Rural Cooperative 75 Years of Chronicling Co-ops
On ‘the street’ and in cyberspace, Rural Cooperatives still spreading word about power of co-op business
By Dan Campbell, editor
t was 1934 when E.B. Reid, director of
information for the Farm Credit
Administration (FCA), asked editor Bill
Maddox to develop a new publication to
communicate information about the nation’s
farmer-owned cooperatives.
“Initially, the aim was to make the most up-to-date
cooperative information we could get available to the FCA
staff, with a particular interest in marketing and purchasing
cooperatives,” Maddox wrote in an article in 1956 that
celebrated the publication’s 25th anniversary. “However,
along with several others, I nurtured the hope that we would
soon reach out to a wider audience.”
Called News for Farmer Cooperatives, the 8-page,
mimeographed monthly initially carried no photos or
artwork. It was primarily intended for an internal audience at
USDA and the Farm Credit Administration (which was then
a part of USDA). “No copies were ‘on the street,’” Maddox
recalled.
But the publication quickly grew in page count and scope
while adding photos and charts. Maddox also soon got his
wish to begin circulating it to cooperative leaders and many
others who worked with cooperatives, such as farm lenders,
cooperative extension staff, ag educators and others. The
mission of the new periodical was to carry articles designed
to help producers improve their co-ops and increase
understanding of the co-op business model.
Today, 75 years after its launch, the magazine is not only
“on the street” among the nation’s cooperative leaders, it is
also in cyberspace, circulating around the globe via the
Internet, where it is drawing an increasing number of readers
eager to learn more about cooperative business.
1926 Act launched effort
USDA first formed a special office to assist cooperatives
following passage of the Cooperative Marketing Act of 1926.
According to a 1952 article commemorating the 25th
anniversary of the Act:
“The idea was for USDA to broaden its research and
education services for farmers to include more work on their
marketing, purchasing and business service problems…a job
they felt could be done only by working together in
cooperatives. They wanted the Department to study
cooperative theory and how farmers actually practiced it.”
This would be done “in order to point out pitfalls, practices to
follow and to set out guideposts for these farmer groups to
follow…marks blazed by the paths successful co-ops had
already taken, and ‘danger’ signs posted by unsuccessful
ones.”
The new periodical, it was decided, would be a key tool to
accomplish this goal.
The Farm Credit Administration, the original home of
USDA’s cooperative agency, became an independent
government office in 1953, but the Cooperative Research and
Service Division remained at USDA, although its name was
changed to the Farmer Cooperative Service (FCS). In 1994,
FCS (called the Agricultural Cooperative Service by that
time) was one of several agencies transferred into USDA
Rural Development.
Over the years, the editorial mix of the publication has
stayed fairly consistent, although the look, content and even
the title (it became Rural Cooperatives in 1996) have certainly
changed with the passing decades.
On its 75th birthday, the basic goal of Rural Cooperatives
remains the same: to help make the nation’s famer-owned and
other rural cooperatives stronger. The more people
understand democratically governed cooperatives, the more
these member-owned,
member-benefited businesses
will be used. Cooperatives
are, after all, the ultimate selfhelp
business tool.
While the magazine’s focus
remains farmer cooperatives,
it now also carries articles on
rural utility cooperatives and
some other types of rural coops.
It still carries highlights
of USDA research on farmer
co-ops and co-op statistics
compiled by USDA, as well as
profiles on successful or
innovative cooperatives. Some
articles also examine co-op failures and the reasons for them.
The content naturally reflects the trends and business
cycles of agriculture and cooperatives. For example, in recent
years, many articles have reflected the soaring interest in
renewable energy and the role of farmers and other rural
people in this rapidly evolving industry. Whatever endeavors
cooperatives pursue will be reflected in the magazine.
On the following pages, excerpts from past articles will
remind us of how much some things have changed for coops,
while others indicate how much things have stayed the
same. The goal is not to focus on the biggest co-op news
stories of the day, but rather to give the flavor of a typical
magazine of the time. Hence, article excerpts were pulled
from random samples of the magazine.
