Research Report 232

Rural Business-Cooperative Programs

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Rural Development

Performance of the 

Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 

1992-2012

Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012 i

ABSTRACT

Cooperatives’ performance changed substantially 

over time as well as relative to one another, reflecting the challenges of operating in the dynamic dairy 

industry over the past two decades. Performance 

did improve for the majority of the surviving cooperatives of mergers and consolidations, at least 

initially. In the time periods under consideration, 

some of the larger scale cooperatives did not perform as well as the rest of the cooperatives. And 

some of the larger scale cooperatives also relied 

more on debt and less on equity than the rest of the 

cooperatives to finance their operations.

Performance is measured by the amount a cooperative’s net savings exceeds the opportunity cost of 

members’ equity―the “extra value.” Extra value 

is made scale-neutral and mode-neutral by expressing it as a percentage of operating capital to arrive 

at an extra-value index for comparing performance 

among cooperatives and over time.

Keywords: Cooperative, dairy, extra-value index, 

operating capital, opportunity cost, scale.

Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012

K. Charles Ling

Agricultural Economist

USDA Rural Development

Research Report 232

December 2014

On the cover: In an effort to help balance the growing regional milk supply, the Michigan Milk Producers 

Association (MMPA) Ovid Plant installed a new tower dryer in 2010, doubling the facility’s drying capacity and increasing daily processing capacity to 5 million pounds of milk. Photo courtesy MMPA
ii Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012

PREFACE

For evaluating the performance of cooperatives, 

this study adopts the extra-value approach that has 

been developed and used in USDA Cooperative 

Programs studies. The approach yields extra-value 

indexes that are scale-neutral and operating modeneutral and, therefore, are useful in definitively 

comparing performance among cooperatives.

The extra-value approach is judged to be preferable to the conventional measures of performance 

(return on equity, return on assets, return on operating capital, net margins on sales, net margins per 

hundredweight of milk, etc.), which do not yield an 

unequivocal answer to the performance question. 

Furthermore, cooperatives do not have equity market prices to gauge their performance and market 

value.

For ease of presentation, cooperatives are assigned number codes (Nos.1 through 18) according 

to their performance rankings at the very beginning 

(column 2 of table 5). Measures of cooperative 

performance are presented after aggregation. Every 

effort has been made to avoid revealing cooperatives’ identifiable proprietary data.

.
Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012 iii

ABSTRACT i

PREFACE ii

HIGHLIGHTS iv

Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012 1

Introduction 1

The Extra-Value Approach 1

Source of Data 3

 Cooperative financial data 3

 Interest rates 3

Performance of Dairy Cooperatives 4

 Performance categories 4

 Changes in performance indexes 5

 Performance rankings 6

 Evaluating the performance of dairy cooperatives 7

Structural Changes (Mergers and Consolidations) 9

Scale of Cooperatives and Performance 9

 Weighted averages 9

 Simple averages 10

 Scale and performance 10

Attributes of the Extra-Value Approach and Some Caveats 11

Conclusions: Board and Member Vigilance Is Essential 12

References 13

List of Tables

 Table 1― Major dairy cooperatives in the study 2

 Table 2― London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and the interest rates used 3

 Table 3― Categories of dairy cooperative performance based on average extra values 

 generated in the three 5-year periods 4

 Table 4― Changes in average extra-value indexes (EVIs) between each 5-year period and in 

 the performance category 5

 Table 5― Rankings by extra-value indexes (EVIs) based on the respective averages for the

 three periods 6

 Table 6― Performance of 18 dairy cooperatives as a group, annual weighted average extra-

 value indexes (EVIs) and equity share of operating capital 10

 Table 7― Performance of 18 dairy cooperatives as a group, annual simple average extra-

 value indexes (EVIs) and equity share of operating capital 11

 Table 8― Cooperatives with missing data 12

CONTENTS
iv Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012

HIGHLIGHTS

The equity retained by dairy cooperatives represents a substantial sum of the members’ money and 

competes with the capital needed for financing their 

farm operations. Therefore, the retained equity 

should not be regarded as free capital for the cooperative, but should carry an opportunity cost that 

reflects the value of the capital in alternative uses: 

the opportunity cost is an interest charge on the 

equity at a rate equivalent to the amount the money 

could earn elsewhere. This consideration is the 

focal point of this study on evaluating cooperative 

performance.

If the cooperative’s net savings exceed the opportunity cost of members’ equity, it has enhanced 

the value of the equity and generated “extra value” 

for members. Conversely, a cooperative has diminished the value of the equity if it generates a negative extra value—members bear the opportunity 

cost of equity capital that is not fully recovered.

For comparing cooperative performance, extra 

value is made neutral to scale and mode of operation by expressing it as a percentage of operating 

capital. The index shows the rate of creating extra 

value from using operating capital that is the financial resources available to the management of a 

cooperative. Operating capital is the sum of noncurrent assets and net working capital and is a more 

accurate measure of a dairy cooperative’s scale of 

operation than is total assets.

The time series of data covers three periods: 

1992-1996, 2000-2004 and 2008-2012. In the 

2008-2012 period, there were 18 dairy cooperatives 

(or their predecessor cooperatives) that had been 

continuously on the USDA Cooperative Programs’ 

top 100 cooperatives list since 1992. For comparing performance over time, the data of all the 

predecessor cooperatives were combined as if they 

had already been consolidated into their respective 

successor cooperatives. 

The interest rate for calculating the opportunity 

cost of equity is based on the respective year’s 

December average London Inter-Bank Offered Rate 

(LIBOR) for U.S. dollar loans with a 12-month maturity. The basic interest rate used to calculate interest on equity is “LIBOR+2%”. In addition, “basic 

interest rate+5%” and “basic interest rate+10%” are 

also used in the analysis to account for risk premium of equity investment at 5-percent and 10-percent 

levels.

To avoid revealing each cooperative’s identifiable 

proprietary data, the performance of the cooperatives is portrayed in three ways to form a composite 

picture for evaluation: performance categories, 

changes in performance indexes, and performance 

rankings. To further maintain proprietary data 

confidentiality, the performance indexes for each 

cooperative are 5-year averages for each of the three 

study periods.

Cooperatives are placed into four performance 

categories according to average extra values generated in the three 5-year periods:

I. Cooperatives that did not fully recover the opportunity cost of equity capital and did not generate extra value at basic interest rate: 7 cooperatives in the first period; 1 each in the second 

and third.

