2

UNITED STATES

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary

Washington, D.C. 20250

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE MONTH

October 2014

By the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States of America

A PROCLAMATION

WHEREAS cooperative businesses unite their member-owners in pursuit of common

objectives, helping both producers and consumers attain marketplace power that would be

impossible to attain as individuals; and

WHEREAS cooperatives are member-owned, member-controlled businesses that operate

for the benefit of their member-owners and their communities rather than to create profits

for distant shareholders; and

WHEREAS the Nation’s 30,000 cooperatives are vital in many sectors of the U.S. economy,

including agricultural marketing and supply; credit and financial services; rural electric and

telecommunications services; and housing as well as in local food supplies and markets; and

WHEREAS the Nation’s cooperative community is helping to stimulate economic growth

and improve the quality of life in many developing nations around the world through the

creation of cooperatives, associations, and similar groups; 

NOW, THEREFORE, in recognition of the important role that cooperatives play in

strengthening the economy, providing greater economic opportunity, and creating memberowned benefits in rural America, I, Thomas J. Vilsack, Secretary of the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, do hereby proclaim October 2014 as National Cooperative Month. I encourage

all Americans to learn more about cooperatives and to celebrate cooperatives’ unique

structure, accomplishments, and contributions with appropriate ceremonies and activities. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this 2nd day of September 2014,

the two-hundred thirty-ninth year of the Independence of the United States of America.

THOMAS J. VILSACK

Secretary
C O-OP MONTH

Features

Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 3

Volume 81, Number 5

September/October 2014

Rural Cooperatives (1088-8845) is

published bimonthly by USDA Rural

Development, 1400 Independence Ave.

SW, Stop 0705, Washington, DC. 20250-

0705.

The Secretary of Agriculture has

determined that publication of this

periodical is necessary in the transaction

of public business required by law of the

Department. Periodicals postage paid at

Washington, DC. and additional mailing

offices. Copies may be obtained from the

Superintendent of Documents,

Government Printing Office, Washington,

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

send address change to: Rural

Cooperatives, USDA/RBS, Stop 3255,

Wash., DC 20250-3255.

Mention in Rural Cooperatives of

company and brand names does not

signify endorsement over other

companies’ products and services.

Unless otherwise stated, articles in this

publication are not copyrighted and may

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

necessarily reflect those of USDA or its

employees.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of

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

status, familial status, parental status,

religion, sexual orientation, genetic

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or

because all or part of an individual’s

income is derived from any public

assistance program. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons

with disabilities who require alternative

means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape,

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write

to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

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

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

USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.

Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture

Doug O’Brien, Acting Under Secretary,

USDA Rural Development

Dan Campbell, Editor

Stephen A. Thompson, Assistant Editor

Stephen Hall / KOTA, Design

Have a cooperative-related question?

Call (202) 720-6483, or email:

coopinfo@wdc.usda.gov

This publication was printed with vegetable oil-based ink.

04 Grain, dairy sales help ag co-ops set revenue and income

records

8 Top 100 ag co-ops’ sales soar 9 percent over 2012 

By Eldon Eversull, Sarah Ali and David Chesnick

18 Making the Co-op Connection

32 Collective Courage

New book relates history of African-American cooperation 

By Thomas W. Gray

36 From the Ashes of War

Rebuilding ag co-op system in Bosnia and Herzegovina presents huge challenges 

By James C. Hanson and Miodrag Matavulj

Departments

39 NEWSLINE 

p. 4

ON THE COVER: Specialty crops, dairy and grain all

contributed to a third consecutive year of recordbreaking sales and income by U.S. agricultural and

fishery cooperatives in 2013. See page 4.

p. 32
4 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

Grain, dairy sales help ag co-ops

set revenue and income records

3 IN A ROW!
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 5

Editor’s note: Information for

this article was compiled by the

Cooperative Programs statistics

staff of USDA Rural

Development: E. Eldon Eversull

and Sarah Ali.

Farmer, rancher

and fishery

cooperatives set

new records for

sales and net

income before taxes in 2013,

buoyed by continued strong

prices for grain and many other

ag commodities. Farm supply

sales by cooperatives also

showed modest gains. Total

business volume by agricultural

co-ops of more than $246

billion surpassed the previous

record, set in 2012, by $8

billion, a 4-percent gain (Table

1). This marks the third year in

a row that U.S. agricultural coops have set sales records.

Net (pre-tax) income of $6.2

billion was up 1 percent from

2012, when the previous record

of $6.1 billion was set. After-tax

Table 1

U.S. agricultural cooperatives, comparison of 2013 and 2012

Item 2013 2012 Difference Change

.................Number.................... Percent

Sales (Gross, Billion $)

Marketing 144.6 140.9 3.7 2.66

Farm supplies 95.9 92.2 3.7 4.05

Service 5.6 4.7 0.9 18.17

Total 246.1 237.8 8.3 3.51

Balance sheet (Billion $)

Assets 82.6 83.4 -0.8 -0.97

Liabilities 47.9 53.2 -5.3 -9.94

Equity 34.6 30.2 4.5 14.87

Liabilities and net worth 82.6 83.4 -0.8 -0.97

Income Statement (Billion $)

Sales (Gross) 246.1 237.8 8.3 3.51

Patronage income 1.2 0.9 0.3 32.78

Net income before taxes 6.2 6.1 0.0 0.75

Employees (Thousand)

Full-time 136.2 129.4 6.7 5.21

Part-time, seasonal 54.9 56.2 -1.3 -2.33

Total 191.1 185.6 5.4 2.93

Membership (Million) 2.0 2.1 -0.1 -6.53

Cooperatives (Number) 2,186 2,236 -50.0 -2.24
income of $5.6 billion was down

$10,000 from the record set in 2012.

Higher cooperative sales were driven

by increased sales in the overall farm

economy. U.S. crop production and

livestock sales both increased 6 percent

in 2013 and production input (farm

supply) sales increased 2 percent.

However, sales declined for many

products, with cotton decreasing the

most (-38 percent). For all of U.S.

agriculture in 2013, vegetable sales

increased 23 percent while dairy sales

were up 8.7 percent. Overall, the farm

economy saw U.S. sales decline for

many crops and production inputs.

Job numbers climb 5 percent

Ag co-ops are also doing their part in

helping put more Americans to work.

The ranks of full-time co-op employees

increased by almost 7,000, to 136,000.

That’s up 5 percent from 2012.

Counting part-time workers, ag co-ops

employ 191,000 people. Seasonal

employee numbers decreased by about

1,300.

“Agricultural cooperatives — which

are owned and controlled by their

producer-members — are a major

economic force in rural America that

benefits not only producers, but also

their employees and communities,” says

Doug O’Brien, Acting Under Secretary

for USDA Rural Development, which

administers programs that assist the

nation’s cooperatives. “Co-ops are the

major employer in many rural towns,

and the increased number of full-time

jobs they created last year are one

indication that this time-tested business

structure is as relevant as ever.” 

Fiscal assets (property, plant and

equipment) owned by farm co-ops —

including everything from grain

6 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives
elevators and farm supply stores to

major food and beverage processing

plants — also showed a dramatic

increase in 2013, rising to $20.2 billion.

That’s up 8 percent from $18.7 billion

in 2012. 

Co-ops range in size from a small

handful of farmers or fishermen who

join forces to market their crops and

catch, to federated cooperatives (a

cooperative for cooperatives) with many

thousands of members in multiple

states. While 33 cooperatives recorded

more than $1 billion in sales last year,

33 percent (726) of ag cooperatives had

less than $5 million in sales. 

USDA’s annual survey of the nation’s

2,186 agricultural and fishery

cooperatives shows that net grain and

oilseed sales by co-ops increased more

than $2.5 billion last year, while dairy

product marketing increased more than

$400 million. All other ag marketing

sectors had slight gains or declines, the

net result being a total marketing gain

of $2.6 billion for these ag co-ops.

Petroleum sales fuel 

gains for supply co-ops

Farm and ranch supply sales were up

by almost $2.5 billion, primarily due to

increased petroleum and feed sales.

Primary factors for increased sales of

supplies were energy costs and feed

ingredient prices. Crop protectant and

seed sales both increased by almost

$100 million while fertilizer sales

declined $170 million.

The livestock, vegetable and dairy

sectors all saw at least a 3-percent gain

in sales, but revenue declined for most

other crops and inputs. While prices for

most crops have weakened thus far in

2014 (which will be the focus of next

year’s report), member-owned ag

cooperatives will remain a major

provider of farm inputs and a market

for members production.

The value of cooperative assets fell

by almost $1 billion in 2013. Liabilities

also decreased, falling by $5.3 billion.

However, owner equity in co-ops

increased by $4.5 billion. Equity capital

held by ag co-ops remains low, but it is

clearly on an upward trend, with a 15-

percent increase over the previous year.

Patronage income (refunds from

other cooperatives resulting from sales

between cooperatives) increased by

almost 33 percent, to $1.2 billion, up

from $900 million in 2012. 

Farm numbers remained about the

same as in 2012, with USDA counting

2.1 million in both years. The number

of farmer cooperatives continues to

decline — there are now 2,186 farmer,

rancher and fishery cooperatives, down

from 2,236 in 2012. Mergers account

for most of the drop, resulting in larger

cooperatives. 

Producers held 2 million

memberships in cooperatives in 2013,

down about 7 percent from 2012. The

number of cooperative memberships is

slightly less than the number of U.S.

farms. But this does not mean that

every producer is a member of an

agricultural cooperative. Previous

studies have found that many farmers

and ranchers are members of up to

three cooperatives, so farm numbers

and cooperative memberships are not

strictly comparable. ■

Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 7

Table 2

U.S. cooperatives net business volume, 2013 and 2012

Item 2013 2012 Difference Change

................Billion $....................... Percent

Products marketed:

Bean and pea (dry edible) 0.24 0.17 0.07 41.2

Cotton 2.99 3.09 -0.10 -3.3

Dairy 40.18 39.74 0.44 1.1

Fish 0.18 0.19 0.00 -2.1

Fruit and vegetable 5.89 5.75 0.14 2.4

Grain and oilseed 66.25 63.71 2.54 4.0

Livestock 3.35 4.02 -0.67 -16.8

Nut 1.33 1.10 0.23 21.0

Poultry 0.73 1.45 -0.73 -50.0

Rice 1.73 1.55 0.18 11.5

Sugar 6.03 6.00 0.03 0.6

Tobacco 0.14 0.12 0.02 14.6

Other marketing 6.04 5.62 0.42 7.5

Total marketing 135.81 133.18 2.63 2.0

Supplies purchased:

Crop protectants 7.33 7.19 0.14 1.9

Feed 12.72 11.84 0.88 7.4

Fertilizer 14.02 14.19 -0.17 -1.2

Petroleum 24.40 23.36 1.04 4.5

Seed 3.36 3.27 0.09 2.8

Other supplies 5.36 4.87 0.49 10.0

Total supplies 67.18 64.71 2.46 3.8

Services and other income 5.57 4.72 0.86 18.2

Total business 208.56 202.60 5.95 2.9
By Eldon Eversull, Sarah Ali, David Chesnick

Agricultural Economists

Cooperative Programs

USDA Rural Development 

The nation’s 100 largest agricultural

cooperatives reported record sales revenue of

$174 billion in 2013, an increase of almost 9

percent over 2012, when revenue totaled

$166 billion (Table 1). This marks the third

year in a row for record sales by the Top 100. 

Net income for the Top 100 ag co-ops, at $3.5 billion, was

$25 million less than the record set in 2012. The previous

record for sales was set in 2012. 

Iowa is the home to 16 of the Top 100 ag co-ops, the most

of any state (Figure 1). Just 10 years ago, Iowa accounted for

only 11 of the Top 100 cooperatives. Iowa is followed by

Minnesota with 13 Top 100 ag co-ops, Nebraska with 9,

Illinois and Wisconsin with 5 each, and California, Indiana,

Kansas, Missouri and Ohio, with 4 each. 

8 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

Sales soar 9 percent over 2012

Top100 Ag Co-ops

Top of page: A construction progress meeting for Wheaton-Dumont

Cooperative (WDC) Elevator’s new Graceville Grain Terminal. At right (in

striped shirt) is Philip Deal, general manager of the co-op, which made

the biggest climb up the Top 100 in 2013, rising 58 places. Photo

courtesy WDC. Above: The second biggest Top 100 climb last year was

made by the Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative, Wahpeton, N.D. Here,

Minn-Dak farmer Tom Jirak gets some help from his grandchildren

loading seed for next year’s crop. Photo by Courtney Ficek, courtesy

Minn-Dak
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 9

Grain sales biggest factor

Grain cooperatives have experienced the largest increase in

representation in the Top 100 during the past decade. In

2004, there were 19 grain cooperatives in in the Top 100, but

that number rose to 41 cooperatives in 2013 (Figure 2). Dairy

cooperative representation in the Top 100 fell from 28 to 21

cooperatives over the same time period, while farm supply

cooperatives increased from 13 to 16. 

Higher grain and oilseed prices, starting in 2008 and 2009,

contributed to the growth of grain cooperatives in the Top

100. Higher sales were driven by increased sales in the overall

farm economy. U.S. crop production and livestock sales both

increased 6 percent in 2013 and production input (farm

supply) sales increased 2 percent. However, sales declined for

many products, with cotton decreasing the most (-38

percent). Livestock, vegetables and dairy all had at least a 3-

percent gain in U.S. sales. 

The Top 100 co-op sales represent more than 70 percent

of the $246 billion in total business volume made by all

agricultural cooperatives in 2013 (see related article, page 4).

Minnesota co-op makes biggest move

Wheaton-Dumont Cooperative Elevator, a grain co-op

based in Wheaton, Minn., made the biggest climb in the Top

100. It rose 58 places, from 150 in 2012 to 92 in 2013. MinnDak Farmers Cooperative, Wahpeton, N.D., a sugarbeet coop, was the next biggest “gainer,” moving from 131 to 98 in

2013. 

Double-digit moves upward were accomplished by 23

cooperatives. Six of these moves were made by mixed co-ops

(co-ops that handle both grain and farm supply sales). Dairy

and grain each had two co-ops make double-digit gains, while

cotton, rice and sugar each had one co-op jump by at least 10

places. 

Wheaton-Dumont Cooperative (WDC) finished work on its Graceville Grain Terminal, near Graceville, Minn., in September 2013. The facility has

upright steel-storage capacity of 5 million bushels, with a temporary capacity of 2.8 million bushels. The fully automated facility can receive grain at

60,000 bushels per hour. It is served by a loop track that can accommodate 120 railcars and loads at 80,000 bushels per hour. Photo courtesy WDC
10 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

CHS Inc., Saint Paul, Minn. — an energy, farm supply,

grain and food co-op — remains as the nation’s largest ag coop, as it has been for the past decade, with $44 billion in

revenue in 2013. It was followed by Land O’ Lakes Inc.,

Saint Paul, Minn., with sales of $14 billion, and Dairy

Farmers of America, Kansas City, Mo., with almost $13

billion in revenue.

Marked gains in annual growth rate 

With total business volume having increased from

$80 billion in 2004 to $174 billion in 2013, the Top 100

ag co-ops have enjoyed an annualized growth rate of 13

percent.

The annual “turnover” in the Top 100 is due to a

number of factors, including trends in different

commodity and product prices, mergers, acquisitions,

etc. The top line in Figure 3 represents sales by the

Top 100 cooperatives for each of the years while the

bottom shaded area represents sales of the same 2013

Top 100 co-ops during the past decade. The 2013 and

2012 sales are the same, but in 2004 there is a 9-

percent difference in sales. The difference narrows as

the Top 100 cooperatives of 2013 grew, with a

difference of 7 percent in 2005 that further narrows to

2 percent in 2011.

