USDA / Rural Development November / December 2011

R

u

r

a

l COOPERATIVES

Page 10
2 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

Commentary

By Dallas Tonsager, Under Secretary

USDA Rural Development

t’s hard to live in rural America without being

touched almost daily in some way by

cooperatives. Farmers and ranchers across

the nation use co-ops to process and market

their crops and livestock and to provide them

with essential production supplies and services. Electric and

telecommunications cooperatives supply rural America with a

reliable, affordable source of energy and communications

technology, including phone and Internet services.

While these are the two cooperative sectors we work with

most often at USDA Rural Development, there are many

other types of producer-, user- and worker-owned co-ops

across the nation that are helping to meet the myriad needs

of rural and urban people and businesses. These range from

co-op food stores and daycare centers to credit unions,

insurance companies and hardware and building supply coops, among many others.

Having just concluded observing Cooperative Month in

October, it is fitting that we focus special attention on

cooperatives as a key source of jobs. Co-ops are playing a role

as our nation strives to reduce high levels of unemployment

by providing good jobs for tens of thousands of people in the

farm sector alone.

According to USDA’s recently released economic survey of

farmer cooperatives for 2010, U.S. agricultural and fishery

cooperatives created 7,000 new jobs in 2010, boosting the

number of jobs to 184,000 at the nearly 2,400 agricultural coops surveyed. This survey also shows that ag co-ops had their

second best year on record for sales at $170 billion. Pre-tax

net income of $4.3 billion was also the second best year ever

for agricultural and fishery co-ops.

Because co-ops are locally or regionally owned by their

members, a larger percent of these dollars “stay local,”

circulating in the rural counties and towns where their

members live and work. These dollars also support other

local businesses and generate tax revenues that in turn

support schools, police and fire services and other local

government services.

While 7,000 new jobs, or even 184,000 total jobs, may not

sound huge, remember that in rural areas especially, every job

can be a crucially needed job. A grain and farm supply co-op,

for example, with 30 or 40 employees will often be the

leading employer in a rural community.

When one such co-op adds just three new jobs, it can be big news

in a town of 800 or 900 people. It may translate into three more

houses having “sold’ placards placed on the real estate sign in the

front yard and commission checks for a real estate agent to deposit

in the local bank. It could mean eight or nine new students in a

rural school — maybe enough to justify hiring a new teacher,

resulting in another house sold. It can mean a dozen or more new

consumers to help support a rural grocery store and a surge in new

business for the local barber or hair stylist, and so on.

Rural utility co-ops are also major employers in many

rural communities. This co-op sector provides an additional

162,000 fulltime jobs nationally, according to a 2009 survey

conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for

Cooperatives, with support from USDA. This survey looked

at 17 co-op subsectors of the economy, finding that the co-op

economy as a whole accounts for 853,000 jobs and $500

billion in annual revenue.

Focusing again on the agricultural sector, the job growth

among co-ops is due in no small part to the continued strong

prices for a number of key commodities, most notably in the

dairy and livestock sectors. Indeed, 2010 marked the fourth

consecutive year of strong sales performance by farmer coops, which is helping to fuel the upward employment trend.

The bottom line here is no great mystery: when American

agriculture, utilities and industry are strong and thriving, it

translates into more jobs and more economic vitality for the

nation. Cooperatives — as a business model that puts the

needs of member-owners and community first, and which

help to keep more sales dollars and profits working close to

home — are a key cog in the nation’s economic recovery

efforts.

I believe that the potential of cooperative businesses to

help more Americans improve the quality of their lives is

almost unlimited. We at USDA will continue to foster co-op

development and will strive to help improve co-op operations

because — as was the theme of this year’s Co-op Month

celebration — Cooperative Enterprises Build a Better World.

■

Co-ops: A vital source of rural jobs

I
Features

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 3

Volume 78, Number 6

November/December 2011

Rural Cooperatives (1088-8845) is

published bimonthly by USDA Rural

Development, 1400 Independence Ave.

SW, Stop 0705, Washington, DC. 20250-

0705.

The Secretary of Agriculture has

determined that publication of this

periodical is necessary in the transaction

of public business required by law of the

Department. Periodicals postage paid at

Washington, DC. and additional mailing

offices. Copies may be obtained from the

Superintendent of Documents,

Government Printing Office, Washington,

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

send address change to: Rural

Cooperatives, USDA/RBS, Stop 3255,

Wash., DC 20250-3255.

Mention in Rural Cooperatives of

company and brand names does not

signify endorsement over other

companies’ products and services.

Unless otherwise stated, articles in this

publication are not copyrighted and may

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

necessarily reflect those of USDA or its

employees.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its

programs and activities on the basis of

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

status, familial status, parental status,

religion, sexual orientation, genetic

information, political beliefs, reprisal, or

because all or part of an individual’s

income is derived from any public

assistance program. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons

with disabilities who require alternative

means for communication of program

information (Braille, large print, audiotape,

etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET

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

To file a complaint of discrimination, write

to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,

1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.,

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

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

USDA is an equal opportunity provider

and employer.

Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture

Dallas Tonsager, Under Secretary,

USDA Rural Development

Dan Campbell, Editor

Stephen Hall / KOTA, Design

Have a cooperative-related question?

Call (202) 720-6483, or email:

coopinfo@wdc.usda.gov

This publication was printed with vegetable oil-based ink.

p.8

04 Why do members participate in ag co-ops?

08 Upward spiral

Once on the ropes, Minnesota food co-op bounces back

By Kevin Edberg

10 Shine a light

International Year of Co-ops is unique chance to put co-ops in spotlight

By Dan Campbell

13 Crash course in cooperation

Rural auto body shops form co-op for group purchasing, information sharing

By Stephen Thompson

16 How co-ops do it

Dairy co-ops are a prime example of the economics of co-op marketing

By K. Charles Ling

20 Co-ops saluted as ‘vital economic force’ at USDA event

24 Mission-driven marketing

Rocky Mountain co-ops expand opportunities for sustainable food production

By Jennifer Keeling Bond, Kellie Enns and Bill Brockhouse

29 Is ‘local’ enough?

Keeping customers happy in farmer co-op stores

By Norbert Wilson, Thomas Hall, Deacue Fields

32 Making the connection

The co-op brand can help strengthen links with members and consumers

By Bruce J. Reynolds

Departments

02 COMMENTARY

34 NEWSLINE

41 2011 ARTICLE INDEX

p. 16 p. 24

ON THE COVER: The declaration of “2012 International Year of

Cooperatives” by the United Nations is being looked upon as a golden

opportunity to help call more attention to the cooperative system of

business. See page 10. USDA graphic by Stephen Thompson
By Thomas W. Gray, Ph.D.

Rural Sociologist, Agricultural Economist

USDA Cooperative Programs

Editor’s note: The author welcomes feedback from readers on

farmers’ cooperatives, member involvement, and participation.

Comments can be sent to: Thomas.Gray@usda.gov.

he Council on Food, Agriculture and

Resource Economics (C-FARE) held a

conference in Washington, D.C., on Aug. 4

titled: “Agricultural Cooperatives:

Economics, Opportunities and Structure in a

New Era of Food, Fiber and Fuel.” Five areas were specified

for discussion: finance, strategy, governance, communicating

the value package and new cooperative development.

One area of discussion was member participation in coops. Member participation involves a series of activities that

include patronage, membership in cooperatives, attending

meetings, serving on committees, serving in elected offices,

voting and recruiting other members, among other activities.

In 1970, in a North Central Research Publication,

Farmers’ Organizations and Movements, these questions were

asked:

• What motivates farmers to join and participate in

cooperatives?

• What causes low attendance at meetings?

• What explains differences in degree of membership

participation, and why do some farmers never join any

group?

Dynamic factors such as globalization, privatization,

consolidation among cooperatives and farms, and rural

outmigration have shifted the character for much of U.S.

agriculture during the past several decades. But questions

about participation continue to persist. The recent C-FARE

conference demonstrated the continuing relevance of these

issues.

This article lists determining factors that were previously

4 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

T

Why do members

participate in ag co-ops?

Co-op members place orders at a Texas farm supply co-op. Farmers may feel positive about the principles of cooperative organization, without

necessarily believing collective action is the best strategy for all farmers. USDA photos by Dan Campbell
found to be important in influencing participation in co-ops.

They include: (1) cooperative principles; (2) positions on

collective action; (3) identification with the cooperative; (4)

satisfaction with farming and farm life; (5) member influence;

(6) understandings of equity and impartiality; (7) member

demographics and farm characteristics.

These measures are presented here, in a survey format, as

if members were being asked whether they agree, disagree or

are indifferent to each statement or position. This permits

educators and others to “pull” items out of the article directly

for use in their own member relations workshops or surveys.

Ultimately, the goal of this article is to suggest some

“levers” that might be used to encourage members and

potential members to participate in a cooperative.

Cooperative principles

Member beliefs in cooperative principles can influence

how readily a member or a potential member might join or

participate in a cooperative. Some sources list as few as three

principles, others seven or eight. Five will be listed here, and

(as stated above) are presented in the manner of a survey

question asking for agreement or disagreement: (1)

Agricultural cooperatives should accept any farmer who

wants to join; (2) Agricultural cooperatives should practice

one-person, one-vote democracy; (3) Members should receive

patronage dividends in proportion to the business they do

with the organization; (4-a) Agricultural cooperatives should

promote co-op education for members; (4-b) Agricultural

cooperatives should support co-op education efforts directed

at the public; (5) Agricultural cooperatives should work with

other agricultural cooperatives.

Earlier work by this author found that co-op members

were generally supportive of all of these principles, though

less enthusiastic about the open membership (“accept any

farmer”) principle. Given the cyclical difficulties of excess

production and low prices in agriculture, it is not surprising

that members would feel less positive about openmembership.

Collective action

Farmers may feel positive about the principles of

cooperative organization, without necessarily believing

collective action is the best strategy for all farmers. Examples

of attitudes that would test a farmer’s predisposition to

collective action include such statements as: (1) “Farmers

must stick together in order to get things done, even if they

have to give up some of their individual freedoms;” (2) “A

basic cause of agricultural problems today is that too many

farmers want to go their separate and individual ways without

regard for other farmers;” (3) “An individual farmer can

usually make better marketing decisions than a group of

farmers can;” (4) “Members receive benefits from doing

business the cooperative way;” (5) “It is only through

agricultural cooperatives that farmers can assume an

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 5

“Once members become involved within an

organization — through holding office, serving on

committees or voting — they begin to identify and

attach to the organization beyond a simple

patronage attachment.”
appropriate role in the marketplace;” (6) “Members of

agricultural cooperatives have a competitive advantage in the

market place.”

Measures of such sentiments can help determine if farmers

place collective interest higher than individualistic

orientations. Karen Hakelius, in her study of 1999, suggested

that with Western cultures becoming increasingly centered

on individualism, participation based on reasons of collective

action are becoming less evident.

Identification with the cooperative

“Identification” refers to the degree of attachment a

member may feel toward an organization. Possible measures

of identification include such perceptions as: (1) “I feel I am

part owner of the cooperative;” (2) “Belonging to the

cooperative is an important part of my identity as a farmer;”

(3) “The cooperative is my agent in the marketplace;” and (4)

“The cooperative is just another place to do business.”

These measures position members’ loyalty and

commitment — based on their sense of ownership and

connection to the cooperative — against a more passive, “It’s

just another business” orientation.

Participation research suggests that prospective members

may not have any particular identification with an

organization. “It’s just like any other business,” they may feel.

In fact, members who only participate with economic

patronage tend to often hold such a perception.

However, once members become involved within an

organization — through holding office, serving on

committees or voting — they begin to identify and attach to

the organization beyond a simple patronage attachment.

Membership participation tends to engender more

participation.

Satisfaction levels

Co-op participation levels may correspond to measures of

satisfaction, as indicated by such statements as: “I am satisfied

with: (a) “farming as a way of life;” (b) “farming as a way to

make a living;” and (c) “the income my family makes from

farming.”

Members could stay away from their cooperative because

they are unsatisfied with the income gained from their

patronage, or they may join a co-op because of poor returns

earned elsewhere. These questions might be honed more

sharply if designed for office holders and managers. Key

perceptions of the co-op can be gauged by asking: “How

satisfied are you with your elected officers?” “How satisfied

are you with your cooperative management, and please

specify which officers, which managers?”

Assessments of this kind can help bring focus to particular

problems in participation and commitment to the

organization, particularly around dissatisfaction with officers.

Member influence

Cooperatives are organized around principles designed to

provide member influence and organizational control.

Member impressions of their personal influence upon an

organization — and their views of members’ influence

generally — can be measured by whether they hold such

perceptions as: (1) “Cooperative members have a great

amount of influence on how the cooperative is run;” (2)

“Cooperative members have too much say about how the

cooperative is run;” and, a more personal measure, (3) “I am

satisfied with the amount of influence I have on how the

cooperative is run.”

Earlier farmer participation studies identified member

influence as having an active dimension, by asking: “How

much control do members perceive they actually have,” and,

a more passive dimension: “How much control do they

perceive they could have if they were to exercise it.”

All of these measures can be important in the sense that

the more members feel in control of their cooperative, or

hold an opportunity to be in control, the greater the

likelihood they will participate in the organization.

Equity/impartiality

Farmers come together, or unify, in a cooperative

organization to gain market power and/or gain a service

(broadly defined) to enhance farm operations. In some sense,

farmers are equals struggling together in a market context

that has not often favored them historically.

Once in an organization however, difference among

farmers in terms of scale of their respective production units

and volume of business done with the cooperative can raise

questions about equality and equity. Contention can play out

around differences in voting rights (one-person, one-vote vs.

votes based on the business volume done with the

cooperative,) and patronage (better prices and discounts

based on volume).

Such differences can cause tensions among members along

differences in size of farms and volumes produced.

Assessment of these issues and perceptions can be gauged by

asking members: (1) “Does the cooperative primarily benefit

large farms?” or the inverse (2) “Does the cooperative

primarily benefit small farms?”

When there are different commodities produced by

different classes of members, it can cause splits in

membership loyalties and commitments as well. For example,

6 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

Assessments of member attitudes

can help bring focus to particular

problems with participation and

commitment to the organization.
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 7

dairy cooperatives often have both Grade A and Grade B

producers within their membership. Difficulties may be

revealed when members make, or agree with, statements such

as: “The cooperative benefits Grade A producers more than

Grade B producers.”

Once identified, the cooperative may be able to address

participation difficulties due to these differences.

Member demographics and farm characteristics

There are a series of other considerations that can help

explain how farmers participate in a co-op. These measures

include age of the primary owner(s), education levels, offfarm employment, income levels, debt load, type of products

produced and gross farm sales, among others. This author

found that when the spouse of a dairy cooperative member is

employed off the farm, participation in cooperative meetings

was lower. There was simply no family member with enough

free time to attend a co-op meeting.

Age of the primary operator might provide the cooperative

business some indication about future product flows and

member retirements. Any of these considerations, when

examined carefully, might reveal an influence, and an answer

to the whys of member participation.

How these predispositions play out among farmers likely

varies by type of commodity, geographically by region and

country, and by volume of production. This article suggests

some possible measures to gauge member attitudes, such as:

What motivates farmers to join and participate in

cooperatives, the differences in degree of membership

participation and why some farmers never join a cooperative.

These suggestions are only a narrow band of possibilities that

tend to focus on the social-psychological predispositions of

participation.

Scholars from other disciplines — economics for example,

or geography — would likely come up with a different series

of considerations to approach the complexity of membership.

Earlier research has shown the several items reviewed here

are relevant to the seemingly enduring questions of how

members participate in a co-op, and for what reasons.

Author’s note: For further reading on this topic, refer to

reviews of the literature in Sanjib Bhuyan’s 2007 article, “The

People Factor in Cooperatives,” in the Canadian Journal of

Agricultural Economics, and Peter Osterberg and Jerker

Nilsson’s 2009 article on “Members’ Perception of their

Participation in the Governance of Cooperatives,” in

Agribusiness. ■
8 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

Once on the ropes, Minnesota food co-op bounces back

Upward Spiral

One of the co-op’s original founders in Hastings, Minn., Angela Olson still shops at

Spiral Natural Foods Cooperative twice a week. Photos by Ginger Pinson
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 9

By Kevin Edberg, Executive Director

Cooperative Development Services

kedberg@aol.com

t was late 2010, and the

remaining board

members of a small

food co-op knew they

were coming to a

crossroads. “If it means saving the coop, are you willing to deal with your

management issues and relocate the

store?” their consultant asked. This is

the story of how they answered that

question.

Spiral Natural Foods Cooperative

serves the community of Hastings,

Minn., an old “river town” of about

22,000 on the Mississippi, just southeast

of Minneapolis-St. Paul. The co-op

opened for business in 1979, originally

capitalized with about $10,000 in sales

of member stock and substantial

donations of equipment, fixtures and

renovation labor.

Typical of the time, the store ran on

a system of annual membership dues,

product discounts and all-volunteer

labor. The co-op built a core trade from

the sale of supplements and bulk food,

moving twice to larger spaces over the

next decade. In 1992, it rented a

storefront in the historic downtown on

a month-to-month basis.

About that time, the co-op changed

from a dues-and-discounts system to an

equity-based system in which

individuals paid $100 to become ownermembers. But the transition did not go

well: only 50 members made the equity

investment.

Ups and downs

The co-op continued to plod along

for more than a decade, undercapitalized and with stagnant sales.

There were major concerns about both

its management and the co-op’s longterm viability.

In 2008, with a membership of only

67 and working on a shoestring budget,

the board engaged Bill Gessner of CDS

Consulting Cooperative to help them

revitalize the store. He listened and

asked questions: “What’s your vision for

this store? Does the community share

that vision? Could you increase

membership to 200?”

He connected co-op leaders with a

promising young business consultant,

which began an effort to better equip

the board to reinvigorate the co-op. By

spring 2010, things were looking better.

The co-op had more than 100

members, a new marketing and

merchandising position had been

created and some physical improvements had been made to the store.

However, the co-op was still renting

month to month — and management

issues still needed to be addressed. By

fall 2010, vendors were holding back

orders; the situation was looking grim.

It was clear that either the store

would close, or the board would need

to find new management. The new

general manager would need to raise

member loans quickly to infuse cash

into the business and to get the

landlord to sign a lease.

The board terminated the manager

and a new general manager was soon on

the job. But the property owner decided

to put the building on the market, and

by 2011 the building had been sold,

forcing the co-op to move by late

summer.

Three-phase revival

plan adopted

Gessner helped the board develop a

three-phase revival plan. The first step

was to develop a vision for a relocated

store, do pro forma projections and

engage the membership and community

to raise $14,000 to plan the relocation.

Second was to raise additional member

loans to generate equity and secure

long-term bank loans. Third was to

execute the plan and open the new store

that summer.

The planning for the new store took

shape. Cooperative Development

Services (CDS) used USDA Rural

Cooperative Development Grant

(RCDG) funds to provide staff time to

develop the project strategy and attend

member information meetings. As a

501(c)3 nonprofit, CDS could also let

co-op members make tax-deductible

contributions that paid for consulting

needs for the relocation.

