation’s wool.

Cooperative Activities in the 1970’s

Livestock

Livestock cooperative activities in the 1970’s are categorized

into three groups; marketing, integrated operations, and other services. Marketing activities include selling on commission (terminal

marketing, country selling, private treaty direct selling, auction

marketing, and teleauction marketing); buying on commission

(order buying feeder livestock for producers and slaughter livestock for packers); and dealer operations (country buying stations

with central sales desk, feeder livestock for members, and slaughter and feeder livestock from members and others). Integrated

operations include production of feeder animals; livestock feeding;

and slaughtering, processing, and meat distribution. Other activities of cooperatives include a wide variety of services. Many

cooperatives engage in activities under all three categories.

Marketing

Operations of livestock marketing cooperatives range from

marketing a single species and class of livestock by a single

method in a local area, to marketing all species and classes of

livestock by several methods in a multi-State area. An example of

the former is a local feeder pig marketing cooperative that markets only feeder pigs by auction. At the other extreme is the cooperative that markets and purchases all classes of cattle, hogs, and

13
sheep by selling on commission, buying on commission, and conducting dealer operations for producers in’ several States.

Most regional cooperatives sell livestock on commission.

The cooperative acts as an agent of the producer and arranges a

sales transaction with a buyer. Title to livestock passes directly

from seller to buyer.

Regional cooperatives operated one or more commission

sales offices at 19 of the 32 terminal markets in 1975, including all

of the largest-volume markets. In several instances, the cooperative commission firm was the largest of all commission firms at

the market. In 1975, cooperatives comprised 10 percent of all

commission sales agencies at terminal markets but handled 20 percent of the livestock at these markets.

Producers ship livestock to terminal markets, where they

consign them to their cooperative commission agency for sale.

The cooperative sorts, pens, feeds, and waters the livestock. Cooperative salesmen contact prospective buyers, show them the livestock, solicit bids, and negotiate privately with buyers to determine selling price. After sales are consummated, the livestock is

weighed and transferred to the buyer. The cooperative calculates

the gross sales proceeds, deducts commission fees and other marketing charges, and forwards net proceeds to consignors (producers). It later collects gross sales proceeds from buyers.

Several regional and many local cooperatives operate or

sponsor livestock auctions. Many regional cooperatives own and

operate regularly scheduled auctions as their primary marketing

method, especially for cattle. Producers deliver livestock to the

auction where they are weighed and sorted. Price is determined by

the auction method and sales proceeds are forwarded to producers

less marketing charges.

Many local associations’ primary activity is sponsoring special or graded feeder pig and feeder cattle auctions. Some feeder

pig associations sponsor auctions throughout the year while most

feeder cattle associations sponsor auctions only during the spring

and fall. Members of most feeder animal associations agree to

abide by rules and regulations for producing livestock. They benefit from marketing quality feeder animals in large, uniform lots

that attract many buyers.

Many local associations rent county fairgrounds or local

auction facilities rather than investing in relatively expensive and

little used facilities. Producers deliver livestock to the auction site

where it is identified, graded, sorted, weighed, and commingled.

14
Cooperatives provide modern auction facilities where members’

livestock is handled efficiently and with a minimum of bruising.
Price is determined by the auction method and proceeds less marketing charges are forwarded to sellers. In some States, local associations have organized a federated cooperative to handle publicity, coordinate sales, and standardize trading procedures and

production standards for all special sales held within that State.

Since cooperatives began using teleauction marketing in

1965, its use has increased considerably. In 1975, five regional

livestock marketing cooperatives (Interstate Producers Livestock

Association, Peoria, Ill.,; MFA Livestock Association, Marshall,

MO.; Producers Livestock Association, Columbus, Ohio; Wisconsin Feeder Pig Marketing Cooperative, Francis Creek, Wis.;

and Equity Cooperative Livestock Sales Association, Baraboo,

Wis.) marketed more than 1 million feeder pigs by teleauction. In

the same year, an estimated 65,000 feeder and slaughter lambs

were marketed by teleauction in Idaho, Oregon, Virginia, and

West Virginia.

