United States

Department of

Agriculture

Rural Business–

Cooperative

Service

RBS Research

Report 183

Crop Protectant

Operations of Local

Farm Supply and

Marketing Cooperatives
Abstract Crop Protectant Operations of Local Farm Supply and Marketing Cooperatives 

This report analyzes the crop protectant operations of 383 local farm supply and marketing cooperatives. They were surveyed about their 1999 crop protectant sales,

source of product, competitors and type of competition, and services offered or desired

to offer. Questions focused on global positioning and geographic information systems

in crop protectant use and application. Most questions were similar to ones in a 1996

fertilizer survey. That facilitated comparisons. Crop protectant sales trends for these

cooperatives during the past 9 years were compared to the prior survey. Data from 10

standard U.S. farm production regions and 4 cooperative sizes and types were compiled. 

Key words: Cooperatives, crop protectant sales, precision agriculture, GPS/GIS technology, services, and farm supply sales.

E. Eldon Eversull

Rural Business-Cooperative Service

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Research Report 183

May 2001

Price: domestic--$5.00; foreign--$5.50
Preface This report studied the 1999 crop protectant sales and services of 383 local farmer

cooperatives and compared them with crop protectant sales trends during the past 9

years. Changes in operations were also compared to a 1996 fertilizer study. The current study focused on regional differences as well as cooperative size and type differences.

This information provides cooperative managers and boards of directors with a basis

for comparing their cooperatives' historical crop protectant sales performance and services offered with representative cooperative data. The author thanks the cooperatives

that participated in this study.

i
Contents Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .iii

All Respondents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Quintile Rankings—Sales Growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .4

GPS/GIS Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Regional Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6

Size and Type Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Prior Survey Comparisons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .14

Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

ii
Highlights Almost 400 local farm supply and marketing cooperatives provided information about

their crop protectant sales, sources, competitors, type of competition, and services.

These cooperatives represented 37 percent of locals that sold at least $0.5 million of

crop protectants. In 1999, crop protectant sales of those surveyed were $830 million,

or 40 percent of local agricultural cooperatives’ crop protectant sales. The information

gathered was combined with similar data from the past 9 years, with comparisons by

region, growth in sales, and services offered in a similar 1996 fertilizer study.

Surveyed local cooperatives had crop protectant sales in excess of $0.5 million. Their

1999 sales averaged $2.2 million—farm supplies, $10.6 million; and marketing, $11.1

million. Their crop protectant sales grew almost 11 percent per year from 1991 to

1999. An analysis of those operations showed:

● Herbicides comprised 81 percent of all crop protectant sales; insecticides, 14

percent; fungicides, 3 percent; and all other crop protectant products, 2 percent.

● Most locals got their crop protectants from regional cooperatives—about 68

percent of herbicides and insecticides and almost 50 percent of fungicides and

all other crop protectant products.

● Their primary competitors were private crop protectant suppliers. Other cooperatives were a close second. Most often, price was the major competitive tool.

● More than 95 percent of the cooperatives provided crop protectant application,

93 percent had crop/agronomy specialists, 83 percent offered soil testing for

organic matter, and 76 percent supplied crop protectant records. Services

offered varied by cooperative size. Those with higher sales volumes offered

more services.

● Cooperatives used technology—global positioning system (GPS) and global

information system (GIS)—to apply crop protectants. Sixty-eight percent of the

cooperative volume was offered with possible field mapping technology

(offered, but not necessarily used). It was also offered for record keeping by

cooperatives with 48 percent of the crop protectant volume; 57 percent of the

volume could be applied with equipment using GPS/GIS. 

iii
Crop Protectant Operations of Local

Farm Supply and Marketing Cooperatives 

E. Eldon Eversull

Rural Business-Cooperative Service 

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Local agricultural cooperatives sold $2.3 billion,

or 27 percent, of the $8.6 billion farmers spent for crop

protectants—herbicides, insecticides, fungicides, and

all other crop protectant products—in 1999.

Protectants accounted for almost 5 percent of total

farm production expenditures.

The crop protection industry has had many

changes during the past two decades. Increased input

costs, environmental concerns, and low crop prices in

the 1980s placed more emphasis on sustainable agriculture, using less fertilizers and crop protectants.

Interest in technology increased during the 1990s.

Technology permitted crop protectants to be applied

based on pest presence and crop needs in 2.5- to 4-acre

grids mapped with global positioning system (GPS)

and geographic information system (GIS) technology.

GPS technology pinpoints within several yards

the location of crop protectant application equipment

in a farmer’s field. GIS maps can then be made that

combine the location within the field with soil samples, scouting reports on pest damage, and yield monitor results to crop protection application equipment.

Ground water quality exerted pressure on crop

protectant usage in the 1990s. Crop protectants are

expensive so farmers strive to use the minimum

amount needed. Even with careful usage of crop protectants, urban areas have increasingly looked at farm

operations as sources of pollutants and pressured

farmers to use less crop protectants to avoid harming

urban water quality.

More recently, genetically modified organisms

(GMOs) have gained attention. Some GMOs allowed

the farmer to use less crop protectants by planting

insect-resistant varieties such as Bt corn and Bt cotton.

Other GMOs are resistant to popular broad-spectrum

herbicides so they need less crop protectant treatments

and because of the reduction in weed pressure on the

crop, promote no- or minimum-till practices.

Scientists as well as farmers have broadly

embraced the benefits of GMOs and supported their

use. Some suggest GMOs may provide the opportunity

for farmers to produce enough food to overcome

world hunger. Some consumers and/or consumer

groups will continue to object to GMOs until they can

be shown to directly benefit consumers and are considered safe, for instance, people losing weight from eating foods produced from GMO crops.

Even with this new technology that uses field

maps, scouting reports, and aerial photos, farmers still

have many decision and interpretation problems.

Farmer-owned cooperatives, recognizing the need for

better information and analysis, have been on the forefront in providing crop/agronomy specialists to help

with recommendations on crop protectant application,

field mapping, and record keeping with GPS/GIS.

Local cooperatives were surveyed about their

crop protectant sales, sources, competition, and services offered. Questions also focused on the relatively

new use of agricultural technology like GPS/GIS in

crop protectant application and field mapping.

Information from 383 local cooperatives represented 37

percent of locals selling crop protectants. Those sales

totaled $830 million (40 percent of all local cooperative

crop protectant sales). The information was combined

with crop protectant sales information from the past 9

years and compared with services offered, by region,

and a 1996 fertilizer study. Cooperatives again were

subdivided into the four size and type categories used

in prior studies [Eversull, Rotan].

1
All Respondents

Each year, USDA’s Rural Business-Cooperative

Service (RBS) surveys all farmer cooperatives. Data

from this survey and the RBS database were used in

this study.

