al rur cooperatives - rd.usda.gov€¦ · you are not only helping vets find good jobs, but you are...

Rura

lCOOPERATIVESCOOPERATIVES

July/August 2016

For Farm and Country

Military vets raising heritage livestock breedsPage 20

By Sam Rikkers, AdministratorUSDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service

What could be better than receiving anhonor for something you feel privileged justto be doing? Better still, for doingsomething that strengthens USDA’s abilityto fulfill its mission while also helping to

strengthen our nation’s defense?That’s how I felt recently when the Rural Business-

Cooperative Service was presented with the Patriot Awardfor “going beyond the norm” to support members of ourworkforce who are also members of the National Guard orReserve. The award was presented by the Employer Supportof the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) program, a Departmentof Defense effort launched in 1972 to promote cooperationand understanding between Reserve members and theircivilian employers. A national network of more than 4,500volunteers helps to support ESGR.

Sure, it can create some challenges for remaining staffwhen one of their valued co-workers leaves for a period ofmilitary training or active duty. But here at USDA — as wellas at cooperatives and other businesses around the nation —that it is such a small price to pay for the essential workmembers of the Reserve and Guard do to not only defendour freedom, but also for the assistance they often provide intimes of natural disasters and other emergencies.

These brave men and women put their lives on the linefor all of us, so the least we can do as employers is providethe logistical support needed to “fill the holes” while theyare gone.

The cover story for this magazine examines a closelyrelated topic: helping to foster careers in agriculture forservice men and women after they return to civilian life. Asthe article (page 20) notes, the skill sets required for successin the military — including adaptability, strong work ethic,team orientation and commitment to mission — relateclosely to what it takes to be successful in agriculture.

Cooperatives have an established track record of hiringmilitary veterans because they value the skills vets bring tothe workplace. The fact that so many vets have rural rootsalso helps to cement the bond between agriculture andveterans.

The focus of the cover story is the LivestockConservancy’s efforts to expose veterans to the possibility of

raising heritage livestock breeds — animals such as RedDevon cattle and Leicester Longwool sheep. Many veteransand current Reservists are already doing so.

There are many great stories here, such as the Virginiaranch that is not only helping to conserve endangered,colonial-era horse breeds (brought to America by Spanishexplorers), but also helps veterans from a nearby VA hospitalwho may be recovering from post traumatic stress disorder,and who find working with the horses therapeutic.

A critical factor for success in the military, as one vet inthe article notes, is recognizing that the success of your unitrequires teamwork, along with the recognition that “each ofus have inherent strengths and weaknesses. The mark of agood leader is to understand them and work to achieve thecommon objective.” The same could certainly be said abouta successful cooperative.

A number of cooperatives have helped to sponsor orparticipated in these livestock workshops and tours. I saluteall cooperatives that are “answering the call” to open thedoors to agricultural careers of all types for vets entering thecivilian workforce. You are not only helping vets find goodjobs, but you are also helping your co-ops tap this greatresource of talent while helping keep our nation strong. ■

2 July/August 2016 / Rural Cooperatives

Commentary Answering the Call

Receiving the Patriot Award presented to the USDA Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS) (front row, from left) are: Mark Brodziski,energy programs director; Chad Parker, deputy administrator forcooperative programs; and Sam Rikkers, RBCS administrator. Awardpresenters (back row, from left) are: Jacob York, volunteer with theEmployer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) program; Lt. Col.Farish of the District of Columbia National Guard; Owen Edoohonba,National Guard member and RBCS energy programs specialist; andBill Schatzman, program support technician for ESGR.

Features

Rural Cooperatives / July/August 2016 3

Volume 83, Number 4July/August 2016

Rural Cooperatives (1088-8845) is published bimonthlyby USDA Rural Development, 1400 Independence Ave.SW, Stop 0705, Washington, DC. 20250-0705.

The Secretary of Agriculture has determined thatpublication of this periodical is necessary in thetransaction of public business required by law of theDepartment. Periodicals postage paid at Washington,DC. and additional mailing offices. Copies may beobtained 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., DC20250-3255.

Mention in Rural Cooperatives of company and brandnames does not signify endorsement over othercompanies’ products and services.

Unless otherwise stated, articles in this publication arenot copyrighted and may be reprinted freely. Anyopinions express-ed are those of the writers, and do notnecessarily reflect those of USDA or its employees.

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S.Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rightsregulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies,offices, and employees, and institutions participating inor administering USDA programs are prohibited fromdiscriminating based on race, color, national origin,religion, sex, gender identity (including genderexpression), sexual orientation, disability, age, maritalstatus, family/parental status, income derived from apublic assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisalor retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any programor activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all basesapply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filingdeadlines vary by program or incident. ■ Persons withdisabilities who require alternative means ofcommunication for program information (e.g., Braille,large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.)should contact the responsible Agency or USDA'sTARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) orcontact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at(800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may bemade available in languages other than English. ■ Tofile a program discrimination complaint, complete theUSDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027,found online at How to File a Program DiscriminationComplaint and at any USDA office or write a letteraddressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of theinformation requested in the form. To request a copy ofthe complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit yourcompleted form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Office of the AssistantSecretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue,SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442;or (3) email: [email protected]. ■ USDA is anequal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.

Tom Vilsack, Secretary of Agriculture

Lisa Mensah, Under Secretary,USDA Rural Development

Dan Campbell, Editor

Stephen Hall / KOTA, Design

Have a cooperative-related question? Call (202) 720-6483, or email: [email protected] This publication was printed with vegetable oil-based ink.

04 Grain cooperatives are bracing for a challenging second half of 2016By Tanner Ehmke

08 Stronger. Together. After 100 years, Michigan Milk Producers Assoc. still taking care of business forproducer-members

14 “Cooperatives Build” theme for Cooperative Month 201616 Co-ops and community development efforts have played

changing roles in addressing rural povertyBruce J. Reynolds

20 For Farm and Country‘Service to Stewardship’ event opens doors for military veterans to raise heritagelivestock breedsBy Dan Campbell

30 Berry, Hollins win top co-op communications honors

Departments02 COMMENTARY

13 UTILITY CO-OP CONNECTION

28 LEGAL CORNER

32 IN THE SPOTLIGHT

33 NEWSLINE

p. 4

ON THE COVER: U.S. Marine Corps veteran HarryOldland gets a close look at Milking Shorthorn steers Chipand Dale during the Service to Stewardship workshop atthe Lakota ranch in Remington, Va. The LivestockConservancy and Virginia Cooperative Extensionconducted the event to educate military service veteransabout options for raising rare breeds of livestock andpoultry. Photo Illustration by Stephen Thompson; Photo byLance Cheung

p. 8 p. 20


By Tanner EhmkeSenior Economist, CoBank

Grain cooperatives started the 2016 crop-growing season with their weakest financialprospects in recent years. Though theirbalance sheets remain strong, many co-opmanagers report that last year’s harvest was

the driest in recent memory, with revenue generated fromgrain-drying services falling in many cases to one-third ofnormal. And since last year’s harvest, basis markets have beenvirtually void of volatility, offering few profit-takingopportunities.

Further, we’re still awaiting the potentially arid fallassociated with La Niña, the periodic climatic phenomenon(related to ocean temperatures and currents) that tends tomake for unseasonably cool, dry weather. This may threatencrop production late in the season and raises the prospect of

yet another year of subpar grain-drying revenue. That alladds up to what could be a very challenging remainder of2016 for America’s grain cooperatives.

To be sure, there are some bright signs. Graincooperatives still stand to profit substantially by year’s endwith the opportunity to buy cheap basis after the harvest.Their income statements are also likely to be bolstered bystorage fees paid by farmer-members for substantialinventories in nearly every category. This will help to takethe edge off the slimmer profits gleaned at the start of thecalendar year.

But that pales next to the challenges they face in thesecond half of 2016. Below, we will examine these challengesmore closely.

Weak start to 2016The calendar year started with a stagnant basis market on

the heels of a weak grain-drying harvest (see figure 1). With

Grain cooperatives


no relief immediately in sight, grainmerchandisers will likely endure furtherbelt-tightening throughout the year asample grain and oilseed supplies, slowfarmer selling and an anemic exportprogram continue to drag on the basismarket.

Barring any significant weather-related crop losses this year, grainhandlers could also be tasked withmanaging huge farmer-ownedinventories into the new crop year andcreating (at least temporarily) additionalstorage.

In the eastern Corn Belt, graincooperatives were also dealt a storm ofadditional losses, including sharplylower agronomy sales and reducedcustom applications resulting fromexcessive rains last summer that keptapplicators out of fields. Grain handlersin that area of the country also arestruggling with how best to market lastyear’s poor-quality wheat crop, whichwas contaminated with high levels ofvomatoxin, as heavy summer rainscaused widespread head scab andsprouting issues in ripe wheat fields.

Corn and soybean crop developmentacross large swaths of the eastern CornBelt was also hampered, resulting in ashortfall of marketable bushels and apersistently tight basis. The generalmanager of one farmer-owned co-op inOhio estimates that his corn receiptsfell 20 percent, with soybean receiptsdown 10 percent. The sharpest cuts toincome, though, came from sub-stantially lower grain-drying revenue.

Stagnant basisThe grain and oilseed basis markets

continue to drift sideways amid theample inventories in the United Statesand a lackluster export market. Thislimits opportunities for elevators to findpost-harvest profits in basisappreciation, mostly as a result of thelittle amount of grain owned by theelevators. With crop prices havingretreated from the multiyear highsachieved in recent years, farmers haveunderstandably remained reluctant

sellers. The percentage of old crop inco-op storage that is farmer-owned iscommonly reported at around 30percent — a record for many co-opsand well above the typical 10-percentlevel.

While the basis market has heldsteady across the United States, grainmerchandisers in the western Corn Beltand the Plains have seen basis holdingat consistently weak levels since last fall.These western sellers are holding thelargest crop inventories seen in decades(see Figure 2). Grain handlers in theeastern Corn Belt, meanwhile, haveexperienced consistently tighter basis

following last year’s drop in crop yields. Basis movement is likely to be held

down by the more than ample suppliesacross the United States. As of March 1,U.S. corn stocks totaled 7.8 billionbushels, which approached near-recordvolumes, even though the size of thecorn crop shrank last fall to 13.6 billionbushels, down from the previous year’s14.2 billion bushels. With the help of abumper crop, soybean stocks were alsohuge at 1.5 billion bushels, while wheatstocks were at their highest level in fiveyears at 1.4 billion bushels. Total U.S.grain and oilseed stocks are the highestsince 1987.

Another factor that figures to furtherweaken old-crop basis: Wheat andsoybean meal imports from Argentinahave created a much more competitive

environment for the Southeast hog andpoultry feed markets. Cheap oceanfreight rates and weak currencies incompeting wheat-exporting regions alsoraise the prospect of increased feed-wheat imports from the EuropeanUnion (EU) and Black Sea region. Thiswould add further pressure to old-cropbasis levels, further shrinking profitablemarketing opportunities for some co-ops with large market shares in theSoutheast United States.

Mitigating factorsThere is some good news on the

way, though. By this fall, co-ops hope togain substantially from buying cheapnew-crop basis as farmers expand totalcorn and soybean acreage. USDA nowpredicts that farmers will boost cornplantings this year to 93.6 million acres,up 5.6 million from last year, withsoybean acreage seen shrinking slightly,by 400,000 acres, to a total of 82.2million acres.

Assuming a corn trend-line yield of168 bushels per acre and a soybeantrend-line yield of 46.7 bushels peracre, both corn and soybean stocks arelikely to expand this fall to even higherlevels. Barring a significant weather-induced crop failure, a reversal of thetrend towards a build-up of cropinventories is unlikely.

In the event that farmers endure asubpar growing season, ample old-cropsupplies still are expected to restrain thebasis market from making significantmoves. For instance, a repeat of the2012 drought that resulted in a 15-percent reduction in corn yield and a10-percent abandonment rate could stillboost total corn supplies to nearly 14billion bushels this fall. Persistent,burdensome world supplies will alsodampen any potential rally efforts.

Potential upside exists if basis staysweak through the fall harvest. Elevatorswould be able to buy basis at asignificant discount to prior years andpotentially gain on basis appreciationpost-harvest — an opportunity missedin the 2015 harvest.

Of growing concernamong co-op managers isthe availability of storage

space this fall.


Storage availability concernsOf growing concern among co-op

managers is the availability of storagespace this fall. The surplus of grain andoilseed stocks has haunted co-ops withthe prospect of insufficient storageheading into the new-crop harvest.While they’re very sensitive toproduction costs, farmers are not yet indire straits financially and could bewilling to take a chance that there willbe weather-driven rallies this growingseason; they could even hold-out for apost-harvest rally.

Farmers’ hedges on new crop arealso the lowest in recent memory,according to market advisors,portending even more growth infarmer-owned inventory into the new-crop year. Higher than normal farmer-owned grain and oilseed stocks, though,

have left co-ops exposed to the risk ofinsufficient space should farmerscontinue holding on to old crop.

However, those elevators thatexpanded their storage in moreprofitable years and set storage feescommensurate to the marketplace standto benefit from fees collected onfarmer-owned grain. Elevators will alsoprofit slightly on storage hedges in thefutures market if they carry grain intothe new-crop marketing window.Elevator managers will, however, bekeen on watching whether decliningcrop quality of grain inventories carriesinto the new crop year.

Farmers’ willingness to hold on tograin remains the co-ops’ wildcard. Co-ops generally assume that farmer sellingwill accelerate later in the marketingyear to generate income for covering

production expenses. While farmerswill be tightening their belts onproduction costs this year, many ofthem nevertheless will be keen onholding out, waiting for prices toimprove to levels above breakeven. Inthe event that farmers carry substantialcrop inventories into the new-crop year,co-ops are preparing to store more grainin bunkers or on flat storage this fall.

