Enhancing Leadership and Organization for Farmers' Market Success

Agribusiness, Marketing,

Serving Member Interests in Changing Markets: A Case Study of Pro-Fac Cooperative

Since the inception of Pro-Fac Cooperative (PF) in 1960, the cooperative has undergone significant structural and organizational changes. The PF case presents a unique opportunity to examine the changes in the processed fruit and vegetable industry and the strategies adopted by a producer-owned cooperative to best represent member interests in the face of the industry structural changes over the past fifty years. PF is an agricultural cooperative that markets crops primarily grown by its member-growers, including fruits (cherries, apples, blueberries, and peaches), vegetables (snap beans, beets, peas, sweet corn, carrots, cabbage, squash, asparagus and potatoes), and popcorn. Members are located principally in the states of New York, Delaware, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Washington, Oregon, Iowa, Nebraska, Florida, and Illinois. PF‟s history can be generally broken down into three distinct time periods, each representing a significant phase of restructuring. Particular attention is given to the decision to enter into the most recent and current phase of operations. Adequate financing of operations and value-added enterprises were dominant foci over all three periods and each phase involved a different approach. A variety of strategies were also used to enhance the market security for products produced by members. Initially, PF was formed to help preserve the fruit and vegetable processing industry in New York State. At that time, owning the processing facilities was a logical strategy. The development of alternative cooperative structures is often pursued to ameliorate financial constraints, while attempting to maintain member control. The evolution and restructuring of the PF cooperative can also be described using an ownership control rights typology framework (Chaddad and Cook 2004). Drawing from the property rights and incomplete contracts theories of the firm, Chaddad and Cook argue that alternative cooperative models differ in how ownership rights are defined and assigned to the agents of the firm, i.e., members, patrons, managers, and investors. In the current phase, investors acquired ownership rights in a separate legal entity that is partly owned by the cooperative, i.e. a cooperative with capital seeking entities (Chaddad and Cook 2004). As time progressed and economic conditions changed, PF members were not able to adequately capitalize value-added operations. An arrangement was struck with a private equity firm to provide a needed infusion of capital. The case examines to decision made by the board of directors to enter into this agreement. PF has increased its capacity to serve as a preferred supplier to those firms that can afford owning and operating plants while divesting its majority, ownership position in processing assets.Agricultural cooperatives, fruit and vegetable processing, private equity firms, boards of directors, financing., Agribusiness, Community/Rural/Urban Development, Crop Production/Industries,

Bankruptcy of a Supply Cooperative: The Case of Agway, Inc.

Agribusiness,

What Gives Cooperatives a Bad Name?

Agribusiness,

THE USE OF DISCRIMINANT ANALYSIS IN MEASURING COOPERATIVE GROWTH FACTORS

Vermont agricultural cooperatives were surveyed to investigate key factors contributing to cooperative success. Most of the cooperatives were formed within the last 15 years. Financial, organizational, and operational data were collected for selected years from 1974-1984. Average annual changes in gross sales were used to divide cooperatives into low-growth and high-growth groups. Selected variables were identified to classify individual cooperatives into low- or high-performance groups with discriminant analysis. Management experience and adoption of multi-year plans were the two factors found to have the most significant influence on cooperative sales growth.Agribusiness,

New Cooperative Development Issues

This article briefly reviews the increased interest in new cooperative development, factors for successful cooperative development, and strategies to improve the performance of new and emerging cooperatives. The article highlights issues identified by a panel of cooperative leaders, USDA specialists and academic expertsCooperatives, New Cooperatives, Developing Cooperatives, Agribusiness, P13, L22, L43,

Rapid ocean acidification and protracted Earth system recovery followed the end-Cretaceous Chicxulub impact

J.W.B.R. was supported by ERC Starting Grant 805246 OldCO2NewArchives.Mass extinction at the Cretaceous–Paleogene (K-Pg) boundary coincides with the Chicxulub bolide impact and also falls within the broader time frame of Deccan trap emplacement. Critically, though, empirical evidence as to how either of these factors could have driven observed extinction patterns and carbon cycle perturbations is still lacking. Here, using boron isotopes in foraminifera, we document a geologically rapid surface-ocean pH drop following the Chicxulub impact, supporting impact-induced ocean acidification as a mechanism for ecological collapse in the marine realm. Subsequently, surface water pH rebounded sharply with the extinction of marine calcifiers and the associated imbalance in the global carbon cycle. Our reconstructed water-column pH gradients, combined with Earth system modeling, indicate that a partial ∼50% reduction in global marine primary productivity is sufficient to explain observed marine carbon isotope patterns at the K-Pg, due to the underlying action of the solubility pump. While primary productivity recovered within a few tens of thousands of years, inefficiency in carbon export to the deep sea lasted much longer. This phased recovery scenario reconciles competing hypotheses previously put forward to explain the K-Pg carbon isotope records, and explains both spatially variable patterns of change in marine productivity across the event and a lack of extinction at the deep sea floor. In sum, we provide insights into the drivers of the last mass extinction, the recovery of marine carbon cycling in a postextinction world, and the way in which marine life imprints its isotopic signal onto the geological record.Publisher PDFPeer reviewe

The Decision to Merge: A Case Study of U.S. Dairy Cooperatives

WP 2002-34 November 2002A significant number of mergers and unifications have occurred among U.S. agricultural cooperatives over the last ten years. A recent report from USDA, RBS, summarized over 50 unifications of selected U.S. cooperatives of various types that occurred from 1989 through early 1999. Of the fifty-one cases cited, forty percent involved dairy cooperatives. Several recent mergers have resulted in the creation of the largest dairy cooperatives formed in U.S. history, serving members spread out across the country. The increased occurrence and scope of mergers of dairy cooperatives and the resulting impact on dairy farmer-members warrants additional study. A large body of literature and research exists on mergers of publicly-held corporations. Fewer studies have been conducted on the mergers of agricultural cooperatives. Two recent papers identified the need for further research on the impact and expectations associated with agricultural cooperative mergers and acquisitions. A case study approach was used to analyze two U.S. dairy cooperatives which merged in 1995. Economic and management data for the case studies were collected through comprehensive, structured interviews with the board chairs, advisors, and managers directly involved in making the merger decision. Financial statements were reviewed and financial ratio analysis undertaken to measure the economic impact of the merger. The selection of a cooperative merger partner is influenced by previous, long-term relations with a given cooperative. Having leadership open to the possibility of merging combined with previous positive experiences with mergers are key ingredients in considering future merger options. Driving forces identified for motivating mergers in the dairy industry are: consolidation at the retail and processor levels, potential cost savings from consolidated operations and increased uncertainty over the role of government. The greatest potential benefits mentioned were: cost cutting, avoiding destructive competition, higher returns to members, and increased leverage in the marketplace. The greatest barriers to merging were loss of the identity and control by the predecessor cooperative, and individual decision makers unwilling to take the associated risks of merging. Financial ratios were used to measure pre and post-merger performance in the areas of profitability, debt capacity, returns on equity as well as general and administrative expenses. The newly merged cooperative was able to achieve better financial performance than it's predecessor cooperatives in regards to improving profitability, increasing returns on equity and decreasing expenses related to administration and marketing on a per hundred weight of milk marketed