Cost of goods sold by the Top 100 ag co-ops was up

8 percent over 2012, mirroring the increase in total

sales (Table 1). With marketing cooperatives — such as

dairy, fruit and vegetable, cotton, sugar and grain coops — the cost of goods sold usually represent

payments to members for their product. 

Gross margins increased by 3 percent, from $13.3

billion to $13.6 billion, between 2012 and 2013. Service

revenues were up 2 percent, to $1.6 billion, compared

to $1.5 billion in 2012. Wages increased almost 6

percent; depreciation 8 percent; interest 5 percent; and

total expenses 8 percent. 

With total expenses increasing by $900 million, net

operating margins fell 15 percent in 2013, to $3 billion,

down from $3.6 billion in 2012. Patronage income

from other cooperatives increased 37 percent, to $400

million and non-operating income increased from $300

million in 2012 to $450 million in 2013. 

Net income before taxes of $3.9 billion was virtually

unchanged from 2012. Taxes increased 6 percent,

leaving a net margin of $3.5 billion in 2013, $25

million less than the record net margin of $3.6 billion

in 2012 (Figure 4). 

Assets virtually unchanged

The asset base for the Top 100 grew by $300 million

between 2012 and 2013, or less than 1 percent, to a

total of $53.8 billion in 2013 (Table 2). The largest 100 coops ended 2013 with $33 billion in current assets, down 5

percent from 2012. Fixed assets (property, plant and

equipment) increased $1.5 billion from 2012 to 2013, or 13

percent, to more than $13 billion.

Current liabilities declined by almost 10 percent, from $25

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

175

150

125

100

75

50

25

0

Billion $

Figure 3—Total business volume — Top 100 and Same 100 — 2004–2013

Top 100

Same 100

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

50

45

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Number of cooperatives

Figure 2—Change in composition of Top 1001, 2004–2013

Grain

Supply

Dairy

All Other

1

Grain includes 23 mixed (grain, supply) in 2013, while supply includes 11 mixed (supply, grain)

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

20

15

10

5

0

Number of cooperatives

Figure 1—Three states with the most top 100, 2004–2013

Minnesota

Iowa

Nebraska
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 11

Table 1

Abbreviated Income Statement for Top 100 Co-ops, 2013 and 2012

2013 2012 Difference Change

................ $ billions .................... Percent

Total Sales 171.91 163.94 7.96 4.9

Cost of Goods Sold 158.28 150.65 7.63 5.1

Gross Margin 13.62 13.30 0.33 2.5

Service and Other 

Operating Income 1.57 1.53 0.04 2.4

Gross Revenue 15.19 14.83 0.36 2.4

Expenses

Wages 5.54 5.25 0.30 5.6

Depreciation 1.39 1.29 0.10 7.9

Interest Expense 0.69 0.66 0.03 4.5

Other Expenses 4.55 4.08 0.47 11.6

Total Expenses 12.17 11.27 0.90 8.0

Net Operating Margin 3.02 3.56 -0.54 -15.1

Patronage From Other Co-ops 0.41 0.30 0.11 37.3

Nonoperating Income (Expense) 0.45 0.03 0.42 1367.0

Net Margin Before Taxes 3.88 3.89 0.00 -0.1

Taxes 0.36 0.34 0.02 5.8

Net Margin 3.53 3.55 -0.02 -0.7

Table 2

Abbreviated Balance Sheet for Top 100 Co-ops, 2013 and 2012

2013 2012 Difference Change

................$ billions .................... Percent

Current Assets 33.05 34.59 -1.54 -4.5

Investments in Other Co-ops 2.17 1.85 0.31 16.8

Property, Plant & Equipment 13.41 11.84 1.57 13.2

Other Assets 5.14 5.17 -0.03 -0.5

Total Assets 53.76 53.45 0.31 0.6

Current Liabilities 22.65 25.08 -2.42 -9.7

Long-Term Liabilities 10.22 11.20 -0.98 -8.8

Total Liabilities 32.87 36.28 -3.41 -9.4

Allocated Equity 14.27 12.30 1.97 16.0

Retained Earnings 6.62 4.87 1.75 35.9

Total Equity 20.89 17.17 3.71 21.6

Total Liabilities and Equity 53.76 53.45 0.31 0.6

billion in 2012 to $23 billion in 2013.

Long-term liabilities and total liabilities

both declined by 9 percent. Long-term

liabilities stand at $10 billion while total

liabilities dipped to $33 billion in 2013, $3

billion less than in 2012. 

Equity allocated to members jumped 16

percent in 2013, to $14 billion. Retained

earnings increased 36 percent, ending the

year at almost $7 billion. 

Financial measures change little 

Table 3 provides the combined financial

ratios for the largest 100 ag co-ops. The

current ratio increased slightly, from 1.38

to 1.46. The current ratio is a liquidity

ratio — a measure of the cooperative’s

ability to meet short-term obligations. So,

in this instance, current assets are 1.46

times current liabilities. 

The debt-to-asset ratio illustrates what

percentage of business assets are financed

by debt. The ratio fell from 0.68 in 2012

to 0.61 in 2013 meaning 7 percent more

of the assets are financed by equity. 

Long-term debt and equity are

generally used to finance a business’ longterm assets. The long-term debt-to-equity

ratio focuses on long-term financing. The

ratio moved down from 0.66 in 2012 to

0.49 in 2013, meaning less long-term debt

was used and more equity financed longterm assets. 

The times-interest-earned ratio shows

how much a business can cover its interest

expense on a pre-tax basis. As a rule, the

higher the ratio’s value is, the better off

the cooperative is. However, too high of a

ratio may mean that the cooperative is

using a high amount of member equity to

fund the cooperative, when it could be

using those funds more productively

elsewhere. A low value could indicate

trouble paying obligations. In 2013, the

ratio was 6.62, a slight decrease from

2012’s value of 6.82.

As a general rule, those co-ops with

high amounts of fixed capital, such as

processing co-ops, will have a lower fixedasset-turnover ratio than some of those

that provide mostly marketing services. In

2013, the fixed asset turnover was 12.8,

down from 13.5 in 2012.
Profitability ratios show slight declines

Profitability ratios are important for any business,

as an unprofitable business will obviously not

survive for very long. However, co-ops are in a

unique position in that they try to operate as close

to cost as possible. For example, gross margins for a

cooperative will usually be somewhat lower than for

a non-cooperative business in the same industry. 

Between 2013 and 2012, co-op gross profit

margins decreased slightly, from 8.2 to 7.9 percent,

while net operating margins declined from 2.2 to

1.8 percent during the two years (Table 3). Return

on total assets measures business earnings before

interest and taxes against its total net assets. The

average return on total assets for the top 100 ag coops slightly increased between 2013 and 2012, from

8.4 to 8.5 percent. 

Return on members’ equity measures net

earnings after taxes against total equity. This

examines the returns to members. In 2013, the

return on members’ equity was 24.7 percent. This is

down almost 4 percentage points from 2012, when

it was at 28.6 percent. 

Ranking of top 100 co-ops

Table 5 lists the rank, name, revenue and assets

for the nation’s 100 largest agricultural co-ops.

These co-ops have been identified by type, as

defined in Table 4. The co-op types (and the

number of cooperatives in each group) are: farm

supply (6); mixed farm supply and grain (33); grain

(17); dairy (22); sugar (8); fruit and vegetable (7) and

other marketing (7). ■

12 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

Table 4—Cooperative Types Used For Top 100 Co-ops Analysis

Type of cooperative

Supply 

Mixed 

Grain 

Dairy 

Sugar 

Fruit and Vegetable

Other 

Cooperative defined

Derive at least 75% of their total revenue from farm supply sales.

Derive between 25% and 75% of total revenue from farm supply sales; remainder from marketing.

Derive at least 75% of total revenue from grain marketing.

Market members’ raw milk; some also manufacture products such as cheese and ice cream.

Refine sugar beets and cane into sugar; market sugar and related by-products.

Generally further process and market fruits or vegetables, rather than marketing raw products.

Includes co-ops that market livestock, rice, cotton and nuts.

Table 3—Combined Financial Ratios, Top 100 Ag Co-ops 

2013 2012

Current Ratio 1.46 1.38

Debt-to-Assets 0.61 0.68

Long-Term Debt-to-Equity 0.49 0.66

Times Interest Earned 6.62 6.82

Fixed Asset Turnover 12.84 13.47

Gross Profit Margin 7.93 8.17

Net Operating Margin 1.76 2.18

Return on Total Assets 8.49 8.43

Return on Member Equity 24.72 28.62

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

4

3

2

1

0

Billion $

Figure 4—Net margins for Top 100, 2004–2013
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 13

Table 5—Top 100 Agriculture Cooperatives

(Names withheld, by request, for cooperatives ranked 8, 14, 55, 77, 93, 97)

2013

RANK

2012

RANK

NAME

CHS Inc.

Saint Paul, Minn.

Land O'Lakes, Inc.

Saint Paul, Minn.

Dairy Farmers of America

Kansas City, Mo.

GROWMARK, Inc.

Bloomington, Ill.

Ag Processing Inc.

Omaha, Neb.

California Dairies, Inc.

Artesia, Calif.

United Suppliers, Inc.

Eldora, Iowa

Name withheld by request

Southern States Cooperative Inc.

Richmond, Va.

Northwest Dairy Association

Seattle, Wash.

South Dakota Wheat Growers Assoc.

Aberdeen, S.D.

Associated Milk Producers, Inc.

New Ulm, Minn.

Foremost Farms USA, Cooperative

Baraboo, Wis.

Name withheld by request

Prairie Farms Dairy Inc.

Carlinville, Ill.

Dairylea Cooperative Inc.

Syracuse, N.Y.

Ocean Spray Cranberries Inc.

Lakeville-Middleboro, Mass.

American Crystal Sugar Company

Moorhead, Minn.

MFA Incorporated

Columbia, Mo.

Maryland & Virginia Milk

Producers Co-op Assoc., Reston, Va.

Mixed (Energy,

Supply, Food, Grain)

Mixed (Supply,

Dairy, Food)

Dairy

Supply

Mixed (Supply,

Grain)

Dairy

Supply

Supply

Dairy

Grain

Dairy

Dairy

Dairy

Dairy

Fruit

Sugar

Mixed (Supply,

Grain, Livestock) 

Dairy

2012

ASSETS

2013

ASSETS

2012

REVENUE

2013

REVENUE

TYPE

$ Billion

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

7

11

12

16

15

17

14

19

18

23 

44.480

14.287

12.879

10.236

5.678

3.857

2.673

2.258

2.243

2.132

1.817

1.762

1.725

1.671

1.659

1.597

1.522

1.373 

40.599

14.138

11.917

10.150

4.937

3.240

2.375

2.292

2.465

1.829

1.776

1.649

1.660

1.588

1.663

1.479

1.483

1.298

13.504

6.758

2.641

2.366

1.348

0.894

1.097

0.550

0.632

0.696

0.300

0.409

0.727

0.230

1.584

0.951

0.412

0.165

13.645

6.357 

2.860

2.763

1.395

0.812

0.942

0.517

0.548

0.679

0.312

0.423

0.726

0.186

1.363

0.899

0.506

0.163
14 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

Table 5—Top 100 Agriculture Cooperatives

2013

RANK

2012

RANK

NAME

MFA Oil Co.

Columbia, Mo.

Riceland Foods Inc.

Stuttgart, Ark.

Farmers Cooperative Co.

Ames, Iowa

Heartland Co-op

West Des Moines, Iowa

Blue Diamond Growers

Sacramento, Calif.

Innovative Ag Services Co.

Monticello, Iowa

Producers Livestock Marketing

Association, Omaha, Neb.

Co-Alliance, LLP

Avon, Ind.

Staple Cotton Cooperative Assoc.

Greenwood, Miss.

Aurora Cooperative Elevator Co.

Aurora, Neb.

Plains Cotton Cooperative Assoc.

Lubbock, Texas

Sunkist Growers Inc.

Sherman Oaks, Calif.

Cooperative Producers Inc.

Hastings, Neb.

Michigan Milk Producers Assoc.

Novi, Mich.

Agri-Mark Inc.

Lawrence, Mass.

Farmers Grain Terminal Inc.

Greenville, Miss.

Cooperative Regions of Organic Producer Pools

(CROPP) (aka Organic Valley), La Farge, Wis.

Snake River Sugar Co.

Boise, Idaho

Select Milk Producers Inc.

Artesia, N.M.

North Central Farmers Elevator

Ipswich, S.D.

Supply

Other (Rice)

Mixed (Grain,

Supply)

Grain

Other (Nut)

Mixed (Grain,

Supply)

Other (Livestock)

Mixed (Grain,

Supply)

Other (Cotton)

Mixed (Grain,

Supply)

Other (Cotton)

Fruit

Grain

Dairy

Dairy

Grain

Dairy

Sugar

Dairy

Mixed (Grain,

Supply)

2012

ASSETS

2013

ASSETS

2012

REVENUE

2013

REVENUE

TYPE

$ Billion

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

22

27

21

24

32

20

26

28

25

29

44

33

30

39

37

58

38

35

41

49

1.369

1.315

1.236

1.217

1.196

1.193

1.152

1.147

1.143

1.098

1.084

1.081

1.068

0.957

0.954

0.934

0.933

0.926

0.907

0.906

1.310

1.160

1.329

1.284 

1.006

1.435

1.199

1.112

1.258

1.061

0.803

1.004

1.047

0.854

0.884

0.620

0.858

0.936

0.839

0.725

0.396

0.579

0.338 

0.248

0.410

0.231

0.149

0.293

0.243

0.471

0.173

0.215

0.243

0.173

0.345

0.125

0.235

0.864

0.186

0.267

0.386

0.613

0.416

0.350

0.312

0.329

0.131

0.378

0.251

0.453

0.185

0.168

0.321

0.168

0.319

0.172

0.216

0.826

0.110

0.252
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 15

Table 5—Top 100 Agriculture Cooperatives

2013

RANK

2012

RANK

NAME 2012

ASSETS

2013

ASSETS

2012

REVENUE

2013

REVENUE

TYPE

$ Billion

41 43 West Central Cooperative Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.870 0.813 0.303 0.361

Ralston, Iowa

42 36 Lone Star Milk Producers Dairy 0.867 0.896 0.097 0.100

Windthorst, Texas

43 34 Farmers Cooperative Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.864 0.946 0.236 0.240

Dorchester, Neb.

44 46 United Dairymen of Arizona Dairy 0.837 0.785 0.197 0.130

Tempe, Ariz.

45 42 Tennessee Farmers Cooperative Supply 0.800 0.827 0.286 0.278

La Vergne, Tenn.

46 40 NEW Cooperative Inc. Grain 0.774 0.840 0.272 0.271

Fort Dodge, Iowa

47 51 Upstate Niagara Cooperative Inc. Dairy 0.759 0.719 0.244 0.251

Buffalo, N.Y.

48 47 Trupointe Cooperative Mixed (Supply, Grain) 0.737 0.766 0.197 0.221

Piqua, Ohio

49 52 United Farmers Cooperative Grain 0.732 0.716 0.153 0.227

York, Neb.

50 48 Central Valley Ag Cooperative Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.726 0.748 0.255 0.259

O'Neill, Neb.

51 60 Watonwan Farm Service Company Grain 0.721 0.612 0.142 0.222

Truman, Minn.

52 59 Sunrise Cooperative Inc. Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.719 0.616 0.200 0.253

Fremont, Ohio

53 50 Frenchman Valley Farmers Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.715 0.723 0.247 0.223

Cooperative Inc., Imperial, Neb.

54 72 Tillamook County Creamery Assoc. Dairy 0.679 0.516 0.406 0.326

Tillamook, Ore.

55 Name withheld by request.

56 55 Heritage Cooperative Inc. Grain 0.636 0.637 0.133 0.150

West Mansfield, Ohio

57 54 United Cooperative Mixed (Supply, Grain) 0.630 0.643 0.441 0.440

Beaver Dam, Wis.

58 69 First District Association Dairy 0.629 0.524 0.133 0.126

Litchfield, Minn.