Though teleauctions have proved most successful thus far

for feeder pigs and sheep and lambs, cooperatives also have tried

teleauctions for slaughter hogs. Teleauction marketing enables

producers to price livestock by auction and attract buyers from a

wider area. In some sales, livestock remains on the farm or ranch

until after the sale.

Another innovative auction method, the photorama auction, was used in 1976 by the California Livestock Marketing

Association. The cooperative took color slides of 11,000 feeder

cattle on farms and ranches. Prior to the sale, buyers were given a

sale catalog with detailed information about each lot of cattle

(seller’s name, point of delivery, number of head, quality, age, sex,

approximate weight, feeding conditions, etc.). A total of 6,000

head of cattle was sold during this first sale. The auction was held

in an auction pavillion but cattle remained on farms and ranches.

Cattle were auctioned while three slides of each sale lot were projected on a IO-foot screen. Slides of the owner, his cattle brand,

and the cooperative salesman responsible for supervising delivery

were projected on a second screen. Though the slides helped, the

real benefit to buyers is the cooperative’s reputation. and its guarantee that cattle delivered will be as described.

In the 1960’s, several cooperatives began country commission selling programs. Though country commission operations are

referred to by a number of terms (order selling, feedlot sales, feedlot contracting, and telephone direct, among others), the basic

operations are similar. Producers agree to allow their cooperative

16
to act as their exclusive sales agent for a specified group of animals, or for all animals they market during a specified time period. The cooperative contacts prospective buyers and often brings

them to the producer’s farm or ranch so that livestock, particularly cattle, can be visually inspected. Price is determined by private negotiation between cooperative salesmen and buyer; however, sellers approve each sale before a transaction is consummated.

The cooperative arranges transportation and delivery, returns

sales proceeds to seller less sales commission fees, and collects

from buyers.

Country commission sales are increasing rapidly in

importance as producers sell more slaughter livestock direct to

buyers. For example, Iowa Farm Bureau Federation, Producers

Commission Association in Sioux City, Iowa, and Interstate Producers Livestock Association in Peoria, Ill., developed a country

feedlot sales program. Cattle are sold from farmers’ feedlots to

meatpackers by commission salesmen from the two regional livestock marketing associations. Each regional cooperative works

with a local, multicounty marketing association. The marketing

program began in April 1975 with 1 local marketing association

serving 70 members in 5 Iowa counties. Two years later this program had grown to include 12 local marketing associations serving about 1,500 farmer members in 62 Iowa counties. Producers

believe their market power is enhanced because better informed

commission agents, who deal daily with buyers, can better represent their interests. In addition, livestock is sold before it leaves the

farm or ranch, providing producers a better negotiating position.

Cooperatives buy on commission in two ways. Producers

use order buying services provided by their cooperatives to purchase feeder livestock and breeding stock. Order buyers are agents

of buyers, just like commission men are agents of sellers, and title

to livestock transfers from seller or buyer, rather than seller to

order buyer to buyer. Some cooperatives also have order buying

services to purchase livestock from producers for meatpackers or

other buyers.

A few regional cooperatives operate as livestock dealers,

particularly for slaughter hogs. They operate a number of country

markets where they buy hogs daily from producers. The cooperative’s central sales office then resells hogs by telephone to meatpackers, and usually arranges transportation. Producers pay no

sales commission. The cooperative’s revenue is the difference

between the purchase and resale price, plus a small service charge
Several cooperatives have integrated into feedlot operations to

provide members with custom cattle feeding services or to provide a

market for members’ grain. Cooperatives have been innovative in

auction facility design. One of the earlier auction ring scales installed

was at this cooperative auction in Greeley, Cola., to permit weighing

cattle as they are sold.
to packers. Some cooperatives also buy feeder livestock for resale

to members on a limited scale. Unlike producers of some other

commodities, livestock producers have little commitment to market livestock through their cooperatives or provide financing for

them by making out-of-pocket investments. Most membership

requirements of livestock marketing cooperatives are minimal.

