11‘“ ‘Dv'ct (4-9 . flfi mime; mags Illfllmmmmmfll 2193 10571 34145 This is to certifg that the thesis entitled . _1_.-:."': :1 Personal Attributes and Social Experience | 1|, {-1' f’ i_ I‘--' .;'._: f."_ -"- .._- as Correlates of Participation in Farmer's -i.:‘ ’.-._'1 -- ' I..' ' ,3" , ',. Cooperatives in Michigan " ' '-’._ ' ‘1": presented by : I! . '1 \', ' I !‘1.'.- H 11' 1' . . Walter Erwin Boek . : g . ; , _'_ \ - has been accepted towards fulfillment ' '. '- . of the requirements for I I ' .55.. Master of arts __degree in Sociologv c1- Anthropology : '_ -| l,‘ /“ fl I, I ' ' Major professor In. Date lla‘l z. ”5 , liL \ M-795 . I .I .1 \ RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to V remove this Checkout from 7 1 your record. FINES will L—-‘—J“~—“-r be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. ’1 so my \ MSU ‘ LIBRAREES W » PERSONAL ATTRIBUTES AND SOCIAL EXPERIENCE AS CORRELATES 0F PARTICIPATION IN FARMERS' COOPERATIVES IN MICHIGAN By Welter Erwin Boek A THESIS Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology and Anthropology 191:8 Acknowledgement This writer‘expresses his appreciation to all members of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology at Xichigan State College, especially to Dr. Duane L. Gibson, who directed the study and guided the writing of this thesis, to Dr. C. P. Loomis, Head of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology and Director of the Social Research Service, an? to Dr. Ti 2r A. Schuler. Associate Director of the Social Research Service. The writer wishes to thank the Hichigan Association of Fermur Coonorotives, wLo made this Stqdy possible. Appreciation is :lsn due to J. Howard Kauffman, who n.-. .F; J.‘ .. -r to “J ”.ie. than. assisted in interview: Table of Contents ‘ Chapter I i “ Introduction 1 1. Purpose and Scope of This Study A 2. Review of the Literature 5 1 3. History of Cooperation in Michigan and of the Michigan Association of Farmer Cooperatives 16 Chapter II Methodology 19 1. Background of Study 19 2. Development of Schedule 19 3. Selection of Areas Sampled 21 h. Procedure in Interviewing 26 Chapter III Extent of Participation in Cooperatives 30 1. Memberships in Cooperatives 30 a. Types of Cooperatives 30 b. Unaware Eembers 31 c. inchigan Iilk Producers Association 31 d. Detroit Packing Company 31 e. fiichigan Livestock Exchange 32 f. Rural Electrification Administration 32 g. Michigan Farm Bureau 32 h. Mutual Insurance Companies 33 1. Credit Cooperatives 33 j. Need for kembership Relations Programs 33 k. Summary of Kembership 35 2. Value of Business Done Through Cooperatives 37 3. Administrators 38 h. Attendance at Cooperative Meetings , 5. Length of Membership Chapter IV Individual and Environmental Factors Affecting Extent of Participation in Farm Cooperatives 1. Members Compared with Nonpmembers 3. a. b. 0. do 6. f. g. Age Schooling Farm Experience Size of Farms Tenure Membership in the Michigan Fanm Bureau Summary of Factors Related to Membership Attendance at Meetings a. b. C. d. e. f. g. h. 1. Age Schooling Years Farm Experience Since Age 16 Length of Membership in Earliest Joined Cooperative Still a Member of Tenure Size of Farm Membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau Sources of Infonmation about Cooperatives Summary of Factors Related to Attendance at Meetings Value of Business Done Through Cooperatives a. b. Age Length of Membership of Cooperative Still a Member of in Which Membership was Longest Schooling Farm Experience Since Age 16 Tenure Size of Farms Membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau Summary of Factors Related to Amount of Business Done Through Cooperatives by Farmers Reasons for Joining Cooperatives a. b. cg Age Length of Membership Schooling Page 39 h2 d. Farm Experience 81 e. Tenure 82 f. Size of Farms Operated 83 3. Membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau 83 1 h. Summary of Factors Related to Reasons for Joining 8h 1 5. Reasons for Dropping Out of Cooperatives 85 1 Chapter V Factors Inherent in Farmers' Attitudes Toward Cooperation as a System of Doing Business 88 . 1. Main Advantages 91 2. Criticism 93 a. Age 95 b. Size of Farm 95 c. Sourcas of Information About Cooperatives 96 d. Amount of Business Done Through Cooperatives During the Past Year 98 3. The Importance of Owning and Controlling the Farm Supply Business 98 a. Sources of Information About Cooperatives 99 b. Amount of Business Uone Through Cooperatives During the Past Year 100 h. Cooperatives as a Measuring Stick 101 a. Size of Farm 102 b. Sources of Information About Cooperatives 102 c. Amount of business Done Through Cooperatives During the Past Year 103 5. Importance of Farm 5upply Cooperative Giving Farmers a Share in Business Through Patronage Refunds 103 a. Age 10h 6. Size of Farm Benefiting from Cooperatives 105 7. Opinion of Marketing Members Compared to Members of Other Types of Cooperatives, With Regard to Which Benefits the Farmer More, a Marketing or a Purchasing Cooperative 108 Chapter VI Characteristics of Farmers Affecting Their Opinions when Comparing Cooperatives with Other Businesses 1 1. 2. 3. h. 5. General Comparison a. Sources of Information About Cooperatives Value to the Community a. Amount of Business Done Through Cooperatives During the Past Year b. Sources of Information About Cooperatives Soundness of Cooperative Information a. Size of Farm b. Sources of Information About Cooperatives Net Costs of Farm Supplies a. Amount of Business Done Through Cooperatives During Past Year b. Sources of Information About Cooperatives Farm Supply Services Efficiency of Marketing Functions Chapter VII Characteristic Elements in the Loyalty of Members to Their Cooperatives l. 3. bupport of Farm Dupply Cooperatives when Their Prices are Somewhat Higher Then at Other businesses? a. Age b. Sources of Information About Cooperatives Support of Marketing Cooperatives when Returns are a Little Lower than at Other Businesses a. Amount of Business Done Through Cooperatives Support of Cooperatives During Times of Membership losses a. Age b. Sources of Information About Cooperatives c. Amount of Business Done Through Cooperatives During the Past Year 113 111; 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 12h 127 129 131 132 133 13h 135 136 137 139 1h0 h. Feeling of Ownership a. Sources of Information About Cooperatives b. Amount of Business Done Through Cooperatives During the Past Year 5. Feeling of Having a Voice in the Affairs of the Cooperative \ a. Size of Farm b. Amount of Business Done Through Cooperatives \ During the Past Year ‘ c. Sources of Information About Cooperatives 1 6. Reasons that Members do Business Through Cooperatives \ a. Age b. Sources of Information About Cooperatives 7. Voluntary Recruiting by Members a. Amount of Business Done Through Cooperatives During the Past Year 8. Comparison of Cooperatives and Other Businesses During Low Periods in the Business Cycle 9-. Age Chapter VIII Summary and Conclusions 1. Summary 2. Conclusions Bibliography Bibliography Books Bulletins and Articles Theses Appendix A Schedule Appendix B Cooperatives in which Farmers had Memberships and Number of Members in Each Cooperative 1h3 11:14 11:5 1h5 th 1h8 1&8 150 151 152 153 156 156 158 165 165 165 168 List of Figures Figure 1. Areas in which the study was conducted Page 23 Table 2. 3. Lt. 5. 7. 8. 10. 11. 12. 13- 1’4. 15. 16. 17. list of Tables Page NUmber of memberships by type of cooperatives 30 Membership in mutual insurance companies 33 Business done through cooperatives by 395 members and 105 non-members 37 Attendance at cooperative meetings by members hO Year joined earliest cooperative of which now a member h3 Years of membership in cooperative dropped out of in which membership was longest Percentage distribution of members and non-members by age h6 Percentage distribution of members and non-members by schooling Percentage distribution of members and non—members by schooling Percentage distribution of members and non—members by years of farm experience since 16 years of age. Percentage distribution of members and non—members by size of farm Percentage distribution of members and non—members by tenure Percentage distribution of members and non-members by membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by age Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by schooling Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by years farm experience after 16 years of age Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by length of membership in cooperatives joined earliest which still a member of AB h9 51 S2 511 57 58 58 59 .. . I ._ I I. . I f'.'l;£l— l.:- in" ' .'*—-f.." Table 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32c 33. Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by tenure Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by size of farms Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by sources of information about cooperatives Percentage distribution through cooperatives in Percentage distribution through cooperatives in bership Percentage distribution through cooperatives in Percentage distribution through cooperatives in since age 16 Percentage distribution through cooperatives in Percentage distribution through cooperatives in Percentage distribution through cooperatives in of farmers by the past year of farmers by the past year of farmers by the past year of farmers by the past year of farmers by the past year of farmers by the past year of farmers by the past year the Michigan Farm Bureau Percentage distribution reasons for joining Percentage distribution sons for joining and by Percentage distribution sons for joining and by Percentage distribution sons for joining and by Percentage distribution sons for joining and by of members of of members of age of members of value of business done and by age value of business done and by length of mem- value of business done and by schooling value of business done and by farm experience value of business done and by tenure value of business done and by size of farms value of business done and by membership in cooperatives by main cooperatives by rea— cooperatives by rea- length of membership of members of cooperatives by rea— 3ears of schooling of members of cooperatives by rea— farm experience since age 16 Page 60 61 62 63 67 68 70 70 71 72 7h 79 79 81 82 l -7- , - It-‘L‘v'l' .fl 3h. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39- 140 o h2. 143. ’45. 1:6. M. Percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by rea- sons for joining and by tenure Percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by rea- sons for joining and by size of farms Percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by rea- sons for joining and by membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau Percentage distribution of farmers by age and years of schooling Percentage distribution of farmers by size of farm and by tenure Number and percent of farmers by their opinions of the main advantages of cooperatives NUmber and percent of farmers by their criticisms of coop— eratives Percentage distribution of farmers by their criticisms and by the size of their farms Percentage distribution of farmers' criticism by sources of information Percentage distribution of farmers expressing opinions about the importance of owning and controlling the farm supply business by their sources of information about cooperatives Percentage distribution of farmers expressing opinions on the importance of owning the farm supply business by mnount of business done through cooperatives during the past year Percentage distribution of farmers giving opinions of the importance of the farm supply cooperative serving as a measuring stick and by size of the farms which they oper- ated Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of the importance of cooperatives as measuring sticks and by sour— ces of information about cooperatives Percentage distribution of farmers expressing opinions on the importance of cooperatives giving farmers a share in business through patronage refunds and by age 82 83 8h 90 9O 92 9h 96 97 99 100 102 103 10h a- 50! L'nl' J’s-fitter. F £1.» . & a . . . "i d , ‘ r A n o '\ l , I -1 ' 4 . ‘ 1 ‘ l . Table h8. 1:9 0 SO. 51. 52. 53. 5h. 55 56. 57. Page Percentage distribution of farmers saying the large far- mer gets the most benefit and saying no difference by size of farm , Percentage distribution of members of marketing cooperatives, members of other types of cooperatives, and non-members by their opinions of which benefits the farmers most; a market- ing cooperative or a farm supply cooperative 109 Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether cOOperatives, compared to other businesses, are doing a better job, a poorer job or an equal job of buying and selling for farmers and by sources of information about cooperatives 11h Percentage distribution of farmers by their rating of value to the community of cooperatives compared to other busi~ nesses and by amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year 116 Percentage distribution of farmers by their rating of value to the community of cooperatives compared to other business- es and by sources of information about cooperatives 117 Percentage distribution of farmers by their rating of whether cooperatives give out sounder information than other businesses and by size of farms 119 Percentage distribution of farmers by their rating of whether cooperatives give out sounder information than other businesses and by their sources of information about coop- eratives 120 Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether net costs of farm supplies at cooperatives are higher, lower, or the same as at other businesses and by amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year 122 Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether net costs of farm supplies at cooperatives are higher, lower, or the same as at other businesses and by sources of their information about cooperatives 12h Percentage distribution of farmers by their rating of the services of farm supply cooperatives compared to other businesses and by their sources of information about coop- eratives 126 Table 58. 59. 61. 62. 63. 6h. 65. 66. 67. -1111- Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether marketing cooperatives were more efficient, less efficient or qbout the same as other marketing businesses and by age Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether a member should continue to buy from his farm supply cooperative when prices are somewhat higher than at other businesses and by age Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether a member should continue to buy from his farm supply cooperative when prices are somewhat higher than at other businesses and by sources of information about cooperatives Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether a member should continue to sell his products through his marketing cooperative when prices are somewhat lower than at other businesses and by amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of what they would do as members of a cooperative which was losing money because of members dropping out and by age Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of what they would do as members of a cooperative which was losing money because of members dropping out and by sources of information about cooperatives Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of what they would do as members of a cooperative which was losing money because of members dropping out and by amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year Percentage distribution of members by whether they feel they are part—owners of the cooperatives to which they belong and by sources of information about cooperatives Percentage distribution of members by whether they feel they are part-owners of the cooperatives to which they. belong and by amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year Percentage distribution of members by whether they feel they have a say in running the cooperative and by Size of farm Percentage distribution of members by whether they feelt they have a say in running the cooperative and by amoun 0f business done through cooperatives during the past year 128 132 133 135 138 139 1&0 1&3 '11:;- {Em-1&5.” I ' I In I ' '. ... _ . EH") ‘L'. I‘- I ._.'- _. ..._ . . -.- . - -' " I nd‘n‘o. ..u- v I‘ -|' ' . - 5 . o' _ - l.‘ _ 1 n I- . .... ._ -..- —;---.-.u in». ltd-("g - .1If4uo -vr-‘|'\ £3.14-n3-h '\ I Huan- I nI-n 71- In! I . I -. . . an . . - _, _. . ‘ . 3.. .1 . '. r - .- -- - - nr ‘- .-. .-. , r ‘1 - - - '— fi' , -. ‘ \ 1 '_.I .fJ‘Qfl. - I» ‘69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 71;. Percentage distribution of members by whether they feel they have a say in running the cooperative and by sources of information about cooperatives Percentage distribution of members by their reasons for doing business with their cooperatives and by age Percentage distribution of members by their reasons for doing business with their cooperatives and by sources of information about cooperatives Percentage distribution of members by whether they tried to interest others within the past year in joining a coop- erative and by amount of business done through coopera~ tives during the past year Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinion of which would more likely fail during poor business years, a farmer-owned cooperative, or a non-cooperative business and by age Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinion of which would more likely fail during poor business years, a farmer-owned cooperative or a non-cooperative business and by size of farm. 1’46 111,9 151 15h 151: N'- a- ".93Mqfi‘ Horus it EHSJK 3121' .SY , .. .'. . - i --5 ;J his \-:s . . I I r. .L ' l -I.' .— a; J 7: "cl c r -I --' I I "' Chapter I. Intro duo tion A cooperative association is , in general, an organization in which the owners of its facilities are the producers or users of its products. The broad economic objectives of cooperatives are to lower costs, to provide higher quality products, to provide better services and to increase farmers' bargaining power. Responsibility ibr the conduct of the various affairs of cooper- atives is vested in boards of directors elected by the members. Good management and adequate financing are not enough for the successful operation of a cooperative. The public attitude and the de— gree of government control over businesses are such that the relation- ships of men and- cooperatives with the public are as important to their continuance in business as bank balances or credit standing. "A business cannot enjoy sound and stable prosperity unless the people with whom it comes in contact believe that it serves them effectively and on the whole honestly."1 A successful foundation for a. cooperative is built on the individual members and their attitude toward the cooperative. The solidarity of a cooperative group arises to a considerable extent from the grievances against existing businesses which prompted its organization and from the competition that it meets. A certain amount of solidarity is obtained by developing a feeling of loyalty to 1 R. W. Miller. "The Place of Public Relations in Bus'i ness". Re- printed from Business Administration. New York: American Institute -2- i the principles of cooperation as an economic system and of being part of ‘ a large group of people striving toward a single goal.2 1 Within the cooperative association, contacts as members of tie group occur only at regular business meetings which usually are held annually. However, contacts of individual members with each other and .