59 57 Citrus World Inc. (Florida’s Fruit 0.627 0.626 0.370 0.333

Natural Growers), Lake Wales, Fla.

60 61 Equity Cooperative Livestock Other (Livestock) 0.620 0.605 0.032 0.031

Sales Association, Baraboo, Wis.
16 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

Table 5—Top 100 Agriculture Cooperatives

2013

RANK

2012

RANK

NAME 2012

ASSETS

2013

ASSETS

2012

REVENUE

2013

REVENUE

TYPE

$ Billion

61 56 Louisiana Sugar Cane Products Inc. Sugar 0.618 0.627 0.128 0.080

Breaux Bridge, La.

62 62 Michigan Sugar Co. Sugar 0.611 0.595 0.290 0.267

Bay City, Mich.

63 81 Alabama Farmers Cooperative Inc. Mixed (Grain, Fish, 0.602 0.472 0.250 0.246

Decatur, Ala. Cotton, Supply)

64 79 Producers Rice Mill Inc. Other (Rice) 0.571 0.479 0.250 0.244

Stuttgart, Ark.

65 80 Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Sugar 0.570 0.478 0.366 0.349

Cooperative, Renville, Minn.

66 67 NFO Inc. Dairy 0.565 0.541 0.027 0.028

Ames, Iowa

67 65 Key Cooperative Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.563 0.570 0.127 0.137

Roland, Iowa

68 68 River Valley Cooperative Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.561 0.541 0.120 0.133

Eldridge, Iowa

69 70 Meadowland Farmers Cooperative Grain 0.535 0.523 0.174 0.169

Lamberton, Minn.

70 63 Farmway Co-op Inc. Grain 0.535 0.587 0.198 0.202

Beloit, Kan.

71 75 Pacific Coast Producers Fruit & Vegetable 0.534 0.500 0.345 0.304

Lodi, Calif.

72 64 Landmark Services Cooperative Mixed (Supply, Grain) 0.519 0.575 0.194 0.217

Cottage Grove, Wis.

73 73 First Cooperative Association Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.516 0.509 0.126 0.165

Cherokee, Iowa

74 88 Farmers Cooperative Society Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.514 0.453 0.157 0.199

Sioux Center, Iowa

75 89 Gold-Eagle Cooperative Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.513 0.453 0.117 0.170

Goldfield, Iowa

76 87 New Vision Cooperative Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.512 0.454 0.152 0.143

Worthington, Minn.

77 Name withheld by request.

78 77 Frontier Ag Inc. Grain 0.509 0.493 0.167 0.205

Oakley, Kan.

79 91 Ray-Carroll County Grain Grain 0.501 0.451 0.120 0.136

Growers Inc., Richmond, Mo.

80 78 Horizon Resources Mixed (Supply, Grain) 0.499 0.484 0.155 0.146

Williston, N.D.
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 17

Table 5—Top 100 Agriculture Cooperatives

2013

RANK

2012

RANK

NAME 2012

ASSETS

2013

ASSETS

2012

REVENUE

2013

REVENUE

TYPE

$ Billion

81 74 Hopkinsville Elevator Co. Inc. Grain 0.495 0.502 0.153 0.157

Hopkinsville, Ky.

82 82 West Central Ag Services Grain 0.475 0.466 0.231 0.253

Ulen, Minn.

83 93 Pro Cooperative Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.464 0.442 0.147 0.141

Pocahontas, Iowa

84 94 Mid-Kansas Cooperative Assoc. Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.462 0.439 0.228 0.209

Moundridge, Kan.

85 84 Premier Cooperative Inc. Grain 0.457 0.465 0.133 0.145

Champaign, Ill.

86 90 Harvest Land Co-op Mixed (Supply, Grain) 0.455 0.452 0.120 0.145

Richmond, Ind.

87 103 Continental Dairy Products Inc. Dairy 0.451 0.386 0.152 0.127

Artesia, N.M.

88 66 Ag Valley Cooperative Non-Stock Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.449 0.549 0.165 0.169

Edison, Neb.

89 76 Five Star Cooperative Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.446 0.496 0.104 0.103

New Hampton, Iowa

90 95 Alliance Grain Co. Grain 0.445 0.428 0.081 0.097

Gibson City, Ill.

91 97 Bongards Creameries Dairy 0.440 0.420 0.103 0.098

Bongards, Minn.

92 150 Wheaton-Dumont Cooperative Grain 0.436 0.253 0.125 0.133

Elevator, Wheaton, Minn.

93 Name withheld by request.

94 98 NORPAC Foods Inc. Fruit & Vegetable 0.434 0.417 0.274 0.265

Stayton, Ore.

95 100 Swiss Valley Farms Cooperative Dairy 0.432 0.404 0.108 0.118

Davenport, Iowa

96 86 Viafield Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.430 0.459 0.101 0.126

Marble Rock, Iowa

97 Name withheld by request.

98 131 Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative Sugar 0.410 0.294 0.254 0.229

Wahpeton, N.D.

99 99 Gateway FS Inc. Mixed (Grain, Supply) 0.405 0.414 0.112 0.120

Red Bud, Ill.

100 104 Tree Top Inc. Fruit 0.400 0.380 0.329 0.294

Selah, Wash.
18 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

“The Co-op Connection” is the theme of

Cooperative Month 2014, an apt reference

to the virtually unlimited number of ways

in which co-ops connect their members to

marketplaces and services they might

otherwise be unable to access. Elsewhere in this

magazine, we focus attention on the nation’s 100 largest

agricultural co-ops, grower-owned businesses that often

have sales in the hundreds of millions of dollars, or

more. In the following Co-op Month special section, we

turn the spotlight on 10 small, grassroots co-ops that

have been organized to meet a need in their community.

Their missions range from small-scale solar energy

generation to local food marketing — even a co-op of

midwives working in rural Montana. Regardless of their

purpose, one thing every co-op has in common is that

cooperatives exist to benefit their member-owners.

Whether large or small, co-ops make vital connections

that make members and their communities stronger. 

CO-OP

MONTH

SPECIAL SECTION

Making the Co-op Connection

Clean Energy Co-op

promotes solar energy 

in Pennsylvania

By Cathy Smith, 

Cooperative Development Specialist

Keystone Development Center, Inc.

The Clean Energy Cooperative of

northern Pennsylvania

(www.cleanenergy.coop) is entering an

exciting new phase with its official

launch as a business and the start of an

equity drive to support development of

solar electricity generation. 

The mission of the member-owners

of the Clean Energy Co-op is to

develop renewable energy resources for

a healthy, sustainable energy future for

their communities. In doing so, it hopes

to strengthen the local economy and

provide a positive return for members. 

Benefits of renewable energy

projects include less pollution, a smaller

“carbon footprint” and greater local

energy independence. It is also a

potential source of new jobs for the

local economy. The primary focus of

the new co-op is currently Wayne and

Pike counties in northeastern

Pennsylvania. But co-op leaders hope to

eventually expand their efforts to a

broader area. 

Co-op started as ‘solar circle’

The seeds of the co-op were sewn in

July 2013 with the formation of a

“community solar circle” within the

nonprofit Sustainable Energy

Education and Development Support

(SEEDS) of Northeast Pennsylvania.

The solar circle provided a forum for

members to meet regularly and discuss

various topics related to solar-generated

power. Their initial goal was to

demonstrate the feasibility of renewable

energy projects at the community level. 

The group’s activities soon stretched

beyond what SEEDS (as a nonprofit)

could do. So, in May 2014, the group
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 19

became a fully independent legal entity,

re-forming as a cooperative.

Co-op members have adopted the

“seven cooperative principles” as part

of their bylaws. These include

adherence to the “one person, one

vote” governance model and a

commitment to benefitting their

communities. 

The Clean Energy Co-op is using a

“slow money” business model, in which

long-term, modest returns are

acceptable. The money circulates

locally, is managed by trusted

individuals and provides other (nonfinancial) benefits for the investors and

their community.

The co-op’s initial clean energy

project is to install arrays of solar

panels on local roofs and properties to

generate electricity in the two-county

area. It is specifically looking for local

businesses or organizations interested

in promoting clean, renewable energy

that also have significant roof space or a

land parcel that could be used for

placing the solar panels. 

No initial cash payment is required

for obtaining a solar photovoltaic

system from the Clean Energy Co-op.

Rather, payments are made over a 20-

year period, while all (or a portion) of

the business’ electricity needs will be

produced on-site. The overall cost of

the project depends on the number of

panels installed.

The co-op’s initial project(s) is

targeting construction for spring 2015,

and includes applying for Rural Energy

for America Program (REAP) grants

Looking for a few good roofs – the Clean

Energy Cooperative of Northern Pennsylvania

is gearing up for rooftop installations of solar

panels.

when the application window re-opens

in November 2014. The plan is to

finance at least one 30-50 kilowatt

system each year, and possibly start

other (more traditional) co-op business

activities, such as an equipment-buying

club for “do it yourself” solar

installations. 

“We are excited about launching the

business after over a year of effort,” says

Jack Barnett, president of Clean Energy

Co-op. “We expect to sign our first

‘host agreement’ before fall, and to then

raise money for the project. The

installation of the system is planned for

early 2015.”

Co-ops as community

investment vehicle

The cooperative model as a vehicle

for community investment is relatively

new. A well-known success story is the

NorthEast Investment Cooperative

(NEIC). It was formed to allow the

people of Northeast Minneapolis to

pool their resources and collectively

buy, rehab and manage commercial and

residential property in the

neighborhood. 

NEIC has nearly 200 memberowners and has raised more than

$270,000 in member capital. Both

individuals and local businesses have

joined as members.

The Keystone Development Center

(KDC) has been involved with the

Clean Energy group since the

beginning. Initially, KDC helped the

members understand the cooperative

model and how it would work. KDC

then provided support in basic

organizational development, including

reviewing policy formation, bylaws and

the business plan. ■

C O-OP MONTH

Celebrating Community 

Whitley County Farmers’ Market 

marks seven years of steady

growth

Editor’s note: This article is provided

courtesy the Kentucky Center for

Agriculture and Rural Development.

The Whitley County Farmers’

Market is celebrating its 7th anniversary

this year, with a record 45 vendors

selling at three locations across this

southeastern Kentucky Appalachian

county.

“I just think it is amazing to see how

this community farmers’ market has

grown,” says Sandi Curd, the market

president. “Seven years ago, the market

was just three or four vendors set up

under a carport for four weeks during

the summer. What a difference seven

years has made.”

Curd explains that as the market has

added producers, the diversity of

products offered at the market has

increased. This diversity has allowed

the market to expand the length of its

season each year. This year the market

opened in early spring and will

continue untill mid-October, providing

fresh local produce to consumers. In an

effort to help meet the customer

demands and the producers’ schedules,

the market has expanded to three days a

week in three locations across the

county.

Responding to opportunity

Seeing an opportunity for significant

growth on the horizon, a group of

farmers market leaders came together

in the fall of 2012 to begin the process

of creating a formal business

entity. Their efforts, along with
agriculture. Nathan was that bridge

between the two perspectives and he

helped us really look at our options,”

says Curd. “Our work with Nathan at

KCARD led us to learn more about the

grant assistance program and

opportunities we could apply for to

expand our marketing efforts.”

This past spring, the Whitley

County Farmers’ Market board applied

for a USDA Farmers Market

Promotion Program grant, which

KCARD also assisted with. 

“The Agribusiness Grant Facilitation

Program is designed to help Kentucky

people (and organizations) like the

Whitley County Farmers’ Market,” says

Myrisa Christy, coordinator of

KCARD’s Agribusiness Grant

Facilitation Program (AGFP). The

AGFP, funded by the Kentucky

Agricultural Development Board,

allows KCARD to assist producers and

agribusiness in Kentucky in seeking out,

applying for, and receiving funding. 

“It was great to work with Whitley

County Farmers’ Market on their

application. They were very dedicated

to the application process and are

obviously very devoted to growing their

cooperative,” Christy adds

“I think I might have thrown in the

towel on the grant if it wasn’t for the

knowledge and assistance from Nathan

and Myrisa,” laughs Curd. “I was on the

phone with Myrisa at 7:30 the night we

submitted the application, having her

walk me through the online submission

process. 

While awaiting the results of the

grant application, Curd and the entire

team at the Whitley County Farmers’

Market remain focused on making this

season the best yet for the market. 

“Our market is focused on our

community. We want our residents to

come out and get to know our farmers.

We want to help our farmers stay on

the farm to provide our community

with wonderful fresh local products. I

think, as a market, we are helping bring

together our community,” says Curd. ■

20 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

assistance provided by the Kentucky

Center for Agriculture and Rural

Development (KCARD), led to the

incorporation of the Whitley County

Farmers’ Market Inc. in the spring of

2013. 

The original steering committee met

with KCARD business development

specialist Nathan Routt in the fall of

2012 to discuss potential business

structures and the benefits of legal

incorporation. Through the course of

that winter, additional meetings were

held to draft bylaws and articles of

incorporation and discuss cooperative

principles that became the basis for

incorporating under Kentucky’s

cooperative statute.

“I credit the wisdom of members of

that initial steering committee with

realizing a need to legally incorporate

in order to grow the market,” says

Routt. “I’m encouraged and happy to

see that the cooperative structure has

served its members well by helping the

market realize exceptional growth and

succeed.” 

“It is the dedication of our farmers

and the community spirit that has been

instrumental in helping the market not

just grow, but flourish in our

community,” explains Curd. “We have

now reached beyond county borders

and welcome neighboring farmers to

join the market. But we still have a lot

of room for growth.”

Business plan initiated

It is the desire to continue to grow

their market that made the Whitley

County Farmers’ Market board of

directors turn again to KCARD for

assistance. Curd remembers meeting

Routt for the first time in December

2013, when he provided business

planning training for farmers markets

as a part of a Community Farm

Alliance event in Eastern Kentucky.

Soon after that meeting, Routt began

working with the board of directors to

develop a business plan for the market.

“We had people on our board with a

business background and others with

Seven years ago, the Whitley County Farmers’

Market had just three or four vendors. Today,

it has more than 40. It also provides entertainment and is a community-gathering place.

C O-OP MONTH

Farmers on the Move 

Michigan Hispanic growers co-op

helps improve viability of small

farmers

By Mark Thomas, mthomas@anr.msu.edu

Editor’s note: Thomas is Extension

educator and innovation counselor at the

Michigan State University Product Center,

Michigan Cooperative Development

Program.

Farmers on the Move (FOTM) is a

cooperative of Hispanic farmers,

incorporated in June 2009, which is

working to create a quality retail brand

of fresh blueberries and vegetables for

the Michigan and Midwest markets.

The primary objective of the co-op,

which made its first sales in 2011, is to

be a reliable supplier of quality fruit and

vegetable products. 

Guiding this effort is Filiberto Villa
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 21

Gomez, co-op board president, who has

consistently striven to enhance member

knowledge of both growing and

marketing practices. The members

work collectively to produce and

package blueberries and vegetables.

Together, the farmers process, package,

deliver and share marketing expenses.

The co-op sells to retail and wholesale

markets, as well as through farmers

markets. 

FOTM currently has 14 members

who farm from 5 to 50 acres. Sales this

year will be in the low-to-mid six

figures. Expansion of the member base

and the additional market knowledge

being steadily gained should help

ensure that the co-op’s sales will

continue to climb. 

The 2012 Michigan Ag Census listed

855 Hispanic farmers in the state, who

are farming 115,087 acres. That’s up

from 794 Hispanic farmers with

102,546 acres in 2007. 

Working together enables the

producer-members to supply their

products more efficiently and

competitively, helping growers realize

greater profits. Additionally, the

cooperative helps to preserve and

expand the network of family-owned

farms necessary for a healthy,

economically viable local farming

community. Family farms make up an

important part of Michigan’s

agricultural industry. 

MSU Extension and others have

provided joint training and social

interaction opportunities for co-op

members, along with coordinating

technical support. 