Special questions were attached to the annual

surveys of local cooperatives with crop protectant

sales in excess of $0.5 million. Crop protectant sales of

these cooperatives averaged $2.2 million; farm supply

sales, $10.6 million; and marketing sales, $11.1 million

in 1999 (figure 1). Crop protectant sales increased

steadily at the rate of about 11 percent per year from

1991 to 1999.

Herbicides, at 81 percent of dollar volume, comprised the bulk of all crop protectant sales; insecticides, 14 percent; fungicides, 3 percent; and all other

crop protectant products, 2 percent. Herbicides were

sold by 381 respondents while 353 sold insecticides,

140 sold fungicides, and 90 sold all other crop protectant products.

Most locals got their crop protectants from

regionals—about 68 percent of herbicides and insecticides, and a little over 48 percent of fungicides and all

other products (table 1). Private dealers/suppliers and

manufacturers provided about 30 percent of the herbicides and insecticides and about 50 percent of the

fungicides and all other products.

The respondents were also asked whom they considered their top three competitors (table 2). A private

supplier of crop protectants was considered the

strongest for competitors number one through competitors number three. For competitor number one, a

private supplier was the top competitor 51 percent of

2

Figure 1—Average Respondent Sales

Million Dollar

Table 1—Sources of crop protectants, weighted by sales 1

Regional Other Private Private

Crop protectant cooperative cooperative manufacturer dealer/supplier Other

Percent

All crop protectants 67.42 1.04 9.98 21.54 0.03

Herbicides 68.41 1.11 9.48 20.96 .03

Insecticides 67.46 .87 12.78 13.91 5.44

Fungicides 48.42 .11 13.91 37.56 —

All other products 50.36 .47 5.44 43.35 .38

1 Might not add due to rounding.

— = Not available.

15

10

5

0

91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99

Table 2—Top three crop protectant competitors

weighted by sales 1

Private Other Private

Competitor supplier cooperative manufacturer Dealer

Percent

Number One 50.88 36.02 2.35 10.75

Number Two 2 42.86 39.99 4.57 12.58

Number Three 2 37.47 32.55 7.05 22.93

1 Might not add due to rounding.

2 Values for competitors two and three may not add to 100

because not all cooperatives had more than one competitor.

Marketing

All Supplies

Crop Protectants
the time. An "other" cooperative was the strongest for

competitors number one through three about a third of

the time.

The respondents were asked how they competed

with their top three competitors in three categories—

price; advisory scouting and other services; and product quality and availability. Price was the competitive

tool used most often (table 3). Crop protectant quality

and availability did not seem to be much of an issue.

For competition with private suppliers, price was

always more than twice as important as providing

advisory services, scouting, and other services. An

"other" cooperative also competed on price, but providing advisory services, scouting, and other services

was a very close second competitive tool. Private crop

protectant manufacturers and dealers were very price

competitive.

Services offered in conjunction with crop protectant sales ranged from application to crop protectant

record keeping (table 4). Crop protectants were

applied by cooperative personnel using its equipment.

Crop protectants used were often a liquid spray but

could also be dry flowable. A crop/agronomy specialist could make recommendations on seed, fertilizer,

and crop protectant needs. The specialist also could

make on-farm visits to scout fields for pests and prescribe the appropriate remedies. Soil testing was for

organic matter. Records were maintained to document

when, how, and at what rate crop protectants were

applied. Infrared, satellite, and other aerial photography devices were used to check crop health. Photos

can show weak stands while lighter or darker colors

could show crop damage. Infrared photos could also

show crop damage through the analysis of different

plant colors.

There were also questions on GPS/GIS services

offered. The field mapping service could be provided

using GPS units and information then combined in

GIS maps looking at fertilizer usage, crop protectant

applications and rates, and yield monitor results.

Application equipment with GPS units allowed crop

protectants to be applied based on GIS maps or on current infrared, satellite, or other aerial photographs. The

final service asked was on the provision of crop protectant usage records to the farmer based on information

generated using GPS/GIS sources.

Most respondents (96 percent) offered application

services for crop protectants. Ninety-three percent of

the cooperatives employed crop/agronomy specialists

for recommendations and scouting. About 83 percent

offered soil tests for organic matter. Seventy-six percent recorded the type and amount of crop protectants

applied to farmers’ fields. Infrared, satellite, and standard aerial photography of fields were offered much

3

Table 3—Type of competition by top competitors,

weighted by sales 1

Competition by:

———————————————

Advisory Product 

scouting, quality and

Competitor Price other services availability

Percent of the time these 

tools were most important

Number One

Private supplier 56.51 26.73 16.76

Another cooperative 47.64 40.42 11.95

Private manufacturer 51.58 46.31 2.11

Dealer 74.99 9.09 15.93

Number Two 2

Private supplier 58.91 22.78 18.31

Another cooperative 43.52 37.93 18.54

Private manufacturer 68.00 15.33 16.67

Dealer 59.12 27.25 13.63

Number Three 2

Private supplier 58.97 24.93 16.09

Another cooperative 43.46 39.68 16.86

Private manufacturer 75.08 16.74 8.18

Dealer 75.18 16.28 8.54

1 May not add due to rounding.

2 Values for competitors two and three may not add to 100 because

not all cooperatives had more than one competitor. 

Table 4—Services offered, weighted by sales

Currently Would like

Services offer to offer

Percent

Crop protectant application 95.56 0.26

Crop/agronomy specialist—

recommendations and scouting 93.10 1.84

Soil testing for organic matter 82.92 5.72

Record keeping of crop protectant 

usage 76.16 14.01

Infrared, satellite, and other aerial 

photography 11.74 16.82

Field mapping/recommendations 

using GPS/GIS 68.22 16.00

Application equipment with 

GPS units 56.54 21.92

Record keeping with GPS/GIS 48.12 25.10
less frequently (about 12 percent). In the future, 17 percent of the respondents would like to add photography analysis.

Cooperatives have embraced the use of GPS/GIS

in agronomy sales. About 24 percent of the respondents in the 1996 fertilizer study had application

equipment that used GPS/GIS technology. Three years

later, the percentage had more than doubled—57 percent of the same respondents from 1996 had application equipment with the technology. Sixty-eight percent were able to prepare field maps with the aid of

GPS and almost half could combine the maps with

crop protectant application for record-keeping purposes. At least 16 percent wanted to add GPS services.