Weather and La Niña risks A significant portion of co-ops’

profits come from grain drying, whichtook a substantial hit last fall, whenfarmers hauled in the driest crop inrecent memory. The prospect of LaNiña, which normally is associated withdryness in the Midwest, heightens therisk of a repeat in 2016. The NationalWeather Service currently predicts a

Price Basis for Alternative Crops, April 2014–16

HRW* (Kan) Milo (Kan) Corn (Iowa) Soy (Iowa) SRW** (Ohio) Corn (Ohio) Soy (Ohio)*Hard red winter wheat; **Soft red winter wheat


75-percent chance of La Niñadeveloping this fall, though this pro-bability says nothing about its intensity.

For grain handlers in the Plains,farmers are now harvesting recordwheat yields and quickly filling binspace. With wheat inventories at theirhighest level in five years, and with theexport market continuing in a slump,wheat basis has continued to weaken asit competes with ample corn and grainsorghum inventories for inclusion in thefeed mix. Cattle feeders generally arewell covered on feed needs into the fall,currently leaving wheat little room tobe blended into the feed supply.

In the Midwest, harvest conditionshave been considerably drier and “more

cooperative,” compared to 2015. Thisallows farmers to bring in a higherquality wheat crop that grainmerchandisers hope to blend with lastyear’s lower quality supplies.

ConclusionsFollowing 2015’s weak ending, grain

cooperatives will be focused oncontrolling costs, chasing modestprofits in the futures market, andcollecting storage fees from farmerclients. But there is some potentialupside. Given the strong balance sheetenjoyed by most cooperatives followingmultiple years of historically strongrevenue, farmer-owned co-ops generallyare well-positioned to handle this year’s

downturn. Grain merchandisers also stand to

benefit from buying cheaper basis post-harvest in the absence of major weatherdisruptions, causing a significantreduction in crop yields.

One other complicating factor:Mergers, acquisitions or joint venturesmay become more likely as co-ops tryto reduce price risk exposure to amplegrain and oilseed supplies, to addressstorage shortage concerns amid recordinventories, and to control cost viaachieving economies of scale. Lookingahead to the longer term, co-opmanagers anticipate consolidation tocontinue, even as the period of slimmerprofits passes. ■

Grain and Oilseed Stocks, 1950–2016 (as of March 1)


“We issue this call to all milkproducers in Michigan togather at the MichiganAgricultural College, EastLansing, Room 402,Agricultural Building, onTuesday, May 23, 1916, at 11a.m.”

The above call to action was sharedwith the world via the pages ofHoard’s Dairyman on April 22, 1916,following adoption of the resolutionand meeting notice by members ofthe Livingston County MilkProducers’ Association. The meetingattracted 400 dairy farmers fromacross southern Michigan. Somearrived by train in Lansing. Otherscame in motorcars — such as Ford’sModel T — that had bumped along

muddy, deeply rutted wagon roads toget to the college campus.

Among this “large andenthusiastic” group were thosewhose livelihood came primarilyfrom farm enterprises. ButMichigan’s dairymen of 1916 alsoincluded bankers, statesmen,manufacturers, insurance salesmenand law enforcement officers — allof whom operated dairy farms whilealso pursuing other jobs.

Regardless of their background,these producers knew how to “get ontheir feet and state their positionwith clearness and no littleeloquence,” Hoard’s Dairymanreported. “The thought was repeatedover and over again that theproducer was getting the small endof the horn and that his principal

occupation and purpose of existencewas seemingly to blow large profitsfor the distributor.”

Securing a better producer price

With a primary goal of securing abetter price for producers’ milk, astatewide organization open only todairy farmers was born. It would becalled the Michigan Milk ProducersAssociation. The new association hadnearly 200 dues-paying members andits first board of directors at theconclusion of the daylong meeting.

“If the temper of the … milkproducers present at this meeting isevidence of the feeling existinggenerally among their neighbors, webelieve the new organization willgrow in strength and its members

After 100 years, Michigan Milk Producers Assoc. still taking care of business for producer-members

Editor’s note: This article is adapted from MMPA’s centennial publication: “Stronger. Together.” written by Donna Abernathy.


1916 MMPA is formed at Michigan Agricultural College(now Michigan State University)

1919 Michigan Milk Messenger (co-op memberpublication) first published

1922 MPA leads development of the classification of milkpricing system

1924 Resolution passed saying that only milk frommembers would be sold through the association

1932 MPA starts transporting milk from county receivingstations

1937 First 4-H Milk Marketing Tour held 1948 Michigan passes Pasteurized Milk Law1950 Outstanding Young Dairy Cooperators Program begins1951 Federal Milk Marketing Orders begin in Michigan1956 MMPA districts established 1956 MMPA helps members replace cans and purchase

bulk tanks 1957 Co-op purchases Ovid Plant 1962 Disaster Protection Program initiated for members 1965 Adoption of the Grade A Milk Inspection Law;

Membership bylaw changed, allowing any person in a

partnership to be a member1975 MMPA establishes antibiotic milk policy 1978 Michigan Milk Political Action Committee formed 1979 Dairy Communicators network formed1981 Constantine Cooperative Creamery Merger; MMPA

acquires Constantine plant1982 MMPA Merges with Michigan Dairy Producers Co.1984 Advisory Committee forms to serve as liaison

between board, management and members1987 Joint agreement with Leprino Foods 1988 Quality Premium Program begins, providing producer

incentives for higher quality milk 1995 Adopts Multiple Component Pricing System2007 Member farms required to Provide rBST-Free milk 2008 Ovid expansion project begins2011 Members begin participating in the National Dairy

F.A.R.M. Program for animal care2014 Strategic alliance with Foremost Farms USA;

Installation of reverse osmosis operation2015 MMPA attains Level 3 SQF (Safety Quality Food)

certification at plants in Ovid and Constantine

MMPA Defining Moments

Y E RA S

Michigan Milk Producers Assoc. (MMPA) milk pickup vehicles have changed markedly during the past 100 years, from horse-drawnwagons in the early years of the co-op to the large tanker trucks of today (right). Smaller tanker trucks, such as this Traverse City truckfleet, were used in the 1950s (below, left). All Photos courtesy MMPA


[will] stand shoulder to shoulder inthe cooperative endeavor,” theHoard’s story predicted.

MMPA was originally formed as afederated association — a statewideorganization composed of many localassociations that were autonomous,farmer-governed groups. R.C. Reed,appointed as the new association’sfield secretary, had the job oforganizing these local groups.

Each local association paid a $5annual membership plus 50 cents perindividual member to join the stateMMPA. Individuals paid dues of $1

per year to sustain local operations.The state association would serve

as the selling agency for all membermilk. The association, with memberapproval, set a milk price based ongenerating a fair return overproduction costs. Then, it was theassociation’s job to get dealers to paythe target price.

By MMPA’s first annual meetingon Oct. 17, 1916, the success inmember recruiting was apparent.The auditorium in the MACAgricultural Building wasoverflowing as almost 1,000 milkproducers “from nearly every countyin Southern Michigan” attended.They represented more than 80 localassociations that had formed in thefew weeks since MMPA was founded.Other local associations wereforming as fast as Reed could processrequests.

When MMPA was formed in1916, bargaining cooperatives wereconsidered to be in violation offederal antitrust laws until the

Capper-Volstead Act was passed in1922. The founders therefore electedto form a member corporation, anorganization allowed by law.

Growing painsIn its first years of existence,

MMPA quickly made an impact onMichigan milk prices. From a rockbottom $1.16 per hundredweightwhen the association was formed in1916, prices had steadily climbed to ahigh of $3.40 in 1920 before settlingat an average $3 per hundredweight.Attractive pricing led to steady

membership and milk volumeincreases for MMPA. The stateassociation was marketing milk fornearly 100 local producerorganizations in the LowerPeninsula. That number would peakat 103 by the end of the decade.

To oversee the necessaryemployees and paperwork nowinvolved in marketing members’milk, the board hired John Near in1921 as MMPA’s first secretary-general manager. Along with Near’shiring came the establishment ofMMPA’s headquarters in Detroit,where the majority of members’ milkwas being sold to fluid bottlers. Thenew office opened at the end of 1922in downtown Detroit.

In 1921, MMPA organized theMichigan Producers Dairy Co.(MPDC) to manufacture and marketdairy products from milkoversupplies. MMPA owned 40percent of the company, with theremainder held by individualfarmers. MPDC operated

continuously until 1982, when itmerged with MMPA.

Milk production was rising andfeed prices declining just as theGreat Depression brought theeconomy — and milk sales — to agrinding halt. Automobile sales driedup, along with consumers’ bankaccounts. So, the majority ofDetroit’s workforce was out of a job.Unemployed factory workers movedto the country to save money, leavingthe majority of MMPA’s milk buyerswithout customers.

Guaranteeing a market for

members’ milk resulted in MMPAemerging from the Depression witha system of receiving stations, atransportation fleet and its ownfluid-milk processing plant. Bynecessity, more than design, the co-op developed considerable marketingmuscle.

Membership growth, along withthe stations, transportation andprocessing capability developedduring the Depression, resulted inMMPA controlling a very significantand growing percent of the totalpounds of milk flowing into theDetroit market by the time WorldWar II ended in September 1945.

Soldiers returning home to theirMichigan dairy farms found theirmilk marketing association largerand stronger. MMPA was poised totackle an explosive postwar era.

Growing and changingIn the years following World War

II, change came to practically everyaspect of dairy farming and milk

Hundreds of dairy farmers agreed on one simple principle: unifying wasthe best way to market their milk to the greatest advantage possible.


marketing in Michigan and acrossthe country. Soldiers, exposed to newideas and practices while in service,returned to their farms with greaterexpectations and plans forimprovement. The age of themodern dairy farm was rooted intheir aspirations.

MMPA’s membership soared tomore than 17,000 in 1954 beforedecreasing dramatically over the nexttwo decades. The cooperative, likethe entire dairy industry, contractedas families exited the dairyinglifestyle.

The farms that remained grewlarger and more specialized. Theaverage dairy herd size and milkproduction per cow climbed. Milkquality changed, too, as moreproducers shifted away fromuninspected manufacturing grademilk in favor of the premium-priced,

inspected Class I milk.The availability of affordable rural

electricity, combined with equipmentinnovations, quickly brought the eraof three-legged stools, open buckets,milk cans and cream separators to aclose on the majority of MMPAfarms by the mid-1950s.

In 1955, MMPA hastened theconversion from milk cans toelectrified bulk tanks by offeringpremiums to members and sellingthem bulk tanks at wholesale prices.In just a year, more than 600producers in the Detroit marketalone were using bulk deliveries.

Signs of the timesThough MMPA’s markets

encompassed a much larger area, thefortunes of the people of Detroit and the fate of co-op membersremained closely intertwined when

the 1960s debuted.The Motor City’s population

climbed along with automobileindustry sales, causing a housingshortage that sent workers sprawlingfrom the city center in search ofhomes. Farmland disappeared as newresidential neighborhoods sproutedwhere dairy cows had grazed. Thesuburbs were born.

A similar exodus occurredthroughout the state as familieslooked beyond the city limits forroom to grow. Everywhere, the linesbetween town and country began toblur.

Housewives’ shopping habitschanged along with their addresses.New kitchens equipped withspacious refrigerators eliminated theneed for daily deliveries of milk andother dairy products. Instead, therewere weekly grocery-buying trips to

Y E RA S

Ken Nobis, MMPApresident, addresses theco-op’s 100th annualmeeting; the co-op’s OvidPlant (below left); a co-opbutter-packing plant, seenin 1956.


large chain supermarkets that oftenanchored new retail shoppingcenters.

Grocery lists modified as well.Increasingly, milk was sharing spacein the grocery cart with soft drinksand other beverages. Fluid milkconsumption began a dramaticdecent.

As the cooperative approached its50th year in business, MMPA leaderskept a close watch on consumersbecause their choices affected the co-op’s future. Adjustments, advocacyand advertising would be key tokeeping the company viable for thenext half century.

Milk marketing was primarily afunction of local associations whenMMPA’s operational and governancestructure was established in 1916.

Things were different by the end ofthe 1950s. Local markets were fastdisappearing, and milk marketingwas being conducted over largeareas.

Adjustments in the cooperative’spolitical and operation structure thatwere intended to improve marketingand bargaining efficiency included:forming a single operatingdepartment for the Lower Peninsula,creating a new department to overseeMMPA’s manufacturing and bottlingoperations, and replacing local salescommittees with a single marketcommittee.

A year later, the Upper Peninsulawould also experience a makeoverwhen five dairy cooperativesrepresenting 850 producers voted toform a single, large cooperative and

affiliate with MMPA.

New directionsBy 1985, MMPA was, by far, the

largest dairy cooperativeheadquartered in Michigan. Thatyear, members marketed 3.3 billionpounds from just 4,000 farms.Tankers moved that milk over longdistances to reach a handful ofcooperative-owned processingfacilities.

MMPA had formed a MilkProducts Division in 1982 to bettermanage the milk flowing intomanufacturing. The divisionincluded plants acquired in a mergerwith the Michigan Milk ProducersDairy Co. as well as Constantine andOvid. The McDonald Divisionremained a separate operation.

In the early 1980s, MMPApurchased a butter plant in Remusand converted it into a cheese plant.Later, MMPA inked a deal withDenver-based Leprino Foods Co.,which supplied mozzarella cheese tofour of the top pizza chains in thecountry. The deal gave MMPA a 20-year milk supply contract, leaseincome from the Remus plant andprofit sharing from sales ofmozzarella made there. In 2005,Leprino bought out the cooperative’sremaining interest in its assets andextended the milk supply agreement,ensuring a market for MMPAmember milk for an additional 24years.

