Rural

COOPERATIVES COOPERATIVES

USDA / Rural Development November/December 2000 USDA / Rural Development November/December 2000

CherrCo bargaining co-op 

brings stability to market

Cherry Growers 

Unite
2 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

Farmers and ranchers who bargain

for price when they are united and

represent a large share of their industry — rather than as individuals who

control only a tiny fraction of the supply – negotiate from a position of

strength, rather than weakness. This

was true during the earliest years of

the cooperative movement, and

remains just as true today in the face of

a food industry being concentrated

into fewer and fewer hands. Due to

this trend, I foresee a growing role for

bargaining cooperatives in the 21st

century. Not only do bargaining coops help secure a fair price for farmers

and ranchers, they help bring stability

to markets by better coordinating the

production of their members with the

needs of the marketplace. 

Bargaining cooperatives have been

used by agricultural producers for

decades as a self-help tool. Many of

these associations grew out of pricing

challenges encountered in the 1960s by

fruit and vegetable producers. By banding together, producers worked to get

legislation changed so they could form

recognized associations that could bargain with processors. 

CherrCo, our cover story, is a

prime example of a bargaining co-op

that has brought stability to an agricultural market. This relatively new

tart cherry bargaining association was

developed at about the same time a

new federal marketing order for 

tart cherries was put into place. By

licensing sales agents and working

confidentially between growers and

processors, this organization – a federated association with 28 member

cooperatives – has helped to bring

some order to the tart cherry 

industry. Had CherrCo not been created, many observers feel that the

ranks of cherry producers would have

been decimated. 

Bargaining associations in California also play a critical role linking

farm fields with the family dinner

table. In an upcoming issue, we will

look at how some bargaining co-ops

work in the Golden state. From apricots and peaches to olives, raisins and

tomatoes, bargaining associations have

enhanced the income that producers

can realize from the sale of their

crops. They extend across state lines

and commodity sectors as effective

tools that help farmers earn fair prices

for apples, plums, raw milk, ryegrass,

potatoes, sugar beets, hazelnuts and

many other crops. 

These associations do not invest capital in buildings or equipment. They

don’t own a consumer brand name or

implement marketing campaigns. But

what they do possess is the ability to

galvanize producers in a union of 

common purpose.

The real power behind successful

bargaining associations is that they are

a tool for producers to become price

makers, rather than price takers. These

associations work to secure a fair price

for producers. For these co-ops to

work, producers need to agree to let

their association negotiate a price, and

then hold to that commitment. Even

the largest producer of a commodity

will find it extremely difficult to go it

alone in a global marketplace where

processors can source product from

around the world. 

Bargaining associations have proven

time and again that they are a valuable

tool for producers committed to working together to remain competitive and

profitable in an increasingly global

marketplace. The time is ripe for further use of this invaluable tool. 

Jill Long Thompson 

Under Secretary USDA Rural Development

COMMENTARY

Bargaining co-ops help level field, stabilize markets 

“The real power

behind successful

bargaining associations is that they are

a tool for producers

to become price

makers instead of

price takers.”
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 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

Documents, 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.

Dan Glickman, Secretary of Agriculture

Jill Long Thompson, Under Secretary,

Rural Development

Wilbur Peer, Administrator,

Rural Business–Cooperative Service

Gladys Rodriguez, Director of Public Affairs

Dan Campbell, Managing 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 2000 Volume 67 Number 6

On the Cover:

Michigan-based CherrCo is helping stabilize the tart cherry industry by

negotiating prices at a level that keeps growers and processors in business.

Story on page 4. Grant Heilman Photo

FEATURES

4 CherrCo helps bring market stability to tart

cherry industry

By Pamela J. Karg

8 Trading Up

Plains Cotton Co-op uses computer technology to pursue 

business-to-business strategy.

By Pamela J. Karg

14 Consolidation in the heartland

A closer look at grain co-op mergers and acquisitions, 1993-1997.

By Anthony Crooks

20 Are you a good leader?

Director assessments are building blocks to productive boardmanagement relations.

By James J. Wadsworth

24 Cooperative Agro Pastorale Segbeya

African swine raising cooperative struggles to survive 

and prosper.

By Azanmasso Joseph, Steve Graham

DEPARTMENTS

7 LEGAL CORNER

11 MANAGEMENT TIP

26 IN THE SPOTLIGHT

27 NEWSLINE

31 ANNUAL ARTICLE INDEX
4 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

By Pamela J. Karg

Field Editor

ife can change quickly in

agriculture. At other

times, it takes many

years of hard work to

develop necessary

changes — including new cooperative

organizations. Yet leaders of the tart

cherry industry were persistent in

their work and have created an innovative cooperative marketing organization as well as a new federal marketing order program.

Both the new order and the new

organization — called CherrCo — didn’t happen as quickly as life can change.

It took years of hard work. Some previous attempts at organizing new

approaches had succeeded, and some

had their ups and downs. For example,

an earlier supply- management federal

marketing order had been discontinued

in the early 1980s.

But a number of the industry’s key

underlying problems — including

surplus supplies, fluctuating production and weak pricing arrangements –

did not go away. So leaders explored

alternative programs and organizational arrangements to try to improve

their industry. Their efforts included

in-depth discussions during the late

1980s and early 1990s about developing a new marketing order for supply

management and a new, broad-based

cooperative.

Throughout the early 1990s, the

industry often grappled with surplus

supplies and low cherry prices. The

only exception was in 1991 when there

was a short crop. Prices temporarily

rose to exceptionally high levels – 80-

plus-cents-per-pound for frozen cherries. But the temporarily high prices

were a deterrent for some users. More

problematic than one season of high

prices, though, were the years tart

cherries drew very low prices. 

In 1995, for example, prices had

tumbled to 25 cents per pound for

frozen cherries. By contrast, the costs

for production, harvesting, processing

and freezer storage were about 60

cents a pound.

“Another year or two [of low

prices] and we estimate that about half

our growers and a good share of our

processing plants would have gone out

of business,” says CherrCo President

James Jensen, who has been around

the cherry business for 39 crops. “We

knew we needed a consistent supply

for the marketplace and pricing that

was relatively stable. We knew by

1996 that, if the conditions that

occurred in 1995 continued, many of

our growers and processing plants

would go out of business.”

These kinds of difficult economic

conditions set the stage for change.

Growers and processors found themselves engaged in many industry-wide

discussions that eventually led to the

development of a new federal marketing order to help reduce some of the

surplus supply problems. And discussions continued into the subject of a

new federated cooperative for tart

cherry growers.

“By 1996, we knew we’d have a marketing order in place. It was a new tool

we could use to help turn the situation

around. And we thought that, if we

were ever going to put together a

‘super cooperative’ like we’d talked

about for years in this industry, this was

the time to do it,” Jensen says. 

The industry credits the creative

thinking by some growers and processors who were willing to develop a

strategic plan for CherrCo. While

grain and livestock producers have

developed “new generation” cooperatives, these fruit growers decided to

stay the course by developing a “super

cooperative” that bargained on behalf

of its members rather than processing

value-added products. Yet the tart

cherry industry borrowed ideas from

some of these other facets of agricultural cooperatives to put together its

own organization.

In early 1997, CherrCo organizers

brought Jensen on board as president

of the “super cooperative.” Months of

hard work and many discussions across

the country in cherry circles resulted in

78 percent of the industry willing to

give the idea a try by a self-imposed

deadline of June 1997.

During those grower and processor

meetings, Jensen communicated CherrCo’s two goals. First, CherrCo proposed

CherrCo helps bring market

stability to tart cherry industry 

L
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 5

to stabilize the price of the industry’s

commodity products – No. 10 canned

or hot-pack tart cherries and frozen

tart cherry products. Second, CherrCo

wanted that stable price to be at a level

that helped keep growers and processors in business.

On July 1, the first CherrCo board

voted to move ahead. By July 6, Washington state cherries were rolling into a

processing plant.

As a federated cooperative, CherrCo

now has 28 member cooperatives in the

United States and Canada. It represents

75 to 80 percent of Michigan’s tart

cherry production and significant portions of the production in New York,

Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and

Ontario. Members range in size from

producing about 600,000 pounds to

more than 10 million pounds annually.

The cooperative’s primary directive

is to establish minimum prices for various grades and packs of frozen and hotpack tart cherries. Once a minimum

price is set, individual members select

sales agents, all of whom are licensed

by the cooperative. Sales agents can

represent more than one member. 

But it is imperative that sales 

information be treated as proprietary

and not shared with other members.

Information about who is selling to

whom and at what price is also confidential. By licensing the agents,

CherrCo can ensure they follow 

procedures as well as abide by the

established minimum price.

CherrCo concentrates its efforts on No. 10 canned or hot-pack tart cherries and frozen tart cherries. Photo by Forest McMullin,/Agrilink

“Another year or two

[of low prices] and we

estimate that about half

our growers and a good

share of our processing

plants would have gone

out of business.”

–James Jensen
CherrCo also tracks and keeps a handle on the nation’s

tart cherry inventory. When and where possible, CherrCo

and the licensed agents work to pool production to meet

customer demands. Before cherries are processed, they are

sent to storage facilities. At that time, the fruit is consigned

to CherrCo. 

However, the cooperative never has the cherries in its

physical possession. Rather, the fruit remains in storage

until a sale is made. If the minimum price requirement has

been met, CherrCo releases the cherries. The cooperative

then bills the buyer, collects from the buyer, subtracts an

administrative charge to cover its expenses, and sends the

balance of the proceeds to the cherry’s growers. 

“We’re not in the retail business,” Jensen emphasizes.

“We don’t have a brand name. We don’t own any processing plants. Our members decide what they’re going to do

with their cherries and whom they’re going to sell to. They

hire their own sales staff licensed by CherrCo. We concentrate on ensuring we

can maintain a price for

our members.”

Even though the issue

of price is taken out of 

the marketing equation,

CherrCo members find

other avenues on which to

compete against each other. Some members offer a

mix of tart cherry and

other farm-grown produce. Others specialize in

just frozen or hot-packed

tart cherries. Still others

try to differentiate themselves from CherrCo

competitors by building

on their reputations in the

industry, product quality,

processing plant standards

and capabilities, and any

other special services they

may develop to attract

customers. 

“But I think what we

didn’t realize, when

putting this together, is a

third thing that would

happen. We’re facilitating

better discussions, better

communication, throughout our industry. We’re all at 

the table together and, while we are not all holding hands,

we are at least not throwing things at each other,” Jensen 

says. “There have been a lot of things happening in the tart

cherry industry that have benefitted many that were enabled

by CherrCo. Several times I’ve heard, ‘Five years 

ago, we would never have this conversation.’”

People never really knew each other, even in an industry

with only a couple thousand growers across the nation. But

what they did know about each other was that it was always

“the other guy’s fault” for the marketing problems the industry faced. Now the individual members are getting to know

each other and understand the collective power that occurs

when they can work together.

CherrCo’s 28 members each hold a seat on the board, and

those directors meet quarterly in addition to serving on committees that include marketing, quality, grower relations and

strategic planning. “It allows us to involve all our members in

discussions and decisions. It doesn’t mean we all agree on

everything even now, but we’re at the table,” he adds.

Yet, despite the developments and progress that have

been made through organizations such as CherrCo and

the new federal marketing order, the industry continues 

to be challenged by a number of ongoing fronts. Work is

needed to expand

exports. More could 

be done to fine-tune

supply management

mechanisms. And both

could help to stabilize

prices even further for

growers as well as their

customers. Talking

through these challenges has become critical in this specialty

fruit industry whose

grower numbers are

easily dwarfed by other

segments of U.S. agriculture.

A commitment to

continued, industrywide communication by

organizations such as

CherrCo was the motivation behind a major

conference this past

spring. During their

time together, industry

leaders looked at the

various problems or

major gaps in the tart

cherry industry, and how

various programs and

parts of the industry could work together more effectively to

provide continued progress. And expectations are running

high that events such as the conference, formation of organizations such as CherrCo and an ongoing dialog could act as

catalysts to create even more changes. They may not happen

overnight. But they certainly will require hard work. ■

6 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

CherrCo would like to increase exports and fine-tune supply management mechanisms. Grant Heilman Photo
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 7

By Donald A. Frederick

Program Leader, Law, Policy &

Governance

USDA Rural Development

he rash of consolidations

taking place throughout

the food industry is placing pressure on all participants, including cooperatives, to become both more efficient

and more effective in protecting and

enhancing their market position. Public documents concerning a recent

negotiated settlement between a major

dairy marketing cooperative and the

United States Department of Justice

provide insight into how some cooperatives are dealing with changes in food

marketing and how antitrust enforcement officials may react when cooperatives become the dominant players in a

particular line of business.

Justice challenges dairy plan 

On Dec. 15, 1999, Dairy Farmers of

America (DFA) entered into a letter

agreement to purchase SODIAAL

North American Corporation (SODIAAL). DFA and SODIAAL where two

of the three firms which accounted for

over 90 percent of branded butter sales

in the Philadelphia and New York metropolitan areas. The third firm in the

market is Land O’Lakes Inc. DFA and

Land O’Lakes are the two largest dairy

marketing cooperatives (as measured

by sales) in the United States. SODIAAL is a privately held subsidiary of a

French cooperative.

Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust

Act (15 U.S.C. § 18) provides that one

business shall not acquire another business when the effect of the acquisition

may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly. In

March 2000, the United States Department of Justice filed a civil antitrust

action to block the proposed acquisition. The Justice Department alleged

that DFA’s purchase of SODIAAL

would substantially lessen competition

in the butter market in Philadelphia

and New York and therefore violated

Sec. 7 of the Clayton Act.

Impact of Capper-Volstead

The Capper-Volstead Act provides a

limited exemption from the antitrust

laws for agricultural producers to

process, handle, otherwise prepare for

market, and market their farm products

on a cooperative basis. Capper-Volstead

specifically authorizes separate and

competing cooperatives to form a common marketing agency to set prices and

market member products as if the cooperatives were a single entity. Several

court decisions have held farmers,

through a single cooperative or a common marketing agency, may acquire

substantial or even monopoly control

over the sale of products they produce,

so long as only farmers are involved in

the scheme and the decision to work

together is a voluntary one (not the

result of coercion or intimidation by the

cooperative(s) against nonmembers).

As part of the settlement process,

the Justice Department published a

Competitive Impact Statement summarizing its case. When reviewing the

proposed acquisition, Justice gave special emphasis to two legal standards for

interpreting Capper-Volstead. First,

Justice noted that if the purchase went

through as proposed, DFA and Land

O’Lakes would control more than 90

percent of the branded butter market

in Philadelphia and New York. Since

both DFA and Land O’Lakes are agricultural cooperatives they could agree

on the price and other terms of sale for

their butter in these areas free from

antitrust scrutiny.

Second, Justice took the position

that SODIAAL, as a private subsidiary

of a French cooperative, is not covered

by Capper-Volstead. Thus the government was free to challenge its purchase

by DFA as a violation of Sec. 7 of the

Clayton Act. (65 Federal Register

44825, July 19, 2000).

The settlement

The United States (with the acquiescence of DFA) asked the court to

approve a final judgment in the case

that permits DFA to complete its

acquisition of SODIAAL but prohibits

DFA from joining with Land O’Lakes

in any joint effort to market branded

butter. Procedural rules that apply to

settling antitrust cases require a 60-day

period for public comment after the

Proposed Final Judgment and Competitive Impact Statement are published in the Federal Register. No

comments were filed. In November

2000, the judge signed an order implementing the proposed final judgment.