The following excerpts are from the 1930s through the
1960s. In the next issue, we will take a trip from the
1970s through the present.
Hold member meetings
only when needed
Robert Amundson of the
University of Wisconsin Co-op
Extension must have sat through
one too many boring co-op
membership meetings, so he took
them to task in this 1936 article:
“Co-ops live by savings, yet in most cases
their methods of conducting [member] meetings
are wasteful. The time and patience of the people
are dissipated with a recklessness unbecoming an
otherwise well-managed business. In a meeting,
you are on exhibit and by inference the business
methods of the organization are displayed before
your members. An organization cannot afford slipshod
methods.
“If we ask people to give up some of their leisure time, of
which they have little, we should have regard for the
sacrifices they make and use that time to the best advantage.
An evening meeting with 100 people costs somebody $100.
How often can we honestly say that we imparted $100 worth
of information?
“A farmer hasn’t much leisure. And it is not right to
dissipate what little time he has for reading, visiting or
listening to the radio…by corralling him into a hall to waste
his evening over some trivial matter, bombard him with
oratory, or fritter away an evening on a matter that could —
if organized and handled properly — be settled in a few minutes.”
Avoid temptation to over-pay members
S.D. Sanders, Cooperative Bank Commissioner, writing in
1936, addresses a basic co-op business tenant that has caused
many a co-op to stumble:
“Most cooperative failures result from lack of a thorough
understanding that a co-op is a business institution and
should be regarded as such. The very best business polices
available should be adopted to direct the destinies of a
cooperative marketing agency, linked up with good,
conservative cooperative principles.
“There should be a marketing agreement from each
producer, and each producer should contribute his pro rata
part toward building up a sound financial structure for the
association. Then you’ve got something.
“Oftentimes, farmers…are so concerned with their own
personal need of financial aid that they are prone to overlook
the fact the cooperative has its limitations. They would
unconsciously pull the financial structure from under their
own institution. Their demands for cash many times force
management to pay too much for the product. Many
associations have gone under for just this reason.”
Pruning the ‘deadwood’
J.W. Jones, principal ag economist for the Cooperative
Division of the Farm Credit Administration (FCA), in 1936
urges co-ops to maintain accurate membership roles:
“Many cooperatives have a high percentage of inactive
members. In fact, some associations using a certain type of
membership agreement have had two or three times as many
‘members’ as used the association’s marketing service in a
single year.
“Some associations have made no provision for the
withdrawal of members, except by means of a formal
withdrawal provided in the contract, or by exclusion from the
association by the board of directors. This has resulted in
some associations having so many inactive and indifferent
‘members’ that they have been unable to secure a quorum….
“If the cooperative is to be really ‘farmer-owned’ and
‘farmer controlled,’ some means must be developed to purge
the membership rolls annually and to develop a closer
relationship between the member and his organization.”
Revolving capital co-ops grow in popularity
In the cover story from the July 1939 issue, E. A. Stokdyk,
FCA deputy governor, focuses on a growing trend among coops:
“Revolving capital co-ops are becoming increasingly
popular because they are providing greater and more
equitable benefits to thousands of American farmers. In
California, more than 200 associations operate on the
revolving plan. In Iowa, nearly 100 farmers’ elevators are
being freed from debt and restored to producer ownership by
means of revolving capital.
“Because revolving capital has provided money to build so
many successful associations and has rescued so many others
from almost helpless indebtedness, the plan is regarded by
many primarily as a method of financing. However, it affects
nearly every phase of activity. These plans have meant not
only a more equitable distribution of financing the co-op, but
also a more equitable distribution of cooperative benefits.
“The objective of revolving capital is that every farmer
should benefit from his cooperative exactly in proportion to
the use he makes of it. The principal of ‘benefits according to
patronage’ is as old as cooperation itself.