Producers automatically become members of most regional cooperatives when they first market any livestock through the cooperative. Other cooperatives require that producers make formal

application for membership and pay a small membership fee,

sometimes as little as $1.00.

Usually, cooperative bylaws do not specify that members

must market all their livestock through the cooperative. However,

for a member to participate in a specific marketing program,

some cooperatives require all livestock of a specific class produced

by the member to be marketed through the cooperative. Marketing agreements of this type are common for feeder pig teleauction

marketing and some special marketing programs for feeder pigs,

feeder calves, and slaughter cattle.

Several regional cooperatives provide programs allowing

producers to contract for future delivery of livestock at a guaranteed market price. These programs enable producers to lock in a

sales price and transfer price risk to the cooperative, which then

hedges contract purchases on the futures markets.

Integrated Operations

Several cooperatives are engaged in producing feeder pigs,

custom feeding cattle, slaughtering livestock, and meat processing

and marketing. Integrated activities of cooperatives enable producers to maintain ownership of livestock further in the production-marketing system, share in the ownership of expensive facilities and equipment, and overcome constraints on individual

farming or ranching operations.

In 1976, 16 cooperative feedlots in 7 States (Arizona, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, and Texas) had a

total one-time capacity of about 260,000 head. Some cooperatives

feed cattle for members and nonmembers, while others feed cattle

for members only. Of the 16 feedlots, 4 are operated by regional

livestock marketing cooperatives that are members of the National

Live Stock Producers Association. Others are operated by grain,

farm supply, and cotton cooperatives.

19
Iowa cattle producers have developed an innovative cattle

feeding cooperative. The Farmers Cooperative Society of Sioux

Center organized a condominium cattle feedlot. Four 32-pen,.

2,500-head-capacity buildings were constructed, beginning in 1973.

Cattle feeders individually own the pens and invest in the cooperative in proportion to the number of pens purchased. The cooperative owns the remaining facilities and manages the feeding operation. A condominium feedlot enables producers to integrate

forward, take advantage of investment tax credit and depreciation, and own cattle feeding pens that later can be sold to

another feeder. Such a feedlot innovation is serving as a prototype

for another Iowa cooperative, and may be a prototype for others.

Hog producers also have integrated by an innovative

approach. One example is the Wisner Farmers Farrowing Cooperative of Wisner, Nebr. Other examples could be found elsewhere

in Nebraska and in Iowa, Colorado, Kansas, Minnesota, Ohio,

South Dakota, and other States.

Producers form a cooperative to provide hog breeding and

farrowing facilities, purchase breeding stock, and produce feeder

pigs. Management is hired to farrow sows year-round, producing

feeder pigs that are sold to members on a prearranged rotation

basis. Most farrowing cooperatives produce 8,000 to 12,000 pigs

per year with a 500- to 700-sow operation. Each member buys

shares of stock in the cooperative in proportion to the share of

the annual production of pigs he expects to purchase. Shares may

be sold or traded if a producer decides to leave hog production.

The principal advantages of feeder pig farrowing cooperatives are:

Producers are assured of high-quality, healthy feeder pigs from a

known source; producers know when and how many pigs will be

delivered; they may concentrate on hog finishing, which is less

labor-intensive than farrowing; and several producers can expand

their operations via integration for less cost than each could do

individually.

Gold Kist Inc., Atlanta, Ga,, has initiated a contract hog

production program patterned after its integrated broiler operations. Contract producers provide labor and facilities and Gold

Kist provides breeding stock, feed, and managerial assistance.

Producers are paid on the basis of number of pigs weaned per litter, an incentive for producing more pigs per litter. After pigs

reach a given weight, they are moved to another contract producer for finishing. Producers finishing hogs are paid on the basis

of pounds of pork produced, and an incentive for feed efficiency.