The Agricultural Utilization

Research Institute also provided RCDG

funds on a matching basis to pay for

financial projections, store design

services and other technical assistance.

The phase-one planning goals were

soon met.

The phase-two member loan

campaign was launched in June.

Membership, which stood at 67 in

2008, was up to 385 in July and topped

400 in September. In just five weeks,

members pledged $200,000 in loans.

Several local food co-ops made member

loans to support the project, and others

have helped secure a $160,000 loan for

the project.

The new store opened Sept. 2 (the

old store had closed in late August). In

two months of operations, the new

store is on track to achieve projected

first year sales that are almost twice

those of 2010. Employment has also

increased from three full-time and two

part-time jobs in the old store, to five

full-time and five part-time jobs in the

new store.

What had seemed almost

unimaginable at Christmas 2010 was a

reality by Labor Day 2011. All was

made possible by a board and

management team that could create a

compelling vision, that had timely

access to key advisors, some modest

funding for technical assistance and a

community willing to invest in itself. ■

I

Jennifer Johnson drives 30 minutes from

Welch, Minn., to Hastings, where she loads up

her shopping cart with bulk staple items,

including flour and grains, at Spiral Natural

Foods.
10 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

By Dan Campbell, editor

dan.campbell@wdc.usda.gov

ooperatives are not only

a major force that help

fuel the U.S. economy,

but also a driver of

economic development

around the globe. Still, the ultimate

potential of co-ops has barely been

tapped, many believe. It is therefore

fitting that the United Nations General

Assembly has declared 2012 as the

International Year of Cooperatives

(IYC), highlighting the contribution of

cooperatives to socio-economic

development worldwide.

With the theme of “Cooperative

Enterprises Build a Better World,” the

IYC celebration seeks to encourage the

growth and establishment of

cooperatives. The event also encourages

individuals, communities and

governments to recognize the role of

cooperatives in helping to achieve

internationally agreed upon economic

development goals.

Global force for advancement

Few know better than the U.S.

farmer just how interconnected world

economies have become and the role

co-ops — domestic and foreign — play

in the international marketplace. When

a U.S. farmer harvests a crop — be it

grain, oilseeds, cotton, fruits, nuts,

vegetables or livestock — it could wind

up being exported almost anywhere on

the planet. It might even be sold to

consumers at a co-op food store or at a

grocery store that is itself a member of

a retail buying co-op. The seeds and

fertilizers for the crop may have come

from a farm supply co-op. The crop

may have been planted, cultivated and

harvested by equipment purchased with

a loan from a co-op financial

institution. The processing and sale of

the farm products may have been

performed by a producer-owned

marketing co-op. Further, the electric

power on the farm and at the co-op

elevator, packing shed or processing

plant may have come from a consumerowned utility co-op.

U.S. farmer co-ops and countless

volunteers from among their members

have been leading advocates for the

development of cooperatives overseas to

help lift people out of poverty and

eliminate the scourge of hunger — just

as farm, utility and credit co-ops have

helped rural Americans drastically

improve their own standard of living.

But far too few people, here and

abroad, understand just how much can

be achieved through the power of

uniting in cooperatives to achieve a

common goal. Many co-op leaders thus

see IYC (which has also been endorsed

by the U.S. Senate) as an excellent

opportunity for helping to shine the

international spotlight on the

cooperative way of doing business.

“IYC provides a once-in-a-lifetime

opportunity to come together under

one brand and one message to showcase

the cooperative difference,” says Paul

Hazen, president and CEO of the

National Cooperative Business

Association, which represents the

United States in international planning

for IYC. “This is a wonderful chance to

raise the profile of cooperative

enterprise, demonstrate the strength of

the model and tell the world why

cooperatives are the best business

model for economic and social

development.”

Under Secretary Dallas Tonsager of

USDA Rural Development says he

hopes all co-ops will consider getting

involved in IYC. “We have an

incredible story to tell about what has

been achieved with co-ops, and how

much more can be accomplished

through this producer- and user-owned

form of business. No one call tell that

story better than the member-owners of

our co-ops themselves.”

Bill Cheney, president and CEO of

Credit Union National Association

(CUNA), is also urging credit unions

around the nation to help promote

IYC. “The International Year of

Shine a light

International Year of Co-ops is

unique chance to put co-ops

in spotlight

C
Rural Cooperatives / September/October 2011 11

Cooperatives gives us all a chance to

spotlight what we are, how we operate

— and the difference credit unions

make for their members, cooperatively,”

Cheney says. “So...throughout 2012,

take time to celebrate cooperatives and

your credit union’s place in the

cooperative movement.”

“Cooperatives are a model of selfreliance and an example of people

working together to improve their

quality of life,” says National Rural

Electric Cooperative Association

(NRECA) CEO Glenn English.

NRECA represents more than 900

consumer-owned electric cooperatives

that provide power to about 42 million

people in 47 states. The International

Year of Cooperatives coincides with the

50th anniversary of NRECA

International Programs, a partnership

among America’s electric co-ops that,

since its creation in 1962, has assisted

with electrification efforts that have

improved the quality of life for about

100 million people in more than 40

nations.

Celebration launched in NYC

The IYC celebration kicked off in

earnest Oct. 31 at the United Nations

General Assembly Hall in New York

City. A daylong series of events was

held, starting with a roundtable

discussion addressing the theme:

“Cooperative Enterprises Build a Better

World: Contributions to Sustainable

Development.” In the afternoon, IYC

was officially launched during a General

Assembly plenary session.

The United Nations General

Assembly Resolution (A/RES/64/136)

“encourages all member states, the

United Nations and all relevant

stakeholders to take advantage of the

IYC to promote cooperatives and raise

awareness of their contribution to social

and economic development and

promote the formation and growth of

cooperatives.” (Also see sidebar.)

Many of the same types of events

that co-ops use to observe Co-op

Month — such as open houses, school

visits, proclamations signed by state

governors, press releases and op eds —

can be used to promote IYC while

simultaneously providing an

opportunity for a co-op to increase

public awareness of what it does.

NCBA is creating an online “toolkit”

that will have numerous ideas for how

co-ops can help promote IYC; it can be

accessed at: www.ncba.coop.

NCBA says goals for IYC are to:

 Increase public awareness and raise

the profile of cooperatives so that

Americans will seek out co-ops for

products or services, for business

development and community solutions;

 Educate and engage all levels of

government to develop policies,

programs and services that create a

“level playing field” for co-ops in the

economy;

 Promote co-ops to the media,

“Cooperatives are

a model of selfreliance and an

example of people

working together

to improve their

quality of life.”
12 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

The International Year of Cooperatives (IYC) resolution

adopted by the U.N. General Assembly says, in part, that

the IYC is a time to:

 Recognize that cooperatives, in their various forms,

promote the fullest possible participation in the economic

and social development of all people — including women,

youth, older persons, persons with disabilities and

indigenous peoples — and that co-ops are becoming a

major factor of economic and social development, and

contribute to the eradication of poverty;

 Encourage governments to keep under review the legal

and administrative provisions governing the activities of

cooperatives in order to enhance the growth and

sustainability of cooperatives in a rapidly changing socioeconomic environment by...providing a level playing field

for cooperatives... including appropriate tax incentives

and access to financial services and markets;

 Create a supportive environment for the development of

cooperatives by developing an effective partnership

between governments and the cooperative movement

through joint consultative councils and/or advisory bodies,

and by promoting and implementing better legislation,

research, sharing of good practices, training, technical

assistance and capacity-building of cooperatives,

especially in the fields of management, auditing and

marketing skills;

 Raise public awareness of the contributions of

cooperatives to employment generation and to socioeconomic development, promoting comprehensive

research and statistical data-gathering on the activities,

employment and overall socio-economic impact of

cooperatives at the national and international levels.

The International Year of Cooperatives resolution

especially in international and business

press;

 Support objective studies that

demonstrate the economic value of coops;

 Improve access to co-op businesses in

the United States by building the only

comprehensive, online directory of

more than 29,000 U.S. co-ops of all

types.

U.N. website encourages

co-op participation

The United Nations — which is

particularly interested in promoting coops because of their impact on poverty

reduction, job creation and social

integration — has established an

IYC website at:

http://social.un.org/

coopsyear. The website

includes a number of ideas

about how co-ops can help

to promote IYK, including:

 Participate in the U.N.

“What Cooperatives Are”

campaign. This effort encourages co-op

members to tell about their co-op and

why they belong to it. “Tell the world

what cooperatives are, where they are

and what makes them unique!” the

website says. The effort will use

YouTube, Facebook, Twitter and a U.N.

blog, all of which will be featured and

hyperlinked on the IYC website. Coops are being urged to post photos,

video clips (not to exceed five minutes),

informational blurbs (of 300 words or

less), data and news highlights (no more

than 500 words). Materials submitted

must be accom-panied by a

signed, scanned

copy of a

waiver of liability (the form is posted on

the website), which must be e-mailed

to: coopsyear@un.org.

 Submit IYC-related events for

inclusion on the U.N.’s official IYC

calendar of upcoming events.

Announcements about your event can

be posted at: www.social.un.org/coops

year/events.

 Co-op photos can also be posted on

the U.N.’s Picassa Photo Gallery.

Photos should be e-mailed to:

youth@un.org, with the subject line

reading “IYC Photo Sharing.”

 Co-op videos can be sent to:

coopsyear@un.org; the subject line

should read: “IYC Video Sharing.”

 The U.N.’s Facebook page

promoting IYC activities is at:

http://www.facebook.com/CoopsYear.

 The U.N. Twitter page promoting

IYC activities is at: http://twitter.com/

#!/CoopsYear. ■
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 13

By Stephen Thompson, Assistant Editor

USDA Rural Development

Sathompson@wdc.usda.gov

mall, rural auto body

shops in the Upper

Midwest have

discovered that the

cooperative model

can help them improve productivity

and raise profits. The Key Choice

Collision Center network brings

together 18 non-competing collision

repair shops to share knowledge and

resources in promoting better

business practices.

Auto body shops, especially in

rural areas, are often archetypal small

businesses: single-location

proprietor-ships. Their small size can

be a disadvantage when it comes to

buying supplies and operating

efficiently, says John Magowan,

proprietor of Ernie’s Auto Body in

the village of Hayward, Wis. “You

don’t get much of a discount when

you’re buying less than $50,000

worth of paint a year,” he says.

Moreover, deciding what items to

use in your shop, and how to use

them, can be a daunting task.

There is a huge range of auto

refinishing products available.

Preparing a vehicle for painting and

applying the finish is a lot more

complicated than simply sanding it

down and spraying the paint.

Modern automotive finishes are

made up of layers of fillers, primers,

sealers, color coats and finally clear

coats, all of which must be

compatible with one another. There

are literally millions of possible

combinations, and various

components have different

characteristics that must be taken

into account when they are applied.

Not knowing the proper

procedure for using a component, or

using the wrong one, can lead to the

loss of valuable time correcting

problems and also wasting expensive

materials. In the worst case, a

technician might have to sand off the

new finish and start over.

To make matters worse, individual

technicians may have developed their

own ways of doing things which are

not ideal for the materials being

used. There is also the “we’ve always

done it this way,” syndrome, which

can hinder workers and managers

alike from adopting new and better

approaches to getting the job done.

“These and other factors can be

addressed by adopting “lean

manufacturing” methods, which seek

to maximize efficiency, enabling a

business to operate at the lowest

Crash course in cooperation

Rural auto body shops form co-op

for group purchasing, information

sharing

S
14 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

possible cost while offering a highquality service or product. But how

does a small proprietorship gain access

to the information it needs to adopt

lean manufacturing successfully?

Twenty Group

evolves into co-op

One method adopted in the auto

body business is the so-called “Twenty

Group.” A concept borrowed from auto

dealers, Twenty Groups are gatherings

of non-competing small business

owners and managers to exchange

information and ideas and work out

solutions to common problems. Twenty

Groups usually meet several times a

year, typically with a guest speaker.

Discussions occur under protection of a

confidentiality agreement.

Magowan joined a Twenty Group in

1997 and found it a useful source of

information. But about five years later,

he and some other members decided to

take it a step further. “We wanted

access to resources not available to a

small body shop,” he says. The result

was the Key Choice Collision Center

Network, a purchasing and service LLC

that operates as a co-op, now with 18

members in seven Midwest states.

“It was fairly easy to set up,” says

Magowan. “The core group had all

been friends for years. We went to a

business attorney we’d used in the past

for legal help.”

The slow economy has resulted in

little growth in revenue in recent years

for most small auto body shops, so

better profits have to come from cutting

costs. Key Choice uses its purchasing

power to negotiate much better deals

with suppliers than individual shops

could manage. A percentage of

the purchase amounts is tacked on to

cover administrative costs of the

cooperative.

“The discounting is huge,” Magowan

says. “But a shop that does a million

dollars’ worth of business a year is

going to spend about $45,000 on paint.

At the end of the day, it’s not going to

make a huge difference to your bottom

line.”

Cooperation leads

to higher efficiency

The key to better profits, says

Magowan, is making your operation

more efficient; the cooperative has

proven to be a valuable tool to

achieving that goal. The first step to

rationalizing its operations was to adopt

a common paint system.

“We contracted with one company,

Sherwin Williams, which came in and

set up a product line for us,” says

Magowan. “We all use the exact same

products. We don’t have anyone trying

out the ‘flavor of the month.’ That rules

out a lot of issues.”

The paint-system commonality

means that each shop’s paint technicians

can be trained together in the same

methods by representatives of the paint

supplier. The close relationship with

the supplier also keeps the co-op up to

date on cost-saving improvements and

innovations. Painters with problems can

discuss them with other painters from

their own or other member shops and

get good advice based on common

A technician sprays a fender in the paint booth at Ernie’s Auto Body. Adopting a common line of finishing products

makes possible better efficiency and lower costs for members of the Key Choice Collision Center Network.
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 15

training and experience. Together, those

factors help ensure consistent, satisfactory results.

That consistency is also a marketing

plus. “Having a network like this makes

it easier for us to deal with insurance

companies,” says Magowan. “They

know what kind of results to expect,

because we have consistent products

and techniques.” Bus tour companies

also know that they can have damage

repaired at any of the 18 Key Choice

locations and expect a high quality,

cost-effective job. The Key Choice

logo is displayed on exterior signs and

on business cards.

Using the same paint was only the

first piece of the puzzle. Improving

work flow and time management and

eliminating waste are just as important

to a successful operation. Lean

manufacturing principles, derived from

Japanese production practices, seek to

minimize waste in materials, manpower

and other resources, while keeping

quality as high as possible. They

emphasize constant effort to find and

eliminate waste and improve efficiency,

adaptability, and always being ready to

change any aspect of the operation that

can be improved.

“‘Lean’ is a huge buzzword in the

auto body industry,” Magowan says.

“But some people are successful at

accomplishing a ‘lean’ operation, and

some are not. I’d say about one in ten

actually makes it work. If someone tells

me his operation is ‘150 percent lean,’

I’m pretty skeptical.”

Collective problem solving

Magowan says he and other

members study lean manufacturing

techniques and together work out ways

to apply them to their operations. The

cooperative takes a systematic approach

to this. When a problem or goal is

identified, five members are delegated

to address the issue. Research and

discussion are documented, and the

“group of five” develops a solution,

which will be presented to the

membership.

All co-op members vote on whether

to adopt the measure. If it’s accepted,

the new method or process is put in use

by all the members. Members also

informally discuss individual issues

among themselves, offering each other

advice.

The result, says Magowan, has been

“tremendous net growth.” One example

of this is an overhaul of the workflow in

the shop. “A traditional shop has a body

department and a paint department,” he

says. “The techs work on commission.

Each is assigned jobs, and each job has

a number of labor units assigned to it,

according to the amount of time

expected for it to take. Typically, a tech

is paid according to the number of units

assigned, whether it actually takes two

hours or ten.”

In the traditional setup, if a vehicle is

still being prepared in the body

department and the paint tech has no

other work, he or she may be idle until

the job is ready. The cooperative

worked out a system in which labor

hours are pooled and divided between

everybody working in the shop. That

means that everyone has an incentive to

get jobs done as quickly as possible. A

technician who is not working on an

assigned job will thus help with other

parts of the repair.

“We’ve set up a standard operating

procedure that allows anyone to work

where most useful at the time. As a

result, I’m doing the same amount of

business as I was three years ago —

with four fewer people.”

Another innovation cuts down on

unnecessary foot traffic in the shop.

“We had three techs in the paint

department,” says Magowan. Techs had

their own individual setup and would

get supplies from the inventory room as

needed. “We put up a

sign-up sheet at the

door to the inventory

room to find out how

many trips to the

room were being

made.”

The results were

surprising — a great

deal of time was being

lost in trips to

replenish supplies.

Not only that, there

was a lot of

duplication in

materials being held by the technicians,

meaning more money tied up in

inventory.

The answer was to bring the supplies

to the technicians with an inventory

cart. Every morning, the cart is

replenished with supplies.

“Everything they need is right

there,” Magowan says. “They rarely

need to make an extra trip.” The result

is more efficient use of time, and, as a

bonus, a reduction in inventory. “We

don’t have so much cash tied up in our

supply room,” he says. “That makes a

difference when you consider that a box

of sandpaper can cost $75.”

“Small steps like that add up to huge

improvements,” says Magowan. He

emphasizes that innovations are not

rigidly applied. Each shop has its own

conditions and physical layout, and

measures must be tailored to work well

in each situation. The key is flexibility,

he says.

“You need to be able to put things

together with what is already in place.”

In fact, flexibility and being ready to

make changes are a vital part of the lean

manufacturing approach.

The cooperative is already looking

ahead to new challenges, one of which

will be possible future government

requirements to change from a solventbased to a water-borne paint system.

“We’re already studying that,”

Magowan says. “When the time comes,

we’ll be ready.” ■
By K. Charles Ling, Ag Economist

USDA Co-op Program

Note: This article is a sequel to “What

Cooperatives Are (and Aren’t),” “What

Cooperatives Do,” and “Dairy Co-ops:

What They Are and What They Do,”

Rural Cooperatives, Volume 76, Number 6,

November/December 2009; Volume 77,

Number 2, March/April 2010; and

Volume 78, Number 2, March/April 2011,

respectively. Past issues are posted on the

USDA Rural Development website:

www.rurdev.usda.gov.

n our free-market

economy, the

cooperative is a unique

business model in that

it is an aggregate of

individual economic units. In the

agricultural sector, a cooperative is an

aggregate of member-farms.

Using the dairy sector as an example

for this article, the cooperative takes

whatever milk volume is produced by

members and then acts as their

exclusive marketing agent. Members’

farming operations are not under the

cooperative’s administrative control, and

the cooperative cannot dictate how

members operate their dairy farms.

This operating mode entails its own

unique economics that comprises the

following elements:

• When milk price goes up or down,

the milk volume a farm may produce

depends on the financial objective of

the farm: whether it wants to attain

maximum total profit (minimum loss

in a loss situation), maximum total

revenue (up to the break-even point),

or minimum average cost.