Under the settlement, DFA agrees

to transfer all of its assets necessary to

manufacture and market its branded

butter on the East Coast, including

DFA’s interest in the “Breakstone’s”

brand, and all of the assets acquired

from SODIAAL, including the

“Keller’s” and “Hotel Bar” brands, into

a new limited liability company to be

called Keller’s Creamery, LLC. The

Butter settlement: a glimpse into

the future of antitrust enforcement?

LEGAL CORNER

T

continued on page 30
8 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

By Pamela J. Karg

Field Editor

ike many computer

users, Plains Cotton

Cooperative Association

(PCCA) decided this

spring it was time to

trade up to the next business model.

With non-cooperative partners,

PCCA created an Internet-based,

business-to-business (B2B) marketing

venue for cotton and cotton-related

products. The partners include Allenberg Cotton Co., a division of the

Louis Dreyfus Corporation, Dunavant Enterprises and Cargill’s

Hohenberg division. Leaders from

each organization believe the B2B

venture creates a comprehensive,

independent, electronic exchange for

both prospective cotton suppliers and

cotton customers.

The courage it takes to look into the

future and imagine what could be is

nothing new to the Lubbock, Texas,

farmer-owned organization. That’s

how PCCA started in 1953 and that’s

how it greeted the new millennium

when it announced the new venture –

theSeam — that would take its producers to the next technological level in

the world market.

Since 1975, PCCA members had

used TELCOT, a mainframe-based

computerized extension to the way producers had traded their cotton for

decades. The online, real-time cotton

marketing system was a centralized

place where buyers and sellers could

meet to trade cotton via computers connected to PCCA’s servers.

Conceptually, it operated similarly

to the New York Stock Exchange.

TELCOT gave producers a number of

options to sell their cotton and it gave

them access to major buyers. With this

tool, farmers could receive the most

competitive price available at the time

of sale. TELCOT guaranteed each

producer payment for the cotton sold

and it guaranteed each buyer delivery

of the cotton purchased.

PCCA President and CEO Van May

says this year’s new venture is a logical

step for his marketing cooperative, one

which prides itself on using new technologies, developing innovative and

aggressive marketing strategies, and

achieving the best possible prices for

their farmers.

“PCCA has a legacy of innovation

and industry leadership,” says May.

“Our 25-year commitment to the electronic marketplace has clearly demonstrated the many efficiencies and

advantages of electronic trading. And

we think this new venture – the Seam

— is a catalyst for positive changes in

our entire industry.”

The initiative gained momentum in

early summer with the addition of two

prominent U.S. textile mills: Avondale

Mills of Monroe, Ga.; and Parkdale

Mills of Gastonia, N.C. Avondale and

Parkdale are the largest U.S. consumers of cotton.

The new B2B marketplace is

designed by and for the cotton industry. It operates as an independent company and the four initial investors each

own an equal share. Their ownership

percentages will decline as additional

partners come on board. 

Buyers and sellers of products and

services get a single, convenient place

to connect, conduct and facilitate

transactions and better manage their

supply chains on the Seam. The B2B

marketing system allows any merchant

meeting necessary criteria and agreeing

to pay the commissions to trade cotton.

With just the TELCOT system,

PCCA earned just one commission

from the time the producer sold the

cotton until it was delivered to a textile

mill. But cotton typically changes

hands an average of five times, and

May says the Seam will garner commisTrading up

Plains Cotton Co-op uses computer technology to pursue business-to-business strategy

L
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 9

sions at each trade. As one of the partners, PCCA and its members will share

in those commissions.

The new venture also significantly

expands the scope of PCCA’s TELCOT

system, which serves 53 buyers. However, May says there are approximately

200 cotton buyers in the United States

and the new system is aimed at capturing a greater share of their business.

“We believe this new marketplace

provides more choice, not less, for

users, and they can instantly compare

prices. This allows both sides of the

supply-demand equation to buy or

sell more efficiently because it’s an

open market,” May says. “It shifts

some competitive advantages to producers who now have immediate,

online access to prices and other

information. As we attract more buyers, this means more choices for farmers who want to sell their product.”

Additionally, PCCA members and

their co-op gins see little difference in

the way they sell cotton and receive

payments.

“Our members continue to deal

directly with PCCA,” May says,

though the new Internet- based company has a more modern look and feel

to it. “We have changed TELCOT to

a ‘Windows’-based program, and

we’re now trading cotton over the

Internet. Our members can still trade

equities on the TELCOT system, and

the service they’re accustomed to

continues, but TELCOT is really

becoming the foundation on which

theSeam is being built.”

At first glance, it could appear that

theSeam is the perfect opportunity for

PCCA to expand its membership. But

May says that’s not the motive behind

the B2B venture.

“Growers in other territories outside Oklahoma, Kansas and Texas will

not become members of PCCA simply

by trading their cotton on the new

website,” he explains. “Nor will they be

“[This system] shifts

some competitive

advantages to producers, who now have

immediate, online

access to prices and

other information.”

—Van May

Over 22 million bales of cotton have been traded through PCCA’s existing computerized system. PCCA spins much

of that cotton into textiles in its Texas plants. Photos courtesy PCCA
10 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

eligible to participate in any of PCCA’s

dividends.”

Rather, the site should improve

the cotton industry’s efficiencies

which, in turn, can improve prices

paid to producers. PCCA and the

other partners agree that the multibillion-dollar cotton industry has

some inefficiencies that make it ideally suited to benefit from a B2B marketplace. May notes that the cotton

industry is fragmented among producers, merchants and manufacturers, all of whom deal with incompatible, labor-intensive logistical systems.

In many areas, cotton transactions

still involve multiple, redundant faxes

and phone communications. An

online marketplace allows manufacturers and merchants to more effectively purchase and sell cotton and to

expose producers to a far broader

range of buyers and services.

“Competition should increase based

on the number of merchants across the

country, and this increased competition

will have a positive impact. When cotton buyers compete, cotton producers

benefit,” May adds.

Texas and the other portions of the

southwest served by PCCA is big,

wide-open country. Services can be few

and far between, including U.S.

Department of Agriculture Service

Centers. PCCA has developed a quasigovernmental role for itself, and will

continue to do so even with the Seam

B2B business.

Currently in its software system,

PCCA differentiates between cotton

placed in the Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) loan program and nonloan cotton, and notifies buyers where

the cotton was ginned and stored. In

addition, it offers producers a loan

advance program. Through it, producers can tender their cotton to PCCA

and receive an interim cash advance

equal to the CCC loan price. When the

market is right, producers then notify

PCCA to offer the cotton over TELCOT to obtain the best price available.

In essence, the producer has an immediate cash advance available, and the

cotton can be marketed at a later date.

Over 22 million bales of cotton

have been traded over TELCOT. The

network has more than 300 remote

sites supporting over 1,000 devices.

The computer processes an average of

10 transactions per second and handles 175,000 to 350,000 transactions

per day. In peak trading periods, more

than 25 transactions per second have

been sustained.

“When you look at the numbers of

what we’ve accomplished alone with

our TELCOT marketing system, it

doesn’t take too much imagination to

envision what an expanded B2B site

can do for cotton,” May adds. ■

The creation of theSeam e-trading place help could help lower costs of moving cotton

from the field to the textile mill. 
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 11

By David Cummins, 

Ag Economist

USDA Rural Development

Editor’s note: This is Cummins’ final

Management Tip column. He is retiring

Jan. 1, 2001, after more than 38 years

with USDA, including 19 years with the

Cooperative Services unit of USDA Rural

Development and its predecessor agencies.

Prior to that he worked with USDA’s Economic Research Service and Federal Grain

Inspection Service. His retirement home

will be in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley,

west of Staunton. 

rain and total sales continued to slide downward in 1999 for cooperatives that are

first-handlers of grain in

the Northern Plains, where wheatbarley-oats co-ops are prevalent.

Grain volume marketed by these coops was significantly higher in 1999

than in 1998 – up 20 percent for

medium-sized co-ops (those with total

sales of $5 million to $14.9 million)

and up more than 15 percent for large

co-ops (those with total sales of more

than $15 million). 

Commodity prices, however, continued a sharp downward trend that

has been ongoing for the past three to

four years. Farm supply sales averages

were considerably higher in 1999 for

large grain co-ops and about the 

same in both years for medium-sized

co-ops.

Net savings for large grain co-ops

averaged $352,637 in 1999, compared

with $461,975 in 1998, a drop of

nearly 24 percent. This followed a

17-percent drop in 1998. Net savings

for the medium-sized co-ops averaged 12 percent higher, $78,587 vs.

$70,142 in 1998. 

Sixty-two percent of large grain coops and 64 percent of medium-sized

grain co- ops in the Northern Plains

reported lower net savings for 1999.

The average decline in net savings for

large co-ops was $338,580, while medium-sized co-ops reported an average

decline of $105,192. Large co-ops that

improved their bottom line in 1999 did

so by an average of $438,049, while

medium-sized co-ops reported an average gain of $102,390. 

For large grain co-ops in the

Northern Plains, gross income averaged more than 5 percent higher in

1999, but operating costs were more

than 12 percent higher than in 1998.

While grain margins were down,

margins on total sales and service revenue were both up. Non-operating

income dropped significantly, plunging 89 percent. 

For medium-sized grain co-ops in

this region, gross income averaged 15

percent higher, as increases in margins

(for grain and farm supplies) and service revenue more than offset substantially lower non-operating income

(patronage received from other coops). Operating expenses averaged

about 15 percent higher. 

Patronage refunds received from

other co-ops declined 41 percent for

large grain cooperatives and dropped

35 percent for medium-sized co-ops.

These refunds are a key component of

non-operating income for co-ops, particularly for medium-sized operations.

In 1999, these refunds accounted for

44 percent of net savings from total

operations for large co-ops and 62

percent of net savings for mediumsized co-ops. 

Nearly 7 percent of the mediumsized grain co-ops in 1999 had losses

averaging more than $261,000 per coop. The loss rate, however, was down

from nearly 23 percent in 1998. An

additional 21 percent of mediumsized co-ops would have had losses

(averaging about $35,000 per co-op) if

it hadn’t been for patronage income.

The loss rate for large grain co-ops

was about the same in both years: 11

to 12 percent.

Southern Plains co-ops

Large Southern Plains wheatsorghum co-ops averaged net savings

of $847,274 per co-op, up slightly from

1998 and the highest since at least

1982. Net savings for the mediumsized co-ops averaged $250,022, down

about 5 percent, but the second highest

since at least 1982. Grain margins and

service revenue increases were key 

factors for the large grain co-ops; farm

supply margins and service revenue

increases were key for the mediumsized co-ops. For large co-ops, an 

8-percent increase in gross income

more than offset 10 percent higher

operating expenses. For medium-sized

Downward spiral for commodity

prices continues; bottom line

mixed for Plains co-ops

G

MANAGEMENT TIP
12 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

co-ops, an 18-percent increase in gross

revenue fell short of covering 23 percent higher total operating expenses.

Lower net savings in 1999 was

reported by 62.5 percent of large and

61.5 percent of medium-sized grain coops. Corresponding dollar declines

averaged $331,072 and $168,040.

Large and medium-sized grain cooperatives showing higher earnings in 1999

had increases of $263,551 and $94,859,

respectively.

In 1999, as in 1998, grain price averages were down 14 percent for large

co-ops and 17 percent for mediumsized co-ops. Grain volume marketed

increased 18 percent for large and 16

percent for medium sized co-ops.

Grain sales climbed an average 1 percent for large co-ops, but dropped

more than 3 percent for medium-sized

co-ops in 1999. 

The incidence of losses among

wheat-sorghum grain co-ops was 13

percent for the medium-sized co-ops,

with no losses reported by the large

co-ops. As in 1998, fewer than 5 percent of the co-ops would have had

losses if it had not been for patronage

income received from other co-ops.

This was in spite of sharply lower

patronage income in 1999 – down

more than 24 percent for large and

down nearly 29 percent for mediumsized co- ops.

Producers continued to adjust to

changing weather conditions and relative commodity prices in 1999. This

was reflected in a change in the relative

Table 1 - Compare your wheat-sorghum cooperative with averages

for similar cooperative operations

Total sales group (million dollars)

Group/Item Unit 5-14.9 15 or more 5-14.9 15 or more Your

(1998 Data) (1998 Data (1999 Data) (1999 Data) Cooperative

Storage capacity Million Bu. 1.782 4.478 2.125 5.028 ____________

Grain marketed Million Bu. 2.098 6.672 2.441 7.875 ____________

Turnover rate Times 1.18 1.49 1.15 1.57 ____________

Proportion grain Percent 67.6 67.3 64.7 69.3 ____________

Total assets Million $ 3.585 11.225 4.276 12.244 ____________

Long-term debt1/ Percent 6.6 8.0 6.8 9.4 ____________

Member equity1/ Percent 63.0 54.8 63.0 52.3 ____________

Total sales Million $ 9.385 30.018 9.448 29.425 ____________

Margins on sales Million $ .847 2.634 1.014 2.954 ____________

Total expenses Million $ 1.151 3.401 1.419 3.732 ____________

Net savings (losses) Million $ .262 .842 .250 .847 ____________

Labor of total expenses Percent 47.8 46.8 48.7 46.7 ____________

Net savings paid in cash2/ Percent 38.4 34.5 38.6 39.3 ____________

Current ratio Number 1.60 1.41 1.57 1.35 ____________

Debt/assets Ratio .17 .24 .21 .29 ____________

Net savings(loss)/tot. sales Percent 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.9 ____________

Gross margins/total sales Percent 9.0 8.8 10.7 10.0 ____________

1/ Of total liabilities and member equity. 2/ Of total patronage allocation. 
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 13

proportions of the grains/oilseeds marketed by their co-ops. 

A general shift from grain

sorghum to primarily wheat and (to a

lesser extent) corn was evident in

the Southern Plains, particularly by

large grain co-ops. In the Northern

Plains, large grain co-ops handled

significantly more corn and soybeans, along with more wheat, at the

expense of barley, in 1999 than in

1998. Noteworthy for the mediumsized co-ops were an 84-percent

increase in “other crops” (mainly

oats, sunflowers and rye) sold and a

34-percent increase in barley sold, at

the expense of wheat. 

How does your co-op measure up?

Benchmarks are common in business management to measure how well

your cooperative is performing. However, such figures don’t reveal how your

cooperative compares with others.