\ with the management occur frequently in the everyday operation of the business. Participation in the business of the association involves the willingness to cooperate in a joint risk for earnings or losses, and to this extent requires a certain degree of socialization in the attitudes of its mmbers.3 Since most cooperatives are voluntary, the strength and the effect- iveness of these associations depend on the extent to which members control, understand, and support the work of the association and its officers, directors, and committees. Under cooperative conditions, one of the mast important activities of the associations is the method of approach to problems involving the relationship between members and the association. The objectives of membership relations work are to main- tain membership and to educate or disseminate information to members. The latter is particularly important because on it depends the ability of members to control the association judiciously and to support it in a fair and unprejudiced manner.4 2 Dwight Sanderson. Rural Sociolog and Rural Social Organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1942. P. 527. 3 Ibid. P. 526. 4 William C. Welden and T. G. Stitts. Milk Cooperatives in Four Ohio Markets. Washington, D. 0.: Farm Credit Administration, Cooperative Division, Bulletin 16, April 1937. P. 65. . "'5: .11. I An ordinary business has three groups of people involved in its structure. One group is its stockholders, the second group is its mana- gers and the third is its customers. Sometime the managerial group is aim the stockholders but seldom are the customers the same people that are in either of the other groups. The managerial group has the job of securing a profit for the stockholders from goods or services sold to the customers. The stockholders generally demand tint the managers secure the highest price possible from the customers without losing their business. A public relations problem in this type of organization involves a program, such as an advertising campaign, which encourages the customer to buy or to oontinw buying the products. Whatever the program, the aim is always to sell more of the goods or services and thus bring in 1 more profit for stockholders. In this sense a cooperative organization is unique because the stockholders of a cooperative are also its customers. Therefore, any program which tends to get more profit from customers only returns the profits to the same people from which the profits were secured. The managers in this situation try to please the stockholder members by running the business efficiently enough to return a small profit on their investment and also to provide a small return to them in the form of refunds on the business they did in their role as customers. It is well known that any cooperative association can be only as successful as its membership is loyal. loyalty of members is often easily affected by a wide variety of factors which may be tangible and justifiable or intangible and unjustifiable; based on facts or on erroneous impressions. It is the opinion of the members, whether justified Ili'. r1: fl . --_r --..~‘=::::n 55:! or not , which affect their attitude, their loyalty, and their activi- ties in general toward the association.5 A knowledge of these opinions is necessary in order to correct any unwise policies, mistakes, or injustices, or to counteract misunder- standings, rumors, or propaganda put out in opposition to the organiza- tion. To be successful, an association must know and heed the demands of the individual members and the objections of non-members};I 1. Purpose and Scope of This Study The purpose and scope of this study was to gather first-hand infor- mation about the kinds and amount of participation by farmers in cooper- atives and the opinions and attitudes of farmers toward cooperatives and cooperative practices. This study concerns the broader membership rela- tions problems faced by cooperatives in general rather than by any one cooperative in particular. An attempt will be made to reveal information upon which future, more concentrated and pointed studies can be based. An attempt will be made to analyze these data in relation to the following qmstions: (1) What is the extent of participation by farmers in ecoperatives? (2) What are the individual and environmental factors affecting the extent of participation by farmers in cooperatives? (3) What are the factors inherent in famers' attitudes toward cooperation as a system of doing business? (4) What are the characteristics of farmers affecting their opinions when comparing cooperatives with other 5 John J. Scanlan. Business Analysis gf the Utah Poultgy Producers Coo erative Association. Washington, D. 6.: Farm Credit Adminis- tration, Cooperative Division, Bulletin 19, December 1937. Pp. 32-33. 6 Ibid. P. 33. businesses? (5) What characteristic elements are there in the degree of loyalty of members to their cooperative?7 2. Review of the Literature The first research in membership relations of cooperatives was pub- lished in the middle 1920's when the wave of cooperative organization, i which took place between 1917-1920 in Michigan, began to make people realize some of the problems faced by a farmer's cooperative organization. How— ever, not until 1937 and the years following did the number of studies concerning cooperative business and membership relations begin to in- crease. Tm milk market cooperatives, Sheffield Producers' Cooperative Association and Dairymen's League Cooperative Association, and one farc- mers' purchasing and marketing cooperative, the Grange league Federation, in New York state were some of the earliest cooperatives which began to see the value of research in membership relations and to appropriate money to be used for studies which would discover the attitudes and opinions of farmrs toward the oooperatives' programs and policies. Today, because of the competition which other non-cooperative busi- nesses provide and the opposition to the special tax privilege of cooper- atives, more farm cooperatives have become aware of the importance of maintaining good relations between their organization and the farm people. The Michigan Association of Farmer Cooperatives has also realized the value of maintaining understanding and good will with the urban consumer and have appropriated money for a study of the attitudes and opinions of 7 For further analysis of the data collected in this study see: J. Howard Kauffman. _T_h_£ Principles 93 geration o_f Farmers' Cooperatives as Viewed byMichioian Farmers. East Lansing, Michigan: Unpublished Este'T-vs‘thesis, Michigan State College, 1948. I. ’ .‘I . ’ :_ I __I ._ "-1 ... . . 20‘“ " 53;! D " Ifl'": "I ._ ' We? ~ rm!“ s ME; .' ~ r I r 'e- ..- :- ‘. ‘X \ ‘ ‘1 Y. ‘. I-I . } XI ‘1 9 c ! . I I I . IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIFIII -6- the city‘people concerning the farm cooperative. This increasing in- ‘.j terest indicates that careful research is wanted and that results will be applied to improve conditions which the farmer-owners and non-mem- bers have sham as needing changes. One of the earliest studies in the field of membership relations of farmers' cooperatives was that of Zimeman and Black.8 They found no significant relationship between years of cooperative experience and age, income, and education. These authors concluded that, as the farmer's experience or participation in cooperatives increases, his attitude becomes more favorable. However, they imply that this exper- ience in a cooperative that fails weakens the morale. They found a slight tendency for farmers with incomes over $5,000 and those over 60 years of age to be less favorable toward cooperation. The geographic 1 distance between farmers and managers was found to be negatively related 1 to confidence in management. 1 An early study made by Marshall9 in New York state concerned the opinions which members had of their milk marketing association. Eighty- five percent of the farmers thought that the Dairymen's league had helped to give them a better price for their milk. About 85 percent of the league members and 50 percent of the non-League farmers thought 8 C. C. Zimmerman and J. D. Black. The Market Attitudes 93 Minnesota Farmers. St. Paul, Minnesota: Minnesota Agricultural Experiment §tation Technical Bulletin 45, 1926. 