Quintile Rankings—Sales Growth

This section ranks the respondents by crop protectant sales growth from 1991 through 1999. There

were 295 (out of the 383) that replied to the RBS annual

survey for 1991-99. Initially, the top 59 cooperatives in

crop protectant sales growth were in quintile 1, the second 59 in quintile 2, etc. After analyzing the data, 7

cooperatives were dropped, leaving a data set of 288

cooperatives. The quintile 1 rate of growth was a

rather large 26 percent per year (table 5). Thirty-two of

these cooperatives participated in mergers or acquisitions with other cooperatives during the period, thus

greatly increasing their growth. The quintile 5 group

only had 10 mergers or acquisitions and also closed 7

branches. In terms of crop protectant sales, the top

group was much larger than the other four, almost half

again larger.

The top growth cooperatives were not only larger

but they also relied a little less on regional cooperatives as their source of crop protectants, buying about

65 percent from regionals. The others purchased

almost 70 percent. With their presumably bigger market territories because of their larger size, they also felt

4

Table 5—Quintile ranking of respondents based on crop protectant sales growth 

Item Quintile1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5

Percent

Growth per year 26.41 12.58 8.74 5.90 1.24

Number

Number of cooperatives 56 58 59 58 57

Mergers or acquisitions 32 26 18 20 10

Branch closures — — — 1 7

Dollars

Crop protectant sales 3,018,837 2,382,529 1,873,193 2,344,048 1,903,127

— = Not available.

Table 6—Top three competitors based on quintile

growth, weighted by sales 1

Private Other Private 

Competitor supplier cooperative manufacturer Dealer

Percent

Number One

Quintile 1 44.48 53.48 — 2.05

Quintile 2 46.38 32.60 4.26 16.75

Quintile 3 52.84 33.23 2.32 11.62

Quintile 4 61.69 31.05 — 7.25

Quintile 5 53.37 30.91 1.86 13.86

Number Two 2

Quintile 1 47.79 36.46 2.48 13.26

Quintile 2 43.84 32.27 7.07 16.82

Quintile 3 42.08 39.93 4.64 13.34

Quintile 4 41.07 44.98 2.28 11.67

Quintile 5 41.00 46.53 1.37 11.10

Number Three 2

Quintile 1 22.67 41.75 4.13 31.45

Quintile 2 33.43 39.81 4.03 22.73

Quintile 3 33.34 40.17 6.52 19.98

Quintile 4 49.46 23.87 16.02 10.65

Quintile 5 48.30 18.89 7.37 25.45

1 Might not add due to rounding.

2 Values for competitors two and three may not add to 100 because

not all cooperatives had more than one competitor.

— = Not available.
other cooperatives were their top competition (table 6).

The number two competitor was most often a private

supplier except for quintile 4 and 5 cooperatives. The

number three competitor shifted back to other cooperatives for quintile 1 through 3 cooperatives.

In table 7, the form of competition by the top

three competitors is presented. Looking back at competition in table 3, price was always most important

while in this table the quintile 1 cooperatives felt that

offering advisory, scouting, and other services was

their main competitive tool against another cooperative. Competition with dealers was most often on price

(not shown in this table because there were fewer than

6 responses, price competition was important with private manufacturers as the competitor, as would be

expected). Although competitors for quintiles 2

through 4 are not shown in this table, their responses

are similar to those of quintile 5. Quintile 5 cooperatives mainly competed on price. Quintile 5 cooperatives were generally smaller and had less resources

available to provide services and thus price competition was more important.

All cooperatives offered fairly similar levels of

application and crop/agronomy specialists—over 90

percent for both services (table 8). Quintile 1 cooperatives offered higher levels of infrared, satellite, and

other aerial photography devices; soil testing for

organic matter; and record keeping—from 6 to 16

points different from the slowest growing cooperatives. The difference was even more evident in the

GPS/GIS services. Many services offered more often

by the quintile 1 cooperatives were expensive and

beyond the basic need of application and recommendations/scouting necessary for crop protection sales.

Part of the reason quintile 1 cooperatives offered the

other services more often could be because of their

larger size and the fact that they sold about 50 percent

more dollars of crop protectants than the other cooperatives.

GPS/GIS Technology

Cooperatives that have adopted GPS/GIS technologies tended to have larger crop protectant sales,

but not necessarily those that have experienced large

growth in these sales. This section focuses on the 185

cooperatives that offered field mapping, the most popular use of GPS/GIS technology, and compares them

with the other 198 respondents. Although these 198

5

Table 7—Type of competition by the top three quintile 1 and 5 competitors, weighted by sales 1

Type of competition

———————————————————————————————————————

Advisory Product Advisory Product

scouting, quality & scouting, quality &

Competitor Price other services availability Price other services availability

Percent

Quintile 1 2 Quintile 5 2

Number one competitor

Private supplier 53.58 35.73 10.69 62.48 27.24 10.28

Other cooperative 27.09 58.21 14.70 65.79 21.95 12.26

Dealer — — — 47.99 8.29 43.72

Number two competitor 3

Private supplier 39.22 33.60 27.19 64.07 24.43 11.50

Other cooperative 25.65 52.59 21.76 38.31 38.83 22.85

Number three competitor 3

Private supplier 44.76 32.09 23.15 53.28 33.10 13.62

Other cooperative 33.90 52.61 13.49 55.13 29.09 15.78

Dealer 82.08 11.19 6.73 57.90 32.25 9.85

1 May not add due to rounding.

2 Only competitors with 6 or more responses included. Private manufacturers were considered as competitors by less than 6 respondent

cooperatives so were dropped from this table as were dealers when there were less than 6 responses.

3 Values for competitors two and three may not add to 100 because not all cooperatives had more than one competitor.

— = Not available.
cooperatives did not offer GPS/GIS technology now,

their responses in table 10 indicated that half of these

cooperatives would like to offer the technology in the

future.

The cooperatives that have adopted this technology were larger than the average respondent—crop

protectant sales averaged $3.1 million compared with

$1.3 million for the others. These cooperatives were

more likely to purchase their crop protectants from a

regional cooperative (table 9). About 73 percent of the

herbicides and insecticides bought by GPS/GIS cooperatives were purchased from regional cooperatives

while all other cooperatives purchased about 58 percent. The regionals represented most often in this survey—Cenex Harvest States/Land O’Lakes, Farmland,

and Growmark—were most likely supplying both crop

protectants and promoting GPS/GIS technology to

many of these local cooperatives.

The competitors the GPS/GIS cooperatives faced

and types of competition were very similar to that

reported for all cooperatives in tables 2 and 3. A private supplier was most often the major competitor and

price was the major competitive tool. Services were

probably important to these cooperatives because they

made crop protectant recommendations and interpreted the field maps based on the GPS/GIS technology.

Almost 100 percent of the GPS/GIS cooperatives

applied crop protectants while 87 percent of the others

did so (table 10). These cooperatives were also more

likely to use field photographs, employ crop/agronomy specialists for field scouting, soil test for organic

matter, and keep records of farmers’ use of crop protectants.