20
Gold Kist controls the quantity and quality of hogs and pigs produced, scheduling production to provide a flow of hogs to its

slaughter plant. Gold Kist also assumes most of the production

risks. Another regional cooperative, Indiana Farm Bureau Cooperative Association, Inc., in Indianapolis, Ind., operates a similar

contract production program, but sells finished hogs to independent packers.

Producers have integrated into slaughtering on a limited

scale. In 1977 5 cooperatives operated 9 slaughter-processing

plants in 7 States. Of those plants, five slaughtered and processed

hogs only; two, both hogs and cattle; and two, cattle only. All

plants but two are owned and operated by regional farm supplymarketing cooperatives. Cooperative slaughtering and processing

is more significant for hogs than for cattle. Cooperatives handled

2.9 million hogs, or 3.7 percent of U.S. hog slaughter in 1977.

They handled 730,000 cattle or 1.7 percent of all cattle and calves

slaughtered that year.

Shen-Valley Meat Packers, Inc., at Timberville, Va., is the

oldest cooperative meatpacker still slaughtering, processing, and

marketing meat for members. It operates one plant it built in

1949, which has been modernized to improve efficiency and

increase capacity. Gold Kist Inc., Atlanta, Ga., operates a slaughter plant purchased in Georgia in 1971; and Landmark, Inc., in

Columbus, Ohio, operates two Ohio slaughtering plants purchased

in 1971-72.

Farmland Industries, Inc., in Kansas City, MO., is the largest cooperative meat processor. It entered the meatpacking industry in 1959 when it purchased a hog slaughtering plant at

Denison, Iowa. That plant has been remodeled and expanded to

provide cutting and processing capabilities. A subsidiary, Farmland Foods, Inc., currently operates that plant, plus hog slaughtering and cutting plants in Iowa Falls, Iowa, and Crete, Nebr., a

pork canning plant at Carroll, Iowa, and a beef slaughtering and

fabricating plant at Garden City, Kans. The Crete, Nebr., plant

was completed in late 1975.

In November 1978 Land O’Lakes, Inc., Minneapolis,

Minn., purchased Spencer Foods with beef plants at Schuyler,

Nebr., and Spencer, Ia.

Sterling Colorado Beef Co., started in 1966 as a producerowned profit firm, changed its bylaws in 1977 to operate as a

cooperative. Sterling slaughters members’ cattle and sells carcass

21
Farmland Foods, Inc., built this large

at Crete, Nebr., opening it in late 1975.
beef. About half of its volume is fabricated by a partly owned

subsidiary, Circle C Beef Co., Denver, Colo., and sold as boxed

beef.

All six cooperative meatpackers market meat products

under their own or acquired brands. Cooperatives now market

fresh, frozen, canned, and processed meat products in nearly all

States to retail grocers and the food service industry.

Most cooperative meatpackers do not require members to

market slaughter livestock through the cooperative; rather, they

purchase livestock from members in competition with other packers. One exception is Gold Kist Inc., which procures a small proportion of its slaughter livestock under contract with members.

Therefore, marketing commitment to cooperative meatpackers is

even less than to some livestock marketing cooperatives.

Some small, local cooperatives have also become more

active recently in meat processing and marketing. Some cooperative locker plants have expanded and are processing more meat

for retail sale than previously. One example is Producers Co-op.

Association of Bryan, Tex., which custom slaughters about 80

percent of its volume for home use. It recently built a new facility,

and now slaughters, processes, and retails meat. Other cooperative

meat distribution efforts are springing up. In Pennsylvania and

Georgia, producer groups are marketing frozen and fresh meat

direct to consumers from roadside markets, refrigerated trucks, or

through producer-owned retail stores.

Producers are becoming more interested in meat processing

and distribution, in anticipation of higher returns from forward

integration. Currently, a group of producers in Montana is in the

process of forming a cooperative and building a slaughter plant.