The Leprino agreement broughtmanufacturing to the forefront. Itwas no longer regarded as simply a

way to dispose of milk not sold forfluid consumption, but rather a chiefprofit center. A major portion ofMMPA milk began flowing intocooperative-owned facilities.

The greatest advantageIt looked as though MMPA’s 75th

anniversary would be bittersweet.USDA was predicting a year“characterized by sharply lowerprices, continued expansion in milkproduction and increasedcommercial sales.”

By spring, the predictions playedout with the lowest milk prices in 13years. MMPA President ElwoodKirkpatrick called on members towrite their congressmen andPresident George Bush to urge dairypolicy changes. “It is vital that the

legislative body know of the crisis athand,” he wrote in his monthlycolumn.

General Manager Walt Wosje wasmore upbeat by the time membersgathered for the annual meeting in1992. He reported that thecooperative had helped membersremain financially stable by payingthe highest ever over-orderpremiums in 1991. MMPAdistributed $14 million above theFederal Order price to members.

Flagging product sales picked upin the second half of the year tofurther help the financial situation. Ayear later, MMPA reported record-breaking profits due largely to thepositive impact of its renovatedmanufacturing plants.

Through good times and turbulent times,the cooperative spirit has endured as a testament to what can

be achieved through loyalty and commitment.

continued on page 38

By Oumourumana Jalloh, USDA RuralUtilities Service summer fellow,and Denise Scott, USDA Rural UtilitiesService project assistante-mail: [email protected]

Editor’s note: Jalloh is an undergraduatestudent majoring in environmental studiesand political science at the University ofPennsylvania.

Everyone loves savingmoney. Even if we don’tsave as much as weshould, we all wish wecould save more!

Finding ways to reduce payments onour energy bills — both for homes andbusinesses — can be a significantstrategy for saving money. However,this is more difficult for some than forothers.

Reducing energy consumption isgenerally harder for people living inrural areas than it is for those in urbanareas, because rural residents have totravel further for basic goods andservices and, on average, have largerhouseholds, among other reasons. TheU.S. Energy InformationAdministration estimates that ruralfamilies spend about $400 more peryear in energy bills compared to thetypical urban household.

The Rural Utilities Services (RUS)of the U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA) recognizes that high energycosts are a burden for rural residentsand is working to bridge the gapbetween rural and urban areas. USDAis committed to providing flexibleprograms that help finance energyefficiency efforts for rural communities.

The newest energy efficiencyprograms managed by RUS are the

Energy Efficiency and ConservationLoan Program (EECLP) and the RuralEnergy Savings Program (RESP). Bothprograms provide flexibility forborrowers to design their own energyefficiency or savings programs. EECLP provides loans to financeenergy efficiency and renewable energyprojects that help reduce consumptionand manage load. With EECLP,utilities that provide service to people inrural areas can borrow money at U.S.Treasury rates, then re-lend the moneyto help consumers develop new, diverseenergy products.

One example of this is the $6 millionEECLP loan awarded to NorthCarolina’s Roanoke ElectricMembership Corporation to financeimprovements in members’ heating,ventilation and air conditioning(HVAC) systems, for the replacement ofappliances, and to upgrade their homeswith energy efficient windows, floorsand walls. These energy efficiencyimprovements have yielded savings forcustomers who pay back their loan overtime through a small fee added onto

their monthly energybill. The RESP focuses on

helping rural familiesand small businessesreduce energy usethrough investments inenergy efficiency. Inaddition to offering alower cost financingoption — a zero-percent interest rate forup to 20 years — than is

available through the EECLP, RESPalso provides loans to utilities that servepeople in rural areas. RESP has abroader pool of eligible borrowerswhich includes (but is not limited to)state agencies, territories and nonprofitsthat provide energy services to ruralresidents.

Energy efficiency is vital to ournation’s economic growth and to thedevelopment of local communities.USDA is strongly committed tooffering a variety of flexible financingoptions to expand efforts to help ruralcommunities save money, reduce theneed to purchase or generate energyand to reduce emissions fromgeneration of electricity. These effortswill strengthen rural economiesthrough job creation for energyefficiency and conservation projects.

For cooperatives and cooperativemembers looking for ways to savemoney through energy efficiency,USDA may be able to help.

General information regarding USDAloan programs for energy efficiencyprograms can be found at:www.rd.usda.gov. For specific questionsabout the RESP or EECLP programs,contact Titilayo Ogunyale at:[email protected]. ■


Uti l i ty Co-op Connect ionUSDA energy efficiency programs can benefitutility co-ops and members in many ways

Blowing insulation into an attic can have amajor, beneficial impact on a member’sheating and cooling bills. Photo courtesyRoanoke Electric Membership Corporation


The theme for national CooperativeMonth in October is “CooperativesBuild,” which cooperatives are urged to reflect in their communications andoutreach activities. The theme can be

used on its own or extended with sub-themes, such as:Cooperatives Build Trust; Cooperatives BuildCommunities; Cooperatives Build Jobs; CooperativesBuild a Better World.

“Cooperatives build in so many ways, so weencourage cooperatives to insert what they feel their co-op helps build as part of the broad theme,” saysJenny Bernhardt, chair of the Co-op Month PlanningCommittee. “The key thing is that your co-op plansome type of communications effort to help spread theword in October about why cooperatives are soimportant to your community, region and to thenation,” adds Bernhardt, who is director of commun-ications for Cooperative Network, a regional associationof cooperatives in Minnesota and Wisconsin.

theme for Cooperative Month 2016

Here are some key messages to relate in interviews and press releases that have been found toresonate with the media and the public. They help achieve the goals of Co-op Month, which areto raise public awareness of cooperatives and celebrate their accomplishments.■ There are more than 29,000 cooperative businesses in the United States with 350 million members (many people belong to

more than one co-op). These cooperatives generate $514 billion in revenue and more than $25 billion in wages, according to astudy conducted by the University of Wisconsin Center for Cooperatives, with support from USDA Rural Development(http://reic.uwcc.wisc.edu/default.htm).

■ Cooperatives represent a strong business model and greatly contribute to both the national and local economies.■ Studies show that consumers want to do business with companies that share their values, making today’s environment ideal

for cooperatives and their commitment to the communities in which their members live and work.■ Co-ops don’t have to answer to outside shareholders; they care about meeting their members’ needs.■ Co-ops represent democracy in action, with control exercised by a board of directors elected from the ranks of members; the

board hires and directs management and is ultimately responsible to the members;■ Cooperatives generate jobs in their communities, keep profits local and pay local taxes to help support community services.

Cooperatives often take part in community improvement programs, ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to benefit fromthe cooperative experience.

To better “bring home” these messages, gather additional data about the role and power of co-ops in your state, region orcommunity.

Jim Crawford of Tuscarora Organic Growers Cooperative discusses the co-op’s marketing strategy during a panel talk on co-ops and local food systems,held at USDA headquarters during last year’s Cooperative Month.

The planning committee was formedthrough the CooperativeCommunicators Assoc. (CCA) andincludes the participation of theNational Cooperative Business Assoc.,National Rural Electric CooperativeAssociation, National CooperativeBank, USDA Cooperative Programs,Cooperatives for a Better World, theMinnesota Cooperative EducationFoundation and communicators from anumber of diverse cooperative businesses.

With support from participatingcooperatives and funding from the CHSFoundation, the committee is creating aCo-op Month toolkit with a varietypromotional/educational materials. Thecampaign will be announced andmaterials will be made available atwww.CoopMonth.coop in early August.The toolkit will include the new Co-opMonth logo, posters, print and radiopublic service announcements, a samplepress release, sample Co-op Monthproclamation, social media resources,co-op success stories, talking points andactivity ideas, among others.

“National, regional and local pollsconsistently show that Americans reallylike the idea of doing business with acooperative, but so many people stilldon’t understand what co-ops are,”Bernhardt notes. “That’s whatCooperative Month is all about: to helpattract attention to the many benefits ofthe producer-, worker- and user-ownedbusiness model, and letting peopleknow that cooperatives are all aroundthem.”

The same communications effortsthat help educate the public can alsoserve as reminders for co-op membersand employees about “the co-opdifference.”

Activities can be as a simple asputting up some posters, makingclassroom visits or hosting a field trip,holding an open house or tour of yourco-op, issuing a press release to yourlocal and/or statewide media, holding acharity fundraising event. New thisyear, NCBA CLUSA encourages

cooperatives to schedule a Co-opMonth screening of the upcoming PBSVisionaries Series documentaryhighlighting the power of cooperativesboth in the U.S. and abroad. Moreinformation at www.ncbaclusa100.coop/visionaries-documentary. ■


■ Hold an open house at your co-op. Include tours of a co-op facility. Afarmer co-op could show visitors how to mix different types of livestockfeed or test members’ milk quality. Have a satellite-enabled applicator rigavailable as part of your tour and explain how such gear helps to reducethe environmental impact of farming. Offer directions to a member farm theycan also visit.

■ Supply stores can hold a raffle and cookout to boost interest in their openhouse. These types of activities can be a great way to showcase theservices and products of the cooperative.

■ Set up Co-op Month posters at your cooperative and/or at a public facility.■ Hold a workshop for members and/or the general public on an important

topic for your co-op. For example, an electric co-op can hold a workshop onenergy conservation in homes and businesses or address what the co-op isdoing to promote renewable energy.

■ Write a letter to the editor about the importance of co-ops in the economyand the part your co-op plays locally.

■ Contact your governor’s office with a draft of a state Co-op MonthProclamation (this is sometimes done by state co-op councils, so checkwith them first. This often takes many weeks of lead time).

■ Add some Co-op Month content to your website.■ Perform a community service project or hold a fundraiser in observance of

Co-op Month. These activities can range from cleaning up a stretch ofhighway or a public park to staging an event such as the annual race inWashington, D.C., held to raise money for co-op development.

■ Hold a Co-op Month breakfast, luncheon or dinner for members and/orcommunity members, and include a short co-op presentation.

■ Co-op stores can distribute special coupons for members to use duringOctober.

■ Provide co-op educational brochures and booklets at your event, such asthe “Do Yourself a Favor, Join a Co-op” brochure from USDA RuralDevelopment. Visit http://www. rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_LibraryOfPubs.htm to see the co-op publications available from USDA. To order,send an e-mail to [email protected], or call (202) 720-6483.

Like co-ops themselves, this annual observation is a do-it-yourself effort.Let your members know that your co-op celebrates its unique businessstructure and service to them, and that it in turn fully appreciates theirparticipation.

Co-op Month activity ideas

CO-OPS AND COMMUNITYDEVELOPMENT EFFORTS

have played changing rolesin addressing rural poverty

President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) greets a resident during his “Poverty Tour” through Appalachia in May 1964. The tour was used to help winCongressional votes from the South for the proposed Economic Opportunity Act. USDA planned the trip, and Agriculture Secretary Orville

Freeman was part of the delegation. Photo courtesy LBJ Presidential Library


By Bruce J. Reynolds, Agricultural EconomistUSDA Cooperative [email protected]

Twice in U.S. history, Presidents have mobilizedthe federal government to pursue major newinitiatives to reduce or eliminate poverty: FranklinD. Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” from 1933-1942, andLyndon B. Johnson’s “War on Poverty,” which

started in 1964 and continued through the Nixon Administration.The War on Poverty was a part of President Johnson’s pursuit of ageneral reform of America, including civil rights and Medicare,called “The Great Society.”

The New Deal was intended to help solve the GreatDepression. Cooperatives had a leading role, primarily in ruralareas, as vehicles for making the economy work for vast numbers ofthe unemployed or underemployed. Some of the agencies andtypes of cooperatives that were used to deliver services of the NewDeal were examined in the March/April 2014 issue of thismagazine (back issues are posted at: www.rd.usda.gov).

In contrast, the War on Poverty addressed America’s “poverty inthe midst of plenty,” so that the challenge was more to targetimpoverished communities than to fix a general economic crisis.Cooperatives were regarded as a useful strategy, but more directmethods of meeting development needs were favored. For the NewDealers, America was more rural in the 1930s and the ubiquitouspresence of farmer cooperatives provided a base of knowledge forstarting new co-ops using the same organizational model (Knapp).When the War on Poverty was launched in the 1960s, consumerand worker co-ops did not have as large of a presence in urbanareas to establish public understanding of the cooperative model(Jackal).

The War on Poverty was led by the Office of EconomicOpportunity (OEO), a new agency created by the EconomicOpportunity Act of 1964. The OEO launched several initiatives,such as Job Corps, Head Start, Legal Services, Volunteers inService to America (VISTA) and the Community Action Programs(CAPs). Although the OEO was terminated in 1974, many of itsinitiatives continue to operate, albeit with reduced funding(Stevens). The Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD), established by President Johnson, also played a role in theWar on Poverty.

Lessons from the New DealThe New Deal experiments with cooperatives had a mixed

record of accomplishments. Notable success resulted for ruralelectric cooperatives and the agricultural cooperative bankingsystem, although the latter was not experimental but an extensionof the Farm Credit system that served a well-established andrelatively large sector of farmer cooperatives.

Rural health care and most of the land settlement cooperativesfor collective farming did not outlast the New Deal. Some New


Deal cooperative housing communities, suchas Greenbelt, Md., were a success, andcontinue to thrive today. But the decline ofthe rural health care and many of the farmsettlement cooperatives has been attributedto the federal government’s “top downapproach.” New Deal government officialsmade decisions and administered programswith the term “cooperative” functioning inname only (Knapp).

