Rural

COOPERATIVES COOPERATIVES

USDA / Rural Development November/December 2001 USDA / Rural Development November/December 2001

BOUNCING BACK FROM TRAGEDY

See page 10 for the story of how the co-op overcame the tragedy,

stronger and more united than ever. A timely lesson for us all.

“ONE MINUTE, IT WAS BUSINESS AS USUAL AT

FOREMOST FARMS’ MORNING GLORY DAIRY PLANT.

BUT THEN, WITHOUT WARNING, A JET PLUNGED

FROM THE SKY AND CRASHED INTO IT.

SMOKE, FIRE, CONFUSION AND DEATH FOLLOWED.”
2 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

As farmers across the country complete the 2001 harvest and the crop

pipeline is filled to capacity in many

commodity sectors, it is a good time to

assess major events and developments

affecting agriculture in the past year.

We should also consider what the

cooperative system has accomplished

and how it has performed. Changes

have included major mergers and consolidations among food industry

processors and distributors, a recessionary economy—exacerbated by the

Sept. 11 attacks and subsequent declaration of war against terrorism—

debate over a new Farm Bill, and

efforts to open a new round of trade

negotiations. 

The routine of managing cooperative business activities is clearly

impacted by these events, some in

ways that are not yet entirely 

manifested. Cooperative boards and

management are being challenged to

make decisions regarding those elements they can control, and to be sensitive to the changes in the external

environment that can have a significant influence on their operations.

The year has been characterized by

continuing pressure in commodity

markets due to large inventories and

bumper crops, a partial recovery in

export markets for farm commodities

and value-added products, and shifts in

the makeup of customers. As buyers at

the retail and processor levels continue

to consolidate, farmer cooperatives are

challenged to meet the demands of bigger orders for their products, or to

develop market channels more directly

linked to consumers. 

Even the largest of cooperatives pale

in size compared to national and international market players, according to

Dr. Larry Hamm of Michigan State

University, who stresses (see article on

p. 21 ) that this size issue is exactly why

the Capper-Volstead Act was passed.

The Act enables farmers to use cooperatives as a preferred marketing tool to

gain influence in the marketplace when

dealing with much larger customers.

A number of new efforts this past

year bear witness to the desire of producers to find new cooperative marketing strategies. For example, sugarbeet

producers in several states have

attempted to lease or purchase sugar

factories in an attempt to secure their

markets. Livestock producers are

undertaking organizational initiatives

to establish themselves as marketers of

animal products. And grain and oilseed

producers are examining expanded

roles in producing biofuels. 

While producers continue to explore

many new, value-added ventures, they

are also carefully examining the benefits

of horizontal associations for marketing

identity-preserved crops and negotiating contract terms with buyers.

Despite momentum on these fronts,

well-publicized failures of two large

local cooperatives in the grain industry

in Kansas and Iowa and of a livestock

venture in Missouri indicate the need

for improvement by boards of directors

and cooperative management in discharging their respective fiduciary

responsibilities. These failures highlight the need for intensified board and

management educational efforts that

increase the proficiency of board members and personnel to oversee the management of more complex operations.

Several years ago, a multi-agency task

force at USDA issued a report on a proposed cooperative-based farm policy.

One of the recommendations was that

other sectors could follow the lead of

cotton, rice and grain cooperatives in

providing farm program-related services

to their members. An article in the next

issue of Rural Cooperatives will highlight

the expanding use of cooperative marketing associations by the Farm Service

Agency as a means of providing these

services. In many cases, these services

can be delivered more efficiently by

cooperatives than through the county

committee system. Using cooperative

agreements with members and pooling

are required for such program activity.

This role merits examination by other

cooperative sectors for its potential to

expand services to the farm community.

Randall Torgerson, Deputy Administrator

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

COMMENTARY

Good time to assess role of cooperatives

These failures 

highlight the need

for intensified board 

and management

education efforts 

that increase 

the proficiency of 

board members. . .
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 3

Rural COOPERATIVES (1088-8845) is published

bimonthly by Rural Business–Cooperative Service,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, 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

ZDocuments, Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC, 20402, at $3.50 domestic, $4.38 foreign; or by annual subscription at $15.00 domestic,

$18.75 foreign. 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, contents of this publication

are not copyrighted and may be reprinted freely. For

noncopyrighted articles, mention of source will be

appreciated but is not required.

The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)

prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,

sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual

orientation, and marital or family status. (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 USDA,

Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten

Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410, or call (202) 720-5964

(voice or TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity

provider and employer.

Ann Veneman, Secretary of Agriculture

Michael E. Neruda, Deputy Under Secretary, USDA

Rural Development

John Rosso, Acting Administrator, Rural BusinessCooperative Service

Randall Torgerson, Deputy Administrator, USDA

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

Dan Campbell, Editor

Vision 2000/KOTA, Design

Have a cooperative-related question?

Call (202) 720-6483, or

Fax (202) 720-4641, Information Director,

This publication was printed with vegetable oil-based ink.

United States Department of Agriculture

Rural COOPERATIVES COOPERATIVES

November/December 2001 Volume 68 Number 5

On the Cover:

Firefighters battle the blaze at Foremost Farms’ Morning Glory dairy

plant, near Green Bay, after a small business jet crashed into it. For the

story of how the co-op recovered from the tragedy, see page 10. Photo

by Steve Levin, courtesy Green Bay Press-Gazette

FEATURES

4 Farm co-op business volume increases slightly in 2000

By Charles Kraenzle et al.

6 Coping with change

Merger of local farm supply co-ops forces boards to deal with

emotional issues

By Katherine L. Hanson

10 Tragedy from the sky

Quick response helps Foremost Farms rebound after airplane

slams into plant

By Patrick Duffey

16 Bovine biogas

Dairy co-op sees major potential in methane gas recovery technology

By Steve Thompson

21 Co-ops and the transformation of global 

dairy relationships

By Larry G. Hamm

22 Co-ops and trade sanctions

Co-ops defend their members' interests in sanctions reform debate

By Alan Borst and Marc Warman

25 Sales climb, net income declines for local co-ops 

in 2000

By Beverly L. Rotan

DEPARTMENTS

2 COMMENTARY

25 NEWSLINE

31 ANNUAL ARTICLE INDEX, 2001
4 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

Editor’s note: Information for this article

was compiled by the Statistics Staff of USDA’s

Rural Business-Cooperative Service, including

Charles A. Kraenzle, Celestine C. Adams,

Katherine C. DeVille, Jacqueline E. Penn

and Ralph M. Richardson.

et business volume of the

nation’s farmer-owned

cooperatives was $99.7

billion in 2000, up slightly from $99.1 billion in

1999 despite low commodity prices in

many agricultural sectors, according to

USDA’s Rural Business-Cooperative

Service (RBS). 

Farm supply sales increased from

$23.2 billion in 1999 to $24.1 billion in

2000, a 3.9-percent increase, while the

value of farm products marketed was

$72.06 billion, up 0.1 percent from

1999. Receipts from services provided

by cooperatives and investment income

dropped from $3.9 billion to $3.5 billion, a 10.1-percent decline.

Net business volume includes gross

receipts from the sale of crops, livestock, farm supplies and services collected by the nation’s 3,346 farmer

cooperatives. It excludes business

between cooperatives. 

Lower average farm milk price

(down 13.8 percent from 1999) was a

major factor in holding down the overall sales value by all types of farm marketing cooperatives. Milk and milk

product sales fell $3.3 billion (12.6

percent) from 1999. However, dollar

volume by cooperatives of all other

commodities (except rice) increased,

paced by a $1.3 billion increase in the

sale of grains and oilseeds.

Farm supply sales climbed 3.9 percent, due mainly to higher prices for

petroleum. Petroleum sales increased

nearly $1.2 billion, or 19.1 percent.

Seed sales were up nearly $200 million,

or 21.7 percent. Sales declined for feed,

fertilizer and “other” supplies.

Net income (or earnings) before

income taxes for cooperatives dropped

to $1.28 billion in 2000, down from

$1.33 billion in 1999. This was the

lowest net income reported since 1986.

The record for net income by cooperatives was $2.36 billion in 1995.

Net income dropped $3.7 million

Farm co-op business volume

increases slightly in 2000

N

Table 1—Farmer cooperatives’ net business volume, 1999 and 20001

Commodity or function Net business volume2

1999 2000 Change

Million dollars Percent

Products marketed:

Cotton 2,083 2,731 31.1

Dairy 25,999 22,721 -12.6

Fruits and vegetables 9,286 9,570 3.1

Grains and oilseeds3 17,113 18,370 7.3

Livestock and poultry 9,545 10,176 6.6

Rice 912 815 -10.6

Sugar 2,540 2,681 5.5

Other products4 4,504 5,002 11.1

Total products marketed 71,982 72,065 0.1

Supplies sold:

Crop protectants 3,018 3,028 0.3

Feed 4,726 4,691 -0.7

Fertilizer 4,759 4,574 -3.9

Petroleum 6,260 7,457 19.1

Seed 752 916 21.7

Other supplies5 3,663 3,419 -6.7

Total supplies sold 23,177 24,085 3.9

Related-services and

other income:6 3,905 3,510 -10.1

Total 99,064 99,659 0.6

1 Totals may not add due to rounding.

2 Excludes inter-cooperative business. Volume includes value of products associated with cooperatives

that operate on a commission basis or bargain for members’ products.

3 Excludes cottonseed.

4 Includes dry edible beans and peas, fish, nuts, tobacco, wool and other miscellaneous products.

5 Includes building materials, containers, hardware, tires-batteries-auto accessories (TBA), farm machinery and equipment, food and other supplies.

6 Includes receipts from trucking, ginning, storage, artificial insemination, rice drying, and other activities

as well as other income.
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 5

(0.4 percent) for marketing cooperatives, despite a $64.2 million (or 23.2-

percent increase) for dairy cooperatives, which saw earnings climb from

$276.6 million in 1999 to $340.8 million in 2000. That gain was offset by

lower net income for grain and oilseed

cooperatives, which dropped from

$324.5 million in 1999 to $274.5 million in 2000, and by losses by livestock/poultry and sugar cooperatives. 

Farm supply cooperatives reported a

$41.3 million (11.7 percent) drop in net

income. Net income for “related-service” cooperatives (those that perform

services such as fertilizer and chemical

application, trucking or livestock

breeding) dropped nearly $6.9 million,

or 6.6 percent.

Combined assets of farmer-owned

cooperatives reached $49.7 billion in

2000, up $2 billion (4.3 percent) from

1999. Marketing cooperatives accounted

for $32.9 billion, or 66.1 percent, of coop assets while farm supply operation

accounted for $15.9 billion, or 32 percent of co-op assets. Related-service 

co-ops accounted for $0.9 billion, or 1.9

percent of assets. Farm supply cooperatives’ assets climbed $1.5 billion, or 10.3

percent — the major factor in the overall increase in assets. Fruit and vegetable, cotton, dairy and rice cooperatives’ assets decreased in 2000.

Net worth (or equity) of farmer

cooperatives totaled $20.28 billion in

2000, about the same as in 1999,

which means cooperatives financed

more assets with debt capital rather

than net worth. Marketing cooperatives’ total equity was $12.7 billion

and accounted for 62.4 percent of

cooperatives’ total equity. 

Farm supply cooperatives, with $7.1

billion in total net worth, accounted for

nearly 35 percent. Related-service cooperatives accounted for the remaining

$0.5 billion, or 2.6 percent. Marketing and related-service cooperatives reported net worth decreased

by $174.5 million, or 1.3 percent,

while farm supply cooperatives

increased total net worth $186.4

million, a 2.6 percent gain.

The number of U.S. farm cooperatives dropped to 3,346, down

from 3,466 in 1999, or 3.5 percent.

Mergers, consolidations, acquisitions and dissolutions resulted in a

reduction of 164 cooperatives.

However, 44 cooperatives were

added to USDA’s list in 2000.

Memberships in farmer cooperatives totaled 3.09 million in 2000,

down 2.8 percent from 1999.

Memberships in farm supply cooperatives totaled 1.7 million, or 55.7

percent of the total. Marketing cooperatives had 1.2 million memberships, or 40.3 percent, and relatedservice cooperatives’ memberships

totaled 0.1 million, or 4 percent.

The number of memberships continued to be larger than the number of farmers in the United States

because many farmers belong to

more than one cooperative. ■

Table 2—Farmer cooperative numbers, net income, and memberships,

1999 and 20001

Principal product Cooperatives2 Net income3 Memberships 

marketed or 

major function 1999 2000 1999 2000 1999 2000

Number Million dollars 1,000

Marketing:

Cotton4 15 14 69.9 65.7 43.8 45.4

Dairy 221 208 276.6 340.8 90.7 96.9

Fruits and vegetables 231 232 57.9 66.7 40.9 41.1

Grains and oilseeds 896 826 324.5 274.5 657.9 615.3

Livestock and poultry 96 93 61.7 -56.1 166.2 161.3

Rice 17 16 6.1 10.5 11.8 12.2

Sugar 48 48 -21.1 -5.9 15.7 15.6

Other products5 225 235 95.4 171.2 255.9 255.3

Total marketing 1,749 1,672 871.1 867.4 1,282.8 1,243.0

Farm supply 1,313 1,277 352.5 311.2 1,731.4 1,717.8

Related-service6 404 397 104.5 97.6 159.1 124.3

Total 3,466 3,346 1,328.1 1,276.2 3,173.3 3,085.1

1 Totals may not add due to rounding.

2 Operations of many cooperatives are multi-product and multi-functional. They are classified in most cases

according to predominant commodity or function indicated by business volume.

3 Net income less losses and before taxes.

4 Cooperative cotton gins included with related-service cooperatives.

5 Includes bean and pea (dry edible), nut, tobacco, wool, fish and miscellaneous marketing cooperatives.

6 Includes trucking, cotton gins, storage, artificial insemination, rice driers and other service cooperatives.

Chart 1—Cooperatives’ net

business volume, 1996-00

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Chart 2—Cooperatives’ net

income, 1996-00

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Billions of Dollors

Billions of Dollors
Katherine L. Hanson

Education and Member Relations

Specialist 

USDA Rural Business-Cooperative

Service 

armers in Frederick

County, Md., have

depended on their local

Southern States Cooperative store for their farm

supply and service needs for more than

60 years. The Frederick Southern

States store first opened its doors in

1937 and grew to include nearly 3,000

member-owners. In nearby Woodsboro, Md., another Southern Statesaffiliated local cooperative was formed

in 1954, and eventually represented

more than 700 member-owners. 

Although the two cooperatives differed in size, they were always very similar in their missions and the services

and products they offered. Because the

two cooperatives were located only a

15-minute drive apart, their customers

were remarkably similar as well. Farmers came to the Southern States-managed stores to have their livestock feed

ground and mixed, to buy their seed

and fertilizer, and to schedule application of crop protectants. 

Which store a patron frequented

depended largely on proximity and

product availability at a given time.

Most of the member-owners of the two

cooperatives knew each other well,

which is not unusual in a small agricultural community. They experienced

similar problems, shared similar successes and relied on their respective

cooperatives to provide for their similar farming needs.

It seems obvious that farmers in

such a tightly-knit farming community could work well together to achieve

common goals and would be open to

partnerships. Recently, the memberowners of these two cooperatives were

challenged to do just that when their

two associations began to consider a

merger. 

But change inevitably creates conflict, and often spawns a hotly contested

Coping with change:

Merger of local farm supply co-ops forces boards to deal with emotional issues 

F

6 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

Board members of the newly merged Southern States local cooperative in Frederick, Md., ponder some of the many issues that had to be

ironed out before two local co-ops could merge into a single, stronger farm supply cooperative. USDA Photos by Katherine L. Hanson
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 7

tug-of-war to determine perceived winners and losers. This merger was no

exception. 

Mergers inevitably involve give

and take by both parties. How 

leaders and members of the two

cooperatives dealt with issues related

to the merger provides an illustration

to other cooperatives of the hurdles

they might encounter in similar 

circumstances. 

Why local co-ops are merging

Circumstances surrounding the

Frederick-Woodsboro merger are far

from unique. Faced with a prolonged

slump in the farm economy, changes in

farm programs and a decline in producer numbers, cooperatives in similar situations across the country are merging or

restructuring in other ways to improve

efficiency and cut operational costs. 