Cooperatives in this section were selected

because they mapped fields using GPS/GIS, so they

would all offer it and the other cooperatives would

6

Table 8—Crop protectant services that cooperatives offer or would like to offer by growth, weighted by sales 

Currently Would like Currently Would like 

Services offer to offer Services offer to offer

Percent Percent

Crop protectant application Infrared, satellite, and other aerial photography

Quintile 1 98.65 0.47 Quintile 1 17.77 9.65

Quintile 2 95.91 — Quintile 2 15.64 17.62

Quintile 3 90.96 0.00 Quintile 3 13.77 20.53

Quintile 4 93.27 0.83 Quintile 4 8.21 13.05

Quintile 5 97.75 — Quintile 5 1.07 12.61

Crop/agronomy specialists—recommendations & scouting Record keeping—crop protectant usage

Quintile 1 95.59 2.65 Quintile 1 86.67 11.80

Quintile 2 98.11 — Quintile 2 70.82 12.79

Quintile 3 91.84 0.52 Quintile 3 74.42 14.72

Quintile 4 93.42 2.33 Quintile 4 74.44 16.35

Quintile 5 93.76 1.46 Quintile 5 72.43 13.53

Soil testing for organic matter Application equipment with GPS units

Quintile 1 91.39 4.16 Quintile 1 75.09 13.54

Quintile 2 79.25 9.35 Quintile 2 62.05 17.63

Quintile 3 74.87 9.40 Quintile 3 44.98 22.67

Quintile 4 87.05 3.75 Quintile 4 56.40 26.40

Quintile 5 85.89 1.57 Quintile 5 57.60 13.92

Field mapping/recommendations using GPS/GIS Record keeping with GPS/GIS

Quintile 1 79.32 10.60 Quintile 1 69.79 17.08

Quintile 2 68.59 17.11 Quintile 2 46.50 20.99

Quintile 3 53.92 23.45 Quintile 3 33.40 33.22

Quintile 4 66.56 13.58 Quintile 4 45.62 27.77

Quintile 5 75.93 6.95 Quintile 5 52.03 18.96

— = Not available.
7

Table 9—Sources of crop protectants for cooperatives that offer GPS/GIS field mapping, and all other,

weighted by sales 1

Regional Other Private Private

Crop protectant cooperative cooperative manufacturer dealer/supplier Other

Percent

Herbicides

GPS/GIS cooperatives 73.46 1.17 7.08 18.25 0.04

All other cooperatives 57.52 0.98 14.68 26.82 —

Insecticides

GPS/GIS cooperatives 73.00 1.01 9.43 16.55 0.02

All other cooperatives 54.77 0.55 20.45 24.22 —

Fungicides

GPS/GIS cooperatives 52.73 0.19 12.72 34.36 0.01

All other cooperatives 43.86 0.03 15.18 40.94 —

All other products

GPS/GIS cooperatives 57.78 0.58 7.14 34.11 0.39

All other cooperatives 30.13 0.16 0.83 68.52 0.37

1 Might not add due to rounding.

— = Not available.

Table 10—Crop protectant services that GPS/GIS field mapping cooperatives and all other offer or would like

to offer, weighted by sales 

Currently Would like Currently Would like

Services offer to offer Services offer to offer

Percent Percent

Crop protectant application Infrared, satellite, & other aerial photography

GPS/GIS cooperatives 99.80 0.20 GPS/GIS cooperatives 15.66 14.98

All other cooperatives 86.46 0.39 All other cooperatives 3.32 20.78

Crop/agronomy specialists—recommendations & scouting Record keeping—crop protectant usage

GPS/GIS cooperatives 98.85 0.47 GPS/GIS cooperatives 83.94 10.66

All other cooperatives 80.78 4.76 All other cooperatives 59.48 21.21

Soil testing for organic matter Application equipment with GPS units

GPS/GIS cooperatives 95.77 1.80 GPS/GIS cooperatives 78.22 12.19

All other cooperatives 55.35 14.11 All other cooperatives 9.99 42.81

Field mapping/recommendations using GPS/GIS Record keeping with GPS/GIS

GPS/GIS cooperatives 100.00 — GPS/GIS cooperatives 69.02 16.99

All other cooperatives — 49.77 All other cooperatives 3.26 42.53

— = Not available.
not. Half of the other cooperatives would like to offer

field mapping sometime in the future. Almost 80 percent of the GPS/GIS cooperatives have crop protection

application equipment that can be guided by GPS

units. Only 10 percent of the other cooperatives have

GPS guided application equipment, but 43 percent

would like to. Keeping records of farmers’ fields could

be done using GPS/GIS technology by 69 percent of

the cooperatives while about 3 percent of the other

cooperatives were capable of doing this. Again, about

43 percent of the other cooperatives would like to be

able to do this.

Regional Comparisons

More so than any prior comparisons in this study,

there were regional differences in cooperative crop

protectant operations. Ten standard farm production

regions1 were used. Because of the small number of

respondents, the Northeast and Appalachian (NE&AP)

regions were combined as were the Southeast and

Delta States (SE&DS). The number of cooperative

respondents in each region is presented in table 11. The

Corn Belt (CB) had the most respondents, followed by

the Lake States (LS) and Northern Plains (NP). The CB

also had some large respondents, resulting in crop protectant sales averaging almost $3.2 million. For some

of the regions, especially NE&AP, SE&DS, and Pacific

(PA) with their small number of respondent cooperatives, it would be impossible to say the sample populations were representative. But, the information may

still be useful to these cooperatives.

NE&AP and NP cooperatives were most likely to

purchase their crop protectants from regionals (table

12). SE&DS and Southern Plains (SP) cooperatives purchased almost half of their crop protectants from private manufacturers and dealer/suppliers while more

than half of the Mountain (MT) and PA cooperatives

did so.

8

Table 11—Number of cooperatives by region and their

average crop protectant sales

Number of Average crop

Regions cooperatives protectant sales

Number Dollars

All 383 2,167,501

Northeast and Appalachian 17 1,708,050

Southeast and Delta States 9 3,193,878

Southern Plains 9 1,599,853

Corn Belt 143 2,844,934

Lake States 89 1,722,857

Northern Plains 89 1,536,846

Mountain 18 2,027,861

Pacific 9 2,725,752

Table 12—Sources of crop protectants by region, weighted by sales 1

Regional Other Private Private

Regions cooperative cooperative manufacturer dealer/supplier Other

Percent

All 67.42 1.04 9.98 21.54 0.03

Northeast and Appalachian 88.21 — 1.13 10.66 —

Southeast and Delta States 50.88 — 36.16 12.95 —

Southern Plains 52.95 — 16.68 30.37 —

Corn Belt 68.48 1.32 6.75 23.42 0.03

Lake States 67.69 1.57 8.50 22.17 0.07

Northern Plains 78.83 0.61 8.48 12.05 0.03

Mountain 44.24 0.02 27.96 27.78 —

Pacific 22.07 — 30.13 47.80 —

1 Might not add due to rounding.

— = Not available.