Community actionThe policies of the OEO engaged

economically distressed communities withinvolvement in solving problems orovercoming constraints. OEO leadersbelieved that the best vehicle for pursuingeconomic uplift was to work withcommunity-based organizations that wouldimplement programs — such as job trainingand early education — to overcome barriersto economic development. Support forbusiness development, such as cooperatives,was also important, although the OEO’sguiding policy was to target governmentassistance on problems rather than rely ongeneral economic uplift.

Community-based organizations, whichOEO called Community Action Agencies(CAAs), played a major role in the War onPoverty. By 1967, there were more than1,000 CAAs, most of which were neworganizations for grassroots efforts to fight poverty(Lehman). Federal grants were provided to the CAAs to funddelivery of services, such as Head Start, Job Corp and LegalServices.

The CAPs involved economic projects that weredeveloped by CAAs in consultation with citizens in low-income neighborhoods. Rural communities also organizedCAAs and received financial support from the OEO. Byworking directly with communities and bypassing city, stateand local governments, OEO initiatives were politicallydivisive (Carlson- Lehman- Woods).

Food co-opsFood cooperatives and buying clubs were established in

many cities during the late 1930s and throughout the 1940sand grew in popularity during the 1960s (Co-op Handbook).This movement set an example for OEO to initiate food co-ops and buying clubs to improve access to nutritious foods inlow-income neighborhoods.

The lessons learned from the New Deal about top-downdecision-making are evident in the OEO approach to its foodcooperatives initiative. The OEO required a delegation

agreement between the CAA and a proposedfood co-op. A detailed manual forestablishing and operating food cooperativeswas developed by OEO (see photo, left).

The manual emphasized the autonomy ofthe co-op: “Staff of the co-op must beanswerable to the co-op board, not theCAA, must pay salaries and must have thepower to hire and fire co-op staff.” Suchadvice has been time-tested and is importantin starting cooperatives with members whoneed to develop operating and governanceskills.

The extent to which OEO foodcooperatives and buying clubs wereestablished and sustainable has not beendocumented. The persistence of “fooddeserts” in low-income communities to thepresent day suggests that many of these co-op initiatives were either difficult toestablish or proved to be unsustainable. Therecent renewal of food cooperatives inunderserved neighborhoods has betterprospects with more availability ofexperienced technical assistance providers(www.foodcoopinitiative.coop ).

Financing rural co-op development When the New Deal ended in 1942,

USDA substantially reduced its financialsupport to alleviate rural poverty. ItsFarmers Home Administration (FmHA) was

established in 1946 to carry forward some of the programs ofthe New Deal’s Farm Security Administration. Its legislativemandate focused on farm operating loans and housing, asrelated to farmers and farmworkers.

Lending for water facilities was added later, and in 1961,FmHA was authorized as a lender for single and multi-familyhousing. The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 broughtabout a return to programs for improving the economies oflow-income rural communities. Funds for FmHA’s lending toaddress rural poverty were provided by the OEO, while itstraditional lending to farmers remained as part of USDA’sbudget appropriations (“A Brief History”).

Cooperatives became a key strategy of the civil rightsmovement in the South during the 1960s. These effortsreceived grants from OEO and loans from FmHA (Marshall -Nembhard). Several of the cooperatives organized by AfricanAmerican farmers received start-up funding from bothnonprofit development organizations and from federalgovernment sources. Part of the motivation of thesecooperatives was to stop land loss resulting fromdiscrimination against African-American farmers in trying toobtain commodity loans from USDA and farm input loans

The New Deal experiments with cooperatives had a mixedrecord of accomplishments.Notable success resulted for rural electric cooperatives andthe agricultural cooperativebanking system.

This OEO operations manual wasused by the Community ActionAgencies to organize co-op storesand buying clubs in low-incomeneighborhoods.


from FmHA (Reynolds - Equal). OEO’s authority to bypass state and local government

proved to be crucial for African-American cooperatives toreceive grants and FmHA loans from its Washington, D.C.,office (Marshall). However, OEO could not influenceUSDA’s state offices to provide equal opportunity forindividual minority farmers to receive facilities and operatingloans (Equal). In 1994, FmHA’s housing and communitylending services were reorganized into USDA’s new RuralDevelopment mission area.

Some of the civil rights-era cooperatives in the South didnot sustain over the long-run, in part due to weaknesses inmanagement and record-keeping (Marshall). While financialassistance was delivered during the startup phase of the co-ops, there was less delivery of technical assistance andcooperative education later in the life of the businesses,which was much needed to address the challenges ofbalancing business operations with member democraticcontrol. The Federation of Southern Cooperatives wasformed in 1967 to help start and sustain cooperatives. It isone of the earliest cooperative development centers toprovide training and technical assistance for addressing thechallenges of sustainability for small farmers andcooperatives.

Providing technical assistance The largest resource in the federal government for

cooperative technical assistance, education, and research ishoused within USDA. In the 1960s, these services wereprovided by USDA’s Farmer Cooperative Service (FCS). FCShad been spun off from the Banks for Cooperatives to be anagency of USDA in 1953. Its technical assistance andresearch work traditionally served established farmercooperatives.

The War on Poverty influenced USDA’s cooperativeprograms. FCS established a Cooperative Development

Division in 1967 that consulted with OEO on developingrural cooperatives (Rasmussen). The OEO did not considerestablishing an agency similar to FCS for technical assistanceto urban consumer and worker cooperatives. The relativelack of funding for technical assistance for startingcooperatives in low-income communities has limited theirsustainability. (FCS was renamed the AgriculturalCooperative Service in 1980 and was the predecessor of the1994 reorganization of Cooperative Programs in USDARural Development.)

Cooperatives = communityThe War on Poverty oriented government policy to work

through community-based organizations for deliveringservices to those who do not reap the benefits of generaleconomic growth and prosperity. The cooperative businessmodel was not neglected by OEO, but it was not regarded asa major strategy for reducing poverty, as was believed by theNew Dealers.

In the decades after the OEO ended, cooperativescontinued to have a limited role in government economicdevelopment policy. Possible explanations include theexperience that cooperatives take more time to get organizedthan community planning groups. Furthermore, for quicklyspurring economic activity, alternative business models withinvestor ownership may offer advantages in meeting timeconstraints.

The OEO strategy of partnership between the federalgovernment and community development organizations totarget economically depressed areas continues as the primarymechanism for delivering assistance, according to U.S.Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack. In addition, U.S.economic development strategy has incentivizedcorporations, banks and other financing entities to invest inimpoverished communities with income tax credits and otherprograms to encourage private investment (Stevens). Somecooperatives have been financed with these incentiveprograms. But the application of cooperatives forstrengthening the economies of communities is not a highpriority strategy in federal government policy.

There are distinctive contributions from cooperatives forcommunity development. More of the income fromcooperatives stays in the communities where they operate, incontrast to businesses with ownership by outside investors. Inaddition, because they have strong ties to their communities,cooperatives do not relocate the business away from themembership base. Another advantage is the development of awide range of skills and business know-how by cooperativemembers that is often more selectively available to hiredemployees in investor-owned firms.

Cooperatives in low-income communities face specialchallenges that can be remedied with a combination of publicsupport to help finance start-up costs and technical assistance

Sargent Shriver, director of the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO),meets with President Johnson on April 5, 1965. Photo courtesy LBJPresidential Library



For Farmand Country

‘Service to Stewardship’ event opens doors for military veterans to raise heritage livestock breeds

Top: U.S. Air Force VeteranJames Marry, right, isamong those watching ademonstration aboutgrading sheep during theService to Stewardshipworkshops and tours.Bottom: Red Devon cattleare the main breed oflivestock at Lakota Ranch,the central location for thetwo-day event. The ranch isconsidered a model for anorganic, grass-based beefoperation.

By Dan Campbell, editorPhotos by Lance Cheung

Editor’s note: In additionto taking photos for thisarticle, USDAphotographer LanceCheung also conducted anumber of interviews,upon which much of thisarticle is based. Additionalinformation was alsodrawn from subsequentinterviews and thewebsites of some of theparticipants.


The experiences ofmilitary veterans caninclude everythingfrom overhauling theengines on troop

transports and tanks to drivingentrenched insurgents down from amountainside in Afghanistan.Regardless of the many thousands ofdifferent tasks they might have beenassigned, their military years taughtthem at least one over-arching skill:how to make a total commitment toachieving a mission. Their success —sometimes a matter of life or death —often depended on their ingenuity,the ability to adapt to changingconditions and to overcomeunforeseen obstacles.

In many respects, farmers andranchers need these same skills.Successfully raising a crop or a herdof livestock requires a totalcommitment to the mission. Andwho, more than a farmer, knowsabout having to revert to “Plan B”when Mother Nature or themarketplace throws a wicked curve?

This convergence of skill sets is aprimary reason that the LivestockConservancy — a nonprofitorganization dedicated to theconservation of endangered livestockbreeds — has made a commitment toeducating military veterans about thecommercial opportunities of raisingheritage livestock. Saving breeds suchas Leicester Longwool sheep,Scottish Highland cattle, Buckeyechickens and any of nearly 200 otherendangered breeds of livestock andpoultry is the Conservancy’s mission(see sidebar, page 26).

Fifty six military veterans, otherbeginning farmers and workshopleaders gathered in May on theLakota Ranch, near Remington, Va.,for two days of demonstrations,hands-on workshops and tours of areafarms. The goal of the “From Serviceto Stewardship” event is to helpparticipants decide if raising heritagebreeds of livestock and poultry could

be their next great adventure. This isthe third year the LivestockConservancy has staged the event forveterans and other beginning farmers.It hopes to make it an annual event.

Ag co-ops — such as Culpeper(Virginia) Farmers’ Cooperative,Southern States Cooperative andOrganic Valley — have helped to co-sponsor these gatherings. For co-ops,supporting such events not onlyshows their support for helping

military veterans transition intofarming, but also underscores theircommitment to maintaining thegenetic diversity that heritagelivestock breeds represent.

Cooperatives have long been activein hiring vets for jobs, finding thattheir varied experiences in uniformmake them especially well-suited forjobs that entail interfacing with theirproducer-members. In recent years,this publication has included articlesabout the veteran-hiring programs ofco-ops such as CHS Inc. and theFarm Credit System. Many other co-ops have similar veteran recruitment

and hiring programs. For its part,USDA has made a strongcommitment to hiring veterans, and itsupports reservists in the USDAworkforce when they are called up forduty (see page 2).

Following are a few glimpses ofsome of the people — both beginningfarmers and workshop instructors —who participated in the “FromService to Stewardship” event.

Top: Jeff Adams, of Walnut Hill Farm at Elm Springs, shares his knowledge about thebusiness of raising rare breeds of cattle. Below: Richard Larson, owner of Old Gjerpen Farm,discusses the basics of grading sheep and the benefits of showing them in competitions.Larson, who raises Milking Shorthorn cattle and Leicester Longwool sheep, is a two-timewinner of the Supreme Champion Fleece award.


The joys of ‘low-tech farming’In these days of air-conditioned, satellite-guided combines,

the harvesting method being demonstrated by Larry Cooperseems more akin to the Bronze Age than the Silicon Age. Heis using a scythe to mow a field of grass. With each smooth,level swing, there is a whispered “swoosh” as 10-foot arcs ofgrass collapse in neatly shaven waves.

This simple, but elegant device “is one of the greatesttools ever invented,” Cooper says, and it should not beconfined to the trash bin of technological history.

Cooper makes his own scythes (he also sells them),ordering the blades from Italy. They aren’t made in Americaany more, he notes. “Light as a feather andso sharp you could shave with it — everyhomestead should have one,” says Cooper.

After working as a blacksmith for 30 years,Cooper decided to concentrate ontoolmaking and producing more of his ownfood. One day, his gas-powered weed-eaterdied, which got him looking at other ways tomanage the acre of grass around his place.

“In Wisconsin, you must keep your prairiegrass cut,” he says. So he scythed that acre ofgrass. Not long afterward, a prairie fireburned 40 acres of grass around his home.The house survived “because I had done myduty with my scythe.”

Lesson learned: “Surely this must havebeen the way to manage grass before we hadgasoline engines.”

Cooper continued scything, but soonlearned that his technique was “all wrong. Ifinally met a person who really knew how to

do it. I learned a lot and took it from there.” The slow rate of progress mowing by yourself with a

scythe can be a little discouraging, he admits. Scything is bestdone in group, anywhere from 3 to 12 people, Cooper says.With “several people in echelon cutting in 10-foot arcs, youcan clear a field in no time.”

While many conference-goers are fascinated by hisdemonstration, even if only as a backup option, others areskeptical that this is something they would ever try on anykind of scale. “I’m sorry, but there is no way I am going tomow 100 acres of hay with a scythe,” one man says later inthe day. ■

“People talk about breed and livestock conservation, butI prefer to talk about genetic conservation,” says RichardLarson during his workshop on raising Leicester Longwoolsheep.

It is all well and good for a farmer to raise heritagebreeds to help preserve them, “but if you are doing it in anuninformed way, making bad decisions or not makingtough decisions [such as when to cull an animal], ultimatelyyou are hurting that breed. Someday, you will havechanged the breed in a way that is undesirable,” Larsonsays. “You must be able to identify desirable traits andmake tough decisions, otherwise you are not helping topreserve rare breeds.”

The overall purpose of this workshop, he explains, “is togive people without much experience working with sheep abase of knowledge needed when making decisions on whatbreed of sheep they want to raise.” The initial purchase ofanimals that will become the foundation of a flock is themost important decision a farmer will make, he stresses.

Many people involved in breed conservation discourageshowing the animals in competitions, their thinking beingthat you then begin to breed only for show traits. Larsondisagrees, finding great value in getting the independent,expert assessment of livestock judges.

