Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

Table 1-Number and estimated membership of farmer marketing cooperatives by geographic divisions, 1952-531

[blocks in formation]

DATA compiled from available rec

ords show there were 1,167 active marketing associations in 1900. This number increased year by year until 1923 when there were approximately 12,499,22

Since 1923 newly formed associations have not been numerous enough to counterbalance discontinuances. However, the active associations on the average have increased their business volume and membership.

There were over 6,000 active mar

"ELSWORTH, R. H., AND WANSTALL, G., FARMERS' MARKETING AND PURCHASING COOPERATIVES, 1863-1939. Farm Credit Admin. Misc. Rept. 40. 36 pp. 1941. See table 14, p. 33. Data on which report was based are more nearly complete than it is possible to obtain from a single survey. Out of print.]

An

keting associations at the close of the 1952-53 fiscal year. About 63 percent of all marketing associations were in the 12 North Central States; 17.7 percent were in 16 Southern States. other 14.9 percent were in the 11 Mountain and Pacific States. Only 3.6 percent were in the Middle Atlantic States and 1.1 percent in the New England States (table 1).

The 10 States reporting the largest number of associations were: Minnesota, 969 associations; Wisconsin, 572; Iowa, 569; Texas, 437; California, 418; North Dakota, 404; Illinois, 351; Nebraska, 253; Kansas, 251; and South Dakota, 220.

About a third of the marketing associations were primarily engaged in marketing grain, including soybeans and soybean products, for their pa

trons. Almost 30 percent were dairy associations and 12 percent handled fruits and vegetables. Cotton and livestock associations each represented slightly more than 8 percent of the to-tal number of marketing associations.

Almost 55 percent of the membership of the active marketing associations during the 1952-53 operating period was in the 12 North Central States (table 1). About 33 percent of the membership was in the 16 Southern States and 8 percent in the Pacific and Mountain States. The New England and Middle Atlantic States combined had less than 5 percent of total membership.

The 10 States leading in membership for marketing associations were: Minnesota, 376,385; Kentucky, 300,787; Ohio, 265,097; Iowa, 245,936; Illinois, 239,815; North Carolina, 229,582; Indiana, 198,362; Wisconsin, 197,757; Texas, 182,636; and North Dakota, 172,711.

Livestock and grain associations had the largest membership. Livestock associations accounted for 22.2 percent, and grain associations for 21.3 percent

(table 2). Dairy associations had slightly over 19 percent and tobacco associations over 17 percent of the total membership. Cotton associations accounted for 9 percent of the total.

The gross value of farm products marketed by cooperatives in 1952-53 amounted to nearly $9.3 billion. This is the largest volume so far in the history of farmer cooperatives. The net value of this marketing business after eliminating duplication arising from business done between cooperatives amounted to about $7.4 billion. This net value represents the value at the first level at which cooperatives transact business for farmers. It does not include terminal market sales for local cooperatives made by regional associations (fig. 3).

The 12 North Central States had a combined volume amounting to almost 53 percent of the total net value (table 3). The Pacific States accounted for about 14 percent of the net volume. The remaining six divisions accounted for approximately one-third of the net value of all farm products marketed in 1952-53.

Figure 3.-Estimated value of farm products marketed for patrons by geographic divisions, 1952-53.*

[ocr errors]
[graphic][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][merged small][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed][subsumed]

Table 2.-Number and estimated membership of farmer marketing cooperatives by specified commodity groups, 1952-53 1

[blocks in formation]

Figure 4.-Estimated marketing business of farmers' cooperatives by specified commodity groups, 1952-53.1

[merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]

Table 3.-Estimated value of farm products marketed for patrons, by geographic divisions, 1952-53 1

1

[blocks in formation]

? Does not include terminal market sales for local cooperatives made by regional associations. Represents the value at the first level at which cooperatives transact business for farmers.

Table 4.-Estimated marketing business in specified commodity groups, 1952-531

[blocks in formation]

This figure represents value at the first level at which cooperatives transact business for farmers. It does not include terminal market sales for local associations.

* Includes forest products, fur pelts, hay, hops, nursery stock, tung oil, and other farm products not separately classified.

• Because many associations are engaged in more than one type of business, these totals are less than the number that would be obtained by adding the number of associations handling individual items.

million; Ohio, $434 million; New York, $337 million; Texas, $320 million; Indiana, $274 million; and Kansas, $226 million.

Four commodity groups represented a little more than 82 percent of the total net value of farm products marketed by an estimated 7,208 associations in 1952-53 (fig. 4 and table 4). These four groups were: Dairy products, $2,418 million; grain, soybeans, soybean meal and soybean oil, $1,585 million; livestock and livestock products, $1,476 million; and fruits and vegetables, nearly $590 million.

Other commodities marketed during 1952-53 were: Beans and peas (dry edible), cotton and cotton products, nuts, poultry products, rice, sugar products, tobacco, wool and mohair, and miscellaneous products, including forest products, fur pelts, hay, hops, nursery stock, and tung oil.

Each of the major commodity groups marketed by farmer cooperatives is discussed separately in the following pages to show the variations in organization setup, methods of operation, and status.

Cotton and Oilseed Producers Use Cooperatives
by Otis T. Weaver

PRODUCERS of cotton and oil

seeds own and operate some 600 cooperatives to process and market these crops. These associations reported nearly $400 million volume of business for 1952-53.

Organized First in 1870's 23

The first serious effort by producers to develop cooperative marketing of cotton developed soon after the Civil War. Numerous organizations were started during the half century from 1870 to 1920. Several of these attempted to cover most of the cotton belt. Some organized on a State basis; others were community organizations.

The Grange, or Patrons of Husbandry, sponsored a cotton marketing program in the early 1870's. Plans for collective selling of cotton were put into effect by State Granges of Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Established cotton firms

23 GATLIN, G. O. COOPERATIVE COTTON MARKETING. U. S. Dept. Agr. Bul. 1392. 1926. HERRMANN, O. W. EARLY DEVEL

OPMENTS IN COOPERATIVE COTTON MARKETING, Farm Credit Admin. Circ. C-101. 1936.

were appointed as bonded sales agents to handle cotton on a commission basis. The period of actual marketing under this plan was brief. Following 1875, the agency system was discontinued.

The Farmers Alliance was active in promoting cotton marketing by farmers during the period between 1875 and 1890. Its principal cotton marketing activities were started in Texas but later spread to other States including Alabama, Georgia, Mississippi, and Oklahoma. Growers were organized in local alliances, and these locals grouped in county alliances.

The Farmers Alliance Exchange, located in Dallas, was organized in 1887 to market cotton and other crops and purchase farm supplies. Cotton samples were assembled in 25-bale lots of like quality by the business agent of county alliances and sent to the State Exchange for display and sale. The Exchange claimed to have handled more than a million bales of cotton during its first year with benefits to growers of more than $3 million.

A major problem of the Alliance was that growers were financed by credit merchants who required that this cotton be sold to them. The Exchange attempted to finance growers but was

« AnteriorContinuar »