16 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

I

How co-ops do it

Dairy co-ops are a prime example of

the economics of co-op marketing

Photos courtesy Darigold
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 17

• Production input cost changes do not

change a farm’s rated capacity, but

instead shift the farm’s cost curves

straight up or down. The milk volume

that the farm produces, again,

depends on the financial objective of

the farm. (Cost curves refer to a

typical, simple diagram showing how

milk production costs vary in relation

to production volume. See figure 1.)

• Depending on how farmers respond

to milk price and input cost changes,

the milk volume the cooperative has

to handle may continually fluctuate.

• Likewise, milk production is a

biological process and is subject to

daily and seasonal fluctuations.

• The seasonality of milk production

generally does not match the

seasonality of fluid milk demand. This

mismatch requires cooperatives that

supply milk to the fluid market to

balance seasonal supply with seasonal

demand and handle the inevitable

seasonal surplus milk volume at a

substantial supply-balancing cost.

A fuller explanation of the unique

economics of dairy cooperative

operation is facilitated by the focusing

on a model dairy farm.

Model dairy farm

A farm is constructed with its

dairying infrastructure to accommodate

a dairy herd of a certain size. It has a

rated capacity of producing a certain

number of pounds of milk per day.

When the farm produces milk at the

capacity volume, the average cost of

milk production per hundredweight

(cwt) should be at a minimum. If milk

price for the month is the same as the

minimum average cost, then the farm’s

milk production for the month is at

capacity and the farm is said to be in

“equilibrium.”

Milk price variation

If milk price is lower than the

minimum average cost, the farm will

incur a loss for every cwt of milk it

produces. According to textbook

optimization theory, the farm would

minimize its total losses by producing

milk at a volume where milk price

(marginal revenue) equals marginal

cost.

However, although marginal cost is a

useful concept, its “real-life calculation”

has many complications and, therefore,

it is not readily available for practical

day-to-day operational decisionmaking. For such decisions, the timehonored business practice is to use

average cost in the profit-and-loss

estimation.

In the present case, it is very likely

that the dairy farm will still strive to

attain the lowest average cost by

producing milk up to its rated capacity,

even though doing so would incur a

higher loss. So, depending on which

cost concept a farmer uses, milk volume

produced by the dairy farm may be

somewhere between the two amounts

just mentioned.

When milk price is higher than the

minimum average cost, the farm will

enjoy a profit. The farmer may decide

to attain the lowest average cost by

producing at its rated capacity. Or, the

farmer may want to achieve maximum

total profit by producing a milk volume

where milk price (marginal revenue)

equals marginal cost, if the latter is

actually known.

Alternatively, the farmer may strive

for maximum total revenue and increase

its production up to the volume where

the farm will break even. Thus, when

milk price is higher than the minimum

average cost, the amount of milk

produced by the dairy farm may be

somewhere in the range framed by the

three possible milk volumes just given.

Replicating the model dairy farm

ten, a hundred or even a thousand

times, depending on the size of a

cooperative, the aggregate milk volume

produced by its members is certain to

fluctuate. The cooperative may know

with certainty the aggregate volume of

members’ rated capacity, which would

logically be the basis for planning its

milk handling capacity.

However, the uncertain volume of

actual delivery means on some days the

cooperative will have slack capacity,

while on other days it may have to

scramble to make sure every drop of

milk has a home. Also in response to

the fluctuating volume, milk hauling

may have to be rerouted for most

economical coordination.

It should be noted that because a

cooperative is formed to market

whatever the aggregate volume of milk

produced by its members, it does not

have its own milk production functions,

milk production cost curves or milk

supply curves.

Milk production

input cost variation

Suppose milk price remains the same

as the minimum average cost given at

the rated capacity volume, but the cost

of production input, such as feed or

fuel, has increased. Because the

infrastructure and the size of the dairy

herd do not change, the rated capacity

of the farm will stay the same.

However, the average cost curve and

its associated marginal cost curve will

shift upward. The farm will suffer a

loss, and it may want to minimize its

total losses by producing milk at a

volume where milk price (marginal

V

P

Pounds/day

$/cwt

MC AC

Figure 1: Average cost (AC) and marginal cost

(MC) vs. milk production volume
18 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

revenue) equals marginal cost.

Short of knowing the marginal cost,

it is very likely that the dairy farm will

work to attain the lowest average cost

by still producing milk at its rated

capacity. When production input cost

increases, milk volume produced by the

dairy farm may be somewhere between

the two milk volumes just referred to.

On the other hand, if production

input cost decreases, the average cost

curve and the associated marginal cost

curve will shift downward and the farm

will reap a profit. The farm may still

decide to produce milk at its rated

capacity. Or it may increase its

production up to the break-even point

that will return the highest total

revenue.

Alternatively, the farm may want to

achieve maximum total profit by

producing at the milk volume where

milk price (marginal revenue) meets

marginal cost. When production input

cost decreases, milk volume produced

by the dairy farm may be somewhere in

the range framed by the three volumes

just articulated.

Again, the aggregate volume of

member milk faced by the cooperative

is rather uncertain, depending on how

members make their day-to-day

production decisions in reaction to

production input cost changes.

The discussion thus far shows the

challenges a dairy cooperative faces in

handling fluctuating milk volume when

either milk price or production input

cost changes. When both price and cost

changes are considered at the same

time, the picture is even more

complicated.

Still, this is a highly simplified

scenario. In real life, not every farm is

like the model dairy farm; in fact, no

two farms are alike. They are not likely

to be of the same size and make the

same production decision. That means

the volume variation may be even more

uncertain than what has been described.

In addition, the seasonality of milk

production further aggravates milk

volume uncertainties.

Seasonal production variation

Milk production is affected by a

cow’s physiological condition, which is

subject to seasonal changes. The

seasonal nature of milk production is

best portrayed by the index of

seasonality, such as shown in table 1,

which is based on milk deliveries to the

Northeast regional market and

documented in an earlier USDA

research report. The table shows that

the first six months of the year is a

period of higher-than-average milk

deliveries, with May being the peak.

The index of 106 indicates that May

is 6 percent higher than annual average

daily deliveries. Milk deliveries decline

sharply from June to July and stay

relatively low throughout summer and

fall. Deliveries are usually lowest in

November.

With an index of 95, November is 5

percent below annual average daily

deliveries. Deliveries recover in

December and increase steadily through

winter and spring. The drop from May

to November is 11 percentage points.

Seasonality of milk production, in

essence, shifts a farm’s cost curves

downward to the right during a

seasonally high production month or

upward to the left during a seasonally

low production month. During a

seasonally high production month

(seasonality index is more than 100),

since the same infrastructure and the

same herd size will produce more milk,

the farm’s capacity should be higher

than originally rated.

Also because the same fixed cost is

spread over a higher milk volume, the

average cost of producing milk should

be lower. The combined effect would

shift the cost curves rightward and

downward.

On the other hand, during a

seasonally low production month

(seasonality index is less than 100), since

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

January 100.1 101.9

February 101.8 100.6

March 103.7 100.9

April 105.4 98.2

May 106.0 98.1

June 103.4 94.0

July 97.8 94.2

August 97.0 98.1

September 96.3 105.2

October 95.4 104.6

November 95.0 102.8

December 98.1 101.4

Annual average 100.0 100.0

Source: Ling, K. Charles. Cost of Balancing Milk Supplies:

Northeast Regional Market, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

RBS Research Report No. 188, October 2001.

Note: Different regions of the country may experience

different seasonality, and seasonality may change over time.

Producer milk

Month deliveries

Fluid

demand

Table 1―Indices of seasonality of producer milk

deliveries and fluid demand
the same infrastructure and herd size

will produce less milk, the farm’s

capacity should be less than originally

rated. And because the same fixed cost

is spread over a smaller milk volume,

the average cost of producing milk

should be higher. The combined effect

would shift the cost curves leftward and

upward.

The net effect of shifting seasonal

capacity and cost curves means that the

members’ milk volume the cooperative

has to handle will fluctuate seasonally

throughout the year. This further

compounds the challenges of marketing

members’ milk.

Seasonal demand variation

On the milk demand side, seasonal

variation is mainly caused by fluid

(beverage) uses. This is because the

milk volume required by fluid

processing plants is directly and

instantaneously derived from

consumers’ demand of fluid products,

which is highly seasonal. Manufacturing

plants that make storable products such

as cheese are different. They tend to

maintain a throughput volume at or

near plant capacity in order to achieve

least-cost operations.

The example in table 1 shows that

fluid demand is highest in September

and maintains a higher-than-average,

though declining, level through fall and

winter until March; fluid demand is

lower-than-average from April through

August. The peak in September

(seasonality index = 105) is 5 percent

above annual average daily

consumption.

The lowest fluid consumption month

is June, with an index of 94, or 6

percent below the annual daily average.

The June low is a drop of 11 percentage

points compared with the September

peak.

Thus, seasonality of fluid demand

usually runs counter to the seasonality

of milk production. Fluid demand tends

to be high during those months when

milk production is low, and tends to be

low when milk production is high. The

mismatch of supply and demand is a

major challenge the cooperative has to

handle, as shown in the following

example.

Suppose that on an annual daily

average basis, the cooperative’s

members deliver 10 million pounds of

milk a day, and the cooperative markets

4 million pounds to fluid milk

processors and a constant 2.5 million

pounds to dairy product manufacturing

processors.

Suppose further that milk production

and fluid demand follow the seasonal

patterns given in table 1. In May, the

cooperative’s members will produce

10.6 million pounds of milk a day, while

fluid plants will use 3.9 million pounds

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 19

---------------Million pounds/day---------------

January 10.0 4.1 2.5 3.4

February 10.2 4.0 2.5 3.7

March 10.4 4.0 2.5 3.8

April 10.5 3.9 2.5 4.1

May 10.6 3.9 2.5 4.2

June 10.3 3.8 2.5 4.1

July 9.8 3.8 2.5 3.5

August 9.7 3.9 2.5 3.3

September 9.6 4.2 2.5 2.9

October 9.5 4.2 2.5 2.9

November 9.5 4.1 2.5 2.9

December 9.8 4.1 2.5 3.3

Annual average 10.0 4.0 2.5 3.5

1

Items may not add to totals due to rounding.

Member

milk

Month deliveries

To fluid

milk

processors

Table 2―An example of a cooperative's milk in excess of demand by fluid

milk and manufacturing processors1

To

manufacturing

processors

Co-op milk in

excess of

sales

continued on page 40
20 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

cooperative of Hispanic immigrant business

owners that has created an authentic Latin

American marketplace in Minneapolis and

an online “virtual food hub” that helps local

food co-ops expand their customer base in

Virginia were among the co-ops saluted at USDA

headquarters on Oct. 19 as part of its annual Co-op Month

salute. The event was held to help increase awareness of the

vital role co-ops play in the nation. In attendance were

leaders and staff of many of the nation’s major co-op

associations, as well as USDA employees, many of whose

work includes serving and supporting co-ops.

Cooperatives are producer- and user-owned businesses

that give their members a stronger position in the

marketplace by multiplying the power of one by the power

of many,” Judith Canales, administrator for the Rural

Business-Cooperative Service of USDA Rural Development

said, reading from the Cooperative Month Proclamation

signed by Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack. Further, coops “represent democracy and capitalism at their best” and

“play a vital role in improving economic opportunity and the

quality of life in rural America,” she said.

USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Rural Development

Doug O’Brien focused his remarks on co-ops as a source of

jobs. “Co-ops are playing a role as our nation strives to

reduce high levels of unemployment by providing good jobs

for tens of thousands of people in the farm sector alone,” he

A

Clockwise from above: Judith Canales, administrator for the BusinessCooperative Programs of USDA Rural Development, presents a

certificate honoring Paul Hazen (center) for his support for USDA

Co-op Programs (he will be stepping down as president of the National

Cooperative Business Association). At right is Chad Parker, the new

deputy administrator of USDA Cooperative Programs; Matthew Mullen

provides information about USDA’s Rural Business-Cooperative Service

to Liz Bailey of the Cooperative Development Foundation; Jamie Villalaz

(left) and Enel Espinoza of the Latino Economic Development Center

discuss efforts to help Hispanic immigrants form new co-ops in

Minnesota; Kathleen Heron and Kaitlin Campbell pass out samples of

farm co-op products at the National Council of Farmer Cooperatives

booth. USDA photos by Dan Campbell

Co-ops saluted as

‘vital economic force’

at USDA event
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 21

said. U.S. agricultural and fishery cooperatives created 7,000

new jobs in 2010, boosting the number of jobs to 184,000 at

the nearly 2,400 agricultural co-ops surveyed.

O’Brien noted that through a number of USDA programs

— including Rural Cooperative Development Grants; ValueAdded Producer Grants; support for Small, Socially

Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers; and support for 1890s

universities — USDA Rural Development is continuing to

meet the needs of rural Americans, create the opportunity for

new jobs and support the cooperative business model.

“During the new fiscal year, and in coming years, we will

partner with other federal agencies — such as the Small

Business Administration — to link cooperatives with

potential investors, secure access to capital to help fund

growth and use opportunities created by the Rural Council

(headed by Secretary Vilsack) to network effectively and

promote opportunities for cooperatives to thrive,” he said.

Jamie Villalaz and Enel Espinoza of the Latino Economic

Development Center (LEDC) in Minneapolis discussed a

number of efforts their organization is spearheading in

Minnesota to help immigrants develop and expand their own

businesses. Mercado Central Co-op, for example, is a thriving

marketplace created by about 45 Hispanic business owners.

The business owners eventually used their success with

Mercado Central as a springboard to form LEDC, Villalaz

said.

Other LEDC efforts include helping to forge marketing

links between an organic farm and a group of Mexican food

restaurants looking for more local produce. LEDC also has

an active outreach program that strives to make Hispanic

people more aware of the co-op business model and how it

can help them achieve their goals through group action.

Molly Harris described how local food producers and coops in the Richmond, Va., area are able to post their product

availability online and take orders from customers using the

LuLu’s Local Foods website, which she created and runs.

Member-producers also take an active role in education and

community outreach. Farmers speak in classrooms and stage

“meet and greet” sessions on their farms to explain

production methods, food sustainability and nutrition issues.

The growers also work with a number of churches that

sponsor “Food and Faith” programs to help provide

nutritious food to needy people. LuLu’s Local Food and

LEDC have each been helped with financial and technical

assistance programs of USDA Rural Development.

Jennifer Bond provided an overview of eXtension, a

Cooperative Extension effort that has created an online

“cooperative community of practice,” which is developing

into a major “idea exchange” platform for academic

researchers, co-op and business development specialists, coop leaders, teachers and all others with an interest in

developing and improving cooperatives.

USDA’s Co-op Month event was also used to pay tribute

to one of the co-op world’s best friends: Paul Hazen, who

recently announced that he is stepping down as president of

the National Cooperative Business Association. Canales and

Chad Parker, the deputy administrator for USDA’s

Cooperative Programs office, presented Hazen with a special

certificate recognizing him for: “25 years of exemplary service

to, and support of, USDA Rural Development Cooperative

Programs in promoting the positive benefits of the

cooperative business model.”

Hazen said he will be devoting much of his time during

his final months as NCBA leader to helping promote the

worldwide observance of 2012 as the International Year of

the Cooperative.

Worldwide, Hazen said there are more than 1 billion

members of cooperatives, including 29,000 co-ops in the

United States with 120 million members. ■


24 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

By Jennifer Keeling Bond, Kellie Enns

and Bill Brockhouse

Editor’s note: Bond and Enns are assistant

professors in the Department of

Agricultural and Resource Economics at

Colorado State University. Brockhouse

retired in July as a co-op development

specialist with USDA’s Cooperative

Programs.

n response to the

growing demand for

locally grown and

sustainably produced

foods, two cooperatives

have taken root in the Rocky Mountain

region. The High Plains Food

Cooperative (HPFC) serves member

consumers and producers in a virtual

marketplace, using Internet-based sales.

The Colorado Farm and Art Market

(CFAM) builds relationships through

fostering personal contact between

growers and buyers at bi-weekly

farmers’ markets.

In this article, we share the stories of

how these organizations came to be,

what philosophies link the organizations

and how they created vibrant local

foods communities through

cooperation.

High Plains Food Cooperative:

Finding solid ground in a virtual

marketplace

In 2004, a group of mostly organic,

fresh and specialty produce growers in

Rawlins County, Kan., began to discuss

ways of coping with the physical

distances between potential customers

and their farms. Growers had to travel

long distances to reach numerous

farmers’ markets along the Front

Range, which was inefficient, expensive

and resulted in a larger “carbon

footprint” than the environmentally

minded growers desired.

The group considered teaming up

with a local food distributor to access

larger retail markets. However, doing so

would have maintained the physical

distance between the growers and endconsumers while potentially reducing

profit margins. A solution was needed

that would allow growers to foster close

relationships with customers while

growing and marketing their products

in a sustainable manner.

How to achieve these marketing

objectives came into clearer focus after

founding co-op members Chris and

Sherri Schmidt attended a regional

agricultural marketing workshop hosted

by leadership from the Kansas Farmers

Union and Ogallala Commons.

The workshop showcased the

Oklahoma Food Co-op (OFC), an

online community of producers and

consumers that is dedicated to

supporting local growers. Inspired by

the OFC example, the Schmidts and a

growing team of interested stakeholders

began to firm up plans for what would

become the High Plains Food

Cooperative (HPFC).

Like the Oklahoma cooperative,

HPFC would have an online presence

I

Mission-driven marketing

Rocky Mountain co-ops expand opportunities

for sustainable food production
aimed at uniting interests in locally

grown food and locally made products.

However, in addition to supporting

local producers, HPFC would also

reflect the desires of the original

Rawlins County growers to promote

food that was grown in an

environmentally sustainable manner

and to support socially responsible

business practices of stewardship and

cultural diversity and member

empowerment.

Consumer-centric philosophy

Three years after opening the co-op’s

“virtual doors” in 2008, producermembers now span three states

(Colorado, Nebraska and Kansas) and

the co-op’s online marketplace offers a

tremendous variety of seasonal

products. For a one-time membership

fee of $100, or an annual payment of

$40, the 150 HPFC consumer-members

have access to a catalogue of valueadded products that can be shipped to

the buyers’ home or delivered to a

nearby drop point for an additional fee.

HPFC also has a physical

distribution site in north Denver,

coincidentally at the confluence of three

neighborhoods designated as “food

deserts.” Food deserts are areas without

access to affordable, fresh food and are

common in many low-income urban

areas. The distribution site location

underscores a problem identified by the

initial founders of the HPFC: that

people need and deserve access to

quality, fresh food.

In addition to striving to provide

healthful products for consumermembers, HPFC is committed to

cultivating farmer-consumer

relationships and enhancing rural

sustainability. “On the website, we have

to write a story about our products —

why someone would want to buy them

and what’s the advantage,” says Laura

Reeser, a co-op member who sells herbs

and eggs. “This allows me to actually

develop a relationship with the

customers.”

In a sense, the website creates a

“virtual bridge” between producers and

consumers that encourages interactions

and transactions while also educating

buyers on sustainable production

practices.

Benefits of virtual marketing

While links with customers are

strengthened through HPFC, the

website has also assisted in fostering the

breadth of connections between isolated

producers and markets. The Denver

metro area includes 2.7 million people

with a wide variety of niche tastes. The

presence of HPFC’s network in the

region has allowed some producers to

grow their businesses.