If your cooperative is primarily a

first-handler of wheat and sorghum or

handles wheat, barley and oats as its

major function, comparative data for

1999 are now available. Tables 1 and 2

contain selected average financial and

structural data compiled from a survey

of Southern Plains and Northern Plains

cooperatives marketing wheat and grain

sorghum and wheat, barley and oats,

respectively. Most cooperatives in the

study were diversified, also handling

farm supplies and providing related services. Fill in the blanks for your cooperative and see how it measures up. ■

Table 2 - Compare your wheat-barley-oats cooperative with

averages for similar cooperative operations Total sales group (million dollars)

Group/Item Unit 5-14.9 15 or more 5-14.9 15 or more Your

(1998 Data) (1998 Data) (1999 Data) (1999 Data) Cooperative

Storage capacity Million Bu. .661 1.843 .863 2.560 ______________

Grain marketed Million Bu. 1.888 6.768 2.267 7.818 ______________

Turnover rate Times 2.86 3.67 2.63 3.05 ______________

Proportion grain Percent 79.0 84.6 78.9 80.0 ______________

Total assets Million $ 3.068 12.611 3.796 13.056 ______________

Long-term debt1/ Percent 7.5 6.9 8.7 8.1 ______________

Member equity1/ Percent 46.5 41.6 48.8 39.5 ______________

Total sales Million $ 8.430 26.573 8.391 25.952 ______________

Margins on sales Million $ .436 1.740 .526 1.812 ______________

Total expenses Million $ .593 1.940 .684 2.178 ______________

Net savings (losses) Million $ .070 .462 .079 .353 ______________

Labor of total expenses Percent 43.7 45.3 43.2 46.2 ______________

Net savings paid in cash2/ Percent 36.9 29.0 35.8 27.6 ______________

Current ratio Number 1.33 1.17 1.36 1.14 ______________

Debt/assets Ratio .11 .11 .11 .11 ______________

Net savings(loss)/tot. sales Percent 0.8 1.7 0.9 1.4 ______________

Gross margins/total sales Percent 5.2 6.5 6.2 7.0 ______________

1/ Of total liabilities and member equity. 2/ Of total patronage allocation.
14 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

Anthony Crooks, Agricultural Economist

USDA Rural Development

hen the directors of two small cooperatives

in North Dakota approached USDA Rural

Development in July 1997 for technical

assistance regarding a possible merger, they

probably had little idea of how large a trend

they were joining. About 95 other grain cooperatives also

merged or were acquired in 1997. 

Both of these Dakota cooperatives — one a petroleum and

farm supply cooperative with grain assets, the other a grain

elevator cooperative — were seeking to strengthen their

operations and improve financial performance. In addition to

consolidating assets, these cooperatives wanted to expand a

rail load-out facility owned by one of the cooperatives and

add to an agronomy center near another facility. They also

wanted to reduce grain shipping costs and to generate additional revenues from spring fertilizer sales. Both goals

appeared to be financially rational at the time. 

However, both cooperatives and their plans were soon

superseded by an even bigger merger: that of Cenex and

Harvest States Cooperatives. The merger of two giant,

regional co-ops was the biggest wave in the recent tide of

mergers, consolidations, alliances, joint ventures and acquisitions that has swept over the U.S. grain industry (as reported

in this magazine in the Sept./Oct. 1998 and 1999 issues). 

The small Dakota petroleum cooperative was an affiliate

of Cenex and a competitor of Harvest States. And thus the

merger and improvement plans of these two small Dakota

cooperatives was placed on an indefinite hold because of the

merger of the two regional cooperatives. 

About this time, a $4 million joint venture was announced

by Harvest States and one of its Dakota affiliates, a move

which would lead to the construction of a terminal facility

just down the road from where the two local co-ops had

planned to expand their load-out facility.

Except for their relative size, the two planned mergers

shared many similar characteristics. Each merger involved

farm supply operations merging with grain marketing operations. Each co-op hoped that the merger would offer new business opportunities in one partner’s specialty area while helping

the other to restructure its operating costs. In addition, the coops were attempting to link their farmer-members into a production-marketing chain which would take the grain from field

to buyer. They wanted to lower operating costs, share or redistribute business risk and expand operations. 

It is easy to focus on the more sensational aspects of this

story: two small, seemingly independent cooperatives being

swept onto the economic sidelines by the decisions of the

much larger regional cooperatives they belonged to. However, it is more instructive to view these four cooperatives as

role players in the ongoing, widespread economic consolidation trend in agriculture. Strikingly similar occurrences have

been witnessed repeatedly in recent years. 

A soon-to-be-released report from USDA Rural DevelConsolidation in the heartland

A closer look at grain co-op mergers and acquisitions, 1993-97

W
opment (Research Report 180, “Consolidation in the

Heartland, 1993-97: A Closer Look at Grain Cooperative

Mergers and Acquisitions”) analyzes the operational and

financial characteristics of co-ops that were merged, consolidated, went bankrupt or were closed for other reasons during those years. These businesses will be referred to as M/C

(“merged or consolidated”) co-ops in the balance of this

article, which presents M/C and surviving cooperatives in

the context of agriculture’s economic restructuring. Lessons

learned from mergers, consolidations or other reasons for

cooperative closures also provide some insights into the

challenges that lie ahead for grain cooperatives hoping to

thrive. Some of the highlights of this research follow.

Tracking co-op closures 

The Rural Business-Cooperative Service, an agency of

USDA Rural Development, began keeping detailed statistics on mergers, acquisitions, consolidations, bankruptcies

and related activities in 1993 (table 1). During 1993-97, it

counted 367 M/C events. On average, this is equal to about

8 percent of all large co-ops and 10 percent of all mid-sized

cooperatives each year. In general, the majority (198, or 64

percent) of these M/C events occurred in 1996 and 1997

and among cooperatives having less than $15 million in

total sales. Most activity was in the nation’s heartland.

Eighty-seven percent occurred in the Corn Belt and Southern Plains regions (table 2). 

Of the 367 cooperatives that were merged, consolidated or

otherwise went out of business, 330 had total sales of at least

$5 million and were located in four principle grain- producing regions. The USDA research into this issue focuses on

these 330 cooperatives.

Figure 1 illustrates the number of cooperatives involved

in each type of M/C activity during the 1993-97 period.

Almost 74 percent (246 of 330) involved cooperatives that

merged with other cooperatives. A small number of cooperatives were involved with investor-owned firms (IOFs) in

either a merger (8 of 330) or an acquisition (14). 

Financial characteristics 

The goal of the study was to answer some general questions about the financial health of grain cooperatives

involved in mergers, acquisitions and other activities.

Cooperatives that were involved with other co-ops and

those that merged with, or were acquired by, IOFs are

compared to each other. To compare M/C cooperatives

with national averages for grain co-ops of their same relative size, a five-previous-year average was constructed for

each (remaining) cooperative for each year of observation.

In this way, M/C cooperatives were compared only with

their cohorts. Grain cooperative balance sheets and operating statements were used to construct a set of generally

recognized financial ratios. The ratios selected are associated with four general aspects of a business: profitability, liquidity, efficiency and solvency (table 3). 

Profitability indicators generally compare the returns of the

business (local net savings, from the operating statement) with

another aspect of the cooperative’s business By each of the four

profitability measures, M/C cooperatives, regardless of the size

of the surviving firm, accrued modest returns over the five-year

period. In every measure, M/C co-op performance was less

than both the benchmark (used by CoBank) and the national

average among grain cooperatives remaining in business. 

Cooperatives and their creditors have a strong preference

for a margin of safety against the operating uncertainties to

which they are subject. Liquidity refers to a cooperative’s ability to generate short-term cash in case of unexpected expenses.

M/C cooperatives had liquidity difficulties. Except for large

cooperatives that joined IOFs, M/C cooperatives failed to

meet either national or benchmark standards for liquidity. 

The relatively strong working-capital-to-sales performance

posted by large cooperatives that merged with IOFs suggests a

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 15

Table 1 — Number of Grain Co-ops In and Out of Business, 1992-97, by Year and Size in Total Sales

Year Grain cooperative size in Total Sales Year Grain cooperative size in Total Sales

$15 million Between $5 Less than $15 million Between $5 Less than

or greater and $15 million $5 million ALL or greater and $15 million $5 million ALL 

Number of cooperatives In Business Number of cooperatives “Out of Business”

1992 419 570 204 1,193

1993 405 537 203 1,145 1993 14 33 1 48

1994 384 495 191 1,070 1994 21 42 12 75

1995 370 463 191 1,024 1995 14 32 0 46

1996 326 408 186 920 1996 44 55 5 104

1997 286 357 183 826 1997 40 51 3 94

Average 354 452 191 997 Total 133 213 21 367
16 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

very good reason for these cooperatives’

relative attractiveness as merger targets.

Of course, it’s possible that these values

reflect relatively low sales. On the other

hand, what firm wouldn’t like to acquire

a ready stream of working capital as part

of the bargain? 

Efficiency indicators provide some

measure of how well the firm is managed. Because there is no direct measure for “management ability,” these

indicators serve as a proxy for two

aspects of a manager’s job: holding

down costs and making the best use of

the business’ resources. M/C cooperatives showed relatively strong performance in efficiency. Regardless of other shortcomings, these co-ops were

apparently blessed with management

that made sure overall expenses (particularly labor) were kept low compared with income and that sales

income was kept high compared with

inventory. Efficient operations may

have been the single most attractive

feature to firms aspiring to acquire

these cooperatives.

Solvency indicates a cooperative’s

long-term financial health. Solvency

indicators include guidelines for the

firm’s interest expenses and liabilities

relative to its income and equity.

M/C cooperatives generally had

mixed results regarding solvency.

While large cooperatives that merged

with IOFs were more solvent than

those merging with other cooperatives, mid-sized cooperatives merging

with other cooperatives were more

financially stable than those that

merged with IOFs. 

Are best co-ops cherry-picked?

A common perception is that the

most promising cooperatives are quickly purchased by IOFs. This study

refutes that belief in two ways.

First, while both groups of cooperatives were in poor financial health,

those that merged with other cooperatives outperformed those that merged

with IOFs. Table 3 reveals that for

large cooperatives, those that merged

with other cooperatives outperformed

those that merged with IOFs in 8 of 13

indicators. Medium-sized cooperatives

that merged with other cooperatives

outperformed their counterparts that

merged with IOFs in 9 of 13 indicators. In other words, cooperatives that

merged with other cooperatives were

generally more profitable, liquid, efficient and solvent than their those that

merged with IOFs.

Second, a very broad measure of

financial health was given to the 330

cooperatives that went out of business

and their merging partners. Firms that

performed no worse than 90 percent of

the benchmark level for at least six of

the 13 indicators were considered

healthy. Firms that failed to achieve the

90 percent performance level for seven

or more indicators were considered in

poor financial health. 

Table 4 summarizes the financial

health of the 330 M/C cooperatives

and their partners. Sixty-five percent

(82 of 126) of mergers that occurred

among large cooperatives during 1993-

97 involved two firms in poor financial

health. Thirty-one percent (39) of the

mergers occurred among a healthy and

a not-so-healthy firm. And only 4 percent (5) of all large cooperative mergers during that period involved two

healthy firms. 

While a slightly larger percentage of

medium-sized cooperative mergers (38

percent, or 63 of 204) involved at least

one healthy firm, the implication

remains the same for both groups. For

the most part, cooperatives that went

out of business during 1993-97 were

performing poorly, or at least not as

well as their surviving neighbors. In

most categories, whether the average

M/C cooperative was involved with a

cooperative or becoming part of an

IOF, its financial indicators were weaker than national averages and well short

of benchmark values. 

When a cooperative went out of

business, it was in poor financial condition. To become part of another

business — whether as a cooperative

or an IOF – the co-op tended to accept

the terms offered by its benefactor, not

to dictate the terms. Few, if any, negotiations were carried on by these cooperatives from a position of strength.

Roughly two-fifths of the 291 cooperatives that stayed in the “cooperative

family” were financially sound. However, of the 22 cooperatives that merged

with or were acquired by an IOF, there

was only one solid performer. So, if we

look at the best among a group of relatively weaker cooperatives and ask if

they were “cherry picked” or “stayed in

the family,” the answer is that they

stayed. Of the 121 available “cherry”

cooperatives that went out of business

during the period, only one was

“picked” by an IOF.

Predicting mergers and acquisitions 

USDA wanted to know if a grain

cooperative’s financial health is able to

say something about how likely it is to

merge with, or be acquired by, another

firm. An economic model was constructed to evaluate the likelihood of a

Table 2 — Number of Grain Cooperatives Out of Business, 1993-97,

by Region and Size

Region Grain Cooperative Size in Total Sales

$15 million Between $5 Less than

or greater and $15 million $5 million ALL 

Number of cooperatives “Out of Business”

Corn Belt 102 156 12 270

Southern Plains 8 40 . 48

Northern Plains 15 4 7 26

Pacific Northwest 1 4 . 5

Other 7 9 2 18

Total 133 213 21 367
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 17

grain cooperative going out of business

in the near term, given its financial

performance record. 

Each of the 14 financial ratios listed

was used as a predictor to determine

which variables, if any, could do a better job than the rest of predicting a

cooperative’s failure. A three-variable

“best fit” was selected from among the

14 ratios using a special statistical procedure (RBS Research Report 180 provides specific details).

The odds of large grain cooperatives

going out of business were most successfully predicted by the three ratios:

return-to-total assets (-), expenses-tosales (+), and labor-to-income (+). The

“minus” sign after the “return-to-total

assets” variable indicates that the likelihood of a cooperative going out of

business increases as return-to-totalassets decreases. The results also show

that it’s more likely a cooperative will

go out of business as the value of

expenses-to-sales and labor-to-income

increase, hence the “plus” signs after

those variables. 

The fact that out of all 13 variables,

these three were selected as having the

most power for predicting which large

grain cooperatives will go out of business says a lot about the challenges that

confront remaining cooperatives. That

one variable indicates profitability and

the other two efficiency speaks to the

relentless marked pressure in which

Table 3 — Financial Indicators: National Means and “Out of Business” Co-ops, By Size and Type,

5-year Means With Benchmark

Total Sales of $15 million or greater Total Sales between $5 and $15 million 

Out of Out of Out of Out of

National Business - Business - National Business - Business -

In Business to a to an In Business to a to an

Average Cooperative IOF Benchmark Average Cooperative IOF

Profitability

Return to Total Assets 0.08 0.01 (0.03) 0.08 0.06 0.00 (0.02)

Return to Fixed Assets 0.27 0.02 (0.01) 0.30 0.22 (0.00)* (0.07)

Return to Equity 0.16 0.01 (0.06) 0.10 0.11 (0.00)* (0.05)

Local Return to Local Assets 0.07 (0.02) (0.04) 0.03 0.05 (0.02) (0.05)

Liquidity

Current Ratio 1.32 1.16 1.37 1.50 1.56 1.50 1.22

Quick Ratio 0.68 0.47 1.05 0.80 0.85 0.71 0.59 

Working Capital to Sales 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 

Efficiency

Profitability 0.08 0.08 0.10 0.10 0.08 0.09 0.10 

Labor to Income 0.37 0.38 0.32 0.35 0.39 0.37 0.39

Farm Supply Sales to Inventory 8 12 3 10 8 96

Solvency

Times Interest Earned 3.84 0.15 0.91 3.00 4.02 0.04 (0.65)

Total Liabilities to Total Assets 0.45 0.47 0.32 0.50 0.36 0.31 0.41 

LT Liabilities to Equity 1.17 1.32 0.95 1.00 0.80 0.75 1.28 

Negative values are in parentheses.

* Value rounded to zero (0).
18 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

survival hinges on paper-thin profit

margins. Managers are faced with

seemingly impossible goals: making

every asset a source of revenue while

simultaneously reducing operating

costs. The bigger challenge still is to

remain in the game as every player gets

bigger and more competitive. 

This analysis suggests that merger

targets among large grain cooperatives are likely to have the following

financial characteristics: a positive,

but relatively low return-to-totalassets (3 - 4 percent range), expensesto-sales approaching 10 percent, and

labor-to-income significantly exceeding the 35-percent benchmark (40

percent and above). Given these conditions, another 32 large cooperatives

are likely candidates to go out of

business in marketing year 2000.

Medium-sized grain cooperatives

that went out of business were most

successfully predicted by the three

ratios: return-to-local-assets (-),

expenses-to-sales (+), and return-tofixed-assets (-). Again, the negative sign

attached to two of the variables (local

return-to-local-assets and return-tofixed assets) indicates that, as these

ratios increase, the likelihood of a coop being forced into a merger, consolidation or some other reason for ceasing

to operate as an independent entity. 