The impact of these factors isn’t

confined to local co-ops. As a regional

cooperative with members in 23 states,

SSC recently implemented a multi-step

restructuring plan designed to counter

operating losses and to better position

itself for the future. The effort has

included the closing of 47 companyowned stores and other operations,

eliminating about 300 jobs at both the

local and corporate levels and the transfer of its livestock marketing operations

and related facilities to another cooperative. More recently, SSC announced a

reorganization plan designed to

improve efficiencies and provide better

customer service by realigning and

streamlining the cooperative’s operations, including the elimination of four

senior vice president positions. 

In Maryland, economic factors (such

as the loss of tobacco income and generally depressed commodity values) and

demographic trends combined to present a clear choice to the Frederick and

Woodsboro cooperatives: either merge

the two cooperatives or risk closure of

one or both. 

By the fall of 2000, both the Woodsboro and the Frederick cooperatives

were facing financial challenges. The

Frederick (SS Frederick) store had

larger sales volume than Woodsboro,

but had been operating at a loss. The

Woodsboro (SS Woodsboro) store was

carrying a substantial debt load from

purchases of vehicles and other equipment. The merger proposal was based

on the goals of spreading equipment

use between both locations and distributing the business volume more evenly. 

Southern States management had

initiated discussions on merger possibilities with local leaders some 18

months earlier, examining the issues

involved and reviewing various scenarios at individual meetings with the

SS Frederick and SS Woodsboro

boards. A third location also was considered as a merger partner during

this preliminary phase. Over time, a

Frederick-Woodsboro co-op emerged

as the leading alternative. 

SS Frederick would become the primary association, performing the

administrative and managerial functions of the combined cooperatives.

Both locations would remain open to

provide supplies and services to their

patrons, but under the same management umbrella. Inventory would continue to be separated for each branch,

but with the intention of sharing

resources between the two locations.

Educating members about the reasons for the proposed merger and the

resulting governance changes became a

top priority as soon as the merger was

first discussed. 

Since the Frederick location would

be the surviving entity, their general

membership was not required to vote

on the issue. The Woodsboro association, however, did have to place the

matter before their membership.

Approval by two-thirds of the general

membership was needed to implement

the merger plan. Within two weeks of

the original discussion between the two

boards of directors, a letter was drafted

and sent to all members of the Woodsboro cooperative, describing the proposed merger and calling a special

meeting of members to vote on the

proposal. The letters contained proxy

cards that would allow members who

could not attend in person to cast their

vote and let their opinions be counted.

Remarkably, by January the proposed

merger was complete—less than three

months since the plan’s inception. As

mergers go, this one was relatively

swift and painless, but the road to consolidation was not without difficulty.

Patronage, board allotment 

pose major challenges 

When the idea of a merger of the

two stores was first broached in October of 2000, there were many skeptics

among the two boards of directors.

The members of the financially

stronger SS Frederick Cooperative

were leery of inheriting the substantial

Patronage Refund Allocation (PRA)

responsibilities of the SS Woodsboro

Mergers inevitably involve give and take by both sides, and the merger of Southern States

local co-ops in Frederick and Woodsboro, Md., was no exception. But nearly everyone

now agrees that — despite some raw feelings at times — the merger was for the best. 
8 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

Harry William “Bill” Fouche III has lived in Frederick,

Md., his entire life. He grew up on a dairy farm working

alongside his father and brothers doing what he loved

most: farming. Later, he managed to scrape together

enough money to purchase the family farm, as well as

some adjacent acreage. 

By the time they were raising their own children, he

and his wife, Barbara, were farming 650 acres and milking 125 cows. The work was hard

and the hours long, but the

reward of producing valuable

commodities on his own land was

immeasurable.

Although he sold his farm to

make way for the development of

a major highway and shopping

center in the rapidly growing

community of Frederick, Fouche

stayed true to his agricultural

roots. He currently leases

approximately the same amount

of acreage (650), on which he

raises wheat, corn, soybeans,

hay and cattle. According to

Fouche, “It’s the only job I know,

and I’m too old to start a new career.” 

Fouche is in tune with the needs of his fellow farmers. His father was a board member of the Southern

States Frederick (SS Frederick) cooperative since

before he can recall, and Fouche has been a member

since 1971. He has witnessed firsthand the structural

and financial changes of that association over the last

three decades. As a veteran board member, he has represented his fellow member-owners on many major

issues affecting the cooperative. He believes in the

cooperative form of business, and recognizes the need

to adapt in a changing agricultural environment.

Initially, Fouche was one of the few board members

who supported the merger. Like many other members, he

voiced concerns about the substantial patronage refund

allocation (PRA) debt that the SS Frederick Cooperative

inherited from the Woodsboro location, as well as other

financial issues the merger might exacerbate. Although

he had concerns about certain financial aspects of the

proposed merger, Fouche was

vocal in his support for it. 

Reflecting on the merger and

the resulting changes of the past

year, Fouche is optimistic about

the cooperative’s future. With

both locations now operating in

the black, he feels that the merger was a sound business move.

But he concedes that there is

much room for growth and

improvement. 

No stranger to difficult times in

farming, Fouche offered a pragmatic view of the financial outlook

for SS Frederick Cooperative:

“These aren’t easy times for farmers, or for Southern States. The chicken is always just one

step ahead of the fox.” He realizes that maintaining fiscal

growth will require constant communication among members and management, and a willingness to compromise.

As a member-owner of this consolidated business, Bill

Fouche has a vested interest in the development of good

relations among members from both sites. If the memberowners can continue to overcome individual differences,

they stand to benefit significantly from their partnership.

And if they continue to share resources and improve

business, they might just stay ahead of the fox. ■

SS Frederick member supported co-op merger despite all hurdles

“These aren’t easy times for farmers or Southern

States,” says co-op member Bill Fouche of

Frederick, Md. “The chicken is always just one

step ahead of the fox.”

Cooperative, but stood to gain from

access to its abundant equipment and

vehicles. The SS Frederick Cooperative last paid PRAs in 1982. The SS

Woodsboro Cooperative was responsible for PRAs dating back to 1974. 

Ultimately, there was agreement

that PRAs owed to Frederick members

would not be paid until the older

Woodsboro patronage was retired and

members of both co-ops were on the

same status. 

Additionally, many board members

remained fiercely loyal to the notion

that their respective cooperative

deserved equal representation on the

combined board of directors, at all

costs. In fact, during one heated discussion on this topic, a former board

chairman was so frustrated with the

proceedings that he abruptly left the

meeting. He later reconsidered and

resumed attending the board meetings. 

The smaller cooperative (SS

Woodsboro) was very concerned with

achieving an equal “balance of power”

on the board, as determined by which

cooperative board members would be

elected from. Unfortunately, the cooperative’s articles of incorporation and

bylaws dictated that the board consist

of seven members. Therefore, it would

have been physically impossible to

attain equal representation from each

of the two co-ops. 

Frustrated member 

interrupts annual meeting 

At the first annual meeting of the
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 9

combined cooperatives, the election

proceedings were interrupted by an

outburst from a Woodsboro farmer

who felt that the former SS Woodsboro Cooperative members were not

being given a fair opportunity to elect

enough board members from their

area. In reality, the floor was open for

nominations and any number of candidates from the Woodsboro membership could have been posted on the ballot. Instead, angry member-owners

(who may not have been thoroughly

informed of the process) expressed

their frustration due to the perceived

shift of power on the board of their

cooperative.

Member-owners still felt separated

by issues of ownership and loyalty, even

though the two cooperatives were

merging into one business which they

would all own and control. Board

members were territorial at times, even

though they were neighbors who lived

and farmed in the same community.

They had difficulty perceiving the

combined cooperative as a “one for all

and all for one” organization. 

Such a reaction is not uncommon,

according to current theories on how

people adapt to change. In his 1996

book, “Communicating for Change,”

Roger D’Aprix points out that about

15 percent of people react with anger

when confronted with significant

organizational change. Another 40

percent view the transformation with

fear, skepticism, and distrust, and 30

percent are uncertain about change

but are open to it. The remaining 15

percent are hopeful and energized

about change, right from the start.

With these statistics in mind, it is no

surprise that opinions on this volatile

issue varied greatly among board

members. 

Disputes subside with time 

With each quarterly meeting of the

combined board of directors, an

increasing sense of unity among board

members was evident. Reports of

improvement in the financial status of

both locations also helped heal any

scars from the merger. Attitudes gradually shifted and board members began

to put aside their notions of distinguishing between representatives based

on which cooperative the member

belonged to prior to the merger. 

In fact, at the most recent quarterly

meeting of the SS Frederick Cooperative (the combined entity still uses that

name), board members and management praised the improved efficiency

and overall success of the services provided. David Stas, manager of the

combined cooperative, says: “I just

couldn’t imagine a better working relationship than we have between the two

stores. We help each other out every

day — if one of us gets a call to spray a

field and we’re all tied up, the other

one just steps in and helps out.” Of the

relationship between the combined

management of the two stores, Stas

adds, “If I could hand-pick any group

of employees to work with at any

cooperative in the country, I wouldn’t

change a thing.”

Both Stas and Tommy Plunkert,

manager of the SS Woodsboro

branch, agree that they have benefitted by pooling their resources. Not

only are they able to share equipment

and supplies, but they are also able to

share employees, to a degree. Various

employees from both locations have

responded to requests to perform services on behalf of their partner cooperative. These obligations would not

have been fulfilled without this level

of cooperation among management

and staff.

As business profits increase and

mutual goals are achieved, there is

even talk of combining both supply

stores under one roof in the near

future. At one point, the SS Frederick

board of directors was researching the

feasibility of building an entirely new

facility to house both locations as one

entity. When the magnitude of the

financial commitment such an undertaking would entail was realized, however, the discussion turned to the

more practical alternative of using one

of the existing cooperative locations

(which could, of course, spark

renewed conflict). 

Accident prompts show of unity

The solidarity that has developed

among the board of directors was

recently illustrated when an accident

seriously injured Lloyd Taylor, a

departmental manager at the SS Frederick Cooperative. During a quarterly

meeting of the board, it was

announced that earlier that day a

2,500-gallon fertilizer polytank had

rolled off a truck and onto Taylor,

pinning him beneath it and breaking

his back. As a testament to his dedication to the co-op, Taylor used his cell

phone while he was still pinned down

by the tank to call the store and give

instructions on where to deliver 

the tanks. 

In a display of their unity, the

board members expressed their collective sympathy for Taylor, and management from both locations worked

together to solve the employee shortage caused by Taylor’s absence.

Taylor has since recovered and is back

on the job, grateful for the encouragement and support he received

from Woodsboro and Frederick

Cooperative members alike.

The future of Southern States

Cooperatives will be linked to the

success of mergers and consolidations of locals such as the SS Frederick/Woodsboro merger. When member-owners identify common goals

and needs, they can band together to

make their organizations stronger,

rather than weaker. As in the case of

the SS Frederick Cooperative, consolidation doesn’t have to signal

decline, either in membership or

business volume. Communication

between management, board members, and other member-owners is

vital to the survival of associations

faced with such drastic change. When

members feel informed, they feel

empowered and are not afraid to face

change. 

Mergers and consolidations are necessary adjustments in response to the

agricultural economy. For those cooperatives that are able to adapt structurally, the future still holds promise

for success and growth. ■
10 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

Patrick Duffey

USDA Rural Development

t was the most unlikely of

tragedies, but one which

the rest of the nation

would soon experience,

magnified many times

over. One minute all was serene and it

was business as usual at Foremost

Farms’ Morning Glory dairy processing plant at De Pere, Wis., near Green

Bay. But then, without warning, a jet

airplane plunged from the sky and

slammed into the side of the plant.

Smoke, fire, confusion and death followed. Miraculously, only a single

life—that of the pilot—was lost in the

tragedy. But a number of employees

suffered burns when flaming jet fuel

spewed from the ruptured tank; three

people suffered severe burns. 

The incident gave co-op employees

and members a terrible taste of the turmoil and agony the rest of the nation

has experienced in the wake of the

Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade

Center and the Pentagon. The courageous efforts of rescue and aid workers,

the victims and their families, the coop’s other employees and the support

of the community also set an example

of how to recover from a tragedy.

The noise and rushing of emergency

vehicles along Glory Road that late

afternoon in early April and the subsequent rush of reconstruction activity

have now subsided. The Morning 

Glory Dairy was back in operation four

months after that disastrous day—three

weeks ahead of a projected Labor Day

opening.

Quiet day shattered 

The quiet atmosphere during a

spring snow shower and fog was loudly

interrupted about 4:30 p.m. Monday,

April 2, 2000. A twin-engine corporate

jet laden with a full tank of fuel had

taken off moments earlier from Green

Bay’s Austin Straubel International AirTragedy from the sky

Quick response helps Foremost Farms rebound after airplane slams into plant

I

The small business jet that crashed into the Morning Glory dairy plant was apparently suffering technical problems; the pilot is believed to have

become disoriented, possibly due to a snow squall, while attempting to abort the flight and return to an airport a few miles away from the plant.

Photo by Steve Levin, courtesy Green Bay Press-Gazette
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 11

port, for a non-stop journey to Fort

Myers, Fla. The 54-year-old pilot, the

only one on board, had just radioed the

airport’s control tower, indicating

problems with the plane. He said he

wanted to return to the airport, just

two miles away, for a visual landing. 

Witnesses said his plane was tilted

on its left side as it careened into the

roof and ripped open half the south

wall of the three-story cooler adjacent

to the dairy’s bottling plant. It

plunged well into the interior, with

the impact rupturing the plane’s fuel

tanks. The resulting explosion and fire

caused nearly $6 million in damage to

the structure and contents. The blast

also destroyed a group of trailers

parked nearby. The pilot was killed

and seven of 15 employees in the

dairy’s cooler building at the time

were injured. Three employees with

severe burns were transferred to 

Milwaukee, but made it home for continued recuperation by early June. 

Emergency calls for assistance

The impact bounced Tim Decker,

the dairy’s human resources and safety

manager, out of his office chair. He

heard a loud boom and felt the building shudder. When he looked out his

back window, he saw flames and smoke

coming from the cooler building. The

fire alarms went off immediately. Luckily, the accident occurred while several

employees were waiting for an order,

so there were fewer people present in

the area at the time. 

Amid the confusion, both he and

Wally Heil, operations manager, made

separate calls to the Brown County

Public Safety Communications and

asked them to send fire and rescue

units to the Morning Glory Dairy

because of an explosion and fire. During an extended conversation with the

dispatcher, Decker tried to relate what

limited details he knew about the

emergency at the dairy, where Foremost employs 187 people. Neither he

nor Heil knew at the time that a plane

had crashed into the building. 

Heil had just left the cooler plant

with product samples and was headed

for the opposite side of the dairy. “I

heard the boom, the cooler building

shook and I saw heavy black smoke.

I checked to see if evacuation was in

progress and then went to the predesignated emergency assembly site.

All cooler employees had been evacuated and had followed the safety

program taught at all the Foremost

plants.” 

Rescue teams were the first to

arrive at the scene but pulled back

for the fireman once they learned all

the employees were out of the building. This allowed the firefighters to

immediately begin fighting the fire.

Jeff Koehler, general manager at

the De Pere plant—sandwiched in

an industrial park in the Village of

Ashwaubenon, which borders both

Green Bay and De Pere—notified

Foremost officials at Baraboo and

regulatory agencies. At first, no one

knew what caused the accident and

explosion. Then, the 911 emergency

dispatcher told Heil a plane may have

crashed in the area. Suddenly things

made sense. 

The response from the Ashwaubenon and airport fire crews,

state patrol and ambulance services,

the National Transportation Safety

Board (NTSB), state departments of

natural resources, agriculture and

commerce, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and contractors

Foremost Farms employees and members rallied behind their co-op and worked closely with

various relief agencies to aid victims and launch a rapid reconstruction effort. The plant was

back in operation four months after the disaster – much sooner than had been anticipated.