Stronger framework 

for co-op members

By creating a stronger production

and marketing framework, FOTM

helps to fuel the entrepreneurial spirit

and sustainable business growth of the

state’s small, specialty crop farmers.

The cooperative has also provided and

coordinated training and educational

resources for the Southwest Michigan

Hispanic agricultural community. The

training has included: good agricultural

production techniques, classes for

pesticide application licenses, training

in generally accepted agricultural

practices (GAP), and various

cooperative principles and procedural

activities. 

While the cooperative continues to

gain brand acceptance and build sales

volume, a membership development,

marketing and communication plan —

along with personal outreach — is

being been used to attract new

members.

A co-op packing house was

established in 2012. Sorting machinery

was secured via additional member

investments. Processing duties are

shared by co-op members. By

marketing their products together,

members secure higher prices and build

the co-op’s brand. 

FOTM got a boost when it received

a USDA Small Socially Disadvantaged

Producers and Ranchers technical

assistance grant in 2009. The grant was

awarded to the co-op to help develop

marketing resources and materials. 

Co-op promotes 

equipment sharing 

Facing a common need for reliable

spraying equipment and a tractor that

could be shared and moved among the

farms, the co-op purchased the gear in

2013. This equipment is helping to

ensure uniform pesticide applications

are made and that the food safety

compliance standards of buyers are met.

The logistics of equipment sharing

— including timing, transport and

cleaning — and differing grower

expectations created some tensions early

on, but these issues were worked out

and a common understanding has been

reached. This provides a good example

of how to meet shared group

expectations. In the long run, this

experience should prove to be an

important template for future

equipment-sharing opportunities. 

Financing has been achieved through

a combination of new member

investments in preferred stock and loans

Board President Filiberto Villa Gomez, setting out produce at a farmers market, has been the

driving force behind Farmers on the Move cooperative. Above left, the co-op name is used to

brand some products.
22 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

taken out by the co-op, all of which

have been kept current. 

The cooperative is working with

other regional cooperatives to obtain

crop inputs — including fertilizer, crop

protectants and plants — and for joint

marketing efforts. Lines of credit for

members have been secured. 

New marketing opportunities

include production of 2-ounce packages

of berries specially produced for use

with conference meals and in schools.

The co-op is also exploring greater use

of hoop houses by members to extend

their growing season. 

Farmers On The Move has worked

closely with the Michigan State

University Product Center

(http://productcenter.msu.edu/ ) during

its formation and growth and has used

various resources offered by the MSU

Product Center, with additional support

from USDA Rural Development.

FOTM leaders are available to make

presentations at the local, state and

national level on their cooperative

development experiences, including

progress made and difficulties faced. 

The cooperative maintains a website

at: www.farmersonthemove.com, and a

Facebook page at: https://www.

facebook.com/farmersonthemove. ■

Ready-Made

Communities

Manufactured housing co-ops

offer affordability, stability and

security

By Chelsea Catto

chelseac@casaoforegon.org

Editor’s note: Catto is the manufactured

housing cooperative development director

for CASA of Oregon. 

Across the country, innovative

manufactured housing cooperatives are

attracting homeowners who seek a

creative, affordable alternative to “stickbuilt” housing. Resident-owned

manufactured housing park

cooperatives don’t just offer affordability, stability and security, but also

they offer a ready-made community.

The concept of nonprofit

cooperative ownership of manufactured

housing communities is not new. What

originally began as a New Hampshire

Community Loan Fund project in 1984

has now been replicated throughout the

United States by ROC USA, a social

enterprise that offers training,

networking and financing to help

owners of manufactured homes gain

security through ownership of their

communities. 

“We started ROC USA to help solve

the three basic barriers to resident

ownership: the opportunity for

residents to purchase a home, to access

expert technical assistance, and to

secure financing to help homeowners

become buyers when their community

is for sale,” says Paul Bradley, ROC

USA’s founding president. “We exist to

make quality resident ownership

possible nationwide.”

C O-OP MONTH

Proudly displaying a “We Own It” sign are members of the Green Pastures Senior Cooperative in Redmond, Ore.

Members of the Horizon Homeowners

Cooperative in McMinnville, Ore., say their

community is a great place to raise kids.
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 23

For Mary Lou Fitzgerald, a resident

member of the Green Pastures Senior

Cooperative in Redmond, Ore., a

resident-owned manufactured housing

cooperative was a perfect option. “It’s

an ideal environment. It’s safe, secure

and all of the people are retired or

almost retired,” she says. “It’s a peaceful

area — a peaceful environment.” 

Fitzgerald said she values the sense

of community and appreciates that

while she can live independently,

neighbors are close enough to look out

for each other. “I have a good friend

that lives just across the street from me.

She keeps an eye on my house and

when I open my window blinds, she

knows I’m up and about.” 

Control of land 

needed for stability

Oregon’s 1,090 manufactured

housing parks — equaling about 62,656

spaces — represents a large portion of

the state’s affordable housing stock.

Parks for seniors account for nearly 30

percent of the total. True stability

cannot be achieved, however, unless

residents also control the land under

their homes through cooperative

ownership.

To date, seven manufactured housing

cooperatives in Oregon have been

established with the assistance of CASA

of Oregon, a Certified Technical

Assistance Provider under the ROC

USA Network. Each of these seven

cooperatives, representing 431

manufactured housing spaces, has gone

on to purchase and successfully operate

their manufactured housing community

cooperative, with ongoing technical

assistance from CASA of Oregon. 

Five of the seven communities are

located in rural areas. Agricultural

workers account for a majority of the

members in two of them.

In addition to benefitting from

stabilized housing and affordability, as

cooperative owners of their

communities, members of

manufactured housing co-ops are able

to make significant health and safety

C O-OP MONTH

Back from the Brink

Grocery co-op conversion

prevents food desert in rural

Wisconsin

By Megan Webster, Outreach Specialist,

and Courtney Berner, Co-op Development

Specialist, University of Wisconsin Center

for Cooperatives

e-mail: mawebster@wisc.edu

The rural, family-owned grocery

store is increasingly an endangered

species in many parts of the United

States. Challenges such as competition

from “big box” and chain stores,

changes in America’s shopping and

commuting patterns, and rural-tourban migration have all led to the

closing of many rural grocery stores. 

Rural communities that have

improvements to existing infrastructure.

Because they have formed nonprofit

cooperatives, excess revenue from site

rents is reinvested back into the

community. 

Moreover, the cooperatives are able

to hire local contractors, keeping their

investments truly “local.” 

Co-op improves 

community infrastructure 

The Vida Lea Community

Cooperative in Leaburg, Ore.,

purchased a manufactured housing park

in 2012. It then converted its financing

to a permanent loan in 2014, following

an extensive capital-improvement effort

that cost more than $250,000. 

Dan Fountain, the cooperative’s

board president, beams with pride when

he describes the new, improved

community. “When we bought the

park, the infrastructure was old and

deteriorated. As the new owners, we

were able to replace the 30-year-old

pump on our water system and paint

the water storage tank,” he says. 

The co-op also upgraded the septic

system and added four new septic tanks.

“We paved the roads and added a

much-needed surface training system,”

Fountain adds. “With a lot of tree

trimming and tree removal, our park

looks better than it ever has looked.” 

The Bella Vista Estates Cooperative

in Boardman, Ore., which converted to

resident ownership in January 2014,

fulfills a particular need in the region:

ensuring that residents, many of whom

are agricultural workers, are able secure

affordable housing near their places of

work. 

Clarissa Jimenez, co-op board

secretary, says: “We are excited to have

accomplished this goal for the benefit

of the hardworking families in our

manufactured housing community.” ■

Phil’s Supermarket in Plain, Wis., was slated

for closure, but has been converted into a

consumer-owned grocery cooperative,

keeping alive the nearly century-long tradition

of providing food to Plain and the surrounding

communities.
24 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

suffered this phenomenon are often

called “food deserts,” which the United

States Department of Agriculture

defines as areas “without ready access

to fresh, healthy and affordable food.”

This is not a strictly rural

phenomenon, as many food deserts also

exist in low-income urban areas. 

Local grocery stores are integral to

keeping rural communities and

economies vibrant, not only by

providing access to food, but also by

providing employment and tax revenue.

The cooperative model is one possible

tool that rural communities can use to

keep their local grocery store in town.

Store on brink of closure

Residents of Plain, a town of 792 in

southwest Wisconsin, fought the

prospect of becoming a food desert

when the owners of Phil’s River Valley

Supermarket decided it was time to sell

the family business, ending nearly 95

years in operation. With the help of the

University of Wisconsin Center for

Cooperatives (UWCC), the community

successfully converted Phil’s

Supermarket to a consumer-owned

grocery cooperative, keeping alive the

nearly century-long tradition of

providing food to Plain and the

surrounding communities. 

Courtney Berner, cooperative

development specialist at UWCC,

supported the conversion process from

start to finish. She noted that a strong

commitment from the local community

kept the project moving forward during

the nearly yearlong conversion process. 

The interim board of directors,

made up of local residents, led the

process of incorporating as a legal

entity and developing bylaws,

implementing a survey, recruiting new

members, securing member loans and

hiring a general manager. Community

engagement continued at the first

annual meeting, with a very active

electoral process for the first memberelected board of directors. 

Honey Creek Market Cooperative

officially began operating the store in

Stone Soup Farm Co-op part of

worker-owned farm trend

By Rebecca Everett 

Editor’s note: This article is reprinted

courtesy of the Daily Hampshire Gazette,

originally published April 14, 2014.

Most farmers will tell you that

cooperation is crucial to keeping a farm

running like a well-oiled threshing

machine. But at Stone Soup Farm

Cooperative in Hadley, Mass.,

cooperation is everything.

Four young farmers formed the

worker-owned farm collective in the fall

of 2013 and have been working to grow

greenhouse vegetables and raise

chickens since. Susanna Harro, 24,

David DiLorenzo, 26, Amanda Barnett,

29, and Jarrett Man, 30, are owners, as

well as employees, at the 81 Rocky Hill

Road co-op.

Stone Soup Farm Cooperative is

probably the first worker-owned farm

co-op in the state, says Lynda Brushett,

of the Cooperative Development

Institute, which advises people in the

agricultural, fisheries and food

industries on starting cooperatives.

“We’re sharing the risk and the

rewards,” DiLorenzo said while the

four talked and munched on spinach

leaves in one of their greenhouses.

“That’s just a good way to live.”

They decided to start the co-op for

numerous reasons, including the lure of

August 2013 and has had a busy first

year. Since the grand opening in

October 2013, the cooperative has

organized Plain’s first farmers market,

teamed up with a local coffee roaster to

carry its own blend of coffee, launched

catering services and implemented a

member-reward system. Honey Creek

continues to support and promote local

and organic foods.

A 100-year business model 

Honey Creek has now turned its

attention to building a financially

sustainable business that will serve the

community of Plain for the next 100

years. Like all rural grocery

cooperatives, the success of Honey

Creek Market Cooperative will depend

on members’ support at the cash register.

“Honey Creek Market currently has

242 members. It was estimated that to

maintain its success in coming years, the

store will need at least 300 members

who spend an average of $50 per week

at the co-op,” says Tegan Krueger,

Honey Creek’s store manager. “We’re

looking forward to growing our

membership” 

What’s next? 

“The main goal of Honey Creek

Market Cooperative, stated simply,

remains what it has been since our

beginning one year ago: ‘To provide to

the members, and the community, highquality products and services at

affordable prices,’” says David

Buchanan, the co-op’s board president.

“In 2015, our goals are to increase

membership, increase sales with

member and community participation

and refine inventory selection.” 

Co-op leaders are committed to

keeping the market as a center of

community activity that promotes local

and regional food production, keeps

capital and jobs in their area and that is

committed to sustainable practices. 

For more information, visit the coop’s website at: www.hcmcoop.com. ■

C O-OP MONTH

Soup’s On!
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 25

owning, instead of just working on, a

farm and the dream of forming an

equitable business with good friends.

After five years of working and

managing area farms, Man bought the

Rocky Hill Road farmland and started

working it three years ago. 

He says the communal nature of

farming is what drew him to it in the

first place, and a co-op reinforces those

values. He approached DiLorenzo and

Barnett, who are married, and Harro

last summer with the co-op idea.

“I thought it would be a more

meaningful way of farming, and these

are the people I felt best about farming

with,” he says. “So I went to them and

invited them to come research and

implement a co-op together.”

There have historically been many

co-ops in the agricultural industry,

mostly those made up of member farms

that join forces to better market and sell

their products — think Cabot

Creamery or the Pioneer Valley

Growers Association. Brushett expects

that more and more farmers, especially

young ones, will be following the lead

of Stone Soup and the few other

worker-owned farms in Vermont,

California and Quebec (see sidebar,

above). 

She worked with lead author Faith

Gilbert to create a free guide to

cooperative farming. It was downloaded

over 1,000 times in the first two weeks

after it was released Feb. 26 on

www.TheGreenhorns.net, a nonprofit

that supports young farmers.

All kinds of co-ops are on the rise

now, Brushett says. The Cooperative

Development Institute fields several

calls per week from people interested in

starting market and cafe co-ops, child

care co-ops, arts co-ops and others.

She credits the trend to a growing

interest in socially responsible business

ownership and workers’ urge to be

“more than just a cog” in a company.

And when people have a stake in the

business, they often make better

workers, Brushett notes. “They’re

invested and everyone’s equal. You have

colleagues you can trust to close the

gate before they leave for the day.”■

“Cooperative farming” encompasses the many different ways farmers

can work together to address common farming needs: land, labor, facilities,

equipment, markets and more. It includes co-ops that provide traditional

agricultural services to independent farm businesses, such as marketing,

processing, distribution and purchasing. It includes farms owned and

operated by farmers as one collective enterprise or

farmed separately. It includes land, labor or equipment

owned and used by a group of farmers. 

Cooperative farming is a new trend in agricultural

cooperation, especially among young farmers. Besides

the Stone Soup farm worker co-op approach, a Maine

farmer group is exploring options to lease land to grow

a single cash crop together to supplement their

cooperative markets. 

In Connecticut, refugees from the Karen state of

southeastern Burma are looking at the feasibility of

establishing a farm that includes co-op housing for the

farming families, while other groups of refugees in New

Hampshire have worked out joint ownership

agreements for sharing hoop houses. 

A New York group of farmers is planning a

permaculture cooperative on jointly owned land where

each member owns their part of the enterprise. 

The guidebook, Cooperative Farming: Frameworks for Farming Together,

explores these new ways of cooperation. Author Faith Gilbert writes: “I

began this research motivated by a desire to farm with peers – to work

together in managing land, sharing costs and equipment, and generally

making our lives easier. Throughout this process, I’ve found that desire

echoed countless times, in many variations, by farmers across the country.

It’s clear that we face common challenges. It’s also clear that by working

together, we get more than just a solution to a problem: we get solidarity.”

Find it at: http://www.thegreenhorns.net/category/media/guidebooks/. ■

Farmers work together 

to meet common needs

Amanda Barnett and David DiLorenzo pull out

spinach plants in a greenhouse at Stone Soup

Farm Co-op in Hadley, Mass. Photo by Jerry

Roberts
26 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

Local food system study 

finds success factors

By Joan Stockinger, Cooperative

Development Services

Dave Gutknecht, Cooperative Grocer

magazine 

Interest in local food system

development continues to run high, and

many cooperative approaches to

advancing this sector are being tested. A

recently published case study from

Cooperative Development Services

(CDS) describes a successful, mature

local food value chain with

commercially viable businesses at each

level or node of activity, ranging from

co-op retailers to a co-op distributor

and specialty producers. 

Most notably, the system moves a

significant amount of local product

from farm to consumer.

This system is centered in

Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn., a

metropolitan area of 3.4 million people.

Historically and at present, this is a

demand-driven system based on the

values and participation of large

numbers of co-op owners and shoppers. 