1 Standard farm production regions used, Northeast: ME, NH, VT,

NY, MA, RI, CT, PA, NJ, DE, MD, and DC. Lake States: MI, WI,

and MN. Corn Belt: OH, IN, IL, IA, and MO. Northern Plains:

ND, SD, NE, and KS. Appalachian: VA, WV, KY, TN, and NC.

Southeast: SC, GA, AL, and FL. Delta States: MS, LA, and AR.

Southern Plains: OK and TX. Mountain: MT, ID, WY, CO, UT, NV,

AZ, and NM. Pacific: WA, OR, CA, HI, and AK.
Competitors vary quite a bit among regions (table

13). The NE&AP and PA most often have private suppliers as competitors. The CB, LS, and NP, where more

cooperatives are located, have an "other" cooperative

as a competitor more often. Price was generally the

most important form of competition (table 14). The

analysis in this table was limited to those competitors

and regions where there were at least six responses in

the categories, so competitors were narrowed to private suppliers and other cooperatives. Due to the limited number of responses, the SE&DS and SP regions

were dropped from this table. Competition in the LS

focused on price even though there were at least 30

cooperatives in each category (i.e. 30 responses to

number one competitor was a private supplier and 30

responses to number one competitor was an "other"

cooperative). This was odd in that cooperatives in the

LS offered a lot of services (table 15). The deviation

from price competition comes in the CB where advisory recommendations, field scouting, and other services

were most important when competing with another

cooperative.

By region, services offered varied greatly, with

the SP and PA regions most often offering the fewest

services (table 15). Cooperatives in most regions had a

high incidence of offering application and crop/agronomy specialists for recommendations and field scouting. Record keeping of crop protectant usage was

offered less often, but if the cooperatives wanting to

offer record keeping in the future were added to those

9

Table 13—Top three competitors by region, weighted by sales 1

Private Other Private

Competitor supplier cooperative manufacturer Dealer

Percent

Number One

Northeast & Appalachian 69.43 6.45 — 24.12

Southeast & Delta States 32.39 45.68 — 21.93

Southern Plains 55.77 16.79 22.19 5.25

Corn Belt 53.41 35.15 2.56 8.88

Lake States 33.83 52.10 3.52 10.55

Northern Plains 54.76 31.92 0.38 12.94

Mountain 44.66 41.19 — 14.15

Pacific 100.00 — — —

Number Two 2

Northeast & Appalachian 61.55 18.29 — 20.16

Southeast & Delta States 42.33 14.26 — 43.41

Southern Plains 74.59 8.71 7.22 9.47

Corn Belt 42.10 44.79 1.50 11.61

Lake States 38.20 47.54 3.06 11.20

Northern Plains 37.82 37.97 10.31 13.90

Mountain 35.91 31.92 30.93 1.24

Pacific 100.00 — — —

Number Three 2

Northeast & Appalachian 57.37 5.32 2.66 34.65

Southeast & Delta States 56.90 11.25 20.91 10.94

Southern Plains 43.56 — 9.28 47.17

Corn Belt 33.68 32.24 7.44 26.64

Lake States 40.79 40.39 3.24 15.58

Northern Plains 31.26 41.97 9.71 17.06

Mountain 48.41 25.79 1.48 24.32

Pacific 68.31 — 5.83 25.86

1 Might not add due to rounding.

2 Values for competitors two and three may not add to 100 because not all cooperatives had more than one competitor.

— = Not available.
10

Table 14—Top three competitors and type of competition by region, weighted by sales 1

Type of competition

Advisory Product

scouting, quality &

Region Competitor 2Price other services availability 

Percent

Number One

Northeast & Appalachian Private supplier 43.93 32.94 23.14

Corn Belt Private supplier 52.76 28.43 18.81

Other cooperative 34.94 52.50 12.56

Lake States Private supplier 76.20 12.85 10.95

Other cooperative 57.19 30.37 12.44

Northern Plains Private supplier 56.24 29.17 14.59

Other cooperative 47.07 38.79 14.14

Mountain Private supplier 76.46 11.77 11.77

Other cooperative 67.64 23.48 8.87

Pacific Private supplier 46.37 41.71 11.92

Number Two 3

Northeast & Appalachian Private supplier 53.95 24.25 21.80

Corn Belt Private supplier 51.85 28.79 19.36

Other cooperative 35.78 44.08 20.15

Lake States Private supplier 73.17 14.91 11.92

Other cooperative 54.66 29.82 15.52

Northern Plains Private supplier 70.30 13.68 16.01

Other cooperative 49.45 34.56 15.99

Mountain Private supplier 57.91 7.01 35.08

Other cooperative 75.71 2.26 22.03

Pacific Private supplier 40.95 34.18 24.87

Number Three 3

Corn Belt Private supplier 45.08 33.51 21.41

Other cooperative 33.87 49.03 17.10

Lake States Private supplier 76.77 16.61 6.61

Other cooperative 53.94 27.11 18.95

Northern Plains Private supplier 75.51 15.16 9.33

Other cooperative 47.97 35.81 16.22

Mountain Private supplier 75.58 15.44 8.98

1 Might not add due to rounding.

2 Competitors limited to those having 6 responses—private manufacturers and dealers excluded because of too few responses.

3 Values for competitors two and three may not add to 100 because not all cooperatives had more than one competitor.
11

Table 15—Crop protectant services that cooperatives offer or would like to offer by regions, weighted by sales 

Currently Would like Currently Would like

Services offer to offer Services offer to offer

Percent Percent

Crop protectant application Crop/agronomy specialists—recommendations & scouting

Northeast and Appalachian 96.33 — Northeast and Appalachian 94.42 —

Southeast and Delta States 92.72 — Southeast and Delta States 100.00 —

Southern Plains 79.51 1.62 Southern Plains 71.87 1.62

Corn Belt 97.56 — Corn Belt 96.15 0.78

Lake States 97.01 — Lake States 94.30 0.48

Northern Plains 97.41 0.83 Northern Plains 85.40 8.11

Mountain 89.64 2.19 Mountain 99.45 —

Pacific 63.68 — Pacific 71.35 —

Soil testing for organic matter Record keeping—crop protectant usage

Northeast and Appalachian 86.99 — Northeast and Appalachian 39.78 17.76

Southeast and Delta States 74.35 16.11 Southeast and Delta States 55.97 24.36

Southern Plains 81.13 — Southern Plains 46.51 30.48

Corn Belt 91.19 2.57 Corn Belt 85.62 8.27

Lake States 80.07 7.51 Lake States 78.48 12.46

Northern Plains 75.44 7.88 Northern Plains 67.04 20.53

Mountain 67.99 14.01 Mountain 66.70 32.76

Pacific 33.79 20.21 Pacific 53.87 28.52

Infrared, satellite, and other aerial photography Field mapping/recommendations using GPS/GIS