II. Cooperatives that generated extra values beyond 

the opportunity cost of equity capital at basic 

interest rate but short of reaching 5 percent risk 

premium: 3 cooperatives in the first period; 8 in 

the second; and 3 in the third. 

III.Cooperatives that generated extra values beyond 

the opportunity cost of equity capital at basic interest rate plus 5 percent risk premium but short 

of reaching 10 percent risk premium: 2 cooperatives in each of the three periods.

IV.Cooperatives that generated extra values beyond 

the opportunity cost of equity capital at basic 

interest rate plus 10 percent risk premium: 6 

cooperatives in the first period; 7 in the second; 

and 12 in the third.

Eleven cooperatives in the first period and 17 in 

each of the second and third periods generated extra 

values beyond the opportunity cost of equity capital at basic interest rates (Category II and higher). 

Most cooperatives shifted around different performance categories over the three periods, except 

there were 3 cooperatives that remained in the top 

performance category (Category IV) throughout.

In the first period, Category I had the most coop-
Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012 v

eratives, 7 in total. In the second period, Category II 

had the most, 8. And in the third period, two-thirds 

(12) of all 18 cooperatives were in the top performance Category IV.

Extra-value indexes (EVIs) for 6 cooperatives 

improved successively from the first to the second 

period and then to the third period. Five cooperatives improved their performance indexes from 

the first period to the second, but the performance 

indexes turned lower from the second period to the 

third. Conversely, the performance indexes of another 6 cooperatives declined from the first period to 

the second, but improved from the second period to 

the third. One single cooperative had the distinction 

of showing that its performance indexes declined 

continuously through time.

Cooperatives are ranked according to their performance measures (EVIs) for the three study periods. 

For convenience of presentation, the 18 performance 

rankings are divided into 3 groups of equal number, 6 each: ranks 1 to 6 are the first ranking group, 

ranks 7 to 12 are the second ranking group, and 

ranks 13 to 18 are the third ranking group. Cooperative codes are assigned according to a cooperative’s 

ranking by EVI using the basic interest rate for the 

1992-96 period. Therefore, initially, cooperatives 

are also grouped following the performance ranking 

grouping.

The rankings are particularly useful for comparing cooperatives that are in the same performance 

category, such as for the third period where performance Category IV has 12 cooperatives. The rankings of these 12 cooperatives are very different from 

their initial performance ranking sequence, indicating that the dairy industry is very dynamic.

By the end of the third study period, performance 

rankings of the cooperatives had spread out from 

their original standings:

• The 6 initially top-ranked cooperatives saw 

3 of their peers remain in the first ranking 

group, while 2 dropped to the second ranking group and 1 was further down in the third 

ranking group.

• The cooperatives in the initial second ranking 

group had 1 cooperative elevated to the first 

ranking group, 3 stayed in the second ranking 

group, and 2 fell to the third ranking group.

• Two of the 6 cooperatives that were initially 

in the lowest ranking group rose to the first 

ranking group, and 1 moved to the second 

ranking group, although 3 still remained in 

the third ranking group. 

In the interim years between the first and the 

second periods, 12 cooperatives underwent structural changes to form 4 surviving cooperatives, and 

between the second and the third periods, 4 cooperatives underwent structural changes to form 2 

surviving cooperatives. In the period immediately 

following the structural changes, 4 out of the 6 successor cooperatives actually did perform better than 

the sum of their respective predecessor counterparts.

For comparing the performance of cooperatives 

of different scales, the weighted averages and the 

simple averages of performance indexes of the 18 

cooperatives were calculated. The weighted averages are heavily influenced by the performance of 

larger scale cooperatives, while the simple averages 

give an equal weight to each cooperative regardless 

of scale. 

Comparisons between weighted-average performance indexes and simple averages suggest that 

some of the larger scale cooperatives did not perform as well as the rest of the cooperatives in all 

three periods. Also, some of the larger scale cooperatives relied more on debt and less on equity to 

finance their operations than the rest of the cooperatives. But these cannot be generalized to conclude 

that larger scale dairy cooperatives always perform 

better or worse than smaller scale ones.
vi Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012
Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012 1

Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 

1992-2012

K. Charles Ling

Agricultural Economist

Introduction

Dairy cooperatives require an adequate level of 

capital to market members’ milk. The complete 

financial data of 89 dairy cooperatives for the fiscal 

year ending in 2012 reported their total equity was 

$3.6 billion, or $2.78 per hundredweight of member milk. Almost all of the equity was supplied and 

owned by members: allocated equity accounted 

for 83.8 percent; retained earnings and unallocated 

equity (a large part of which was patronage earnings 

yet to be allocated), 7.6 percent; and preferred stock 

(mostly issued to members), 7 percent (USDA/RBS 

Research Report No. 230).

This shows that the equity retained by the cooperative represents a substantial sum of the members’ 

money and competes with the capital needed for 

financing their farm operations. Therefore, the retained equity should not be regarded as free capital 

for the cooperative, but should carry an opportunity 

cost that reflects the value of the capital in alternative uses: the opportunity cost is an interest charge 

on the equity at a rate equivalent to the amount the 

money could earn elsewhere. This consideration is 

the focal point of this study on evaluating cooperative performance.

If the cooperative’s net savings exceed the opportunity cost of members’ equity, it has enhanced the 

value of the equity and generated “extra value” for 

members. Conversely, a cooperative has diminished 

the value of the equity if it generates a negative 

extra value—members bear the opportunity cost of 

equity capital that is not fully recovered.

Calculating and analyzing extra values generated 

by dairy cooperatives in using members’ equity is 

the approach of this report to measuring cooperative 

performance.

The Extra-Value Approach

The extra-value approach was proposed and used 

in previous USDA Cooperative Programs studies (Research Reports No. 166, No. 212, and No. 

213). This simple formula shows how extra value is 

calculated:

Extra value = Net savings - Opportunity 

cost of equity, where

Opportunity cost of equity (or interest on 

equity) = Member equity x Interest rate.

Extra value can be made neutral to scale and 

mode of operation by expressing it as a percentage 

of operating capital:

Extra-value index = (Extra value / Operating capital) x 100, where

Operating capital = Assets other than current 

assets + Net working capital, and

Net working capital = Current assets - Current 

liabilities.