Built over a period of 40 years, this

local food value chain comprises an

estimated 300-350 producers, a

cooperatively owned distributor of

organic products, and 15 consumer

cooperatives that operate 17 retail food

stores, backed by more than 90,000 coop member-owners and an additional

50,000 shoppers. 

In the year prior to this study, total

retail sales through this cooperative

system were $178 million, with local

product accounting for 30 percent of

sales, or around $54 million. Local

farmgate income (income flowing to

producers), after subtracting distributor

and retail margins, is estimated to be

over $31 million. 

The chart (below) shows the flow of

demand (coming from members and

other shoppers) and the flow of

product, with key metrics.

Key success factors 

identified in the study:

• Demand-driven: From inception,

cooperative member-owners organized

and joined to obtain food they could

not find elsewhere.

• Many owners: Member-owners

generally join based on shared values

around food and community; they

support the system through

patronage/purchases, through financial

investments, and through board policies

and member activities. 

• Shared values: There is a base of

shared values around healthy food, local

food, sustainable farming and

community, extending from farm to

member-owner. The high level of

shared values is a critical distinguishing

factor between this and other more

typical retail systems. This provides

evidence of what we believe are more

positive net margins for producers.

• Mission includes local food: This is

explicit at all levels, as evidenced in

many producer-friendly practices. 

Co-op 

Retail 

Stores 

(15 co-ops/

17 stores)

Co-op Partners

Warehouse 

& Other

Distributors of

Local Product

Local/

Regional

Processors 

& Food

Companies

Co-op

Members

(90,000) 

& Other

Shoppers

(50,000)

Local

Farmers/

Producers

(350+)

   

Member/Consumer Demand 



Direct Delivery of Product Producer to Retail

Twin Cities Cooperative Local Food System: High Level Dollar Flows

Farm Gate Income

$31 Million

Distributors

$11 Million

(Distribution margin of

17%)

Retail Purchase

of Local Foods

$33 Million

(Avg. retail gross

margin of 39%)

Consumer Purchase

of Local Foods

$54 Million

(30% of total sales of

$179 Million)

Direct Deliver

$20 Million

C O-OP MONTH

Twin Cities Co-op
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 27

• Supportive environment: This is a

rich and diverse farming environment

and one with a strong and diverse

history of cooperatives.

• Business focus: There is a history of

professional management and an

appreciation of good business practices

to achieve the scale and viability needed

to achieve mission. 

• Shopping convenience: The retail coops provide year-round product and

variety to attract and retain many

shoppers. 

• Fostering of trust: The cooperative

culture fosters trust across the system

in many formal and informal ways.

• Resilience and learning from mistakes:

There has been learning from notable

failures.

Key challenges to this 

local food system:

• Limited additional capacity: While

total sales through the system continue

to grow through store expansion, there

is limited opportunity for new local

producers of primary products, since

existing producers can meet most of

growing demand, at least for the

foreseeable future. 

• Economies of scale: All the

enterprises at all levels are challenged

by operating at “mid-scale” in their

respective sectors (producers,

distributor, retailers). Margins are slim,

and there are limited funds for

marketing and promotion and

purchasing, compared to larger players. 

• Values tensions: Values tensions,

requiring continual management, often

arise around price:

— Providing a fair return to farmers

who use sustainable and humane

practices;

— Paying employees fair wages and

benefits;

— Providing healthy, high-quality

food to people of ordinary means.

The ongoing, successful

management of these tensions, and

effective communication about them, is

also a key success factor.

Producer-friendly practices 

and financial impact

Producers interviewed for this study

described a range of producer-friendly

practices from the co-op retailers that

support them and help keep them in

business. These include fair pricing

(“not being squeezed or shopped on

price”), retaining product identity (“coops tell our story best”), loyal

relationships, commitments to preseason orders “that we can grow to,”

sharing of market information, allowing

multiple distribution methods, staying

loyal through drought or flood (“co-ops

held our position for the next year”), etc.

The financial impact for local

producers is significant, with more than

$31 million in income provided to over

350 producers. Farmgate income from

this co-op system ranged from $5,000

to $700,000 for individual producers. 

This study was funded by the

Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

The complete study can be found at:

http://www.cdsus.coop/node/152. ■

C O-OP MONTH

On the Road with Youth TCI 

Participants in youth training sessions, such as this one in Marquette, Mich., work together to

learn how they can use co-ops to strengthen rural America. “Our region has a strong history of

cooperation on which we, as young people, need to build to ensure a just and democratic

economy for the future,” says Emily Lippold Cheney, co-op organizer for Youth TCI. Photo

courtesy Youth TCI, Northcountry Cooperative Foundation

Peer-to-peer training program

helps young people pursue co-op

dreams 

By Emily M. Lippold Cheney, Cooperative

Organizer, Youth Traveling Cooperative

Institute

e-mail: coopyouth@gmail.com 

Youth Traveling Cooperative

Institute (Youth TCI) is a peer-to-peer

cooperative development training

program for young people (under age

35) that is conducting sessions in 25

rural towns in the Upper Midwest this

year. The program works to engage

rural youth in conversations about the

cooperative business model and the role

co-ops can play in their lives and

communities. 

The second part of the training,

taking place this winter, will provide an
28 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

overview of the cooperative

development process and how to draft a

business plan outline. Cooperative

development experts will participate in

these training sessions and will

continue to provide assistance

afterwards to help bring co-op ideas to

fruition.

Youth TCI is a part of the broader

Kris Olsen Traveling Cooperative

Institute. It operates under the

Northcountry Cooperative Foundation,

a nonprofit organization based in

Minneapolis that provides education,

technical assistance services and other

programs to cooperative organizations. 

Kris Olsen, the program’s namesake,

was a cooperative “circuit rider” in the

1970s and 80s who traveled throughout

the Midwest helping to start

cooperatives. He worked in the

tradition of the Farmers’ Alliance and

the Grange movement, which helped

launch some co-ops that have been in

operation for more than a century. 

Youth TCI today uses grassroots

organizing techniques to work with

young people who may never before

have heard about cooperatives. Online

training efforts, while efficient for

many purposes, are not a good

substitute for the face-to-face training

needed for this type of effort.

This first year of the TCI program

primarily focuses on building trust and

creating new networks of co-op

entrepreneurs. As of late August, 10

training stops had been held in

Wisconsin and the Upper Peninsula of

Michigan, with as many as 15

participants in each. Another 15 stops

will be made in Minnesota and the

Dakotas before the end of October. 

Some participants attended “just to

see what it was all about,” but said they

found the sessions so rewarding that

they plan to urge others to attend

future training sessions. One

participant from a Native American

community college is trying to get a

cooperative curriculum added at the

college, which may even host a future

Youth TCI program. One participant

Co-op provides critical help for

premature babies while

generating income for moms 

By Tom Kalchik, Manager

Michigan Cooperative Development

Program, kalchikt@msu.edu

“I sit at the crossroads of marrying issues

that are important to families with the

business of milk banking. It means infusing

‘warm blood’ back into business so that the

dollars and cents don’t leave the ‘people’

element of business behind. Every decision

made at the Mothers Milk Cooperative is

weighed against what I would do for my

own family, and then supported by a solid

infrastructure of business sense, safety and

quality.” — Adrianne Weir, co-founder and

CEO of Mothers Milk Cooperative.

Mothers Milk Cooperative (MMC) is

believed to be the first cooperative in

the country that aggregates and markets

human milk. The cooperative was

incorporated in 2012 to achieve two

major objectives:

• Provide a safe, shelf-stable human

milk product to Neonatal Intensive

Care Units (NICU) in hospitals, aiding

in the survival of the 300,000 premature

babies born each year, and

• Provide income to women with

babies to allow them to remain at home

with their babies for a longer period of

time.

With those objectives in mind, Elena

Medo, an internationally recognized

expert in the field of human milk and

its use in NICUs, and her daughter,

Adrianne Weir, approached the

Michigan State University Product

Center and its Michigan Cooperative

said cooperatives can offer career

alternatives to youths who often have

few other job options. 

Building on experiences of past coop development efforts, Youth TCI

seeks to promote a regional movement

of young people involved in developing

new co-ops. Immediate goals for the

program are to work with a core group

of cooperative entrepreneurs and keep

them connected both to each other and

to the existing cooperative development

infrastructure of the region. 

Embedding cooperative training into

community institutions and programs is

a long-term goal of the program. If

more rural communities can provide

their own cooperative education to

youth, the role of the “traveling trainer”

might not be necessary in the future. 

Building co-op awareness and

supporting young people during the

first steps of cooperative development

through the use of a peer-to-peer

training model will help create more

sustainable cooperative businesses that

can provide meaningful work and

strengthen rural communities. ■

C O-OP MONTH

Mothers Milk Co-op 

The cooperative currently has 1,000 members

in 45 states who earn an average of $800 per

month. They use these kits to ship milk to the

processing plant in Lake Oswego, Ore.
Development Program (partially

funded by a USDA Rural Cooperative

Development Grant). After

investigating different options, the

concept of a cooperative was developed

to allow the women who supply the

human milk to reap some of the

financial gain, as well give them a voice

in how the cooperative is managed.

There are significant costs associated

with membership in the cooperative.

Applicants are screened based on a

complete medical history form. If

Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 29

approved, they must complete a blood

test to ensure that there are no diseases,

drugs or other medical issues that

might affect the safety of the milk they

will deliver. 

A membership fee of $100 is

required, but it can be “paid” by

delivering 100 ounces of milk. Women

can also elect to “pay it forward,”

gifting their milk to a family in need.

Co-op members in 45 states

The cooperative currently has 1,000

members in 45 states. The average

value of a woman’s milk deliveries is

$800 per month, although some women

are earning as much as $4,000 each

month. The milk is delivered to the

Mothers Milk Co-op and Medolac

Laboratories offices in Lake Oswego,

Ore., where it is tested and processed

into Co-op Donor Milk. A new human

milk fortifier is planned in the near

future to expand the company’s product

lines. 

Both of these products are intended

for use in clinical and post-discharge

settings. The relationship between

Mothers Milk Cooperative and

Medolac Laboratories is defined in an

agreement that specifies quality

assurance and safety testing, a

commitment to the World Health

Organization Code of Marketing Breast

Milk Substitutes and financial support

by Medolac Laboratories.

While the safety of the milk

delivered by the members is important,

so is the health of the members and

their babies. Educational training of the

members is therefore provided to

ensure that the mothers do not sell

their milk through the cooperative in

preference to feeding their own babies.

“Mothers Milk Cooperative is the

only milk bank that cares for its donors,

as much as they care about the infant

lives they save,” says Laura Moore, an

MMC donor from Eugene, Ore. “I

wanted to be part of something bigger,

that could potentially change the future

of milk banks for the better. MMC is

empowering nursing mothers while

offering the first business plan in

helping to fix the shortage of human

milk in the U.S.”

The impact of MMC is best summed

up with another quote, from member

Anna Marie Nieboer in Kalamazoo,

Mich.: “The creation of this

cooperative and its clearly defined

values is definitely an encouragement to

myself as a mother, obstetrics nurse and

woman. There is a strength in

embracing motherhood that I feel

enables mothers to be incredibly

productive and bring about wonderful

change in the world around them. The

future of babies, mothers and families

will benefit greatly from the MMC!”

The cooperative website is:

http://www.mothersmilk.coop. It also

maintains a Facebook page at:

https://www.facebook.com/mothersmilk

coop. ■

Mothers Milk Co-op members such as Anna Marie Nieboer, seen here with her husband and

child, are helping to aid in the survival of 300,000 premature babies each year while earning

income.

“Mothers Milk Cooperative (MMC) is

empowering nursing mothers while offering

the first business plan to help fix the shortage

of human milk in the U.S.,” says Laura Moore,

an MMC member from Eugene, Ore.
Montana Midwives Co-op helping

to improve conditions for workers

and clients

By Sharise Clostio, President

Montana Midwives Cooperative

Midwives in America have a deep

love for women and a reverence for the

normal process of birth. Studies show

that women find midwifery care to be

highly satisfying. Although midwives

are licensed in most states, they are

often overlooked, misunderstood and

even invalidated within the obstetrics

field.

They serve long, tireless hours —

often at low, or for no wages, depending

upon the financial welfare of our

clients. Midwives usually work in solo

practice, take little time off and are oncall for their women clients, 24 hours

per day, 7 days per week. 

Because of these practice conditions,

many midwives do not have the physical

and emotional support they need and

are susceptible to alienation and

frustration — even fatigue and burnout

over time. In Montana, the great

distances that often separate midwives

add to the challenges of providing

support for each other. 

Co-op idea takes root 

In the summer of 2010, an idea took

root that perhaps midwives in Montana

could band together, pool resources and

practice in closer proximity to each

other, turning solitude into solidarity.

The idea followed to create a “hospital”

for midwives, where member midwives

could practice alongside each other,

enhancing their ability to provide the

best possible care to clients. 

But what business framework was

best to use? 

A corporation seemed ill-suited to

our ideology, and we were not

interested in a partnership. An Internet

search led to the concept of a

cooperative. It seemed to be the perfect

model for this new venture! 

We needed resources to help us

along the path, to learn how a

cooperative really works and what we

would need to do to start a co-op. We

connected with the Montana

Cooperative Development Center,

where CEO Brian Gion and the staff

led us through every step in forming a

cooperative. They helped us form as a

Montana legal entity, answered our

questions and offered to make site

visits, as necessary — all free of charge. 

The Montana Midwives Cooperative

(MMC) owns the Community Birth

Center, the largest free-standing birth

center in the Northwest. It is our

mission to provide affordable, holistic

and loving midwifery care to women

and their families throughout Montana.

“When the thought of forming a

midwifery co-op was brought to my

attention, I jumped at this concept

wholeheartedly,” says Michele Neal, the

co-op vice president. “It was the perfect

solution to join forces with other

midwives, to build a place where we

could practice together and keep our

own personal style of midwifery,

whether at Community Birth Center or

in our own homebirth practices.

“Being members of the Montana

Midwives Cooperative allows us to

equally influence how we want to run

the birth center and equally share the

burden and benefits,” Neal continues.

“As individuals, we would not have been

able to do this, but we could do this

together as a co-op. I love my fellow

midwifery co-op members and they are

also included in my family.”

Goal to build more birth centers

It is the co-op’s goal to build more

birth centers in other areas of Montana,

where women have little or no access to

midwives, and to benefit from the

special client-centered care midwives

provide.

We also hope to provide

apprenticeships for those who might

like to pursue a career in midwifery,

adding new cooperative members as we

go. 

As health care costs rise, and women

demand more say in how they want to

deliver their babies, midwives and outof-hospital birth are considered by

many as a perfect option for pregnant

women. The cooperative is the perfect

model to launch us into this new era of

“birthing free.”

Too see a video about the

Community Birth Center, please visit:

www.communitybirthcenter.com. ■

30 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

C O-OP MONTH

Turning solitude into solidarity

“I love everything about the birth

center – the atmosphere, the

midwives and the care given. My

experience there has been

wonderful,” says Erin Wood,

being examined here by Melissa

Brake, CPM. Wood also had her

last baby at the center.
By Bill Patrie and Robert Ludwig

Editor’s note: Patrie is executive director of

the Common Enterprise Development

Corporation in Mandan, N.D., and author

of Creating Co-op Fever: A Rural

Developer’s Guide to Forming

Cooperatives (published by USDA).

Ludwig is a business consultant in

Massachusetts. Don Hofstrand, an

economist at Iowa State University, also

assisted with this article. 

Donald Senechal was a business

consultant who understood

cooperatives, agribusiness and

agriculture. He was a farm boy who

never lost his love of farming and rural

North Dakota. Don passed away in

August of 2013, and Cooperative

Month seems like a good time to

remember his legacy in an overdue

tribute.