Larson maintains four bloodlines of LeicesterLongwools on his farm, which he maintains in a “closed

Genetic conservation requires tough decisions

Larry Cooper


flock” and uses a “line-breeding” system. “We don’t have tobring in rams — our flock has been closed for 15 years,” he says.

Line breeding, Larsen explains, is basically inbreeding.“The difference is that line breeding is an informedprocess. Inbreeding is haphazard — an ‘I don’t know what Iam doing’ practice. If you are going to line breed, you mustbe knowledgeable about the genetics and be prepared tomake difficult decisions.”

“How do you assess quality if you are new to sheep or tothe breed? Reputation of the seller is one way. Ask forreferences. Look at production records. Talk to otherbreeders. Select livestock that is suitable to your land. Howwill you feed them? Do you have enough pasture andwater?” These are just a few of the key questions you mustanswer before getting started.

Another key is to find a skilled veterinarian, Larson says.“I can’t over-estimate how important vets are — not all vetsare the same.” ■

When he left the U.S. MarineCorps, Wes Rosson tried to make thetransition to “working in the corporateworld.” But he soon learned thatmanning a desk for corporate Americawasn’t where his head or heart was at.

After leaving the service, “I went theopposite way from farming. But Irealized all of that was completelywrong for me. It was not the future Iwanted,” Rosson recalls. The life thatattracted both him and his wife,Monique, was small-scale farming andbecoming self-sufficient in raising mostof their own food.

They now have land near GumSprings, Va., about 30 minutes west of Richmond, whereMonique cares for a flock of laying hens. “They are a lotmore work than I ever expected,” says Monique, who isplanning to soon quit her off-farm job as a baker so thatshe can better focus on caring for the hens and thegardens they have planted.

Their 10 acres of land is mostly wooded, but Wes isworking weekends to clear some of it to create moregardens and a pasture where they plan to raise a yet-to-be-determined heritage breed of livestock. Hence, theysay the Livestock Conservancy workshops were made toorder for them.

“We are learning more about getting started withlivestock — what breeds should we raise? We want tofind out all the ins and outs before we head down the

road, then find out things we shouldn’thave done, or should have done,” Wessays. He is still working off-farm to payfor the land and health insurance andwill continue to do so for theforeseeable future.

Farming is hard work, theRossons say. “But we would rather putthe work in on our own home andbusiness than for a corporate-typefuture,” Wes says. “We hope to havekids soon, and plan to home-schoolthem. We want to build a home whereour family can live and be self-sufficient.”

The Rossons believe their skillsand personalities will complement each other well on thefarm. “I’m a very Type A, very organized person whileshe is a bit more of a Type B, very creative person.”

Wes sees his Marine experience as converting well tofarming. “In military service, you learn to pursue yourmission…and to stick to it when things get hard. Youhave to figure out what the obstacles are to achievingyour goal, then do whatever it takes to achieve yourobjective.

“The military teaches you teamwork and comraderyand that each of us have inherent strengths andweaknesses,” he continues. “The mark of a good leader isto understand them and put them to work to achieve thecommon objective.” ■

Opting out of ‘corporate life’

Wes & Monique Rosson

Richard Larson


Elise Gibson and Lydia Barr work on the Mill SwampIndian Horses ranch, a nonprofit breed-conservationprogram near Smithfield, Va. The ranch is working toprevent the extinction of the Corolla Spanish Mustang, whichits website says is “perhaps the oldest and rarest distinctgenetic grouping of American horses,” as well as otherendangered early horse breeds of the Americas.

In their work on the ranch, Barr and Gibson often interactwith military veterans from a nearby V.A. hospital who mayhave suffered some type of trauma. The ranch has “a strongemphasis on working with service members,” Barr says.

While the program for vets is technically not arehabilitation program, it is part of a post-traumatic stressdisorder (PTSD) program, Barr explains. The vets come tothe ranch to work with the horses for a series of sessions.

There is also a program that works in a similar way withfoster children and troubled youth. “Horses can really affectthem — help them understand how to trust and reconnect inways that they wouldn’t be able to understand from anotherhuman,” Barr says.

“They learn to accept responsibility for things,” Gibsonadds.

Because of these experiences, Barr says she will “always be

looking for ways to use animals to help people.” She hasinterned on an organic farm in Maryland, where she gainedexperience working with all types of farm animals. She hasalso volunteered at the zoo in Norfolk, Va., and currentlyraises her own meat rabbits. “I’m very interested in animalsand how to take care of them in a sustainable way.”

The tours, workshops and networking has greatlyexpanded their understanding of multiple-animal, rotationalgrazing systems, Gibson and Barr say. “It does not necessarilymake me want to own a farm, because that can be prettystressful,” Gibson says. “There is lot of pressure when youhave a lot of money invested in something that could goterribly wrong.”

But the experience has added to Gibson’s desire to workon a farm, possibly as the “top hand” so that she could still“have an impact” on how food is produced, she says.

“My brother and his wife farm in Minnesota, where theyrent land in exchange for providing the landowner with freshproduce, eggs and meat,” Barr says. “They get to manage theland however they want.” Such arrangements, she notes, arebecoming increasingly common. “That is probably more thedirection I would go.” ■

Ranch work helps veterans

Lydia Barr


Leading a tour of Hock-Newberry Farm, nearMarshall, Va., EricaGovednik is discussing howshe manages the farm’sforest-raised, AmericanGuinea Hogs. She also has aNubian dairy goat herd andfree-range chickens.

The 25-acre farm, aboutan hour west of Washington,D.C., benefits weekly fromthe help of a couple ofvolunteers who exchangework for fresh pork andchicken, as well as thechance to learn skills theyhope to one day employ ontheir own farm.

Asked if she needs morevolunteer help, Govedniksays, “Yes, I have pigs I needto castrate — want to help?”The ensuing laughter allaround indicates that thismight not be a job for abeginner.

But there are plenty ofless demanding jobs, and shesays farm volunteers areindeed most welcome. “Welike folks to come and learn. Most of the time, I willput you right to work because I don’t have time tostand around talking without also getting work done.”

Govednik served in the U.S. Coast Guard for a littlemore than 10 years, leaving the service in 2010,although she is still a Reservist.

Asked how the farm got its name, Govednik tells ofher childhood in rural California. When she was 8, herfamily was living in Los Angeles, but her parents hatedcity life, and they wanted to escape it.

Opportunity knocked in the form of a friend of herfather who had a business importing goats and whohad decided to also try importing ostriches. He knewthat her father was good with computers and knewsomething about incubators. Soon, the family had leftLA behind and was raising ostriches and pygmy goats

on a farm in the arid countrynear Newberry Springs,Calif., east of Barstow.

Govednik begancampaigning to convince herparents to get her a horse. Tosee how committed she wasto caring for a large animal,her parents “sent me downthe road to a farm [Hock-Newberry Farm] where thisolder man had horses.”Lester Hock ran a quarterhorse-breeding ranch andknew his trade well. At thattime, Hock was about 85 andshe was 11.

“He taught me how toride horses, handle sheep andhow to deal with animals ofall shapes and sizes.” Herparents were impressed byher ranch work, and on her13th birthday she got a pairof mustang mares throughthe U.S. Bureau of LandManagement’s wild horseadoption program.

Hock passed away whenshe was 15. No one in hisfamily wanted to take over

the farm. Showing how much she loved and respectedthe man who had taught her so much about horses andcaring for farm animals, Govednik pedaled her bikedown the road to the farm, took the big plywood signwith the farm name, strapped it on her back and rodehome with it.

“When I have a farm of my own someday, this isgoing to be my farm’s name,” she promised. “So helives on through what we do here every day.”

Govednik urges those starting a farm to “pick afarm name that means something to you.” A genericname, like “Green Pastures Farm is not really going tomean much to anyone. Naming your farm should belike naming a child — this is my baby.”

And she still has Lester Hock’s farm sign. ■

What’s in a name?

Erica Govednik


From guiding missiles to herding sheep

Andrea Chandler, attending her second LivestockConservancy conference for vets, spent nearly 10 years in theU.S. Navy, including duty onboard a destroyer, where sheworked on the guided missile system. Living and working insuch close quarters with 350 other sailors certainly teachesone the value, and necessity, of teamwork.

“Maybe you didn’t like all 350 of them, but you certainlytook care of each other,” Chandler says. “Nobody gets left ina situation they can’t handle.”

After a decade of service, Chandler felt it was “time to fishor cut bait — to either get out or stay in and do my 20years.” She decided to “move back into thecivilian world,” where she took a job with adefense contractor, working on the sameguided missile system she had helped tooperate on the ship.

From there, she decided to move intosmall-scale agriculture, and now has a smallflock of (primarily) British Soay sheep.Chandler markets their wool and “sends theoccasional animal to slaughter.” She plans toexpand the flock, but finds the thought “alittle scary.”

Chandler describes her farm as a “one-and-a-half-person operation” in which sheoversees the animal husbandry while herhusband helps with the heavy labor, when notengaged in his off-farm job — which makes

sure they have the income “needed to pay for the mortgageand for health insurance.”

That’s a fairly common arrangement for many of theparticipants, whether already raising heritage breeds orgetting ready; for them the livestock will, at least initially, bea secondary source of income. The farm lifestyle (some referto themselves as “homesteaders”) is more the driving forcethan is the chance of getting rich from livestock.

While some aspects of military experience are invaluableto farming, Chandler says she also has “had to learn to letgo” of some of her Navy experience.

“In the military, we like to plan a lot. Wejoke in the Navy about the plan for the daybeing the point of standard deviation. So youhave an idea of what you are going to do thatday, but often it does not work out that way.”

Likewise, her sheep often confound herexpectations. It turns out her sheep “did notread the same book on sheep [rearing] that Ihad,” she jokes. “Sometimes, I have had to letthe sheep teach me, and to just have a broadidea of what I need to do that day.”

“It is wonderful to meet other veterans whoare interested in ag. I’ve had a lot of help ingetting started, and maybe I can give otherbeginning farmers a hand up — things likefinding breeding stock. Like in the military,we have each other’s backs.” ■

Why is it important to save endangered breeds oflivestock and poultry?

Because rare breeds have genetic traits not found incommercial livestock breeds, which may be needed toensure biodiversity for future generations, says AlisonMartin, executive director of the Livestock Conservancy,headquartered in Pittsboro, N.C.

“It’s like maintaining a stock portfolio — you don’twant to put all of your investments in one or two stocks,”adds Jeannette Beranger, the Conservancy’s research andtechnical programs manager. “For example, with cattle,we’ve become very dependent on Hereford and Angus forbeef, and Holstein for dairy.” Very few cattle breeds, such

as these, account for the vast majority of cattle in NorthAmerica.

“Over the years, we’ve bred the best to the best to thebest, so they are all related to each other,” she continues.But problems “creep in when you have a high degree ofinbreeding.” The best way to deal with such problems isto sometimes bring in genetics from other, non-related breeds.

“Other breeds could have disease resistance, good feetor good mothering ability,” Beranger says. “It is importantto everyone to keep these endangered breeds around. It issecuring the future of American agriculture.”

“Some livestock — such as draft horses, lost their jobsto mechanization,” Martin says, adding that we may need

Editor’s note: Information for this article is excerpted and adapted from the Livestock Conservancy website and podcast.

Why save endangered livestock breeds?


draft horses again someday if we lose our supply ofaffordable oil.

Heritage breeds are also important culturally andhistorically. For example, the Marsh Tacky horse, adescendent of horses brought to America by Spanishexplorers, played an important role in the AmericanRevolution. Francis Marion (nicknamed the Swamp Fox)rode these horses when waging guerilla warfare against theBritish.

“It was the ultimate all-terrain vehicle for that lowcountry,” which the heavier British horses could not pursuethrough the swamps, Beranger says.

Rare livestock breeds can be useful for human medicalresearch. The Ossabaw Island hog adapted to survival inperiods of severe drought on its island home off the coastof Georgia. It developed a genetic condition that is

identical to diabetes in humans and has been used inuniversity trials for new diabetes treatments.

Since its inception in 1977 (first as the American MinorBreeds Conservancy), the Livestock Conservancy has doneresearch, education, outreach, marketing, promotion andgenetic rescues. No breed on its Conservation Priority Listhas ever become extinct.

“Heritage” is largely a “term of art, not science,” Martinsays. The Conservancy is working to define “Heritage” forvarious species in order to codify the term in themarketplace. “Heritage” labels have not been officiallyrecognized by the USDA certification process.

The Livestock Conservancy 2016 National Conferencewill be held Nov. 3-5 at Hampshire College in Amherst,Mass. For more information about the Conservancy, visit:https://livestockconservancy.org/. ■

Jeff Adams with Milking Shorthorn steers Chip and Dale. Opposite page: Andrea Chandler listens intently during a workshop on fleecequality for ideas she can try with her own sheep flock. The “Service to Stewardship” event was conducted by The Livestock Conservancy,Virginia Cooperative Extension and Lakota Ranch.

“It is important to everyone to keep these endangered breeds around.It is securing the future of American agriculture.”


Legal CornerMississippi’s proposed general co-op law would “help people with a dream to embrace a different life”

By Meegan Moriarty USDA Cooperative Programs

Cooperative Month — October — is aroundthe corner, and cooperative supporters inMississippi are gearing up for action thatcould expand the number and types of co-ops in the state. The Southern Grassroots

Economies Project is spearheading an initiative to enact aMississippi general purpose cooperative law. Supportershope the proposed legislation and a coalition to support itwill be ready by October. At a round table planning sessionin May, a group of cooperative supporters gathered inJackson, Miss., to brainstorm on how to persuadestakeholders that a broad cooperative law is in their bestinterest.