9 John Marshall. A Stud fl Membership Relations and Field Service Problems of the Milk Marketing Organizations in the New York Milk Shed. Ithaca, New Yor. : Unpublished master's thesis, Cornell University, 1928, in Duane L. Gibson. Membership Relations 93 Farmers' Milk Marketing Organizations in New York State. Ithaca, New York: Unpublished doctor's dissert_a'tlon, Cornell University, 1940. Pp. 11—12. sailfish t-r ." :' -' '. Art-:1! ' - . n ‘ n I e . . I n I u I l I u . . n . that the price of milk would fall if the league were eliminated. The most conmnn sources of information about the League among its members .were the Daimen's league M, the local meetings, and the officers, in the order named. Marshall pointed out that there was still an immense amount of ignorance of the structure and function of the association and that this ignorance would have to be eliminated by a complete educational program if adequate membership relations were to be maintained. J. K. Stern,10 in Pennsylvania, studied a centralized cooperative Association which had its main office in Pittsburg. His study was based on 902 interviews with members of the association. Mast of the farmers in his study said that they joined because they believed in the organization. Many members were forced to join because of local market conditions and these members have greatly increased the member- ship problems of the association. Stern reported that 25 percent of the farmers said that they had received no benefits from the organization. He said the most outstand- ing fact revealed by the study was that most of the trouble was traceable to lack of information or lack of understanding on the part of members and it was doubtful if the management knew enough about members and local situations. Less than one-eighth of the members spoke of the organ- ization as though they were a part of it. The author mentioned that the members who reported that they were receiving benefits compared to those who said they had received no benefits, were more successful, more optimistic, more intelligent, had 10 J. K. Stern. Membership Problems in 3 Milk Marketing Organization. State College, Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State College Bulletin 256, May 1930. 2:1,“ xi .-.-....T" ‘ ‘ K's-— .. .. . 'c -_ .' . ' ' fl :fl‘uv a" Til-’51:“: 15 It “...-”fa“: -:..F i!- rriru ‘ ' better credit rating, were more interested in comunity activities, and had more conveniences on their farms than the group which reported that they received no benefit. Frank Robotka11 reported the results of a study which was com- piled from personal interviews with managers and officials of famers' elevators in Iowa. He found that members who became non-producers but retained their memberships increased the membership problems of the cooperatives. Improvements in membership relations usually were made when cooperatives received new charters which required taking up non- producer stock and replacing it with stock sold to producers. This study looked at the membership problems from the managerial side of the associations . J. w. Joneslz wrote a bulletin on aspects of membership relations and educational Work of cooperatives, using data compiled from visits to 50 relatively large cooperative associations in different parts of the United States. His conclusions are general with little presenta- tion of the statistical support for them. Jones says that cooperative associations are characterized by a lack of uniformity in the methods used to maintain contact between membership and management. The characteristics of directors and managers and their attitude toward members are important in building satisfac- tory membership relations. Membership administration must be definitely planned to be successful, and supervision of local meetings and their 11 Frank Robotka. Membershi Problems and Relationships___ in Iowa Farmers' Elevators. Hes, Iowa: Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 321, July 1934. 12 J. W. Jones. Membership Relations of Cooperative Associations, Washington, D. C. . Farm Credit Administration, Cooperative Divi- sion, Bulletin 9, October 1936. .r... ... n. .. 'L‘i I 9' n . .nm. .u. .. . 5-1:? :m - 3‘1. _-n'-- ,o' . ._., . ' s. 4 I I .. III 1 n . l...l.ll..ln .-\ |.|I..|r. I'I'I11.J.I|| -9- programs is necessary for smooth functioning. Walden and Staltte13 in their study of 652 milk producers in four ' cooperative milk marketing associations in Ohio found that members who had larger herds and longer memberships were more favorable to the ‘ oocperative's base-surplus plan. Of the producers, about 70 percent ‘ attributed improvements in prices and market conditions to the associa- 1 ‘ tion. other conclusions concerning membership attitudes related to ‘ this study which Walden and Stitts presented were apparently drawn from 14 Clement conducted a study of two marketing and purchasing cooper- l material not presented in their report. atives in North Carolina using interviews with 359 farmers, both ‘ V members and non-member patrons, as the basis for his work. Practically ‘ all of the farmers interviewed in his work considered the supplies ‘ handled by the association as good or better than supplies handled by non-cooperative organizations. Between one-fifth and two—fifths of the farmers in Clement's study expressed the belief that their association could render more service in grading or marketing. However, three-fourths of the farmers said their association should not extend credit. Seven-sights of those in- terviewed stated that the cooperative had lowered the general level of prices of supplies and most all of the farmers thought prices would go up if the association went out of business. Clement said that the chief source of information indicated by the farmers interviewed was written material, such as newsletters and 13 Welden and Stitts. 92' cit. 14 S. L. Clement. The Organization, Practices, and Membership gag:- ticipation of Two—North Carolina Farm Cooperatives. Raleigh, N. 0.: The—N'ofih' Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 511, July 1937. I —.':£.- ma .¢.'f:i’nsz-a.:zi;1;,.. --‘n if.” I .- .9 r = A e. in; ' tie-'12:; amen-ens h: 'r’t‘f".fl:" f. -10.. price lists. About 25 percent of the members of one of the cooperatives studied attended neetings, and about 60 pa rcent of the members in the other one attended its meetings. More than one-half of the charter members had not participated in the election of directors. A consider- able proportion of the members did not purchase through their coopera- tive all of the supplies which they used. The study of Kenning and Poling,15 consisting of interviews with 326 farmers who participated in livestock marketing cooperatives in Ohio, found that tenants were more likely to participate in the associa- ticns than owners. These authors stated that one out of four members obtained information from talking with other farmers and that few members attended the annual meetings of their associations. I In their conclusions they stated that the smal 1er, or local associa- tionsihad a better opportunity of keeping their members informed than had a large organization whose officers were many miles away from the farmer-members. Likewise, an association with local facilities, even though the main offices were some distance away, had a much better chance to keep farmers informed and educated about the cooperative pro- gram. Farmers did not have a clear-cut knowledge of the associations, who operated them, and who directed them. They were poorly informed on the names of the directors and their respective territories. A very small percentage knew the director himself. Ebro studies have been made by Macklin B. John, one in New York state in 1937, and one in Pennsylvania in 1943. In John's Pennsylvania Waning and Earl P. Poling. Attitudes of Farmers Toward Cooperative Marketing. Wooster, Ohio: Ohio Erifiltural Expo-1753175“ Station Bulletin 606, September 1959. 4 Jr . . r . . 2. ILIIII .u . algal... ..: . . studyl6 1256 Dairy farmers in 10 ccmnunities were interviewed to deter- mine the attitudes of dairy farmers toward a cooperative milk marketing organization. The study was conducted with scales developed using Thurstone's techniques. Sixteen percent of those interviewed were classified as strongly in favor of the organization, 18 percent were mildly in favor, 53 percent were neutral, seven percent were mildly opposed, and six percent were strongly opposed. The farmers who re- ported, as a major advantage of the cooperative, the attainment of their particular objectives for joining were more favorable than others reporting the same benefit, but having joined for other reasons. In this study, these factors were positively associated with favorable attitudes: amount of information, amount of schooling, age of operator, size of farm, number of organizations in vhich membership was held, mobility of operator, and size of dairy. Anderson and Sanderson17 published the findings of the other study made by John, and a study made by Gibson, and one by Losey in mimeograph form in 1943. These three studies made in New York state are probably the most intensive research which has been done in the membership re- lations field of cooperatives. 18 M. E. John's 1957 study in New York state consisted of interviews 16 Macklin B. John. Factors Influencing Farmers' Attitudes Toward a Cooperative Marketing Organization. State Colb ge, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 457, 1943. 17 W. A. Anderson and Dwight Sanderson. Membership Relations 3.3 Cooper- ative Organizations. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Agricul- tural Experiment Station Mimeograph Bulletin 9, April 1945. 18 Maoklin E. John. Attitudes 9_f_ Dairy Farmers Toward the Dairmen's league Cooperative Association. Ithaca, New York: Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Cornell University, 1937, in Anderson and Sanderson. 92. 35$. - '23-'20: '5 it‘ll"?! " .