USDA Photo (top) by Patrick Duffey; Lower photo by Patrick Ferron, courtesy Green Bay Press-Gazette
12 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

The Morning Glory corporate name in Wisconsin

dairy cooperative circles dates back to 1953, when the

board of Consolidated Badger at Shawano adopted its

popular product brand name for its corporate title. Via a

1988 merger interlude to become a division of Associated Milk Producers Inc. (AMPI), it joined Foremost in the

AMPI break-up in 1995. Jim Kasten, vice president of

member, employee and industry

relations for Foremost Farms USA,

was Morning Glory’s general manager at the time of its 1995 acquisition by AMPI. 

The brand name has survived

through a series of cooperative

mergers and remains popular

under the umbrella of Foremost,

which is based at Baraboo. It now

ranks among the nation’s major

dairy cooperatives. Sales for fiscal

2000 reached $1.1 billion and earnings were $10 million for its sixth year of operations.

Members marketed 5.3 billion pounds of milk through their

cooperative and adapted to new rules governing the federal milk marketing order system.

Like its counterparts in the industry, it too has been

trying to weather the storm of low farm commodity

prices, reduced cheese prices and higher energy costs.

Foremost is investing $32 million in Wisconsin plant

improvements. Patronage refunds of $12.6 million were

allocated to members, 25 percent in cash and the balance added to each member’s equity account. Total

assets were up $8 million to $331 million. The cooperative

designated $4.8 million in late June in equity payments

and/or allocated surplus to 6,023 current and former

members. The payments represent 1987 allocated equity

credits and/or surplus in Foremost Farms and were

earned by members of Wisconsin Dairies Cooperative

and Golden Guernsey Dairy, both of which were consolidated to form Foremost Farms in 1995. Foremost operates

24 manufacturing plants and three receiving stations.

Three initiatives are soon coming on line to extend

the mix of cheese products Foremost offers the marketplace. It also reduces its exposure

of meeting lower priced commo

dity products produced in the

western states.

Frozen mozzarella sticks for the

food service industry are being

manufactured at the Wilson plant,

which now operates at capacity; a

one-step process at Appleton

shreds cheese as soon as it

leaves the brine; and parts of mozzarella production have been

shifted from Appleton to Richland

Center so it can produce 100 million pounds of the

cheese for the growing pizza and frozen entree markets

and convert from an American-style barrel cheddar. For

the first time, last year Foremost Farms made 15 million

more pounds of Italian cheese than American cheese. 

The family of ingredient products marketed to the bakery, pizza and food manufacturing, pharmaceutical and

feed companies currently comprises 15 percent of the

cooperative’s annual sales. More than two dozen lactose

and whey products are now among Foremost’s product

mix. New strawberry and chocolate malt milk flavors

have been introduced in 16-ounce sizes called “Grip It.

Sip It” (trademarked) and aimed at customers on the

move. And more Foremost Farms products are appearing

in vending machines. ■

Morning Glory brand name survives mergers

was overwhelming, Heil says. As part

of its investigation, NTSB collected

and assembled fragments of the plane

at a local warehouse to examine and

determine the cause of the crash. 

Quick rebound to rebuild

The original contractor was on the

scene late that same night and made

an inventory assessment, and replacement steel was on site by April 20. It

was one of many quick steps that

eventually brought the cooperative’s

operation back into production on an

advanced schedule. After a salvage

team finished clearing the site, the

dairy’s employees, along with regulatory officials, moved quickly to restore

some of the lost production capacity. 

Before the crash, the De Pere plant

had been producing nearly 500,000

gallons of fluid milk a week, primarily

under Foremost’s Morning Glory and

Golden Guernsey brands, but also for

some private label customers. It also

produced 1 million pounds of sour

cream for food service and marketplace accounts. The cooperative’s other bottling operation at Waukesha

near Milwaukee was pressed into supplementary service until the De Pere

cooler could be rebuilt and returned

to full service.

Extensive support 

Don Storhoff, then Foremost’s

chief executive officer, called Ed

Books, chairman of the board, and

told him about the accident. The rest

Photo by Patrick Duffey
of the board was informed by letter.

No special meeting of the board was

needed because a regular session had

been scheduled soon after the accident. Storhoff headed a management

team that visited the site that

evening. 

The next evening, Wisconsin Governor Scott McCallum and his Secretaries of Health and Human Services

and Workforce Development visited

the site to assess the damage and show

support for the cooperative and its

employees. 

The entire operation was disabled for

only two days, Heil said. “We made

some temporary structural modifications

which enabled us to resume limited production. The experience again reminded

us about what cooperatives are all about. 

“We secured supplemental cooling

space overnight at Atlas Cold Storage in

Green Bay 15 miles away. That night,

we moved perishable products from the

De Pere plant to the Atlas depot,

including half gallons of milk that had

been filled earlier in the day. To handle

the daily flow of products coming to the

warehouse, we subsequently transferred

our cooler employees there. Luckily, we

already had a 10-year working relationship with Atlas. Some of their other

clients even tried to accommodate our

emergency storage needs. And a neighboring business agreed to provide parking space for our trailers.” 

With that Atlas location and assistance from Foremost’s Golden Guernsey

Dairy plant at Waukesha, the cooperative continued serving customers while

the new cooler was being built at De

Pere. “Before the crash, we delivered

400 products,” Heil noted. “But afterwards we cut down to 150 and diverted a

small portion of our production and distribution to Waukesha. Gradually, some

of those diverted products were returned

to the line at De Pere.

Minimal disruptions 

“Any service disruptions to our food

service, school and retail customers

were very minimal and temporary. And

none of our member-owners experienced any delays in our milk pickup

schedule,” Heil stressed, although

some milk route trucks were temporarily diverted to Waukesha. He developed a week-by-week schedule for

returning aspects of the operation back

to full production. 

Temporarily, packaged milk products—particularly half pints of milk for

the school lunch program—were

secured from competitors and neighboring dairy cooperatives, including Swiss

Valley Farms and Land O’Lakes, until

arrangements could be coordinated

within the Foremost system to handle

the job. More than 1,000 schools provide Foremost Farms products for

breakfast, lunch and snack breaks. 

Joe Weis, vice president of the fluid

division, directed the return of initial

operations at De Pere—first in sour

cream and then bottled milk. “All milk

that had been in the system at the time

of the crash had to be discarded. Milk

production equipment had to be

washed and disinfected twice before it

was returned to service. Then, our own

lab technicians tested it. Once we were

assured of ample milk supplies, we

needed approvals by inspectors. Soon,

milk was flowing into our plastic

Morning Glory jugs again.” 

The explosion caused a leak in the

anhydrous ammonia storage lines used

in the cooling operation. Fire crews

had to work around hot spots and plant

maintenance crews immediately shut

down the system. The blast blew a sizeable hole in the roof and buckled the

foam-paneled walls. The ensuing fire

continued throughout the night. 

High winds that weekend delayed

structural demolition and cleanup at

the cooler site. Engineering firms and

equipment manufacturers inspected all

steel work, racking and material- handling equipment to see what could be

salvaged and what had to be destroyed.

The site was initially cleared so reconstruction could begin. 

Structural steel and roof joists

ordered the day after the crash were

installed about May 1. Exterior foam

wall panels that completely enclosed

the new building were in place by

mid-May. Luckily, the original contractors still had copies of the De

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 13

Foremost Farms’ tractor-trailers

help promote Morning Glory

products. USDA photo by Patrick

Duffey
14 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

Pere cooler plant specifications in

their files. That accommodated

speedy assembly of needed supplies

for the new plant. “Also, the cooler

was originally built and designed the

way we wanted it, so no new changes

were necessary when we had it

rebuilt,” said Heil. 

Damage to the 1.5-year-old building

and contents was covered by insurance. 

Emotional impact

“This accident was a very traumatic

emotional experience for all our

employees, but particularly those working in the cooler building,” Heil

explained. “Our employee assistance

program counseling service helped ease

employees (in individual and group sessions) through their difficult experience. After about two weeks the local

service was discontinued, although

employees still could access it.”

While health insurance and worker’s compensation handled many

expenses and wages of the seriously

burned employees, their fellow

employees organized a benefit and

raised $17,500 for the families. In

addition, Foremost has established a

trust for the burn victims to which

vendors, friends and others are 

contributing.

An informational brunch attended

by about 180 employees, Teamsters

union officials and management representatives from Baraboo and De Pere

was conducted at Green Bay on the

Sunday after the plane crash. In addition to expressions of appreciation, the

group was given an update on the

plant’s status. 

After the accident, Decker represented Foremost at a crisis intervention debriefing conducted for emergency personnel who were involved

in the De Pere crisis. The battalion

chief at Ashwaubenon, who conducted the session, praised the employees

at the Morning Glory Dairy for their

cooperation in the emergency. Fortunately, none of the emergency personnel working at the scene were

injured. “The success of our fast

turnaround,” Heil said, “was directly

related to support from our employees, area fire and rescue units, insurance representatives, county and state

police, Red Cross and state government agencies—agriculture, commerce and natural resources—and

federal agencies. 

“We have received calls of support

and contributions from many individuals and organizations from all over.

A local grocer provided food for our

employees the day after the crash.”

As to what he might tell other cooperatives caught in such an emergency,

Heil said, “The accident taught us

that you periodically need to practice

your emergency response plan

because these unfortunate and unpredictable things can happen.” The

subsequent events of Sept. 11 proved

how timely and even prophetic his

words were. 

Family atmosphere

Heil said Foremost tries to foster a

family atmosphere among employees

at all its facilities. “Throughout our

system, but particularly at De Pere,

we were reminded that we had a dedicated base of employees who invested

themselves in the cooperative. They

feel close to one another. That was

especially evident in the phone calls

and personal visits to the burn victims.

Cards were received from other

employees working in every division

of the cooperative. 

“When that plane crashed, it hurt us

all, but it also made us pull together.”

He and others from the cooperative’s

management team visited the burn victims while they were hospitalized at

St. Mary’s Hospital Burn Center in

Milwaukee.

“Even those who have been with us

for only a year or two feel part of the

cooperative’s family,” Heil said.

“Every year we have an employee

Christmas party for them and their

families. A lot of our retirees also

attend. And periodically we conduct

an open house so families and friends

can get acquainted with the operation.

So, in view of all that had happened, it

seemed appropriate to conduct a special open house for our employees and

their families shortly after the rebuilt

plant was opened.” ■

“The accident taught us that you periodically need to practice your emergency response

plan, because these unpredictable things can happen,” said Wally Weil, operations manager. Here, repair work proceeds to restore the co-op’s milk processing operations. Photo

by Patrick Ferron, courtesy Green Bay Press-Gazette
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 15

By Patrick Duffey

USDA Rural Development 

n the wake of recent terrorist attacks in New

York and Washington,

D.C., agricultural cooperatives across the nation

were quick to respond with offers of

assistance to the victims, sympathy to

individuals and families affected and

calls for national unity. Foreign sales

agents even conveyed messages of sympathy and solidarity with their American cooperative associates.

★ Iowa-based West Central Cooperative donated 20,000 gallons of soy diesel

to New York City to help fuel equipment

used in removing debris from the disaster

site. Jeff Stroberg, the cooperative’s chief

executive officer, said “every disaster

recovery effort needs fuel, which is what

we produce.” He coordinated the donation with David Smith, chairman emeritus of Penn South, a large housing cooperative in Manhattan, and U.S. Rep.

Leonard Boswell of Iowa.

★ In his monthly column in “Michigan Milk Messenger” magazine, Elwood

Kirkpatrick, president of Michigan Milk

Producers Association, extended sympathy on behalf of the cooperative’s directors, members and staff “to the many

individuals affected by the devastating

acts of terror. As our country pulls

together in this difficult time, I urge

each of you to do what you can.” 

★The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) in Washington, D.C., is

working with Dairy Relief Inc., to establish a special fund for dairy farmers and

other interested parties to donate money

to the victims of the Sept. 11 terrorist

attacks. “This is a wonderful opportunity

to get family dairy farmers involved in

making contributions to the thousands of

victims’ families in this time of need,” said

NMPF President Gene Paul. “We are the

dairy industry’s ongoing charitable effort

to improve lives of those less fortunate.

The funds we collect will in turn be

donated to the American Red Cross and,

ultimately, to the victims and families.”

★ Cooperative Development Foundation (CDF) in Washington, D.C., set

up a relief fund to which cooperatives

and others could make voluntary taxdeductible contributions. Judy Ziewacz,

CDF executive director, said “we’re

working with New York cooperatives to

identify the best use of those resources.

Members of New York housing and other cooperatives were directly affected by

the terrorist attacks,” she said. Paul

Hazen, president of CDF and National

Cooperative Business Association, said

“our members felt strongly that co-ops,

regardless of where they are located,

needed to help New York cooperators

who have always been among the first to

contribute to relief efforts when disasters

have hit cooperatives in the United

States and elsewhere around the world.”

★ National Credit Union Association provided grants of up to $15,000

to aid five low-income credit unions in

New York City.

★ Blue Diamond Growers, Sacramento, Calif., published messages of

support from its customers around the

world in a recent newsletter. Jose Maria

Pedrola, Spanish fruit and nut broker

from Constantino Capnopoulos, said “I

have no words for what happened. I

could never imagine that something like

that would happen. We are so sorry!

Sending you all our sympathy.” Hubert

Berribi and Raoul Gamon, Blue Diamond agents in France, felt “stupefied

by the width of these terrorist actions

which disturb the security and tranquility

of the American citizens and infringe on

their freedom.” George Boden, Blue

Diamond sales agent in Germany, said it

was not only “an attack against America,

but also the whole civilized world. We

join everybody over here in assuring you

of our sympathies and solidarity.” 

★ At Southern States Cooperative

in Richmond, Va., nearly $13,000 was

collected in corporate and employee

contributions earmarked for the American Red Cross. In addition, the cooperative’s quarterly blood drive conducted in mid-October gained added

emphasis in light of the crises in New

York City and Washington, D.C.

★ In the aftermath of terrorist acts,

CHS Cooperatives Foundation in St.

Paul agreed to match up to $30,000 in

contributions from local cooperatives

and CHS employees and designated

the funds to United Way’s Sept. 11

Fund to benefit victims and their communities. Foundation President

William Nelson also encouraged local

cooperative employees to support local

agencies, including blood donations to

the Red Cross and other contributions

to the United Way. “It’s important that

we remember that assistance will be

needed nationwide, in addition to East

Coast recovery efforts,” he said.

★ At Farmland (Industries) Foundation in Kansas City, 24 hours after the

Co-ops respond to attacks

with aid, calls for unity

I

continued on page 30
16 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

By Steve Thompson

USDA Rural Development 

Editor’s note: this article is the first of a series examining

alternative energy technologies being used, or explored, by farm and

utility cooperatives. In an upcoming issue of “Rural Cooperatives,”

the focus will be on a utility co-op pursuing methane recovery from

a landfill operation and other co-ops that use wind and solar power.

he late Buckminster Fuller, the inventor of the

geodesic dome and many other brilliant innovations, used to say that pollution is merely a

resource that isn’t being used properly. That’s a

concept some co-ops are finding helpful as they

struggle to both improve the bottom line and meet their

environmental obligations.

In Oregon, the Tillamook County Creamery Association,

maker of the famous Tillamook Cheese and other high-quality dairy products, hopes turning manure into methane will

help its members do their part in preserving water quality in

the beautiful Tillamook Bay estuary.

Manure disposal poses environmental challenge

Tightening environmental regulations regarding the use

and disposal of manure are affecting increasing numbers of

livestock farmers across the country, and the dairy farmers

of Tillamook County want to deal with the issue before it

becomes a problem. Located in a coastal area on a large

estuary, co-op members hope to increase production and

keep down costs while continuing to make sure their

manure management practices are environmentally sound.

For solutions, the co-op and its partners in local government are looking not at exotic new management practices or

high-tech methods, but at technology similar to one in use

in sewage treatment plants for the past 50 years: methaneproducing digesters.

A single lactating dairy cow produces up to 119 pounds

of manure a day. In Tillamook County, most farmers use

the traditional method of disposal—storing it and then

spreading the manure on pasture and cropland. Despite

improvements in traditional conservation measures, such as

increases in the width of streamside buffer zones, manure

spreading can result in nutrient and bacterial runoff

(including phosphorus and nitrogen compounds) from the

fields into the streams and rivers that feed into the estuary.