Northeast and Appalachian 12.88 3.67 Northeast and Appalachian 73.83 6.75

Southeast and Delta States — 15.69 Southeast and Delta States 46.63 —

Southern Plains — 8.30 Southern Plains — 36.91

Corn Belt 12.52 13.04 Corn Belt 84.94 6.38

Lake States 15.89 22.56 Lake States 65.85 18.38

Northern Plains 10.36 20.95 Northern Plains 48.11 26.06

Mountain 4.17 26.22 Mountain 40.68 54.53

Pacific 11.01 28.52 Pacific 17.52 64.86

Application equipment with GPS units Record keeping with GPS/GIS

Northeast and Appalachian 61.56 18.41 Northeast and Appalachian 24.46 19.23

Southeast and Delta States 76.20 — Southeast and Delta States 30.52 —

Southern Plains 53.53 14.72 Southern Plains — 36.91

Corn Belt 68.98 13.59 Corn Belt 65.82 15.20

Lake States 47.49 28.19 Lake States 40.72 30.65

Northern Plains 38.46 33.25 Northern Plains 31.53 40.17

Mountain 43.25 51.96 Mountain 28.06 59.65

Pacific — 47.13 Pacific — 48.73

— = Not available.
already offering it, there appears to be a great interest

in record keeping. Infrared, satellite, and other aerial

photography for field analysis was offered the least,

but many cooperatives would like to offer this service

in the future.

The use of GPS/GIS technology seemed to be

centered in the CB where the cooperatives were some

of the largest respondents and corn and soybeans were

the predominant crops. Almost 69 percent of the application equipment in the CB had GPS units; field mapping could be made with GPS/GIS technology by 85

percent of the cooperatives, and record keeping with

this technology by 66 percent. The use of GPS/GIS

technology seems to fall with cooperative size and

when the predominant crops were not corn and soybeans.

For the cooperative to apply crop protectants

with GPS equipment, field maps have to be generated.

These maps are generally segmented into 2.5- to 4-acre

grids. Crop protectants are applied in the individual

grids based on soil tests, infrared, satellite, and aerial

photography, and field scouting. The analysis of the

information and the maps generated are only as good

as their interpretation. Many farmers rely on outside

help to scout their fields for crop protection. In the CB

and LS, where 85 percent and 66 percent of the respondents, respectively, provide field mapping, cooperatives also employ crop/agronomy specialists more

than 94 percent of the time. While the survey did not

specifically ask if the cooperative provided interpretation of the GPS/GIS information, that would be a safe

assumption given the equipment and services.

Size and Type Comparisons

Previous studies using the RBS database have

found differences in cooperative operations when the

cooperatives were classified by size and type. Those in

this study were divided into size and type using criteria developed in previous reports.

Since sales of crop protectants in this study had

to be greater than $0.5 million, there were few small

cooperative respondents. About 70 percent were large

and super cooperatives, and half mostly sold farm

supplies (table 16).

There were small differences by size and type for

the source of their crop protectants. Although not

shown, the majority received their crop protectants

from regional cooperatives, with additional amounts

coming from private suppliers and manufacturers.

There were also small differences in the competitors

that these cooperatives faced and the type of competition. As found in prior sections, private suppliers were

the top competitors and price was the main competitive tool. The exception was marketing cooperatives

for which the main competitor was another cooperative. Their prime competitor was another cooperative

63 percent of the time; number two, 51 percent; and

number three, 53 percent.

The major difference in size and type was in services offered (table 17). Many services require expensive equipment, specially trained personnel, or both,

making their offer more possible as cooperative size

increases. By size and type, more than 90 percent of the

respondents offered crop protectant application with

the exception of small cooperatives (77 percent).

Infrared, satellite, and other aerial photography

showed no real size-related pattern, as both small and

12

Table 16—Size and type definitions, number, and average crop protectant sales 

Definition Cooperatives Crop protection sales 

Number Dollars

Cooperative size

Small up to $5 million in total sales 33 936,991

Medium $5 million to $10 million 85 1,115,988

Large $10 million to $20 million 126 1,557,923

Super $20 million and more 139 3,655,215

Cooperative type

Farm supply total net sales from farm supplies 131 2,095,279

Mixed farm supply from 50 to 99 percent 77 1,935,974

Mixed marketing from 25 to 49 percent 130 2,364,875

Marketing less than 25 percent 45 2,203,721
13

Table 17—Crop protectant services that cooperatives offer or would like to offer by size and type

Currently Would like Currently Would like

Services offer to offer Services offer to offer

Cooperative size Percent Cooperative type Percent

Crop protectant application

Small 76.99 — Farm supply 90.60 0.41

Medium 92.55 1.19 Mixed farm supply 99.44 0.54

Large 90.95 0.53 Mixed marketing 96.89 0.08

Super 99.04 — Marketing 99.35 —

Infrared, satellite, and other aerial photography

Small — 13.44 Farm supply 8.03 21.18

Medium 12.53 18.79 Mixed farm supply 6.75 12.82

Large 2.26 16.93 Mixed marketing 12.80 15.54

Super 15.96 16.62 Marketing 26.18 14.74

Crop/agronomy specialists for recommendations and field scouting

Small 80.13 5.98 Farm supply 91.39 1.09

Medium 83.63 4.51 Mixed farm supply 96.52 0.46

Large 93.01 2.49 Mixed marketing 92.46 2.96

Super 95.70 0.83 Marketing 94.72 2.50

Record keeping—crop protectant usage

Small 62.65 18.56 Farm supply 71.70 15.83

Medium 59.42 18.35 Mixed farm supply 78.53 10.66

Large 73.30 12.01 Mixed marketing 82.57 8.43

Super 81.22 13.70 Marketing 65.08 31.32

Soil testing for organic matter

Small 38.85 13.34 Farm supply 74.28 7.47

Medium 75.65 2.35 Mixed farm supply 88.19 6.35

Large 78.86 10.73 Mixed marketing 86.69 4.00

Super 88.53 3.94 Marketing 87.25 5.23

Application equipment with GPS units

Small 4.98 42.56 Farm supply 58.15 19.06

Medium 32.31 21.26 Mixed farm supply 49.09 22.39

Large 50.44 26.71 Mixed marketing 57.14 24.78

Super 66.55 18.94 Marketing 61.38 20.28

Field mapping/recommendations using GPS/GIS

Small 3.21 — Farm supply 62.55 15.98

Medium 40.69 19.11 Mixed farm supply 69.34 15.93

Large 55.12 22.95 Mixed marketing 71.74 14.96

Super 82.37 11.12 Marketing 71.32 —

Record keeping with GPS/GIS

Small — 32.28 Farm supply 38.36 26.06

Medium 26.86 23.95 Mixed farm supply 47.29 24.42

Large 31.73 34.16 Mixed marketing 55.48 21.19

Super 61.35 21.38 Marketing 53.59 35.63

— = Not available.
large cooperatives seldom offer it. Photography

showed variation by type, increasing from 8 percent

for farm supply to 26 percent for marketing cooperatives.