“Some 100 years of cooperative experience proves that
without continuous
membership interest
and responsibility, a
co-op inevitably drifts
into private hands.
Thousands of farmer
co-ops have failed
because their stock accumulated in the hands of outsiders and
non-producers who were more interested in stock dividends
than in effective marketing and purchasing.”
Use of penalty provisions in
marketing agreements
“Problems Facing Your Co-op,” a question and answer
column, addresses a wide variety of co-op issues. This
example is from July 1939:
Q. “What are the desirable and undesirable features of a
penalty clause in a marketing agreement?”
A. “If the co-op is not going to bring any lawsuits for
enforcing marketing agreements, I do not see any reason at
all for having a penalty provision in the contract. On the
other hand, if they do believe they are going to bring suits
for the enforcement of contracts, then the advantages of a
penalty provision is that it gives a rule for ascertaining the
amount of damages suffered.
“If you do not have such a provision, you may have a hard
time proving the amount of damage done to the association.”
The author goes on to say that these penalty provisions
should be based on a clear formula, citing the example of a
cotton grower who violates his contract to market 10 bales of
cotton outside the co-op, thus inflicting a loss to the
association of $10 per bale, or $100.
The judge says…
By November 1939, the Q & A column had a new name:
“The Judge says…”
“Q. Have farmers gained anything more than permission
to organize cooperatively under the Capper Volstead Act?
A. It has resolved all
doubt of the right of
farmers, at least so far as
federal statues are
concerned, to come
together and organize [in cooperatives].
Q. Have they gained anything?
A. Yes. Before the enactment of Capper-Volstead, there
were a number of instances in which the officers of
cooperative associations were arrested and put in jail.”
War and co-ops
During the World War II years, the
magazine naturally had many articles
devoted to the critical role farmers and
their co-ops were playing in the war effort.
From the February 1942 issue, FCA
Governor A.G. Black had this to say of the challenge:
“As we get further into the war and extend our efforts to
feed the nation and supply certain foods to our allies, we will
realize more and more what it means to produce under war
conditions. War has not only upset our calculations as to
what we need to produce, but it has made it impossible, or
impractical, to import certain products upon which we have
come to depend in whole or in part.
“Before Pearl Harbor, the Philippines and Hawaii shipped
many tons of sugar to us. We shall not get any sugar from the
Philippines, and the Hawaii supply will be curtailed because
of the necessity for the Islands to become more selfsupporting
through diversification. Cuban output will be
available to us, but it, plus our normal production of cane and
beet sugar, will be inadequate.”
Black goes on to urge a strategy of increasing domestic
production and extracting more sugar from molasses, as well
as encouraging more sugar production in America’s other
“Western Hemisphere island possessions.”
Grain co-ops switching to regional marketing
Harold Hedges, FCA principal ag economist, 1942:
“Doing nicely, thank you! In four words, that sums up the
operating results of the regional grain marketing cooperatives
for the 1940-41 crop year. Furthermore, that has been the
story since 1938, a year which marked the transition from
terminal marketing on a national scale to marketing on a
regional basis. Hence, 1940-41 adds one more year of
successful experience as proof that the decision of cooperative
leaders in 1938 was a sound one.
“Cooperatives have been, and continue to be, a major
cost-reducing factor in grain marketing. Growing numbers of
farmers’ elevators in local markets over the past half century
have been mainly accountable for the material cut in local
grain-handling charges and the elimination of more than one
questionable practice. There remain close to 2,500 of them
— not as many as in the days of the ‘long margins’ — to
police the field at the local grain-shipping points and ensure
the continuance of low-cost, efficient handling.”
War’s impact on preparing for co-op labor peak
Henry Hensley and Anne Gessner, FCA Co-op Research and
Service Division, from May 1943:
“Food processing co-ops will do their full share of wartime
production this year only by dint of the most careful
planning. The importance of this planning to the war itself is
evidenced by the fact that most of the food that reaches
frontline fighters must be processed, canned, dehydrated or
concentrated, and co-ops play an important role in producing
these processed foods.