- '1“ z _' - , natal - ._a . u 1 I . a a I. I. n . a g . with 554 dairy farmers to determine their attitudes toward the Dairy- men's League Cooperative AsSociation. Thirty-eight questions were used to obtain a Thurstone-type scale from, “strongly in favor“ to, "strongly opposed". supporting data concerning the characteristios‘of the farmers were collected. D. L. Gibson'sl 9 study consisted of interviews with farmers in areas where the Dairymen's league, the Sheffield Producers' Cooperative, and five local milk marketing cooperatives were located. A general questionnaire was used to obtain opinions about the dairy marketing organization with regard to programs, policies, practices, and their success or failure. The study of the Grange League Federation by Losey20 obtained in- formation from 340 farmers, both members and non-members, about the Grange league Federation's program and its policy. A series of ques- tions dealt with the knowledge which farmers had of the cooperative form of business. From these three studies, Anderson and Sanderson drew four general conclusions which were supported by tin data reviewed and which trey considered to have general significance for the success of the coopera- tive movement. First of these conclusions is that there is a general lack of knowledge on the part of the members of the structure, methods of opera- tion, and policies of their own organization. Second, they conclude e L. ibson. Membership Relations g Farners' Milk Marketing Organizations 2 New York State. Ithaca, New York: Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Cornell University, 1940. 20 Edwin J. Losey. Membership Relations of a Cooperative Purchasing Association. Ithaca, New York: Unpublished doctor's dissertation, Cornell University, 1940, in Anderson and Sanderson. 92. cit. q .d- cad-weft. #35 sum.- . . l . v. - a . . . '\ . . . 'I ,:_ ~ ‘ . . . c k . . - . -13- that a lack of knowledge of tie basic principles of the cooperative is more serious than lack of information concerning their own organization. Third, the local cooperative associations are less criticized by their members and command a higher degree of loyalty than do the larger, more centralized associations in which the local units have no direct control over management. Lastly, it seems evident that too many are members solely for the prospe ct of immediate financial advantage rather than for the long-time benefits. The Grange League Federation21 conducted a study of farmer atti- tudes toward its own organization and policies for use in improving its services. Personal interviews with 1159 farmers, both patron members and non-patron members, were made in seven areas of New York state. This study inferred that farmers were convinced of the value of cooper- atives and thus the existence of the Grange League Federation was justified. The facts which they based this assumption on were the answers farmers gave to this question: "Do you think farmers need to cooperate?" Eighty-nine and five—tenths percent of the farmers said yes. Thisrconclusion was used to contrast or to confirm many other con- clusions in the study. The authors of this study said that through cooperatives farmers felt they should be able to buy goods more cheaply, get more for their farm produce, safeguard the interests of agriculture, get better qual— ity products and better service, and receive more information and greater help in planning their farm operations. About 27.1 percent of the farmers would not continue to bay through cooperatives if their prices 21 Grange League Federation. Audit _c_>_i_‘_ Farmers' Attitudes. Report on Research Project Number 1 for Manager's Conference. July 12, 1944. 1:. ---r «2':- .1‘thh7ui 'I '1‘.“ ..:. l.‘ ' "-1-?” " ' were higher than other businesses, and 41.9 percent would not sell. ‘ through cooperatives if their prices for farm products were lower than other businesses. The Grange League Federation's study stated that 94 percent of their patron-members said they received intonation about cooperatives from the manager. Following in importance were , circulars and letters, 1h: American grioulturist, committeemen, radio programs, and annual meetings in that order. Less than one-half of the patron-members said they strongly felt tint the Grange league Federation belonged to them. Several cooperative studies done in Michigan should be mentioned, although none of them attempted to determine either the farmers' appraisal of the successes or failures of cooperatives, or their under- standing of the policies and practices of their organizations. Clayton and Hornerz2 surveyed the cooperative situation in Michigan in 1925. Data were obtained by personal visits to each of the cooper- atives existing at that time. An analysis was made of the operations of the cooperatives, and these topics were treated: the types and distribution of Michigan cooperatives, legal and economic aspects, and management problems. In 1935, a second study was made in Michigan by W. 0. Hedrickzs which was limited to a study of cooperative elevators and treated specifically their organizational structure, service records, supplies Wu and J. T. Horner. Farmers' Cooperative Buying 5511. Selling Organizations in Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: Michi- gan Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 171, 1928. 23 W. O. Hedrick. é Decade o_f_Michgg’ an Cooperative Elevators. East lensing, Michigan: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 317, June 1942. handled, and business volume. Direct comparisons were rude between the elevator situation in 1935 and the situation in 1925, the time of the Clayton and Horner study. A financial study of Michigan farmers' cooperatives was made in 1937 by the St. Paul Bank for Cooperatives,24 assisted by the Michigan State College and the Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station which collected data on all Michigan cooperatives and published a bulletin. Later, H. E. Larzelerez5 prepared an analysis of the financial management of famers' cooperatives. The general purpose was: (1) to study the nature and volume of business and the capital structure of marketing and purchasing cooperatives, (2) to compare the financial condition of Michigan cooperatives, (3) to develop selected management ratios for the use of managers and directors. G. N. Motts26 reported a study in 1942 in which fruit and vegetable cooperatives in Michigan were surveyed and analyzed. Special attention was given to the history, operating methods, organizational and finan- cial structure, management problems, and efficiency of these cooperatives. In addition to these five published studies, there have been three master's theses written on cooperatives in the Department of Economics at Michigan State College. In 1926, Dieh127 discussed the need for crop 24 Farmer Cooperatives _i_n Michigan. St. Paul, Minnesota: St. Paul Bank for Cooperatives, 1937. 25 H. E. Larzelere. Financial Management Analysis 91 Farmers' Coopera- tives in Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 315, May 1942. 26 G. N. Motts. Fruit and Vegetable Cooperatives 553 Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Special Bulletin 517, June 1942. 27 Wilbur W. Diehl, Jr. The Use of Crop Contracts by Producers' Cooperative Associations. East—lensing, Michigan: Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State College, 1942. -16.. contracts between cooperatives and their members, using court decisions as the basis for his statements. The cost of credit extension in representative Michigan Agricul— tural cooperatives was studied by MaclP'herscn28 and reported as a master's thesis in 1940. He selected six marketing and purchasing cooperatives and examined the nature of their credit problems and prac- tices. An attempt was made to measure the cost of extending credit and ways were suggested to minimize credit problems. 29 in 1942. He dis- The third master '3 thesis was done by chman cussed the revolving fund plan of cooperative financing, using as sources for his study cooperative records and opinions of managers. Except for the studies in Michigan, the research reviewed has been that which emphasized membership relations problems of cooperatives. Other studies of cooperatives which have as their purpose other phases of cooperatives are listed in the bibliography. 3. History of Cooperation in Michigan and of the Michigan Association of Farmer Cooperatives. About one-third of Michigan's 175,268 farm operators:50 are market- ing farm products or purchasing farm supplies through approximately 350 cooperative organizations. Michigan ranks ninth among the states m MacPherson. _C_os_t_ 3i; Credit Extension in Representative Michi an Agricultural Cooperatives. East Lansing, Michigan: Un- published master's thesis, Michigan State College, 1940. 29 Saul B. Kloman. The Revolving Fund Plan g Cooperative Financing and its Application in Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: Unpub- lished master's thesis, Michigan State College, 1942. 30 United States Census 93 W, 1%: W. 1, part 6, WEEEEEgton, D. 0.: United States Government Printing Office, 1947. P. 10. K. FPO yo 0 $.53 .143; u. .31 — F ‘ -17- '7 1“ .1." in the proportion of farm products sold cooperatively with about one- third of its total'farm cash income moving through cooperative organiza- tions. Cooperatives are marketing at least 25 percent of Michigan beans and grain. 31 The Frankemnuth Cheese Manufacturing Company started in 1884 and is probably the oldest operating farmers' cooperative in the state. More Michigan cooperatives in operation today were organized in the years 1917-20 than in ary other period. Much of the incentive for this increase came from Michigan State College and the agricultural extension service.32 Some of the cooperatives organized during this time failed during the depression. In the years following the depression those that survived began to see the mistakes of earlier years and realize their limitations. Improvedbusiness practices and better management has tended to stabilize the cooperatives and place them on a sound finan- cial program during the World War II inflation period. The Michigan Association of Farmer Cooperatives was organized as a division of the Michigan Farm Bureau in 1944. Its major function during its first three years of operation has been to carry on at the state level, the defense of cooperatives in the tax battle against legislation proposing taxes on cooperative income. However, other functions and purposes are: to serve cooperatives in various fields pertaining to public, patron, and employee relations; cooperative ed- ucation, both among cooperative patrons and other economic groups such as city consumers, educators, and religious leaders; business research; and cooperative organization. The Michigan Association of Farmer M . , . - . u . . 