Don filled a huge need when farmers

were suffering from low commodity

prices. He worked with them to

improve their economic situation by

helping them move into the processing

of their commodities. He brought not

only a road map of how to build the

enterprise, but also a sharp eye on risk

factors that could lead to failure.

Don did most of his work out of an

office in Massachusetts. He had various

partners, but the firm was at its peak

when it was Senechal, Joregenson and

Hale (Senechal), located in Danvers,

Mass. Toward the end of his career,

Don and his wife, Peg, moved back to

the family farm at Drake, N.D., where

he continued his consulting practice. 

Don was direct and relentless in the

pursuit of the economic truth. He was

smart and required those around him to

work hard and be smart also. He used

to say his only asset was his reputation.

He earned that good reputation, one

feasibility study at a time. In the

conduct of the study, the client learned

the industry from Don. None of Don’s

clients ever launched a company

without understanding the

aldopportunities and the risks. 

Don said ‘no’ as often as he said

‘yes.’ The negative feasibility studies

Don produced have saved hundreds of

millions of dollars, and should have

saved more. He said ‘no’ to a pasta

plant at Crosby, N.D.; the one built

there failed. He said ‘no’ to a beef plant

in Aberdeen, N.D.; the one built there

failed. 

Don said ‘yes’ to a pasta plant at

Carrington, and ‘yes’ to a corn wetmilling plant at Wahpeton, N.D., and

‘yes’ to a potato plant at Jamestown,

N.D., and ‘yes’ to a bison plant at New

Rockford, N.D., and ‘yes’ to an egg

production plant at Renville, Minn.

These plants are operating today. 

There are no sure bets in life — each

new venture is filled with risks. Don

knew the two big risk factors:

management and capital. He insisted

the enterprise could be run by

“normally competent” people and that

it must have enough capital. Don knew

the difference between balance sheet

equity and spendable equity (cash).

Senechal’s feasibility study

benchmarks provided projects a failsafe

option. Raise enough equity capital to

successfully launch the enterprise, or

give the money back. Northern Plains

Premium Beef Cooperative, according

to Senechal, needed $25 million to

launch. The cooperative raised

commitments for $11.8 million and

gave the money back. Dakota Growers

Pasta Cooperative raised the money it

needed and launched.

This practical approach to valueadded agriculture caught the attention

of the public. Cooperative Fever, as the

story became known, was the North

Dakota Associated Press’s story of the

year. The chairman of Dakota Growers

Pasta, Jack Dalrymple, became North

Dakota’s governor. The information

director for Northern Plains Premium

Beef, Ryan Taylor, is running for North

Dakota Agriculture Commissioner. 

Dylan Thomas wrote: “Wild men who

caught and sang the sun in flight, and

learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,

Do not go gentle into that good night.”

Those of us who worked with Don can

still feel the excitement of the projects

he helped bring into existence. We

don’t want to go gentle into a world

without Don. We wish his family happy

memories of this good man and

appreciate his life which was so richly

shared with us. Goodbye Don Senechal;

thanks for what you have done. ■

Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 31

C O-OP MONTH

Consultant Donald Senechal remembered

as a major force for co-op development

Donald Senechal knew that the two

biggest risk factors in business

development are management and capital.
32 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

By Thomas W. Gray, Ph.D.

Rural Sociologist, Agricultural Economist

USDA Cooperative Programs

e-mail: Thomas.Gray@usda.gov

Editor’s note: Jessica Gordon-Nembhard’s Collective Courage:

A History of African-American Cooperative Economic

Thought and Practice, was published this year by Penn State

University Press (www.psupress.org). The Nov.-Dec. issue will

feature a Q&A with Gordon-Nembhard.

Scholars of cooperative topics are praising a

new book about the history of African

Americans and their involvement in

cooperatives: Collective Courage: A History of

African-American Cooperative Economic

Thought and Practice, by Jessica Gordon-Nembhard, a faculty

member at John Jay College, City University of New York.

Gar Alperovitz, James Stewart, the late Ian MacPherson and

Patrick Mason are among those who have endorsed the work,

calling it “path-breaking,” “refreshing” and “the most

complete history to date of the cooperative economic

struggles of African Americans.”

At least one reviewer suggests it is of equal stature to

W.E.B Dubois’ luminary publication, Economic Co-operation

Among Negro Americans. The work is all the more remarkable

given that the author draws not only from newspapers,

magazines journal articles and biographies, but also from

such difficult-to-access documents as budget and income

statements, and cooperators’ letters, papers and memoirs. 

This article provides a summary of the book’s highlights.

The book’s 300 pages are divided into three major parts

New book relates history of African-American cooperation

Collective Courage
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 33

detailing the history of African-American collective action.

Each part will be reviewed here, paying particular attention

to the names of organizations that have been absent from

cooperative history until now, as well as highlighting the

main ideas presented. 

Part I: Mid-19th century to early 20th century

The author reminds readers early in the text that large

proportions of the African-American community have had to

struggle with familial, social, political and economic

difficulties due to a history of enslavement, racial segregation,

discrimination and violence. Paradoxically, the experience of

racism has also resulted in solidarity within the AfricanAmerican community that has helped facilitate various socialaction organizations. 

Part I of the text, Early African American Cooperative Roots,

details some of the earliest organizing efforts that took shape

as relief and community support groups. These organizations

carried such names as The Northhampton Association of

Education and Industry, The Nashoba Commune, The

Combahee River Colony, The Ex-Slave Relief, Bounty and

Pension Association, and the Independent Order of Saint

Lukes. 

Later efforts were driven by black populist movements and

were relatively more focused on economic objectives (though

not exclusively so). These efforts resulted in the formation of

The Cooperative Workers of America, The Colored

Farmers’ National Alliance and the Co-operative Union. 

Still later developments into the early 20th century

resulted in the formation of such organizations as The

Chesapeake Marine Railway and Dry Dock Company, The

Lexington Savings Bank, the Coleman Manufacturing

Company, The Mercantile Cooperative Company, The

Pioneer Cooperative Society, the Citizen’s Co-operative

Stores and The Cooperative Society of Bluefield Colored

Institute. Some of these organizations were also designed to

address problems of health care, child development,

education and burial, as well as investment, employment and

profoundly important “freedom” issues. 

Later developments during this same period included

creation of such complex organizations as federations, mutual

insurance companies and minority-owned banks. 

All of these entities revolved around a center that is

common among all cooperative organizations: the pooling of

resources and channeling collective action. Memberships

tended to be inclusive and members could include farmers,

landholders, sharecroppers, day-laborers, domestic workers,

small business owners, professionals and unemployed people,

among others. Some were racially integrated; others were

not. 

Only a few of these early associations were organized “out

of broadcloth.” Most were facilitated as ancillary to

previously existing religious, fraternal, geographical and

political organizations.

Gordon-Nembhard writes that several lessons and

guidelines were learned during this period. Cooperative

formation and operation needed to account for: 

• adequate education and training of members, leaders and

managers;

• stable and adequate capitalization;

• stable and adequate number of clients;

• the building of trust and solidarity among members;

• support from the community;

• communication mechanisms, including meetings,

conventions, newsletters and newspapers that connect

members to members and members to the organization. 

During this same period, organizational success was often

met with racially motivated terror. Participants often had to

contend with slander, denial of loans, destruction of property,

jail, the murder of leaders and, at times, the murder of their

families. With such resistance and opposition, what became

abundantly clear during this era was that both economic

cooperation and political action were needed. Economic

cooperation was needed to attain a level of independence to

support political activity, while political activity was needed

to support economic activity.

Part II: The Depression to the 1950s

In Part II, Gordon-Nembhard’s scope moves beyond the

early roots of African-American cooperation to developments

during the Depression up until the 1950s. The 1950s was a

Facing page: Among the many cooperatives formed by African

Americans in the mid-19th to early 20th centuries were the Cooperative

Workers of America, the Colored Farmers’ National Alliance and the Cooperative Union. A new book by Jessica Gordon-Nembhard provides

one of the first detailed histories of just how important cooperatives

have been to Black Americans. USDA photo archives 

Above: Participants on a recent tour of cooperatives in Oakland, Calif.,

gained insight into how relevant the co-op business model remains

today for African-Americans.
34 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

time of relative inactivity (p.81). 

Racial oppression continued during

this era in the form of various

indignities, among them exorbitant rent

increases, cancelation of insurance

coverage and capital made unaffordable,

as well as continued threats to person

and property. Conditions during the

Depression made challenges of effective

mobilization even more difficult. 

Yet, with the continued help of

various ancillary organizations,

cooperatives with predominantly black

memberships were formed. They

included such organizations as: The

Negro Cooperative Stores

Association/Consumers’ Cooperative

Trading Company, The Colored

Merchants Association, Harlem River

Consumer Cooperative, The Red

Circle Cooperative Association, The

Consumers’ Cooperative Association of

Kansas City, Cooperative Industries of

Washington D.C., The Workers’

Owned Sewing Company, Cooperative

Home Care Associates and The Ujamaa

Collective. These cooperatives, and

others, gave play to the full range of

cooperative activities, including

agriculture, housing, credit, worker and

health care co-ops. 

Nearly all of these organizations

used some kind of “study circle” format

to initiate activities. Many drew upon

an Antigonish methodology by first

developing: (1) study circles, followed

by (2) pre-training and orientation, (3)

in-service training at the committee and

board level, (4) networking and

conference development, (5) leadership

development and (6) public education

for customers and the larger

community. (The Antigonish method

refers to the cooperative development

efforts originating with the formation of

the Extension Service at St. Francis

Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova

Scotia.) 

The author sums up various lessons

learned during this second period: 

• Solidarity: Cooperative success was

more likely if members and potential

members valued racial solidarity and

concern for community. 

• Education: Education was

fundamentally important; cooperatives

had a greater likelihood of success if

study of democratic organization and

consumer and cooperative economics

were emphasized. Nearly every

organization in the study started with

an initial study group.

• Income of members: Cooperatives

were more successful when their

members had incomes that were stable

and sufficient to allow the member to

remain independent of cooperative

activity. Those organizations composed

of members with low incomes and/or

who were impoverished had greater

vulnerabilities to maintaining stable

equity, raising capital and remaining

independent of creditors.

• Supportive organizations: Those

cooperatives that were facilitated and

supported by other local and national

organizations had a greater likelihood

of success. The formation of networks

and federations was particularly

important.

• Leadership and structure: While

many cooperatives started with the

leadership of charismatic leaders from

affiliated educational, religious and

fraternal organizations, the

development of strong organizational

structures were equally important.

Team and committee structures, often

borrowed from affiliated organizational

sponsors, allowed for the development

of shared leadership, multiple leaders

and mutual responsibilities.

• Women: Women served facilitative

and supportive roles throughout the

history of African-American cooperative

development. They also took a

leadership and emancipatory role,

particularly in the formation, direction

and management of a number of

cooperatives for black women. Nannie

Helen Burroughs and Halena Wilson

were particularly important. 

• These actions were never absent

from racial discrimination and sabotage

and eventually resulted in

compromising the viability of many.

• However “in most cases, even

when [co-ops] failed, co-op members

were often better off, even when the coop ended...In addition to providing

goods and services, the cooperative

provided experiences and training that

members might not get elsewhere. In

addition, members were often able to

establish credit, buy or develop an asset

(e.g. land, machinery) and earn financial

return on their equity (interest) or on

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack (center) met in 2011 with leaders of the Federation of

Southern Cooperatives (FSC), including FSC President Ralph Paige (seated next to Vilsack on left)

to discuss a wide range of agricultural and rural issues. FSC is the nation’s only predominantly

African American regional cooperative organization. USDA photo by Bob Nichols
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 35

their activity (dividends or patronage

refunds)” (p. 83).

Part III: 1960s to the Present

Federation of Southern

Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund

In the third and final part of the

book, Gordon-Nembhard focuses on

the period from the late 1960s forward.

In the first of two chapters, she

highlights the actions of the Federation

of Southern Cooperatives (Federation),

followed by a final chapter detailing the

central importance of group solidarity. 

The Federation was founded in 1967

and merged with a parallel

organization, the Emergency Land

Fund, in 1985 to become The

Federation of Southern

Cooperatives/Land Assistance Fund

(FSC/LAF). It is the nation’s only

predominantly African-American

regional cooperative organization. The

Federation’s activities have been wideranging throughout most of its history.

Its actions and goals have included:

• “Developing cooperatives and

credit unions as a means for people to

enhance the quality of their lives and

improve their communities.

• Saving, protecting and expanding

the land holdings of black family

farmers and landowners in the South.

• Developing a unique and effective

Rural Training and Research Center to

provide information, skills and

awareness, in a cultural context, to help

their members and constituents to build

strong rural communities.

• Promoting and developing safe,

sanitary and affordable housing

opportunities for their members in rural

communities.

• Developing, advocating and

supporting public policies to benefit

their membership of black and other

family farmers, as well as low-income

people living in rural communities.

• Supporting and sustaining the

work of the Federation for the long

term by developing a succession plan,

capital campaign and continuing to

pursue such national policy promises as

fully funding the “Forty Acres and A

Mule Endowment Fund” (FSC/LAF

2007, 180)” (p. 202). 

Ralph Paige, the long-serving CEO

of the Federation, describes the

organization as providing an alternative

to the existing system through various

cooperative efforts, and, in so doing,

seeks to empower people to take

control of their own lives...“which can

often result in changing an entire

community...changes that may demand

institutions be more just” (FSC/LAF

1992, 11) (p. 212). 

Importance of group solidarity

The book concludes with a review of

the central importance of group

solidarity and cohesion. Group

solidarity perhaps is as important to a

cooperative as is the pooling of

resources and channeling collective

action. Solidarity gives the organization

vitality and can be reciprocally

leveraged with other activities such as

civil rights, leadership development

and, as discussed in the book, women’s

and youth leadership development. 

Oppression and the lack of access to

needed goods and services provided an

incentive and group solidity to organize

for greater economic independence.

With careful study of circumstances and

alternatives — and with the help of

community leaders and ancillary

organizations — many businesses were

launched by drawing upon and pooling

member talents and resources. These

actions would have been much more

difficult without the levels of solidarity

existing in the African-American

community, forged, paradoxically, by a

long history of oppression. 

Jobs, wages and various services were

generated from these efforts. Given the

character of cooperatives as member

owned, geographically embedded

organizations, Gordon-Nembhard

documents that in addition to jobs,

wages and services, various follow-on

secondary and tertiary benefits may

occur. Such benefits can involve: (1)

asset-building opportunities; (2) respending at local businesses; (3)

increases in local wealth; (4) training

and education of members and

consumers; (5) greater civic

participation and (6) socially just

community change. 

Gordon-Nembhard concludes the

book stating she has endeavored to

demonstrate the “feasibility of

fashioning financial redevelopment,

both urban and rural,

around...egalitarian strategies for

democratic ownership and control of

productive resources.” Further, she says

that “community-controlled democratic

enterprises can provide: (1) an

economic stimulus; (2) create wealth

and (3) reduce exploitation and

inequalities for African-American

communities.” 

This reviewer found the book full of

suggestions and lessons that can be used

by any group seeking to empower itself

through cooperative organization. The

range of concepts covered — from the

Antigonish method of development, the

needs of cooperative development and

the impact of co-ops on community

development — gives the book

applications well beyond the badly

needed African-American cooperative

history. 

The book has been aptly titled,

Collective Courage. Miriam-Webster

defines “collective” as denoting a

number of persons considered as one

group or whole, and “courage” as

strength in the face of pain or grief.

The history of African-American

cooperative practice, as documented in

this volume, clearly demonstrates how a

group of oppressed people, in the face

of pain and grief, persisted relentlessly

to provide themselves economic

independence, and political freedom,

but also, thankfully, a model, and

lessons of development, inclusion and

diversity that can benefit all of us. ■
36 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

By James C. Hanson and 

Miodrag Matavulj

Editor’s note: Hanson is an economist in

the Department of Agricultural and

Resource Economics at the University of

Maryland. Matavulj is program manager

for agriculture and rural development at

the Agency for Cooperation, Education and

Development (ACED) in Banja Luka,

Bosnia and Herzegovina.