“The most serious problem in meeting 1943 foodproduction
goals is manpower. Plants located in or near the
labor-shortage areas obviously have the greatest problems.
These plants are losing their experienced workers to other
war industries paying higher wages. All plants are losing
workers to the armed forces.”
The authors go on to recommend a number of steps to
deal with the situation, including seeking draft deferments for
key employees, making temporary transfers from farms to
plants, making better use of existing labor through training
programs, recruiting of new labor and paying adequate
wages.
Co-op rewards battle bravery
A news brief from the August 1945 issue:
“Six
survivors of the
famous battle of
Bastogne, who
yelled ‘Nuts!’ to
the German
demand for their
surrender, were
each presented with a five-pound bag of the same – Diamond
walnuts from the California Walnut Growers Association.
The presentation was made by the Los Angles Chamber of
Commerce when the servicemen visited the city.”
Institute promotes understanding of co-ops
The American Institute of Cooperation (AIC) was founded
in 1925 to promote better understanding of cooperative
business, but it ceased holding its annual institute during
the war. At war’s end, AIC was ready to jump-start the
meeting. AIC President Raymond Miller discusses the task
in the August 1945 cover story:
“The Institute has a particularly large and difficult field to
cover in bringing the desired understanding of cooperatives
to the general public. Much of this effort will be directed at
working with leaders of other groups to make sure that they
understand cooperative principles so that they in turn may
carry this understanding to their individual members.
“The Institute will also work with cooperatives to help
them develop methods for promoting a greater
understanding of their organization and general cooperative
principles among their employees, members and nonmember
farmers and others in their localities. AIC is
functioning chiefly as a contact with the general public and as
a clearing house for ideas and information. If individual coops
are to get the greatest good out of the Institute’s
program, they will find it necessary to continue to step up
their programs of member education, employee training and
public relations.”
MFA markets high-grade seeds
From April 1946:
“One-third of Missouri farmers will be buying high-grade
seed from Missouri Farmers’ Association (MFA) through the
local exchanges within the next few years, if present plans pan
out. Co-op spokesman H. E. Klinefelter [Editor’s note:
namesake for today’s outstanding co-op communicator
award] says the association is launching an extensive hybrid
corn production program, and within five years expects to be
able to provide annually 100,000 bushels of low-cost,
excellent quality, certified seed. Klinefelter says the seed may
sell for as little as $3.50 a bushel, about half what is being
paid now.”
Patronage checks bring smiles in Minnesota
From April 1946:
“Cooperation does pay,” say members of the Farmers
Union Central Exchange in St. Paul, Minn. Proving it were
checks for $125,000 issued earlier this year, which retired at
par all stock issued by the exchange in 1935 and 1936. This
payment retires all stock issued in the years 1931 to 1936,
inclusive, amounting to about $225,000.”
Why advertising is important for co-ops
From March 1948:
“Sooner of later, in all discussion relating to the use of
advertising by co-ops, this statement is heard: ‘Our members
know that they can get certain goods or services at our co-op.
Why spend their money to tell them about it?’
“In theory, this position is logical. But actually, it is neither
logical or true. It is based on the false assumption that
members know what goods or services their co-op offers. It
also rests on the assumption that all members are completely
sold on the quality of all co-op goods and services. Investigation
soon discloses the weakness of both assumptions.”
Large end up! From farm
to frying pan
From December 1950:
“One way for poultry cooperatives
to help members increase their returns is by
getting them to pack their eggs with the big end up, or small
end down – whichever way you prefer to say it. This is an
educational job that can use the
combined efforts of everyone in
the organization who has
anything to do with eggs.
“Surprisingly enough, after
years of driving this point
home, many members still pack
eggs without watching to see if
the little end or big end is
down. This is especially true in
the Middle West, where it is
perhaps as important a factor as
dirty shells for downgrading a
producer’s eggs.”