Barbara Cooper, owner of Cooper

Kitchens in rural McDonald, Kan., says

the co-op affiliation and web presence

enabled her to “expand my production

by 25 percent because of all the orders

that come in from Denver. The website

gives us the opportunity to reach some

of those urban markets and sell our

fresh items, something we couldn’t do

by ourselves.”

Reeser found similar results. She was

able to triple the size of her egg and

herb business, working through the coop. Consumers in her local market were

not only very price sensitive, but they

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 25

Nearly 61 percent of responding fresh produce growers in Colorado are

interested in joining a cooperative to assist with reaching new customers...

Facing page: Serah Trobridge checks out an herb garden that is yielding products for the High

Plains Food Cooperative (HFPC); above: Anna Morton buys carrots at the Venetuccii Farms

booth at the Colorado Farms and Art Market (CFAM) in Colorado Springs. Photos courtesy

HPFC and CFAM
26 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

also didn’t have a “taste” for some of

her gourmet herbs, such as epazote,

sorrel, lime thyme and lovage. In the

Denver market, she found food

connoisseurs with more sophisticated

culinary pallets and a desire for her

specialty products.

Beyond market access, the online

cooperative provides a method for

simply staying in business and

connecting consumers to production

agriculture. “The co-op is an

opportunity for people to stay on the

farm...and for consumers to know what

food tastes like,” says Jo Hagney,

current HPFC treasurer and founding

co-chair of the co-op.

“We realized that even though

maybe we couldn’t produce a lot of

products, we had neighbors who could,”

adds HPFC President Chris Schmidt.

“By being able to market food products

to people either in the Front Range or

elsewhere in Colorado, HPFC is a way

of increasing our income and helping

out with the financial situation in our

area.”

Seeds of success

Key personnel who are willing to

sacrifice and serve the co-op are

essential to building a successful

business endeavor. “We started with

eight or so very dedicated people who

were interested in trying to get

something going — not for personal

gain, but to be able to help out

neighbors and friends by marketing a

product they have,” says Chris Schmidt,

reflecting on the dedication that has

allowed the fledging cooperative to stay

in business and grow in a crowded

market. The same individuals are still

supporting the cooperative and form

the organization’s “backbone,” he notes.

Mutual support is a unifying factor

for many of the co-op’s producers.

Their philosophical outlook, which is

widely promoted by the organization’s

founders, serves to strengthen

connections between the growers and

create a network of environment- and

health-conscious producers who are

enthusiastic about sharing nature’s

bounty with the public. Members are so

passionate about the organization’s

objectives that many volunteer their

time to ensure that deliveries are made,

bills are paid, and the day-to-day jobs

associated with running the cooperative

are completed.

In addition to a set of core values,

the founding members attribute the

organization’s early success to a variety

of strategic business decisions and a

realistic outlook. When asked what

advice they’d offer a producer who is

interested in forming a marketing

cooperative, Hagney cautions: “Find a

support system, because you cannot do

it all by yourself.”

While it may be challenging to

organize a complex new business and

difficult to wait through periods of

market adaptation, Yvonne Fields of

Double Beaver Hay Cattle offers

encouragement to others considering

establishing a new co-op. “Be patient,”

she says, “it takes a while

to build up customers and

find other producers.”

According to Hagney,

cooperative entrepreneurs

should also keep in mind

that “just about anything

is possible, if you have the

dedicated people who are

willing to put the effort

forth to develop the

market.”

For many fresh and

specialty food growers

along the Front Range,

HPFC serves as an

example of how to

successfully merge

philosophical and

economic interests in a

way that supports the

growing local food

movement. With

consumer demand for

value-added food products

on the rise and growing

interest in sustainable

agriculture, HPFC

appears poised to

capitalize on market

momentum and create

real member benefits

from a virtual marketplace.

Colorado Farm and Art Market:

Market with a mission

Frustrated with a lack of managerial

support for local and organic producers

at a popular Colorado Springs market,

growers banded together to form a new

organization in 2003 that would

promote their distinctive products. The

mission of this new association would

be to educate consumers about local

food systems and promote the message

of sustainable agriculture while putting

a “face” on area farmers.

In the early days of the market,

growers were approached by a group of

Southern Colorado artisans and asked

to form a joint venture. The proposed

organization would showcase not only

Dan Fields of Double Beaver Hay and Cattle company (also

seen driving a horse-drawn wagon on facing page) works on

a list of his upcoming deliveries. He and his wife, Yvonne, have

been a driving force in the High Plains Food Cooperative. “Be

patient – it takes a while to build up customers and find other

producers,” says Yvonne.
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 27

fresh, locally grown produce, but also

high-quality regional art in a variety of

media, providing a multi-sensory

experience that would appeal to a wide

range of patrons.

This meeting of the minds resulted

in the formation of what is now called

the Colorado Farm and Art Market

(CFAM), a cooperative of 40 vendors

and numerous consumer-members.

Community of customers

On a typical Wednesday afternoon in

September, a wide cross-section of

Colorado Springs residents can be

found shopping at the CFAM in

America the Beautiful Park. The market

is easily accessible from Interstate

Highway 25 and draws crowds from

nearby downtown, the University of

Colorado-Colorado Springs, the U.S.

Air Force Academy and local

neighborhoods. Young families,

students, “urban-hipsters” and retirees

mingle among booths overflowing with

the season’s offerings.

Anna Morton, a student, explains

that she prefers local, fresh produce and

feels that local farmers create a

welcoming experience. To better serve

their growing customer base, CFAM’s

board of directors organized an

additional Saturday market that is now

held in northern Colorado Springs.

The Saturday market attracts a great

number of families and patrons, who,

on average, are slightly older and have

higher incomes, relative to the

downtown market goers.

The Slow Food Movement and

Colorado State University Extension

are among those that make regular

appearances and contribute to an

atmosphere of learning and discovery at

the market. The Colorado Springs Slow

Food chapter is part of an international

group of food enthusiasts who are

dedicated to “sustainable local

agriculture” and to “counteracting fast

eating and a fast food lifestyle.”

Members encourage others to literally

slow down to enjoy the food they eat

and participate in local food traditions.

The group regularly offers samples to

CFAM patrons using locally grown

products available for sale at the

market, thereby promoting vendors’

goods and providing education on

serving suggestions.

Member outlook:

Dan Hobbs

Grower Dan Hobbs helped to found

CFAM in 2003 as a new kind of

farmers’ market, one that was

“democratic and sold organic food

direct from those that produce it

locally.” A fifth-generation Coloradoan

who farms organic vegetables and openpollinated seeds in Avondale, Hobbs is

also executive director of the Organic

Seed Alliance and a former cooperative

specialist with the Rocky Mountain

Farmers Union (RMFU).

He brought a wide range of

experience and expertise to CFAM. In

particular, through his role with

RMFU, Hobbs was able to assist the

group in forming a business and

marketing plan while also finding legal

help to get the group incorporated. The

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union

Cooperative Economic Development

Center provided in-kind assistance and

helped CFAM to secure a USDA Rural

Business Enterprise Grant (for more

information on this program, visit:

www.rurdev.gov, or call 800-670-6553).

While seeking technical assistance,

Hobbs and other members solidified

their business philosophy. An

educational mission was selected with

the goal of informing consumers of the

differences between store-bought

produce and locally grown, organic

products that are purchased direct from

the producer.

The commitment to supplying valueadded produce sets CFAM apart from

other area farmers’ markets that offer

conventional produce. Not surprisingly,

the produce available at CFAM often

commands a premium. Through

education and the building of personal

relationships, Hobbs says consumers are

“more willing to pay a higher price for

locally grown and organic produce that

is not sourced from a grocery store

chain.” In this manner, the educational

mission serves to support small-scale

farmers and to contribute to sustainable

agriculture.

Area chefs who are attracted by the

desire to support local agriculture and

sourcing fresh, diverse products are

patronizing CFAM in increasing

numbers. The strengthening

relationship between restaurants and

market vendors has led to a chef’s tour

and increased direct sales.

Despite these positive developments,

Hobbs believes that wider acceptance of

local and organic produce is hindered

by growers’ inability to supply fresh

product year-round. As such,

distribution has primarily been limited

to “white tablecloth” restaurants that

specialize in seasonal dishes and/or

strongly promote local partnerships

“Start small and follow your dream.

If you believe in the concept,

get in there and push for it.”
28 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

with producers.

To capitalize on demand during the

limited growing season, Hobbs and

other vendors try to keep abreast of

trends in consumer taste and

preferences. Recent interest in “openpollinated” or “true-to-type” produce

offers a promising opportunity for

growers, such as the multiple varieties

of heirloom garlic marketed by Hobbs.

Other areas of potential growth

include biodynamic, or so-called

“beyond organic,” produce, grass-fed

beef and raw milk. Although consumer

interest has been somewhat limited, at

least one producer believes that through

education, patrons will come to

appreciate these value-added products

in greater numbers.

Member outlook:

Doug Wiley

For more than 20 years, Doug Wiley

has farmed on his family’s Larga Vista

Ranch in Boone, Colo. As proponents

of sustainable agricultural systems,

Wiley and his wife, Kim, strive to

create an agricultural ecosystem that is

in harmony with the natural

environment and surrounding

community. “The greatest gift we can

leave our kids is productive and fertile

soils,” says Wiley.

Educating consumers about the

benefits of biodynamic produce, grassfed beef and milk is a passion for the

Wiley family. As CFAM members, they

are able to tap into the organization’s

resources to help share information

about sustainable agriculture and the

“need to develop markets for local

foods.” Enhanced local and national

awareness of the benefits of value-added

and locally grown products has

increased the number of consumers

demanding the Wiley’s goods, and they

service a growing and loyal customer

base.

To make food pick-up more

convenient for their primarily Colorado

Springs-based customers, the Wiley

family now brings raw (or

unpasteurized) cow’s milk to CFAM

during the market season. By state law,

raw milk can only be provided to cowshare owners who purchase a portion of

a cow’s production in advance.

By selling at CFAM and direct to

restaurants and visitors at the ranch,

Wiley is able to create personal

relationships with customers and to

teach them about the importance of

respecting the environment and

supporting local growers. Through

education, he has found that customers

have come to appreciate the Wiley’s

products even more and that they in

turn share what they have learned with

friends and relatives.

This grassroots marketing campaign

has been an effective way to grow

demand. However, Wiley has found

that seasonality and limited supply

create natural restrictions on the scope

of Larga Vista’s operations. As a small

farmer, it is “hard to make ends meet,”

he says.

With limited production of organic

produce and grass-fed beef, the Wiley’s

operation is too small to attract orders

from grocery stores. While restaurants

can provide an additional source of

demand, sales through CFAM and

direct from the ranch are the most

important sources of revenue.

“It is the people that make the

difference and make the work

worthwhile, says Wiley, reflecting on

the hard work necessary to make Larga

Vista Ranch profitable.

CFAM’s community of customers

In the years since CFAM’s formation

in 2003, the market has succeeded in

sustaining itself in the midst of strong

competition and in educating a loyal

and growing customer base. In

particular, board members take pride in

their efforts to reach out to low-income

families and the market’s ability to

spread a philosophy of food as pleasure

and sustainable agricultural systems as a

means of building stronger

communities.

Associations with like-minded

groups, such as the Slow Food

Movement, have assisted the young

market to gain distinction as have

relationships with area restaurants that

promote local and organic food.

Growing consumer knowledge about

the benefits of eating healthier,

purchasing locally and supporting

environmentally friendly agricultural

practices have also assisted the

cooperative. However, it is the

“community of customers” that sustains

the organization and to whom the

board looks to for continued success.

Growing markets through

education and access

Despite differences in business

models, HPFC operates “virtually”

while CFAM markets take place at

multiple locations in the Colorado

Springs area; both cooperatives share a

desire to promote healthful eating and

closer connections with the land and

farming families.

HPFC markets products from a

diverse multi-state area, giving the

organization an advantage over

traditional farmers’ markets that draw

vendors from relatively smaller

geographic areas. CFAM strives to

provide in-depth food education and

sensory experiences for market patrons

and to build community among patrons

and vendors. Significant increases in

market sales have demonstrated that the

different approaches taken by the coops have resulted in similar positive

outcomes.

Growing popularity with market

patrons may, in part, be a result of

increased producer participation. Both

HPFC and CFAM have added many

growers to their membership roles in

recent years. New members may be

inexperienced and looking to break into

the local foods movement or established

enterprises seeking new outlets for their

products. Regardless of background,

partnering with either cooperative has

the potential to leverage individual

marketing efforts.

A recent USDA Rural Developmentfunded study (conducted by the authors

of this article) found that nearly 61

percent of responding fresh produce

growers in Colorado are interested in

joining a cooperative to assist with

reaching new customers, while more

continued on page 40
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 29

Is ‘local’ enough?

Keeping customers happy in farmer co-op stores

By Norbert Wilson, Thomas Hall, Deacue Fields

e-mail: WILSONL@auburn.edu

Editor’s note: Norbert Wilson is associate professor and Deacue

Fields is associate professor and Extension economist in the

Department of Ag Economics and Rural Sociology at Auburn

University in Alabama. Thomas Hall is Extension economist with

the Alabama Cooperative Extension System and formally with the

Alabama Farmers Cooperative.

n the fall of 2007 and spring of 2008, we

traveled around Alabama to talk with

managers of Alabama Farmers Cooperative

(AFC) member cooperative stores. We were

on a mission to understand why and how

some of the farmer co-op stores had converted to retail

stores.

At the time, we knew of co-op stores that had made the

transition to more retail-oriented stores because they had a

large percentage of non-farm clientele. In addition to the

traditional feed and farm supplies, these facilities handled

some combination of a garden center supplies, pet supplies,

farm clothing, lawn equipment, hunting supplies, etc. The

stores also offered such additional services as pet grooming

and lawn and garden equipment maintenance and repair.

As we met with the managers, we learned a great deal

about the evolving customer base of these stores. Many of the

new customers were part-time and hobby farmers. Some

were new members of the community with little experience

taking care of a few of acres of land. These customers were

coming to the stores with problems and questions. Wildlife

enthusiasts, for example, came in looking for salt licks, seed

and fishing products. The renovations were an effort to keep

up with these new customers.

While the customer base was evolving, farmers still played

an important role in the life and membership of these

cooperative stores. As we talked to more managers, we heard

a refrain about the importance of customer service. The

managers knew that the needs of the customer were

important, especially in light of the diversity of competitors,

including the “big box” retail stores and the Internet,

cropping up around their stores. These retailers offered

tough competition on prices. As one customer said, AFC

member cooperative stores are preferred because they are

local.

However, is local enough to keep customers coming back?

In our discussions, none of the managers mentioned

conducting efforts to evaluate customer satisfaction or

customer service. They mentioned a great deal of anecdotal

evidence, but nothing empirical came to light. We began to

see this dearth of information as an opportunity for us to

contribute to the well-being of farmer cooperative stores in

I
30 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

our state.

We thus refocused our investigation on a more expansive

concept than just customer service. Through an analysis of

service quality in farm retail stores, we hoped to better assist

stores in meeting the needs of their customer base.

Alabama Farmers Cooperative background

Our test case, Alabama Farmers Cooperative (AFC), was

established in 1936 and represents one of three regional,

state-based cooperatives still in existence in the United

States. AFC currently has 37 member cooperatives with 90

retail locations. Despite numerous challenges, AFC has

consistently used innovative approaches to maintain

competitiveness.

AFC is a regional, federated supply and marketing

agricultural cooperative that provides its members with

products and services. AFC has a long tradition of being

deeply involved with the farmers of Alabama and the

panhandle of Florida. Since its beginning, AFC has grown to

include more than 2,300 employees and has become one of

the largest farmer-owned agriculture-related businesses in the

Southeast, with annual revenue of more than $300 million

(Allen 2009, AFC 2009).

Service quality

Yes, the customer is always right — and in every way!

According to research findings, service quality is multifaceted

and subsumes the concept of customer service. Customers

perceive services — which includes everything that a business

offers customers — in terms of its quality and how satisfied

they are with their overall experience (Zeithaml, 2000). For

example, service quality includes having a product, when a

customer wants it, at the price that she or he expects.

Likewise, service quality includes having staff members

who are knowledgeable, competent and courteous and who

can assist customers with their purchases. Service quality also

includes store policies on credit cards and hours of operation

that meet the customers’ needs. All of these factors and more

constitute service quality. Given the breadth of the concept of

service quality, all store employees, managers and cooperative

board members should be interested in evaluating service

quality, not just customer service.

A firm’s prerequisite for success is its ability to deliver

superior service (Parasuraman et al.,1988). To gauge a firm’s

service quality, one must be able to measure consumers’

perception of quality. In order to have an objective approach

to measure perceived quality, Parasuraman and colleagues

developed an empirical method dubbed SERVQUAL.

Originally, SERVQUAL was not oriented to retail

establishments, so Dabholkar et al. (1996) developed and

empirically validated a scale to measure retail service quality.

In developing the instrument, these researchers interviewed

customers in retail establishments and recorded the thought

process of these customers during shopping (they followed

customers around the store as they shopped).

In combining these findings with the work that had been

done in the past with SERVQUAL, they created the Retail

Service Quality Scale (RSQS). RSQS includes 28 items, of

which 17 were derived from SERVQUAL and the additional

11 items were added from existing literature and qualitative

research. Dabholkar and colleagues concluded that RSQS

was suited to measure a mix of services and goods, like those

found in a specialty or department store.

RSQS has five dimensions:

1. Physical aspects: Store layout, appearance and

convenience;

2. Reliability: Keeping promises and performing services

correctly (doing it right);

3. Personal interaction: Personnel being courteous, helpful

and inspiring confidence in customers;

4. Problem solving: The handling of returns and exchanges,

as well as complaints; and

5. Policy: Policy on quality of merchandise, parking,

operation hours and credit cards.

In light of this model development, we developed a study

that sought to provide management of local farm supply

cooperative stores with suggestions that can help them meet

the service quality needs of their customer base. Going into

the study, we believed that certain customer segments had

different perceptions of service quality. Hence, perceptions

were examined relative to demographic and socioeconomic

characteristics of the member-patrons. We measured the

customers’ perceptions of service quality by using a scale

instrument containing items from the RSQS.

Questionnaire

With approval from AFC member cooperatives and

Auburn University, we sent out surveys based on RSQS. The

survey contained 28 items from the RSQS scale, as proposed

by Dabholkar and colleagues. An additional item was added

which asked the respondent about patronage paid to the

patron from the local cooperative. A seven-point Likert scale

— where “7” signified “Strongly Agree” and “1” signified

“Strongly Disagree” — was used with the 29 items.

Respondents were asked to provide demographic and

socioeconomic information. For example, we asked

respondents: “When you shop at this co-op store, what best

describes you?” The respondent was to check one of four

options: farmer, hobby farmer, homeowner or wildlife

enthusiast.

Our findings

A total of 301 surveys were collected out of the 5,000

mailed. Of those, 276 were deemed usable, which equates to

a usable response rate of 5.5 percent. Of these 276 survey

responses, 92.7 percent said their race was white. The

youngest respondent was 25 and the oldest was 87. Of the

respondents, 85.5 percent were male. The median age was 60

for men, 55 for women.