Much like their larger counterparts,

medium-sized cooperatives must balance profitability and efficiency. However, while the large cooperatives concern themselves more with efficiency,

medium-sized co-ops must shift their

emphasis toward profitability. It is significant that two of the three most

important variables involve returns. 

Of particular importance is the relative contribution of return-to-local

assets. It is well known that many otherwise struggling local grain cooperatives have managed to survive from one

year to the next on patronage received

from regional cooperatives. The results

of the model suggest, however, that

those days are ending. Local returns are

primary to a grain cooperative’s success.

Merger targets among medium-sized

grain cooperatives are likely to have the

following financial characteristics: a

local return-to-total-assets of less than 2

percent, expenses-to-sales approaching

10 percent and a return-to-fixed assets

of significantly less than the 30-percent

benchmark (18 percent or less). Under

these circumstances, another 60 medium-sized cooperatives are likely targets

for consolidation in 2000.

To survive, large cooperatives need to

be profitable and efficient, with an

emphasis on efficiency, while mediumsized co-ops need to be efficient and profitable, with an emphasis on profitability.

And — even more importantly — what

does “survival” mean for grain cooperatives in the context of agriculture’s widespread economic restructuring? Perhaps

what has been learned about M/C cooperatives will provide some important keys

to the challenges that lie ahead.

Consolidation implications

Even the most cursory look at the

M/C cooperatives during the 1993-97

period suggests two predominant patterns: cooperatives in poor financial

health seeking a partner to avoid

bankruptcy; or, strong cooperatives

seeking out stronger partners and/or

expanding internally to position themselves strategically for the future. 

In regard to both patterns, historians looking back on the late 1990s may

very easily conclude that the “farm”

crisis of two decades earlier simply

“moved further up the food chain.”

Many smaller farms were “shaken out”

of the industry in the past generation.

Now, even among the largest players

remaining in agriculture, there is near

universal agreement that “only the

lowest cost operations will remain.” 

The buildup of surpluses and

declining export demand have driven

prices to their lowest levels in decades.

Expectations for their recovery are

equally as bleak. What was once a costprice squeeze may now be likened to a

hammer and anvil. 

Paper-thin profit margins and low

expectations are forcing grain cooperatives, and the rest of agriculture, to

lower operating costs. That means a

firm must grow in size so as to spread

operating costs over a larger business

volume to gain “scale economies.” 

A merger with another cooperative

is often perceived as a way of gaining a

step on the economic treadmill. By

acquiring additional assets (such as

storage facilities, unit-train loadout

Is there a story to tell about a cooperative you worked for, or were a member of, which has merged, consolidated, went bankrupt or for some other reason ceased to operate as an independent business? USDA is developing a historical account of “consolidation in the heartland” and would like to add your

story to the record. 

Tell us briefly about your cooperative’s activities along with the circumstances that led to the merger, consolidation or other action taken. Your note

should also tell us what has happened to the membership and the community

since the co-op ceased operations as an independent business. We will treat

your information confidentially, if you so advise us.

Send your story (or questions) to the author of this article by e-mail: anthony.crooks@usda.gov, or by regular mail to: USDA/RBS, “Cooperative Consolidation,” Stop 3252, Washington, D.C. 20250-3252. If you don’t have time to

write out your account but would be willing to be interviewed, we would still

like to hear from you. Send a phone number where you can be contacted. 

USDA seeking more accounts of co-op

mergers and closures 
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 19

facilities, etc.) relatively cheap, by combining two sales forces or accounting

departments and other consolidation

measures, firms hope the benefits of

size will help them to structure their

operating costs a notch lower. 

This cost-saving behavior among

two or more firms at the same level, or

“link,” along the supply chain is characterized by economists as horizontal

integration. Vertical integration, on the

other hand, involves the forward or

backward linking of two or more firms

at different levels of the supply chain. 

While supply chain integration is

not a new event in agriculture, its

increasing pervasiveness in recent years

is prominent. 

A supply chain is formed when one

firm — usually a significantly dominant player or “integrator”— works

to control (contractually or through

ownership) the activities of firms

(groups of firms) at each level of the

production process, up to and including delivery to the consumer. These

chains seek control. 

Integrators assume command of

the production and delivery process

to assure themselves: a) that product

quality meets their customers’ specific needs; b) that costs are driven to

the absolute minimum, subject to

meeting the quality specifications;

and c) that the associated risks are

managed within acceptable levels. 

Supply chain integration — long a

fact of life in the poultry/broiler industry and becoming one in the pork

industry — is now underway in the

grain industry. The grain delivery system is not quite as complete as in the

poultry/broiler industry. A handful of

firms have yet to completely dominate

seed development, production, processing and marketing with every coordinated step up and down the chain. 

However, in recent years, we witnessed the harvest and marketing of herbicide-tolerant corn and soybeans. The

so-called “Roundup®-ready” varieties

are just the first of many crops derived

from seed stock that was modified at the

genetic level to garner specific properties. Moreover, we also watched several

alliances of seed corporations with pharmaceutical firms formed with the specific interest of developing genetically

modified seed stock. And, while both

international and domestic markets have

proved to be less than enthusiastic for

genetically modified corn and soybeans

— at least during the 1999-2000 marketing year — continued progress in bioengineering is expected.

In short, the best available genetics

were combined with the best (i.e., most

profitable) production processes to

deliver products intended to meet the

needs of an increasingly discriminating

consumer. 

The final choice

As the marketing chain structure

dominates the grain industry, both

cooperatives and their producer members are faced with a straightforward

choice: build new partnerships or be

left behind. Survivors in the poultry

and pork industries successfully adjusted to a shift in emphasis from “commodity marketing” to “product delivery.” For producers and cooperatives in

the grain industry, this will mean

realignment to become an “integrator”

themselves, such as Dakota Growers

Pasta Cooperative of Carrington,

N.D., or, at the very least, a reliable

supplier to a cooperative integrator, for

example, producers with membership

and delivery rights of corn for Golden

Oval layers in Renville, Minn. ■

References 

CoBank, National Bank for Cooperatives, “Analyzing a Cooperative Business: Designed for Midwestern Grain or Farm Supply Cooperatives,” self-published instructional pamphlet for directors and

managers of agricultural cooperatives, undated.

Drabenstott, Mark “Consolidation in U.S. Agriculture Leading to

New Rural Landscape and Public Policy Considerations,” Feedstuffs

71:19, May 17, 1999, pp. 33,34,43, and 44.

Hanson, Mark “Grain Co-op Votes in Favor of Terminal at Sterling; South Central Has Elevators in Three Towns,” Bismark Tribune,

March 21, 1998, Metro Edition, pg. 8.

Merlo, Katherine “When Cooperatives Combine,” Rural Cooperatives 65:5, Sept./Oct. 1998, pp. 18-23.

Wadsworth, James J. “Large Cooperatives Unifying: A Strategic

Trend to Monitor,” Rural Cooperatives 66:5, Sept./Oct. 1999, pp. 21-25.

Table 4 — Financial Health of Out of Business Co-ops and Their Partners: National, Regional, and Reason,

by Size and Relative Condition

Out of Business Cooperatives Total Sales of $15 million or greater Total Sales between $5 and $15 million 

Both Poor One Healthy Both Healthy Total Both Poor One Healthy Both Healthy Total

Number of cooperatives Number of cooperatives

National 82 39 5 126 123 63 18 204

Corn Belt 60 37 5 102 102 45 9 156

Southern Plains 6 2 8 13 18 9 40

Northern Plains 15 15 4 4

Pacific Northwest 1 1 4 4

By Reason:

Merged w/ Co-op 46 29 5 80 89 59 18 166

Acquired by Co-op 19 19 15 15

Consolidated w/ Co-op 10 10

Merged w/ IOF 4 4 4 4

Acquired by IOF 5 5 9 9

Bankruptcy 4 4 6 6

Unknown Reason 4 4 4 4
20 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

By James J. Wadsworth

Program Leader, Education and

Member Relations

USDA Rural Development

Editor’s note: This article is excerpted

from a forthcoming report, CIR 58

“Assessing Performance and Needs of

Cooperative Boards of Directors.” The

report includes three board assessment

exercises: (1) Director’s self-assessment, (2)

Full board performance assessment, and (3)

Board meeting productivity assessment.

This article discusses the first-director

assessment; a subsequent article to appear

in a future issue of this magazine will discuss the latter two assessments. 

common concern

among cooperatives is

the need to enhance or

improve the relationship between management and the board. This does not

necessarily imply that there are pervasive problems among the relationships

of these cooperative leaders. But it

does indicate that, at times, issues

arise between managers and directors

that may be detrimental or disruptive

to smooth governance and management of cooperatives.

Managers and directors have distinct responsibilities. While managers

are hired with the qualifications to run

the cooperative and meet their many

responsibilities, directors come from

diverse backgrounds and experience

levels. Many directors find their many

responsibilities challenging. They are

not often fully trained or completely

able to perform the many duties

required when elected to the board. 

A learning curve is involved,

and gaining necessary experience

and skills takes time for directors.

Differences in experience levels,

ability and points of reference

between directors and management sometime create instances

of misunderstanding or conflict

that may lead to weakened relationships. 

Director assessment can help

bridge such differences by providing a

means for directors to enhance their

abilities and better understand their

distinct role in the cooperative.

Assessments allow directors to visit

both the vastness of their responsibilities and the limits imposed. They provide building blocks for more productive relationships between directors

and their hired management. 

Director assessment can be a very

useful tool for all directors. Directors

who lack experience and ability can

lessen the time needed to gain the

pertinent knowledge and skills for

being an effective director by completing a self-assessment and then

diligently working on areas that need

improvement. And experienced directors, who certainly can use improvement in some areas, can accurately

pinpoint weaknesses to address.

Assessment makes this process easier

through a plan specifically tailored to

address identified weaknesses.

Knowledgeable, skilled directors

better understand their roles and

are better able to effectively serve.

These directors are more likely to

have a professional and productive

relationship with management and

other directors. 

Related responsibilities

Assessment should correspond to

directors’ distinct responsibilities and

duties. To set the stage for assessment,

let’s review some often-cited director

responsibilities/duties (from Donald A.

Frederick, Co-ops 101: An Introduction to Cooperatives, RBS Cooperative

Information Report 55).

Working as a group, directors have

the responsibility of setting the policies

and objectives for the cooperative, and

making decisions that set the course the

cooperative will follow to achieve those

objectives. More specifically, directors:

• Hire a competent manager, determine the salary, outline duties and

authority of the position and formally review his/her performance at

least annually;

• Adopt broad, general policies to

guide the manager; 

• Develop and adopt short- and 

Are you a good leader?

Director assessments are building blocks to productive board-management relationships

A
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 21

long-range business strategies;

• Require written monthly financial

reports and operating statements

for board meetings to be informed

of adverse as well as favorable

operations;

• Direct the manager to prepare,

before the close of each year, an

operating budget for the next fiscal

year for board approval;

• Employ a qualified auditor to make

an independent audit at least once

each year;

• With the aid of the manager, plan

and conduct the annual meeting to

keep membership informed about the

status of their business, including

operations, finances and policies;

• Determine the patronage refund allocation and per-unit retain level;

• Assure that the cooperative has competent legal council;

• Keep and review records of the

board’s actions.

Directors are called on to complete

more specific duties as well. Some

examples include:

• Approving and disapproving major

capital expenditures;

• Establishing the cooperative’s financial structure and the authorization of

any basic change in structure;

• Determining the boundaries of districts, divisions, locations of operations offices, etc.;

• Establishing appropriate election

and voting procedures to

maintain proper representation

of members, including filling

vacancies on the board or any

other corporate body, committee, or organization that results

from resignation, death, disqualification, etc.;

• Making decisions about the

proper relationship with other

farmer cooperatives and farm

organizations;

• Making decisions about corporate membership in other

organizations, associations and

federations;

• Establishing the responsibilities and duties assigned to

individual division boards and

the individual committees;

• Establishing basic policies with 

regard to legislative or administrative decisions on local,

state, national and international levels that affect the welfare of the

member-producer.

Directors should not expect to

receive special favors from the manager

or employees and a director does not:

• Act independently on matters that

should be decided by the entire

board;

• Represent special interests, factions,

or political entities.

These are some of the major

responsibilities of most cooperative

directors. To carry them out, directors conduct a host of actions as individuals, as a group during board

meetings and in other membership

meetings. They are required to learn

and carry themselves as directors,

conducting necessary tasks and functions. They must be competent, diligent and active. They use the cooperative and lead it. They need to have

an in-depth understanding and

knowledge of cooperatives and associated issues. 

Areas and items to assess

Simply asking directors if they are

able to meet a defined responsibility

is too general a question. So, an

assessment should include a series of

specific statements under several key

areas. Director responsibilities and

duties can be broken down into a

smaller number of significant knowledge and ability areas such as: managerial skills, finance, policies and

planning, member relations, board

operations, leadership and personal

competence. In an assessment, directors determine what areas, or parts of

areas, they need to improve. 

An assessment is not a complicated

exercise. Directors simply react to a

series of items or statements associated

with each key area to clarify where

they have ability and where they need

improvement. For example, a number

of items (gleaned from work from

Harold E. Chapman’s “The Contemporary Director: A Handbook for

Elected Officials of Co-operatives,

Credit Unions, and Other Organizations,” Saskatchewan Cooperative College of Canada, 1986) are identified

here under the “seven knowledge/ability areas.” These areas and statements

are directly associated with various

director responsibilities and duties.

Managerial Skills 

• I am able to help establish the job

description for the general manager,

including the specific duties and

responsibilities;

• I am able to participate in the

recruitment, selection and hiring of

a general manager;

• I am able to participate in a performance review and appraisal of the

general manager;

• I am able to participate in establishing the compensation for the general

manager.
22 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

Finance

• I am able to define financial objectives and develop policies to guide

capital and operational financial 

decisions;

• I am able to analyze and approve capital expenditure plans;

• I am able to interpret the cooperative’s financial statements and to

assess the viability of the cooperative;

• I am able to understand financial

ratios and analyze trends;

• I am able to analyze budget proposals

and approve the annual budget;

• I am able to analyze proposals and

participate in discussions on major

financial matters;

• I am able to compare actual financial

performance to the budget;

• I am able to analyze and participate

in decisions involving the distribution

of net savings or losses;

• I am able to understand and analyze

the cooperative’s financial investments;

• I am able to explain the cooperative’s

financial position to others when

required;

• I am able to explain the cooperative’s equity redemption program to

members;

• I am able to analyze equity redemption requests and establish equity

redemption policy.

Policies/Planning

• I am able to help establish objectives

and policies for operations and services of the cooperative;

• I am able to appraise the adequacy of

operations and services of the cooperative;

• I am able to understand feasibility

studies and analyze proposed changes

and their implications for long-term

operations and member-service;

• I am able to analyze and approve

annual plans for services, operations

and facilities;

• I understand the cooperative’s planning system and am able to actively

participate in the process;

• I am able to develop objectives in line

with member needs and the cooperative’s resource base and operations;

• I am able to take part in brainstorming sessions and provide ideas/strategies relevant to the cooperative’s

objectives;

• I am able to evaluate the effectiveness

of the cooperative’s performance

against its plans.