If nutrient levels are too high, the nutrient compounds can

promote growth of unwanted aquatic plants and algae,

which, when they decay and die, can use up dissolved oxygen. This process can kill fish and other aquatic organisms.

More and wider buffer zones may offer increased protection, but these buffers also hurt the bottom line for farmers

by shrinking productive land.

Excessive nutrient levels are not a problem in the Tillamook Bay watershed, although the coastal ecosystem is

already stressed by high levels of sediment runoff from a

large area of forestland denuded by fires. While nutrient

levels in the estuary remain within acceptable limits, contamination from fecal coliform bacteria is another matter.

Harvesting oysters and other shellfish in Tillamook Bay is

an important source of income in the county, and bacteria

levels in the bay prevent shellfish harvesting between 90 and

120 days every year. Recreational swimming and boating

activities are also affected.

Bovine biogas 

Dairy co-op sees major potential in methane gas recovery technology 

T
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 17

Most of the bacteria come from nonfarm sources: an Oregon State University

study found that dairy livestock were the

source of only 28 percent of the bacteria,

much of it due to manure spreading during

the rainy season—November through

March. Spreading manure during these

months increases the risk of runoff of

nutrients and bacteria. 

Government agencies have responded to

the problem by resorting to stringent regulations. This year, the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality established standards

for maximum bacterial “load” caused by

runoff into the estuary watershed. 

Seeking cost-effective solutions 

Meanwhile, demand for the world-famous

Tillamook cheese is increasing, and the coop and its members want to ensure that environmental considerations do not hinder future expansion.

Cost and regulatory considerations put the co-op in a bind

when seeking alternative means of disposal. Trucking manure

any farther than a few miles is not cost-effective, and anywhere it is taken, there can be no escaping environmental

problems and associated costs caused by the large amount of

waste generated by 160 dairy operations and more than

60,000 cows. Increasing manure storage capacity on the farm

is not ideal, because it requires significant capital expenditures. What the Tillamook co-op needs is a more lucrative

use for manure—to increase its value, which in turn will make

its disposal less costly. 

Jack Crider, manager of the Port of Tillamook Bay, thinks

methane generation can provide the solution. For the past 12

years, the Port has been attempting to find a practical way to

apply methane generation technology, similar to that used in

thousands of municipal sewage treatment plants, to Tillamook’s manure disposal dilemma.

Methane generation from animal or human waste is not a

complicated process. Manure is loaded into a digester—which is

basically a large tank. There, anaerobic bacteria already present

in the manure ferment the waste, producing heat and gas. The

gas produced is called “biogas,” and consists of 50 to 80 percent

methane—the same gas distributed by utilities as “natural gas.”

The rest is carbon dioxide, water (5 percent) and small amounts

of contaminants including hydrogen sulfide and other corrosive

and odor-causing compounds. 

According to the Department of Energy’s National

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), biogas has an energy value of approximately 600 to 800 Btu per cubic foot. It

can be used to produce heat through direct, external combustion, or it can run internal combustion engines that power generators. Electricity produced from dairy manure using

this process costs about 6 to 7 cents a kilowatt-hour—

approximately twice the wholesale price of conventionally

produced power in the Tillamook area.

However, as far as the Tillamook farmers are concerned,

generating electricity from methane isn’t the only benefit of

the digestion process. Molecules containing carbon are

known to chemists as “organic compounds.” Cellulose and

A member of Oregon’s Tillamook County Creamery Cheese Association checks on his herd grazing in the hills of southern Oregon. Methane recovery

technology will not only help protect this beautiful environment, but will produce methane gas for use in generating electricity. Above, the Tillamook

cheese plant and visitor center. Photos courtesy Tillamook Cheese
other organic compounds make up the majority of the plant

material cows eat and about 50 percent of the dry mass of

their manure. 

According to Ralph Overend, a researcher at NREL,

these carbon compounds are undesirable bulk when manure

is used as fertilizer. Moreover, the high proportion of organic substances in cow manure ordinarily inhibit the action of

beneficial microbes, which, if given the chance, can transform ammonia and other smelly, volatile and problematic

nitrogen-bearing substances in the manure. “By turning 70

to 90 percent of the carbon present in manure into methane

and carbon dioxide,” says Overend, “the digestion process

reduces what we call ‘organic loading’ and allows the beneficial microbes to work.” 

The result is nitrogen compounds that are far less obnoxious and far more useful as fertilizers. Nearly odorless, they are

much more readily utilized by plants, and, if applied properly,

much less likely to run off and contaminate ponds, lakes and

waterways. The remaining bulky organic substances can be

separated out, greatly reducing storage needs. And the problem of bacterial contamination is solved, too. The heat produced by biogas generation kills fecal coliform and other

harmful bacteria.

The final products are a solid, fibrous material and a liquid with the consistency of milk—both nearly odorless. The

fiber can be used as animal bedding or as a high-quality potting soil. The liquid can be stored and applied to fields as

high-quality fertilizer.

AgSTAR promotes technology

The Environmental Protection Agency EPA administers a

program called AgSTAR to promote methane generation

technology for livestock facilities. EPA estimates that over

2,000 such facilities could install and operate cost-effective

biogas systems. 

When the program was first instituted in the 1970s,

approximately 100 on-farm digester systems were built using

AgSTAR technical assistance and subsidies. However, most

18 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

1. Manure scraped from the floors of milking parlors and loafing sheds is stored in above- or below-ground tanks.

2. The manure is transported in tanker trucks to the nearby digester facility, where it is loaded into the digester.

3. Fermenting manure produces biogas, which is scrubbed of pollutants and dehumidified before fueling a piston-driven

electrical generator. The scrubbed pollutants are returned to the digester for further biologic action.

4. Water heated as coolant for the engine/generator is piped into the digester to maintain optimum temperature. Excess

hot water is sold to customers in the immediate vicinity.

5. Some of the electricity produced is used to run facility equipment. The rest is transferred to the local power grid.

6. After 15 or more days, the liquid effluent from the digestion process is separated from the remaining solids and transferred back to the farm in the same tanker trucks used to collect manure. 

7. Solids left over from digestion are processed into a high-quality potting soil for sale.

How the Tillamook methane-recovery project will work:

USDA photo
were failures, for a number of reasons. The materials used

for construction, it later turned out, were not appropriate for

digesters: tanks and pipes were made of mild steel, which

quickly rusted when exposed to the highly corrosive compounds produced by biologic action on manure. According

to Overend, the units were also too small to be practical—

capable of handling 1,000 to 3,000 tons

of manure per year. Maintenance and

operation of the digesters imposed

unacceptable time burdens and skill

requirements on farmers already

required to be welders, mechanics,

plumbers, electricians and general jacksof-all-trades. 

Finally, the digester systems did not

have provisions for dealing with hydrogen

sulfide—the substance that gives rotten

eggs their offensive smell—and other

potential pollutants. When burned,

hydrogen sulfide combines with oxygen

to produce sulfur dioxide, which reacts

with moisture to produce sulfuric acid.

This not only has a deleterious effect on

equipment, but contributes to the acid

rain problem as well. 

Agricultural digester technology has

come a long way since those first

attempts. Much of the progress has

been achieved in Denmark and other

European countries, with changes forced by rigorous environmental regulations and public opinion. Where necessary,

steel has been replaced by concrete, fiberglass, PVC and

other non-corrosive materials. Scrubbing technology similar to that used in coal-fired power plants now removes

harmful sulfur and other compounds, and larger digester

operations have proven to be more efficient.

In the 1990s, some of the units were updated and expanded, and others were built using more developed technology in

response to increasing environmental regulatory pressures.

Today, about 20 on-farm digesters are in operation, with

mixed success.

Recognizing the possibilities 

Tillamook recognized the possibilities

of digester technology more than a

decade ago. In 1989, the Methane Energy and Agricultural Development

(MEAD) project was founded through

an intergovernmental agreement

between the Tillamook Public Utility

District and the Tillamook County Soil

and Water Conservation District. The

project managed to gain special funding

from Congress, administered through

the AgSTAR program, to develop a plan

for a digester system that would provide electrical power to the

public utility grid.

MEAD issued three requests for proposals (RFPs) in the

1990s, calling for the design and construction of a centralized

facility that would handle all the dairy cow manure produced

in the county. Unfortunately, none of the proposals received

proved to be feasible. Though a large

digester-generator facility did offer efficiencies of scale on its own, the transport of manure from throughout the

county by trucks drove up costs. Participating farmers would be required to

pay tipping fees that were too high to

be cost effective. In any case, the project was just too big and expensive for

the county to obtain financing for.

Meanwhile, Craven Farms, a large

dairy farm in the county, went ahead

with its own anaerobic digester-generator project. This project used a plugflow digester (see sidebar) designed by

Resource Conservation Management

Digesters Inc., a consultant firm located in Berkeley, Calif. Generating 120

kilowatts of power, the set-up helped

alleviate the dairy’s manure problem,

while at the same time providing

income both from electricity sold to

the utility district and from fiber solids

sold as animal bedding. It also provided heat for the milking

parlor and the farm’s hot water supply. 

While the project was successful for a short time, the farm

was later sold. The new owners shut down the digester last

year. However, it had demonstrated the potential of available

technology. After further research and consultation with the

Department of Energy (DOE), the National Renewable

Energy Laboratory and the firm that built the Craven facility,

MEAD decided to try a new approach. 

Instead of building a huge, centralized facility, the plan is to

build one to handle the manure of a few dairies. It will be

located close enough to the farms to keep transportation costs

acceptable. If it proves successful, the revenues from the pilot

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 19

Worldwide demand is steadily growing for

Tillamook cheese products.

1. Anaerobic (non-oxygen-breathing) Microbes present in the manure produce enzymes that break down long-chain hydrocarbon molecules (polymers).

2. Fermenting Bacteria convert the resulting simple hydrocarbon compounds to volatile fatty acids (VFA), hydrogen, and simple alcohols.

3. Acetogenic Bacteria convert VFA and alcohols to hydrogen, carbon dioxide, and acetate.

4. Methanogenic Microbes use hydrogen and acetate to create methane

and carbon dioxide (biogas). ■

How manure produces biogas in a digester
20 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

project could be used to service financing for a second system,

and so on. The ultimate goal is to have a network of digestergenerators, each facility handling the manure from four to six

nearby dairies, each large enough to take advantage of

economies of scale.

The contractor, RCM Digesters, is the largest firm in the

United States building agricultural digester systems, and has built

a number of successful projects. Together, MEAD and RCM

developed a plan to build and operate a project that would

process the manure from 2,000 dairy cows, using two digesters

operating side by side. A site is readily available: a former U.S.

Navy base, now an industrial park owned by the Port of Tillamook, with a large concrete pad—the remnant of a World War II

blimp hangar.

Power generated by the project will be sold to the utility

district. The processed liquid will be returned to the farm for

storage until application on crop and pastureland. Oregon

State University researchers have developed a marketable

potting soil from dairy digester solids, and Crider is working

on a deal for its sale, adding to the revenue stream. He is

confident of the substance’s market appeal: a Chinese dairy

digester project exports its digested solids to the Netherlands

for use in growing tulips.

One potential problem is the spread of contaminants

through the mixing of manures from different farms.

“That’s why the facility will have two digesters instead of

one,” says Crider. Only manure from two farms will be

processed in the same digester, and care will be taken to

reduce mixing to a minimum. The microbial profiles of

the farms will be carefully matched to minimize cross-contamination. 

The final hurdle 

Financing the project is the final hurdle. Neither the Port

of Tillamook, the county, nor the Tillamook co-op has the

funds for the initial capital investment, and private sources

are not willing to shoulder the risk. Crider and his colleagues

believe that if the pilot project proves economically successful, financing the others won’t be a problem. “The digesters

already operating will give us a reliable revenue stream to

cover debt service,” he says.

In August, MEAD applied for funding from the DOE’s

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) program.

DOE policy is to offer assistance in the building of methane

recovery systems, including financing for electrical generation projects through its Biopower program. Biopower funding is available for both demonstration projects and proven

commercial applications of alternative biomass energy

sources. Biomass refers to organically produced energy

sources, including manure; plant byproducts such as wood

chips, bagasse (sugarcane residue), and others; and also crops

grown specifically as fuel. 

Jack Crider is confident the project can work. If it does, it

may provide a model for other dairy co-ops across the nation

as conflicts occur over the need to produce food and to protect water supplies. ■

Three basic types of digesters are used for animal

manure: the covered lagoon, the complete mix digester,

and the plug-flow digester. Each type is suitable for a

different system of manure disposal:

• Covered Lagoons—Covered lagoons are large,

deep, lined pits, covered with a taut floating membrane.

They are used to process diluted manure-liquid mixtures

in which the solids content is between 0.5 and 3 percent,

such as those produced by flush-type cleaning systems.

Because of the large amounts of liquid processed,

lagoons must be large and 12 feet deep or more. Covered lagoons are not heated, and for this reason (and

because of the diluted nature of the mixture) it takes

from 40 to 60 days to process a batch of manure. They

are best suited for individual dairy or hog operations in

warmer climates. 

• Complete Mix Digesters—Similar to the digesters

used in municipal sewage-treatment plants, these are

above- or below-ground tanks that process a slurry consisting of 3 to10 percent manure solids. Because they

are heated, they are suitable for all climates. Complete

mix digesters process manure more quickly, in about 15

to 20 days, and so require less space than covered

lagoons. They are suitable for individual dairy or hog

operations, and can be used to process combinations of

scraped and flushed manure.

• Plug-Flow Digesters—Plug-flow digesters are socalled because each processed batch of manure is recovered by being pushed out by the next fresh, unprocessed

load. They use heated, rectangular tanks that are suitable

only for dairy manure, because they require a large

amount of fiber to operate properly. The ideal mixture for a

plug-flow digester is between 11 and 13 percent total

solids, which is compatible with manure scraped from the

floors of milking parlors and loafing sheds. After 15 to 20

days, the end products are processed fiber, which can be

used for animal bedding or potting soil, and a liquid effluent that makes a high-quality fertilizer. ■

Primary ways to process manure 
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 21

By Larry G. Hamm

Extension Specialist and Professor

Michigan State University

Editor’s note: Hamm’s article originally

appeared in “The Michigan Milk Messenger,” the member magazine of the Michigan Milk Producers Association. 

he United States and

Michigan dairy industries

are rightly focused today

on the consequences of

drought, heat stress, high

replacement prices, environmental challenges, milk prices and the prospects for

dairy farm income. While the dairy markets are reacting to these immediate market factors, the transformation of global

dairy relationships continues. Depending

on how one views these global trends,

dairy producers are either building a new

world order or heading for unforeseeable

problems.

While individual dairy operations

cope with difficult management decisions, the consolidation and deregulation of the dairy industry continues.

Consolidation in the U.S. dairy industry

has been discussed in this column several times. The proposed merger of Dean

Foods into Suiza Foods appears to still

be moving toward some final resolution.

Even today’s largest dairies are small

when compared to national and international buyers. Therefore, the preferred milk marketing tool still is cooperatives. But even the largest milk

marketing cooperatives tend to be

smaller than milk buyers. This is why

cooperatives were given the CapperVolstead Act to use to get even more

influence in the marketplace.

Michigan’s superpool was the first,

and still remains one of the best, applications of Capper-Volstead Act principles. Superpools and Capper-Volstead

cooperatives are used extensively in the

fluid milk markets. Recently, some of

the United States’ largest cooperative

marketers of nonfat dry milk powder

(NFDM) established a Capper-Volstead

cooperative organization called Dairy 

America to market and attempt to

enhance the price of NFDM. This was

a response to the U.S. policy to deregulate the dairy industry by eliminating

the dairy price support and eliminating

(through the GATT negotiations)

import quotas on NFDM imports.

As U.S. dairy producers are challenged by market concentration, deregulation, globalization, etc., they have

continued to reinvent their use of and

commitments to cooperatives. To have

dairy producers elsewhere in the world,

there have been extensive mergers of

European and Scandinavian cooperatives. Irish cooperatives have converted

to non-cooperative forms.