To enter meat processing and distribution on a large scale

requires considerable investment in facilities and operating capital,

and managerial expertise. It also involves a high degree of risk.

Consequently, larger regional cooperatives have assumed the leadership role in cooperative meat processing and distribution.

Other Services

Activities of livestock marketing cooperatives encompass

more than marketing and integrated operations. Cooperatives process and produce livestock and meat byproducts, help producers

obtain high-quality breeding stock and feeder animals, provide

financing, offer futures trading services, and disseminate market

and other agricultural information.

Farmers Union Marketing and Processing Association at

23
Redwood Falls, Minn., manufactures livestock and poultry

byproducts in addition to its livestock marketing activities. It

operates five rendering plants in Minnesota and one in South

Dakota, and two protein blending plants and a hide curing and

warehouse facility in Minnesota.

It obtains raw rendering materials from meatpacking plants,

poultry processors, locker plants, and farms and assembles these

materials with a cooperative-owned truck fleet. The cooperative

produces meat and bone meal, feather meal, animal fats, and

cured hides. In a marketing agreement with members, the association agrees to process all dead animals delivered, thus providing

a real service to its farmer-members who might otherwise have

difficulty disposing of those animals.

At least one cooperative meatpacker also processes waste

products from slaughtering and processing. Most processing

involves converting waste products into livestock feed concentrates (meat scraps and bone meal).

Cooperatives provide additional services for livestock producers. Land O’Lakes, Inc., in Minneapolis, Minn., and Gold Kist

Inc. maintain a high-quality swine breeding herd from which

breeding animals are produced. Land O’Lakes, Inc., also contracts

with producers to expand the production of high-quality breeding

stock and feeder pigs. Farmland Industries also assists producers

in upgrading hog and pork quality by maintaining four boar testing stations, offering an on-farm hog performance testing program, and breeding stock. These cooperatives and others also provide management advice and technical expertise to livestock

producers.

Cattle and sheep producers now operate 375 grazing associations in 24 States to serve 2,982 families. Nearly two-thirds of

the associations and families served are in six Mountain and

Upper Plains States (Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, and

the Dakotas). Grazing associations buy or lease seasonal grazing

land, oftentimes publicly owned land, for additional pasture.

Several regional livestock cooperatives finance livestock

production for their members. Much of this financing is through

six regional credit corporations that are affiliated with the

National Feeder and Finance Corporation, a subsidiary of the

National Live Stock Producers Association, Denver, Colo. The

six credit corporations are located in San Francisco, Calif.; Ft.

Worth, Tex.; Denver, Colo.; Oklahoma City, Okla.; Geneva, Ill.;

and Salt Lake City, Utah; and serve producers in 24 States. In

24
1975, they loaned $292.5 million to cattle, hog, sheep, and mink

producers, in loans ranging from $100 to slightly more than $2.5

million dollars. Many other cooperatives provide limited financing

themselves but assist producers in obtaining adequate operating

capital.

Producers today are having to rely more on borrowed

financing, which makes them less able to absorb widely fluctuating prices. Consequently, many are making greater use of

futures markets and several cooperatives offer futures trading services for producers. Some cooperatives offer brokerage services,

and provide hedging information and advice. A subsidiary of the

National Live Stock Producers Association, the National Producers Service Company, offers futures trading services to member

cooperatives as a marketing tool and is itself a member of the

Chicago Mercantile Exchange.

Several regional livestock cooperatives keep their members

informed through periodic publications. Most contain market

price and outlook information, news about cooperatives in general, specific information about their cooperatives, farm and ranch

management and technical information, and articles of general

farming and ranching interest. Farm supply-marketing cooperatives devote space each month to advertising their products, have

a consumer-oriented section, and include articles aimed toward

young farmers.

Because some cooperatives handling livestock also handle

other commodities and products and engage in a wide variety of

activities, many livestock producers are able to belong to one fullservice cooperative. Most cooperatives handling livestock, however, devote their resources to serving only their producer-members’

livestock marketing needs, and continue to offer a broad array of

valuable services.