The index shows the rate of creating extra value 

from using operating capital that is the financial 

resource available to the management of a cooperative. Dairy cooperatives typically pay members 

for their milk twice a month. A large proportion of 

the current assets and the current liabilities are for 

passing through such pending periodic cash payments to members. This is a unique characteristic of 

the balance sheets of dairy cooperatives. Therefore, 

operating capital is a more accurate measure of a 

cooperative’s scale of operation than total assets.

The extra-value approach has the following characteristics:
2 Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012

Table 1 Major dairy cooperatives in the study: 1992-1996 (27 co-ops), 2000-2004 

 (20 co-ops), and 2008-2012 (18 co-ops denoted by l)

1992-1996 data 2008-2012 data

Agri-Mark, Inc. l Agri-Mark, Inc.

Bongards Creameries l Bongards Creameries

Dairylea Cooperative Inc. l Dairylea Cooperative Inc.

First District Association l First District Association

Foremost Farms USA l Foremost Farms USA

Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Assn. l Maryland & Virginia Milk Producers Assn.

Michigan Milk Producers Association l Michigan Milk Producers Association

Northwest Dairy Association (Darigold) l Northwest Dairy Association (Darigold)

Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc. l Prairie Farms Dairy, Inc.

St. Albans Cooperative Creamery, Inc. l St. Albans Cooperative Creamery, Inc.

Swiss Valley Farms Company l Swiss Valley Farms Company

Tillamook County Creamery Association l Tillamook County Creamery Association

United Dairymen of Arizona l United Dairymen of Arizona

11 co-ops for the 1992-1996 period that merged or consolidated during 1997-2000

Predecessor cooperative(s) Surviving cooperative

Associated Milk Producers Inc.* (NC Region) o Associated Milk Producers Inc.*

Land O’Lakes, Inc. l Land O’Lakes, Inc.

Atlantic Dairy Cooperative

Dairyman’s Co-op Creamery Association 

Mid-America Dairymen l Dairy Farmers of America, Inc.

Western Dairymen Cooperative, Inc.

Milk Marketing, Inc.

Associated Milk Producers Inc.* (S Region)

California Gold Dairy Products l California Dairies, Inc.

California Milk Producers

San Joaquin Valley Dairymen

Danish Creamery

4 co-ops for the 1992-96 and 2000-04 periods that merged or consolidated during 2005-2008

Predecessor cooperative(s) Surviving cooperative

o Associated Milk Producers Inc.* l Associated Milk Producers Inc.*

o Cass-Clay Creamery, Inc.

o Upstate Farms Cooperatives, Inc. l Upstate Niagara Cooperatives, Inc.

o O-AT-KA Milk Products Cooperative

Notes:

l denotes the 18 dairy cooperatives included in the 2008-2012 study dataset.

* denotes Associated Milk Producers Inc. in its various incarnations.

o denotes the 4 dairy cooperatives included in both the 1992-1996 and 2000-2004 periods but had undergone 

further merger and consolidation in 2005 through 2008.
Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012 3

• Extra value measures whether a cooperative’s 

earnings fully recover the opportunity cost of 

equity capital and by how much.

• Extra-value index is scale-neutral and is useful for comparing performance of cooperatives of different scales.

• Extra-value index puts various types of cooperatives on an equal footing regardless of the 

mode of their operations, ranging from bargaining to the most sophisticated processing 

and marketing.

Source of Data

Cooperative financial data. USDA Cooperative 

Programs maintains a set of data for its annual 

financial analysis of top 100 cooperatives. In the 

2008-2012 period, there were 18 dairy cooperatives 

(or their predecessor cooperatives) that had been 

continuously on the top 100 list since 1992 (the cooperatives denoted by “•” in table 1). These 18 were 

the successors of the 20 cooperatives for the 2000-2004 period 

in the previous study (Research 

Report No. 212), after the merger 

and consolidation of 4 of them 

into 2. In turn, these 20 cooperatives were the successors of the 

27 for the 1992-1996 period (Research Report No. 166), after the 

merger and consolidation of 11 of 

them into 4.

For comparing performance 

over time, the data of all the 

predecessor cooperatives were 

added as if they had already been 

consolidated into the 18 successor cooperatives. The comparisons based on such grouping may 

not be perfect, but probably are 

reasonable. (In the two decades 

from 1992 to 2012, many smaller 

cooperatives also merged into 

the cooperatives included in this 

study. However, no complete 

historical financial data for them 

are available. In any case, their 

inclusion in this study probably 

would not have material impacts on the results.)

So, the time series of data is: 1992-1996, 2000-

2004 and 2008-2012 for 18 dairy cooperatives. 

Using the data from the three 5-year periods, it is 

possible to show how the performance of the cooperatives progressed over time and whether structural 

changes (mergers and consolidations) improved the 

performance of the cooperatives involved. 

Interest rates. The interest rate for calculating the 

opportunity cost of equity ideally should be the 

interest rate on a cooperative’s debts. However, it is 

difficult to derive a representative rate from a cooperative’s various financing activities. An alternative 

is to use a rate that is based on the respective year’s 

December average LIBOR (BBA LIBOR—British 

Bankers’ Association London Inter-Bank Offered 

Rate) for U.S. dollar loans with a 12-month maturity (table 2). 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 

 Basic rate Basic rate

 Basic rate + 5% +10% 

Year LIBOR (%) (LIBOR+2%) risk premium risk premium

 

1992 4.08 6.08 11.08 16.08

1993 3.81 5.81 10.81 15.81

1994 7.75 9.75 14.75 19.75

1995 5.45 7.45 12.45 17.45

1996 5.79 7.79 12.79 17.79

 

2000 6.00 8.00 13.00 18.00

2001 2.45 4.45 9.45 14.45

2002 1.45 3.45 8.45 13.45

2003 1.46 3.46 8.46 13.46

2004 3.10 5.10 10.10 15.10

 

2008 2.38 4.38 9.38 14.38

2009 1.00 3.00 8.00 13.00

2010 0.78 2.78 7.78 12.78

2011 1.10 3.10 8.10 13.10

2012 0.85 2.85 7.85 12.85

Source: Adopted for this study exercise only, December rates as reported in 

LIBOR Rates History (Historical), http://www.fedprimerate.com/libor/libor_rates_

history.htm.

Table 2 London Inter-Bank Offered Rate (LIBOR) and 

 the interest rates used 

 
4 Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012

basis points above the LIBOR. So “LIBOR+2%” 

is the basic rate used to calculate interest on equity, 

with the implicit assumption that all included cooperatives had better-than-average credit ratings.