The two remaining large New

Zealand cooperatives and the New

Zealand Dairy Board are voting to

merge into one marketing entity called

Global Dairy Company. Australia

deregulated its dairy industry and is

now engaged in mergers and alliances

with other cooperatives and/or multinational dairy companies. All this is taking place in the context of the largest

world dairy companies such as Nestle,

Kraft, Parmalat and Unilever getting

bigger and more dominant in virtually

every major milk market in the world.

The world dairy markets are beginning to look like the local milk markets

used to look like in the United States.

Individual market areas would have a

few very dominant buyers with a few

cooperatives and clusters of independent producers. Producers would compete against one another, assuring that

the producer price would fall to federal

order minimums or, without orders, to a

flat price equal to the lowest value use of

milk in the market. In the new global

world it will be groups of organized

producers from one country competing

against other organized producers from

other countries for access to specific

market areas. This will likely hold for all

major agricultural commodity markets.

Dairy producers have other options,

however. The majority of the world’s

milk producers are organized into cooperatives. Just as U.S. producers learned

that the Capper-Volstead Act allowed

cooperatives to join together so as not to

be condemned by the outcomes of market competition, so could the world’s

producers join to present a united marketing front. The vision of many of the

T

Co-ops and the transformation of

global dairy relationships

continued on page 30
22 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

By Alan Borst, USDA/RBS Agricultural

Economist

Marc Warman, USDA/RBS Agricultural

Economist

ooperative executives have a central mission of

increasing the earnings of their farmer- owners.

Initiatives to achieve this mission usually involve

increasing the value of their product line to increase

sales and profits. Sometimes, however, marketing

initiatives to increase an individual cooperative’s sales and earnings

must first overcome political barriers to market access. For other

cooperatives, erecting or maintaining market barriers is critical to

maintaining or increasing their sales and earnings.

Such was the case with debates over the North American Free

Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in the 1990s. Most U.S. agricultural interests wholeheartedly supported NAFTA, but some firms

which perceived a competitive threat from Mexico opposed the

agreement – unless certain protections for their industries were

included. This political pattern is repeating with regard to

the issue of unilateral economic sanctions

reform. This article

describes the role

which some cooperatives have played in

recent sanctions

reform debates.

The United

States government

has imposed unilateral trade sanctions

on many different

nations for a variety

of reasons since

World War II.

These sanctions range from severe export restrictions to outright embargoes, under which no U.S. export transactions

may be conducted with targeted countries. During the late

1990s, there were six countries subject to such sanctions

which received particular attention from the agricultural

community: Iraq, Iran, Cuba, North Korea, Libya and

Sudan. In 1996, these countries imported $6.3 billion worth

of agricultural products.

The USDA Foreign Agricultural Service estimates that

U.S. agricultural exporters could have had at least $500 million of that trade had they been permitted to compete for it.

USA Engage, a coalition representing American business and

agriculture which opposes the use of unilateral trade sanctions, argues that the FAS estimate is conservative, and that

this number could have been considerably higher.

In 1998, these six countries imported $7.7 billion in agricultural imports (about 2 percent of world-wide agricultural

imports). The Congressional Research Service estimates that

U.S. farmer income in 1996 was probably reduced by $150

million because of these unilateral sanctions. This reduced

farm income would have represented about 1/4 of 1 percent

of 1996 U.S. farm income.

Regardless of these sanctions’ relatively modest impact on

the broad U.S. agricultural sector, their impact on specific commodity sectors or individual agribusinesses

has sometimes been

more dramatic. Unilateral trade sanctions are

especially controversial

because the targeted

countries have frequently found alternative suppliers among

our agricultural

exporting competitors.

Large investorowned trading companies, which source

and sell agricultural

commodities from

around the world, are

generally less vulnerable to such sanctions than U.S. farmer-owned cooperatives.

Co-op export marketing channels are largely dedicated to

sourcing and selling their members’ commodities.

Trading companies, or their foreign subsidiaries, can more

easily manage deals between foreign commodity suppliers

C

Co-ops and trade sanctions

Co-ops defend their members’ interests in sanctions reform debate

Arkansas rice is heading to Cuba for the first time in 40 years, Riceland Foods

announced in late November. Farmland Industries and other processors will also be

shipping other grains and soybeans to Cuba. Photo courtesy Riceland Foods Inc.
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 23

and sanctioned importers, and thus retain a share of the targeted countries’ import markets. In spite of this, cooperatives

and their investor-owned competitors have generally been

united in their political support for unilateral trade sanction

reforms (with the exception of some fruit and vegetable firms

in Florida and California).

Impact on rice markets

The U.S. rice sector has probably suffered the most from

unilateral economic sanctions. On three consecutive occasions, the U.S. imposition of unilateral trade sanctions has

removed the largest import markets for U.S. rice.

In 1962, Cuba was the largest foreign buyer of U.S. rice,

but on July 8, 1963, Cuban Assets Control Regulations

were issued which closed that

market to U.S. rice exporters. In

1989 Iraq was the largest foreign

market for U.S. rice, but the Gulf

War and Executive Order 12722

closed that market on Aug. 2,

1990. The largest importer of

U.S. rice in 1995 was Iran, despite

an executive order on May 6 of

that year which closed off trade

with that country.

Over the past few years, executives from two Arkansas rice

milling cooperatives have aggressively courted prospective rice

buyers in Iran, Iraq and Cuba.

These same executives and their allies in the U.S. rice sector have been lobbying the U.S. policymakers to reform

unilateral trade sanctions which restrict agricultural

exports. This issue is of critical importance to the U.S. rice

sector, which has been experiencing serious economic

problems in the past few years.

Twenty percent of U.S. rice mills are either shut down, for

sale or in bankruptcy. In Louisiana and Texas, the milling

industry is running at just 20 to 30 percent of capacity. Federal payments since 1998 are all that has been keeping some

producers in business. In such circumstances, securing access

to one or a few new markets could significantly boost the

U.S. rice sector.

One rice milling cooperative donated 20 tons of rice to

Cuba last summer to help residents suffering from a

drought. The shipment was sent to Havana through Mexico,

in part to introduce Cubans to the cooperative’s rice product

should normal trading relations become established in the

future. The same cooperative planned to export rice to Iraq

under the United Nations’ sanctioned oil-for-food program,

and attempted negotiations with prospective Iranian buyers.

Impact on wheat markets

U.S. wheat growers and their cooperative elevators have

also lost global market share because of U.S. unilateral trade

sanctions. U.S. Wheat Associates estimates that growers and

marketers of U.S. wheat have lost access to about 11 percent

of the global wheat market because of unilateral trade sanctions in 1997-98, valued at about $353 million. The estimated

average annual losses to U.S. wheat exporters from sanctions

for the previous 10 years were valued at about $320 million.

Iran had been a major importer of U.S. wheat, especially soft

white wheat, before the imposition of sanctions. Sanctions

have had less impact on corn and soybean exporters.

Executives from several large grain cooperatives have

urged Congress to pass sanctions reform legislation, and

argued that sanctions have:

• Lost U.S. agricultural exporters global market share;

• Increased competition as rival foreign suppliers have

been able to fill the gap caused by

U.S. withdrawal from these markets; some of these trading rivals

have even increased production to

capitalize on the opportunities;

• Allowed some foreign rivals to

charge higher prices to importers in

U.S.- sanctioned nations, consequently enabling them to cross-subsidize their exports to third markets

where they are also competing

against U.S. suppliers;

• Encouraged countries that rely

on food and agricultural imports to

adopt policies that make them

more self-sufficient and less

dependent on the U.S. for supplies;

• Damaged the reputation of U.S. agricultural exporters as

reliable suppliers;

• Sometimes forced U.S. agricultural exporters to discount their supplies in order to move them in remaining

world markets.

These cooperative executives further asserted that unilateral

sanctions have had little positive impact on pressuring targeted

countries to modify their conduct in the intended ways. They

have urged U.S. policymakers to pursue a policy of constructive engagement with those countries whose conduct was

deemed objectionable.

Collectively, these co-op executives called upon U.S. policymakers to: (a) review existing unilateral trade sanctions; (b)

terminate sanctions found to be ineffective or no longer

needed; and (c) establish a framework for evaluating the

merits of future proposed sanctions. They also expressed

concern that export licensing might be required on a caseby-case basis, which would considerably raise the transaction

costs of dealing with importers from sanctioned countries.

Citrus co-ops support sanctions

In contrast to the grain cooperatives, Florida citrus

packing cooperatives and their growers have generally

opposed removing sanctions against Cuba, whose exports

In contrast to the grain

cooperatives, Florida citrus

packing cooperatives and

their growers have generally

opposed removing sanctions

against Cuba.
24 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

they fear would economically injure

their sector. One Florida citrus cooperative, in testimony to the International Trade Commission, asserted

that the Cuba trade embargo had

been beneficial to their producers and

processors. While most of Cuba’s citrus production is currently directed

toward Europe, co-op members

expressed concern about Cuba’s

export focus dramatically shifting

toward the U.S., where they would

have much lower shipping costs.

During the 1990s, there was considerable political conflict—and ultimately

compromise—between Florida growers

threatened by Mexican competition

and U.S. agricultural exporter interests

over the negotiation and ratification of

NAFTA. The prospect of opening up

U.S.- Cuban trade has again worried

Florida growers about the potential

economic impact on their industry.

The political coalition favoring sanctions reform—which included the major

grain cooperatives and the vast majority

of U.S. agricultural interests — succeeded in securing some sanction reform. At

first this was achieved through a series

of executive orders. On April 28, 1999,

the Clinton administration lifted prohibitions on U.S. commercial sales of

most agricultural commodities and food

products to three countries: Iran, Libya

and Sudan. It further indicated that

future sanctions would not include agricultural products.

The White House decided in May

1999 that licensed agricultural sales to

Cuban private and non-governmental

entities could be undertaken. In September 1999, the White House

announced that U.S. agricultural

exporters could sell to North Korea

without securing an export license.

Sanctions against Iraq are now multilateral, and remain in effect apart from

any U.S. unilateral sanctions reform.

Codifying sanctions into law

On October 28, 2000, Congress

passed the Trade Sanctions Reform and

Export Enhancement Act of 2000,

which codified the previous executive

orders on sanctions reform into law.

This Act exempts commercial sales of

agricultural products

and medical supplies

from unilateral trade

sanctions. This Act also

requires the president

to obtain Congressional approval before

imposing sanctions

which would restrict or

prohibit the sale of

agricultural or medical

products, and mandates

that Congress must

renew any approved

sanctions that extend

beyond two years. This

Act also broadened the exemption of

agricultural exports to include nonfood agricultural commodities and fertilizers.

Currently, U.S. farm groups and

other stakeholders of the sanctions

reform issue are awaiting the release of

the Executive Branch regulations that

would implement the statutory provisions on sanctions reform. These regulations will specify export licensing

requirements for U.S. exporters seeking to conduct transactions with

importers from the sanctioned countries. The degree to which these rules

are restrictive or more flexible will

largely determine the practical effect of

sanctions reform. These export licensing regulations are expected to be

released soon.

Since these reforms, however,

cooperative exporters have had difficulty in dealing with prospective

importers in targeted countries

because of resentment against the

sanctions and conditions under which

transactions must be conducted.

Opponents of sanctions reform won

some points in the policy debate,

which is reflected in the Act’s tougher

treatment when it comes to Cuban

sanctions. The Act prohibits the use of

U.S. public or private financing for

export sales with sanctioned countries,

requires that deals be made with private Cuban importers, and bans

tourist travel to Cuba.

The combination of restrictive

export licensing requirements and

other high transaction costs of dealing

with sanctioned importers could

become prohibitive for selected U.S.

exporters. The Cuban government

has announced that under present

conditions, Cuba will not deal with

U.S. agricultural exporters. One

cooperative rice milling executive

made the point that with their lower

shipping costs and higher quality,

they can competitively enter the

Cuban market whenever normal commercial relations can be established

with them.

Most of the countries currently subject to unilateral trade sanctions are not

major U.S. competitors in either foreign or domestic agricultural markets.

Many of these countries are limited in

their global competitiveness by outdated infrastructure, a lack of current production technology and equipment and

a lack of knowledge about U.S. consumer preferences for their products.

With a steady flow of foreign investment and technical advice, however,

these conditions could be reversed

eventually, especially in Cuba. Efforts

in Congress to further reform trade

sanctions are ongoing, particularly with

regard to Cuba.

For more information, check out

some of the periodically updated Congressional Research Service reports on

sanctions reform by entering the word

“sanctions” in their title keyword box at:

http://www.cnie.org/nle/crssearch/crsse

arch.cfm ■

This Mississippi rice mill was recently purchased by the

Producers Rice Mill cooperative of Stuttgart, Ark. See page

30 for more on this acquisition. Photo courtesy Producers Rice

Mill Inc. 
Beverly L. Rotan 

USDA Rural-Business Cooperative

Service 

ales by local cooperatives

of major farm supplies

(feed, seed, fertilizer,

chemicals, petroleum and

other farm supplies)

averaged $8.33 million in 2000, a 14-

percent increase from $7.28 million in

1999. Petroleum sales spurred this

increase, with a 30-percent surge to

$2.92 million per local cooperative in

2000 (table 1). Seed sale averages also

climbed sharply, up 21 percent, to

$248,967 per local co-op in 2000.

Indeed, every category of farm supply

sales increased from1999 to 2000. 

When revenue from the sale of farm

commodities is added to farm supply

sales, the total sales average per local

cooperative rose to more than $14.1

million in 2000. 

Net income averaged almost

$242,000 in 2000, down steeply from

$334,000 in 1999, a 27 percent drop.

About 26 percent of the 331 local

cooperatives in this study reported

losses in 2000. Local co-op savings

were up 3 percent, while patronage

refunds from regional cooperatives

declined 49 percent from 1999. Even

with this slight downturn, these

refunds were still an important source

of revenue, allowing 39 out of 95 cooperatives that had local losses to report

overall net income for the year. 

Increases in fertilizer and petroleum

sales were both due to the rise in

propane prices. Propane is used to heat

farm homes and as a component in

anhydrous ammonia fertilizers. Sales of

tires, batteries and accessories, containers, building materials and groceries

from convenience stores (all categorized

as “other farm supplies” on the accompanying tables) all showed increased

sales. As a group, this category climbed

12 percent, to more than $1.1 million.

Overall sales for marketing farm

commodities (crops and livestock)

showed a small increase in 2000. Grain

sales, with higher market prices and

production in 2000 than in 1999, were

up 4 percent, to almost $6 million per

local cooperative on average. Service

income increased less than 1 percent. 

Both current assets and total assets

showed increases, up 11 and 8 percent, respectively, on average for the

331 co-ops surveyed. Investments also

increased in property, plant and

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 25

S

Sales climb, net income declines

for local cooperatives in 2000

Table 1—Average sales and percent change for principal farm supplies and grain from 1999 to 2000

Farm input/product 1999 2000 Percent increase

Dollars Percent

Feed 1,264,631 1,349,396 6.7

Seed 205,433 248,967 21.0

Fertilizer 1,390,028 1,454,519 4.6

Crop protectants 1,185,647 1,261,788 6.4

Petroleum 2,251,739 2,929,104 30.0

Other farm supplies1 984,416 1,101,747 12.0

Total farm supplies 7,281,894 8,338,919 14.5

Grain 5,605,223 5,832,074 4.0

1 Other farm supplies include tire, batteries, and accessories; machinery; building

materials; hardware; and food.

Table 2—Size and type definitions used for respondent cooperatives

Cooperative size Definition Number

Small up to $5 million in total sales 112

Medium $5 million to $10 million 83

Large $10 million to $20 million 67

Super $20 million and more 69

Cooperative type

Farm supply total net sales from farm supplies 169

Mixed farm supply from 50 to 99 percent farm supplies 77

Mixed marketing from 25 to 49 percent farm supplies 61

Marketing less than 25 percent farm supplies 24
26 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

The performance of cooperatives can be analyzed by

using financial ratios, which have both financial and

operational impacts. Following is a brief description of

ratios in table 3:

1. Liquidity ratios—focus on a company’s ability to pay

bills when due. If liquidity ratios remain relatively high for

a prolonged period, too much capital may be invested in

liquid assets (for example, cash, short-term investments,

accounts receivable and inventory) and too little is devoted to increasing member equity. 