Producer Investment in Livestock Marketing

Based on data for fiscal years ending in 1974-76, livestock

cooperatives’ had estimated total assets of $162 million. Of this

amount $47 million, or 29 percent, was financed by net worth.

This net worth represents $68 per member for the estimated

698,000 cooperative members, including allocated and nonallocated reserves.

Pronounced differences exist in the capital invested in different segments of cooperative livestock marketing activity.

Regional livestock marketing cooperatives (excluding meat25
packing) own $67 million worth of total assets and have a net

worth of about $19 million. This $67 million represents 41 percent

of the total national investment in cooperative livestock marketing. These cooperatives serve an estimated 464,000 members, or

66 percent of the cooperative livestock marketing membership.

The net worth of these regionals amounts to $18.8 million, or $41

per member.

Meatpacking cooperatives’ total assets of about $91 million

represents 56 percent of the national cooperative livestock marketing investment. Their net worth amounted to $24 million. Because

of the geographically limited livestock :marketing area served,

cooperative meatpackers served around 17,000 members, or about

2.5 percent of the national cooperative livestock membership. This

translates into a total investment equivalent of $5,200 per member

with a member net worth of about $1,400.

Local livestock marketing cooperatives have the lowest total

investment of $4.8 million, or about 3 percent of the cooperative

livestock marketing total. Local cooperatives have, relatively, the

highest net worth, financing about 89 percent of their total assets.

Their net worth is equivalent to about $20 per member.

Wool

Wool cooperative activities in the 1970’s are categorized

into two groups: marketing and other related services. Marketing

activities, both domestic and foreign, are either commission selling

or wool dealer operations. One cooperative has a small amount of

grease wool custom processed. Other activities include financing,

management and marketing assistance, and related services.

Marketing

Local wool pools assemble wool from producers and visually grade and market it for them. After all wool has been sold,

producers receive a payment for their proportion of the entire

pool, less a small marketing fee. Local pools market much of their

wool through regional wool marketing cooperatives.

Regional cooperatives procure wool either on consignment

or direct purchase. An advance payment is made for wool consigned, with a final payment less selling commission being made

after all wool has been sold. When producers or local pools sell

wool to a regional cooperative, a cash payment is made, based on

the current market price, and the regional cooperative markets

26
Cooperatives such as North Central Wool Marketing Corporation,

Minneapolis, Minn., provide needed wool marketing services .for

sheep producers. North Central and Mid-States Wool Growers

Cooperative Association, Columbus, Ohio, also operate retail stores

where they sell woolen products to help increase the demand,for

members’ wool.
wool on its own behalf. Some wool also may be procured under a

cash forward contract, whereby producers agree to deliver a specified amount of wool on a future date for a predetermined price. . Most regional cooperatives asse’mble, grade, pool and store

wool at their nine warehouse locations in eight States. During the

1970’s, handling became more automated due to pressures of rising labor and transportation costs, resulting in more economical

handling. Also, sales of wool to manufacturers now are based on

laboratory tests for determining wool grade and yield rather than

being based on visual inspection and crude measuring devices

formerly used. Fiber length and diameter are examined and a

measurement made in microns. Buyers pay on the basis of

microns, so wool is blended to upgrade lower quality fleeces.

Cooperatives have devoted considerable effort to encourage members to market wool on a merit basis.

The interregional cooperatives market wool consigned to

them or purchased by them from producers and local or regional

cooperatives. Most of the wool handled by The National Wool

Marketing Corporation is consigned to it by members for sale.

Acting in an agency role, the cooperative makes sales on a commission basis and does not assume title to wool.

Most of the wool handled by the North Central Wool Marketing Corporation is purchased from producers by commission

buyers on behalf of the cooperative. Title to wool is transferred

from producers to North Central and the cooperative’s revenue is

generated from the difference between purchase and sales price for

wool. North Central handles some wool on consignment and

operates a grade and yield marketing program that enables larger

producers to sell wool on grade and yield, rather than have wool

blended or pooled with those of other producers. Price is determined by the current market price, with premiums or discounts

for variations in grade and yield.