Member Relations

• I am able to analyze proposals and

approve a program and budget for

member and public relations in the

cooperative;

• I am able to evaluate the effectiveness

of the member relations program;

• I am able to communicate well with

members;

• I am able to represent the cooperative at public functions when

requested;

• I am able to receive ideas and expressions of concern from members and

to initiate appropriate action on their

behalf;

• I am able to analyze and approve

objectives, policies and strategies for

maintaining effective relations with

the public, other cooperatives and

government agencies;

• I am able to assist in planning the

annual meeting program to maximize

member involvement and input;

• I am able to encourage members to

attend annual and other meetings of

the cooperative;

• I am able to analyze and make decisions on applications for membership;

• I understand the cooperative’s operating territory and membership districts and boundaries.

Board Operations

• I am able to work well with other

directors and the management

team;

• I fully understand the procedures for

appointing officers and take an active

part;

• I am able to plan, prepare and articulate my thoughts to maximize group

participation in board decisions;

• I am able to participate as a member

of a committee and chair it, if

required;

• I am able to effectively communicate

my opinions and feelings to the board;

• I am able to take part in all important

board discussions, fully representing

my member constituents;

• I am able to analyze and recommend appropriate per diem, travel

and sustenance allowances for

directors.

Leadership 

• I am able to inform others of the history, values, principles, organization

and functioning of the cooperative;

• I am able to actively support and promote cooperative activity in the community;

• I actively patronize the cooperative

and display active cooperative membership;

• I understand the cooperative’s system

of governance;

• I fully understand the qualifications

for board leadership positions;

• I keep attuned to agricultural, business and environmental issues and

work to be knowledgeable in all concerns effecting the cooperative;

• I take my role of director seriously and

work to improve my performance;

• I do my best to help my fellow direc-
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 23

tors and members when asked;

• I understand that when the discussion and decision of an issue is completed, I am responsible to support

the board’s majority’s decision;

• I elicit feelings of confidence, trust

and respect from fellow members. 

Personal Competence

• I am able to assess my personal training needs for the role of director;

• I fully understand the role (responsibilities, duties) of a director and feel

competent to fulfill it;

• I contribute to the productivity of

meetings by participating effectively;

• I am on time and present at all board

and committee meetings (emergencies being exceptions);

• I am able to effectively inform members and the public of the purposes,

structure, financing, services, legal

framework and operations of the

cooperative;

• I am able to listen and speak effectively with individuals and groups;

• I am able to prepare and present

written and oral reports;

• I am able to prepare plans for carrying out activities and to measure

the results;

• I am able to direct the affairs of the

cooperative consistent with the

bylaws, articles of incorporation,

and other relevant regulations and

statutes;

• I am knowledgeable about the potential liabilities of being a director.

Use of statements such as these

can provide a comprehensive assessment of directors’ abilities. Directors

must be candid in rating their knowledge, ability and performance in

accordance with each statement. A

consistent system for evaluation

should be used. For example, statements could be evaluated as: yes —

this is not a problem and training is

not needed; unsure — I’m unsure

about this and could use some training for improvement; or no — I need

training and improvement. 

Evaluating statements on an individual basis is the first part of assessment.

Following evaluation, directors review

and identify those statements to which

they did not assess a “yes.” Then they

should provide input on how they

might improve some of their self-diagnosed weaknesses.

Individual cooperative boards may

wish to re-word some of these statements, add others or subtract some 

to better fit their unique circumstances. The idea is to create an exercise that will effectively evaluate

directors, given their distinct associated responsibilities and duties to

their cooperative. 

Develop training, track progress

The major goal behind director

assessment is not merely to pinpoint

individual weaknesses, but to find ways

that directors can improve their ability

and performance — to be better directors. The theme for improvement is

simple. Cooperative boards need to

proactively identify weaknesses to find

and to implement appropriate methods

for correction. They need to seek necessary resources and take advantage of

materials, programs, classes, workshops, seminars, conferences and other

educational activities.

Informal training may be all that’s

needed. Simply providing the directors

with pertinent reading materials or

some type of individual or group tutoring may make some improvements. 

Directors can also help each other.

Experienced, effective directors can be

valuable resources for some types of

training. Management may also participate in tutoring certain areas.

There are many informational and

educational materials available. USDA’s

Rural Business-Cooperative Service provides many related publications and materials and other cooperative-oriented organizations have readily available resources.

Visit the Cooperative Services website at

http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/coo

prpts.htm.

Formal training may be required,

too. Director training workshops are

an easy way to target numerous

weaknesses and teach a number of

directors at once. Workshops, of

course, are not a new idea. Many

have been held in various locations

and times over the years. State,

regional and national cooperative

organizations and educational institutions organize workshops. 

For example, state cooperative

councils and regional centers often

provide this service. Representatives of

state departments of agriculture and

governmental agencies such as USDA

and university personnel also become

involved. Cooperative-related institutions also hold other classes, conferences and seminars.

The board of directors should

consider discussing some of the

major weaknesses identified from

the self-assessments to surface ideas

on best methods for developing

improvement programs. Sometimes

a single program can alleviate a

problem area identified by a number

of directors. 

Once training has been developed

and implemented, it is important that

the board track past director needs and

the types of training used. Such information will be useful for future assessments and training programs. 

Director assessment should be an

ongoing process. Director assessments need to be completed and then

actively monitored. Assessments

should be active instruments by which

progress is regularly checked during

the course of a director’s tenure.

Directors should review their assessments on a regular basis. Most directors will be able to clearly see where

they’ve made progress or need further

improvement. However, a director

should feel free to take a new selfassessment at any time. Learning to

be a competent director with a professional and productive relationship

with management is a continuing

process — which is the goal of selfassessment. ■
24 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

By Azanmasso Joseph and

Steven Graham

Editor’s note: Joseph is president of Cooperative Agro Pastorale Segbeya; he met

Graham when both worked with the Peace

Corps in West Africa in the 1970s; Graham was administrator of the Kansas

Wheat Commission from 1980-95, and

has since then served as assistant to the

dean and director of agriculture at Kansas

State University. 

he “Cooperative Agro

Pastorale Segbeya” was

started in 1994 by swine

producers in Benin,

West Africa. The co-op

faces many challenges to develop and

grow, not unlike many facing cooperatives in the United States.

Benin is slightly smaller than Pennsylvania, with a population of 6.3 million. It is located west of Nigeria and

east of Togo. As a former French

colony, the country’s official language is

French, but there are eight major tribal

languages spoken within its borders.

Benin is primarily an agricultural

country, producing ample fruits, vegetables, peanuts, corn, cotton, and livestock for its own use plus limited

export. The southern half of Benin

receives rain in two periods each year,

and thus two growing seasons. The

northern half is drier and only has one

growing season. Commodity exports

from Benin include cotton, crude oil,

palm products, and cocoa.

The population in the southern half

of Benin is more affluent than in the

north, and one of the meats consumed

in large quantity is pork, especially in

the County of Toffo in the Atlantique

Province, or Department of South

Central Benin. Other preferred meats

are poultry, fish and beef. This rich

agricultural region is located just north

and west of Cotonou, the country’s

most populous city.

Subsistence farmers

Agriculture in Benin is primarily of

the subsistence-type, with the exception of a few palm or fruit tree plantations. Farmers usually clear a couple

acres and plant a mixture of tall and

short crops on the land for a few

years. That land is then allowed to go

fallow and another piece of land is

cleared. Livestock is primarily allowed

to range free and forage for whatever

food can be found. Beninese producers do not talk in terms of production

days for livestock but rather in terms

of months or years.

A rudimentary Agricultural Extension Service exists and provides the

very slimmest of technical information

and assistance. The assistance available

depends greatly upon the knowledge

base of the local extension agent and

whether the agent is reaching out to

the producers through meetings in

their local villages.

There is no system of banks or

organizations providing credit to the

subsistence farmers who might want to

try some new type of crop or livestock

production system. Money is transferred to local villages through the

many Post, Telegraph & Telephone

offices (PTT) throughout the country.

If people receive checks from overseas

and do not live in one of the few cities

in Benin and have a bank account, they

will not be able to cash those checks.

Instead, they must receive their money

in the form of international postal

money orders, which can be cashed at

their local PTT.

Many roadblocks slow progress

Small producers wanting to try new

ideas which cost money face a very difficult situation. Either they need to band

together and form a cooperative or find

some backer with money. 

Those wanting to form a cooperative in Benin discover many of the

same roadblocks as in the United

States. For example, previous cooperatives that have failed reduce chances for

new ones to begin. There are also

issues such as finding the right mix of

farmers to join, deciding on a reasonable and attainable business plan, and

determining how to direct and manage

the cooperative to a profitable position.

Even when producers form a cooperative, they have great difficulty convincing authorities to take the group

seriously and provide technical or

financial assistance. The following story is about a cooperative in Benin,

West Africa, that faced the difficulties

and has continued to operate.

Editor’s note: The following portion of

this article is told in the words of the cooperative’s president, Azanmasso Menai

Joseph, translated from French.

Genesis of the co-op

“Realizing the affluence of the population in the neighboring Oueme

Province for the purchase of pork and

the great consumption by the populaCooperative Agro Pastorale

Segbeya

African swine-raising cooperative struggles to survive and prosper

T
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 25

tion in the Atlantique Province, especially by persons of Toffo County and,

in particular, the Community of Ouagbo, I had an idea. On April 11, 1994, I

invited 10 farmers to come together

and create a cooperative for the purpose of producing swine. Seven of the

invited farmers responded favorably

and created a cooperative: the Cooperative Agro Pastorale Segbeya-which, to

this day, is working together as a cooperative and a team.

“With our own resources, we

bought a piece of land and paid for the

construction of a new semi-confined

hog operation, including a building and

walled lot. It opened on June 1994. 

“Through the life experiences of

each cooperator and using whatever

technical, financial and human measures and methods possible, the cooperative hoped to create a more modern

and rational system of producing swine

in the community of Ouagbo.

“The cooperative’s objectives were

to: 1) Satisfy the demands of the local

population for pork meat; and 2) Provide reasonable income to the cooperators who initiated the cooperative.

“In addition, we wanted to pull from

this experience the lessons that would

permit us to aid other farmers who

might want to abandon the traditional

ways of raising swine and become more

self-sufficient in the production of 

animal protein in Toffo County and

our community of Ouagbo.

Goals of the Cooperative

“The overall goal of the Cooperative

Agro Pastorale Segbeya is to change the

traditional system of raising swine in

the County of Toffo and, in particular,

in the community of Ouagbo, by developing a new swine-raising system that

mixes a local breed of swine with an

imported breed. The cooperative raises

crossbred swine, using imported males

and local females.

Co-op’s accomplishments

“Based on the planned objectives

and purposes for the cooperative, the

results have been positive, though

income did not increase as much as

desired because three-fourths of the

annual receipts are destined to pay for

the animal feed and the veterinary services. Therefore, we decided to buy

one hectare of land to cultivate and

raise food for the swine. We received a

gift of money from Steven and Cheri

Graham to buy the land. I had worked

with Mr. Graham when he was a Peace

Corps volunteer in my country from

1974-76, and we have stayed in contact

over the years since he left.

“From 1994 when the cooperative

started, until November 1997, more

than 75 head were in our production

system. But in November 1997, a disease killed many swine in Benin. The

cooperative faced great losses and big

difficulties. Previous receipts were used

to take care of the remaining swine, but

the government was eventually forced

to order all swine killed to stop the

spread of the disease.

“We were finally allowed to restart

production in 1999. The government

imported swine, which we were

required to purchase, and authorized

our new efforts. We purchased three

females and one male. The females

have now had one litter apiece. 

Future Plans

“Despite all the difficulties, we still

have the desire and the will to succeed

in livestock rearing. We hope to add

another animal to our mix and spread

the risk. Also, we would like to purchase more farmland to use in producing feed for the animals. We investigated what it would take to raise

chickens, fish or agouti, a local, raccoon-sized, wild animal that is considered a delicacy.

“We thank those who have assisted

us over the years for the opportunity to

work together as the Cooperative Agro

Pastorale Segbeya. We appreciate the

opportunity to share our story with

friends in other parts of the world. May

God bless us all.” ■

Readers with suggestions that could help

farmers’ organizations in Benin or other

West African nations can contact Steven

Graham at: 1603 Little Kitten Avenue,

Manhattan, KS 66503-7543. His phone

number is 785-532-5729 and his e-mail

is steveng@ksu.edu.

Recognizing the wealth of its neighbors and their willingness to buy pork, seven West

African producers — including Azanmasso Joseph — have joined forces to raise and

market hogs. Photo courtesy CAPS
26 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

Personal, farm and education: O.

Glenn Webb and his wife, Phyllis, have

raised three children on a fruit and cattle operation. He earned a bachelor’s

degree in agriculture from the University of Illinois in 1957. Webb went on

to earn a master’s degree and a Ph.D. in

education administration from Southern Illinois University. 

Co-op service: At age 25, this Tunnel Hill, Ill., native was elected to the

Fruit Belt Service Co. board to fill the

seat vacated by his father Ray, who was

retiring from the board. Over the next

38 years, Webb served on the boards of

FS Services Inc. and then the Illinois

Grain Corp. before becoming FS Services board secretary and then its vice

president. In 1980, when GROWMARK was formed through the merger of FS Services and Illinois Grain

Corporation, Webb was elected board

chairman and president. He retired

from that post at the end of the cooperative’s 2000 annual meeting on Aug. 31. 

Other leadership posts: Webb

has served on the boards of CoBank,

Federal Farm Credit Banks Funding

Corp., Archer Daniels Midland,

ADM/GROWMARK, CF Industries,

Graduate Institute of Cooperative

Leadership, Illinois Agricultural

Leadership Foundation, National

Forum on NonPoint Source Pollution

and the American Institute of Cooperation. “I hope to continue to stay

involved for a while in the Farm

Credit system, maybe serve on the

ADM corporate board for awhile.

And, of course, be involved in the

community here and in the church. It

will just be a different balance. I am

fully aware there are so many things

to do that I certainly don’t plan to

pull up a rocking chair and be a spectator as the world goes by.”

Co-op honors: Webb was named

National Cooperative Statesman in

1988. In April 2000, he was inducted

into the Cooperative Hall of Fame.

Why such a commitment to education? “I think it’s unfair to a director

to be elected, to come on board for

what, today, are multi-million-dollar

companies and not provide for that

director some level of education, some

level of training that helps them understand their role better and gives them

more confidence in terms of doing the

job that shareholders expect of them.”

What legacy do you leave behind

at GROWMARK? “ I hope I’ve left

the impression and developed the culture that we’re not afraid to take action

because we’re afraid we’re going to

make a mistake. I think you just like to

think that, after you’ve left a leadership

role, people would reflect back and say,

‘Yeah, that leadership was responsible.

That leadership was forward-thinking.

That leadership was genuine. That it

was sincere. That it was people directed.’ I think those are some of the things

I would hope would be viewed as my

impact here.

“I believe that GROWMARK is at

a time in which we need to continue

to have sustained, strong leadership. I

feel very good about the quality of

that leadership that’s on the board of

directors of GROWMARK at the

present time, and those who will come

on. So I don’t have any concerns

about any vacuum of leadership on

the GROWMARK board. It’s there.

Very top quality people there. I just

felt it was probably the right time for

me and the right time for GROWMARK, and probably the latter more

so than the former.”

What has been the strength of

GROWMARK? “I think the greatest

strength we have is the cohesion of the

members in the system. Our vision

statement discusses how we want to be

the best cooperative system in North

America. I think the key word is system, and I think the strength has been

that we’ve acted as a system. Now,

have we always done that? No. But

have we done it to the extent that it’s

given us great strength? Yes. And I am

encouraged that that will continue to

be a strength of the GROWMARK

system. If we lose that inter-dependence of one cooperative member

with the other in the GROWMARK

system, and the inter-dependence

between those member cooperatives

and GROWMARK, then I think we

would have lost a tremendous element

of our past success and a potential for

the future.” ■

Glenn Webb

Former Board Chairman and President GROWMARK, Bloomington, Ill.