Equity capital is considered by investors to be 

riskier than debt, and the imputed interest on equity is reckoned to be higher than interest on debt 

to compensate for the risk of investing in the business (Davis, et al). This report assumes such risk 

premiums were 5 and 10 percentage points for the 

analysis. 

Thus, three interest rates are used in the calculation of extra value and extra-value indexes: basic 

interest rate, which is LIBOR plus 2 percent; basic 

interest rate plus 5 percent; and basic interest rate 

plus 10 percent (table 2). 

Performance of Dairy Cooperatives 

To avoid revealing each cooperative’s identifiable 

proprietary data, the performance of the cooperatives is portrayed in three ways to form a composite picture for evaluation: performance categories, 

changes in performance indexes, and performance 

rankings. To further maintain proprietary data 

confidentiality, the extra-value indexes used in the 

evaluation for each cooperative are 5-year averages 

for each of the three study periods and represent the 

cooperative’s average level of performance in the 

Performance category

I. Cooperatives that did not fully recover the opportunity cost of equity capital and did not generate 

extra values at basic interest rate

II. Cooperatives that generated extra values beyond 

the opportunity cost of equity capitals at basic 

interest rate

III. Cooperatives that generated extra values beyond 

the opportunity cost of equity capitals at basic 

interest rate plus 5% risk premiums

IV. Cooperatives that generated extra values beyond 

the opportunity cost of equity capitals at basic 

interest rate plus 10% risk premiums

First period

(1992-96)

12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 

17, 18

9, 10, 11

7, 8

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Second period

(2000-04)

11

6, 10, 12, 13, 14, 

15, 16, 17

3, 9

1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 18

Third period

(2008-12)

15

12, 13, 16

5, 10

1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 

11, 14, 17, 18

Table 3 Categories of dairy cooperative performance based on average extra values 

 generated in the three 5-year periods

respective periods. Some information is lost because 

the averages gloss over intra-period performance 

variations.

Performance categories. Cooperatives are placed 

into four performance categories according to 

average extra values generated in the three 5-year 

periods (table 3):

I. Cooperatives that did not fully recover the 

opportunity cost of equity capital and did not 

generate extra value at basic interest rate: 7 

cooperatives in the first period; 1 each in the 

second and third.

II. Cooperatives that generated extra values 

beyond the opportunity cost of equity capital 

at basic interest rate but short of reaching 5 

percent risk premium: 3 cooperatives in the 

first period; 8 in the second; and 3 in the third. 

III.Cooperatives that generated extra values beyond the opportunity cost of equity capital at 

basic interest rate plus 5 percent risk premium 

but short of reaching 10 percent risk premium: 

2 cooperatives in each of the three periods.

IV. Cooperatives that generated extra values beyond the opportunity cost of equity capital at 

basic interest rate plus 10 percent risk premium: 6 cooperatives in the first period; 7 in the 

second; and 12 in the third.
Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012 5

Eleven cooperatives in the first period and 17 in 

each of the second and third periods generated extra 

values beyond the opportunity cost of equity capital 

at basic interest rates (Category II and higher). Most 

cooperatives shifted around different performance 

categories over the three periods, except for the 3 

cooperatives (Nos. 1, 2, and 4) that remained in the 

top performance category (Category IV) throughout.

In the first period, Category I had the most cooperatives, 7 in total, and they did not generate extra 

value. These 7 all achieved a higher level of performance in the second period, 6 in Category II, and 1 

(No. 18) in Category IV; further, 3 of the 7 (Nos. 14, 

17, as well as 18) were in the top performance level 

Category IV in the third period.

The second period saw Category II had the most 

cooperatives (8). In the third period, two-thirds (12) 

of all 18 cooperatives were in the top performance 

Category IV.

Changes in performance indexes. Changes in the 

performance indexes of the 18 cooperatives between 

the time periods are summarized in table 4.

Performance indexes as measured by EVIs for 5 

cooperatives, Nos. 7, 12, 14, 17, and 18, improved 

(as indicated by “+” in the table) from the first 

period to the second period, and then to the third 

period. In other words, these cooperatives’ performance indexes improved throughout the three study 

periods. Cooperative No. 9 is not a perfect fit but 

may be included in this group for a total of 6 cooperatives because its EVI at basic interest rate plus 10 

percent risk premium successively improved over 

the study period. 

Cooperatives Nos. 2, 8, 13, 15, and 16 saw their 

performance indexes improved from the first period 

to the second period but turned lower (as indicated 

by “-”) from the second period to the third period. 

Conversely, performance indexes of Cooperative 

 1992-96 2000-04 2008-12

Co-op Performance EVI EVI EVI Performance EVI EVI EVI Performance 

Code Category (Basic) (Basic+5%) (Basic+10%) Category (Basic) (Basic+5%) (Basic+10%) Category

Index Increase (+) or decrease (-) Index Increase (+) or decrease (-)

7 III + + + IV + + + IV

12 I + + + II + + + II

14 I + + + II + + + IV

17 I + + + II + + + IV

18 I + + + IV + + + IV

 

9 II + + + III - - + IV

 

2 IV + + + IV - - - IV

8 III + + + IV - - - IV

13 I + + + II - - - II

15 I + + + II - - - I

16 I + + + II - - - II

 

1 IV - - - IV + + + IV

3 IV - - - III + + + IV

6 IV - - - II + + + IV

10 II - - - II + + + III

11 II - - - I + + + IV

 

4 IV - - - IV - + + IV

 

5 IV + - - IV - - - III

Table 4 Changes in average extra-value indexes (EVIs) between each 5-year period

 and in the performance category
6 Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012

Nos. 1, 3, 6, 10, and 11 turned lower from the first 

period to the second period, but improved from the 

second period to the third period. This group may 

count 6 cooperatives if cooperative No. 4 is also 

included. The performance indexes of the remaining 

cooperative declined continuously through time.

Performance rankings. Cooperatives are ranked 

according to the three EVIs using respective interest 

rates for the three study periods. For convenience 

of presentation, the 18 performance rankings are divided into 3 groups of equal number, 6 each: ranks 

1 to 6 are the first ranking group, ranks 7 to 12 are 

the second ranking group, and ranks 13 to 18 are the 

third ranking group (table 5, column 1)

 In this study, cooperative codes are assigned 

according to a cooperative’s ranking by EVI using 

the basic interest rate for the 1992-96 period (table 

5, column 2). Therefore, initially, cooperatives are 

grouped following the performance ranking grouping: cooperative Nos. 1-6 are in the first ranking 

group (in white blocks for easier visual identification), cooperative Nos. 7-12 are in the second ranking group (in gray), and cooperative Nos. 13-18 are 

in the third ranking group (in black).