Building a new network

of farmer cooperatives

in Bosnia and

Herzegovina following

three years of war that

accompanied the dissolution of

Yugoslavia has proven to be a daunting

task. In addition to recovering from the

widespread destruction and bloodshed

of the war, farmers have had to adjust to

a new free-market economy, a new

regulatory system and revamped

government bureaucracies. There are

also new national boundaries for five

independent nations that now exist

where there was formerly one. 

The overall goal of our study was to

see how farmer co-ops and unions of

co-ops in Bosnia and Herzegovina (a

single nation) were progressing in the

wake of this tumultuous period. 

We began our study by conducting a

formal survey in late 2006 of Bosnia

and Herzegovina’s cooperative sector —

including agricultural cooperatives and

unions of agricultural cooperatives. The

farmer-members of these co-ops were

excited by the chance to boost

productivity through their own co-ops.

The unions of cooperatives, which were

created to serve member cooperatives,

were also determined to help these

cooperatives grow and prosper. 

One advantage for the nation’s coops is that calling a business a

“cooperative” does not elicit the same

type of negative connotations that it

often does in the former Soviet Union

republics and some other Eastern

European nations. In Yugoslavia,

From the

Ashes of War

Rebuilding ag co-op system 

in Bosnia and Herzegovina 

presents huge challenges

When the Stari Most, or Old Bridge, collapsed from tank shelling in 1993, “It was like the heart

was ripped out of most Mostar natives.” More than a decade later, the beautiful stone structure

that had spanned the Neretva River for over four centuries once again arches across its waters,

symbolic of efforts to heal the scars of war. Below, a co-op board meeting.
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 37

collectivization had not been forced on

farmers, and agriculture continued to

be based on small, individual farms. 

An informal, follow-up survey

conducted in early 2014 indicates that

little progress has been made in

developing stronger agricultural

cooperatives in Bosnia and

Herzegovina. We see no easy solutions

to this lack of progress. While there is a

widespread desire to build a more

effective agricultural cooperative sector,

that motivation, in itself, has not proven

to be enough to achieve much progress. 

Adjusting to structural changes

Massive changes in the structure of

agriculture have occurred since the

breakup of Yugoslavia and the ensuing

war that lasted from 1992 to 1995.

Prior to the breakup, the dominant

organizational unit for Yugoslav farmers

was the general agricultural cooperative.

These cooperatives were not stateowned, as they were in much of the

former Soviet Union, where co-ops

were state-supported and sanctioned. 

In the former Yugoslavia, unions of

cooperatives played a subservient role

to their member-cooperatives.

Producer-members farmed their own

land while general agriculture

cooperatives provided farmers with the

vast majority of supply of inputs —

including fertilizer, seeds and pesticides.

The general co-ops also marketed most

of their producer-members’ farm

production. 

After the nation’s breakup and war,

the general agricultural cooperatives

were eliminated. The current Law of

Cooperatives in Bosnia and

Herzegovina (BiH), passed in 2003, is

based on the rule of its members, not

the sanction and support of the state. 

After 2003, the membership of any

agricultural cooperative was often a

mixture of returnees to pre-war rural

homes, displaced people who had

chosen to “start again,” rather than

return to pre-war communities where

they would remain as minorities, and

so-called “domicile families” that had

remained in place. 

Many cooperative members were

fairly new to agriculture as a livelihood;

all were relatively new to a free market

economy. The expectation was that

these new cooperatives would provide

the same level of expertise and service

as they had experienced in the former

Yugoslavia. 

With the new cooperative law in

place, three public interest unions of

cooperatives were created: two are

unions of cooperatives, one each for the

Republic of Srpska (RS) and the

Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina

(FBiH); the third co-op, the Bosnia and

Herzegovina Union of Cooperatives,

serves the entire country. 

The unions of cooperatives were

charged with: providing help in the

establishment of new cooperatives;

advocating on behalf of cooperatives

before public bodies and organizing

research, education and marketing

activities. They were also charged with

deciding property transfers, when a

cooperative should be terminated and

with conducting audits of cooperatives. 

Land ownership confusion

In addition to the devastation of the

agricultural infrastructure caused by the

war, another major problem for farmers

in BiH was confusion over land tenure

and ownership. Average farm size was

small, less than 3 hectares (or about 8

acres), and these small holdings were

also often fragmented into nonadjoining land parcels. 

Since so many records were

destroyed during the war, it was often

difficult to establish legal title to

property. There were also different title

requirements between the FBiH and

RS. In addition, displaced people who

were removed from their lands during

the war sometimes were now on land

that was not their own. 

One advantage of agriculture, even

subsistence agriculture in countries such

as Bosnia and Herzegovina, is the safety

net that it provided to poor people. The

farms formed a social buffer by

providing subsistence food security for

those without incomes — either to

those living on farms or to relatives and

friends in towns. 

2006 study 

The objective of the 2006 study was

to identify and quantify the demands of

the agricultural cooperatives and the

services being supplied by their

cooperative unions, then to determine

which of the cooperatives’ needs were,

or were not, being met by the

cooperative unions.

Information was gathered in three

ways: 

(1) Questionnaires were sent to 60

cooperatives. Forty-two cooperatives

responded, 25 from RS and 17 from

FBiH.

(2) Two focus groups were conducted

with six cooperatives from FBiH and

five cooperatives from RS. An average

of 12 people attended each focus group.

(3) Personal interviews were

conducted with representatives from the

three cooperative unions. 

Surveys returned by the cooperatives

revealed that:

• There was not effective

communication between the three

unions of cooperatives and the

agricultural cooperatives. 

• Educational programs were needed

by agricultural cooperatives on the

topics of: 

—Markets, marketing principles and

quality standards;

—Business management and

economic analysis.

• A marketing database should be

developed that records recent prices for

different commodities, trends in

commodity yields and trends in levels of

production (e.g., crop hectares and

livestock numbers). 

• Cooperatives need legal advice

concerning property ownership, titling

and registration. The unions need to

continue their cooperative audits and

help in the legal registration of

cooperatives. 

• Cooperative principles should be
38 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

promoted in Bosnian society. Advocacy

and lobbying should be pursued jointly

by the unions of cooperatives and their

member cooperatives. 

• The unions and cooperatives

should work together to develop

strategies and partnerships among

cooperatives. For example, the

cooperatives should be encouraged to

work together in business centers.

Statements from cooperative

members during the focus group

sessions, comparing their experiences

before the breakup of Yugoslavia vs. the

current situation, tended to emphasize

the problems being experienced in

2006. Examples of these statements

include: 

• “In the past, farmers had benefits,

such as pensions and health insurance;

today, they don’t have any.”

• “Today, the relationship between

the cooperatives and their members has

been reduced to sales.” 

• “It is much more difficult now. In

the past, there was a monopoly — there

was not any private production.” 

• “Everything that was produced, the

cooperative could sell.” 

• “In the past, we had all the services

we needed and the whole system was

organized.”

• In terms of the relationship

between the cooperative and the union

of cooperative, “the cooperatives were

much bigger in the past. Then, the

cooperative union was not very

important. The union is more necessary

now if it (the cooperative system) is to

function well.”

We learned the following from the

unions of cooperatives:

• The unions were meagerly funded,

with small staffs (less than five people).

For example, in addition to the

president of the Republic of Srpska

Union of Cooperatives, there were

three employees: a full-time manager,

an auditor and a part-time bookkeeper.

These employees had not been paid for

the previous four months (prior to the

interview) and there was no money to

reimburse them for operating expenses.

In the previous two years, they had

audited 77 cooperatives.

• The president of the Federation of

Bosnia and Herzegovina Union of

Cooperatives took office in 2006 and

found that the union’s financial

situation was not satisfactory. Some

debts were repaid, but former

employees’ salaries, pensions and health

insurance were still not paid. There

were two full-time and one part-time

employee in the union. His priority was

to familiarize himself with the situations

of cooperatives in FBiH. 

• The state-level Bosnia and

Herzegovina’s Union of Cooperatives

leader described recent efforts to:

resolve land ownership issues; introduce

a database on the country’s

cooperatives; and represent the BiH

cooperative sector abroad. An

important initiative involved developing

a cooperative business center operation,

under which individual cooperatives

would work together to increase the

efficiency of their input buying or

marketing of products. This initiative,

while a positive move, had yet to be

implemented. 

2014 study

An informal survey taken in spring

2014 showed that little progress had

been made in the development of

agricultural cooperatives. Only a few

new agricultural cooperatives have been

registered since then. 

Most of these new cooperatives,

while legally registered, have only small

number of members, and most are not

farmers. The new agricultural

cooperatives are more similar to

wholesalers who buy from farmers and

resell into the market place.

The unions of cooperatives have not

made much progress either. After many

years of little improvement, a major

international partner of the cooperative

unions chose to subcontract their

efforts with a new, local nongovernmental organization (NGO )

instead of continuing to work with the

unions. This NGO has been assigned to

work with the cooperatives and unions

to help them better serve the

agricultural community.

Why progress has been slow

The lack of progress toward building

a stronger co-op system between 2006

and 2014 is disheartening. One possible

explanation is it there was a “top-down”

system in the former Yugoslavia, in

which the managers of the cooperatives

provided services to the farmers. The

farmers were receivers of these services,

not the providers. 

The frustration of farmers with their

cooperative leaders and the unions of

cooperatives may reflect their

unrealistic dependence on the “old

world view.” These farmers may not

understand that in the post-Yugoslavian

world, the cooperatives are run by their

farmer-members and that they are

responsible for the success of their

individual cooperatives.

Also, it is likely that outsiders cannot

completely comprehend the difficulties

faced by BiH farmers. Land is

fragmented and land titles are often

missing. Current economic realities

preclude effective access to inputs or

markets. The successful creation of

agricultural cooperatives may be a

secondary concern until these other

issues are resolved. 

Additionally, individual cooperatives

are not large enough to provide realistic

possibilities for market outlets. While

farmers join a cooperative primarily for

market access, the amount of

production marketed by these

cooperatives is still too small. For that

reason, it will be necessary to combine

cooperatives to increase the quantity of

products marketed so that this new

consortium of cooperatives can,

hopefully, command higher prices for

their members.

Authors’ note: The 2006 survey results

are taken from: Hanson, J. C.., M.

Matavulj, G. Manzuk, and J. G.

Richardson, 2010. “Agricultural

Cooperatives and Unions of Cooperatives in

Bosnia and Herzegovina: Opportunities for

Improvement in Providing Services and

Educational Programs for Farmers.”

Journal of Rural Cooperation 38: No. 1: 3-

19. ■
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 39

Newsline

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

Co-op developments, coast to coast

CoBank/USDA partnership to

build rural infrastructure 

CoBank is joining with the U.S.

Department of Agriculture in a new

public-private partnership focused on

infrastructure investment in rural

America. The new “U.S. Rural

Infrastructure Opportunity Fund” will

serve as a source of private-sector

capital to partner with USDA on a wide

variety of infrastructure projects in rural

communities. CoBank will act as anchor

investor and has committed $10 billion

of balance sheet capacity to co-lend

with the fund.

The fund was formally launched

during the Rural Opportunity

Investment Conference, sponsored by

the White House Rural Council, which

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack

set up and chairs. “This fund represents

a new approach to our support for jobcreating projects across the country,”

Vilsack said. “USDA and other agencies

invest in infrastructure through a

variety of federal initiatives, but our

resources are finite and there are

backlogs of projects in many parts of

the economy. We know where

investment opportunities exist, so we

are in a position to help promote these

projects among investors.” 

The effort will “enhance access to

capital for a wide array of vital

infrastructure projects around the

country and speed up the process of

rural infrastructure improvements,” said

Robert B. Engel, CoBank’s CEO. “It is

completely aligned with our mission of

service to rural America, and we believe

it represents a meaningful, long-term

growth opportunity for CoBank and

our partner organizations in the Farm

Credit System.”

CoBank's co-investments with the

fund are designed to complement

existing government loan and grant

programs. The fund’s investment

activities will include:

• Recruiting new sources of private

capital to support rural infrastructure

projects;

• Serving as a co-lender for

borrowers financing projects where the

government’s program limits or

resource constraints warrant the fund's

involvement; and

• Private lending in support of

projects capable of meeting market

terms.

Target investments will include rural

community facilities, water and

wastewater systems, rural energy

projects and rural broadband. The fund

will be managed by Capitol Peak Asset

Management, an independent asset

management firm. CoBank will have

the opportunity to review and approve

each transaction individually, on a caseby-case basis. 

USDA helps butterfly 

farming take wing 

USDA has recognized the potential

for jobs in butterfly farming, awarding a

$500,000 grant to the Thlopthlocco

Tribal Town in Oklahoma. The grant

will support the Natives Raising

Natives project. The partnership

between the tribe and the Euchee

Butterfly Farm will enable tribal

members to raise and sell butterflies,

according to a report by the WorldHerald News Service. 

USDA’s Rural Business Enterprise

Grant program promotes the

development of small and emerging

businesses in rural areas. The

Thlopthlocco grant is the largest

awarded this year by the program.

“What attracted the most attention

was the amount of jobs this could

create,” Brian Wiles, the business and

energy program director at USDA

Rural Development’s Oklahoma state

office, told the World-Herald. About 50

people are signed up for the program,

and many have received

butterfly farming

starter kits.

The grant is expected to help 100 to

300 people begin raising butterflies.

Wiles says the program seeks to

achieve three objectives: provide rural

employment for tribal members;

promote science education among

Native Americans; and promote

environmental conservation, through

raising natural pollinators. The idea is

the brainchild of Jane Breckinridge and

David Bohlken, who own and operate

the Euchee Butterfly Farm and the

Butterfly House. The husband-and-wife

team has been in the butterfly business

for more than 20 years.
40 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

More co-ops for the 

“century club”

A list of 134 U.S. agricultural

cooperatives that are at least 100 years

old was featured on page 20 of the

May-June 2014 issue of Rural

Cooperatives (back issues are posted at:

www.rurdev.gov; follow the

“Cooperatives” links). The following

five cooperatives should also have been

included on that list, raising the total

membership of the “Co-op Century

Club” to 139. 

USDA plans to maintain the list as a

stand-alone item on the Cooperative

Programs website and will update it at

least annually as more ag co-ops reach

the 100-year milestone. 

“Based on our recent co-op surveys,

we expect the number of century co-ops

to climb steadily in the coming years,”

says Eldon Eversull, USDA cooperative

statistician. “As we said in the article

that accompanied the list in the MarchApril magazine, it is a remarkable feat

for any business to reach its 100th

birthday in such a competitive

economic system as ours, so this is a

real accomplishment that deserves to be

recognized.” 

• Sun-Maid Growers of California,

Kingsburg, Calif., Fruit, 1912;

• Viafield, Marble Rock, Iowa, Grain

and oilseed, 1895;

• Co-op Country Farmers Elevator,

Renville, Minn. Grain and oilseed,

1886;

• Farmers Union Cooperative Assoc.,

Cedar Bluffs, Neb., Grain and

oilseed, 1888;

• Premier Cooperative, Mount Horeb,

Wis., Supply, 1893.

Ag Law Center 

receives USDA grant 

The Arkansas-based National

Agricultural Law Center has received a

$225,000 grant from USDA Rural

The Association of Cooperative

Educators Association (ACE)

honored outstanding cooperative

educators during its three-day

institute at the University of Texas in

Austin in July. The annual event

attracts those invested in cooperative

education, research and

development.

Winners of the 2014 ACE awards:

• The Outstanding Contribution to

Cooperative Education and Training

Award — This award went to noted

writer/journalist Lee Egerstrom of

Minnesota. Egerstrom identified the

“Co-op Fever” movement in the

1990s and documented the

development of new generation

cooperatives that encourage farmers

and ranchers to own value-added

processing facilities. He remains

active in Minnesota 20/20, a think

tank about economic development,

education, health care and other

concerns.