For education level, 34 percent said they had either a
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 31

college or advanced degree, while 38.7 percent had “some

college” and 26 percent had either a high school education or

less. Because most of the participants identified themselves as

farmers, we compared our results with those of the U.S.

Census of Agriculture, 2007. The census showed that the

average age of Alabama farmers is 57.6, that 91.8 percent are

white and that 84.8 percent of the famers are male. Though

our response rate is low, our survey reflects the demographics

of Alabama agriculture.

Using a statistical technique called “principle component

analysis” (PCA), we were able to group 185 respondents into

one of the three groups, which mimic the five groups of

RSQS. Our results suggest that customers of farmer

cooperatives may approach these retailers differently than

other retailers. The groupings reflect customers whose

responses suggest a strong interest in, or concern for,

particular service quality areas.

The “customer service and personal interaction” group is

the largest of the three groups, comprising 58.9 percent of

the sample. This group includes the largest proportion of

homeowners. Based on further analysis, we could see that

self-identified homeowners are 28 percent more likely to be

in this category than the other two groups. Likewise, younger

member-patrons tend to be in this group.

The “appearance and accessibility” group is the second

largest group, representing 24.9 percent of respondents. It

includes the greatest concentration of farmers (who usually

depend on farming for most of their income) and hobby

farmers. Better educated individuals in this group are 9.3

percent more likely to express concern for appearance and

accessibility than the other areas.

The smallest group is the “policies and reliability” group,

representing 21.6 percent of the sample. It includes the

largest percentage of self-reported wildlife enthusiasts and

older member-patrons. These member-patrons are 24

percent more likely to express concerns of or interest in

policies and reliability.

Recommendations

Based on the groupings and

tendencies of the customers

within these groups, we have

developed recommendations for

farmer co-op stores.

Homeowners who shop at

AFC member cooperative stores

tend to be most interested in

high-quality customer service and

personal interaction. These

member-patrons, relative to

others, tend to place greater

emphasis on individual attention

from employees who are

courteous, professional, prompt

and knowledgeable. These

member-patrons also want high-quality merchandise and

interactions with staff resulting in error-free sales, returns

and exchanges. Given the dominance of this group, emphasis

on maintaining high-quality customer service and personal

interactions is the clearest “takeaway” from this study.

College-educated customers and farmers who are

dependent on farming for income, prefer stores that are

clean, accessible and convenient. As this group is not as

dominant as the first, appearance and accessibility may not be

the top priority for a store.

The least dominant group includes wildlife enthusiasts and

older member-patrons who tended to be more concerned

about store policies and reliability as important components

of service quality. A core feature of this interest is to have

convenient operating hours, the ability to use major credit

cards, availability of financing options and to receive

adequate patronage. However, this group and the

“appearance and accessibility” group are less dominant,

leaving “service quality/customer service and personal

interaction” as the key area for co-ops to focus on.

Not only is the customer right, but so are the managers

that we interviewed. Of the components of service quality,

managers are most focused on customer service and personal

interactions. Our findings show that that the interest in

customer service and personal interactions is predicated on

customer demographics, and some member-patrons are more

interested in other aspects of service quality beyond customer

service and personal interactions.

While our findings are limited to the member-patrons that

we surveyed, they are indicative of the need of local farmer

cooperatives to pay attention to customer service. However,

store appearance, policies and reliability are other facets of

service quality that will keep customers coming back.

Editors note: For article references, e-mail the author at:

WILSONL@auburn.edu. ■

Store layout, appearance and convenience are key aspects in determining the appeal of a farm

supply store for members. Photos courtesy Alabama Farmers Cooperative.
32 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

The ‘co-op’ brand can help strengthen links

with members and consumers

By Bruce J. Reynolds, Ag Economist

Cooperative Programs

USDA Rural Development

e-mail: bruce.reynolds@wdc.usda.gov

he first U.S. census of

all types of cooperatives

was mandated by

Congress in 2006 and

completed in 2009 by

researchers at the University of

Wisconsin. The resulting report —

Research on the Economic Impact of

Cooperatives — identified more than

29,000 U.S. cooperatives. It provides

data on cooperatives in different sectors

of the economy and documents the

national “footprint of the cooperative

brand.”

The purpose of a brand is to identify

source and to signify positive

associations in the minds of consumers

and producers — the brand’s good will.

The term “cooperative” or “co-op” can

function in a manner analogous to a

brand as well. The cooperative brand

identifies the user as democratically

owned and controlled by the members.

The cooperative brand is, to some

extent, a “public good” that is available

to benefit anyone who seeks active

membership and participation in it, or

to non-member customers who have a

preference for dealing with

cooperatives. The cooperative brand

informs market participants and the

public that cooperatives have widely

dispersed ownership among individuals

or businesses with economic interests

that are aligned with customers to

provide reliable products or services.

Cooperatives maximize earnings for

members but are not designed as

investment assets to be bought and sold.

The cooperative brand has value tied to

the extent to which it succeeds in

conveying a special trust to members, to

non-member customers and to the

general public.

For many cooperatives, it makes

sense to identify themselves in a concise

and descriptive way that either defines

what they do or where they are located,

using one or two words.

There is not a pressing need to

include the term “cooperative” in their

names when their organizational status

is understood by the relevant

population from which they draw

members.

In fact, some cooperatives have

acquired firms with international

trademarks and have greatly enhanced

the reputation of those brands with

their new status as representing farmerowned businesses.

An example is the acquisition of the

Welch’s grape juice company and its

name brand by the National Grape

Cooperative Association. The Welch’s

brand has been successfully promoted

with a variety of marketing programs,

including emphasis on its farmerownership status (http://www.welchs

.com/about-welchs/farmers/davenichols).

The cooperative brand complements

the trade names of member associations

and their specific brands of products

and services. Much of the public,

whether non-member customers or

potential members, may not be familiar

with cooperatives and their attributes.

For this reason, many organizations

have discovered that marketing their

cooperative brand can be advantageous,

as discussed in an article — “Marketing

the Co-op Brand” — that appeared in

the Cooperative Business Journal (MarchApril 2006 issue). The article refers to

the “.coop” domain as one of many

initiatives for marketing the cooperative

brand.

T

Making the connection
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 33

Brand awareness

Farmer cooperatives have had a long

tradition in the United States and have

a substantial share of activity in the

agricultural economy, typically

accounting for 25-30 percent of the

nation’s farm marketings (USDA,

Agricultural Cooperative Statistics,

2009). As shown in the census project,

there is substantial activity in a few

sectors besides agriculture, such as the

role of credit unions in retail banking

and in the insurance industry, in which

mutual associations have a strong

financial position, as well as in several

other sectors of the economy.

The level of public awareness of

cooperatives is difficult to measure. A

belief that cooperatives have potential

for improving economic conditions

worldwide, however, is one of the

motivations for the United Nations

(UN) designation of 2012 as the year of

cooperatives. This action by the UN

will contribute to more awareness of

the cooperative brand.

Branding co-op joint ventures

Agricultural cooperatives often

formed joint ventures as federated

cooperatives prior to the 1980s. There

are at least 38 relatively large federated

cooperatives (a cooperative of cooperatives) in operation today. Recent joint

ventures by cooperatives have predominantly been organized as limited

liability companies (LLCs), even

though a cooperative federation would

work as well, particularly when access

to equity capital is not a constraint.

Some agricultural cooperatives are

also involved in joint ventures with

non-cooperative business partners. But

even in these cases, the shared business

could be organized as a cooperative. A

joint venture organized as an agricultural cooperative with noncooperative members, however, would

likely lack the Capper-Volstead advantages of limited exemptions from

anti-trust.

Based on preliminary results of

USDA’s 2010 survey of more than 2,300

agricultural cooperatives, 216 co-ops

reported involvement in 305 different

joint ventures. About 110 of these joint

ventures include non-cooperative

business partners.

Like any business, the degree of

success among these co-op joint

ventures varies greatly. In general,

however, they tend to provide an

economic gain through greater scale for

pricing power, risk sharing and reduced

duplication in personnel and assets.

There are also certain disadvantages to

joint ventures, specifically in

complicating the assignment of

intellectual property rights, such as

trademarks and patents.

Joint ventures may have drawbacks

for cooperative development. In some

instances, joint ventures serve

customers who have potential to be

members of a cooperative instead. To

that extent, opportunities for new

cooperative formation are diminished.

Many agricultural joint ventures

operate in wholesale types of markets

where a “cooperative” identity might

not carry much value for their customer

firms or service providers. There are

exceptions, as when customers —

particularly food or ingredient

businesses — may prefer buying from

organizations with direct links to

farmers and ranchers. For serving such

customers, cooperatives operating in

joint ventures can pursue branding

strategies that identify their businesses

as owned by farmers.

Branding strategies should not be

neglected, especially when organizing

to serve customers who have a potential

to become members of either the joint

venture, if formed as a cooperative, or

of cooperatives that are partners in the

business. In recent years, some

agricultural cooperatives have been

operating joint ventures that deal

directly with farmers and ranchers.

Each cooperative partner has its own

membership, and in some cases the

joint venture is organized to provide

services for non-member farmers and

ranchers. In other cases, cooperative

joint venture partners combine their

operations for members under one

name, as if they had all merged. But

they maintain their separate memberships, directors and distributions of

patronage dividends. Because all

partners are cooperatives, these joint

ventures promote the benefits of

cooperative membership.

When cooperatives combine their

services for members under one name,

but have non-cooperative firms as

partners, the promotion of cooperative

values and benefits tends to be lost.

These cooperatives function as holding

companies for ownership of the

operating joint venture entities. Rights

to their trade-name, trademarks, or

service marks may be abandoned due to

not being used in commerce.

Although the original members are

still patrons and receive dividends, the

cooperative brand can be diminished.

The partner cooperatives in these joint

ventures are open to new members, but

after a few years of operating under the

joint venture trade name with noncooperatives as partners, a new

generation of farmers may not develop

an appreciation for belonging to a

cooperative.

An alternative is to use a separate

name for the joint venture’s legal and

tax filings only, so that cooperative

identities can be maintained.

Identifying as co-ops

Cooperatives have the potential to

benefit farmers, consumers and

workers. A major obstacle to bringing

their potential to fruition is a general

lack of knowledge about co-ops by the

public. The coming year of recognition

for cooperatives by the U.N. may

provide more familiarity. Continued

efforts by cooperatives in marketing the

co-op brand will benefit them and

increase the interest of others to organize similar member-owned businesses.

Even cooperatives without large

volume dealings in major retail markets

can cumulatively improve awareness of

the co-op brand by displaying and

promoting their identity as memberowned businesses. With the economic

pressures to form alliances, maintaining

a cooperative identity need not be lost

when organizing and participating in

joint ventures. ■
34 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

Newsline

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

Co-op developments, coast to coast

2012 Co-op Hall of Fame

inductees announced

Four outstanding cooperative leaders

will receive the cooperative community’s highest honor when they are

inducted into the Cooperative Hall of

Fame next spring. The 2012 inductees

are: cooperative educator Michael

Cook; cooperative agri-business leader

William Davisson; consumer cooperative developer Bill Gessner; and

cooperative banker Charles Snyder.

These cooperative leaders will be

recognized at the annual Cooperative

Hall of Fame dinner and induction

ceremony at the National Press Club in

Washington, D.C., on May 2. In

conjunction with the dinner, a public

forum will be held that afternoon,

focusing on topics related to the United

Nation’s declaration of 2012 as the

International Year of the Cooperative.

“The roster of the Cooperative Hall

of Fame tells the story of the U.S.

cooperative community through the

lives and accomplishments of extraordinary individuals,” says Gasper

Kovach Jr., board chair of the

Cooperative Development Foundation

(CDF), which administers the Hall of

Fame. “Induction to the Cooperative

Hall of Fame is reserved for those who

have made genuinely heroic

contributions to the cooperative

community.”

Those selected (and the co-op

sectors they work in) for induction in

2012 are:

• Michael Cook (Education) is the

Robert D. Partridge Endowed

Professor in Cooperative Leadership

and executive director of The

Graduate Institute of Cooperative

Leadership (GICL) at the University

of Missouri-Columbia. Cook’s applied

research on the role of cooperatives in

the changing global marketplace —

combined with his writing, consulting

and cooperative business experience

— has enabled him to develop

educational materials, classroom

curricula and a portfolio of business

advisory services that have provided a

generation of cooperative leaders with

the tools to be more effective

managers of cooperative business

enterprises. He has also done

extensive international cooperative

development work.

• William Davisson (Agriculture and

Farm Credit) recently retired after 12

years as CEO of GROWMARK Inc.

He focused on sales and improved

operations, leading GROWMARK

through a period of strong growth,

including the top three income years

in the cooperative’s history. He

recognized the value of co-op

partnerships and joint ventures in an

increasingly competitive industry and

is credited with creating an innovative

co-op structure that led to improved

cash patronage flow back to

GROWMARK members.

• Bill Gessner (Consumer Goods &

Services) is a

cooperative developer

and member of the

CDS Consulting

Cooperative. Gessner’s

involvement in the

food cooperative

community has

spanned 35 years, and

he is credited with

having helped

transform the food coop community from a

hodgepodge of

individual stores into

an integrated, values-driven national

community of consumer-owned retail

groceries that has changed the way

America thinks about food. In

addition to extensive mentoring and

consulting work, he is credited with

helping to establish the Cooperative

Grocers Information Network

(CGIN), the National Cooperative

Cook Davisson Gessner Snyder
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 35

Grocers Association (NCGA) and the

CDS Consulting Cooperative.

• Charles Snyder (Banking and Co-op

Development) is president and CEO

of National Cooperative Bank (NCB),

where he began in 1983 as corporate

vice president and chief financial

officer, being promoted to his current

position in 1992. Snyder has played a

transformational role in navigating

the early years of the bank’s existence

and re-positioned NCB to be the

complex financial institution it is

today, providing full-service banking

services to cooperative enterprises.

He is responsible for NCB’s

commitment to “mission banking,”

and he has played leadership roles in

promoting the growth of the

purchasing/shared services co-op

sector, the establishment of the

dot.coop domain name and the

development of successful marketing

pieces, such as the annual Co-op 100,

which gives cooperatives valuable

exposure to new audiences.

The Hall of Fame gallery is on

display in the offices of the National

Cooperative Business Association in

Washington, D.C., and is online at:

www.heroes.coop. For induction dinner

information, contact CDF at 703-302-

8097, or: tbuen@cdf.coop.

Paul Hazen stepping

down at NCBA

After 25 years with the National

Cooperative Business Association,

including 12 as its president and CEO,

Paul Hazen has announced that he is

stepping down from the post.

“I have enjoyed working for NCBA

and the cooperative movement, but the

greatest benefit has been getting to

know the people and their stories,”

Hazen said in a letter to members. “I

have learned that cooperators all over

the world — whether in the U.S., Brazil

or in Zambia — are all united because

of the same cooperative principles and

values. That is our greatest strength.”

He went on to call NCBA a “vibrant

and growing organization with a strong

experienced staff.” With cooperatives

around the globe preparing to celebrate

the 2012 International Year of Cooperatives, he said “the timing is right for me

to move on to the next chapter in my

career. I will remain at NCBA until a

successor is selected in early 2012.”

“I want to thank the NCBA staff,

board of directors and membership for

all the support they have provided to

me. It has been a privilege to be a

leader of NCBA. I hope to remain

active in the cooperative movement and

continue my contributions to

cooperation.”

Agri-Mark names

Stammer new CEO

Richard Stammer became the new

CEO of the Agri-Mark dairy

cooperative Nov. 1. He has worked for

the Methuen, Mass.-based co-op for the

past 29 years, serving most recently as

the co-op’s chief operating officer and

president of the co-op’s Cabot and

McCadam branded business. Stammer

has been responsible for the growth of

Cabot from a small Vermont brand to

an award-winning national brand.

In April of this year, Paul P. Johnston

announced his plans to retire after 47

years at the cooperative, the last 35

years as CEO. Since that time, the

organization’s board has worked with a

search firm to identify qualified

candidates for Agri-Mark’s top

management position.

“After a thorough, national search,

the board of directors is confident we

have selected the best person to lead

our cooperative, ensuring its continued

success,” says Board Chairman Neal

Rea, a dairy farmer from Cambridge,

N.Y. Rea notes that Stammer’s wide

range of co-op experience includes

government relations, milk marketing,

consumer sales/marketing and plant

operations. “We recognize, and are

proud of, the role Rich has played to

get us where we are today, and the

board is confident that we will have

continued growth and profitability

under his leadership,” Rea adds.

“We have great farmer-members,

employees and great brands. We’re set

for continued growth and profitability

in the future,” Stammer says. “My goal

is to continue to move us forward and

further improve an already great

company and great cooperative."

“We have a very complex business,”

says Vermont dairy farmer Paul Percy

of Stowe, Vt., one of the 14 dairy

farmers who serve on the co-op’s board.

“We operate four processing plants

throughout the region that act as local

outlets for member milk and, at the

same time, support our large, national

wholesale and retail businesses. Rich

knows the whole business inside and

out, from one end to the other.”

Agri-Mark had $780 million in 2010

sales from the sale of its member milk,

cheese and dairy products. Rea says that

the past five years have been

the most profitable in the

history of the cooperative, and

Johnston leaves “with a great

legacy and with great

appreciation from both

members and employees

alike.”

Wegner to lead

Darigold

Jim Wegner has been

picked to succeed retiring

John Underwood as president

and CEO of Northwest Dairy

Association (NDA) and Darigold. The

selection was announced to the Seattle,

Wash.-based co-op’s 550 memberowners and 1,600 employees in July.

Wegner, previously Darigold’s senior

vice president of technical services,

assumed his new role on Aug. 1.

Underwood is serving as special

executive to the board and will assist

Stammer Wegner
36 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

with the transition.

Wegner has 35 years of experience in

the dairy industry. In addition to his

executive roles at Darigold, he spent 28

years at a national dairy company where

he was director of dairy operations,

overseeing its U.S. and Canadian dairy

plants. Wegner has served on the board

for many state and national dairy

industry organizations and has been an

effective national voice in negotiating

dairy policy.

“We have a tremendous story to tell.

NDA/Darigold is much more than just

a regional dairy cooperative,” Wenger

says. “While well known in the region

for our Darigold-label products, we also

have a large export business and have

become a key player overseas as a

supplier of high-quality dairy

ingredients.”

Darigold’s annual sales exceed $2

billion per year, he notes, and the coop’s producers “help feed the world by

generating more than 8 billion pounds

of milk each year.”

“Jim has been a key figure in

improving and supporting Darigold’s

plants and has shown exemplary

leadership in the areas of safety, quality,

waste reduction and productivity,”

Board Chairman Jim Werkhoven says.

He also saluted Underwood, who has

been with the organization for nearly

30 years, the last seven as president and

CEO.