Most wool is sold to manufacturers by private negotiation,

though some is sold on a sealed bid basis. Though most wool is

marketed domestically, some wool is marketed internationally.

Both interregional cooperatives believe international marketing

strengthens their marketing position because domestic buyers

know that if domestic prices are too low, wool will be sold

abroad. When wool is exported, primary markets are in European

countries. Also, in an effort to increase proceeds to producers,

’ North Central in 1974 began having a small percent of its wool

scoured and made into tops (combed wool) on a custom basis.

28
Other Services

Cooperatives provide operating capital for their members

by financing inventories of member-cooperatives and making

advance payments to member-producers. Some cooperatives publish a periodic newsletter that includes flock management and

technical information, market and price information, as well as

other agricultural information. Some local pools and State and

regional cooperatives also provide shearing services, especially in

farm flock areas.

Challenges and Opportunities

In the Future

There will continue to be fewer, larger, and more specialized producers for cooperatives to serve. These producers will

require more capital, especially borrowed capital, and greater

managerial skills to efficiently operate their expanded livestock

and wool enterprises. Simultaneously, they will become more vulnerable to widely fluctuating prices or extended periods of low

prices. Producers will need methods of coping with these price

changes to maintain profitable operations and protect their

investments. Producers must be efficient to be part of today’s

food production and marketing system. The pressure to improve

the efficiency of that system will continue to increase and producers must be able to adjust. It is also imperative that producers

have access to viable markets and to accurate and timely price

information to make intelligent production and marketing decisions.

What are some of the challenges and opportunities for livestock and wool cooperatives?

Livestock

Livestock marketing through terminal markets is expected

to continue a downward trend except in a few unusual areas.

Concurrently, more livestock is expected to move more directly

from sellers to buyers, bypassing public auction and terminal markets. Thus, the base volume upon which publicly reported prices

are established will continue to shrink. Already, the accuracy with

which these prices reflect actual supply and demand conditions is

questioned.

29
Cooperatives are challenged to adjust to that trend. They

must develop innovative marketing programs to market producers’ slaughter livestock to packers directly from farms, ranches,

and feedlots. Cooperatives can represent individual producers in

negotiating price and terms of trade, or can represent the combined volume of many producers in a single transaction. Cooperatives may negotiate spot or cash transactions or long-term supply

contracts for their members. In either case, their objective is to

maintain a sufficient level of market power so that producers’ livestock is equitably priced. When cooperatjves specialize in marketing livestock, producers are able to cbncentrate their skills in producing that livestock and other products.

Cooperatives should continue to develop innovative marketing programs that increase buyer competition, such as teleauctions. Teleauction marketing could be used more extensively to

help maintain open, competitive markets for producers in localized areas. Feeder pig marketing via teleauction is expected to

expand and efforts are being made to market feeder cattle by teleauction in some areas. There is some interest in expanding existing cooperative teleauctions for sheep and lambs into four

regional teleauction or teletype exchanges serving the entire

United States.

Nearly the only way for many producers to expand into

commercial cattle and hog feeding, slaughtering, processing, and

meat marketing is through cooperatives. Cooperatives can provide

the stimulus and assistance to further integrate livestock operations. They could provide the expertise to organize and operate

integrated feeding operations as well as hog farrowing operations.

Cooperative meatpacking may provide the only market for producers’ livestock in some areas. This is especially true of the sheep

and lamb industry where meatpackers have been closing slaughtering plants. However, on the fringe of major hog and cattle production areas, a similar situation may be found.

Innovative arrangements to integrate into meatpacking are

needed because of high costs and risks involved for producers.

For example, producers, through their cooperative, might retain

ownership of livestock and have their cooperative negotiate contracts with packers who have excess slaughtering capacity to perform meatpacking services on a custom or fee basis.