2. Leverage ratios—reveal a company’s use of borrowed funds (rather than members’ equity or investments) to expand its business. The goal is to borrow

funds at a low interest rate and invest in business activity that produces a high rate of return, exceeding the target rate of return for investment. Debt-to-equity ratio

measures the long-term solvency of a company by comparing debt to net worth. A company with a high debt-toequity ratio could have trouble meeting fixed

interest/debt payments if business falters or does not

grow as planned.

3. Activity ratio turnover — or efficiency ratios, measure activity or changes in certain assets. Poor turnover

generally indicates resources are invested in nonincome-producing assets. The inventory turnover ratio

measures how quickly inventory is sold and replaced

each year. An inventory turnover of 12 means inventory is

sold (turned over) once each month. The times interest

earned ratio measures a company’s ability to make interest payments on debt. If the ratio does not exceed the

interest rate on current debt, the business may not be

making enough to pay interest expenses.

4. Profitability ratios—vary from industry to industry

and should be compared to a company’s ratios for prior

years/periods. The return-on-assets measures how well a

company is using its assets to generate net profits. The

return-on-member equity ratio measures a company’s

return on members’ money. ■

Financial ratios help track co-op performance 

equipment; grain and oilseed inventories; farm supply inventories; and

accounts receivable. 

Current liabilities for local co-ops

jumped nearly 14 percent during the

two-year study period, with patrons’

credit balances, seasonal debt and

accounts payable showing double-digit

increases. Growth was also experienced in accrued expenses, as well as

in current and long-term debt. Cash

patronage refunds and dividends

decreased.

Equity financing remained a strong

fiscal component for local cooperatives, with equity growing about 4 percent from 1999 to

2000. Farm income

also remained strong

for local cooperatives, in large part

because of government payments. 

Cost of goods sold

and revenue almost

offset each other in

2000, with cost of

goods sold rising

about 10 percent and

revenue rising 8 percent. Cost of goods

sold averaged almost

88 percent of net

sales. Total expenses

climbed about 8 percent from 1999.

These factors may be

the reason why there have been so many

cooperatives with net income losses for

the year.

Local agricultural cooperatives continued to play a vital role in supplying

goods and services to their farmer-members and in marketing their crops. Local

co-ops are also important to rural communities, where they are often one of the

largest employers and generate considerable tax revenues for their communities.

Co-ops in the study had an average of

39 employees, who earned an average

salary of $27,024. Total employee

expenses were up about 6 percent from

1999. Directors’ fees and expenses were a

small part of total costs. However, director compensation is an important factor

that helps many cooperatives convince

producers to divert time each month to

helping to guide their cooperative. Coop boards averaged seven members, who

were paid an average of $952 per year. 

Information for this article was the

result of a study that collected detailed

financial information from 331 cooperatives. These co-ops were grouped into

four categories: small, medium, large

and super (table 2). ■

Table 3—Financial rations, 1999 and 2000

Ratio 1999 2000

Liquidity

Current 1.39 1.35

Quick 0.69 0.67

Leverage

Debt 0.21 0.23

Debt-to-equity 0.37 0.41

Activity

Times interest earned 3.30 1.86

Total asset turnover 1.96 1.99

Fixed asset turnover 6.70 6.91

Profitability

Gross profit margin 0.12 0.12

Return-on-total assets (before 

taxes andinterest 0.04 0.02

Return-on-member equity 0.07 0.03
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 27

Tree Top sets sales record;

$10.8 million earnings paid

Apple and pear grower-members of

Tree Top Inc., based at Selah, Wash.,

were paid $10.8 million in cash to close

out the 2000 crop season. Payments to

members are made throughout the year

in the form of cash advances as fruit

deliveries are received. The cooperative

reported record sales of $297.5 million

for fiscal 2001, which ended July 31.

Tree Top processed a record 533,000

tons of fruit from the 2000 harvest and

completed its ninth consecutive year of

profitability. Also, for the ninth consecutive year, the board voted to distribute

all grower earnings in cash. 

Earnings from non-member business were sufficient to cover the cooperative’s operating costs. However, the

market value of fruit dropped significantly due to an oversupply of low-cost

concentrate on the world market. The

value of juice apples, for instance,

dropped from $121.18 per ton a year

ago to $42.93 per ton. Similarly, peel

apple values dropped from $128.90 per

ton to $72.28 per ton. Tree Top has

2,000 members in Washington, Oregon and Idaho. The cooperative’s

annual payroll for 1,300 employees

exceeds $43 million. 

LOL completes purchase 

of Purina Mills feed business

In a brief annual meeting in St.

Louis on Sept. 10, shareholders – by a

2- to-1 margin – approved the $230

million cash sale of the Purina Mills’

livestock-feed manufacturing business

to Minnesota-based Land O’Lakes

(LOL) Inc. The transaction, which

includes LOL assuming Purina’s $130

million of debt, was completed in early

October. Purina Mills will become part

of the consolidated business operated

by Land O’Lakes Farmland Feed LLC, a subsidiary of the two regional cooperatives and the

largest feed company in

North America.

The combined organization’s feed sales are

expected to reach $2.5

billion. The company

will be headed by Bob

De Gregorio. Purina Mills, founded in

1894, declared bankruptcy last year. It

has 48 feed plants, 2,300 employees

nationwide and is known for its

“Chow”-brand livestock feeds. 

“Through the acquisition, we are

building the economies of scale and critical mass necessary to compete in the

consolidating feed industry,” said Jack

Gherty, LOL president and chief executive officer. “By bringing in Purina Mills

into our system, we are creating a

national feed organization that is

extremely well positioned to succeed

long term and deliver increasing value

to customers and others,” he added.

DeGregorio said the transaction “brings

together complementary geography and

product lines and unites two organizations and product lines that share a high

level of customer recognition and a

proven record of quality and service.”

Volume of Canada’s Top 10

ag co-ops tops $15 billion

Canada’s 42 agricultural cooperatives—which represent 654,000 producers—had a combined business volume of $19 billion (in Canadian dollars)

and assets valued at $17.4 billion in

1999, according to a recent report from

the Cooperatives Secretariat at Ottawa.

While the number of

Canada’s agricultural

cooperatives declined 3.3

percent, memberships

increased 2 percent from

1998 to 1999. Business

volume was down 4 percent, but asset value of

cooperatives climbed 9

percent. The number of

employees was up 0.5

percent, to more than 22,400.

Some of Canada’s agricultural cooperatives are leaders in particular industries. The combined business volume

of the top 10 agricultural cooperatives

was more than $15.4 billion, and they

reported assets of $5.2 billion, up 11

percent from 1998.

Marketing of agricultural products in

Canada and abroad reached $12.5 billion. On the farm supply side, combined business volume of these cooperatives was $3.2 billion, up 3.2 percent

from 1998. The nation’s 53 fishery

NEWSLINE

Tree Top processed a record crop of

533,000 tons of fruit from the 2000 

harvest.

The national maple leaf 

symbol of Canada, from the

cover of a new report on

that nation’s co-op sector.
28 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

cooperatives reported $179.5 million in

revenue for 1999, up 30 percent from

1998. The 4,064 service cooperatives,

the largest sector in Canada, reported a

combined business volume of $1.5 billion, up 4 percent from 1998.

CHS buys Farmland’s interest 

in petroleum joint venture

CHS Cooperatives is purchasing

Farmland Industries’ share of Country

Energy, their fuel joint venture, which

will result in a major boost in petroleum volume and service territory for

CHS. Country Energy sells about 3

billion gallons of fuel annually. The

move makes CHS a petroleum marketer from Lake Superior to Texas and

throughout the Plains and West.

Meanwhile, Farmland is exploring the

sale of its holdings in oil refineries

which were not part of the Country

Energy buyout.

In other CHS news, federal regulators are reviewing a proposal to combine flour-milling operations of CHS

and Cargill, both of which are headquartered in Minnesota, into a joint

venture that would create the second

largest miller (by capacity) in the

nation. If approved, the new joint venture would become effective early in

2002. If combined, the Harvest States

division of CHS Cooperative would

contribute five mills and Cargill would

add another 15 to the venture, for a

combined 293 million pounds of flourmilling capacity per day. Both firms

have suffered from low profit margins

and periodic operating losses in

milling. Cargill would contribute 75

percent of the new venture’s capacity

and ownership. 

Sunkist expansion reflects

rising interest in fresh juice

A $15.5 million expansion project

underway at Sunkist Growers’

processed products plant in Tipton,

Calif., reflects shifting consumer

demand toward fresh orange juice and

away from frozen concentrate. “This

six-million-gallon bulk-storage system

is an investment in the future of our

West Coast citrus industry,” says Jeff

Gargulio, president of world’s leading

citrus marketing cooperative. Construction is expected to be completed

next August. “The expansion positions

us to take advantage of increased sales

opportunities and will improve

returns to our growers,” he said.

Labor savings and reduced handling

costs will increase the juice value.

Sunkist sells its juice in bulk to customers who package the final consumer product. The Tipton plant was

built in 1982.

Oemichen new VP 

with Wisconsin Federation

Bill Oemichen, an attorney who led

Wisconsin efforts in federal milk marketing reform, has been appointed

senior vice president of the Wisconsin

Federation of Cooperatives (WFC) at

Madison. WFC serves as the legislative

arm of the state’s 600 cooperatives,

principally agricultural and rural electric co-ops. Before joining the cooperative sector, Oemichen was administrator of the consumer protection division

for the Wisconsin Department of 

Agriculture. 

Rod Nilsestuen, president of the

Wisconsin federation and Minnesota

Association of Cooperatives, saluted

Oemichen’s “extensive government

experience in both states, his deep

knowledge of cooperatives, and his

outstanding reputation for getting

results. His extensive work with dairy,

agriculture and consumer issues and

strong administrative and legal experience will be great assets.” Oemichen

had earlier been deputy commissioner

and chief legal officer for the Minnesota Department of Agriculture.

Flood of Asian imports hurts

Plains Cotton Cooperative 

The winds of change – fueled by a

flood of low-cost imported textiles

and apparel from Asia, coupled with

the strong U.S. dollar – cut into fiscal

2001 performance of Plains Cotton

Cooperative Association (PCCA) at

Lubbock, Texas. The co-op reported

its first net loss – $627,861 – since

1985. Despite the loss, PCCA paid

$1.9 million in cash dividends to

warehouse and marketing pool

patrons, $1.5 million in stock retirements and $7.9 million in retirement

of per-unit capital retains. 

The most dramatic change was in

the textile division, which lost $7.9

million, the largest in PCCA’s history.

“Since 1997, devalued Asian currencies

have given those countries’ textile and

apparel products a significant advantage compared with U.S.-made goods,

“ said Van May, PCCA president and

chief executive officer. 

The ripple effect

Dairy Farmers of America

(DFA), the nation’s largest dairy

cooperative, has developed a

new logo: an image of a milk drop

splash that symbolizes how each

member affects the entire organization. “Milk is all about dairy

farmers,” observes Agnes

Schafer, DFA vice president of

communications. “When milk

pools in a pail, concentric rings

touch one another. Once the drop

clears, what remains is farmers

working together. Whether large

or small, we need each other to serve agriculture.” Graphic courtesy DFA 
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 29

Due to cheaper Asian market

imports and limited opportunities in

the Caribbean basin, PCCA exited 

the yarn-dyed business and converted

its Mission Valley plant to a

spinning/denim weaving operation.

The plant spent $6.2 million to cut its

production, administrative and sales

force 60 percent and increased denim

manufacturing capacity 30 percent.

May said it was the least expensive and

most attractive alternative available to

the cooperative. The marketing division also registered a net

loss of

$347,000, its

first in 12

years. Adverse

weather

impacted pool

marketing

efforts. 

On the

positive side,

gains have

been made in

electronic marketing. “We completed

negotiations and formation of our new

Internet trading company, The Seam,

and began operating it last December,”

May said. “We believe these new electronic ventures will ultimately generate

improved financial results for PCCA

and all of our members by providing

better control of overhead costs related

to cotton marketing.” 

Changing guard at Foremost:

Fuhrman succeeds Storhoff

After nearly a quarter century at the

helm of Foremost Farms USA at Baraboo, Wis., Don Storhoff is retiring,

and will be succeeded by David

Fuhrman, current vice president of the

co-op’s cheese division. Fuhrman has

been with the cooperative since 1981.

He currently serves as co-chairman of

the Dairy 2020 Council, a Wisconsin

initiative that works to help the state’s

$17 billion dairy industry better position itself for long-term viability. With

its 13 plants and 700 employees, the

cheese division represents about half of

Foremost’s annual sales, which reached

$1.1 billion in fiscal

2000. The cheese

division is the largest

of the cooperative’s

operating divisions.

Storhoff will stay on

until the end of the

year to assist in the

transition. 

Chairman Ed

Brooks said

Storhoff’s “leadership and vision have

been the key to

Foremost Farms’

growth and success.

This growth has taken place on a stepby-step basis and has

resulted in a financially stable, diversified cooperative that is a major manufacturer and marketer of cheese,

whey ingredients, butter, packaged

fluid milk and juice and bulk raw

milk. He leaves the cooperative on

solid footing with a well-defined

direction for the future. 

“Since our formation in 1995, we

have focused on generating returns for

our member-owners through marketdriven returns,” Brooks said. “We’ve

streamlined business procedures and

reinvested in our manufacturing plants

to produce products in demand by

today’s marketplace.” 

Doug Wilke has been named the

new vice president of the cheese division. Wilke has been with the cooperative since 1987. Most recently, he

helped with the changeover of Foremost’s Appleton plant into a cheese

shredding facility.

In a move to bolster the state’s

dairy industry, the Foremost board of

directors has donated $150,000 to the

integrated dairy management program at the University of WisconsinMadison. “The dairy industry is very

important to us and this is a way to

enable land-grant colleges to do the

research necessary for all of our producers,” said Brooks. The program

involves construction of dairy heifer

research facilities at the Marshfield

Agricultural Research Station and

upgrading dairy facilities at the

Arlington research center and at the

Madison campus. 

Storhoff and his wife, Lois, have

created two annual $1,000 college

scholarships—one for the child of a

member and the other for the child of

an employee. The scholarships will be

administered by Foremost Farms’

Charitable Foundation. 

Agway restructuring 

triggers $8.9 million loss

Expanded energy business volume

and higher product prices helped boost

2001 sales for Agway Inc., Syracuse

N.Y., to $1.55 billion, up 14 percent

from 2000. But the Northeast regional

cooperative lost $8.9 million for fiscal

2001. The co-op also had a loss of $9.4

million in 2000, and is expected to suffer one more year of losses in 2002 due

to the restructuring efforts. But the

cooperative should return to profitability by 2003, according to Donald Cardarelli, Agway’s president and chief

executive officer. 

Part of the current losses are due

to closing an underperforming Texas

produce operation and converting

several Agway-owned operations to

dealer stores and selling or closing

some facilities. Strong 2001 earnings

were reported for its energy and

insurance divisions and its lease

financing subsidiary. 

USDA looking for latest

co-op pubs, news releases 

Many of the news items appearing on these pages

are taken from co-op newsletters, magazines and

news releases. Please help us keep other cooperative leaders around the nation informed of important

developments at your co-op by sending a copy of

your co-op publications and news releases to: Rural

Cooperatives magazine, Attention: Dan Campbell,

Stop 0705, 1400 Independence Ave. SW, Washington,

D.C. 20250-0705. News releases may also be faxed,

attention Dan Campbell, to: (202) 690-4083, or

e–mailed to: dan.campbell@usda.gov. 

The cover of PCCA’s

latest annual report.
30 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

Sept. 11 attacks, an initial $5,000 donation was made on behalf of the cooperative and its employees with a commitment to making further donations. By

mid-October, employee donations of

$25,000 were matched by the cooperative. In addition, Farmland sponsored a

blood drive in late October at its headquarters to replenish supplies. 

★ More than $100,000 was donated

to the American Red Cross Disaster

Relief Fund in Bloomington, Ill., by the

Illinois Farm Bureau and its affiliates,

including GROWMARK, Inc. and

employees. A special flag-raising ceremony was conducted on the national

day of mourning at GROWMARK’s

headquarters and other facilities,

including its offices in Mississauga,

Ont. Meanwhile, the cooperative continues to advise its member companies

and employees of the latest information

available from governmental agencies

concerning transportation and other

industry security issues. 