IN THE SPOTLIGHT

Glenn Webb
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 27

Nation’s largest local 

co-op to reorganize

Problems associated with rapid

growth through consolidations and

mergers during the past decade have

forced Farmers Cooperative Association (FCA) – the largest cooperative in

Kansas and probably the largest local

co-op in the country – into Chapter 11

bankruptcy. However, the co-op’s continued operation has been assured by a

federal judge. 

FCA, based in

Lawrence, Kan.,

filed its reorganization plan with

the U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Judge John Flannagan in Kansas

City, Kan. Contributing to the

co-op’s financial

problems were

the depressed agricultural economy,

dwindling federal subsidies, elimination of crop-storage programs and

declining sales. The co-op’s sales

totaled $76.2 million in 1997, $62.7

million in 1999, and will drop further

for 2000. 

CoBank — the co-op’s largest creditor, holding $10 million of the co-op’s

$20 million in debt – appointed Don

Dumler as FCA chief operating officer

and president after his predecessor was

dismissed in June. Dumler said the

cooperative already has sold some of its

facilities and will eliminate or transfer

some of its 130 employees. 

At one point, the cooperative had to

stop buying grain for lack of money to

pay for it. But limited purchases from

FCA’s 3,500 members in northeastern

Kansas have resumed, to the extent

that cash has been available. The co-op

reported having 3.5 million bushels of

grain in storage and $30 million in

assets. Reorganization is expected to

take months to accomplish.

Gold Kist offers skillet meals

Gold-Kist, an Atlanta-based poultry

processing cooperative, has introduced

a new line of “Dish in a Dash” skillet

meals. The fully

cooked dinners

feature all-natural

chicken with vegetables, gourmet

sauce and rice or

pasta. “The nutritious, single-step

dinners are convenient meal solutions that today’s

consumer

demands,” says

John Bekkers, Gold Kist president and

chief operating officer. The dual servings in a 24-ounce bag can be prepared

in minutes in a skillet or microwave. 

Sugarbeet co-op

eyes purchase of

Western Sugar

Rocky Mountain Sugar Growers Cooperative

(RMSGC) has

signed a letter of

intent to pay $78

million to buy

Western Sugar

Co.’s six sugarbeet

processing plants.

Western Sugar is

owned by a subsidiary of Tate and Lyle LLC, an English firm that purchased the plants in

1980 from the holdings of the bankrupt

Great Western Sugar Co. 

RMSGC growers say with sugar

prices depressed this year, they hope

owning the plants that process their

crop will help them farm more profitably. “This is a pretty bad time for

us,” Frank Eckhardt of La Salle, Colo,

told the Denver Post. “Prices are down,

and we’re looking at some way to help

ourselves,” added Eckhardt, treasurer

of the Colorado Sugarbeet Growers

Association. The purchase plan hinges

on the co-op obtaining financing and

getting enough crop delivery commitments from growers to keep the plants

operating at near capacity.

The co-op will have to find bank

financing for about $52 million, with

grower members investing the remaining $26 million, based on payments of

$180 per acre. 

Western Sugar currently has 185,000

acres of sugarbeets under contract in

four states and 600 employees. About

1,000 family farms are represented in

the five participating beet-grower

groups in Nebraska,

Wyoming, Colorado and Montana

who plan to conclude the sale within

six months, pending

financing and grower investment.

The plan mirrors

an earlier cooperative effort to buy

Great Western 

Sugar in 1973. That

plan failed amid

NEWSLINE

Rocky Mountain Sugar Growers is pursuing

the purchase of six Western Sugar plants.
opposition from North Platte Valley

growers. Great Western was forced to

seek bankruptcy protection in 1985.

Sugar beet prices have plummeted since

December 1999 due to over-production.

Fremont Co-op joins AMPI

Members of southern Minnesota’s

Fremont Cooperative voted to merge

with Associated Milk Producers Inc.

(AMPI), New Ulm, Minn. The merger

added about 30 million pounds of milk

produced by 40 farmers to AMPI’s 5.1

billion pounds of milk produced by

5,000 members.

Dan Olson, Fremont board chairman, said the merger resulted from

changes in the dairy industry. A dairy

producer from Lewiston, Minn.,

Olson said his cooperative had been

serving farmers for nearly 10 years.

“AMPI will provide a stable market

for our milk, member services, and

secure our cooperative’s equity,” he

said. Milk from Fremont will be

shipped to AMPI’s manufacturing

plant at Rochester, Minn. Last October, Glencoe (Minn.) Butter & Produce Association merged with AMPI.

Meanwhile, AMPI broke ground for

a $3 million expansion of its cheese cutting, wrapping and processing operation at Portage, Wis. When completed

next spring, it will increase the plant’s

cooler pallet capacity by 85 percent and

add 25,000 square feet to the facility.

Each month the Portage plant converts

about 13 million pounds of bulk cheese

into processed cheese loaves, cheese

slices, shredded cheese and natural cuts.

Youngdahl new CEO at Blue Diamond 

The board of directors at Sacramento-based Blue Diamond Growers has

chosen Doug Youngdahl as its seventh

president. He will assume responsibilities Feb. 1, 2001, when current President Walt Payne retires from the 90-

year-old California almond marketing

cooperative.

Youngdahl has been with the cooperative since 1997. He said he is “committed to making Blue Diamond the world’s

premier tree-nut company in terms of

growth and return on investment to our

growers.” Currently, Youngdahl is director

of the Americas Industrial

Business and

served on the

Almond Board

of California.

The new executive was

expected to discuss his plans for the cooperative with

members attending their 90th annual

meeting November 30.

Michigan blueberry co-op launches

venture with Chile 

MBG Marketing, a berry marketing

cooperative in Grand Rapids, Mich., is

joining with Hortifruit, Chile’s largest

berry grower, in a new joint venture.

MBG and Hortifruit have formed a

new fresh marketing venture called

Global Berry Farm LLC. It will supply

berry markets around the world. Global Berry will exclusively represent

growers from the United States, Chile,

Mexico and Guatemala. The firm will

be based at Naples, Fla., and market

fresh blueberries, raspberries, blackberries, strawberries, and golden raspberries under both companies’ existing

labels. Requested photo or logo

Agri-Mark opens whey plant 

“Our goal is to squeeze every drop of

profit from every drop of milk we market for our farmer-owners,” stressed

Paul Johnson, Agri-Mark’s president

and chief executive officer, during the

October grand opening of the cooperative’s $20 million whey processing plant

at Middlebury, Vt. The facility is adjacent to the largest of the cooperative’s

two cheddar cheese plants.

The cooperative has been scrambling for whey markets ever since Vermont Whey closed its plant two years

ago. “Rather than paying to dispose of

cheese whey, we are now producing

valuable whey protein isotopes that

will add profits in years to come,” said

Carl Peterson, Agri- Mark’s chairman

from Delano, N.Y.

Growing Cabot cheese sales is forcing Agri-Mark to operate its cheese

production plants six or seven days a

week. With more cheese production

comes more whey, the natural byproduct of the cheesemaking process.

So the cooperative signed an agreement with Century Foods International, Sparta, Wis., which will purchase

and market all the whey proteins and

de- proteinated whey powders AgriMark can produce. Century Foods is

the largest manufacturer and distributor of whey-based products in the

United States. It also markets products

in more than 46 foreign countries.

Minn. canola co-op looks to 

Mexican market 

Equipped with a small plastic bag

containing some seed meal, Art Brandli,

a farmer from Warrod, Minn., recently

joined several dozen Minnesota businessmen on a trade mission to Mexico.

During a stop at a Guadalajara egg pro28 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

Agri-Mark’s new plant is isolating, drying and packaging lacto-ferrin from proteins found in

whey, the natural by product of the cheesemaking industry. Photo courtesy Agri-Mark

Doug Youngdahl
cessing plant, Brandli, chairman of

FarmConnect, a new Minnesota service

cooperative, heard canola mentioned.

Out popped his plastic bag containing a

seed sample so his hosts could see how

productive their chickens would be dining on northern Minnesota canola meal. 

It was a perfect meeting for both the

farmer and his new cooperative. The

Mexican egg plant manager asked if

Brandli could supply 2,000 metric tons

per month throughout the year. Brandli

handed him his businesses card and

told him that FarmConnect members

should be able to grow and ship product that would meet the processor’s

specifications.

The trade mission was headed by

Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura

and included Carl Wittenburg of

Northern Pride, a turkey processor at

Thief River Falls, Minn. Wittenburg

said the doors opened by the trade

mission put him in contact with Mexican companies that may offer joint

venture opportunities. While the

cooperative already sells dark turkey

meat in Mexico, Wittenburg said Minnesota’s labor shortage and Mexico’s

low wages suggested that a Mexicanbased processor would benefit both

sides of the border.

Washington growers lose credit co-op 

Apple growers in Washington state

are losing a creditor that has served

their industry for the past 55 years.

Growers Credit Cooperative will

close this winter. The Spokane office

of CoBank told the cooperative this

summer that it would no longer

finance its operation. Manager Ron

Ward said many growers hadn’t made

a profit for three years and more than

half of the 150 members were delinquent on payments after the disastrous 1998 season. The co-op had a

loan carryover of more than $2 million from 1997, another $5.5 million

from 1998, and an estimated $2 million for 1999. A number of growers

may turn to USDA’s Farm Services

Administration, considered a lender

of last resort on commercial financing, but its local loan cap is $200,000.

Faulty co-op ventures worth 

‘post mortem’

New business supporters believe

their ventures will succeed. But if they

don’t, there’s a tendency to avoid talking about it. A Colorado attorney who

has worked with cooperatives for the

past 20 years believes it’s worth reexamining failed ventures to learn valuable lessons for the future.

Writing in the Colorado Cooperative Council’s newsletter, Attorney Ted

Svitavsky believes management and the

board could benefit from conducting a

“post mortem” on a failed, or less than

successful, venture.

Svitavsky said successful ventures

are periodically “rolled out to tout

cooperatives working together.” But

discussions are avoided about failed

enterprises.

“One of the harsh realities of

today’s world is that there are very few

people who care whether a cooperative enterprise succeeds or fails. And,

in fact, quite a few people would like

to see cooperatives fail at whatever

they do. It should be apparent to all of

us who do care that cooperatives must

take care of themselves. Cooperatives

have a legitimate interest in taking

care of each other and making sure the

infrastructure that has been built survives,” Svitavsky said.

He suggested one way was to “critique, not criticize” ventures that cooperatives have begun but which did not

meet expectations, in order to learn

from those experiences.”

For those cooperatives that may have

stumbled while trying to better themselves, the attorney cited President

Theodore Roosevelt’s observation: “It is

not the critic who counts, not the one

who points out how the strong man or

woman tumbled, or how the doer of

deeds might have done them better. The

credit belongs to the man or woman who

is actually in the arena, whose face is

marred with sweat, dust and blood; who

strives valiantly; who errs and comes up

short again and again; who knows the

great enthusiasm, the great devotions,

and spends himself or herself in a worthy

cause; and who – if he or she fails while

daring greatly – his or her place shall

never be with those cold and timid souls

who know neither victory nor defeat.”

Wisconsin co-ops sponsor joint

seminar for young producers

A group of Wisconsin cooperatives

have banded together to offer a joint coop education seminar for young producers. Backing the effort are: Equity Livestock Sales Association and Foremost

Farms USA, both of Baraboo; the state’s

four local Farm Credit Services associations; Cenex Harvest States, St. Paul;

Cooperative Resources International

(CRI), Shawano; Alto Dairy Cooperative,

Alto; and the Wisconsin Federation of

Cooperatives (WFC), Madison. 

The Young Producer Cooperative

Leadership conference, “Achieving the

Heights – The Power of Cooperatives,”

is set for Feb. 15-17 at Wisconsin Dells.

A panel of progressive cooperative leaders is scheduled to speak, including Rod

Nilsestuen, WFC; Dave Lull, RichlandGrant and LaValle Telephone Co-ops;

Jim Henion, CRI; Roger Chamberlain,

CoBank; Anya Firszt, Williamson Street

(grocery) Co-op; and Ben Brancel, coop member and secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture,

Trade and Consumer Protection.

The conference goal is to provide

young farmers an opportunity to network with their peers, learn about the

cooperative way of doing business,

and develop their leadership and communication skills.

Record revenue for Southern States 

Record revenue topping $1.5 billion was reported by Richmond-based

Southern States Cooperative (SSC)

for fiscal 2000. That’s a 13-percent

gain from 1999. The cooperative also

reported net savings for its members

of $4.96 million for fiscal 2000 vs. a

$2.1 million loss in 1999. SSC has

expanded its farm supply business in

recent years and moved into livestock

marketing. Earlier this year, it

reached an agreement with Agway,

based in Syracuse, N.Y., to handle its

500 dealer operations. A fish marketing program also was initiated.

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 29
key provision requires DFA to transfer

partial ownership in Keller’s Creamery

to persons who are not agricultural

producers. The purchasers are members of the pre-merger SODIAAL

management team. This non-producer

ownership interest deprives Keller’s

Creamery of cooperative status and the

right to engage in common marketing

activity with cooperatives (including

Land O’Lakes) under the protection of

the Capper-Volstead Act.

The agreement also enjoins DFA and

Keller’s Creamery from entering into

any collaborative marketing effort of

branded butter with Land O’Lakes and

from disclosing any competitively sensitive information regarding branded butter to Land O’Lakes. The agreement

also contains several provisions to prevent DFA or Keller’s from circumventing the judgment by restructuring

themselves or selling any assets to

another firm, particularly Land

O’Lakes, without the court’s permission.

Outcome frames crucial issues

In essence, DFA agreed to forfeit its

Capper-Volstead status with regard to

marketing branded butter in the relevant markets in exchange for permission to purchase a major non- cooperative competitor in those markets. The

acquisition benefits DFA members by

providing an additional market for

their milk that will be used to produce

the butter manufactured at the former

SODIAAL’s plant and by increasing the

amount of value-added processing

being undertaken by their cooperative.

But in return, DFA losses the ability to

cooperate with Land O’Lakes to

improve the economic return to all of

their farmer-members.

One position taken by the Department of Justice in this case is encouraging for marketing cooperatives. This

may be the first time Justice has admitted that “explicit collusion” between

large agricultural cooperatives with a

dominant position in the marketplace

“would be legal and could not be challenged under the antitrust laws.” (65

Federal Register 44827).

As the trend toward fewer but larger

firms continues in many product lines in

the food (and other) industries, cooperatives will feel pressure to also grow.

When this growth is accomplished by

simply signing up new members or

through working agreements or combinations with other cooperatives,

antitrust concerns may be minimal.

However, when deals involve joint ventures with, or acquisitions of, non-cooperative firms, the Capper-Volstead

shield will not be available. The proposal will be subject to challenge under

the same standards as an agreement

between two non-cooperative firms.

The deal accepted by DFA in this

case consummates the acquisition but

restructures it to negate future access

to Capper-Volstead protection in the

relevant market. Whether this will

become a model for Department of

Justice response to future actions that

reduce competitors in a market with

a strong cooperative presence is

unclear. And like any approach to

resolving complex conflicts, what

operates in the best interests of producers in one instance may not in

another. But as cooperatives adjust

to the changing competitive environment of agri-business, antitrust issues

and the attitude of federal and state

enforcement officials, will remain

important parts of the planning and

implementation process. ■

30 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

Electric co-ops to study 

clean-burning coal

The nation’s rural electric cooperatives are sponsoring a research project

aimed at a cleaner burning coal, the

main source of electricity production

in the United States. Coal plants coproduce electric power, hydrogen

from fuel cells and commercial chemicals, all with little or no emissions.