Offering crop/agronomy specialists for recommendations and field scouting can be expensive and

only about 80 percent of the small and medium cooperatives did so. By type, more than 90 percent offered

crop/agronomy specialists.

Record keeping of crop protectant usage was

lower for smaller cooperatives, increasing from about

63 percent for small cooperatives to 81 for super cooperatives. Mixed marketing (83 percent) and mixed

farm supply (79 percent) cooperatives were most likely

to keep track of farmers’ use of crop protectants.

Soil testing for organic matter was much less likely conducted by small cooperatives (39 percent). Small

cooperatives had very little application equipment

with GPS units (5 percent). By contrast, more than 66

percent of the super cooperatives had such equipment.

Field mapping/recommendations using

GPS/GIS and record keeping with GPS/GIS was seldom done by small cooperatives. As cooperative size

increased, both services were offered more often.

Mixed farm supply, mixed marketing, and marketing

cooperatives all offered field mapping/recommendations about 70 percent of the time. Record keeping

with GPS/GIS was done about 50 percent of the time

by these same cooperatives.

Prior Survey Comparisons

In 1996, cooperatives that sold $ 0.5 million of fertilizer were surveyed about similar questions. They

covered volume sold, product sources, competitors,

and services offered with sales. The fertilizer survey

had 497 respondents, 206 of which responded to this

(crop protectant) survey (table 18). The CB, LS, and NP

accounted for 80 percent of the 206 respondents.

Although different applicators are used to apply

crop protectants and fertilizers, many personnel and

services are shared by cooperatives in the agronomy

departments that typically handle both products. In

tables 19 and 20, changes and similarities can be seen

in agronomy services from 1996 to 1999. Application

remained the same with about 95 percent of the cooperatives providing application services for agronomy

products (table 19). More cooperatives employed

crop/agronomy specialists in 1999, averaging about 8

points higher than 1996. Cooperatives offering soil

testing fell 10 points, but the question on testing

changed also. In 1996, only soil testing was asked for

in the response. In 1999, the question asked was for

soil testing for organic matter, a more involved and

expensive test. Still, most cooperatives offered this soil

test and quite a few would like to. Record keeping was

up 5 points, but many cooperatives hope to offer this

service in the future. Helping farmers keep track of

what protectant and how much was applied will be

even more necessary in the future as water quality

issues become more important.

The three agronomy services compared in table

20 cover the GPS/GIS technology. GPS/GIS technology is still fairly new, but was especially new in 1996,

which is reflected in some fairly low adoption rates by

the cooperatives. The use of this technology in 1999

was almost double that in 1996. Field mapping/recommendations using GPS/GIS increased from 37 percent

in 1996 to 66 percent in 1999. Most regions had dramatic increases. The CB increased from 58 percent

offering to 83 percent. It looks like there will be more

cooperatives offering this service as many responded

that they would like to offer it.

Application equipment with GPS units also

increased, going from 29 percent to 56 percent in 1999.

Every region increased the number of cooperatives

having this equipment and there was a strong desire

by other cooperatives wanting to add this service in

the future.

Record keeping with GPS/GIS for crop protectant usage showed the smallest growth (growing from

31 percent to 46 percent in 1999) and was offered less

frequently than the other two services with this technology. It was offered much more often in the CB (65

percent) and LS (52 percent) than the other regions.

14

Table 18—Respondents to this survey and 1996

fertilizer survey, by region

Number of

Region cooperatives

Number 

All 206

Northeast and Appalachian 14

Southeast and Delta States 5

Southern Plains 6

Corn Belt 66

Lake States 55

Northern Plains 44

Mountain 12

Pacific 4
15

Table 19—Agronomy services that cooperatives offer or would like to offer by region for this survey and 1996

fertilizer survey, weighted by sales

Crop protectants, 1999 Fertilizers, 1996

Currently Would like Currently Would like

Services offer to offer offer to offer

Percent

Crop protectant application

All 95.15 0.47 95.74 0.37

Northeast and Appalachian 95.71 — 89.59 —

Southeast and Delta States 96.03 — 100.00 —

Southern Plains 89.46 — 79.49 9.16

Corn Belt 98.27 — 98.70 —

Lake States 95.52 — 97.73 .76

Northern Plains 97.38 1.67 95.06 —

Mountain 85.61 3.20 95.90 —

Pacific 26.47 — 43.69 —

Crop/agronomy specialists—recommendations & scouting

All 93.98 1.46 85.18 7.18

Northeast and Appalachian 93.49 — 94.79 —

Southeast and Delta States 100.00 — 100.00 —

Southern Plains 80.26 — 88.65 —

Corn Belt 96.20 .55 87.64 7.38

Lake States 94.71 .81 95.67 2.82

Northern Plains 86.20 6.37 72.99 9.00

Mountain 100.00 — 67.02 24.96

Pacific 100.00 — 64.72 —

Soil testing

All 83.82 6.92 92.56 .62

Northeast and Appalachian 95.08 — 78.42 —

Southeast and Delta States 61.81 34.22 89.73 —

Southern Plains 89.46 — 79.49 20.51

Corn Belt 92.09 1.85 95.05 —

Lake States 80.90 9.90 97.57 —

Northern Plains 77.00 8.36 88.40 .68

Mountain 71.57 20.55 100.00 —

Pacific 20.44 9.89 64.72 —

Record keeping—crop protectant usage

All 72.31 14.23 67.20 16.98

Northeast and Appalachian 34.69 15.71 65.29 8.52

Southeast and Delta States 51.29 18.41 37.80 51.92

Southern Plains 56.03 34.77 79.49 11.35

Corn Belt 82.37 8.00 74.31 16.67

Lake States 80.45 9.58 72.63 11.96

Northern Plains 62.01 26.45 59.00 21.74

Mountain 70.47 29.53 60.13 13.85

Pacific 30.33 — — 30.51

— = Not available.
16

Table 20—Agronomy services that cooperatives offer or would like to offer by region for this survey and 1996