31 Farmer Cooperatives _l_1_:l_ Michigan. 9p. cit. P. 11. 32 Ibid. P. 5. filial"! In 3.. “if“! 534 . ---. ATV-9'- - s I .a - - f2 "-.F." "'3. ,..l .2"- '2. 2";I‘.-| -13- Cooperatives does not deal with problems relative to buying and selling of commodities or farm supplies, but rather supplements services to cooperatives rendered by the commodity exchanges and business federa— 33 tions. The success of this organization will enhance the position of cooperatives in Michigan. 33 Annual Repprt. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Association of Farmer Cooperatives, August 1947. -19- Chapter II . Methodology 1. Background of Study The Michigan Association of Farmer Cooperatives was interested in studying membership relations of Michigan cooperatives. Representatives of the Association discussed the possibilities of a study with officials of the Social Research Service.34 A plan for the study was agreed upon and funds were provided by the Michigan Association of Farmer Coopera- tives- The study began with the development of a schedule of questions during the spring of 1947. 2. Development of Schedule The schedule of questions to be used in the study was based on tm Objectives of the study as outlined by the Social Research Service and the Mich igan Association of Farmer Cooperatives. It was agreed that the primary emphasis of the study would be placed, not upon the particular ~ problems of any one or more cooperatives which happen to fall into the area sEltnqpled, but upon the broader membership relations problems faced by °°°Pe ratives in general. An attempt was made to provide answers by questio he in the schedule to these types of questions: 1' How high does cooperation stand with its: members and with non- members as a method of doing business? 2' In 1713c opinion of farmers, how do cooperatives compare with other forms of business on such features as price, quality, service, etc? __\—_ 34 $118 so cial Research Service of Michigan State College was established In t Department of Sociology and Anthropology by the State Board of figriculture in November, 1946, to survey public opinion and study relations. What criticisms or suggestions do members and non-members have about the methods of operation and the general policies of cooperatives? 3. What knowledge of the principles and methods of operation of coopera- 4. tives do farmers have as a basis for the opinions which they express? 5. What are the sources of information about and the kinds of experi- ence with cooperatives reported by members and non-members? 6. What is the extent of awareness of farmers of the state-wide and national problems facing cooperatives? All available schedules and questionnaires which had been used in research work on cooperatives were studied to help in preparing questions. Types of questions were generally used which would make possible strictly comparable results on a quantitative basis of different Workers. Cate- gorized, multiple choice, yes-no, and simple rating types, which per- mitted a check mark to record the answer, and some free-response questions were used to record the farmers’ opinions. In general, leading questions were avoided.35 The names or addresses of the farmers were not asked or recorded on the schedule. The farmer was assured of the anonymity of his answers before the objective facts about characteristics related to him and to his fa—I'n: were obtained. In order to reduce suspicion and keep better rappo rt _. the as questions were not asked until all of the opinion ques- tions I'Iad been answered. T113 interviewers recorded answers to questions and comments by farmers ., which did not fit the classifications set up, by writing them on the 8 chedule near the questions which were being asked at the time Of the Ooments. A group of the questions were assembled, formed into a schedule, and N 55 180:: a. discussion of developing schedules and types of questions, see: c; H- Lundberg. Social Research. New York: Longmans, Green and “Parry, 1942. Che." 'pt‘er VII"? -21- pretested on farmers near Michigan State College. After these questions were revised and others added, the entire schedule was protested by a different interviewer in the area near Williamston. After necessary corrections and additions were made, it was again pretestcd by a third interviewer near St. Johns. After eight revisions, the final schedule .I was prepared, and it was protested by both the second and third inter- viewers in the area near Haslett. The final schedule was adapted for easy transference of the data to In-tse rnaticnal Business Machine cards so that the use of I.B.M. counters and sorters would facilitate mass assembling of the data. This included numbering questions and numbering the answers to tie questions. The schedule as used The I.B.M. cards contain only 80 columns, so another series : was started after 78 questions had been asked. . v in the interviewing is Appendix A.36 3. Selection of Areas Sampled T119 following points were considered in selecting the sample areas: (1) that, in general, the sample should be confined to areas where the greats s t amount of information could be obtained with the least time and expe nse; (2) that interviews be confined to heads of households; (3) that some persons not new members of cooperatives should be included in the s ample; (4) that areas where cooperatives have been operating for 163 S than ten years should, in general, be avoided; (5) that areas inWhiC31‘1 unusual happenings dominated the scene, such as formation of a new °° operative or the recent failure of a cooperative, should be M 36 She last four questions in the schedule were added to aid a study R: radio listening audiences which was being done by the Social 33 e|-J:'ch Service at Michigan State College. avoided; (6) that the areas selected be where neither the most success- m1 nor where the least successful cooperatives existed; (7) that the sample be confined to areas where several cooperatives existed, pre- ferably several types of cooperatives; (8) that the sample areas in- cluded a cross section of the types of farming in Michigan; (9) that the sample areas have a wide geographical spread in the southern part of the lower peninsula, which would be south of a line drawn from Bay City to Muskegon. The following five major areas were found to satisfy these re- quireusaents: (1) areas around Goldwater and Bronson in Branch county; (2) areas around Eau Claire in Berrien and Cass counties; (3) a. area around Molina in Allegan and Kent counties; b. area between Burnips and Hantilton in Allegan county; 0. area near Hudsonville and Jamestown in Ottawa county; (4) areaeround Pigeon and Elkton in Huron county; and (5) area. around Blissfield and Deerfield in Lenawee and Monroe counties. The general location of these sample areas is shown on a map of Mimi-gaunt in Figure 1. Tilese areas were selected to fulfill the recomendations of the Mimi-San Association of Farmer Cooperatives but at the same time to “us-‘93” the requirements of a suitable research project. This sample is not a. cross section of the state. It is, however, a fair cross sec- tion of ‘the southern agricultural area of Michigan. The Branch County sample area. was divided into two parts to make possible. interviews with farmers who had opportunities for experience With more cooperatives and to include farmers with different ethnic oha‘racteristios. Goldwater was the center of one of the parts and fi‘onson was the center of the other part. Branch county is in the 71.! w . 1: dub 3.75. Figure 1. Areas in which the study was conducted 0 State of Michigan f" I l ‘1 , . l Barrage r“ I n ' . l I I I . . .Morquene ,_ _____ .. Luce I —----—-—-J. i I - ' ' i I Chippewa I . . I |-—-—.-—- —- iDickInsofi' _l _______ ifi'chcclcrofv {Mgckrnac .I I EmmeI icheboygon ChorIevotx Q ‘1; J'Otsego Montrnorencyi Alpsno ._.' ...1-_ AnIrIm ~ Key to Sample Areas 0 i # 1‘ Areas around Goldwater 7 f3 Kolkosko Crawford—'Oscoda Alcono -'-A ' Grand I BenzIe! Traverse [ ! . I I I | I I Mon-slee. wexiord IMIssoukeERochmmcnIOgemow Ilosco . ‘ | l I c and Bronson in Branch County Eau Claire Berrien and Cass (301111171293 3- a- Lioline area in ACLZL egan and Kent Counties b- Area between Ell-I‘nins and H:.-'1i1— toh in Allegan 00114-113]; C . Eudsonville jan- C1 Jamestown ere? )I In Otters Count " Pic" Seen-1‘11: ton area in Huron Count; ' R) o I I | l r i I | I | _,.r ..I. !Loks __T i I 4 .Osceolo Gladen Aren c ICIcIre I .1.__,.. -|sabe||o I | I ——————— I—r—-—-7-l—~—»—-—»+»—-—-—-I- ‘—-—-—-- I I I I I _______ .1 L_ _____ J .MonIcolm 47 I I i 5+6 a.-. 1. .L.__ ,I I J GvoIIoI ________ .r-J Geneses IClInIon ShIcwossse La peer . I , I I I . I I I I .' ._a_I.__ __ V-V;_.__n---—VJ———-— ._C 1 Ana, TBorry TEoIon Tlnthm LIVIngsIon ‘ I I 1" 31 i szield-Ererfie area in Lenawee an “011 I‘oe co mtics e15. y": in. i i M _ l fJockson Wosmenow -Wayne __L 1 Von Banr‘ Kclomcfooi Calhoun I | - 1 I I I I I ! I ‘IMonros— 'HIIlsduIe I I i I {HI I ‘ L_....--_....'