Currently, Mississippi’s cooperative legislation allows onlyagricultural and electric cooperatives, as well as creditunions. Melbah Smith, former executive director of theMississippi Center for Cooperative Development and 2009Cooperative Hall of Fame honoree (also featured in theMay-June issue of Rural Cooperatives), has been trying forfour years to get a comprehensive cooperative law enacted inMississippi. Attendees at the planning session discussedlessons learned from successful legislative initiatives in WestVirginia and Illinois. Elandria Williams, with theHighlander Research and Education Center, organized andfacilitated the gathering.

Williams described West Virginia’s recent legislativesuccess in expanding the state’s cooperative law. Lobbyists inWest Virginia engaged in a thoughtful campaign where theystudied the marketplace and contacted businesses to identifyspecific market gaps that cooperative businesses could fill.

For example, they explained how difficulties with gettingfood to urban areas can be solved using multi-stakeholdercooperatives, in which agricultural and non-agriculturalmembers can be part of the business. Under prior WestVirginia law, multi-stakeholder cooperatives were notpossible. Williams said that organizations such as CoBankand Farm Credit System associations advised West Virginiapolicymakers about the business opportunities that would befacilitated by a broad cooperative law. These organizationswere successful in using loan exemptions to finance urbancooperatives.

Reaching out to industry Cooperative supporters also reached out to members of

industries that West Virginia citizens care about, includingwoodworkers, furniture-makers, artists, crafts people, foodand beverage providers and distributors, and individualsengaged in recycling, composting, and “re-purposing.” Toencourage industry support of the legislation, theseindustries were specifically enumerated in the legislativelanguage that describes the purposes for which cooperativesare organized. Although West Virginia’s law does notinclude language saying that a cooperative can be operatedfor “any lawful purpose,” meeting attendees broadly agreedthat this kind of language should also be included in theMississippi proposal to facilitate the widest possible use ofthe cooperative law.

Tom Pierson, who chairs the Advocacy Committee ofCooperation Works (an organization for cooperativedevelopment practitioners), described lessons learned fromlobbying for a general purpose cooperative law in Illinois.He encouraged the group to consult with supporters ofagricultural interests and other cooperative groups to ensurethat all interested parties are “informed and on board” withthe changes.

Pierson said the first attempt to enact an Illinois generalpurpose cooperative law failed because bill supporters didnot reach out to agricultural interests. Stakeholders werethen invited to a council meeting held at a university todiscuss the proposal; the co-op law then passed on thesecond attempt.

The Illinois cooperative law, as enacted, is based on theOhio cooperative statute, with some changes made toaccommodate local Illinois cooperative practice, Piersonsaid. The Mississippi group had drafted a bill, but plans topolish it, possibly by considering comprehensive statutesenacted in Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio, Illinois or otherstates with more sophisticated cooperative laws. The groupalso discussed the possibility of adding worker cooperativeprovisions.

The group identified interested parties to contact to tryto form a coalition to support the proposed legislation.Possible supporters include church groups, the AmericanBar Association, agriculture and utility cooperatives, localbanks and credit unions. Potential support could also comefrom the Rainbow Co-op (a Jackson, Miss., food


cooperative) and other established cooperatives, theMississippi Council of Cooperatives, the Mississippi BlackCaucus, Alcorn State University, grass roots organizationsand regional planning authorities.

Gaining support from lendersSmith noted that the American Bar Association has

already shown support for cooperatives by sponsoring thedrafting of the Uniform Limited Cooperative AssociationAct. According to Pierson, local banks could vouch for thefinancial viability and responsibility of cooperatives bytelling legislators that co-ops are reliable, known for payingtheir bills on time and generally a “good risk” from alending perspective.

The group also focused on best practices for promotingtheir agenda. Members cited “people power,” or the powerof polite, persistent personal contact by interested parties,

including both elected and appointed officials. Other bestpractices discussed included the use of social media,testimonials, research and data. They noted the importanceof crafting a uniform message and telling a simple story. Thegroup also mentioned the persuasive power of bringingpotential supporters on site visits to different types ofcooperatives.

Lack of information and misperceptions aboutcooperatives are an obstacle to legislative enactment, Smithsaid. Some people erroneously believe that cooperatives aresocialist — even communist — or that co-ops will open thedoor to unions. Others fear that cooperatives will cause achange in the status quo, resulting in a shifting of economicor political power. To those who fear cooperatives, Williamsresponded that cooperatives are about workforce andbusiness development and economic opportunity. Sheadvocated using research and data to prove the importanteconomic role cooperatives play in many states.

Next stepsSmith and John Zippert, director of program operations

for the Federation of Southern Cooperatives’ Rural Trainingand Research Center, said that a committee established bythe Mississippi secretary of state evaluates legislation. If thecommittee approves the legislation, it is put forth to the

legislature as a package with other similar legislation. Smith agreed to continue to garner support for the

legislation with elected and appointed governmentrepresentatives. Myra Bryant, executive director theMississippi field office of the Federation of SouthernCooperatives, agreed to gather cooperative members andenlist their help in contacting particular stakeholders andtaking on roles in promoting the legislation.

Zippert and Pierson noted that a success in Mississippi islikely to lead to broader cooperative law in other states inthe South. Legislative affairs people read about what otherstate councils have accomplished, Pierson said, and when astate has enacted particular legislation, other similar stateswant to “catch up.”

Toward the beginning of the meeting, Williams asked thegroup why they should work to pass a cooperative law. Manyof the participants, including Pierson, cited the specific

characteristics of cooperatives that are not present in otherbusiness entities: democratic member ownership andcontrol; one member, one vote; economic autonomy andindependence; and community development. Severalparticipants, including Smith, discussed the value of theeducational process involved in forming a cooperative.

Learning to work with others to cooperatively take careof each other’s economic well-being develops skills andleadership capabilities, Smith noted. Bryant said that acooperative law would empower all residents of Mississippi.It would bring a better quality of life to people and providethem with access to capital. According to Bryant, a generalcooperative law would “help people with a dream toembrace a different life.”

Other attendees at the meeting included Wendell Paris ofthe Federation of Southern Cooperative Development,Andrew Campbell of Cooperation Jackson and SamirHazboun of the Highlander Research and Education Center.Also in attendance were Rachel Plattus and Eli Feghali, co-editors at Williams of Beautiful Solutions (an onlineplatform that operates to share stories on systems change)and Earlene Wheeler (a Mississippi resident who is currentlyworking with the Federation of Southern Co-ops to developa cooperative). ■

Bryant said that a cooperative law would empowerall residents of Mississippi. It would bring a better quality of life

to people and provide them with access to capital.


Heather Berry,associate editor of RuralMissouri magazine, hasbeen honored with the2016 H.E. Klinefelter

Award for her achievements as acooperative communicator. This is thehighest honor bestowed by theCooperative CommunicatorsAssociation (CCA) to “recognizecontributions in furthering thecooperative system and raising thestandards of cooperativecommunications.” Rural Missouri is themember publication of the Associationof Missouri Electric Cooperatives.

CCA also honored Casey Hollins,communications specialist forRappahannock Electric Cooperative inFredericksburg, Va., with this year’sMichael Graznak Award, signifying herstatus as one of the nation’s top youngcooperative communicators. Theawards were presented during CCA’sannual Cooperative CommunicationsInstitute in Omaha, Neb., in June.

Missouri’s own Martha StewartBerry is an award-winning writer and

photographer, as well as a social mediaexpert. While she had no formaleducation in communications, “Whatshe did have was a tremendous desire tocontribute to the publication in waysother than what her [original] jobdescription dictated,” says Jim McCarty,longtime editor of Rural Missouri. “Inher 27 years of service, she has put anindelible mark on the publication,”which circulates 545,000 copies eachmonth, making it the state’s mostwidely read magazine.

Berry, an avid cook and “foodie,”overhauled the magazine’s Rural Livingsection, “making it her own,” McCartysays. “No other section of RuralMissouri gets as many favorable

comments as our recipe page.” Indeed,he notes, some see her as Missouri’sanswer to Martha Stewart.

In 1992, Berry created “Buddy Bear,”the character that appears on themagazine’s “Just4Kids” page. She andothers don a bear suit (that shedesigned) to appear at fairs, parades andannual meetings. Co-op employees usethe coloring and comic books,backpacks and stuffed Buddy Bears thatshe designed to promote safety, energyefficiency and co-op education.

“An entire generation of youngpeople has a positive impression ofelectric co-ops thanks to Heather andBuddy Bear,” says Barry Hart, AMEC’sexecutive vice president and CEO.

Berry has left a lasting legacy atCCA, first as a regional representative,then as board treasurer, secretary andvice president. She was president from2000-2001. “Hallmarks of herpresidency included building a moreactive website and offering moreaccessible, professional development

Editor’s note: this article is excerpted an adapted from articles that originally appeared in CCA News.

Heather Berry of Rural Missouri magazine, right, won the Klinefelter Award, while Casey Hollins,communications specialist with Rappahannock Electric Cooperative, won the Graznak Awardduring the 2016 Cooperative Communications Institute in Omaha, Neb. Photo by Greg Brooks,Walton EMC


programs,” says Susie Bullock, formerCCA executive director.

Keeping communications fresh At Rappahannock Electric

Cooperative, Hollins coordinates acomprehensive annual communicationsplan which includes not only traditionalcommunications efforts, but also specialprojects and campaigns. She’s involvedin the cooperative’s membershipmagazine, REC Review, the Power Linesemployee newsletter, annual report,social media, print advertising, website,photography and videography.

From convincing management togive social media a try, then watching itgrow exponentially, to putting on herboots and heading out into the field tofind the right people to tell the rightstories, she has a keen sense of what heraudience wants and needs to hear.

“Casey is doing a wonderful job atmaking her cooperative relevant andcommunicating with its membership onplatforms that its members value,” saysAmber Sheridan of Maryland andVirginia Milk Producers. Hollins alsoserves as a director on the nationalCertified Cooperative Communicatorsboard.

“When presented with opportunitiesto learn, she will take advantage ofthem to help her grow both personallyand professionally,” says Ann Lewis, theREC’s director of communications andpublic relations.

“She is never content with recyclingthe same communication tactics,” addsnominator Kevin Flores, vice presidentof Padilla CRT. “She understands theimportance of keeping membercommunications fresh and relevant, andrelentlessly strives to improve theeffectiveness of her cooperative’scommunication with each campaign.” ■

Chip Nelson, CEO at Cobb Electric Membership Corporation,Marietta, Ga., is the recipient of the CEO OutstandingCommunicator Award for 2016, presented by the CooperativeCommunicator’s Association. He was selected based on his uniquebrand of leadership, commitment to quality member service and “amanagement approach that places a premium on the importance ofcommunication, from the board president to the night custodian.”

Nelson took the reins atCobb EMC in 2011 afterthe co-op experienced aprofound transformation.There was a total turnoverof its board of directors,and the co-op made onlyits sixth managerialchange in its 75-yearhistory. Though he hadserved the cooperative’s180,000 consumers invarious capacities —including as chiefoperating officer — formore than four decades,Nelson heard an“unmistakable clarion call

for change resounding from the membership. He sensed that thebest path to success was to make sure that active listening became acentral component of the organization’s corporate culture.”

During the past five years, Nelson has created a productiveworking environment in which employees are encouraged to play asubstantial role in determining the future course of the organizationand how it succeeds in fulfilling its mission to deliver safe, reliable,competitively priced electricity to its members.

“Chip believes continuous improvement, open communicationand engagement should be a part of our daily routine,” says AngelaCroce, Cobb EMC director of corporate communications. “And it’sthat attitude that helps us and our cooperative to remainaccountable to our members for everything we do. Chip believesour job is to listen to our members and maintain true honesty withour members.”

Chip Nelson


In the Spot l ightTodd Van Hoose: President and CEO, Farm Credit Council

As president and CEOof the Farm CreditCouncil since January1, 2016, Van Hooseleads efforts to

represent the Farm Credit System’sinterests before Congress, theAdministration and various federalregulatory agencies. He previouslyworked for the council in a variety ofroles before departing in 2008 as seniorvice president for government affairs.Prior to his current role, Van Hooseserved as senior vice president,government affairs, at CoBank, wherehe led the bank’s Washington Office.

In addition to Van Hoose’s morethan 25 years of experience in the FarmCredit System, he has held positions inthe U.S. Department of Agriculture andon Capitol Hill. He is a graduate of theUniversity of Kentucky with abachelor’s degree in journalism andpublic relations.

Q: How has Farm Credit’s missionchanged since its founding a centuryago?

Van Hoose: Farming and rural life havechanged dramatically since Farm Creditwas established 100 years ago, and weare constantly evaluating our programsto ensure we are able to serve the fullbreadth of rural capital needs. AsAmerican producers prepare to feed aplanet of 9 billion people by 2050,significant capital will be needed toensure that agriculture and theinfrastructure it needs are up to thetask.

Farm Credit’s mission goes beyondagriculture to support ruralcommunities — Farm Credit finances

companies that provide vitalinfrastructure to rural communities,helping bring clean water to families,reliable energy to farms and towns, andmodern, high-speed telecommun-ications that connect rural America tothe world. Modern infrastructure makesrural communities competitive,provides jobs and improves the qualityof life for rural residents.

Rural communities and agricultureare at the heart of everything we do.With every loan made, we’re committedto demonstrating our mission. We helpthese areas grow and thrive by financingvital rural infrastructure and commun-ication services, and providing farmersand agribusinesses with the capital theyneed to succeed. Because a steady flowof credit means jobs and economicgrowth, Farm Credit also helps ensurethe vibrancy of communitiesthroughout rural America.

Q: How does the next year or two forU.S. agriculture look to Farm Credit?

Van Hoose: After years of strongperformance, the agricultural economynow faces challenging times.Commodity prices have fallen whilethe cost of production remains high.Forecasters don’t predict quickcommodity price rebounds, barringunexpected changes in demand, supplyor both.