The performance rankings by EVIs of the 18 

dairy cooperatives over the 3 study periods as displayed in table 5 are summarily described below:

u Cooperatives initially in the first ranking 

group (cooperative Nos. 1-6):

1. Consistently maintained the top performance rank throughout the three periods.

2. Maintained the second top performance 

rank in the first two periods. In the third 

period, rankings dropped to be near the 

 1992-1996 2000-2004 2008-2012

 EVI EVI EVI EVI EVI EVI EVI EVI EVI

Rank (Basic) (Basic+5%) (Basic+10%) (Basic) (Basic+5%) (Basic+10%) (Basic) (Basic+5%) (Basic+10%)

# Cooperative standing in the ranking shown by cooperative code1

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

2 2 2 2 2 2 2 7 17 17

3 3 3 3 7 7 8 17 7 7

4 4 4 4 5 8 7 3 3 3

5 5 6 6 8 5 4 14 14 2

6 6 5 5 4 4 5 2 2 14

 

7 7 7 8 9 9 18 11 11 11

8 8 8 7 18 18 9 8 8 8

9 9 9 9 3 3 3 4 4 6

10 10 10 10 14 13 6 6 6 4

11 11 12 12 17 6 13 18 18 18

12 12 11 13 13 15 15 9 9 9

 

13 13 13 11 16 16 16 5 5 10

14 14 15 15 6 14 17 10 10 5

15 15 16 16 10 17 10 12 12 13

16 16 14 18 15 10 14 13 16 16

17 17 18 17 12 12 12 16 13 12

18 18 17 14 11 11 11 15 15 15

Column 

 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1

Co-op codes are assigned according to a co-op’s ranking by EVI using the basic interest rate for the 1992-96 period (column 2). For 

easier visual identification, co-ops Nos. 1-6 are blocked in white, Nos. 7-12 are in gray, and Nos. 13-18 are in black. Boxes (dashed) 

enclose the co-ops in the same performance categories that fully recovered the opportunity cost as indicated by the particular interest 

rate used in calculating the co-ops’ EVIs (corresponding to categories in table 3). Co-ops that are not enclosed in any of the boxes did 

not generate extra value at the respective basic interest rate (performance Category I, table 3).

Table 5 Rankings by extra-value indexes (EVIs) based on the respective averages for 

 the three periods generated in the three 5-year periods
Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012 7

bottom of the first ranking group.

3. Dipped to the second ranking group in 

the second period and recovered to be in 

the first ranking group again in the third 

period.

4. Declined gradually, dropping to the second ranking group in the third period.

5. Remained in the first ranking group in 

the first and the second periods, but fell 

to the third ranking group in the third 

period.

6. Dropped to straddle the second and third 

ranking groups in the second period; improved somewhat but still stayed in the 

second ranking group in the third period.

u Cooperatives initially in the second ranking 

group (cooperative Nos. 7-12):

7. Improved to land in the first ranking 

group, and ranked nearly at the top of all 

cooperatives throughout the second and 

the third periods.

8. Improved to be in the first ranking group 

in the second period; dropped back to 

the second ranking group in the third 

period to be at par with the first period.

9. Remained in the second ranking group 

throughout the three periods; its ranking 

in the third period was relatively lower.

10.Dropped to the third ranking group 

throughout the second and the third periods.

11.Dipped to the third ranking group and 

actually ranked last (rank 18) in the 

second period; remarkably recovered in 

the third period to be at the top of second 

ranking groups (rank 7).

12.Dropped to the third ranking group and 

ranked near the bottom throughout the 

second and the third periods.

u Cooperatives initially in the third ranking 

group (cooperative Nos. 13-18):

13.Improved to be in the second ranking 

group in the second period but dropped 

back to the third ranking group to be 

near the bottom in the third period.

14.Improved somewhat in the second period; further remarkably improved in the 

third period to the first ranking group.

15.Improved somewhat to straddle the first 

and the second ranking groups in the second period but fell back to the last ranking group to be at the bottom in the third 

periods. 

16.Remained in the last ranking group 

throughout the three periods.

17.Improved through time and moved from 

the last ranking group to be nearly the 

top-ranked among all cooperatives in the 

third period.

18.Improved to, and stayed in, the second 

ranking group in the second and the third 

periods.

Evaluating the performance of dairy cooperatives.

In addition to showing performance rankings, table 

5 also brings together all three facets of dairy cooperatives’ performance―performance categories, 

changes in performance indexes, and performance 

rankings―for a comprehensive evaluation.

The dashed boxes in table 5 that enclose the cooperatives that fully recovered the opportunity cost 

at basic interest rate plus 10 percent risk premium 

(columns 4, 7 and 10) correspond to performance 

Category IV in table 3. The dashed boxes that 

enclose the cooperatives that fully recovered the 

opportunity cost at basic interest rate plus 5 percent 

risk premium (columns 3, 6 and 9) correspond to 

performance Category III. The dashed boxes that 

enclose the cooperatives that fully recovered the 

opportunity cost at basic interest rate (columns 2, 5 

and 8) correspond to performance Category II. 

Seven cooperatives in the first period, cooperatives 12-18 (below the dashed boxe in column 2), 

could not recover the opportunity cost of equity 

capital at basic interest rate. They are listed in performance Category I in table 3. So are cooperative 

No. 11 (column 5) in the second period and cooperative No. 15 (column 8) in the third period. Only 1 

cooperative out of the 18 in this study was unable to 

generate extra value beyond the opportunity cost of 

equity capital at basic interest rate in the second and 

the third periods. This was an improvement over the 

first period, when a total of 7 could not recover such 

cost.

 Furthermore, in the first period, there were 6 

cooperatives that generated extra values beyond the 
8 Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012

opportunity cost of equity capital at basic interest rate plus 10 percent risk premiums (column 4), 

while there were 7 cooperatives able to do so in the 

second period (column 7) and 12 cooperatives in 

the third period (column 10; see also Category IV in 

table 3).

Performance category indicates that a cooperative’s EVI has surpassed a certain category threshold level. To tell how the cooperative performs over 

time, the changes of the cooperative’s performance 

indexes (EVIs) from one period to the next should 

be examined. However, the examination is complicated by the downward trend of interest-rate level 

over the study periods (table 2) that successively 

lowered the opportunity cost of equity capital and 

allowed the cooperative to have higher extra values 

and move into higher performance categories. 