“John was instrumental in developing Darigold’s core purpose and vision,

reinvigorating the Darigold brand and

has been a champion of strategic

planning and continuous improvement

initiatives,” Werkhoven says. “He has

led the organization to dramatic

operational efficiencies and recordsetting returns for the cooperative’s

member-owners. We extend our

warmest appreciation for John’s longterm commitment to Darigold’s success

and wish him all the best in his

retirement.”

Almonds build good

will in East Africa

Jim and Joyce Mead, almond

growers from Chico, Calif., live worlds

apart from the Maasai people of East

Africa, a semi-nomadic tribe that has

resided on the border of Kenya and

Tanzania since the 19th century. The

Maasai herd cattle, sheep and goats as

sources of income and for food.

Before leaving for Africa, the Mead’s

tour guide said it would be appropriate

to bring gifts for the Maasai children —

items such as hats, candy, coloring

books and notebooks, crayons and

pencils would all be well received, they

were told. The Meads, as life-long Blue

Diamond members (Jim’s father was

among the 230 founders of the co-op)

decided to bring packets of their co-op’s

Smokehouse almonds.

“I’ve seen [photos of] almonds on

top of Kilimanjaro, on top of Everest

and at the Great Wall, so we decided to

take them to East Africa!” says Jim.

Their tour group met the Maasai at an

entrance to Amboseli National Park, a

gated reserve where the Maasai live. As

the tour bus pulled up, the tribe lined

up, shoulder-to-shoulder, to greet them.

The warriors performed a traditional

dance, accentuated by very high

jumping.

“Close to 75 children, age two

through 8th grade, were lined up, quiet

as can be, waiting to see us,” Joyce says.

Every child received a packet of almonds. For the Meads, the decision to

share Blue Diamond almonds with the

Maasai was a way of connecting across

cultural and geographic boundaries to,

as Jim explains, “extend Blue Diamond’s

reach across the globe.”

Baylor University freshman Bekah

Burroughs and her father, who grows

almonds in California’s Central Valley,

also recently shared Blue Diamond

almonds with children in Tanzania.

They were on a teaching mission at an

orphanage affiliated with a nonprofit

group.

“We wanted to take something

Children at an orphanage in Tanzania enjoy packets of Blue Diamond almonds,

provided by visiting co-op members from California. Photo courtesy Bekah Burroughs

and Blue Diamond
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 37

representing California that was

nutritious,” explains Burroughs. “Most

of the children and adults at the

orphanage had never heard of almonds

before, and they absolutely loved

them!”

USDA to help electric

co-ops improve service

Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack in

October announced funding for rural

electric cooperative utilities to improve

distribution systems and build “smartgrid” technologies in 27 states, all as

part of the Obama Administration’s

continued focus on investments in

infrastructure that creates rural jobs.

“This investment in the electric grid

will help address the growing need for

electric service nationwide and spur job

creation by building out rural infrastructure,” Vilsack said during an

address at a National Rural Electric

Cooperative Association regional

meeting in Denver, Colo. “Smart-grid

technology can help better manage

power use, provide rate stability for

businesses and create the climate for job

growth in rural America.”

The funds are provided through the

Rural Utilities Program of USDA Rural

Development. More than $40 million is

being provided for smart-grid

technologies and to build or improve

nearly 6,000 miles of electric lines.

Funding for distribution cooperatives,

which provide power to consumers, will

benefit more than 38,000 rural

businesses and residents.

Included in the funding are three

loans for Colorado projects that will

help keep electricity reliable and

affordable for rural communities. In

Virginia, a loan of $90 million to the

Northern Virginia Electric Cooperative

will be used to build a 49.9 megawatt

woody biomass generation facility. The

project is projected to generate about 6

percent of the cooperative's future

power needs for the years 2014 through

2030.

State council members

gather in Oklahoma

State co-op council executives from

across the United States gathered in

Oklahoma City, Okl., Sept. 20-23 for

the biennial fall meeting of the National Conference of State Cooperative

Councils (NCSCC). The meeting was

hosted by R.J. Gray, executive director

of the Oklahoma Agricultural

Cooperative Council, completing his

two-year term as NCSCC president.

The meeting provides a forum for

state council representatives to learn

from other states about their programs

and activities and to look for ways state

co-op councils can work together.

Attendees also receive updates from

national and regional partners and

USDA.

There are more than 30 state

cooperative councils across the country,

no two of which are exactly alike. Some

are staffed part-time, while others have

several full-time staff on the payroll.

Providing educational programs is a

relatively universal function among the

councils, but some expand services to

include cooperative development,

advocacy/lobbying or other functions.

During the formal business session, a

new slate of officers was elected for a

two-year term ending in 2014. They

include: President Rod Kelsay of MidAmerica Cooperative Council; Vice

President Emily Rooney of the

Agricultural Council of California; and

Secretary Brian Gion of the Montana

Council of Cooperatives. Brenda

Forman, South Dakota Association of

Cooperatives, will continue as treasurer.

The NCSCC meeting included evening

tours of the Oklahoma City Bombing

National Memorial and the Producers

Cooperative Oil Mill.

Farm Credit to use USDA

grant to help train “next-gen”

farmers

Seeking to enhance the success of

the next generation of America’s

farmers and ranchers, the Farm Credit

Council — in partnership with the

Wallace Center of Winrock International and through a grant from

USDA — is launching a project to

evaluate and improve the effectiveness

of training programs for beginning

farmers and ranchers.

Agriculture Deputy Secretary

Kathleen Merrigan announced that

USDA has

awarded $18

million in

grants to

organizations

that will

provide

training and

assistance to

beginning

farmers and

ranchers,

including a

grant of

about

$675,000 to

the Farm Credit Council for a project

to improve the effectiveness of

educational material for beginning

farmers.

The project involves reviewing

beginning farmer training curricula and

programs to assess the content, suitability and delivery methods used. The

primary focus of the assessment will be

the components of a successful financial

skills education. The grant will be

focused on efforts in the southeast

United States, with a special emphasis

on beginning farmer training programs

that serve minority farmers.

“More effective financial skills

training will enable beginning farmers

to analyze their economic conditions,

consider their personal goals and

abilities, gauge the risk capacity of their

State Co-op Council members tour the Producers Cooperative Oil Mill

as part of a national meeting in Oklahoma City.
38 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

farm businesses, improve their access to

credit and thereby increase the overall

growth and economic sustainability of

agriculture in America,” says Gary

Matteson, Farm Credit Council’s vice

president for young, beginning, small

farmer programs and outreach.

“Beginning farmers and ranchers

face unique challenges, and these grants

will provide needed training to help

these producers become profitable and

sustainable,” says Merrigan. “As part of

its historic mission of service to U.S.

agriculture and rural America, the

farmer-owned lending institutions of

Farm Credit System are leading

providers of credit to young, beginning

and small farmers and ranchers.”

Over the course of the three-year

grant, Farm Credit expects to develop a

model for building relationships

between independent beginning farmer

training programs and their local Farm

Credit cooperatives nationally. USDA’s

National Institute of Food and Agriculture (NIFA) awarded the grants

through its Beginning Farmer and

Rancher Development Program

(BFRDP).

USDA seeks diversity

on trade panels

The face of American agriculture is

changing. The number of farms in the

United States has grown 4 percent and

the operators of those farms have

become more diverse in the past five

years, according to results of USDA’s

most recent Census of Agriculture.

The 2007 Ag Census

counted nearly 30 percent

more women as principal

farm operators. The count

of Hispanic operators grew

by 10 percent, and the

number of American Indian,

Asian and black farm

operators increased as well.

The U.S. Census Bureau

also reports that the number of

minority-owned businesses grew more

than 45 percent between 2002 and

2007.

To reflect the diversity of the

agricultural sector and business

community, USDA is stepping up its

efforts to supplement its seven Agricultural Trade Advisory Committees

(ATACs) with new members, especially

those who represent minorities, women

or persons with disabilities.

Applicants should represent a U.S.

entity with an interest in agricultural

trade and have expertise and knowledge

of agricultural trade as it relates to

policy and commodity-specific issues.

Agricultural trade plays a vital role in

the health of the nation’s economy, so

having a voice on one of these committees can make a significant impact

on government decisions. In fiscal 2011,

U.S. agricultural exports were forecast

to reach a record $137 billion, which

supported more than 1 million U.S.

jobs.

Members of these seven trade

committees receive briefings by the

U.S. secretary of agriculture and the

U.S. trade representative; committee

members are asked for their views on a

wide range of agricultural trade issues.

Members can play an active role in

deliberations while representing U.S.

agricultural interests. For more

information about submitting an

application, visit: www.fas.usda.gov/

itp/apac-atacs/advisorycommittees.asp,

or contact Steffon Brown at 202-720-

6219, or Steffon.Brown@fas.usda.gov.

Forrest Bradley, co-op

communicator, dies

Forrest W. Bradley, 87, died Oct. 2

in his hometown of Springfield, Mo.

The former communications

director with Mid-America

Dairymen Inc. (later one of

the founding co-ops of Dairy

Farmers of America), Bradley

was called a “mover and

motivator” for improving coop communications through

his leadership positions in the

Cooperative Communicators

Association (CCA).

In a memorial in a recent CCA

newsletter, Jerry Kirk of Tennessee

Farmers Cooperative said that Bradley,

during nearly two decades of active

membership in CCA, “tirelessly

inspired, instructed and encouraged

communicators of all ages, skill levels

and years of service in their chosen

field. Generations of CCA members

relished their first-name-basis

friendships and associations with

Forrest.”

Bradley joined CCA in 1967, the

same year he became director of

communications with Mid-America. He

served as CCA president in 1976-77. In

1981, he was awarded CCA’s highest

honor: the H.E. Klinefelter Award. In

1985 (when the organization changed

its name from the Cooperative Editor’s

Association to CCA), he was named the

organization’s third executive secretary,

serving in that position through 1991.

During that period he was also editor of

CCA News.

Bradley was a key member of the

National Council of Farmer Cooperatives’ Public Relations Committee from

1987-93. He retired from MidAmerican Dairymen in 1994 and had

been an honorary CCA member since

1995. He was also a noted local

newspaper columnist and freelance

writer who often focused on young

people and their accomplishments.

Eastern Grain

Marketing launches

GROWMARK’s grain division is

entering a new venture with Heritage

FS, Gilman: Eastern Grain Marketing

LLC (EGM). The company’s main

office is located in Gilman, Ill. Dana

Robinson, EGM general manager, says

the venture will strengthen the package

of grain services offered to farmers in

eastern Illinois.

“EGM combines our local

knowledge and expertise with sufficient

resources to expand grain marketing

alternatives and grain handling services

for the growers in eastern Illinois,”

Robinsion says. “This adds value to the

crops grown in eastern Illinois, and

added value will be realized by the

growers through higher payments for

their crop.”

Growers will have greater access to

grain markets via a rail shuttle loader

EGM will construct in western

Bradley
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 39

Kankakee County. EGM plans to

construct about 2 million bushels of

grain storage space at the shuttle

location.

EGM is the fourth regional grain

marketing venture formed in Illinois

between FS member cooperatives and

GROWMARK.

Swiss Valley Farms moves

Platteville production

Swiss Valley Farms has transitioned

production of its Baby Swiss cheese

wheels, loaves and no-salt-added Swiss

blocks from its former manufacturing

site in Platteville, Wis., to White Hill

Cheese Co. LLC in Shullsburg, Wis.

Swiss Valley entered into a joint venture

with Emmi-Roth Käse USA to establish

White Hill Cheese in August 2010,

with the goal of increasing production

of Baby Swiss and other Swiss cheese

varieties.

“We were eager to move our

Platteville production to a more

modern and expanded facility, and we

found that opportunity with White

Hill,” says Swiss Valley CEO Don

Boelens. The Shullsburg site, which was

acquired by Swiss Valley in 2005,

consists of a 24,000-square-foot cheese

manufacturing plant, a 50,000-squarefoot warehouse and a waste-water

treatment facility.

Because the new site is located in

southwestern Wisconsin, Boelens noted

that Swiss Valley cooperative members

are unaffected by the shift. “Co-op

member milk is the sole milk supplier

to White Hill, which means there is

still a secure market for our members’

milk,” Boelens said. The former

manufacturing plant in Platteville is no

longer operational. Former Platteville

employees were encouraged to apply

and interview for positions at White

Hill Cheese. Swiss Valley is considering

future opportunities for the Platteville

property, which is still owned by the

cooperative. ■

Plains Cotton Cooperative Association (PCCA) had

record net margins of $41.2 million for fiscal 2010-2011.

Further cash distributions to members of $36.3 million

were made in Septem-ber, comprised of $19.5 million in

cash dividends, $4.7 million in stock retirements and

$12.1 million in retirement of per-unit retains.

“All divisions were profitable despite the greatest

volatility any market has ever experienced,” PCCA

President and CEO Wally Darneille said at the co-op’s

annual meeting in September. “After several years of

world cotton production that was lower than demand,

unforeseen late-season crop problems in the United

States, China and Pakistan coincided to create an

explosive price situation during the winter. To the best of

our knowledge, we paid significantly more equity to our

marketing pool members than any other pool where

producers are not required to shoulder personal

financial risk. In fact, the premiums we achieved over

the Commodity Credit Cor-poration loan were more than

six times higher than the average of the last 10 years.”

PCCA’s West Texas/Oklahoma/ Kansas marketing pool

was the second largest ever, despite the late-season

adverse weather. “The adverse weather last October

affected volume more than was initially apparent, or our

results would have been even better,” Darneille

continued. “Unfortunately, the crop simply did not

produce the yields that we, the USDA, the gins, and our

members expected.”

PCCA’s Warehouse Division received the third largest

volume in its history. “We worked through the heaviest

shipping demand in the division’s history,” Darneille said,

“but our warehouses performed well above industry

shipping standards while receiving record amounts of

inbound cotton from the gins.”

PCCA’s Textile and Apparel Division returned to

profitability during the year as efforts to develop more

value-added business paid off with 13 new accounts,

including several high-end brand names such as

American Eagle Outfitters, Urban Outfitters and Under

Armour.

“We also entered the European and Indian jeans

markets, an accomplish-ment once believed to be

impossible,” Darneille reported. “Our jeans sales to

Replay, a high-end Italian brand, will contain denim

made at our American Cotton Growers mill. Indian

Terrain, a department store chain in Bombay, is offering

a line of our jeans bearing the Cotton USA logo. We also

launched our university-branded jeans products at Texas

Tech, Texas A&M, Alabama, Georgia, Auburn and other

schools.” ■

PCCA posts record net margins in volatile year
than 46 percent of respondents said gaining more sales

resources would motivate them to join a co-op. Encouraging

member-growers to share personal stories of how these

benefits are being achieved through participation in

marketing-oriented co-op’s such as CFAM and HPFC may

be a compelling means of advocating for co-op membership.

In general, recommended methods of growing cooperative

market participation among producers are similar to those

that have been successfully employed to increase consumer

patronage. Namely, co-ops are encouraged to provide

education and access. Sharing credible personal stories of

success can be one component of a cooperative education

program that showcases multiple experiences at well-timed

workshops and seminars.

To appeal to time- and location-constrained producers

who want to learn more about cooperatives, an online and

interactive website that features case studies, personal

experiences, interviews and other resources may provide

greater access to useful information. The Cooperative

Community of Practice on eXtension is an excellent model of

such an interactive website that may be used as a template for

state- or region-specific sites.

Access to receptive audiences may be achieved through

non-electronic means as well. Case studies and articles in

non-cooperative-oriented trade publications (e.g., Spudman

and Progressive Grocer) may serve to enhance the visibility

of local co-op organizations and provide a reference point for

those who are otherwise unfamiliar with the business form.

An alternative and grassroots approach to communicating the

value of cooperatives may be as simple as meeting with

potential members at their place of business or market

location.

In the heavy recruitment phase of membership, both

HPFC and CFAM employed many of the methods described

above. Ultimately, membership and patronage have increased

for both, providing evidence of the symbiotic relationship

between grower-member involvement and consumer support.

Reflecting on the hard work it has taken create a

sustainable co-op, Jo Hagney of HPFC recommends that

other organizations “start small” and “follow your dream. If

you believe in the concept, get in there and push for it.” Her

enthusiasm reflects the passions that producer-members have

for the CFAM and HPFC co-ops. The shared clarity of

purpose has lead to the formation of marketable identities for

both organizations, which serve to attract customers while

uniting existing and new producers. ■

and the manufacturing processors will use 2.5 million

pounds. The cooperative will have 4.2 million pounds of milk

a day in excess of demand by fluid plants and manufacturing

processors (table 2).

On the other extreme, the same calculation will show that

the daily excess volume will be 2.9 million pounds in the fall

months (September through November); a reduction of 1.3

million pounds a day from May.

If the cooperative has its own manufacturing plants to use

a constant volume of 2.9 million pounds of milk a day, then

the cooperative still needs to have facilities to handle a

seasonal surplus of 1.3 million pounds of milk a day in May.

During other months, the seasonal surplus balancing facilities

will be under-utilized and will run dry in the fall months,

resulting in costly plant operations.

If a cooperative does not have enough surplus balancing

capacity (or in the case of bargaining cooperatives that do not

have any plant capacity), there are two ways for them to

dispose of surplus milk. They can sell the surplus milk in the

spot market, usually at a price discount, or they can pay a

“tolling fee” to have the milk manufactured into storable

dairy products at plants owned by others.

The price discount and the tolling fee are charges for

defraying the costs of owning and operating surplus handling

plant facilities.

Other marketing cooperatives

The unique economics of cooperative marketing operation

is applicable in the situation where the cooperative is the

exclusive marketing agent of the milk produced by members.

Other agricultural commodities (such as fruits, vegetables,

nuts, poultry, sugar, etc.) that exclusively rely on the

cooperative to market members’ products would have unique

economics of cooperative operation similar to that of dairy

cooperatives.

However, they differ from milk in some important aspects.

The main difference is that milk is a “flow” product — day in

and day out — while other farm commodities are harvested

in lumps toward the end of the growing season of several

weeks or months.

In the analysis of the economics of cooperative marketing

of milk, the unit of time used is on a per day basis. The same

analysis of other commodities has to use a unit of time that is

appropriate for a particular commodity.

Some producers of commodities that are storable and have

a long marketing season (such as grains and oilseeds) may

view the cooperative as but one of multiple outlets and

market through it only if the cooperative offers the best

terms and services among all alternatives. In such a case, the

cooperative may still maintain its uniqueness in its cooperative structure, organization, governance and equity financing.