★ A “call to arms” was issued to

members of the Cooperative Communicators Association (CCA) by newsletter

editor Donna Abernathy. While the

immediate crisis was understandably distracting, she said, “now is not the time to

be caught off guard. As communicators,

I believe we can and should contribute

much to the new chapter in history.

During these difficult times, members of

your cooperative will turn to you for

information about what’s happening and

how it affects them. Take up your pen,

your computer mouse and your camera

– the tools that provide vital information

– and dig deep the trenches of knowledge, any nation’s greatest defense.” 

★ Raisins from Sun-Maid Growers

of California were believed to be

among food relief supplies dropped

into the embattled Afghanistan countryside. The U.S. military has been

dropping 35,000 ration packets each

day since the air strikes began. Because

the raisins were purchased by military

suppliers through third parties, no

packer knew its product was being

dropped in the relief effort. The use

was good news in view of an industrywide surplus and declines in world

demand. Raisins comply with Afghan

dietary restrictions imposed by cultural

influences and religious guidelines.

★ Lower natural gas prices are

bringing ammonia plants back into production. Farmland Industries has

reopened nitrogen plants in Enid, Okla.,

and Polack, La., but its plant at

Lawrence, Kan., remains closed. Operations were suspended in May. The facility produced two millions tons of ammonia per year. The cooperative has

increased security at its fertilizer production plants and supply storage facilities

in light of a nationwide heightened alert. 

★ A nonprofit, Rural America Patriot Fund has been established so that

potentially tax- deductible contributions can be made to assist the federal

government’s anti-terrorist effort with

the hope that agricultural producers can

donate money, grain or livestock.

Although farmers may be hard pressed

for cash, they do have commodities to

contribute, especially if those donations

become tax deductible. ■

Co-ops respond to attacks with aid, calls for unity continued from page 15

world’s early cooperative pioneers was

that someday cooperatives would have

the ability to work together across borders to help producers gain the countervailing power to increase producer

incomes and standards of living.

To date, the idea of global cooperative coordination has been the stuff that

“old college cooperative professors”

would put in lectures and on exams. In

late July, however, Dairy America and

the New Zealand Dairy Board (NZDB),

two national-level, producer-owned

organizations, opened negotiations to

have the NZDB be the agent for foreign

(outside the United States) sales of Dairy

America producers’ skim milk powder. 

Needless to say, this announcement

has opened the debate on what should be

the form of producer strategies for dealing with the globalized dairy industry.

Are worldwide producer coordination

and cooperation possible and desirable?

Or is this approach counter-productive

and harmful? Clearly, multinational milk

buyers will not welcome this approach.

Likewise all the arguments about the

virtues and vices of cooperation among

co-ops will be revisited.

The forces of globalization are in

place and no more reversible than the

forces of technological change. Just as

technology requires new management

strategies, so does globalization. But

once again, dairy producer investments

in cooperatives and cooperative behavior gives dairy producers more options

for shaping their futures than most of

the global farmer neighbors. ■

Co-ops and the transformation of global dairy relationships continued from page 21

Producers Rice buys

Greenville mill complex

Producers Rice Mill Inc., a

Stuttgart, Ark..-based cooperative, has

completed the purchase of a one-million-bushel capacity rice mill complex

in Greenville, Miss., from ACH Food

Companies Inc. The facility includes a

white rice mill, a parboil mill and a

rice flour mill. The mill can load

barges directly on the Mississippi

River. Producers Rice has also signed a

supply agreement to provide rice products to ACH, which is focusing on the

manufacture of specialty, high-value

products. The sale does not impact

ACH’s other operations in Brinkley,

Ark., and Mobile, Ala.. 

Producers began expanding into

northwestern Mississippi in 1996,

with the opening of a green rice handling facility at Boyle. The cooperative of 2,400 members now handles

about 25 percent of Mississippi’s rice

crop. It operates 10 other green rice

receiving stations in eastern

Arkansas. 
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 31

Information appearing in Rural Cooperatives magazine during calendar

year 2001 has been indexed to help you find past articles. Articles are

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

www.rurdev.usda.gov

TITLE FEATURES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Issue—Page

A critical look at new-generation cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 15

A lucky few unscathed by crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 15

About Blue Diamond growers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 23

African village banks project shows renewed emphasis on

international co-op development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 21

All ag, all the time:

Farmer-owned radio station has served rural Nebraska 

for 50 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 4

All bogged down:

Record cranberry crops, soft markets force industry 

to eye marketing order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 6

Beet growers co-ops on brink of processing 

most U.S. sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 29

Better eating through biotechnology?

Tips shared for communicating about biotech 

food issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 29

Bovine biogas

Dairy co-op sees major potential in methane gas recovery 

technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 16

Candy goblins gobble up profits from lower 

sugar prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 14

CCA: building better co-ops through communications . . . . Sept./Oct. 26

Clear sense of vision & mission critical to co-ops facing

mergers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 12

Communications linked to loyalty

If you want your co-op messages heard, it’s still a faceto-face, hard-copy world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 24

Co-op-USDA partnership still strong after 75 years . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 4

Co-ops and the transformation of global dairy relationships . . Nov./Dec. 21

Co-ops and trade sanctions

Co-ops defend their members’ interests in sanctions

reform debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 22

Co-ops respond to attacks with aid, calls for unity . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 15

Co-ops’ share of farm market, major cash expenditures 

down in ‘99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 7

Coping with change:

Merger of local farm supply co-ops forces boards to deal with emotional issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 6

Cranberry production cycle revolves around 

water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 9

Critical need seen to broaden, invigorate current approach to cooperative research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 21

Dot what? Dot coop!

New internet name for cooperatives provides new marketing, membership opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 29

Earnings, sales dip for local cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 6

Educational challenges pose need for change . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 28

EdVisions

Minnesota teachers’ co-op serves rural charter schools . Jan./Feb. 27

Energy prices spark interest in ethanol co-ops . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 33

Farm co-op business volume increases slightly in 2000 . . . . Nov./Dec. 4

Farmers looking at back-up power systems . . . . . . . . . . March/April 16

Financial performance declines for largest ag co-ops in ‘99 . . Jan./Feb. 20

Financial ratios help track co-op performance . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 26

Finding a niche

Dakota Growers Pasta co-op finds success in a highly 

competitive market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 4

Food trends bode well for co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 18

Foundation awards $4.5 million to EdVisions, Minn. New Country 

School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 29

Good interview process crucial to selecting top-notch CEO . . Sept./Oct. 10

Graham wins top CCA honor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 25

Growmark, TFC to study possible merger . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 7

Hang on to the ranch

Young livestock, poultry co-ops share goal to strengthen producers’

role in marketplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 14

Hazen selected top CEO communicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 13

The history of crane-berries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 10

How the Raisin Bargaining Association got its start . . . . . Sept./Oct. 17

How the Tillamook methane-recovery project will work: . . Nov./Dec. 20

How sweet it is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 12

Keep the co-op candle burning

Effective member relations essential to keeping co-op 

spirit alive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 19

Local cooperatives’ role in identity-preserved grain 

industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 23

Local co-ops embrace high-tech agronomy systems . . . . May/June 11

Minnesota leads nation in co-op business volume . . . . . . March/April 8

More than one way

Dairy cooperatives pursue varied paths to structural 

change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 20

Morning glory brand name survives mergers . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 12

Most financial ratios confirm downtrend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 7

Need for change trumpeted at NICE

Farm Bill Task Force proposes actions to reverse farm-income

downward spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 7

Neighborhoods warm to bargaining power of co-ops . . March/April 17

New olive co-op buys TVG cannery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 22

Ocean Spray opens China market for cranberry 

juice products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 8

On the sea of grass

Colorado ranchers band together to cut cattle-grazing 

costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 4

Peach growers cling to association

CCPA assumes greater role in helping industry manage supply, 

avoid pitfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 4

Plane crash stalls production at Foremost dairy plant . . . . May/June 27

Power in peril

California co-ops struggle to cope with the state’s 

energy crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 12

Primary ways to process manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 18

Research and technical assistance work are heart of 

Cooperative Services mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 16

Roche takes helm as Minn-Dak CEO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 26

Article Index 2001
32 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

Sales climb, net income declines for local cooperatives 

in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 25

Season of turmoil

A price dispute between California’s raisin growers and packers

divides financially troubled industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 14

Selling it!

Florida citrus industry boosts consumption with health-focused

advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 27

Significance of the Cooperative Marketing Act’s other key 

provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 15

SS Frederick member supported co-op merger despite all 

hurdles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 8

State and federal marketing orders direct dancing raisins and 

market supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 18

Statistics show cooperative status, progress and trends . July/August 18

Sweet and sour

Sugar cooperatives restructure to combat foreign threats, low

prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 10

Tennessee Farmers’ sales top $408 million . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 18

Tragedy from the sky

Quick response helps Foremost Farms rebound after airplane slams

into plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 10

Turmoil of early 20th century led to USDA role in 

assisting co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 9

2001 crop price leaves growers unhappy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 16

2001 USDA co-op survey on the way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 29

Up-front capital key to surviving a slow start . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 16

U.S. ranked among world’s lowest cost producers . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 13

USDA marks 75th anniversary of service to cooperatives . . July/August 2

USDA’s commitment to cooperative education . . . . . . . . July/August 19

USDA’s expanding cooperative development 

assistance role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 13

USDA’s role in promoting cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 10

Veneman cites cooperatives as vehicle to help growers add 

value to products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 20

Magazine Departments

A Closer Look At...

Yakama Power Tribal Utility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 25

Commentary/Editorial

Commitment to cooperative systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 2

Directors share major role as part of cooperative 

management team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 2

Good time to assess cooperatives’ role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 2

New USDA program supports growth of value-added 

ventures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 2

Research key to expanding co-op knowledgeand 

understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 2

USDA marks 75th anniversary of service to co-op . . . . . . . July/August 2

In the Spotlight

Robert A. Cropp

University of Wisconsin–Madison Center for Co-ops & 

UW-Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 11

Management Tip

How does your local farm supply co-op rate? . . . . . . . . . . May/June 21

Moving e-fficiently into e-commerce

A guide for businesses ready to go online, big time . . July/August 22

Newsline

U.S. Canadian pasta co-ops link . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 30

Three-person panel to settle raisin deadlock

Potato co-op seeks answers to crop surplus

Executive director sought for Cooperation Works

Robson heads Milk Board

Tripp Producers join AMPI

Co-op education on Web site

Alabama honors Loftis

Alto leads cheese project

Farmland to expand branded-bread distribution . . . . . . . March/April 26

Sunkist revenues down

Ag stress prompts cutbacks at Southern States

Calcot to end almond sales

USDA to award $25 million to boost value-added ag

ACDI/VOCA seeking farm credit specialists for 

overseas missions

LOL earnings best since ‘96

CENEX Harvest States buys Rodriguez Foods

Tri-Valley sells S&W brand; Sale of canneries imminent

DFA reopens Dakota plant

New Minn-Dak CEO

Cabot offers organic cheddar

Swiss Valley pays dividend

Mullen heads food processors

Beef co-op opens marketing

‘Best of the best’ inducted into Co-op Hall of Fame . . . . . . May/June 25

DFA sells interest in Suiza for cash, six dairy plants

Swiss Valley sets dividend

Farmland, ADM launch grain joint venture

Diamond sales top $244 Million

AMPI leader urges more member participation in co-op

Texas rice co-op formed

Pork co-op faces obstacles

Wisconsin co-op initiates semen research trial

MMPA returns $1.9 million in cash

Foremost converts to mozzarella

Record loan level for Texas FCBs

Farmland sells grain division to joint venture with ADM . . . July/August 24

Agri-Mark has $1.9 million profit

Wosje: ‘Stay alert, flexible & profit from opportunities

Livestock certification to help reassure public that beef is OK

Marketer for Idaho potatoes favors statewide planning

Sunkist taps Gargiulo as new president

Organic cooperative shapes national product rules

SSC to close 47 stores, cut staff in restructuring

Bison farmers market directly via supermarket freezers

Jantzen to lead NCBA education unit

Leonard new ACDI/VOCA VP

Accelerated Genetics is 60

NCBA honors Sen. Kohl

Co-op, army cut energy costs

Agrilink recognizes farm partners

Eggstravaganza in Minnesota

TFC, GROWMARK will not consolidate

LOL buys Purina Mills, expands feed business . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 30

Bekkers new Gold Kist CEO

Trio of dairy co-ops ends LOL merger study

Catfish cooperative opens in Kentucky

Ohio State honors Ron Long

Universal buys Triton Tire

Online procurement pilot saves money for Roanoke EC

Birds Eye lauches branded retail fresh vegetable line

Supreme Court ruling clouds commodity marketing promotion

Farmland cuts long-term debt, but still has quarterly loss

Ottowa Co-op gains in sale of bankrupt FCS in Kansas

AGP sells CN Feed to ADM, buys Canadian operations

Calcot cotton farmers may face repayment of earlier advances

PCP buys $9 million plant to suit tomato growers

Rocky Mountain Sugar Co-op pays $48 million for plants

Dakota Beef Co-op buys Nebraska meatpacker

Ramey Co-op joines AMPI

Texans form rice co-op

German co-op banks merge

Illinois fund boosts co-ops

Indiana’s Ag Plus forms

Undaunted by low prices, Ocean Spray eyes turnaround

Sugar beet growers seek help buying Holly plant

Tillamook opens cheese plant

Pork America buys Iowa packing plant

CHS ends incentive program, returns $14 million
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 33

Golden Gem Growers shuts Lake Garfield packing house

Tree Top sets sales record; $10.8 million earnings paid . . . Nov./Dec. 31

LOL completes purchase of Purina Mills feed business

Volume of Canada’s Top 10 ag co-ops tops $15 billion

CHS buys Farmland’s interest in petroleum joint venture

Sunkist expansion reflects rising interest in fresh juice

The ripple effect: new DFA logo

Oemichen new VP with Wisconsin Federation

Flood of Asian imports hurts Plains Cotton Cooperative

Changing guard at Foremost: Fuhrman succeeds Storhoff

USDA looking for latest co-op pubs, news releases

Agway restructuring triggers $8.9 million loss

Producers Rice buys Greenville mill complex

SUBJECTS:

Bargaining

How the Raisin Bargaining Association got its start . . . . . Sept./Oct. 17

Peach growers cling to association

CCPA assumes greater role in helping industry manage supply, 

avoid pitfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 4

Season of turmoil

A price dispute between California’s raisin growers 

and packers divides financially troubled 

industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 14

State and federal marketing orders direct dancing raisins and 

market supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 18

Communication

All ag, all the time

Farmer-owned radio station has served rural Nebraska for 

50 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 4

Better eating through biotechnology?

Tips shared for communicating about biotech food issues . . Sept./Oct. 29

CCA: building better co-ops through communications . . . . Sept./Oct. 26

Clear sense of vision & mission critical to co-ops facing 

mergers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 12

Communications linked to loyalty

If you want your co-op messages heard, it’s still a face-to-face,

hard-copy world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 24

Dot what? Dot coop!