._ I_ _______ +1_._1_._;r_.._._1_._.l___r 0055 ‘8' JosephiBronch Lsnowee | - 4 all southernmost tier of counties in Michigan near the center of the state bordering on Indiana. The general type of farming in these sample areas is corn, small grains, dairy, and livestock.” The ethnic stock of the farm people around Goldwater is Italian and Oldlmerioan with a small settlement of Italians west of Goldwater. Around Bronson the ethnic stock is Polish.38 There were 636 farms in these sample areas which. gave us a. selection of approximately every sixth farm to obtain one htxndred interviews. The Eau Claire sample area was in Berrien and Cass counties and the village of Eau Claire, which was within the sample area, is nine miles from the village of Dowagiac and eleven miles from Benton Harbor, tin world's largest fruit market. Berrien county is the southwestern- most comty in Michigan. The ethnic stock is a mixture with no group Predominate.39 The general type of farming is fruit and truck crops.‘lo Approximately every fifth one of the 493 farms was selected to obtain one hundred interviews. The Nbline, Burnips-Hamilton and Jamestown sample area was divided ht" three areas in order to include a wide range of cooperatives. The area. are und Moline is in Allegan and Kent counties. Ethnic stock of the ram people is Polish and mixed. The Burnips~Hamilton area is in 37 E. B . . . i . . . . - H111. Types 92 Farming i_n Michigan. hast Lansmg, Michigan: latch :1 gm Agricultural Experiment Station Special Bulletin 206 6‘71 sed), June 1939. 58 J. St F- Thaden. "The Farm People of Michigan According to Ethnic F 001:5: 1945." East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State College map. .°r a. further discussion see: J. F. Thaden. "Ethnic Settlements :2 Rural miohigan." Michigan Agricultural Elaperiment Station Quar- £‘l Bulletin, 9041):, 2, November 1946. Pp. 102-111. 59 ‘ Ibl\<1- 4011111- g1. sill. ,25- Allegan county. and the ethnic stock is mixed. The Jamestown area is in Ottawa county and has an ethnic stock of Hollenders.hl Kent. Allegan, and Ottawa counties are located in the western part of Michigan. The generel type of farming is ooultry, dairy. and truck cropsf”2 Since there were 857 farms in the three parts of this tree. eporoximetely every eighth farm was selected to obtain one hundred interviews. The Pigeon—Elkton sample area is in Huron county which is in the northernmost part of the thumb region near Lake Huron. The general type of farming is dairy, hay, special crops, beans. and sugar beets.”3 The ethnic stock of the rural peoole is a mixture. with Canadians pre— dominating. A portion of the area near Pigeon was settled by German farmers.1m Approximately every fifth farm of the 562 in the area was chosen to obtain one hundred interviews. \ The Blissfield—Deerfield sample area is in Lenawee and Monroe counties, which are in the southernmost tier of counties, near the southeastern corner of the state. The general type of farming is corn and livestock.).5 Wheat is replacing livestock at this time and tomatoes are important. Ethnic stock of the peeple is Old American and German.hb Approximately every sixth of the 681 farms was selected to obtain one hxuidred interviews. Farmers interviewed in all the areas listed association with seven- ua Hill. 92. gig. 1+3 lili- 1m Thaden. 92. c_i_t_. 1+5 Hill. 93. 331. M6 Thaden. QB. cit. 5“". .. 1‘5. '5 -26- teen local elevator'end supply cooperatives, three local milk or cream cooperative markets, one local fruit market cooperative, Farm Bureau 011 Cooperative, Michigan Livestock Exchange, Michigan Milk Producers Association, Detroit Packing (bmpany, Farm Bureau Fertilizer Cooper- ative, Rural Electrification Administration, credit cooperatives, mutual insurance companies, and the Michigan Farm Bureau. This is a. total of so different cooperatives of which 21 are controlled almost entirely within the local rural communities. 4. Procedure in Interviewing The total number of farmers interviewed for this study was 500, not counting farmers interviewed during the pretesting. One hundred farmers were interviewed in each of the five general areas selected. The farmers to be interviewed were selected entirely by chance. Before the interviewers went into any area, the forms within the area were counted on the county maps of the Michigan Highway Department. The total number of farms in the area. was divided by 100, the desired number of interviews in the areas, to determine the proportion of farms to be visited. The total number of farms in the Eau Claire sample area was 493. Four hundred ninety-three divided by 100 equals approximately five, which means that one out of every five farms Would equal approxi- mately 100 interviews. The actual farms visited were determined by counting on a map, and marking every fifth farm with a red pencil on all north and south roads. After the north and south roads were finished, the count was continued to the east and west roads. After every fifth farm was marked, tkzey were numbered, and corresponding numbers were given to the schedules. cease-Jr- . a... {VI -2 7- When the interviewers went into the areas ,- they located the marked farms and used the corresponding schedule for the interview. A few of the farm residences marked on the map were not actual farms when located because of changes since the maps were made. The farm selected and marked on the map was not used unless it contained at least three acres or unless it had an income of at least $250 during the previous year from products produced on the farm. This definition is the same as that used by the United States Census enumerators in 1945.47 If the farm did not meet these requirements, a substitution was made. The procedure used in selecting substitute fame was to select the farm closest to it on the side away from the center of the area and then on the next substitution to select the farm closest to the one not satisfying the requirements on the side nearest the center of the area. This alternating system of substitution was used so that sub- stitution would, not continually be made closest or farthest from the villages which were generally in the center of the areas. Interviews were held only with heads of households. If tie farm was not operated by its owner, or if it was a partnership, the person Who made the buying and selling decisions was interviewed. Because of the tendency toward expanding farm sizes by renting or buying additional farms, it was necessary to interview many farmers on farms which were sometimes several miles from the farm originally selected and somtimes outside the areas selected. The interviewers attempted to segregate the farmer interviewed Ms Census of Agriculture, Eli: Farm Population and Labor. II, Chapter VTWashington, D. 0.: Umdmve—r'nment Printing Office, 1947. P. 909. ... . , .r. ”sea-u . I: has. -28- from members of his family or other distracting influences, while the interview was conducted. Generally, appoinhnents were made with farmers who were busy or with farners who could not be separated from neighbors or other disrupting influences. The interviews were conducted during the summer harvest period so that many farmers were interviewed during chore time early in the morning, sometimes starting at five A. M. and in the late afternoon and evening from four to nine P. M. If the farmer was not available after at least three attempts were made to see him on three different days and the interviewers were ready to leave the area, a substitute was selected. Three hundred and two, or 60.5 percent of the interviews were secured on the first trip to the farm. One hundred forty-three, or 28.7 percent, required two visits to the farm. Three visits were necessary for 58 farmers, or 7.6 percent of the sample. Fifteen in- terviews, or three percent required four visits, and one farmer re- quired five trips. The record of the number of visits required in order to get one of the interviews was lost. The cooperation which the interviewers received from farmers was excellent. Farmers were interested in cooperatives and willing to .tell: about them with the interviewers. Only six farmers, or 1.2 percent 03? the total interviews secured, refused to answer the questions. The interviewing was done by three field workers.48 One inter- vicwmer made 556 interviews, one made, 153 interviews, and the third made 11. Interviews in the Goldwater-Bronson sample area were secured W Gibson, Professor of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State College, J. Howard Kaufman and Walter E. Bock, Graduate Research Assistants, Department of Sociology and Anthro- pology, Michigan State College. ash-L’s "1'. I h" by an interviewer working alone. Three interviewers worked in the Blissfield-Dee‘rfield sample area at the same time and two interviewers worked in the other three areas at the same time. Interviews were taken in the 'Coldwater and Bronson sample areas from July 9 through 18 ; in the Blissfield—Deerfield sample area from July 22 through so; and in the Eau Claire sample area from August 1 through 7. Interviews were secured from the Molina, Dirnips—Hamilton, and Jamestown sample areas from August 8 through 14 and from the Pigeon- Elkton sample area from August 15 through 20. -30.. Chapter III. Extent of Participation in Cooperatives 1. Memberships in Cooperatives 2m c_f Cooperatives. After nearly all the opinion questions had been answered, the farmer was asked if he was a member of a. cooperative.49 Three hundred and fifty-nine farmers or 71.8 percent of the sample said they were members of cooperatives. When these 359 were asked to name the cooperatives to which they belonged, they listed memberships in the types of cooperatives indicated in Table 1. Many farmers were members of more Table 1. Number of memberships by type of cooperatives Number of Type of cooperative memberships Both elevator and supply 3h1 Fruit or vegetable marketing and supply 73 Oil and gas 36 Milk or cream marketing (local) 20 Michigan Milk Producers Association 11; Detroit Packing Company 7 Livestock marketing (including Michigan Livestock 8 Exchange) Rural Electrification Administration 3 MiChigan Farm Bureau 1’4 Farm Bureau Fertilizer Cooperative 3 Credit cooperatives l ‘ than one of the same type of cooperative as well as menbers of more than E Farmers were not asked whether they were members of a cooperative until nearly all of their opinions had been recorded. Later after objective data about the farmer and his farm had been recorded, corroboratory questions were asked about specific cooperatives. Some farmers would recognize their previous mistake of saying they were not members, but the former answers were not changed. A at «"Ii -~ q-— o l . .