fertilizer survey, weighted by sales

Crop protectants, 1999 Fertilizers, 1996

Currently Would like Currently Would like

Services offer to offer offer to offer

Percent

Field mapping/recommendations using GPS/GIS

All 65.50 16.61 37.06 34.74

Northeast and Appalachian 75.98 7.89 15.72 29.74

Southeast and Delta States 65.73 — — 42.36

Southern Plains — 42.51 34.23 40.43

Corn Belt 82.82 6.95 57.85 26.14

Lake States 68.56 14.33 42.10 28.56

Northern Plains 44.38 27.93 17.47 54.69

Mountain 33.21 60.56 13.29 46.07

Pacific — 30.33 — —

Application equipment with GPS units

All 55.81 22.68 28.73 36.61

Northeast and Appalachian 61.64 21.51 7.18 21.22

Southeast and Delta States 65.73 — — 42.36

Southern Plains 64.48 15.78 — 74.66

Corn Belt 69.20 12.36 53.07 22.17

Lake States 53.96 24.32 28.63 35.50

Northern Plains 31.85 38.73 7.16 62.79

Mountain 36.98 56.79 10.43 46.07

Pacific — 30.33 — —

Record keeping with GPS/GIS

All 46.03 25.89 31.43 36.62

Northeast and Appalachian 18.31 22.47 15.72 24.94

Southeast and Delta States 31.51 — — 42.36

Southern Plains — 42.51 — 74.66

Corn Belt 64.88 18.88 51.60 28.75

Lake States 52.16 15.29 33.19 34.47

Northern Plains 21.63 53.70 19.47 45.74

Mountain 33.21 49.57 — 59.36

Pacific — 9.89 — —

— = Not available.
Again, offering crop protectant application with

GPS/GIS technology requires expensive equipment

and well-trained operators. Soil testing in grids is

labor intensive. Aerial photography requires the use of

a flying service or interpretation of satellite maps.

Employees need specialized training. Crop management specialists and crop protectant applicators have a

skill that can command higher salaries. Their specialized skills and ability to communicate effectively with

farmers makes them harder to retain, because they

would be desirable employees at another cooperative

or other competitor.

Summary

Local cooperatives studied generally had strong

growth in crop protectant sales—almost 11 percent per

year from 1991 through 1999. These cooperatives supported the cooperative agricultural inputs system, purchasing more than 68 percent of their herbicides and

insecticides, 48 percent of their fungicides, and 50 percent of all other crop protectant products from regionals.

The respondent cooperatives sold almost $830

million worth of the total $1.3 billion in crop protectants sold by all local agricultural cooperatives in 1999.

Their primary competitors for these sales to farmers

were private suppliers, followed by other cooperatives. Crop protectant price was the strongest competitive tool, but advisory scouting and other services was

also important.

Most cooperatives applied crop protectants for

farmers. Crop/agronomy specialists were often

employed by local cooperatives to assist the farmer in

making crop protection decisions. Many cooperatives

also provided a record service to track the farmers’ use

of crop protectants.

The use of GPS/GIS technology has been championed by local agricultural cooperatives. Field mapping is available to 68 percent of the crop protectant

volume.

There were large regional differences in the use of

GPS/GIS technology. The Corn Belt appeared to be an

early adopter of this technology, probably because of

the crops grown (corn and soybeans) and the large size

of respondent cooperatives. The GPS/GIS technology

is expensive, so larger cooperatives were more likely to

offer it. Many of the respondents not offering it want

to offer GPS/GIS technology in the future.

Compared with cooperative fertilizer operations

in 1996, there were many similar responses. Local

cooperatives were still strongly supported by the

regional cooperative procurement and distribution

system. Private suppliers and other cooperatives were

strong competitors, especially on price.

Cooperative crop protectant application equipment with GPS/GIS technology, combined with the

farmers’ use of yield monitors on harvesting equipment, provides farmers with maps showing where

crop protection worked and where pest damage lowered yields.

Local cooperatives, with long experience in fertilizer and crop protectant application and employing

crop/agronomy specialists, can help interpret or make

field maps for farmers. Working with regional cooperative personnel, locals have provided agronomy

record-keeping programs and innovative ways to combine field maps, yield monitors, and fertilizer and crop

protectant application equipment.

Use of GPS/GIS technology, crop/agronomy specialists, and record keeping is expensive. Many of the

respondents that do not offer some or all of these services wanted to offer them but may be unable because

of the high fixed costs and large volume of crop protectants required. Smaller cooperatives may be able to

share a crop/agronomy specialist with a nearby cooperative or purchase GPS/GIS application units with

another cooperative(s) and share the use and expenses.

These cooperatives might also consider setting up an

agronomy subsidiary or limited liability company to

share the use and expenses of new technology, equipment, and personnel.

17
Bibliography

Eversull, E. Eldon, Local Farm Supply, Marketing

Cooperatives Financial Trends: Changes in the 1990s,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural BusinessCooperative Service, RR 171, March 1999.

Eversull, E. Eldon, Fertilizer Operations of Local Farm

Supply and Marketing Cooperatives, U.S. Department

of Agriculture, Rural Business-Cooperative

Service, RR 161, November 1997.

Rotan, Beverly L., Analysis of Local Farm Supply and

Marketing Cooperatives Financial Statements, 1999,

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural BusinessCooperative Service, RR 182, April 2001.

Rotan, Beverly L., Analysis of Local Farm Supply and

Marketing Cooperatives Financial Statements, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Rural BusinessCooperative Service, RR 172, April 1999.

18
U.S. Department of Agriculture

Rural Business–Cooperative Service

Stop 3250

Washington, D.C. 20250-3250

Rural Business–Cooperative Service (RBS) provides research,

management, and educational assistance to cooperatives to

strengthen the economic position of farmers and other rural

residents. It works directly with cooperative leaders and

Federal and State agencies to improve organization,

leadership, and operation of cooperatives and to give guidance

to further development.

The cooperative segment of RBS (1) helps farmers and other

rural residents develop cooperatives to obtain supplies and

services at lower cost and to get better prices for products they

sell; (2) advises rural residents on developing existing

resources through cooperative action to enhance rural living;

(3) helps cooperatives improve services and operating

efficiency; (4) informs members, directors, employees, and the

public on how cooperatives work and benefit their members

and their communities; and (5) encourages international

cooperative programs. RBS also publishes research and

educational materials and issues Rural Cooperatives magazine.

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

discrimination in all its programs and activities on the basis of

race, color, national origin, gender, 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.