Challenge to dairy breeding co-ops
From December 1950, Donald Hirsch, FCA Co-op Research
and Service Division (CRSD):
“Cooperatives providing artificial insemination service for
dairy cattle have a real challenge to meet. During the first 10
years of growth, 1938-1948, the co-ops were concerned
primarily with internal problems of organization and
operation. During the latter part of that period, and in years
following, the situation changed materially.
“Competition now exists between organizations owning
bull studs. Such competition is keen between co-ops whose
service territories have overlapped. But it is the competition
between co-ops and non-cooperatives that has become
significant. Co-ops did most of the pioneering in artificial
insemination service for dairy. Now their leadership is being
challenged.”
Rockingham Poultry builds
broiler turkey business
From Dec. 1951, Henry Bradford, FCA:
“Rockingham Poultry Marketing Cooperative, Broadway,
Va., has met the merchandising challenge for consumers who
now want lightweight turkeys. As early as 1943, Rockingham
saw the promise of this market. Its plans, hampered under
price ceilings during the war, have made tremendous strides
during the past two years.
“In 1950, the co-op marketed about 450,000 Beltsville
White turkeys, and a substantial percentage of these were
moved as broilers. Since many growers now raise three flocks
of broiler turkeys per year, they need to be pretty well
assured the consumers will buy their type of bird before
going ahead with such an intensive, specialized, productionline
job. Here is where the merchandising experience of
Rockingham was able to help [by studying consumer
preferences regarding size of bird, etc.].”
Milk in a jug popular
From “Co-ops in Action” Dec. 1951:
“Now it’s: little white jug, Chicago loves thee — at least if
you look inside the jug. Jugged milk sold in stores has helped
replace all but 10 percent of the
quart-bottle home deliveries in
this city. According to a
spokesman for 12,000 Pure
Milk Association members,
this milk is also giving the
farmers a larger share of the
milk dollar.”
Quality Vital for Fruit & Vegetable Co-ops
From Jan. 1955, J. Kenneth Samuels, FCS, Fruit and
Vegetable Branch:
“Fruit and vegetable cooperatives today market more than
$1 billion worth of products for farmers. That is indeed a
large figure, even at today’s prices. But what does it actually
represent? Not the business of one, or even a few
organizations, but rather the combined efforts of almost
140,000 producers who own and control nearly 800
marketing associations. They account for about 10 percent of
the marketing volume of all cooperatives, with only 3 percent
of the memberships.
Fruit and vegetable cooperatives must strive for quality
improvement. They have been in the forefront in paying
producers on the basis of grade for raw products and have set
up pools on the basis of quality and size differences. This has
made producers quality-conscious and encouraged them to
follow production and harvesting practices that enable them
to deliver top quality to their co-op.
Should co-ops rotate directors?
Irwin Rust, FCA, April 1956:
“Important decisions every farmer co-op must make are:
how to select directors and for how long a term. One
suggestion is that co-op boards should rotate membership at
regular intervals. Periodic rotation, it has been argued, will
inject new enthusiasm, new ideas, and new perspectives on
old problems. Some proponents of rotation advocate specific
bylaw provision that a director may not succeed himself for
more than the specified number of terms in office.
“But others feel that arbitrary termination of board
membership may cost the co-op dearly. It is one
thing to be able to eliminate unwanted board
members, but quite another to force a good man out
of office. Automatic rotation runs this risk, since the
criterion becomes length, rather than quality, of
service.”
Co-ops process and market cottonseed
Daniel McVey and Jane Scearce, FCS, August
1956:
“Cottonseed — processed and marketed by
cooperative mills — finds its way into such diverse
products as food shortening and cattle feed, mops and
surgical dressings, paints, meat casings, soap, printing inks,
twine and explosives. During the 1955-56 season, 14
cooperative cottonseed oil mills will probably process about
10 percent of the total cottonseed crushed. In 1954-55, they
crushed about 550,000 tons. The resulting products — oil,
meal, linters and hulls — went into more than 30 products
that fill many needs in our everyday lives.”