Even so, there were only 6 cooperatives that had 

successively higher EVI performance indexes over 

the three periods—cooperatives Nos. 7, 12, 14, 17, 

and 18, and arguably cooperative No. 9 (as earlier 

shown in table 4). Cooperative No. 7 moved from 

performance Category III in the first period (table 

5, column 3), and cooperative No.18 moved from 

Category I (column 2) to be in Category IV (column 

7) in the second period, and both then remained in 

that category in the third period (column 10). Cooperatives No. 14 and 17 improved from Category 

I (column 2) to Category II (column 5) and then to 

Category IV (column 10). And cooperative No. 12 

rose from Category I (column 2) to stay in Category 

II through the second and the third periods (columns 

5 and 8, respectively). Cooperative No. 9 made 

the cut because its EVI at basic interest rate plus 

10 percent risk premium allowed it to move from 

performance Category II to Category III and then to 

Category IV.

The EVIs of the other 12 cooperatives showed 

checkered variations. Most notable are cooperatives Nos. 1, 2, and 4. Although the 3 cooperatives 

remained in the highest performance level over 

time, their EVIs actually experienced up and down 

(or down and up; see table 4). Apparently, the extra 

values they generated were high enough that they 

could cushion their operation variations for their 

EVIs to stay above the threshold level for Category 

IV through all three periods.

 The performance variations of the remaining 9 

cooperatives should also be examined in the same 

light: how did their EVIs change over time, along 

with their performance categories?

Performance ranking shows a cooperative’s efficiency in using operating capital to generate extra 

value relative to one another, given that all cooperatives operate in the same economic environment 

and market conditions. The rankings are particularly 

useful for comparing cooperatives that are in the 

same performance category, such as for the third period where performance Category IV has 12 cooperatives. The dashed block in column 10 of table 5 

that encloses these 12 cooperatives shows that their 

rankings are very different from their initial performance ranking sequence (column 2).

The dairy industry is very dynamic. By the end 

of the third study period, performance rankings of 

the cooperatives had spread out from their original 

standings:

• The 6 initially top ranked cooperatives saw 

3 of their peers remain in the first ranking 

group, while 2 dropped to the second ranking group and 1 was further down in the third 

ranking group.

• The cooperatives in the initial second ranking 

group had 1 cooperative elevated to the first 

ranking group, 3 stayed in the second ranking 

group, and 2 fell to the third ranking group.

• Two of the 6 cooperatives that were initially 

in the lowest ranking group rose to the first 

ranking group, and 1 moved to the second 

ranking group, although 3 still remained in 

the third ranking group. 

In summary, the composite picture painted by 

dairy cooperatives’ standings in the performance 

categories, changes in performance indexes and performance rankings help evaluate operating performance by asking these three questions:

• How much extra value does a cooperative 

generate relative to its operating capital?

• How does the cooperative’s extra-value index 

change from one time period to another?

• How does the cooperative’s extra-value index 

compare with other cooperatives in their relative performance rankings?
Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012 9

Structural Changes (Mergers and 

Consolidations)

In the interim years between the first and the second periods, 12 cooperatives underwent structural 

changes (mergers and consolidations) to form 4 

surviving cooperatives, and between the second 

and the third periods, 4 cooperatives underwent 

structural changes to form 2 surviving cooperatives 

(table 1). An interesting question: did the structural 

changes improve the performance of the cooperatives?

The performance of the 6 surviving cooperatives 

was compared to that of the corresponding groupings of the predecessor cooperatives. Four out of 

the 6 surviving cooperatives actually did perform 

better than the sum of their respective predecessor 

counterparts in the period immediately following 

the structural changes: their performance indexes 

showed improvements, and their rankings and performance categories either advanced or remained in 

the same level.

Further detailed analysis is necessary to determine what factors, or what post-merger/consolidation measures the surviving cooperatives undertook, 

made the improvements possible.

Scale of Cooperatives and Performance

Another interesting question is: did larger scale cooperatives perform better than smaller scale ones?

Being scale-neutral and mode-neutral, extravalue index can be used to objectively compare the 

performance of cooperatives of different scales. 

This can be done by comparing the weighted 

averages and the simple averages of performance 

indexes of the 18 cooperatives.

The weighted-average performance indexes of 

cooperatives are calculated by adding the financial 

data across all cooperatives and calculating the 

performance indexes as if they had been one single 

organization. Because of the weighting process, the 

resulting indexes would be heavily influenced by 

the performance of larger scale cooperatives.

The simple-average performance indexes treat 

every cooperative equally by calculating the performance indexes of each of the 18 cooperatives and 

then averaging the indexes. The simple averages 

give an equal weight to each cooperative regardless 

of scale. No one cooperative has more weight than 

another to influence the results. 

If the weighted-average performance indexes 

show that the 18 cooperatives as a group performed 

better than indicated by the simple averages, it 

may be inferred that larger scale cooperatives used 

operating capital more efficiently to generate extra 

value than smaller ones. Conversely, smaller scale 

cooperatives used operating capital more efficiently 

to generate extra value than larger ones, if the 

simple-average performance indexes show that the 

18 cooperatives as a group performed better than 

indicated by the weighted averages.

Weighted averages. Combining the 18 dairy cooperatives as if they had been 1 single entity, the net 

savings of the group was able to pay for the opportunity cost of equity capital at the basic interest rate: 

for example, the group generated an extra value 

that was 2.4 percent of the combined net operating 

capital in 1992 (EVI was 2.4 percent, table 6). All 

EVIs using the basic interest rates as the opportunity costs were positive in the 15 years of this study, 

with the first 5-year period having an average EVI 

of 3.9 percent; the second period, 3.2 percent; and 

the third period, 5.6 percent.

If the opportunity cost of equity capital included 

a risk premium of 5 percent above the basic interest 

rate, then the group was not able to cover the opportunity cost of using the equity capital in 2 years 

in both the first and the second periods. The average 

EVI was 0.4 percent for the first period, 0.5 percent 

for the second period, and 2.9 percent for the third 

period.

The combined net savings of the cooperatives 

was not able to cover the opportunity cost of equity 

capital at the basic interest rate plus 10 percent risk 

premium in 13 out of the 15 years (the exceptions 

being 2009 and 2010). The 5-year average EVI was 

-2.9 percent for the first period, -2.2 percent for the 

second period, and 0.2 percent for the third period.