Fortunately, farm balance sheetswere mostly strong entering this cycleafter several profitable years. Perhapsthe best news is that interest ratesremain historically low, providingfinancial flexibility for producers.

As did the producers we serve, FarmCredit anticipated the current cycleand built financial strength. Farm

Credit finances are the strongest ever,and we’re prepared to use that strengthto fulfill our mission. We know ourcustomers well, understand and respondto their needs, and work cooperativelywith them to analyze and structure ourtransactions to maximize their success.

Q: How is Farm Credit working to helpbeginning farmers?

Van Hoose: As a cooperative, owned andgoverned by our customers, FarmCredit has an especially strongcommitment to serving beginning andsmall farmers. Last year, Farm Creditmade 80,000 loans totaling $12.7 billionto beginning farmers. For every hour ofevery day in 2015, we averaged morethan $1 million in loans to beginningfarmers. We increased lending to smallfarmers and, by year-end, more thanhalf — some 500,000 — of ouroutstanding loans were to smallproducers.



NewslineSend co-op news items to: [email protected]

Co-op developments, coast to coast

Co-op storytelling project begins

Cooperative Network, the regionalco-op association serving Minnesotaand Wisconsin, is embarking on amultimedia storytelling project with itsmember co-ops this summer to helpamplify the cooperative businessdifference. The goal of the project,funded by the CHS Foundation, is todemonstrate the values and definingaspects of cooperatives through short-form stories.

Narratives are being collected from acombination of pieces already producedby cooperatives as well as new storiesuncovered and told specifically for theproject. Cooperative Network internErin Bormett, a University of Missouriphotojournalism student, is identifyingand collecting stories on the themes ofcommunity giving, education,sustainability, employment, co-ophistory, personal testimonials, andresponding to community need. Thegoal is to work with cooperatives fromacross sectors.

Some of the stories that have alreadybeen collected include STAR CreditUnion, the world’s only youth-chartered credit union at the Madison,Wis., Boys and Girls Club; addressingracial and economic equity throughcommunity involvement at a newSeward Food Co-op location; andpersonal testimony from co-opemployees that went from internshipsto full-time positions.

The stories will be featured on socialmedia throughout the summer usingthe hashtag #ourcooperativestory andduring National Co-op Month. Acollection will be later cataloguedonline.

Census urged to include co-op query

The co-chairs of the House Co-opCaucus — Rep. Ed Royce of Californiaand Rep Mark Pocan of Wisconsin —are requesting that U.S. CommerceSecretary Penny Pritzker include aquestion about cooperative businessesin the 2017 Economic Census, whichher office oversees. “Given the uniqueniche that cooperative businessescontinue to fill in the U.S. economy, itis unfortunate that so little is knownabout where and how they operate andthe economic impact they make,” theCongressmen write in their letter.

“Unlike the data-reporting agenciesof many other countries, the U.S.Census Bureau no longer identifies the

cooperative business sector in any of itscensus or business reporting surveys,”they continue. “As a consequence, thereis no readily available federally reporteddata on cooperatives in the UnitedStates (Editor’s note: USDA CooperativePrograms does conduct an annual survey ofagricultural cooperatives, but does notsurvey other co-op sectors.)

Prior to 1997, the economic censussurvey had a checkbox for “cooperative”among the list of options for legal formof organization. But the co-op responsewas eliminated after that. Thejustification was that such informationwas available from the U.S. InternalRevenue Service (through aninteragency data-sharing agreement).“Unfortunately, this data does not

Member-residents of Becketwood Cooperative, a senior housing co-op in Minneapolis, Minn.,share a song and a laugh. Photo by Steve Woit Photography, courtesy Cooperative Network


identify cooperatives directly,” Royceand Pocan note in their letter.Cooperatives can be found in U.S.Census Bureau data files, but becausethey are not identified as such, “anysummary data produced by Census andreviewed by researchers likelyunderestimates cooperative economicactivity to some degree,” theCongressmen write.

“We believe it’s in the best interestfor Census to change data gathering ina way that enables more accurate andcomprehensive identification ofcooperatives directly. The nextEconomic Census in 2017 provides theperfect opportunity to again measuretheir impact nationwide. We supportthis work and ask that the CensusBureau coordinate with all stakeholderson this issue and work together withthem on how to best ensure more data-driven information is readily availableon cooperatives.”

The letter goes on to say cooperativebusinesses are “a niche within theoverall economy, but they are a well-established niche that accounts for asignificant fraction of economic activity.Until there is a U.S. Census-basedcooperative identifier, the identificationof cooperatives in the U.S. willcontinue to have its challenges and thevalue they provide to the U.S. economywill not be fully quantified, understood,or appreciated.”

Other signatories of the letterincluded Reps. Ron Kind (Wisconsin),Reid Ribble (Wisconsin), Walter B.Jones (North Carolina), Barbara Lee(California), Steve Stivers (Ohio), BruceWesterman (Arkansas) and Robert A.Brady (Pennsylvania).

Montana co-op ag retailers merging

The producer boards of two locallygoverned CHS ag retailers — CHSMountain West Co-op and CHSKalispell — have agreed to merge tobetter serve the needs of farmers,ranchers and other customers inwestern Montana. “Both of ourbusinesses are financially strong, and

coming together will allow us to put theappropriate level of resources intoprograms and services that help ourcustomers grow their operations,” saysDouglas W. Manning, board chairmanof CHS Kalispell.

“Our combined size and scope willenhance our leverage with chemicalmanufacturers and strengthen our riskmanagement of market positions,among other advantages,” says BrienWeber, board chair of Mountain WestCo-op. “Together, we’ll be able to reachefficiencies that we could not achieveindividually.”

Pending due diligence, the co-opsexpect to begin operating as onebusiness, under the name CHSMountain West Co-op, on Sept. 1. Theboards have appointed ChuckThompson as general manager andMark Lalum as assistant generalmanager for the new business. As full-service ag retailers, the two co-opscurrently serve farmers, ranchers andother customers in 10 counties acrossMontana, from the Canadian border toIdaho.

New taxi co-op to serve Colorado

Colorado’s Public UtilitiesCommission (PUC) has givenunanimous approval to the 800-memberGreen Taxi Cooperative’s applicationto serve seven metro Denver counties,according to a news item posted on thewww.CompleteColorado.com website. Theco-op began operations the evening ofJuly 4, when it offered free rides forfour hours. Green Taxi is the firstcompany to start under a 2015 state lawthat created more liberal taxiregulations.

About 50 of the co-op’s drivers,many of them immigrants, packed thePUC hearing room when theapplication was considered, accordingto CompleteColorado. Most of themembers have been driving either fortraditional taxi companies or newer,platform-based companies, such asUber and Lyft. Green Taxi Co-op willbe the largest taxi co-op in the nation,

according to its attorney, Jason Wiener.

Halverson to succeed Engel as CoBank CEO

Tom Halverson has been named asCoBank’s new chief executive officer,effective Jan. 1. Halverson is currentlyCoBank’s chief banking officer. He will

succeed current CEO Bob Engel, whohas served as CEO since 2006. Engelhad previously announced plans to leavethe post at the end of this year, when hewill move into a strategic advisory rolefor the bank.

“Tom is extremely well qualified tolead CoBank forward due to his manyyears of experience in the bankingindustry and his deep understanding ofour business and the needs of customersin the industries we serve,” says EverettDobrinski, CoBank board chairman.

Halverson joined CoBank in 2013and has responsibility for bankinggroups serving agribusiness,communications, power and projectfinance customers. He is a member ofthe bank’s Management ExecutiveCommittee and serves as vice chairmanand director of the bank's leasingsubsidiary.

Previously, Halverson spent morethan 16 years in a variety of executivepositions with Goldman Sachs,including managing director and chief

Tom Halverson


of staff for Goldman Sachs Bank USA,head of credit risk management forGoldman Sachs in Asia (ex-Japan) andexecutive director of credit riskmanagement and advisory in London.Before joining Goldman Sachs, heserved as principal credit officer forcountry risk at the European Bank forReconstruction and Development.

Halverson holds a bachelor’s degreefrom Wabash College and a doctoratein war studies from King’s CollegeLondon.

“We will continue to fulfill ourmission of service to rural America byfocusing on building the financialstrength and flexibility of the bank,creating an exceptional experience forour customers, and attracting anoutstanding team of people who candeliver on our value proposition,”Halverson says.

CoBank is a $118-billion cooperativebank serving vital industries across ruralAmerica. Halverson will be the fourthCEO in the history of CoBank, whichwas formed in 1989 through a mergerof 11 Banks for Cooperatives.

Lower grain prices drive Kansas mergers

Members of Andale Farmers Co-op,Andale, Kan., voted in December tomerge with Kanza Co-op, Iuka, Kan.Members of Farmers CooperativeElevator in Garden Plain are also

expected to soon vote on a proposedmerger with co-ops in Anthony andKiowa.

Lower commodity prices and theimpact on farm incomes is helping todrive mergers, according to an article inthe Wichita Eagle. The number of co-ops in Kansas has fallen from about 350in 1950 to about 80 today, according toBrian Briggeman, a professor at KansasState University. The newspaper citesUSDA estimates that net farm incomenationwide is expected to be down 56percent from the 2013 peak.

The merger of Andale Farmers Co-op and Kanza Co-op creates a businesswith about $270 million in gross salesand a net profit of $8.6 million,according to the St. John News. It willoffer grain and crop production servicesand fuel and farm supplies.

“It is important that our cooperativesgrow in size and scale to effectivelycontinue to serve our members to beable to supply them with the products,services, and risk management toolsthat today’s producer expects anddeserves,” Earl Wetta, board chairmanof Andale, and Mike Christie, boardchairman of Kanza, said in a jointstatement.

Cranberry lawsuit denied class action status

A group of cranberry farmers whofiled a lawsuit accusing the Ocean Spray

cooperative of manipulating prices hasbeen denied class action status by U.S.District Judge Rya Zobel, in Boston,Mass., according to an article in theCapital Press newspaper. The ruling is amajor blow to the case, according toMaria Glover, a law professor atGeorgetown University who specializesin class actions.

In 2012, several cranberry farmersfiled a complaint claiming that OceanSpray violated federal antitrust law bydriving down the price paid forcranberries produced by certaingrowers.

The plaintiffs have remainedanonymous, due to their fears ofretaliation, according to the CapitalPress.

According to the lawsuit, OceanSpray was using a two-pool paymentsystem to artificially depress prices forjuice concentrate, setting low openingprices that restricted bidder participa-tion. Ocean Spray denies the allegation.

DFA to expand Michigan plant Dairy Farmers of America has

announced plans to expand its 33,000-square-foot Cass City, Mich., facility.The plant, constructed in 2013,currently processes up to 3 millionpounds of milk into cream, condensedwhole milk and condensed skim milk.

“When we made the initialinvestment in the Cass City plant, wewere already considering its expansion,”says Greg Wickham, DFA’s chieffinancial officer. “The time is right forthis continued investment, asMichigan’s milk supply continues togrow, but the processing capacity withinthe region has not kept pace. Theplant’s location makes it ideal to provideboth domestic and global customerswith safe, high-quality dairy ingredients.”

Cooperative leaders are continuingto finalize details of the expansion andare working closely with local and stateagencies on appropriate incentives. Theplant reflects DFA’s focus onsustainability, being designed to recoverand re-use water in plant clean-upoperations.

International Forum on Co-op Law in Uruguay Nov. 16The first International Forum on Cooperative Law will be held Nov. 16-18

in Montevideo, Uruguay. The event is being planned by the Co-operativeLaw Committee (CLC) of the International Co-operative Alliance (Alliance), incollaboration with the CLC of Cooperatives of the Americas. The event willcoincide with the Continental Congress on Co-operative Law.

The forum will take stock of initiatives related to knowledge ofcooperative law and explore how cooperative law can respond to 21stcentury economic and social challenges.

For more information, visit: http://ica.coop/node/13010, or e-mail:[email protected].


Michigan Sugar consolidates offices

Michigan Sugar Co. has moved itscorporate offices into Bay City’s uptownarea as part of an ongoing commitmentto invest in the community. The newoffices will house more than 60 full-time corporate and managementemployees who previously worked inoffices at multiple area locations.

The company is a cooperative ownedby sugar beet growers that makesPioneer and Big Chief brand sugars. Itwas founded in Bay City more than acentury ago. Across the region,Michigan Sugar has nearly 1,000 full-time employees and more than 1,000seasonal workers.

Former MMPA PresidentElwood Kirkpatrick dies

Dairy industry leader and formerMichigan Milk Producers Association(MMPA) President Elwood Kirkpatrickdied May 16 at age 79. Kirkpatrick

served the dairy industry for over 28years in various leadership positions,including 26 years as president ofMMPA. Throughout his presidency,Kirkpatrick served the cooperative anddairy industry on both state andnational levels through his involvementin a number of agriculture and dairyrelated organizations.

When elected to the MMPA boardin 1979, his aptitude for finance quicklyearned him the respect of fellow boardmembers. He was elected as co-oppresident in 1981, a position he helduntil he retired in 2007.

“The dairy industry lost a greatleader. Elwood Kirkpatrick made atremendous impact on the dairyindustry on both the state and nationallevel,” MMPA President Ken Nobissays. “He played an important role inshaping today’s dairy industry, and hisvision will live on.”

On the national level, Kirkpatrickserved on the executive committee ofthe National Milk ProducersFederation (NMPF) for 23 years,including serving as NMPF vicepresident from 1983-2003.