Ceremonies honor 30th anniversary
of Co-op Marketing Act
Beryle Stanton, FCS, Sept. 1956:M
“More than 400 people paused an hour in Washington,
D.C., on July 11 to commemorate one of the most important
landmarks in farmer cooperative history: the passage of the
Cooperative Marketing Act in July 1926. During a ceremony
at USDA headquarters, Assistant Agriculture Secretary Earl
Butz said: ‘Cooperatives are the best training ground I know
of for democracy.’
“Then a number of people who had helped breathe life
into the Act 30 years before reminisced briefly on how the
Act was born. Charles Holman, retried secretary of the
National Milk Producers Federation, recalled attending the
drafting conference for the bill. ‘Out of my 35 years
experience on the Hill, I would say it was one of the easiest
bills to get through Congress. Leaders there recognized the
real need for setting up an educational service organization
[for co-ops].’ A new FCS-produced movie, “Farmer
Cooperatives Today,” had its first public showing during the
program.”
Proper use of credit pays at Garden
City Co-op in Kansas
Arthur Pursell, FCS, Sept. 1957:
“Credit can be properly used by farmer cooperatives, as is
being demonstrated at the Garden City Cooperative Equity
Exchange, a farm supply co-op. In 1954, directors and
management, with full approval of the membership, decided
to go on a pay-as-you-go basis — with a 30-day extension of
credit where adequate guarantees for prompt payment were
established. Accounts receivable stood at $51,000 at the time.
In December 1955 — 18 months later — farmer accounts
receivable were under $5,000, and this favorable record was
accomplished at a time when Kansas farmers were fighting
severe drought conditions.
“Reasons for this turn for the better were basically three:
First, there was a united support for the program —
members, management and directors all approved. Second,
the co-op did sufficient educational work to sell the program
to the farmers. Third, they kept the mechanics of the
program sufficiently versatile to meet the situational needs of
different farmers.”
Co-op editorial association takes
the clinical approach
The April 1958 issue was dominated by articles about how
co-ops can improve their communications programs,
including an article from Philip Dodge, corresponding
secretary of the Cooperative Editors Association (forerunner
of the Cooperative Communicators Association), with
highlights from the group’s latest conference:
“Each spring since 1952, editors of a wide variety of co-op
papers, from mimeographed newsletters to slick journals,
have gathered on a university campus for a two-day, deepdigging
look at whys, wherefores and how-to’s of their
‘sheets.’ Not only do the editors hear presentations by
journalism experts, but most all of the co-op editors at the
CEA conference seem to benefit from the free and frank
criticism from people qualified to judge their papers, and
from each other.
“These critics have literally torn the co-op papers apart,
item by item in many cases, studying headlines, layout, use of
pictures — all elements.”
Citing the merits of merger
Milton Manuel, Kansas State University,
December 1960:
“Why do many businesses find it
economically desirable to operate larger
units? The significant reasons probably are
to reduce per-unit cost, improve bargaining power, and to
compete more effectively with other firms.
“Mergers can also contribute to more effective
management [since a higher skilled manager can be afforded]
and make it possible for the co-op to have a more effective
member-relations program (such as producing a co-op
publication), and have improved accounting, such as machine
accounting.”
New uses for milk
In an article highlighting the important role of co-ops in
doing market research and development, Jack Hackelthorn
of Missouri Farmers Association wrote this in July 1961:
“New and better uses for milk. That is the byword for the
farmer-owned Producers Creamery Co. of Springfield, Mo.,
a part of the Missouri Farmers Association. The PCC
sponsors a continuous research program to find new ways of
using milk and to improve old ways. The co-op’s research
efforts were recently consolidated in its own building.