The ultimate goal is to have power

plants that generate no air pollutant

byproducts and negligible emissions of

carbon dioxide, a gas implicated in

global warming.

Lupinacci resigns from Sunkist

Sunkist President and CEO Vincent

Lupinacci has resigned following 21

⁄2

years at the helm of the nation’s leading citrus fruit marketer. He cited

“personal and family” reasons for his

decision, but the past several years

have been very challenging for the coop and its members. In 1998, the California orange crop was devastated by a

freeze, and fruit quality problems the

next year caused prices to nosedive.

More recently, the decision by the coop to market South American lemons

has been quite controversial with

members. 

Sunkist Board Chairman James H.

Mast has been named as acting president while the co- op searches for a

permanent president. Sunkist represents about 6,500 citrus growers and 60

packers in Arizona and California. 

“.coop” new Internet domain

The international body that manages

the Internet has approved the use of

.coop as one of seven new Internet

domain suffixes. The National Cooperative Business Association, which

spearheaded the effort to create the

new domain, hopes co-ops currently

using .com for their Internet address

will switch to .coop, or use it as a second address. “Today’s decision by

ICANN [the Internet Corporation for

Assigned Names and Numbers] will

give cooperatives instant recognition

on the Internet and help consumers

find the business they trust online,”

says NCBA President Paul Hazen. 

NCBA had also sought to register

.co-op (with a hyphen, as is commonly used in America), but that suffix

was not approved, based on common

international usage. The proposed

registration fee for use of .coop will

be $75, higher than many of the other

suffixes charge, but it will allow

NCBA and the International Cooperative Alliance to screen applicants

to make sure they operate as true

cooperatives. For more information,

call NCBA at (202) 383-5456. 

Legal Corner continued from page 7
TITLE FEATURES Issue—Page

Are you a good leader?

Director assessments are building blocks to productive 

board-management relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 20

Asset growth for largest co-ops shows resilience to 

declining revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 28

Boosting the 3 Bs

England’s Plunkett Foundation promotes “the furtherance of 

rural cooperation” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 4

Building a cooperative on the fast track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 6

Butter settlement: A glimpse into the future of antitrust 

enforcement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 7

CherrCo helps bring market stability to tart 

cherry industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 4

Consolidation in the heartland

A closer look at grain co-op mergers 

and acquisitions, 1993-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 14

Co-op communicators honored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 13

Cooperative Agro Pastorale Segbeya

African swine raising cooperative struggles to survive 

and prosper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 24

Co-ops in the 21st century

Five writers view what lies ahead for co-ops in the 

new century . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 7

Co-ops’ share of farm marketings 

up slightly in ‘98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 4

CROPP’s guiding principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 27

Depressed ag sector puts squeeze on 

largest co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 32

End nears for tobacco warehouse co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 23

Fill ‘er up!

Pipeline flowing with new generation ethanol co-ops . . . . . . May/June 8

Finding new ways to market ‘this little piggy’ . . . . . . . September/October 11

Fingers and needles

Alaskan co-op turns cashmere-soft musk ox wool 

into hard cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 7

Foreign affairs

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service promotes U.S. agriculture 

abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 15

Generating rural progress

Study finds that new-generation and traditional co-ops have 

major beneficial impacts on rural communities . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 16

Going global

Export certificates a valuable tool helping co-ops tap 

overseas markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 18

Grower co-ops to coordinate marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/Otober 22

History of NFO charts farm protest movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 5

How well are dairy cooperatives performing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 25

Iowa RECs reach 15-year milestone for rural development . . . . . July/August 8

Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 21

Kentucky hog co-op to explore value-added 

alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 10

Land O’Lakes buys butter business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 26

Last Train Leaving?

Some say Pork America represents best, and possibly last, 

chance for hog farmers to gain significant market 

access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 6

Lower commodity prices cause drop in 

co-op sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 4

Maine co-op building support for economic development. . . . . . July/August 11

Making its mark

Agri-Mark, New England’s largest dairy co-op, is building 

markets for producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 16

Missouri’s first ethanol plants will have major impact on region’s 

rural economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 12

Mohave Electric Co-op’s quick response attracts major source 

of jobs to service area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 12

The Musk Ox Farm continues Teal’s work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 10

New Directions:

Co-ops help tobacco farmers transition to 

new crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 20

New model, old ways

Wisconsin farmers find new life serving burgeoning 

organic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 23

Organic: a philosophy & production system . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 26

Organic Valley firsts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 25

Pennsylvania co-ops take development underground . . . . . . . July/August 10

Power formula

Higher gas prices fuel drive for ethanol production; 

farmers look to co-ops to gain market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 7

Pursuing other uses for tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 24

Saving an industry

Plant closure leads Michigan growers to form new 

turkey cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 4

Seeing the forest for its trees

Cooperatives promote sustainable forestry and tap 

green trends. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 17

Small co-ops and marketing groups formed 

in wake of hog crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 8

South African village banks receive World Bank funding . . . . . March/April 11

“Start with the rising sun”

Sustainable forest a tradition for

Menominee Indian tribe. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 19

Streamlined USDA utilities program draws plaudits . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 21

Strength through unity

Bulgarian honey producers sweeeten their future

through cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 12

Trade takes a tumble

Cooperatives trade plunges 41 percent as Asian 

markets cool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 18

Trading Up

Plains Cotton Co-op uses computer technology to pursue 

business-to-business strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 8

Tri Valley Growers files Chapter 11 bankruptcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 4

USDA, Commerce join forces to boost early 

warning system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 14

USDA extends more help to small farms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 16

USDA seeking more accounts of co-op mergers 

and closures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 18

When the lights came on

USDA program brought electricity and a better way of life to 

rural America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/Auguest 6

Why U.S. agriculture should support foreign aid . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 23

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 31

Article Index 2000

Information appearing in Rural Cooperatives magazine during calendar year 2000 has been indexed to help you find past articles. Back

issues can be found on-line at www.rurdev.usda.gov. Articles are indexed by month and page.
32 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

Magazine Departments

A Closer Look At...

Cal/West Seeds

Woodland, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 15

Hazelnut Growers of Oregon

Cornelius, Oregon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 16

Mt. Pride Cooperative Inc.

Mt. Lake Park, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 22

Commentary/Editorial

Bargaining co-ops help level field, 

stabilize markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 2

Borders are no longer barriers for co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 2

Cooperatives: getting the job done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 2

Co-ops keep farm-generated capital at home. . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 2

Putting our eggs in more than one basket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 2

USDA Rural Development programs help fuel 

co-op movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 2

In the Spotlight

Dennis M. Mullen: President & CEO

Agrilink Foods, Inc., Rochester, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 15

Glenn Webb, Former Board Chairman and President GROWMARK

Bloomington, Ill. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 26

John Malcheski, Wisconsin’s roving co-op ambassador,

spreads cooperative skills and knowledge 

worldwide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 12

Larry D. Steward: President and CEO

Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 22

Walley Beyer, Retired Administrator

USDA Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service. . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 20

Management Tip

Consultant’s feasibility study can predict success of ‘next 

great idea’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 22

Downward spiral for commodity prices continues; bottom line

mixed for Plains co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 11

How Does Your Local Farm Supply Cooperative Rate?. . . . . . . March/April 25

Net savings dipped in 1999 for most corn-soybean and 

wheat-barley co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 16

Newsline

FCA Chairman Marsha Martin dies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 38

DFA, Dairyworld discuss joint venture

Land O’Lakes, Mitsui building largest cheese plant

CoBank stockholders elect directors

UW-Madison honors Truman Torgerson

Southern States discontinues member magazine

Co-ops form Soybean Research Company

Missouri dedicates power plant

GEN-SYS, Engage sign agreement

Welch’s sales soar; Pokeman coming! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 27

Merger creates Evergreen Co-op

Ag Council salutes Steve Easter

Rural Utilities sells debt securities

NRTC praises House Ag Committee for moving to close 

‘digital divide’

Minnesota power alliance established

SD co-op plans egg production plant

Small poultry processor co-op planned

NCBA to help ‘false’ co-ops become real

Tomato co-op files canner complaint

Tri Valley Growers sues Oracle

Co-ops buying into ‘green’ power

Glickman sets 2000 goals

Imperial Sugar offers plants to co-op

American Crystal considers forfeiture of sugar

Growmark adds facilities

New Nebraska pork co-op planned

New Pork co-op could hike profits

Sunkist cheers opening of China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 23

USDA, NFU spur Michigan co-ops

Iowa egg co-op, Nuzum awarded

Spring Wheat Bakers loads first train

5 in Co-op Hall of Fame

Dakota ranchers opening feedlots

Iowa pork producers endorse co-op

Corn co-op rebounds, but no dividends

Prairie Farms sales top $1 billion

TVG gaining profitability

Associated gins one-millionth bale

Carry new Amalgamated CEO

CRF opens new hog research facility

Farmland sells hog plant, introduces branded bread

Canadian, U.S. potato farmers work together

USDA co-op resources on the Web

Judge says permit properly granted to Golden Oval

Co-op communicator Reuwee dies

Delta-Montrose installs first propane fuel cell

Blue Diamond buys MacFarms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 28

Cenex Harvest States names new CEO

McLean new USDA/RUS leader

Internet-based meat exchange forms

Farmington co-op buys new technology

Citrus World to buy plant

Apple cooperative to close

Kentucky grain farmers eye ethanol plant

N.J. to sell new blueberry products

Honse to take over Farmland reins

Upstate Farms expands milk facility

States launch inquiry into big dairy

LOL sells fluid plants, continues cheese plant study

Florida’s Natural breaks sales record — again! . . . . . . September/October 25

Neb. court backs co-ops on hedge-to-arrive contracts

Co-ops blend feed lines

USDA fruit buys help TVG

Glickman named ‘Honored Cooperator’

Southern States expand aquaculture business with 

NMFS fisheries loan

N.Y. grape co-op enters marketing pact

Select Sire Power formed

Lamb co-op conducts equity drive

NorthStar expands services

Frozen dough co-op boosts production

Pasta plant lender named

Caspers named interim leader at Minn-Dak

Diamond buys Berner nut

Kelley succeeds Webb as Growmark president

Riceland completes trade with Iraq

LOL, DFA join Dairy.Com

Blue Anchor closing operations

Calif. co-op/community parley slated

DFA returns $20 million in equity

Ocean Spray gets boost from USDA

Sunkist sells Argentine lemons

Allied Seed buys Agribiotech

Potato growers OK dividend

Catfish processors merge

Consolidated Beef forming

Nation’s largest local co-op to reorganize . . . . . . . . . . November/December 27

Gold Kist offers skillet meals

Sugarbeet co-op eyes purchase of Western Sugar

Fremont Co-op joins AMPI

Youngdahl new CEO at Blue Diamond

Michigan blueberry co-op launches venture with Chile

Agri-Mark opens whey plant

Minn canola co-op looks to Mexican market

Record revenue for Southern States

Washington growers lose credit co-op

Faulty co-op ventures worth ‘post mortem’

Wisconsin co-ops sponsor joint seminar for young producers

Electric co-ops to study clean-burning coal

Lupinacci resigns from Sunkist 

“.coop” new internte domain

Pages From the Past

Foremost Farms traces its name to J.C. Penney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 29
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 33

SUBJECTS:

Aquaculture

New Directions:

Co-ops help tobacco farmers transition . . . . . . . . . September/October 20

Bargaining

CherrCo helps bring market stability to tart cherry 

industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 4

Co-ops in the 21st century

Cooperative marketeting in the new millennium . . . . . . January/February 7

Communication/Education

A Creed for Cooperative Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 30

Are you a good leader?

Director assessments are building blocks to productive 

board-management relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 20

Boosting the 3 Bs

England’s Plunkett Foundation promotes “the furtherance of 

rural cooperation” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 4

Co-op communicators honored . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 13

History of NFO charts farm protest movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 5

John Malcheski, Wisconsin’s roving co-op ambassador, spreads 

cooperative skills and knowledge worldwide . . . . . September/October 12

Co-op Development

Boosting the 3 Bs

England’s Plunkett Foundation promotes “the furtherance of 

rural cooperation” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 4

Cooperative Agro Pastorale Segbeya

African swine raising cooperative struggles to survive 

and prosper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 24

Fingers and needles

Alaskan co-op turns cashmere-soft musk ox wool into 

hard cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 7

Generating rural progress

Study finds that new-generation and traditional co-ops have

major beneficial impacts on rural communities. . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 16

History of NFO charts farm protest movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 5

John Malcheski, Wisconsin’s roving co-op ambassador, spreads 

cooperative skills and knowledge worldwide . . . . . September/October 12

Last Train leaving?

Some say Pork America represents best, and possibly last,

chance for hog farmers to gain significant market 

access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 6

The Musk Ox Farm continues Teal’s work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 10

New Directions:

Co-ops help tobacco farmers transition to new 

crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 20

Small co-ops and marketing groups formed in wake of 

hog crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 8

South African village banks receive World Bank funding . . . . . March/April 11

Strength through unity

Bulgarian honey producers sweeeten their future through 

cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 12

Why U.S. agriculture should support foreign aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 23

Cotton

Trading Up

Plains Cotton Co-op uses computer technology to pursue 

business-to-business strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 8

Craft Co-ops

Fingers and needles

Alaskan co-op turns cashmere-soft musk ox wool into 

hard cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 7

The Musk Ox Farm continues Teal’s work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 10

Dairy

Butter settlement: A glimpse into the future of antitrust 

enforcement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 7

Foremost Farms traces its name to J.C. Penney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 29

How well are dairy cooperatives performing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 25

Land O’Lakes buys butter business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 26

Making its mark

Agri-Mark, New England’s largest dairy co-op, is building 

markets for producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 16

New model, old ways

Wisconsin farmers find new life serving burgeoning 

organic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 23

Organic: a philosophy & production system . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 26

Organic Valley Firsts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 25

Environment

Seeing the forest for its trees

Cooperatives promote sustainable forestry and tap 

green trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 17

“Start with the rising sun”

Sustainable forest a tradition for 

Menominee Indian tribe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 19

Farm Supply & Agronomy Services

Asset growth for largest co-ops shows resilience to 

declining revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 28

Cal/West Seeds

Woodland, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 15

Consolidation in the heartland

A closer look at grain co-op mergers and 

acquisitions, 1993-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 14

Co-ops in the 21st century

Farm supply cooperatives: a look on and over the 

horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 9

Co-ops’ share of farm marketings up slightly in ‘98 . . . . . . . January/February 4

Depressed ag sector puts squeeze on 

largest co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 32

Generating rural progress

Study finds that new-generation and traditional co-ops have 

major beneficial impacts on rural communities. . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 16

Lower commodity prices cause drop in co-op 

sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 4

Finance

Asset growth for largest co-ops shows resilience to 

declining revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 28

Co-ops in the 21st century

Consolidations, technology, politics to impact co-op 

financial institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 14

Depressed ag sector puts squeeze on largest 

co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 32

How Does Your Local Farm Supply Cooperative Rate? . . . . . . . . March/April 25

Iowa RECs reach 15-year milestone for rural development . . . . . . July/August 8

Maine co-op building support for economic development . . . . . July/August 11

Mohave Electric Co-op’s quick response attracts major source 

of jobs to service area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 12

Net savings dipped in 1999 for most corn-soybean and 

wheat-barley co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 16

Pennsylvania co-ops take development underground . . . . . . . July/August 10

Saving an industry

Plant closure leads Michigan growers to form new 

turkey cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 4

South African village banks receive World Bank funding . . . . . March/April 11

Forestry

Joyce Kilmer Memorial Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 21

Seeing the forest for its tree

Cooperatives promote sustainable forsestry and tap 

green trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 17

“Start with the rising sun”

Sustainable forest a tradition for 

Menominee Indian tribe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 19

Fruits, Nuts

CherrCo helps bring market stability to tart cherry 

industry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 4

Hazelnut Growers of Oregon Cornelius, Oregon . . . . . . . January/February 16

Tri Valley Growers files Chapter 11 bankruptcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 4

Fuels

Fill ‘er up!