New internet name for cooperatives provide new marketing, 

membership opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 29

Graham wins top CCA honor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 25

Hazen selected top CEO communicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 13

Keep the co-op candle burning

Effective member relations essential to keeping co-op 

spirit alive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 19

Co-op Development

African village banks project shows renewed emphasis on 

international co-op development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 21

2001 USDA co-op survey on the way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 29

Turmoil of early 20th century led to USDA role in assisting 

co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 9

USDA’s expanding cooperative development assistance 

role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 13

Co-op Structure

A critical look at new-generation co-op. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 15

More than one way

Dairy cooperatives pursue varied paths to structural change . . Sept./Oct. 20

On the sea of grass

Colorado ranchers band together to cut cattle-grazing 

costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 4

Crisis Respsonse

Co-ops respond to attacks with aid, calls for unity . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 15

Tragedy from the sky

Quick response helps Foremost Farms rebound after airplane 

slams into plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 10

Dairy

Bovine biogas

Co-op see major potential in methane gas recovery 

technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 16

Co-ops and the transformation of global dairy relationships . . Nov./Dec. 21

More than one way

Dairy cooperatives pursue varied paths to structural 

change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 20

Morning Glory brand name survives mergers . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 12

Plane crash stalls production at Foremost dairy 

plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 27

Power in peril

California co-ops struggle to cope with the state’s 

energy crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 12

Tragedy from the sky

Quick response helps Foremost Farms rebound after airplane 

slams into plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 10

Education

Critical need seen to broaden, invigorate current approach to 

cooperative research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 21

Educational challenges pose need for change . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 28

EdVisions

Minnesota teachers’ co-op serves rural charter schools . Jan./Feb. 27

Foundation awards $4.5 million to EdVisions, Minn. New Country 

School . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 29

Keep the co-op candle burning

Effective member relations essential to keeping co-op 

spirit alive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 19

Need for change trumpeted at NICE

Farm Bill Task Force proposes actions to reverse farm-income

downward spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 7

USDA’s commitment to cooperative education . . . . . . . . July/August 19

Energy

A lucky few unscathed by crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 15

Bovine biogas

Dairy co-op sees major potential in methane gas recovery 

technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 16

Energy prices spark interest in ethanol co-ops . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 33

Farmers looking at back-up power systems . . . . . . . . . . March/April 16

How the Tillamook methane-recovery project will work: . . Nov./Dec. 20

Neighborhoods warm to bargaining power of co-ops . . March/April 17

Power in peril

California co-ops struggle to cope with the state’s energy 

crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 12

Environment

Bovine biogas

Dairy co-op sees major potential in methane gas recovery 

technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 16

How the Tillamook methane-recovery project will work: . . Nov./Dec. 20

Primary ways to process manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 18

Farm Supply & Agronomy Services

Co-ops’ share of farm market, major cash expenditures 

down in ‘99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 7

Coping with change:

Merger of local farm supply co-ops forces boards to deal with 

emotional issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 6

Earnings, sales dip for local cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 6

Farm co-op business volume increases slightly in 2000 . . . . Nov./Dec. 4

Financial performance declines for largest ag co-ops in ‘99 . . Jan./Feb. 20

How does your local farm supply co-op rate? . . . . . . . . . . May/June 21

Local co-ops embrace high-tech agronomy systems . . . . May/June 11

Minnesota leads nation in co-op business volume . . . . . . March/April 8

Need for change trumpeted at NICE

Farm Bill Task Force proposes actions to reverse farm-income 

downward spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 7

Sales climb, net income declines for local cooperatives 

in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 25

SS Frederick member supported co-op merger despite 

all hurdles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 8
Tennessee Farmers’ sales top $408 million . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 18

Finance

African village banks project shows renewed emphasis on 

international co-op development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 21

Earnings, sales dip for local cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 6

Financial performance declines for largest ag co-ops in ‘99 . . Jan./Feb. 20

Financial ratios help track co-op performance . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 26

Most financial ratios confirm downtrend . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 7

Sales climb, net income declines for local cooperatives 

in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 25

Up-front capital key to surviving a slow start . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 16

Food Safety

Food trends bode well for co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 18

Fruits, Nuts

A lucky few unscathed by crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 15

All bogged down

Record cranberry crops, soft markets force industry to eye 

marketing order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 6

Cranberry production cycle revolves around water . . . . . . May/June 9

Farmers looking at back-up power systems . . . . . . . . . . March/April 16

How the Raisin Bargaining Association got its start . . . . . Sept./Oct. 17

Moving e-fficiently into e-commerce

A guide for businesses ready to go online, big time . . July/August 22

New olive co-op buys TVG cannery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 22

Ocean Spray opens China market for cranberry juice 

products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 8

Peach growers cling to association

CCPA assumes greater role in helping industry manage supply, 

avoid pitfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 4

Season of turmoil

A price dispute between California’s raisin growers and 

packers divides financially troubled industry . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 14

Selling it!

Florida citrus industry boosts consumption with health-focused

advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 27

State and federal marketing orders direct dancing raisins and 

market supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 18

Grains & Oil Seed

Co-ops and trade sanctions

Co-ops defend their members’ interests in sanctions 

reform debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 22

Energy prices spark interest in ethanol co-ops . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 33

Finding a niche

Dakota Growers Pasta co-op finds success in a highly 

competitive market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 4

Local cooperatives’ role in identity-preserved grain 

industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 23

Legislative and Legal

African village banks project shows renewed emphasis on 

international co-op development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 21

Co-op-USDA partnership still strong after 75 years . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 4

Co-ops and the transformation of global dairy relationships . . Nov./Dec. 21

Co-ops and trade sanctions

Co-ops defend their members’ interests in sanctions reform 

debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 22

Need for change trumpeted at NICE

Farm Bill Task Force proposes actions to reverse farm-income

downward spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 7

Significance of the Cooperative Marketing Act’s other key 

provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 15

Turmoil of early 20th century led to USDA role in assisting 

co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 9

Livestock (Pork)

Bovine biogas

Dairy co-op sees major potential in methane gas recovery 

technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 16

Food trends bode well for co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 18

How the Tillamook methane-recovery project will work: . . Nov./Dec. 20

Primary ways to process manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 18

Up-front capital key to surviving a slow start . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 16

Hang on to the ranch

Young livestock ,poultry co-ops share goal to strengthen producers’

role in marketplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 14

On the sea of grass

Colorado ranchers band together to cut cattle-grazing 

costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 4

Management

Coping with change:

Merger of local farm supply co-ops forces boards to deal with 

emotional issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 6

Good interview process crucial to selecting top-notch CEO . Sept./Oct. 10

Hazen selected top CEO communicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 13

Need for change trumpeted at NICE

Farm Bill Task Force proposes actions to reverse farm-income

downward spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 7

Market Orders

All bogged down

Record cranberry crops, soft markets force industry to eye 

marketing order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 6

Season of turmoil

A price dispute between California’s raisin growers and packers

divides financially troubled industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 14

State and federal marketing orders direct dancing raisins and 

market supply . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 18

Marketing

A critical look at new-generation cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 15

All bogged down

Record cranberry crops, soft markets force industry to eye marketing order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 6

Beet growers co-ops on brink of processing most U.S. 

sugar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 29

Candy goblins gobble up profits from lower sugar prices . . Jan./Feb. 14

Co-ops’ share of farm market, major cash expenditures 

down in ‘99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 7

Earnings, sales dip for local cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 6

Farm co-op business volume increases slightly in 2000 . . . . Nov./Dec. 4

Financial performance declines for largest ag co-ops in ‘99 . . Jan./Feb. 20

Finding a niche

Dakota Growers Pasta co-op finds success in a highly competitive

market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 4

Food trends bode well for co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 18

Hang on to the ranch

Young livestock, poultry co-ops share goal to strengthen producers’

role in marketplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 14

Local cooperatives’ role in identity-preserved grain 

industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 23

Minnesota leads nation in co-op business volume . . . . . . . . . March/April 8

More than one way

Dairy cooperatives pursue varied paths to structural 

change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 20

Need for change trumpeted at NICE

Farm Bill Task Force proposes actions to reverse farm-income

downward spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 7

Peach growers cling to association

CCPA assumes greater role in helping industry manage 

supply, avoid pitfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 4

Sales climb, net income declines for local cooperatives 

in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 25

Season of turmoil

A price dispute between California’s raisin growers and 

packers divides financially troubled industry . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 14

Selling it!

Florida citrus industry boosts consumption with health-focused

advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 27

Sweet and sour

Sugar cooperatives restructure to combat foreign threats, low

prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 10

U.S. ranked among world’s lowest cost producers . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 13

34 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives
Member Relations

Communications linked to loyalty

If you want your co-op messages heard, it’s still a face-to-face,

hard-copy world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 24

Coping with change:

Merger of local farm supply co-ops forces boards to deal with emotional issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 6

Keep the co-op candle burning

Effective member relations essential to keeping co-op 

spirit alive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 19

SS Frederick member supported co-op merger despite all 

hurdles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 8

Mergers

Clear sense of vision & mission critical to co-ops facing 

mergers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 12

Coping with change:

Merger of local farm supply co-ops forces boards to deal with 

emotional issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 6

More than one way

Dairy cooperatives pursue varied paths to structural 

change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 20

Morning Glory brand name survives mergers . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 12

Need for change trumpeted at NICE

Farm Bill Task Force proposes actions to reverse farm-income 

downward spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 7

SS Frederick member supported co-op merger despite 

all hurdles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 8

New-Generation Co-ops

A critical look at new-generation cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 15

Finding a niche

Dakota Growers Pasta co-op finds success in a highly competitive

market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 4

Statistics

Co-ops’ share of farm market, major cash expenditures 

down in ‘99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 7

Earnings, sales dip for local cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 6

Farm co-op business volume increases slightly in 2000 . . . . Nov./Dec. 4

Financial performance declines for largest ag co-ops in ‘99Jan./Feb. 20

How does your local farm supply co-op rate? . . . . . . . . . . May/June 21

Local co-ops embrace high-tech agronomy systems . . . . May/June 11

Minnesota leads nation in co-op business volume . . . . . . March/April 8

More than one way

Dairy cooperatives pursue varied paths to structural 

change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 20

Sales climb, net income declines for local cooperatives 

in 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 25

Statistics show cooperative status, progress and trends July/August 18

2001 USDA co-op survey on the way . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 29

Sugar

Beet growers co-ops on brink of processing most U.S. sugar . . . May/June 29

Candy goblins gobble up profits from lower sugar prices . . Jan./Feb. 14

How sweet it is . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 12

Roche takes helm as Minn-Dak CEO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 26

Sweet and sour

Sugar cooperatives restructure to combat foreign threats, 

low prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 10

U.S. ranked among world’s lowest cost producers . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 13

Technology

Better eating through biotechnology?

Tips shared for communicating about biotech food issues . Sept./Oct. 29

Bovine biogas

Dairy co-op sees major potential in methane gas recovery 

technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 16

Communications linked to loyalty

If you want your co-op messages heard, it’s still a face-to-face, 

hard-copy world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 24

Energy prices spark interest in ethanol co-ops . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 33

Hazen selected top CEO communicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 13

How the Tillamook methane-recovery project will work: . . Nov./Dec. 20

Local cooperatives’ role in identity-preserved grain industry May/June 23

Local co-ops embrace high-tech agronomy systems . . . . May/June 11

Moving e-fficiently into e-commerce

A guide for businesses ready to go online, big time . July/August 22

Primary ways to process manure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 18

Trade

Co-ops and the transformation of global dairy 

relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 21

Co-ops and trade sanctions

Co-ops defend their members’ interests in sanctions reform 

debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 22

Ocean Spray opens China market for cranberry juice 

products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 8

Value Added

A critical look at new-generation cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 15

All bogged down

Record cranberry crops, soft markets force industry to eye 

marketing order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 6

Co-op-USDA partnership still strong after 75 years . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 4

Finding a niche

Dakota Growers Pasta co-op finds success in a highly competitive

market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 4

Hang on to the ranch

Young livestock, poultry co-ops share goal to strengthen producers’

role in marketplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 14

Morning Glory brand name survives mergers . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 12

Sweet and sour

Sugar cooperatives restructure to combat foreign threats, 

low prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 10

Veneman cites cooperatives as vehicle to help growers add value 

to products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 20

AUTHORS

Baarda, James

Critical need seen to broaden, invigorate current approach to 

cooperative research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 21

Barton, David

Finding a niche

Dakota Growers Pasta co-op finds success in a highly 

competitive market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 4

Boland, Michael

Finding a niche

Dakota Growers Pasta co-op finds success in a highly 

competitive market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 4

Borst, Alan

Co-ops and trade sanctions

Co-ops defend their members’ interests in sanctions reform 

debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 22

Campell, Dan

Communications linked to loyalty

If you want your co-op messages heard, it’s still a face-to-face,

hard-copy world . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 24

Hang on to the ranch

Young livestock, poultry co-ops share goal to strengthen producers’

role in marketplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 14

Hazen selected top CEO communicator . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 13

Need for change trumpeted at NICE

Farm Bill Task Force proposes actions to reverse farm-income

downward spiral . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 7

Selling it!

Florida citrus industry boosts consumption with health-focused

advertising . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 27

Chesnick, David S.

Financial performance declines for largest ag co-ops in ‘99. . . Jan./Feb. 20

Cornelius, Coleman

On the sea of grass

Colorado ranchers band together to cut cattle-grazing 

costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 4

Cropp, Robert A.

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2001 35
36 November/December 2001 / Rural Cooperatives

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 3255

Washington, D. C. 20250-3255

Periodicals Postage Paid

U.S. Department of Agriculture

University of Wisconsin–Madison Center for Co-ops & 

UW-Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 11

Duffey, Patrick

Co-op-USDA partnership still strong after 75 years . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 4

Co-ops respond to attacks with aid, calls or unity . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 15

Tragedy from the sky

Quick response helps Foremost Farms rebound after airplane slams

into plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 10

Turmoil of early 20th century led to USDA role in assisting 

co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 9

Dunn, John

Research and technical assistance work are heart of Cooperative 

Services mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 16

Eversull, Eldon

Local co-ops embrace high-tech agronomy systems . . . . May/June 11

Hamm, Largy G.

Co-ops and the transformation of global dairy relationships Nov./Dec. 21

Hammel, Paul

All ag, all the time

Farmer-owned radio station has served rural Nebraska for 

50 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 4

Hanson, Katherine L.

Coping with change:

Merger of local farm supply co-ops forces boards to deal with 

emotional issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 6

EdVisions

Minnesota teachers’ co-op serves rural charter schools . Jan./Feb. 27

Haskell, James

African village banks project shows renewed emphasis on international 

co-op development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 21

Hazen, Paul

Dot what? Dot coop!

New internet name for cooperatives provide new marketing, 

membership opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 29

Hogeland, Julie

Local cooperatives’ role in identity-preserved grain industry . May/June 23

Karg, Pamela J.

All bogged down

Record cranberry crops, soft markets force industry to eye 

marketing order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 6

Peach growers cling to association

CCPA assumes greater role in helping industry manage supply, 

avoid pitfalls . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 4

Sweet and sour

Sugar cooperatives restructure to combat foreign threats, 

low prices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 10

Kraenzle, Charles

Co-ops’ share of farm market, major cash expenditures down 

in ‘99 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 7

Farm co-op business volume increases slightly in 2000 . . Nov./Dec. 4

Minnesota leads nation in co-op business volume . . . . . . March/April 8

Statistics show cooperative status, progress and trends July/August 18

Liebrand, Carolyn

More than one way

Dairy cooperatives pursue varied paths to structural 

change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 20

Merlo, Catherine

Power in peril

California co-ops struggle to cope with the state’s energy 

crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 12

Season of turmoil

A price dispute between California’s raisin growers and packers

divides financially troubled industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 14

Rotan, Beverly L.

Earnings, sales dip for local cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 6

How does your local farm supply co-op rate? . . . . . . . . . . May/June 21

Sales climb, net income declines for local co-op in 2000 . Nov./Dec. 25

Thompson, Steve

Bovine biogas

Dairy co-op sees major potential in methane gas recovery 

technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 16

Torgerson, Randall

A critical look at new-generation cooperatives . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 15

Commitment to cooperative systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jan./Feb. 2

Directors share major role as part of cooperative management 

team . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sept./Oct. 2

Good time to assess cooperatives’ role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 2

New USDA program supports growth of value-added 

ventures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 2

Research key to expanding co-op knowledge and 

understanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 2

Significance of the Cooperative Marketing Act’s other key 

provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 15

USDA marks 75th anniversary of service to cooperatives . . July/August 2

Turkel, Tux

Neighborhoods warm to bargaining power of co-ops . . March/April 17

Wadsworth, James J.

Keep the co-op candle burning

Effective member relations essential to keeping co-op 

spirit alive . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 19

USDA’s commitment to cooperative education . . . . . . . . July/August 19

Warman, Marc

Co-ops and trade sanctions

Co-ops defend their members’ interests in sanctions reform 

debate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nov./Dec. 22

Wells, John

USDA’s expanding cooperative development assistance 

role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 13