“One researcher may be working on a dietary food for
weight watchers while another is developing baby food. To
reduce the cost of shipping milk in cans to markets in the
East — and paying freight costs to return the cans — the
research staff got busy and developed a collapsible cardboard
box with a plastic liner. This cut freight costs and improved
storage-life of the product.”
First co-op to produce atomic power
From “Co-op Flashes” column, July 1961:
Mid-June was the date for the first atomic power reactor
to begin producing electricity. The Rural
Cooperative Power Association, Elk River, Minn.,
has 22,000 kilowatts of generating equipment to use
steam from the reactor. With a loan of more than
$15 million from the Rural Electrification
Administration, the co-op also added another 50,000
kilowatts of conventional power-generating
equipment.
Much work and some play at SSC’s
annual meeting
How to make annual meetings both informative
and fun to draw members is always a challenge for
co-ops. In Feb. 1962, Mildred Haun of FCS
reported on a novel approach taken by Southern
States Cooperative.
“A little fun made work more enjoyable for
Southern States Cooperative’s 38th annual meeting
at Richmond. Group singing of such songs as ‘Carry Me
Back to Old Virginny,’ and ‘Take Me Out to the Ballgame’
first thing Thursday morning put the audience in a receptive
mood for the business that followed. The meeting also
featured a Farm Talent Roundup contest, hosted by Ted
Mack of the Original Amateur Hour television show.”
Call for vigorous action issued at conference
Beryle Stanton, FCS, July 1963:
“Cooperatives and the Future — a national conference
being called a milestone in co-op history — drew 500 top coop
managers to Washington, D.C., to chart a more vigorous
cooperative action program. One of the highlights of the trip
was a meeting with President John F. Kennedy in the White
House Rose Garden. Kennedy spoke of ‘the great need to
uplift rural income,’ and said he ‘was hopeful this cooperative
group will develop an effective program for the 1960s.’
President Kennedy also said he hoped co-ops would expand
their already generous efforts to help people in the
underdeveloped areas of the world and strengthen their
economies through cooperatives.”
Will you be in business tomorrow?
Joseph Knapp, FCS Administrator, June
1965:
“I have watched farmer co-ops grow,
decline, fall and rise again for some 40 years. It
has been a period of tremendous changes
[during which] cooperatives have done fully as
well as other forms of business enterprise
serving farmers. There have been adaptations,
reorganizations, expansions and many failures.
But the central cooperative root has continued
to grow.
“I have often pondered why some co-ops
have grown with the times, while others have
fallen by the wayside. Here are key factors: 1. Good
management — this is vital; 2. Build bargaining power — this
requires having organizations that are big enough to count. 3.
Plan wisely — most co-ops do not do enough forward
thinking, but this is changing; 4. Mold understanding
through strong communications; 5. Fit organization to
function — organization must perform function and should
provide flexibility to change. 6. Keep up with the news —
[meaning evolving technology and science]. For example: ‘A
co-op with a computer is in the agricultural near future,’
according to an article in the ‘Washington Evening
Star.’”
Grain co-ops ‘Must step out together’
Daniel H. McVey, FCS, July 1969:
“Co-op spokesmen for 1 million grain farmers whose
cooperatives handle some 40 percent of the marketable grain
in this country heard warnings of tests to come in the year
ahead. This took place at the annual spring meeting of the
National Federation of Grain Cooperatives in
Washington, D.C.
“Federation President J.H. Dean (who is also executive
vice president and general manager of Far-Mar-Co Inc. in
Hutchinson, Kan.), spoke of unrest among grain producers in
this country. He said it was time cooperatives stepped out to
jointly develop a program that would help farmers increase
their returns from wheat and feed grain production.
“FCS Administrator David Angevine said: ‘Local
cooperatives face especially great difficulties. It seems to us
that widespread consolidation is the next big step in
gaunanteeing their continued usefulness to grain producers.
Among your regional co-ops, we hope you will move even
more swiftly into processing than you have in recent years.’
He suggested that the Federation can do a great deal to
stimulate consolidation of local grain marketing
cooperatives.”