Pipeline flowing with new generation ethanol co-ops . . . . . . May/June 8

Generating rural progress

Study finds that new-generation and traditional co-ops have

major beneficial impacts on rural communities. . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 16
34 November/December 2000 / Rural Cooperatives

Missouri’s first ethanol plants will have major impact on region’s 

rural economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 12

Power formula

Higher gas prices fuel drive for ethanol production; 

farmers look to co-ops to gain market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 7

Grains & Oil Seed

Consolidation in the heartland

A closer look at grain co-op mergers and 

acquisitions, 1993-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 14

Downward spiral for commodity prices continues; bottom line 

mixed for Plains co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 11

Generating rural progress

Study finds that new-generation and traditional co-ops have 

major beneficial impacts on rural communities. . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 16

Grower co-ops to coordinate marketing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 22

How Does Your Local Farm Supply Cooperative Rate?. . . . . . . March/April 25

Net savings dipped in 1999 for most corn-soybean and 

wheat-barley co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 16

Power formula

Higher gas prices fuel drive for ethanol production; 

farmers look to co-ops to gain market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 7

Legislative and Legal

Butter settlement: A glimpse into the future of antitrust 

enforcement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 7

Co-ops in the 21st century

Consolidations, technology, politics to impact co-op 

financial institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 14

Co-ops in the 21st century

Providing power beyond 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 12

Foreign affairs

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service promotes U.S. 

agriculture abroad. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 15

Going global

Export certificates a valuable tool helping co-ops tap 

overseas markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 18

Walley Beyer, Retired Administrator

USDA Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service. . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 20

When the lights came on

USDA program brought electricity and a better way of life to 

rural America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/Auguest 6

Why U.S. agriculture should support foreign aid . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 23

Livestock (Pork)

Building a cooperative on the fast track . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 6

Finding new ways to market ‘this little piggy’ . . . . . . . September/October 11

Generating rural progress

Study finds that new-generation and traditional co-ops have 

major beneficial impacts on rural communities. . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 16

Kentucky hog co-op to explore value-added 

alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 10

Last train leaving?

Some say Pork America represents best, and possibly last, 

chance for hog farmers to gain significant market 

access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 6

Mt. Pride Cooperative Inc.

Mt. Lake Park, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 22

Saving an industry

Plant closure leads Michigan growers to form new 

turkey cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 4

Small co-ops and marketing groups formed in wake of 

hog crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 8

Management

Are you a good leader?

Director assessments are building blocks to productive 

board-management relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 20

Consultant’s feasibility study can predict success of ‘next 

great idea’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 22

Co-ops in the 21st century

Cooperative marketeting in the new millennium . . . . . . January/February 7

CROPP’s guiding principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 27

Net savings dipped in 1999 for most corn-soybean and 

wheat-barley co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 16

Organic: a philosophy & production system . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 26

Marketing

Asset growth for largest co-ops shows resilience to 

declining revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 28

CherrCo helps bring market stability to tart cherry 

industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 4

Co-ops in the 21st century

Cooperative marketeting in the new millennium . . . . . . January/February 7

Co-ops’ share of farm marketings up slightly in ‘98 . . . . . . . January/February 4

Depressed ag sector puts squeeze on 

largest co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 32

Finding new ways to market ‘this little piggy’ . . . . . . . September/October 11

Generating rural progress

Study finds that new-generation and traditional co-ops have 

major beneficial impacts on rural communities. . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 16

Hazelnut Growers of Oregon Cornelius, Oregon . . . . . . . January/February 16

How well are dairy cooperatives performing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 25

Kentucky hog co-op to explore value-added 

alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 10

Last Train leaving?

Some say Pork America represents best, and possibly last, chance for

hog farmers to gain significant market 

access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 6

Lower commodity prices cause drop in co-op 

sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 4

Making its mark

Agri-Mark, New England’s largest dairy co-op, is building 

markets for producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 16

New model, old ways

Wisconsin farmers find new life serving burgeoning 

organic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 23

Trading Up

Plains Cotton Co-op uses computer technology to pursue 

business-to-business strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 8

Mergers

Consolidation in the heartland

A closer look at grain co-op mergers and 

acquisitions, 1993-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 14

Making its mark

Agri-Mark, New England’s largest dairy co-op, is building 

markets for producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 16

Organic

CROPP’s guiding principles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 27

New model, old ways

Wisconsin farmers find new life serving burgeoning 

organic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 23

Organic: a philosophy & production system . . . . . . . . . . January/February 26

Organic Valley Firsts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 25

Rural Development

Boosting the 3 Bs

England’s Plunkett Foundation promotes “the furtherance of 

rural cooperation” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 4

Co-ops in the 21st century

Cooperatives build community values. . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 15

Co-ops in the 21st century

Providing power beyond 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 12

Fingers and needles

Alaskan co-op turns cashmere-soft musk ox wool into 

hard cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 7

Generating rural progress

Study finds that new-generation and traditional co-ops have 

major beneficial impacts on rural communities. . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 16

Iowa RECs reach 15-year milestone for rural development . . . . . . July/August 8

Maine co-op building support for economic development . . . . . July/August 11

Missouri’s first ethanol plants will have major impact on region’s 

rural economy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 12

Mohave Electric Co-op’s quick response attracts major source 

of jobs to service area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 12

Pennsylvania co-ops take development underground . . . . . . . July/August 10

USDA, Commerce join forces to boost early 

warning system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 14

Walley Beyer, Retired Administrator

USDA Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service. . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 20

When the lights came on
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2000 35

USDA program brought electricity and a better way of life to 

rural America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/Auguest 6

Statistics

Asset growth for largest co-ops shows resilience to 

declining revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 28

Consolidation in the heartland 

A closer look at grain co-op mergers and 

acquisitions, 1993-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 14

Co-ops’ share of farm marketings up slightly in ‘98 . . . . . . . January/February 4

Depressed ag sector puts squeeze on largest 

co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 32

Downward spiral for commodity prices continues; bottom line mixed for 

Plains co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 11

How well are dairy cooperatives performing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 25

Lower commodity prices cause drop in co-op sales. . . September/October 4

Net savings dipped in 1999 for most corn-soybean and 

wheat-barley co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 16

Trade takes a tumble

Cooperatives trade plunges 41 percent as Asian 

markets cool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 18

Technology

Co-ops in the 21st century

Consolidations, technology, politics to impact co-op financial 

institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 14

Co-ops in the 21st century

Farm supply co-ops: a look over the horizon . . . . . . . . January/February 9

Trading Up

Plains Cotton Co-op uses computer technology to pursue 

business-to-business strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 8

Tobacco

End nears for tobacco warehouse co-ops . . . . . . . . . . September/October 23

Grower co-ops to coordinate marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 22

New Directions:

Co-ops help tobacco farmers transition to new 

crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 20

Pursuing other uses for tobacco . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 24

Trade

Co-ops in the 21st century

Farm supply cooperatives: a look on and over the 

horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 9

Foreign affairs

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service promotes U.S. 

agriculture abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 15

Going global

Export certificates a valuable tool helping co-ops tap 

overseas markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 18

Trade takes a tumble

Cooperatives trade plunges 41 percent as Asian markets 

cool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 18

Why U.S. agriculture should support foreign aid . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 23

Utility Co-ops

Co-ops in the 21st century

Providing power beyond 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 12

Iowa RECs reach 15-year milestone for rural development . . . . . July/August 8

Maine co-op building support for economic development. . . . . . July/August 11

Mohave Electric Co-op’s quick response attracts major source 

of jobs to service area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 12

Pennsylvania co-ops take development underground . . . . . . . July/August 10

Streamlined USDA utilities program draws plaudits . . . . . . . . . . May/June 21

USDA, Commerce join forces to boost early warning system . . July/August 14

Walley Beyer, Retired Administrator

USDA Rural Development, Rural Utilities Service . . . . . . . . . May/June 20

When the lights came on

USDA program brought electricity and a better way of life to 

rural America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/Auguest 6

Value Added

Co-ops in the 21st century

Cooperative marketeting in the new millennium . . . . January/February 7

Dennis M. Mullen: President & CEO

Agrilink Foods, Inc., Rochester, NY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 15

Fill ‘er up!

Pipeline flowing with new generation ethanol co-ops . . . . . . May/June 8

Fingers and needles

Alaskan co-op turns cashmere-soft musk ox wool into 

hard cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 7

Generating rural progress

Study finds that new-generation and traditional co-ops have 

major beneficial impacts on rural communities . . . . . . . . . July/August 16

Hazelnut Growers of Oregon Cornelius, Oregon . . . . . . . January/February 16

Land O’Lakes buys butter business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 26

Larry D. Steward: President and CEO

Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 22

Making its mark

Agri-Mark, New England’s largest dairy co-op, is building 

markets for producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 16

Mt. Pride Cooperative Inc.

Mt. Lake Park, MD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 22

New Directions:

Co-ops help tobacco farmers transition . . . . . . . . . September/October 20

New model, old ways

Wisconsin farmers find new life serving burgeoning 

organic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 23

Power formula

Higher gas prices fuel drive for ethanol production; 

farmers look to co-ops to gain market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 7

Saving an industry

Plant closure leads Michigan growers to form new 

turkey cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 4

Vegetables

Grower co-ops to coordinate marketing . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 22

New Directions:

Co-ops help tobacco farmers transition to new 

crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 20

AUTHORS

Bailey, Isaac J.

End nears for tobacco warehouse co-ops . . . . . . . . . . September/October 23

Banks, Eliza

Boosting the 3 Bs

England’s Plunkett Foundation promotes “the furtherance of 

rural cooperation” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 4

Borst, Alan

Going global

Export certificates a valuable tool helping co-ops tap 

overseas markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 18

Brockhouse, Bill

Kentucky hog co-op to explore value-added 

alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 10

Campell, Dan

Tri Valley Growers files Chapter 11 bankruptcy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 4

When the lights came on

USDA program brought electricity and a better way of life to 

rural America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 6

Chesnick, David S.

Asset growth for largest co-ops shows resilience to

declining revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 28

Depressed ag sector puts squeeze on largest co-ops . January/February 32

Crooks, Anthony

Consolidation in the heartland

A closer look at grain co-op mergers and 

acquisitions, 1993-97 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 14

Cummins, David

Downward spiral for commodity prices continues; bottom line mixed for 

Plains co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 11

Net savings dipped in 1999 for most corn-soybean and 

wheat-barley co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 16

Duffey, Patrick

Generating rural progress

Study finds that new-generation and traditional co-ops have 

major beneficial impacts on rural communities . . . . . . . . . July/August 16

John Malcheski, Wisconsin’s roving co-op ambassador, spreads 

cooperative skills and knowledge worldwide. . . . . . September/October 12

Making its mark

Agri-Mark, New England’s largest dairy co-op, is building 

markets for producers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 16
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

English, Glenn

Co-ops in the 21st century

Providing power beyond 2000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 12

Eversull, Eldon

Co-ops in the 21st century

Farm supply cooperatives: a look on and over 

the horizon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 9

Folsom, Joe

Finding new ways to market ‘this little piggy’ . . . . . . . September/October 11

Frederick, Donald A.

Butter settlement: A glimpse into the future of antitrust 

enforcement? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 7

Gehrke, Brad

Last Train leaving?

Some say Pork America represents best, and possibly last, chance 

for hog farmers to gain significant market 

access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 6

Graham, Steven

Cooperative Agro Pastorale Segbeya

African swine raising cooperative struggles to survive 

and prosper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 24

Hampton, Karl

Foreign affairs

USDA Foreign Agricultural Service promotes U.S. 

agriculture abroad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 15

Hazen, Paul

Co-ops in the 21st century

Cooperatives build community values . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 15

Jobe, Jeff

Small co-ops and marketing groups formed in wake of 

hog crisis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 8

Joseph, Azanmasso

Cooperative Agro Pastorale Segbeya

African swine raising cooperative struggles to survive 

and prosper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 24

Karg, Pamela J.

CherrCo helps bring market stability to tart cherry 

industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 4

Fingers and needles

Alaskan co-op turns cashmere-soft musk ox wool into 

hard cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 7

Foremost Farms traces its name to J.C. Penney . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 29

Iowa RECs reach 15-year milestone for rural development . . . . . July/August 8

New Directions:

Co-ops help tobacco farmers transition to new 

crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 20

New model, old ways

Wisconsin farmers find new life serving burgeoning 

organic markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 23

Seeing the forest for its trees

Cooperatives promote sustainable forestry and tap 

green trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 17

Trading Up

Plains Cotton Co-op uses computer technology to pursue 

business-to-business strategy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 8

When the lights came on

USDA program brought electricity and a better way of life to 

rural America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/Auguest 6

Kennedy, Tracey L.

Trade takes a tumble

Cooperatives trade plunges 41 percent as Asian markets 

cool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 18

Kraenzle, Charles

Co-ops’s share of farm marketings up slightly in ‘98 . . . . . January/February 4

Letson, Perry

Why U.S. agriculture should support foreign aid . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 23

Liebrand, Carolyn

How well are dairy cooperatives performing? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 25

Matson, James

Consultant’s feasibility study can predict success of ‘next 

great idea’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 22

Last Train leaving?

Some say Pork America represents best, and possibly last, chance 

for hog farmers to gain significant market 

access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 6

Strength through unity

Bulgarian honey producers sweeeten their future through 

cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 12

Moser, Laura

Saving an industry

Plant closure leads Michigan growers to form new 

turkey cooperative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 4

Rotan, Beverly L.

How Does Your Local Farm Supply Cooperative Rate? . . . . . . March/April 25

Snyder, Charles E.

Co-ops in the 21st century

Consolidations, technology, politics 

to impact co-op financial institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . January/February 14

Stieve, Mary Farrell

Power formula

Higher gas prices fuel drive for ethanol production, 

farmers look to co-ops to gain market share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 7

Thompson, Jill Long

Bargaining co-ops help level field, stabilize 

markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 2

Borders are no longer barriers for co-ops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . March/April 2

Cooperatives: getting the job done . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September/October 2

Co-ops keep farm-generated capital at home . . . . . . . . . . January/February 2

Putting our eggs in more than one basket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . July/August 2

USDA Rural Development programs help fuel 

co-op movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . May/June 2

Torgerson, Randall

Co-ops in the 21st century

Cooperative marketing in the new millennium . . . . . . January/February 7

Wadsworth, James J.

Are you a good leader?

Director assessments are building blocks to productive 

board-management relationships . . . . . . . . . . . . November/December 20