• The Reginald J. Cressman Award

— This award, which recognizes

outstanding commitment to staff

development, went to Colette Lebel

of La Co-op fédérée, in Quebec.

Lebel promotes cooperative business

within her own cooperative through

“Midi-coop” lunchtime sessions and

her editorial in the magazine “Le

Coopérateur agricole.” She is a

frequent lecturer at the Université de

Sherbrooke’s program for graduate

students of cooperative business. In

addition, Lebel has also helped

women fulfill their potential on

boards of farmer cooperatives and is

an active member of the association

of co-op trainers and educators in

Quebec. 

• The William Hlushko Award to

Young Cooperative Educators — This

award went to Erin Hancock of the

newly created Cooperatives and

Mutuals Canada, an organization

representing the interests of co-ops

across Canada, communicating in

French and English. Her many

accomplishments include providing

online network portals for boards of

directors and researchers so that they

can share and learn from one

another. Hancock resides in Ottawa

and Toronto. 

• The John Logue ACE Award —

This honor was established in 2010

to recognize co-op educational

programs, technical assistance and

research that promote economic

sustainability. It was presented to

Margaret Lund of Minnesota, the

principal of a consulting practice she

founded in 2008 to promote co-op

development. She has created or coauthored several resources that have

helped cooperative developers in the

United States and Canada with

financing and operations. 

• The Outstanding Contribution to

ACE — This award is reserved for

organizations that provide

outstanding assistance to ACE. It

was presented to Cooperation Texas

of Austin, a worker cooperative

development center that was

instrumental in bringing cooperative

educators to the University of Texas

and for highlighting the work of

those who involve economically

struggling communities in

cooperative endeavors. 

ACE also paid tribute to

University of Victoria Professor

Emeritus Ian MacPherson, who died

late last year. MacPherson was an

engaging story

teller/educator/historian whose work

captured the most important

moments of cooperation in North

America. 

ACE honors co-op educators
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 41

Development to assist the local and

regional food industry in the Arkansas

Delta. The grant is intended to help

alleviate persistent poverty areas in

Arkansas and other states.

The goal of the project is to assist

growers, entrepreneurs and others in

the food supply chain by helping them

to produce and process locally grown

foods to area markets and public food

programs, including school lunch

programs.

The project targets Jefferson,

Phillips and St. Francis counties in

Arkansas, where it will help establish or

support ongoing efforts. 

Southern States allies with

Kentucky Equine Research

Southern States Cooperative,

manufacturers of the Legends line of

premium horse feeds, has announced a

strategic alliance with Kentucky Equine

Research (KER), an equine nutrition,

research and consulting company based

in Lexington, Ky. Initial plans for the

Legends product line call for the

addition of KER micronutrient vitamin

and trace mineral premixes. 

Southern States will utilize KER’s

digital technologies to provide technical

nutritional support and valuable

information to horse owners and

managers. Southern States field staff

will use KER technology to advise

equine customers on the exact

nutritional requirements for their

horses. 

A new website, accessible from the

co-op’s website, has been developed for

Legends customers to keep up-to-date

with the latest research on equine

nutrition, health and practical tips for

the horse enthusiast. There is also an

extensive library of articles, as well as

links to electronic newsletters, videos

and free downloadable reports to help

horse owners, managers, trainers and

veterinarians. 

In other Southern States news, the

co-op will be offering Real-Time

Kinematic (RTK) technology to its

precision ag customers in the Southeast.

RTK is a high-tech tool developed to

allow satellite information from the

Global Positioning System (GPS)

network to guide field equipment

(planters, fertilizer applicators,

harvesters, etc.) with a very high degree

of accuracy.

Southern States is a Richmond, Va.-

based farm supply and service

cooperative, established in 1923, which

has more than 200,000 farmermembers. 

GROWMARK 

reports record sales 

GROWMARK enjoyed record sales

during its 2014 fiscal year, which ended

Aug. 31. Jeff Solberg, the co-op’s CEO,

reported estimated sales of $10.2 billion

for FY 2014, with estimated pretax

income of $180 million, which exceeded

the co-op’s key financial target of a 12-

percent return on capital. 

An estimated $90 million in

patronage refunds will be returned to

GROWMARK member cooperatives

and farmer-owners. 

“The GROWMARK system has

spent the year strengthening the

foundation of excellent products and

services that the FS brand is known

for,” Solberg says. Other highlights

include:

• The Seed Division had an excellent

year, Solberg noted, with 3.5 million

units of corn and soybeans shipped. 

• The Plant Food Division also

enjoyed a strong spring season as

position and risk management captured

income opportunities, along with

higher volumes. 

• The GROWMARK Retail Grain

business segment saw sales volume

recover from the drought of 2012, but

markets did not provide the

opportunity to meet expected

profitability. In spite of this, grain

recorded sales volume of 200 million

bushels and pretax income of $5

million. 

• The GROWMARK Retail

Supplies business units “operated in

overdrive throughout spring” Solberg

noted, staying ahead of the producers’

needs and registering sales of $1.8

billion and pretax income of $3.5

million. 

“Our system is driven by the vision

of our directors — the talents of our

employees — and the commitment of

our members,” Solberg says. “Each and

every one of you has ensured we

continue ‘building on the best.’” 

GROWMARK provides agriculturerelated products and services, as well as

grain marketing, in more than 40 states

and Ontario, Canada. GROWMARK

owns the FS trademark, which is used

by affiliated member cooperatives. 

Michael Doyle new CEO 

of Foremost Farms

Foremost Farms USA has selected

Michael Doyle as the co-op’s new

president and chief executive officer,

succeeding David Fuhrmann, who will

retire at the end of 2014. Doyle is

currently the

cooperative’s

CFO/vice

president for

finance. He

joined

Foremost

Farms in 2007

and is

responsible for

the cooperative’s accounting/tax,

finance, strategic analysis/investments

and information technology functions.

“As Foremost Farms approaches its

20th anniversary, Dave Fuhrmann’s

leadership (and that of his predecessor)

created a very solid dairy business that

meets the changing needs of our

member-owners,” Doyle says. “Going

forward, it is my responsibility to

provide leadership to conquer

challenges that come with increasingly

volatile dairy markets and global

competition, while embracing our

cooperative principles and growing the

business for the hard-working dairy

farmers who own Foremost Farms.”

“Mike has a progressive vision for

the cooperative and will continue the

work that Dave has started and

fostered,” says David Scheevel, co-op
42 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

board chairman. “I have the utmost

respect for both men and have

confidence that the future is in talented

hands.”

“While the time was right for me to

retire, I do so knowing that we are

looking at a bright future and the next

leader of Foremost Farms will work

tirelessly on behalf of the dairy farmermembers of this cooperative,”

Fuhrmann adds.

Doyle officially becomes president

and CEO on Oct. 1, although

Fuhrmann will remain for a transition

period through the end of the year.

Before joining Foremost, Doyle was

the senior vice president and chief

financial officer of Creekstone Farms

Premium Beef LLC. Prior to that, he

spent more than 11 years with Land

O’Lakes, Arden Hills, Minn. He joined

Land O’Lakes as the controller of the

agricultural center division and was

promoted through the ranks of the

company’s agriculture and animal

nutrition division, rising to vice

president-operations.

Doyle has a B.S. degree in business,

with an emphasis in accounting from

the Carlson School of Management at

the University of Minnesota. He and

his family live in Wisconsin Dells. 

USDA’s Catherine Woteki 

to address Farmer Co-op Conf. 

“Change. Challenge. Opportunity.”

is the theme of the 17th Annual Farmer

Cooperatives Conference, Nov. 6-7 in

Minneapolis. More than 20 industry

experts, cooperative leaders and

researchers will share best practices and

solutions to challenges facing cooperatives.

Recent additions to the agenda

include Catherine Woteki, chief

scientist and under secretary for

research, education and economics for

the U.S. Department of Agriculture,

who will kick off the event. Other

newly announced speakers include:

Deborah Atwood, executive director at

AGree; Art Duerkson, CEO of

Farmway Cooperative; Bill Buckner,

president/CEO of the Samuel Roberts

Nobel Foundation; Doug Ohlson,

general manager at Frenchman Valley

Cooperative; and Chuck Conner, CEO

of the National Council of Farmer

Cooperatives.

Also on the agenda are Rod Snyder,

executive director of Field to Market;

David Muth, senior vice president of

analytics, AgSolver; Mike Vande Logt,

chief operating officer at Winfield Land

O’Lakes; and Todd Ludwig, CEO of

Watonwan Farmers Service Co. 

For more information, visit:

www.uwcc.wisc.edu, or contact Anne

Reynolds at 608-263-4775 or

atreynol@wisc.edu.

Sunkist moves 

headquarters to Valencia

Sunkist Growers, a 120-year-old

grower-owned citrus marketing

cooperative, is moving its headquarters

from Sherman Oaks to Valencia, Calif.

“In the past few years, we have made

significant advances on key strategic

initiatives to position Sunkist for longterm growth and profitability, and the

relocation of our headquarters is part of

that strategy,” says Sunkist President

and CEO Russell Hanlin. “We look

forward to welcoming our growers,

customers, licensees and other business

partners to our new home in Valencia.”

Situated between the I-5 Freeway

and the Magic Mountain theme park at

27770 N. Entertainment Drive in

Valencia, the new building is located

nearer to Sunkist’s multiple growing

areas and will allow the company to

keep its current employee group intact.

The company’s move, being made in

phases, was expected to be completed

by the end of September.

With thousands of grower-members

in California and Arizona, the Sunkist

cooperative reflects the values and

legacy of its 120-year history: familyowned farms where traditional growing

practices, stewardship of natural

resources and a dedication to

innovation are proudly passed through

the generations.

Dairy safety net program 

caps 5-year effort 

On Aug. 28, USDA formally

launched the new federal dairy safety

net that was included in the 2014 Farm

Bill. The National Milk Producers

Federation (NMPF) says it is now up to

producers to become familiar with the

plan, make their coverage decisions and

sign up before the Nov. 28 deadline.

The Margin Protection Program

(MPP) allows producers to protect their

margin — the difference between the

price of milk and the cost of feed —

rather than supporting milk prices.

Farmers will insure margins on a sliding

scale and must decide annually both

how much of their milk production to

cover and the level of margin they wish

to protect. NMPF developed the key

elements of the plan after the

Sunkist has moved to this new headquarters in Valencia, Calif., nearer to the citrus co-op’s

multiple growing areas.
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2014 43

catastrophic losses producers suffered in

2009 and again in 2012.

NMPF President and CEO Jim

Mulhern says the new program is a

major step forward for the industry.

“The Margin Protection Program is

more flexible, comprehensive and

equitable than any safety net program

dairy farmers have had in the past,”

Mulhern says. “It is truly risk

management for the 21st century, and

we strongly encourage farmers to invest

in using it going forward.”

To help farmers familiarize

themselves with the new program,

NMPF has posted resource material on

its website and at a related website:

www.futurefordairy.com. This website,

intended to serve as an information hub

on the plan, includes a spreadsheet with

past trends and an online calculator that

allows farmers to enter their own

pricing and production data to help

them select insurance coverage levels. 

Release of the new dairy program’s

details capped five years of work by

NMPF, the nation’s dairy cooperatives

and other farm groups. “We applaud

the U.S. Department of Agriculture on

its hard work of putting the final

touches on the plan over the last six

months,” says Mulhern.

Foremost, MMPA 

form strategic alliance

Foremost Farms USA, Baraboo,

Wis., and Michigan Milk Producers

Association (MMPA), Novi, Mich., have

announced that the two cooperatives

have formed a strategic alliance to

balance and add value to their

members’ milk supplies in Michigan,

Indiana and Ohio. The two

cooperatives are initially investing

nearly $10 million in the region’s dairy

industry to keep pace with the growing

dairy production in the area. The

strategic alliance will allow greater

opportunities for both co-ops to

leverage their milk supplies, reduce

operating costs and maximize returns

for their farmer-members.

Foremost Farms has purchased, and

is installing, reverse osmosis technology

at MMPA’s Constantine, Mich., milk

processing plant in south-central

Michigan. The technology will

concentrate three loads of milk into one

by removing water and concentrating

the milk solids, reducing the cost of

long-haul milk transportation by twothirds. The installation work and first

phase of the project is expected to be

completed by the end of this year.

“For the past year, Foremost Farms

has been transporting surplus milk from

this region back to our own cheese

plants in Wisconsin,” says Dave

Fuhrmann, Foremost Farms president.

“This has resulted in a tremendous cost

burden for our members. This

investment allows us to reduce those

cost burdens, improve transportation

efficiencies, provide market stability for

our members’ growing milk supply and

utilize the milk solids to make cheese.”

“Michigan’s milk supply is growing

at a rate of 3 to 4 percent per year, so

investing in reverse osmosis equipment

at our Constantine plant helps us keep

pace with the growing milk production

in our region,” Joe Diglio, MMPA’s

general manager, says. “This new

venture will also improve efficiencies in

transportation and give us more

flexibility in the market.”

“This strategic alliance is a great

example of the true spirit of a

cooperative — working together for the

betterment of all,” he continues. “We

are hopeful this venture will serve as a

framework for future opportunities to

join forces to strengthen the dairy

industry and ultimately better serve our

farmer-members.” 

Alaskan food co-op 

wins Startup of the Year 

Mary Christensen spent the last

seven years on the development team of

Co-op Market Grocery and Deli, in

Fairbanks, Alaska. Starting from

scratch, with nothing but an idea and a

desire, the team completed its goal in

March 2013. In recognition of its

success, the Co-op Market was named

Food Co-op Startup of the Year for

2014. 

The award was accepted by General

Manager Mary Christensen at the

annual Consumer Cooperative

Management Association conference in

Madison, Wis., in June. Lauded for its

leadership, retail excellence and

commitment to building the local

economy, Co-op Market beat out 12

other co-ops that have opened stores

since June 2013. 

Despite the many challenges of

operating in Alaska, Co-op Market has

experienced strong growth, far

exceeding sales predictions. It has 2,680

member-owners and sales for 2014 are

on track to reach $2.8 million.

Committed to supporting their local

small farmers, 60 percent of the meat

Co-op Market sells is locally grown.

“Our two biggest challenges both

relate to Alaska’s vast size and our

distance from almost everywhere else,”

says Christensen. “Our buyers face a

tremendous challenge in keeping our

shelves fully stocked. The distance

between us and our suppliers means it

can take two weeks to receive items we

order, so anticipating what will be

needed is critical, and of course timing

is critical for perishable items. We’re

also isolated from all other co-ops and

the shared resources available to them.”

International Co-op 

Summit in Quebec 

The International Summit of

Cooperatives, a biennial gathering

where leaders of cooperative and

mutual enterprises gather to discuss

concerns about business challenges, will

be held Oct. 6-9 in Quebec City,

Quebec. The summit is also an

opportunity to forge valuable strategic

alliances, stay abreast of major

international development trends and

gain a solid understanding of the global

cooperative movement and the business

opportunities it offers.

Groundbreaking studies will be

presented during the conference, which

will reflect the five summit themes and

help to shed new light on the innovative

capacity of the cooperative and mutual

business model. 

For more information, visit:

www.intlsummit.coop/cms/en_CA/sites/

somint/home/info-sommet.html ■
Periodicals Postage Paid

U.S. Department of Agriculture

United States

Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC 20250

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for private use, $300

NOTICE:

❑ Check here to stop receiving this publication and mail this

sheet to the address below.

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

to:

USDA/Rural Business—Cooperative Service

Stop 0705

Washington, D. C. 20250-3255

44 September/October 2014 / Rural Cooperatives

For ideas and resources to help your co-op celebrate Co-op Month, visit:

■ http://www.ncba.coop/events/co-opmonth ■ http://www.cooperativenetwork.coop/index