Its marketing operation, however, is not different from other

marketing firms (firms other than cooperatives). ■

40 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

How co-ops do it

continued from page 19

Mission-driven marketing

continued from page 28
2011 Article Index

Information appearing in Rural Cooperatives magazine during calendar

year 2011 has been indexed to help you find past articles. Articles are

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

www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/pub/openmag.htm

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

Agriculture of the middle: opportunity for co-ops .................................................Jan./Feb. 14

Alaska fishing co-op’s longevity tied to ability to adapt .......................................Sept./Oct. 17

All the right moves

Supply co-op adjusts and thrives in changing Central Texas market ................Sept./Oct. 6

Banking on butanol

Missouri’s Show Me Energy Co-op pursuing $55 million plant ......................July/Aug. 26

Boot camp for co-ops:

Workshops for Indiana farmers markets provide strategies for

managers, vendors .............................................................................................Sept./Oct. 18

Breeding a merger

Full gamut of merger issues arose during consolidation of A.I.

co-ops in Northeast ...........................................................................................May/June 24

Capital investments improve services for members ..............................................May/June 34

Chad Parker to lead USDA Co-op Programs ......................................................Sept./Oct. 39

Climbing the hill

Hillside Farmers Co-op helps Latino producers................................................Jan./Feb. 13

Convergence of Interests

From forestry to local foods, multi-stakeholder co-ops gaining

in popularity ..................................................................................................March/April 14

Co-op ideas can help education ..............................................................................Jan./Feb. 30

Co-op launch demonstrates co-ops helping co-ops, commitment

to community ....................................................................................................Sept./Oct. 22

Co-op mergers require insight, commitment .......................................................May/June 27

Co-op sales, income second highest ever; 7,000 jobs added ..................................Sept./Oct. 4

Cooperation on tap

Multi-stakeholder co-ops are force behind new Austin brewpub

and fledgling effort in Seattle ............................................................................May/June 28

Co-ops for caregivers

Homecare co-ops viewed as one answer to long-term care

needs in rural America........................................................................................May/June 18

Co-ops partner with schools, health clubs, churches ..............................................May/June 6

Co-ops saluted as ‘vital economic force’ at USDA event ....................................Nov./Dec. 20

Co-ops: Sprouting ideas and innovations!

USDA’s Cooperative Month salute profiles 11 noteworthy co-ops.................Sept./Oct. 16

Crash course in cooperation

Rural auto body shops form co-op for group purchasing,

information sharing ..........................................................................................Nov./Dec. 13

Crow Lake Wind powers up

Nation’s largest co-op wind farm includes communityand college-owned turbines ...........................................................................March/April 10

Dairy co-ops: what they are and what they do ................................................March/April 18

Davisson oversaw major expansion of co-op ....................................................March/April 29

Doctors organizing co-op to improve medical care in rural Pennsylvania .........Sept./Oct. 28

Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 41
42 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

Don’t let ‘em go!

How co-ops can keep vital businesses, services

in rural communitie.................................................................................Sept./Oct. 30

Drought takes heavy toll on Texas ranches, farms ...................................Sept./Oct. 8

Energy mandates underlie push for new energy crops .......................March/April 8

Expanding your customer base

Kentucky supply co-op adapts to serve “mini” farms,

homeowners .............................................................................................Jan./Feb. 11

Farm Credit turns 95

Producer-owned lending system celebrates birthday

with online salute to its members........................................................Sept./Oct. 14

Finding a way

USDA husband/wife team helps form soybean

farmer’s associations in Afghanistan...................................................July/Aug. 20

From the Ground Up ......................................................................................Sept./Oct. 12

Good governance and strategic decisionmaking .....................................Jan./Feb. 27

Groomed for success

Kansas farm supply co-op adjusts to

urbanizing market with new goods, services .......................................Jan./Feb. 9

Growing Minnesota dairy capacity ...........................................................Sept./Oct. 32

Growing toward ‘Independence Day’

MFA Oil pursuing next-generation biofuel project

to reap energy from non-productive land ........................................March/April 4

Hogs on the range

Carolina growers form co-op to supply local

pasture-based pork market ...................................................................July/Aug. 11

How co-ops do it

Dairy co-ops are a prime example of the

economics of co-op marketing.............................................................Nov./Dec. 16

Is ‘local’ enough?

Keeping customers happy in farmer co-op stores ...........................Nov./Dec. 27

International Year of Cooperatives resolution..........................................Nov./Dec. 12

Kentucky supply co-op adapts to serve “mini” farms, homeowners....Jan./Feb. 11

Keys to success for food hubs .....................................................................May/June 9

Leadership co-op creates jobs, opportunities for Native Americans..Sept./Oct. 29

Legends of the Lakes

Using cooperative principles helps save an industry ......................Sept./Oct. 24

Long-term trends show co-ops relying less on member

equity while use of debt increasing....................................................May/June 31

Market edge for the Wedge

Food co-op’s warehouse/distribution division a key

cog in developing regional food system..............................................July/Aug. 16

Market for ‘seconds’ proves elusive to date.............................................July/Aug. 10

Making the connection

The co-op brand can help strengthen links

with members and consumers .............................................................Nov./Dec. 30

MFA Oil Biomass receives USDA BCAP funding......................................July/Aug. 29

Miscanthus facts .........................................................................................March/April 7

Mission-driven marketing

Rocky Mountain co-ops expand opportunities for

sustainable food production .................................................................Nov./Dec. 22

MMPA wins Dairy Plant of the Year.......................................................March/April 37

New structure symbolizes success of Lexington Farmers Market .....Sept./Oct. 21

New study gauges outlook for California dairy co-ops .....................March/April 26

New web tool helps dairy farmers capture energy savings ................Sept./Oct. 36

Ostrander Co-op joins Century Club ........................................................May/June 34

Ownership succession crucial for rural America

Co-ops can play role in helping keep farms

and ranches in producer hands .............................................................Jan./Feb. 4

Pilot Mountain Pride forges links between growers and buyers ...........July/Aug. 8

Planting the seeds for new food co-ops ..................................................Sept./Oct. 26

Sailing turbulent seas

Despite volatile markets, co-ops need to look

to long-term competitive advantages .................................................Jan./Feb. 24

Setting a ‘Fresh Standard’ ............................................................................Jan./Feb. 21

Shine a light

International Year of Co-ops is unique chance

to put co-ops in spotlight .....................................................................Nov. /Dec. 10

Smith, Jenkins win communications honors ...........................................Sept./Oct. 34

Split decision

Virginia electric co-ops join forces to purchase

investor-owned assets, then split service territory ..........................July/Aug. 30

Switchgrass plant switches on

Pre-process logistics of handling biomass for ethanol

seen as potential role for co-ops .......................................................May/June 12

Taking the plunge

American Prawn Co-op helping aquaculture

take root in tobacco country ..................................................................July/Aug. 4

Tanzanian dairy farmers and co-ops benefit

from USDA, Land O’Lakes help ...........................................................May/June 22

Telling the co-op story at USDA .................................................................Sept./Oct. 41

Tomato co-ops help craft better food safety standards .........................Jan./Feb. 18

Trail-blazing co-op helps Colorado ranchers ..........................................Sept./Oct. 20

Upward Spiral

Once on the ropes, Minnesota Food

Co-op bounces back ................................................................................Nov./Dec. 8

USDA ag experts bring knowledge, skills to Afghanistan .....................July/Aug. 23

USDA program helps offset cost of flex-fuel pump installation ..........May/June 16

Virtual food hub helps Virginia producers

tap into local food markets ....................................................................May/June 4

Welcome to the Caves of Faribault

Historic sandstone caves home to Swiss

Valley’s blue cheese ..........................................................................March/April 30

Why do co-op boards sometimes micromanage? ..............................March/April 33

Why do members participate in ag co-ops? ..............................................Nov./Dec. 4

MAGAZINE DEPARTMENTS

COMMENTARY

Co-ops: A vital source of rural jobs .............................................................Nov./Dec. 2

Don’t bet against the American farmer .................................................March/April 2

From small beginnings ....................................................................................July/Aug. 2

Know your farmer, know your co-op! ..........................................................Jan./Feb. 2

National Cooperative Month Proclamation ...............................................Sept./Oct. 2

Winning the future with food hubs .............................................................May/June 2

FOCUS ON

Walton EMC:

Co-op program helps rescue disabled woman’s home ...................Sept./Oct 33

MANAGEMENT TIP

How managing a co-op differs from

running an investor-owned firm ......................................................March/April 29

The most important things I learned about running a co-op .................Jan./Feb. 17

NEWSLINE

USDA’s Lewis wins honor .............................................................................Jan./Feb. 31

U.S. Agbank, CoBank pursue merger

DFA members learn grazing strategies; co-op acquires Hispanic cheese brand

Urban co-op development initiative launched

Nilsestuen Fund to promote co-op education

CHS names Casale president and CEO

Jeff Solberg new CEO at GROWMARK

April class slated for co-op developers

Landmark names Bob Carlson as CEO

TFC enjoys turnaround year in 2010

LO’L updates social responsibility report

CWT launches membership drive

Clinton presents PCCA subsidiary with ACE Award ...........................March/April 34

CHS returns $231 million to owners; Building shuttle-train loading elevators

Wickham to lead NCFC

Co-Bank earnings climb 8.6 percent

New Zealand co-ops aiding earthquake victims

LO’L sales second best in its 90 years

Gray to lead SRSA

Co-chairs picked for Co-op Caucus

Foremost distributes $31 million to members

Changes to VAPG program announced

Sunkist sales top $1 billion; Gillette picked as new chairman

CCA cooking up ‘hot communications’

Co-ops rally to help Japan .........................................................................May/June 36

DFA promotes environmental stewardship

United Co-op celebrates 75th anniversary

Cotton co-op sponsors denim design competition
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 43

Organic Valley expands members, products in Northeast

CHS Acquires Eastern European Grain Co.

Schlangen new board chair at AMPI

Sunkist to brand table grapes

Evergreen model impresses HUD official

Prairie Skies Co-op to build biofuels facility

Record-setting year for Westby Creamery

Virginia broadband co-op’s efforts create jobs

Dairy Month campaign delivers 100,000 meals ........................................July/Aug. 35

Fund established for victims of spring storms

CHS aiding disaster victims

CoBank-U.S. AgBank merger gets preliminary approval

West Virginia co-op marketing natural Angus beef

Co-ops join forces to promote healthy school lunches

GROWMARK finalizes Select Seed acquisition

Binder new CEO at FCCServices

Grainland Co-op members approve joining CHS

Hazen addresses White House Councils

Accelerated Genetics honored for export success

Dairy co-op CEO sentenced for fraud

USDA accepting VAPG applications

Farmer Co-op Conference to focus on

globalization, innovative finance .........................................................Sept./Oct. 38

NFU supports Year of Cooperatives; Johnson stresses need for rural development

Nearly half of nation’s milk supply now under FARM umbrella

Blue Diamond wins food safety award; hosts event focusing on trade, jobs

Livestock genetics co-op wins Compass Award

CHS, Cargill eye expanded scope for TEMCO

CDF fund to help co-ops hit by hurricane

Missouri co-op, USDA help college expand energy program

CoBank, U.S. AgBank merger approved by stockholders

Worker co-ops eligible for SBA pilot program

2012 Co-op Hall of Fame inductees ...........................................................Nov./Dec. 32

Paul Hazen stepping down at NCBA

AgriMark names Stammer new CEO

Wegner to lead Darigold

Almonds build good will in East Africa

USDA to help electric co-ops improve service

Farm Credit to use USDA grant to help train “next-gen” farmers

USDA seeks diversity on trade panels

Forrest Bradley, co-op communicator, dies

Eastern Grain Marketing launches

PCCA posts record net margins in volatile year

UTILITY CO-OP CONNECTION

Bridging the gaps: New Mexico co-op

expanding broadband in rural West ....................................................Jan./Feb. 29

Wisconsin coal-burning plant converts to biomass ...............................July/Aug. 14

SUBJECTS

Ag of the Middle

Agriculture of the middle: opportunity for co-ops ...................................Jan./Feb. 14

Aquaculture

Taking the plunge

American Prawn Co-op helping aquaculture

take root in tobacco country ..................................................................July/Aug. 4

Broadband

Bridging the gaps: New Mexico co-op

expanding broadband in rural West ....................................................Jan./Feb. 29

Communications

From the Ground Up .....................................................................................Sept./Oct. 12

Smith, Jenkins win communications honors ...........................................Sept./Oct. 34

Consumer Co-ops

Cooperation on tap

Multi-stakeholder co-ops are force behind new Austin

brewpub and fledgling effort in Seattle .............................................May/June 28

Co-op Development

Agriculture of the middle: opportunity for co-ops ...................................Jan./Feb. 14

Boot camp for co-ops:

Workshops for Indiana farmers markets

provide strategies for managers, vendors ........................................Sept./Oct. 18

Climbing the hill

Hillside Farmers Co-op helps Latino producers .................................Jan./Feb. 13

Convergence of Interests

From forestry to local foods, multi-stakeholder

co-ops gaining in popularity ............................................................March/April 14

Co-op launch demonstrates co-ops helping co-ops,

commitment to community ...................................................................Sept./Oct. 22

Cooperation on tap

Multi-stakeholder co-ops are force behind new

Austin brewpub and fledgling effort in Seattle ................................May/June 28

Co-ops for caregivers

Homecare co-ops viewed as one answer to

long-term care needs in rural America .............................................May/June 18

Co-ops saluted as ‘vital economic force’ at USDA event .....................Nov./Dec. 20

Crash course in cooperation

Rural auto body shops form co-op for

group purchasing, information sharing ..............................................Nov./Dec. 13

Doctors organizing co-op to improve medical

care in rural Pennsylvania ...................................................................Sept./Oct. 28..

Don’t let ‘em go!

How co-ops can keep vital businesses,

services in rural communities .............................................................Sept./Oct. 30

Finding a way

USDA husband/wife team helps form soybean

farmer’s associations in Afghanistan ..................................................July/Aug. 20

From small beginnings ....................................................................................July/Aug. 2

Hogs on the range

Carolina growers form co-op to supply local

pasture-based pork market ..................................................................July/Aug. 11

Keys to success for food hubs ....................................................................May/June 9

Leadership co-op creates jobs, opportunities

for Native Americans ............................................................................Sept./Oct. 29

Legends of the Lakes

Using cooperative principles helps save an industry .....................Sept./Oct. 24

New structure symbolizes success of

Lexington Farmers Market ...................................................................Sept./Oct. 21

Pilot Mountain Pride forges links

between growers and buyers ................................................................July/Aug. 8

Planting the seeds for new food co-ops ..................................................Sept./Oct. 26

Taking the plunge

American Prawn Co-op helping aquaculture

take root in tobacco country ..................................................................July/Aug. 4

Tanzanian dairy farmers and co-ops

benefit from USDA, Land O’Lakes help ..............................................May/June 22

Trail-blazing co-op helps Colorado ranchers ...........................................Sept./Oct. 20

Upward Spiral

Once on the ropes, Minnesota Food Co-op bounces back ..............Nov./Dec. 8

USDA ag experts bring knowledge, skills to Afghanistan .....................July/Aug. 23

Virtual food hub helps Virginia producers tap

into local food markets ...........................................................................May/June 4

Co-op Principles/Advantages/Impact

Co-ops saluted as ‘vital economic force’ at USDA event .....................Nov./Dec. 20

Dairy co-ops: what they are and what they do ..................................March/April 18

How co-ops do it

Dairy co-ops are a prime example of the economics

of co-op marketing .................................................................................Nov./Dec. 16

International Year of Cooperatives resolution .........................................Nov./Dec. 12

Making the connection

The co-op brand can help strengthen links with

members and consumers .....................................................................Nov./Dec. 30

Shine a light

International Year of Co-ops is unique chance to

put co-ops in spotlight .........................................................................Nov. /Dec. 10

Why do members participate in ag co-ops? ..............................................Nov./Dec. 4

Co-op Statistics

Long-term trends show co-ops relying less on member

equity while use of debt increasing ...................................................May/June 31

Co-op sales, income second highest ever; 7,000 jobs added .................Sept./Oct. 4

Cotton
44 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

All the right moves

Supply co-op adjusts and thrives in

changing Central Texas market .............................................................Sept./Oct. 6

Farm Credit turns 95

Producer-owned lending system celebrates

birthday with online salute to its members ........................................Sept./Oct. 14

Drought takes heavy toll on Texas ranches, farms ..................................Sept./Oct. 8

Craft Co-ops

Mission-driven marketing

Rocky Mountain co-ops expand opportunities

for sustainable food production ..........................................................Nov./Dec. 22

Dairy

Breeding a merger

Full gamut of merger issues arose during

consolidation of A.I. co-ops in Northeast .........................................May/June 24

Dairy co-op survey reveals financial performance trends ....................Jan./Feb. 22

Dairy co-ops: what they are and what they do ..................................March/April 18

Growing Minnesota dairy capacity ...........................................................Sept./Oct. 32

How co-ops do it

Dairy co-ops are a prime example of the

economics of co-op marketing ............................................................Nov./Dec. 16

Mission-driven marketing

Rocky Mountain co-ops expand opportunities

for sustainable food production ..........................................................Nov./Dec. 22

New study gauges outlook for California dairy co-ops .....................March/April 26

New web tool helps dairy farmers capture energy savings ................Sept./Oct. 36

Tanzanian dairy farmers and co-ops benefit

from USDA, Land O’Lakes help ...........................................................May/June 22

The most important things I learned about running a co-op .................Jan./Feb. 17

Welcome to the Caves of Faribault

Historic sandstone caves home to Swiss

Valley’s blue cheese ..........................................................................March/April 30

Directors/Governance

Good governance and strategic decisionmaking ....................................Jan./Feb. 27

Why do co-op boards sometimes micromanage? ..............................March/April 33

Environment/Energy

Banking on butanol

Missouri’s Show Me Energy Co-op pursuing $55 million plant ......July/Aug. 26

New web tool helps dairy farmers capture energy savings ................Sept./Oct. 36

Wisconsin coal-burning plant converts to biomass ...............................July/Aug. 14

Farm Supply and Services

All the right moves

Supply co-op adjusts and thrives in

changing Central Texas market .............................................................Sept./Oct. 6

Breeding a merger

Full gamut of merger issues arose during

consolidation of A.I. co-ops in Northeast..........................................May/June 24

Co-op mergers require insight, commitment ...........................................May/June 27

Co-op sales, income second highest ever; 7,000 jobs added .................Sept./Oct. 4

Davisson oversaw major expansion of co-op .....................................March/April 29

Drought takes heavy toll on Texas ranches, farms ..................................Sept./Oct. 8

Expanding your customer base

Kentucky supply co-op adapts to

serve “mini” farms, homeowners ........................................................Jan./Feb. 11

Groomed for success

Kansas farm supply co-op adjusts to urbanizing

market with new goods, services ..........................................................Jan./Feb. 9

How managing a co-op differs from

running an investor-owned firm ......................................................March/April 29

Is ‘local’ enough?

Keeping customers happy in farmer co-op stores ..........................Nov./Dec. 27

Ostrander Co-op joins Century Club ........................................................May/June 34

Finance/Tax/Legal

Dairy co-ops: what they are and what they do ..................................March/April 18

Farm Credit turns 95

Producer-owned lending system celebrates

birthday with online salute to its members ........................................Sept./Oct. 14

Long-term trends show co-ops relying less on member

equity while use of debt increasing ...................................................May/June 31

Fishing

Alaska fishing co-op’s longevity tied to ability to adapt ........................Sept./Oct. 17

Legends of the Lakes

Using cooperative principles helps save an industry .....................Sept./Oct. 24

Food Co-ops

Boot camp for co-ops:

Workshops for Indiana farmers markets

provide strategies for managers, vendors ........................................Sept./Oct. 18

Co-op launch demonstrates co-ops helping

co-ops, commitment to community ....................................................Sept./Oct. 22

Don’t let ‘em go!