The weighted-average EVIs that were calculated 

with the basic interest rates show that the efficiency 

in using operating capital to generate extra value 

was the highest in the third period, followed by the 

first period, and then the second period. However, 

the other two series of average EVIs suggest that 
10 Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012

the efficiency in using operating capital to generate 

extra value was the highest in the third period, followed by the second period and then the first period.

The weighted-average equity share of the operating capital in both the second period and the third 

periods averaged 14 points lower than the first 

period. In those two later periods, the cooperatives 

as a group relied on debts to finance almost half (46 

percent) of their operating capital.

Simple averages. By averaging the individual 

performance of the 18 dairy cooperatives, all average EVIs at the basic interest rates were positive in 

the 15 years, averaging 9 percent for the first 5-year 

period, 9.2 percent for the second period, and 10.4 

percent for the third period (table 7).

If the opportunity cost of equity capital included 

a risk premium of 5 percent above the basic rate, average EVIs were still positive for all 15 years. The 

average EVIs, respectively, for the three periods, 

were 5.2 percent, 5.6 percent, and 7.1 percent.

If the risk premium was 10 percent above the 

basic interest rate, the resulting EVIs were also all 

positive except for 2 years, 2000 

and 2008. The 5-year average 

EVI was 1.6 percent for the first 

period, 1.9 percent for the second, and 3.8 percent for the third.

The three simple-average 

EVIs that were calculated at the 

respective interest rates show 

that the efficiency in using operating capital to generate extra 

value was the highest in the third 

period, followed by the second 

period and then the first period.

The simple-average equity 

share of the operating capital 

changed little from the first period to the second, but dropped 

7 points (to 66 percent) between 

the second and the third periods. 

The 18 cooperatives, on average, 

relied on debts to finance about a 

quarter of their operating capital 

in the first 2 periods, and about a 

third in the third period.

Scale and performance. Comparisons between 

weighted-average performance indexes and simple 

averages highlight the performance of larger scale 

cooperatives relative to the rest. Except for one 

(very marginal) case in 2008, all weighted-average 

performance indexes were lower than the corresponding simple averages, suggesting that some of 

the larger scale cooperatives did not perform as well 

as the rest of the cooperatives in all three periods 

(tables 6 and 7). Some of the larger scale cooperatives also relied more on debt and less on equity 

than the rest of the cooperatives to finance their 

operations, as shown by the differences between 

the weighted-average equity shares of the operating 

capital and the simple averages.

The comparisons in this section offer some interesting general observations. But without presenting individual cooperative’s data, it is not prudent 

to make a definitive conclusion about cooperative 

scale and performance. Suffice it to say that some 

of the larger scale cooperatives did not perform 

as well as other cooperatives and that some of the 

larger scale cooperatives relied more on debts and 

Year EVI EVI EVI Equity share of

 (i=basic) (i=basic+5%) (i=basic+10%) operating capital

 ------------------------------Percent------------------------------

1992 2.4 (0.7) (3.9) 63

1993 4.9 1.3 (2.2) 71

1994 1.9 (1.4) (4.7) 66

1995 5.3 1.8 (1.6) 69

1996 4.8 1.2 (2.1) 69

Average 3.9 0.4 (2.9) 68

 

2000 2.3 (0.7) (3.7) 60

2001 3.5 0.9 (1.8) 53

2002 4.3 1.6 (1.2) 55

2003 3.5 1.1 (1.3) 48

2004 2.5 (0.3) (3.0) 55

Average 3.2 0.5 (2.2) 54

 

2008 5.3 2.6 (0.1) 53

2009 9.3 6.3 3.4 59

2010 6.7 3.8 0.8 59

2011 4.3 1.6 (1.0) 53

2012 2.4 0.1 (2.3) 48

Average 5.6 2.9 0.2 54

Table 6 Performance of 18 dairy cooperatives as a 

 group, annual weighted average extra-value 

 indexes (EVIs) and equity share of operating 

 capital
Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012 11

Year EVI EVI EVI Equity share of

 (i=basic) (i=basic+5%) (i=basic+10%) operating capital

 ------------------------------Percent------------------------------

1992 7.3 3.6 0.0 73

1993 10.9 7.1 3.4 75

1994 7.4 3.7 0.0 74

1995 9.4 5.7 2.0 76

1996 9.8 6.1 2.4 74

Average 9.0 5.2 1.6 74

 

2000 7.5 3.7 (0.1) 76

2001 10.6 6.9 3.2 74

2002 11.0 7.4 3.7 73

2003 7.5 3.9 0.4 71

2004 9.5 5.9 2.2 73

Average 9.2 5.6 1.9 73

 

2008 6.0 2.9 (0.2) 62

2009 15.9 12.3 8.8 71

2010 13.3 9.9 6.4 69

2011 7.8 4.6 1.5 63

2012 9.1 5.8 2.4 66

Average 10.4 7.1 3.8 66

Table 7 Performance of 18 dairy cooperatives as a 

 group, annual simple average extra-value 

 indexes (EVIs) and equity share of operating 

 capital

less on member equity than other cooperatives to 

finance their operations.

Attributes of the Extra-Value Approach and 

Some Caveats 

The extra-value approach is a useful tool for member-producers to evaluate the performance of their 

cooperative:

• Extra value measures whether and by how 

much the cooperative’s net savings exceeds 

the opportunity cost of using members’ equity 

capital.

• Extra-value index measures the rate at which 

the extra value is generated given the operating capital used in the cooperative’s operation.

• Being scale-neutral and mode-neutral, the 

extra-value index is an objective tool for 

comparing performance among cooperatives 

and over time.

• Extra-value index hinges on 

the interplays of these four key 

factors: net savings, equity, the 

opportunity cost of equity, and 

the amount of operating capital, and is a broader measure 

than conventional financial 

ratios of cooperative performance.

• Extra-value index can be reformulated as:

EVI = [(Return on Equity - 

Interest rate) / (Operating 

capital / Equity)] x 100.

In essence, EVI measures the 

rate by which return on equity 

exceeds the opportunity cost 

(interest rate) of equity, the rate 

being standardized by the ratio 

of operating capital to equity. 