In the late 1980s, he helped lead thecharge to unify the promotion andmarketing efforts of the U.S. dairyindustry, bringing together the activitiesof the United Dairy IndustryAssociation and the National DairyBoard through the formation of DairyManagement Incorporated, creatinggreater efficiencies in the national dairy

promotion program.Kirkpatrick served as first chairman

of the U.S. Dairy Export Council,which helped to expand dairy exportsfrom less than 3 percent of annual U.S.milk production at its inception to morethan 15 percent today.

Three co-ops study jointownership of Michigan cheese plant

Three farmer-owned dairycooperatives are exploring jointownership and operation of a majornew cheese processing plant inMichigan. The cooperatives —Foremost Farms USA, Dairy Farmersof America (DFA) and Michigan MilkProducers Association (MMPA) — allhave farmer-members in Michigan.

The plant would produce 220million pounds of American-stylecheese annually. The co-ops say theidea is driven by the growing milksupply in Michigan, the lack of availableprocessing capacity within the region,desire for improved market accessibilityand transportation benefits.

“Michigan dairy producers own

International Co-op Summit to be held Oct. 11 in QuebecThe International Summit of Cooperatives will be held in Quebec, Canada,

Oct. 11-13. Among the featured speakers will be Navi Radjou and JeremyRifkin.

Radjou is a strategic consultant, based in Palo Alto, Calif., who is a fellowat Cambridge Judge Business School and a contributor to the HarvardBusiness Review. His topic is: “Frugal Innovation: How to Do More with Less.”Inspired by affordable solutions found by entrepreneurs from emergingcountries, he will explore the possibilities offered by this approach forWestern countries, particularly for cooperatives.

Rifkin is an essayist and president of the Foundation on Economic Trends,based in Bethesda, Md. His talk, “Towards a New Economic Model,” willpropose new growth strategies to mitigate the limitations of the traditionalcapitalist system.

For more information, visit: www.intlsummit.coop.In related news, the International Cooperative Alliance (ICA) has released

“Sustainability Reporting for Co-operatives: A Guidebook.” It builds on ICA’s“Sustainability Scan” and “Co-operative Growth for the 21st Century” reports.The report is online at: https://ica.coop/en/media/library/publications/sustainability-reporting-co-operatives-guidebook.

Elwood Kirkpatrick


some of the most progressive andefficient dairy operations in the world,and they have positioned themselves tobe a long-term supplier to domestic andglobal markets,” explains Michael Doyle,president and CEO of Foremost Farms.

Greg Wickham, DFA chief financialofficer, says that “Strategically,Michigan is well situated geographicallyto serve not only major U.S. markets,but also global markets. In addition tothe quality milk supply in the region, ithas a solid transportation infrastructure,one well served by major highways andvarious ports.”

“Working collaboratively helpsenhance our ability to better serve dairyproducers in this region and align themarketing strengths of ourorganizations together,” adds JoeDiglio, general manager of MMPA.

Stocksy doubles revenue in 2015

Stocksy United — an artist-ownedstock photo/image cooperative founded

in 2012 to promote fair pay to itscontributing artists — doubled itsrevenue in 2015 to $7.9 million. It paidout more than $4.3 million in royaltiesto artists last year and paid its firstdividends of $200,000 to member-artists.

“Our member-artists are invested inthe company’s growth and are paidequitably so they can spend more onphoto shoots, making the Stocksycollection uniquely vibrant andcurrent,” says Brianna Wettlaufer, CEOof Stocksy. The co-op was founded onthe principles of equality, respect, andfair distribution of profits. Contributingphotographers receive 50 percent of astandard license purchase (ranging from$15-$125) and 75 percent of anextended license ($100-$500), one ofthe highest royalties in the industry.

Although Stocksy grew exponentiallyin several countries in 2015, it addedjust 174 new artists, passing over nearly3,000 applications, bringing its currentartist-member total to just over 900. Theco-op has set a membership cap at 1,000.

Stocksy “hand selects” all new artist-members. Candidates are interviewed toensure they understand the co-opbusiness model and their ability tocontribute fresh, modern imagery.

Farmer Co-op Conference Nov. 2-4 in Minneapolis

The 19th annual FarmerCooperative Conference will be heldNov. 2-4 in Minneapolis. Theconference, conducted by theUniversity of Wisconsin Center forCooperatives, highlights thelatest strategic thinking on currentcooperative issues and trends. This year,conference speakers will address trendsin the agricultural economy, cybersecurity and big data, andmergers, among others.

The conference will be held at theRadisson Blue in downtownMinneapolis. For more information andto register, visit: www.farmercoops.uwcc.wisc.edu/, or contact: [email protected], or (608) 262-3251. ■

that includes business training andcooperative education. This type ofassistance would provide lasting benefitsand economic growth.

Interagency Working Group on Cooperatives

In October 2015, the InteragencyWorking Group on Cooperativesconvened its first meeting to shareinformation on programs that supportcooperatives throughout the federalgovernment. With a third meetinghosted by the White House DomesticPolicy Council on May 5, 2016, thereare signs of more understanding of thecooperative model as a key to incomegrowth in underserved communities.

The process of several agenciessharing information and experience will

increase awareness of the potential ofcooperatives to improve our society.Hopefully, this brief review of howcooperatives were regarded and utilizedduring the War on Poverty, and theearlier article about the New Deal, willcontribute historical perspective for theroad ahead. ■

References• A Brief History of Farmers Home Administration

(1989), unpublished document, FmHA, USDA.• Carlson, Mary (1993) The Vermont State Office of

Economic Opportunity: a case study inorganizational relationships. Center for Researchon Vermont Occasional Paper Series. Pape 1(http://scholarworks.uvm.edu/crvocc

• Co-op Handbook Collective (1975) The FoodCo-op Handbook: How to Bypass Supermarkets toControl the Quality and Price of Your Food. Boston:Houghton Mifflin Company.

• Co-op Stores and Buying Clubs (1972) Office ofEconomic Opportunity, OEO guidance 6148-2.

• Equal Opportunity in Farm Programs: AmAppraisal of Services Rendered by Agencies of theUnited States Department of Agriculture (1965)Washington, DC: U.S. Commission on CivilRights. • Jackall, Robert and Henry M. Levin, editors

(1984) Worker Cooperatives in America. Berkeley,

CA: University of California Press.• Knapp, Joseph G. (1973) The Advance ofAmerican Cooperative Enterprise: 1920-1945.Danville, IL: Interstate Printers & Publishers,Inc.• Lehman, Nicholas (1988) “The Unfinished

War”, The Atlantic Monthly, December, v. 262.• Marshall, Ray and Lamond Godwin (1971)Cooperatives and Rural Poverty in the South.Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.• Nembhard, Jessica Gordon (2014) Collective

Courage: A History of African AmericanCooperative Economic Thought and Practice.University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania StateUniversity Press.

• Rasmussen, Wayne D. (1991) Farmers,Cooperatives, and USDA: A History of AgriculturalCooperative Service, Washington, DC: USDA,Agricultural Information Bulletin 621.

• Reynolds, Bruce J. (2002) Black Farmers inAmerica, 1865-2000; The Pursuit of IndependentFarming and the Role of Cooperatives.Washington, DC: USDA, RBCS, RR 194.

• Stevens, Sally (2007) “The EconomicOpportunity Act of 1964”,https://independent.academia.edu/SallyStevens

• Vilsack, Tom (2014) Fighting the War on Povertyin Rural America. USDA Blog,http://blogs.usda.gov/2014/01/09/fighting-the-war-on-poverty-in-rural-america/.

• Woods, Randall B. (2016) Prisoners of Hope:Lyndon B. Johnson, The Great Society, and theLimits of Liberalism. New York: Basic Books.

Co-ops and CommunityDevelopment Effortscontinued from page 19


Farm Credit goes beyond lending tobeginning farmers, offering incentivesand education on topics such asintergenerational family farm transfer,risk management and effective businessplanning. We are engaged with the fullspectrum of new entrants to agriculture,including organic, sustainable or localfood-related operations, direct-to-retailand other emerging models. A constantsupply of credit helps make agriculturea driving engine for the U.S. economyand enables U.S. farmers to feed theworld.

Q: In the last issue of this magazine, weran some excerpts from Farm Credit’sFresh Perspectives 100 where you

profile 100 people and organizationsthat are helping to strengthenagriculture and rural America. Whatwas your overall goal for this project?

Van Hoose: In celebrating thecontribution that Farm Credit has madeto American agriculture during the past100 years, we also wanted to lookforward to the future — to those whoare helping shape the future ofagriculture by applying their freshperspectives to current challenges andchanging rural communities andagriculture for the better. The FreshPerspectives 100 search was anopportunity to showcase the best andthe brightest; it highlights the amazingdegree of innovation and leadershipthat exists in rural America today.Whether that might be a collegestudent finding ways to double crop inthe Dakotas or producing crops thatwill be turned into bioenergy; a college

professor finding better ways to helpfarmers manage their risk exposure or alocal meat processor creating newwholesale channels for farmers. Theexamples are inspiring; these are thetypes of people who will help ensurethat the rural economy remains strongfor many years to come.

We are happy that Farm Credit hasbeen able to help many of these peopleachieve their goals. We thought theFresh Perspectives 100 would be a greatway to celebrate Farm Credit’s 100thbirthday by turning the spotlight onsome of the people we are here to serve.

Editor’s note: To see more of the storiessurrounding the Farm Credit FreshPerspectives program, visitwww.farmcredit100.com/fresh-perspectives/honorees. For more informationabout Farm Credit, visitwww.farmcreditnetwork.com. ■

In the 21st Century, MMPA hasfaced challenging economic times.Though farms were fewer than twodecades earlier, milk production inMichigan was increasing every year.Expanding the capabilities and capacityagain at the co-op’s two member-ownedplants promised the best return oninvestment.

A $62-million expansion at the Ovidplant was completed in 2010. Theexpansion nearly doubled the plant’scapacity and quickly proved its value.Three years after the expansion’scompletion, it had already generated a150-percent return on investment.Modifications at the Constantine plant

improved butter churning capacity, anda reverse osmosis system was installedthrough a strategic alliance with fellowdairy co-op Foremost Farms USA.

A century of progressMay 23, 2016, marked the 100th

anniversary of the meeting called bysome frustrated Livingston Countydairymen who wanted more money fortheir milk. That founding day, hundredsof dairy farmers agreed on one simpleprinciple: unifying was the best way tomarket their milk to the greatestadvantage possible. Since then, theMichigan Milk Producers Associationhas survived and thrived throughout acentury characterized by extraordinaryprogress.

From a simple bargaining associationwith no assets, MMPA has grown to bethe nation’s 26th largest agriculturalcooperative and the 10th largest dairycooperative. Annual sales exceed $1billion, and members market more than4.6 billion pounds of milk each year.

The cooperative’s dairy farmer-owners care for cows and steward theland on more than 1,200 farms spreadacross Michigan, Indiana, Ohio andWisconsin.

Though science and technology havesignificantly altered how milk isproduced and dairy products are made,MMPA remains unaltered at its verycore. Through good times andturbulent times, the cooperative spirithas endured as a testament to what canbe achieved through loyalty andcommitment.

In 2016, as in 1916, the belief thatdairy producers can be stronger andachieve more by working togetherremains the solid foundation uponwhich MMPA stands firm. ■

Stronger Togethercontinued from page 12

In the Spotlightcontinued from page 32

This graphic shows how many gallons of milkthe Michigan Milk Producers Assoc. isdonating to a local food bank.

Now available from

Co-ops 101: An Introduction to Cooperatives (CIR 55)

Probably the most widely read co-op primerin the nation, this report provides a bird’s-eye view of the cooperative way oforganizing and operating a business. Nowin an attractive new, full-color format. Idealfor classroom use and member organizationmeetings.

Co-op Essentials (CIR 11)

A companion volume to Co-ops 101, this isan educational guide that teaches furtherbasic information about cooperatives. Itexplains what cooperatives are, includingtheir organizational and structural traits. Itexamines co-op business principles and theresponsibilities and roles of cooperativemembers, directors, managers andemployees.

Organizations Serving Cooperatives(July-Aug. ’15 magazine)

This special issue of USDA’s RuralCooperatives magazine includes completecontact information for nearly 150organizations that provide services tocooperatives, with detailed overviews of 52of the larger organizations. Listings includeco-op financial institutions, trade/legislativegroups, co-op development and co-opeducation organizations, among others. Alimited number of these back issues are stillavailable.

Cooperative Statistics 2014(SR-78)

Provides a vital window on the agriculturalcooperative economy, based on a survey of2,186 U.S. farmer, rancher and fisherycooperatives during calendar year 2014. Itshows another record year for ag co-opbusiness volume and net income (beforetaxes). It also includes a wealth ofinformation about financial ratios and otherperformance data that co-ops can use as ayardstick to examine their ownperformance.

How to Start a Cooperative(CIR 7)

This long-time favorite has been freshenedwith updated editorial content and a newdesign. This guide outlines the process oforganizing a cooperative business,including the necessary steps involved intaking the co-op from idea to launching pad.

NEW!

To order: USDA co-op publicationsare free, and available both in hardcopy and on the Internet, unless “Webonly” is indicated.

For hard copies: Please include thepublication title and number, as well asthe quantity needed. Send e-mail to:[email protected], or call (202)720-7395.

Send mail requests to: USDA Co-opInfo., Stop 3254, 1400 IndependenceAve. SW, Washington, D.C. 20250.

To download from the Web: Visitwww.rd.usda.gov/publications/publications-cooperatives.

USDA

NEW!

Periodicals Postage PaidU.S. Department of Agriculture

United StatesDepartment of AgricultureWashington, 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 ServiceStop 3254Washington, D. C. 20250-3255

Cooperatives Build—a stronger rural America—

October is Cooperative MonthGet ideas on how your co-op can join the celebration at:

www.CoopMonth.coop (available in early August)