Several cooperatives currently engaged in meatpacking

could explore the possibility of developing a common brand for

their meat products. It would require considerable cooperation

30
31
Interregional board

32
among participating cooperatives and a strict quality control program. However, the potential gains may be worth the effort,

resulting in expanded markets, greater marketing flexibility, and

reduced total marketing and distribution costs.

For their cooperatives to be effective, livestock producermembers must become more committed to market through them.

Currently, livestock producers have little formal commitment to

market through their cooperatives. Producers and their cooperatives both could benefit from greater use of marketing agreements, noting the higher level of marketing commitment to cooperatives in other commodity areas where cooperatives enjoy a

higher market share.

Cooperatives also are challenged to provide the necessary

leadership in implementing livestock marketing improvements.

The 14 members of the National Live Stock Producers Association and as few as 3 other cooperatives are in a unique position,

because of their potential combined strength, to move toward

greater marketing commitment, develop innovative country marketing programs, electronic exchanges, and integrated production,

processing, and marketing systems.

They could implement other useful services required by

members such as common accounting systems, futures market

brokerage services, and improved market information. Greater

cooperation and joint efforts could lead to additional mergers,

resulting in more effective cooperatives.

Wool

The number of wool producers has declined though the

producing areas have remained relatively unchanged. Therefore,

wool must be assembled over a wider area to accumulate the same

quantity as formerly could have been assembled from a smaller

area. Wool cooperatives are challenged to continue assembling a

sufficient volume of wool that can be marketed effectively. The

task could be made easier if the two interregional cooperatives

merged into a single cooperative. It would increase wool producers’ market power while increasing its marketing flexibility. The

single cooperative would be in a better position to negotiate longterm supply contracts, expand its international marketing, and

share mutually supporting facilities and marketing staff.

Cooperatives should further investigate the feasibility of

integrating into wool processing and manufacturing as a means of

increasing producers’ returns from wool. Integration might be via

33
contract or by purchasing wool processing facilities. It might be

most easily accomplished by a single national cooperative or

through a joint venture between interregional cooperatives or

between an interregional and one of the larger regional cooperatives.

Summary and Conclusions

In large measure, livestock and wool cooperatives have

organized and changed in response to changing needs of producers. Prior to the 1970’s, livestock and wool cooperatives engaged

primarily in first-handler marketing activities and providing

related services, with limited involvement in integrated operations.

During the 1970’s, livestock cooperatives became more heavily

engaged in and committed to integrating production-marketing

stages, especially at the processing and meat distribution stages;

and a wool cooperative ventured into custom wool processing on

a small scale.

Agriculture will continue to change. Cooperatives must provide the leadership to anticipate change and alter their operations

accordingly. For resourceful, innovative livestock and wool producers and their cooperatives, opportunities abound.

Among their greatest contributions and challenges are:

(1) maintain markets on which accurate market prices can be

determined; (2) maintain sufficient market power for producers so

that those producers receive an equitable price for their livestock

and wool; (3) enable producers to maintain control over livestock

and wool production, rather than allowing a shift in control

toward noncooperative agribusiness firms; and (4) capitalize on

the opportunity of cooperatives to cooperate among themselves

for the benefit of their combined membership. All of these programs will require greater producer commitment to support and

market through their cooperatives.

Authors: John T. Haas and David L. Holder, agricultural

economists/ Clement E. Ward, former ESCS agricultural economist

now with Oklahoma State Universit.v.

34

*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 0- 626-399/1584 REGION 3-l
COOPERATIVE PROGRAM

V.Y. <.= ..__.._._

Economics, Statistics, and Cooperatives Service

The Cooperative Program of ESCS 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 Program (1) helps farmers and other rural residents 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.

The Program publishes research and education materials and

issues Farmer Cooperatives. All programs and activities are

conducted on a nondiscriminatory basis, without regard to race,

creed, color, sex, or national origih.