A cooperative that uses more 

operating capital relative to 

equity (or having lower equity 

share of operating capital)

should achieve a higher return on equity for 

its EVI to be at par with or better than the 

EVI of a cooperative that has a higher equity 

share of operating capital (assuming the two 

cooperatives have the same opportunity cost 

of equity as in this study).

Using the extra-value index for measuring and 

comparing performance of cooperatives should be 

qualified by two considerations:

• In a dairy cooperative, the distinction between 

milk pay prices, premiums, and member 

subsidies on the one hand and earnings (net 

savings) on the other is not clear-cut. If a 

dairy cooperative’s policy is to pay members 

high milk prices and premiums and various 

member subsidies, it may report low earnings 

or even incur losses. On the other hand, a cooperative’s upfront payments to members may 

be lower and then it can report hefty yearend 

earnings. The two cooperatives may perform 
12 Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012

equally well, but 

their earnings may 

appear to show 

otherwise.

• The interest on equity (the opportunity cost of equity) 

is imputed, and the 

“right” rate to use 

is specific to each 

individual cooperative, depending 

on its creditworthiness. For practicality, this study 

applies a uniform 

interest rate across 

all cooperatives 

(mindful of the 

fact that this rate uniformity rarely exists in 

real life). 

It also should be noted that the dataset used in 

this study has some missing values in the second 

and the third periods (table 8). These missing values 

may or may not have some impacts on the results of 

the analysis.

Conclusion: Board and Member Vigilance Is 

Essential

A cooperative is a membership organization as well 

as a business entity. It has to achieve its business 

goals but also has to satisfy its members’ objectives. Besides expecting good returns by marketing 

milk through the cooperative as an assured market, 

dairy farmers also look to the cooperative to provide some or all of these services to help sustain 

their farming operations (Cooperative Information 

Report No. 65):

• Field services to assist with on-farm production problems and regulatory and inspection 

issues.

• Disseminating market information about the 

situation and outlook of the milk market.

• Other marketing-related services that help 

members deal with all the minutiae related to 

producing and marketing quality milk.

• Milking supplies and equipment or farm supplies, etc.

• Insurance products, such as disaster insurance 

for the farm, health and/or life insurance, and 

farm workers’ compensation.

• Retirement programs.

• Risk management services to deal with market uncertainties.

• Farm business consulting services.

• Livestock marketing services (for culled cows 

and calves).

• Representing members’ interests in government, regulatory, and public affairs.

• Other services that may help members’ farming operations. 

The returns of providing such member services 

may not be fully measurable and thus may not be 

fully reflected in the financial statements. The extravalue index, like any other financial ratio, does 

not capture the value of member benefits that are 

not quantified. The board and members should be 

cognizant of the value of such benefits in addition to 

financial returns when evaluating their cooperative’s 

performance.

They should also take their cooperative’s pricing 

policies into consideration, as the distinction between a cooperative’s milk pay prices and earnings 

Co-op 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

1 x

2 x

3 x x

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14 x x x x

15

16

17 x x

18 x

Table 8 Cooperatives with missing data
Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012 13

(net savings) is not clear-cut.

Each cooperative has its own opportunity cost of 

equity capital, and each cooperative member’s opportunity cost of capital may be different. The board 

and the members are in the best position to judge 

the most representative interest rates to use in the 

extra-value calculation.

The extra-value approach is a useful tool for 

evaluating cooperative performance. In the end, 

however, there is no substitute for a well-informed 

membership and a vigilant board that understands 

the complexity of operating a cooperative to adequately oversee its operations and satisfy members’ 

expectations (Research Report No. 229).

References

Davis, Evan, C. Gouzouli, M. Spence, and J. Star. 

“Measuring the Performance of Banks,” Business 

Strategy Review, Autumn 1993, Vol. 4, No. 3.

Ling, K. Charles. “Dairy Cooperatives: What 

They Are and What They Do,” in The Nature of the 

Cooperative, Cooperative Information Report No. 

65, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, November 2014, pp. 16-21.

Ling, K. Charles and Carolyn Liebrand. A New 

Approach to Measuring Dairy Cooperative Performance, RBS Research Report No. 166, Rural 

Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, September 1998.

Ling, K. Charles. Measuring Performance of 

Dairy Cooperatives, RBS Research Report No. 212, 

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 2006.

Liebrand, Carolyn B. Measuring the Performance 

of Agricultural Cooperatives, RBS Research Report 

No. 213, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, December 2007.

Liebrand, Carolyn B. and K. Charles Ling. Member Satisfaction With Their Cooperatives: Insights 

From Dairy Farmers, RBS Research Report No. 

229, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, June 2014.

Ling, K. Charles. Marketing Operations of Dairy 

Cooperatives, 2012, Rural Development Research 

Report No. 230, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, May 2014.
14 Performance of the Top 18 Dairy Co-ops, 1992-2012

Non-Discrimination Policy 

 The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination against its customers, employees, 

and applicants for employment on the bases of race, color, national origin, age, disability, sex, gender 

identity, religion, reprisal, and where applicable, political beliefs, marital status, familial or parental status, 

sexual orientation, or all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program, 

or protected genetic information in employment or in any program or activity conducted or funded by the 

Department. (Not all prohibited bases will apply to all programs and/or employment activities.) 

 

 To File an Employment Complaint 

 If you wish to file an employment complaint, you must contact your agency’s EEO Counselor (PDF) 

within 45 days of the date of the alleged discriminatory act, event, or in the case of a personnel action. Additional information can be found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_file.html. 

 

 To File a Program Complaint 

 If you wish to file a Civil Rights program complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form (PDF), found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html, 

or at any USDA office, or call (866) 632-9992 to request the form. You may also write a letter containing 

all of the information requested in the form. Send your completed complaint form or letter to us by mail 

at U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, by fax (202) 690-7442 or email at program.intake@usda.gov. 

 Persons with Disabilities 

 Individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing or have speech disabilities and you wish to file either an EEO 

or program complaint please contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 or (800) 

845-6136 (in Spanish). 

Persons with disabilities who wish to file a program complaint, please see information above on how to 

contact us by mail directly or by email. If you require alternative means of communication for program 

information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) please contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 

720-2600 (voice and TDD). 

 Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program 

 For any other information dealing with Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) issues, persons should either contact the USDA SNAP Hotline Number at (800) 221-5689, which is also in Spanish 

or call the State Information/Hotline Numbers. 

 All Other Inquiries 

 For any other information not pertaining to civil rights, please refer to the listing of the USDA Agencies 

and Offices for specific agency information.