How co-ops can keep vital businesses,

services in rural communities .............................................................Sept./Oct. 30

Market edge for the Wedge

Food co-op’s warehouse/distribution

division a key cog in developing regional food system ...................July/Aug. 16

Mission-driven marketing

Rocky Mountain co-ops expand opportunities for

sustainable food production ................................................................Nov./Dec. 22

Planting the seeds for new food co-ops ..................................................Sept./Oct. 26

Upward Spiral

Once on the ropes, Minnesota Food

Co-op bounces back ................................................................................Nov./Dec. 8

Food Safety

Setting a ‘Fresh Standard’ ............................................................................Jan./Feb. 21

Tomato co-ops help craft better food safety standards .........................Jan./Feb. 18

Foreign Co-ops

Finding a way

USDA husband/wife team helps form soybean

farmer’s associations in Afghanistan ..................................................July/Aug. 20

Shine a light

International Year of Co-ops is unique

chance to put co-ops in spotlight ......................................................Nov. /Dec. 10

Tanzanian dairy farmers and co-ops benefit

from USDA, Land O’Lakes help ...........................................................May/June 22

USDA ag experts bring knowledge, skills to Afghanistan .....................July/Aug. 23

Forestry

Convergence of Interests

From forestry to local foods, multi-stakeholder

co-ops gaining in popularity ............................................................March/April 14

Fruits, Nuts, Vegetables

Market for ‘seconds’ proves elusive to date ............................................July/Aug. 10

Pilot Mountain Pride forges links between growers and buyers ...........July/Aug. 8

Setting a ‘Fresh Standard’ ............................................................................Jan./Feb. 21

Tomato co-ops help craft better food safety standards .........................Jan./Feb. 18

Grains/Oilseeds

Capital investments improve services for members ..............................May/June 34

Finding a way

USDA husband/wife team helps form soybean farmer’s

associations in Afghanistan .................................................................July/Aug. 20

Ostrander Co-op joins Century Club .........................................................May/June 34

Health & Home Services

Convergence of Interests

From forestry to local foods, multi-stakeholder

co-ops gaining in popularity ............................................................March/April 14

Co-ops for caregivers

Homecare co-ops viewed as one answer to

long-term care needs in rural America .............................................May/June 18

Co-ops partner with schools, health clubs, churches ............................May/June 6

Legal/Legislative

Energy mandates underlie push for new energy crops ......................March/April 8

From the Ground Up .....................................................................................Sept./Oct. 12

Tomato co-ops help craft better food safety standards .........................Jan./Feb. 18

Livestock & Poultry
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 45

All the right moves

Supply co-op adjusts and thrives

in changing Central Texas market ........................................................Sept./Oct. 6

Breeding a merger

Full gamut of merger issues arose during

consolidation of A.I. co-ops in Northeast..........................................May/June 24

Drought takes heavy toll on Texas ranches, farms ..................................Sept./Oct. 8

Farm Credit turns 95

Producer-owned lending system celebrates birthday

with online salute to its members .......................................................Sept./Oct. 14

Hogs on the range

Carolina growers form co-op to supply

local pasture-based pork market .........................................................July/Aug. 11

Trail-blazing co-op helps Colorado ranchers ..........................................Sept./Oct. 20

Management

All the right moves

Supply co-op adjusts and thrives in

changing Central Texas market .............................................................Sept./Oct. 6

Davisson oversaw major expansion of co-op .....................................March/April 29

Groomed for success

Kansas farm supply co-op adjusts to urbanizing

market with new goods, services ..........................................................Jan./Feb. 9

How co-ops do it

Dairy co-ops are a prime example of the

economics of co-op marketing ............................................................Nov./Dec. 16

How managing a co-op differs from running

an investor-owned firm .....................................................................March/April 29

Sailing turbulent seas

Despite volatile markets, co-ops need to

look to long-term competitive advantages..........................................Jan./Feb. 24

The most important things I learned about running a co-op .................Jan./Feb. 17

Why do co-op boards sometimes micromanage? ..............................March/April 33

Marketing

Alaska fishing co-op’s longevity tied to ability to adapt ........................Sept./Oct. 17

Co-op sales, income second highest ever; 7,000 jobs added .................Sept./Oct. 4

How co-ops do it

Dairy co-ops are a prime example of the

economics of co-op marketing ............................................................Nov./Dec. 16

Making the connection

The co-op brand can help strengthen links

with members and consumers ............................................................Nov./Dec. 30

Market for ‘seconds’ proves elusive to date.............................................July/Aug. 10

New study gauges outlook for California dairy co-ops .....................March/April 26

Pilot Mountain Pride forges links between growers and buyers ...........July/Aug. 8

Virtual food hub helps Virginia producers

tap into local food markets ....................................................................May/June 4

Welcome to the Caves of Faribault

Historic sandstone caves home to Swiss

Valley’s blue cheese ..........................................................................March/April 30

Medical

Doctors organizing co-op to improve

medical care in rural Pennsylvania ....................................................Sept./Oct. 28

Member Realations/ Services

Capital investments improve services for members ..............................May/June 34

Is ‘local’ enough?

Keeping customers happy in farmer co-op stores ..........................Nov./Dec. 27

Why do members participate in ag co-ops? ..............................................Nov./Dec. 4

Mergers/Acquisitions

Breeding a merger

Full gamut of merger issues arose during

consolidation of A.I. co-ops in Northeast..........................................May/June 24

Co-op mergers require insight, commitment ...........................................May/June 27

Split decision

Virginia electric co-ops join forces to purchase

investor-owned assets, then split service territory ..........................July/Aug. 30

Minority Co-ops

Climbing the hill

Hillside Farmers Co-op helps Latino producers .................................Jan./Feb. 13

Co-ops saluted as ‘vital economic force’ at USDA event .....................Nov./Dec. 20

Leadership co-op creates jobs,

opportunities for Native Americans ...................................................Sept./Oct. 29

Renewable Energy

Banking on butanol

Missouri’s Show Me Energy Co-op pursuing $55 million plant ......July/Aug. 26

Crow Lake Wind powers up

Nation’s largest co-op wind farm includes communityand college-owned turbines.............................................................March/April 10

Don’t bet against the American farmer .................................................March/April 2

Energy mandates underlie push for new energy crops ......................March/April 8

Growing toward ‘Independence Day’

MFA Oil pursuing next-generation

biofuel project to reap energy from non-productive land ............March/April 4

MFA Oil Biomass receives USDA BCAP funding .....................................July/Aug. 29

Switchgrass plant switches on

Pre-process logistics of handling biomass for ethanol

seen as potential role for co-ops ........................................................May/June 12

USDA program helps offset cost of flex-fuel pump installation ..........May/June 16

Wisconsin coal-burning plant converts to biomass ...............................July/Aug. 14

Service Co-ops

Crash course in cooperation

Rural auto body shops form co-op for group

purchasing, information sharing .........................................................Nov./Dec. 13

Succession Planning

Ownership succession crucial for rural America

Co-ops can play role in helping keep farms

and ranches in producer hands .............................................................Jan./Feb. 4

Sustainable/Local/Organic

Climbing the Hill

Hillside Farmers Co-op helps Latino producers .................................Jan./Feb. 13

Convergence of Interests

From forestry to local foods, multi-stakeholder

co-ops gaining in popularity ............................................................March/April 14

Co-ops partner with schools, health clubs, churches ............................May/June 6

From small beginnings ....................................................................................July/Aug. 2

Hogs on the range

Carolina growers form co-op to supply local

pasture-based pork market ..................................................................July/Aug. 11

Keys to success for food hubs ....................................................................May/June 9

Know your farmer, know your co-op! ..........................................................Jan./Feb. 2

Market edge for the Wedge

Food co-op’s warehouse/distribution division a

key cog in developing regional food system .....................................July/Aug. 16

Mission-driven marketing

Rocky Mountain co-ops expand opportunities for

sustainable food production ................................................................Nov./Dec. 22

Taking the plunge

American Prawn Co-op helping aquaculture take

root in tobacco country ...........................................................................July/Aug. 4

Virtual food hub helps Virginia producers tap into

local food markets ...................................................................................May/June 4

Winning the future with food hubs .............................................................May/June 2

Technology

Growing toward ‘Independence Day’

MFA Oil pursuing next-generation biofuel project to

reap energy from non-productive land ............................................March/April 4

Switchgrass plant switches on

Pre-process logistics of handling biomass for

ethanol seen as potential role for co-ops .........................................May/June 12

Virtual food hub helps Virginia producers tap

into local food markets ...........................................................................May/June 4

Trade

Sailing turbulent seas

Despite volatile markets, co-ops need to look

to long-term competitive advantages .................................................Jan./Feb. 24
46 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives

Urbanization

All the right moves

Supply co-op adjusts and thrives in changing

Central Texas market ..............................................................................Sept./Oct. 6

Expanding your customer base

Kentucky supply co-op adapts to serve “mini”

farms, homeowners ................................................................................Jan./Feb. 11

Groomed for success

Kansas farm supply co-op adjusts to urbanizing

market with new goods, services ..........................................................Jan./Feb. 9

USDA Programs

MFA Oil Biomass receives USDA BCAP funding .....................................July/Aug. 29

Ownership succession crucial for rural America

Co-ops can play role in helping keep farms

and ranches in producer hands .............................................................Jan./Feb. 4

USDA ag experts bring knowledge, skills to Afghanistan .....................July/Aug. 23

USDA program helps offset cost of flex-fuel pump installation ..........May/June 16

Utility Co-ops

Bridging the gaps: New Mexico co-op expanding

broadband in rural West ........................................................................Jan./Feb. 29

Crow Lake Wind powers up

Nation’s largest co-op wind farm includes communityand college-owned turbines.............................................................March/April 10

Split decision

Virginia electric co-ops join forces to purchase

investor-owned assets, then split service territory ..........................July/Aug. 30

Walton EMC:

Co-op program helps rescue disabled woman’s home ...................Sept./Oct 33

Wisconsin coal-burning plant converts to biomass ...............................July/Aug. 14

Worker-owned co-ops

Crash course in cooperation

Rural auto body shops form co-op for group

purchasing, information sharing .........................................................Nov./Dec. 13

Co-ops for caregivers

Homecare co-ops viewed as one answer to

long-term care needs in rural America .............................................May/June 18

AUTHORS

Bau, Margaret

Co-ops for caregivers

Homecare co-ops viewed as one answer to

long-term care needs in rural America .............................................May/June 18

Bond, Jennifer Keeling

Mission-driven marketing

Rocky Mountain co-ops expand opportunities

for sustainable food production ..........................................................Nov./Dec. 22

Brockhouse, Bill

Hogs on the range

Carolina growers form co-op to supply local

pasture-based pork market ..................................................................July/Aug. 11

Mission-driven marketing

Rocky Mountain co-ops expand opportunities

for sustainable food production ..........................................................Nov./Dec. 22

Brooks, Greg

Smith, Jenkins win communications honors ...........................................Sept./Oct. 34

Campbell, Dan

All the right moves

Supply co-op adjusts and thrives in changing

Central Texas market ..............................................................................Sept./Oct. 6

Drought takes heavy toll on Texas ranches, farms ..................................Sept./Oct. 8

From small beginnings ....................................................................................July/Aug. 2

From the Ground Up .....................................................................................Sept./Oct. 12

Growing toward ‘Independence Day’

MFA Oil pursuing next-generation biofuel project to

reap energy from non-productive land ............................................March/April 4

Shine a light

International Year of Co-ops is unique chance to put

co-ops in spotlight ................................................................................Nov. /Dec. 10

Switchgrass plant switches on

Pre-process logistics of handling biomass for ethanol

seen as potential role for co-ops .......................................................May/June 12

Canales, Judy

Co-op role in rural development ...................................................................Jan./Feb. 2

Clamp, Christina

University course promotes co-op development

to meet community needs .....................................................................Jan./Feb. 16

Coontz, Kim

Co-op launch demonstrates co-ops helping co-ops,

commitment to community ...................................................................Sept./Oct. 22

Crow, Andrew

Co-ops: Sprouting ideas and innovations!

USDA’s Cooperative Month salute profiles 11

noteworthy co-ops ................................................................................Sept./Oct. 16

Czech, Adam

Climbing the hill

Hillside Farmers Co-op helps Latino producers ................................Jan./Feb. 13

Davisson, Bill

How managing a co-op differs from running an

investor-owned firm ..........................................................................March/April 29

Devoy, Zach

Trail-blazing co-op helps Colorado ranchers .........................................Sept./Oct. 20

Diamond, Adam

Market edge for the Wedge

Food co-op’s warehouse/distribution division a key

cog in developing regional food system .............................................July/Aug. 16

Dilland, John

The most important things I learned about running a co-op .................Jan./Feb. 17

DuMont, Amber

Smith, Jenkins win communications honors ...........................................Sept./Oct. 34

Edberg, Kevin

Upward Spiral

Once on the ropes, Minnesota Food Co-op bounces back ..............Nov./Dec. 8

Ellerby, Justin

New study gauges outlook for California dairy co-ops .....................March/April 26

Ellis, Robert A.

Split decision

Virginia electric co-ops join forces to purchase

investor-owned assets, then split service territory ..........................July/Aug. 30

Enns, Kellie

Mission-driven marketing

Rocky Mountain co-ops expand opportunities

for sustainable food production ..........................................................Nov./Dec. 22

Eversull, E. Eldon

Co-op sales, income second highest ever; 7,000 jobs added .................Sept./Oct. 4

Long-term trends show co-ops relying less on member

equity while use of debt increasing ...................................................May/June 31

Feeney, Nancy

Welcome to the Caves of Faribault

Historic sandstone caves home to Swiss Valley’s

blue cheese ........................................................................................March/April 30
Rural Cooperatives / November/December 2011 47

Freeman, Jean

Why do co-op boards sometimes micromanage? ..............................March/April 33

Gion, Brian

Leadership co-op creates jobs, opportunities for

Native Americans ..................................................................................Sept./Oct. 29

Giszpenc, Noemi

Don’t let ‘em go!

How co-ops can keep vital businesses, services

in rural communities ..............................................................................Sept./Oct. 30

Gray, Thomas W.

Agriculture of the middle: opportunity for co-ops ...................................Jan./Feb. 14

Why do members participate in ag co-ops? ..............................................Nov./Dec. 4

Habenstreit Linda. C.

A ‘Green Miracle’ .............................................................................................Jan./Feb. 4

Hogeland, Julie

Tomato co-ops help craft better food safety standards .........................Jan./Feb. 18

Hyman, Jennifer

Tanzanian dairy farmers and co-ops benefit from

USDA, Land O’Lakes help ....................................................................May/June 22

Kalchik, Tom

Legends of the Lakes

Using cooperative principles helps save an industry .....................Sept./Oct. 24

Keeton, Kara

Expanding your customer base

Kentucky supply co-op adapts to serve “mini”

farms, homeowners ................................................................................Jan./Feb. 11

Lemke, Dan

Growing Minnesota dairy capacity ...........................................................Sept./Oct. 32

Liebrand, Carolyn

Dairy co-op survey reveals financial performance trends ....................Jan./Feb. 22

Ling, K. Charles

Dairy co-ops: what they are and what they do ..................................March/April 18

How co-ops do it

Dairy co-ops are a prime example of the

economics of co-op marketing ............................................................Nov./Dec. 16

Lund, Margaret

Convergence of Interests

From forestry to local foods, multi-stakeholder

co-ops gaining in popularity ............................................................March/April 14

MacLeod, Rebecca; Madeja, Robert

New web tool helps dairy farmers capture energy savings ................Sept./Oct. 36

Matson, James

Keys to success for food hubs ....................................................................May/June 9

Virtual food hub helps Virginia producers tap into

local food markets ...................................................................................May/June 4

Mayberry, Anne

Bridging the gaps: New Mexico co-op expanding

broadband in rural West ........................................................................Jan./Feb. 29

Wisconsin coal-burning plant converts to biomass ...............................July/Aug. 14

Merrigan, Kathleen A.

Know your farmer, know your co-op! ..........................................................Jan./Feb. 2

Winning the future with food hubs .............................................................May/June 2

Mull Wike, Eva Nell

Finding a way

USDA husband/wife team helps form soybean

farmer’s associations in Afghanistan ..................................................July/Aug. 20

Nathan, Joe

Co-op ideas can help education .................................................................Jan./Feb. 30

Newell, Karoline

USDA ag experts bring knowledge, skills to Afghanistan .....................July/Aug. 23

Pitman, Lynn

Sailing turbulent seas

Despite volatile markets, co-ops need to

look to long-term competitive advantages .........................................Jan./Feb. 24

Reid, Stuart

Planting the seeds for new food co-ops ..................................................Sept./Oct. 26

Reynolds, Bruce

Making the connection

The co-op brand can help strengthen links

with members and consumers ............................................................Nov./Dec. 30

Ownership succession crucial for rural America

Co-ops can play role in helping keep farms

and ranches in producer hands .............................................................Jan./Feb. 4

Routt, Nathan

New structure symbolizes success of Lexington Farmers Market ......Sept./Oct. 21

Smith, Cathy

Doctors organizing co-op to improve medical

care in rural Pennsylvania ...................................................................Sept./Oct. 28..

Thompson, Stephen

Banking on butanol

Missouri’s Show Me Energy Co-op

pursuing $55 million plant ......................................................................July/Aug. 26

Cooperation on tap

Multi-stakeholder co-ops are force behind

new Austin brewpub and fledgling effort in Seattle .......................May/June 28

Crash course in cooperation

Rural auto body shops form co-op for group

purchasing, information sharing .........................................................Nov./Dec. 13

Crow Lake Wind powers up

Nation’s largest co-op wind farm includes

community- and college-owned turbines.......................................March/April 10

Groomed for success

Kansas farm supply co-op adjusts to urbanizing

market with new goods, services ..........................................................Jan./Feb. 9

Todd, Anne

Pilot Mountain Pride forges links between growers and buyers ...........July/Aug. 8

Taking the plunge

American Prawn Co-op helping aquaculture

take root in tobacco country ..................................................................July/Aug. 4

Tonsager, Dallas

Co-ops: A vital source of rural jobs .............................................................Nov./Dec. 2

Don’t bet against the American farmer .................................................March/April 2

Trocha, Debbie

Boot camp for co-ops:

Workshops for Indiana farmers markets provide

strategies for managers, vendors .......................................................Sept./Oct. 18

Wadsworth, James

State cooperative councils adapting to help

members in turbulent times ...................................................................Jan./Feb. 28

Willette, Janet Kubat

Ostrander Co-op joins Century Club ........................................................May/June 34

Wilson, Norbert; Hall, Thomas; Fields, Deacue

Is ‘local’ enough?

Keeping customers happy in farmer co-op stores ..........................Nov./Dec. 27

■
Periodicals Postage Paid

U.S. Department of Agriculture

United States

Department of Agriculture

Washington, DC 20250

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for private use, $300

NOTICE:

❑ Check here to stop receiving this publication and mail this

sheet to the address below.

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

to:

USDA/Rural Business—Cooperative Service

Stop 0705

Washington, D. C. 20250-3255

48 November/December 2011 / Rural Cooperatives