-l A. r .a': -31- one type of cooperative. Time. in the above table. fewer than 3111 farmers had memberships in the elevator and supply cooperatives. Sixty-three farmers. or 12.6 percent of those interviewed. had dropped out of one or more cooperatives. Of these. 23 were not now pre- sent members of any cooperative. Unaware Members. To find out whether farmers would recognize their membership in cooperatives. they were asked if they belonged to coopera- tives. Those who said they did were asked to name the cooperatives to which they belonged. Later in the interview. the farmers were asked specifically if they belonged to each of these cooperatives: Michigan Milk Producers Association. Detroit Packing Company, Michigan Livestock Exchange. Rural Electrification Administration. Michigan Farm Bureau. and mutual insurance companies. The farmers who said they were not members of cooperatives and yet said they were members of any one or more of the cooperatives about which they were explicitly asked were called. "unaware members“ and were considered as members in the analyses presented in this thesis. Michigan Milk Producers Association. Fourteen farmers said they were members of the Michigan Milk Producers Association when asked to name the cooperatives to which they belonged. However. 65 farmers or 13 percent of the sample said they were members when asked specifically. Farty—two farmers had been members at one time and ’40 of these were new members of other cooperatives. One hundred and seven or 21 percent of the sample had actual membership experience in the Michigan Milk Pro- ducars Association. Detroit Packing Conroy. Seven farmers said the Detroit Packing Company was one of the cooperatives to which they belonged. However. "-‘m'; at? was mus-sews -32.. 5h farmers or 10.8 percent of the sample said they belonged when asked explicitly. Nine percent of the farmers had at one time been members. making a total of 100 farmers or 20 percent of the sample who had actual membership experience in this cooperative. Nine of the past members_were not new members of any cooperative. Michigan Livestock Exchange. Eight farmers said they were members of the Michigan Livestock Exchange when asked to name the cooperatives to which they belonged. but 59 farmers or 11.8 percent of the sample said they were members when asked specifically if they belonged to the Michigan Livestock Exchange. One hundred and six farmers or 21.2 per- cent had been members. Twenty-four of these former members were not new members of any cooperative. One hundred sixty—five farmers or 33 per- cent of the sample had actual membership experience in the Michigan Livestock Exchange. Rural Electrification Administration. Three farmers listed Rural Electrification Administration as one of the cosperatives to which they belonged. but 27 or 5.M percent of the sample said they were members when asked if they received electricity from the Rural Electrification Administration. Michigan Eagm Eggggg. Fourteen farmers listed the Michigan Ibrm Bureau as one of the cooperatives to which they belonged. Later hows ever. 233 farmers or u6.8 percent of the sample said they were members when asked specifically if they were members of the Michigan Farm Bureau. Eighty-five or 17 percent of the farmers were past members. and of these. 27 were not now members of any c00perative. Three hundred eighteen or 63.8 percent of the sample had actual membership experience in the Michigan Farm Bureau. J n ism-21.13% v.3:- '-.r 4" ' “It! -33- u" £5335; Insurance Companies. Farmers were asked if they belonged to mutual insurance companies even though these companies are sometimes not listed as cooperatives. The membership was indicated in fire. wind- storm. hail. auto. sickness and health, accident. life. and other in- surance companies. Table 2. Membership in mutual insurance com- panies Number of farmers Number of companies Indicating membership none 25 one two 132 three 1% four 108 five 38 six 9 seven 2 Four hundred seventy-five or 95 percent of the sample were present members of mutual insurance companies. although none of them named mutual insurance companies when asked to name the cooperatives to which they belonged. Credit Cooperatives. One farmer named a local credit cooperative as one of the cooperatives of which he was a member.~ £225 £23 Membership Relations Programs. In an attempt to find out whether farmers would recognize some of the organizations to which they belonged as cooperatives. they were first asked to name the cooperatives of which they were members, and then later they were asked specific questions about six cooperatives. as explained in a previous discussion. -3h. Fifty-one. or 78.5 percent of those who later admitted belonging to the Michigan Milk Producers Association. did not name it as one of the cooperatives to which they belonged. Thirty-seven or 87 per- cent of the farmers who were now members of the Detroit Packing Company did not name it when asked specifically. Fifty-one or ss.u percent of the members of the Michigan Livestock Exchange did not name it when asked. Twenty-four or 88.9 percent of Rural Electrification Administration members did not name the Rural Electrification Adminis- tration as a cooperative they belonged to. yet they said they received electricity from it. Two hundred and nineteen farmers or 93.6 percent of the members of the Michigan Farm Bureau did not name it as one of the cooperatives of which they were members. None of the M75 farmers who belonged to mutual insurance companies named a mutual insurance company as one of the cooperatives to which he belonged. This indicates that farmers tend to consider as cooperatives only those which purchase supplies or market products for them.50 A few farmers did not recognize some cooperatives as cooperatives. They looked on these cooperatives. especially the larger ones which have their headquarters outside the community. as just another business with which they deal. Some farmers were surprised to discover that the organization which they were a member of was a cooperative. Many of them said they were not members of a cooperative even though they admitted 50 A criticism of the simple yes-no type of question such as. "Are you a member of a cooperative?". is that there is generally an under- estimation of the interviewer's participation or opinion; whereas an explicit question such as. "Are you a member of the Michigan Milk Producers Association?". will tend to concentrate the attention of the person on the desired response. For a discussion of types of questions. refer to Lundberg. 92. 213. Pp. 190_196. on; C _ .. . II c . «.1 I . ..H. . t . . .... . . . n... o . I . b res-id u-i t ' 15".... -35- owning shares in an organization such as the Michigan Milk Producers Association. This was true for some local cooperatives as well. Some farmers would say they were not members of cooperatives but would recall that they had received some notice or certificate. A number of those referred to the certificates as "worthless paper" which they had mis- i placed soon after receiving them. Many farmers did not pay actual cash for their memberships. but they had received membership shares instead of their refunds or. as in the case of the Rural Electrification Administration. it was the only electric supply in the area. If Cooperatives are to continue to consider these "unaware members" as actual members. it would seem important that they try to make them aware of their responsibilities. A cooperative member should say. "our business" and. "We hired a new manager". instead of. "their business" and. "They hired a new manager". Membership relations programs emphasizing membership might well be started to encourage farmers who are members to recognize their part in the cooperative business. SummEEZ 2; Membership. In this study. the farmers were classified as members or non-members of cooperatives. Members included farmers who ' indicated present membership in one or more of the following cooperatives: any local cooperatives. Michigan Milk Producers Association. Detroit Packing Company. Michigan Livestock Exchange. Rural Electrification Administration. credit cooperatives and Farm Bureau Fertilizer Cooperap tive. Local cooperatives include those which have one or more of the following types of services: grain elevators. storage. farm supplies. “4'" £2. ...}.u 4 - “tearf -'I "In . 55" girl ifs clutter? “r K. I .. II ... . c‘h’ ...”..lu. .1 r . .. .. . . u. . gs 3.11.1.1. if 7, . » ,1. . -36- milk or cream marketing. 011 and gas. fruit and vegetable marketing or processing. and livestock marketing. The Farm Bureau Services and Farm Bureau Oil which are branches of the Michigan Farm Bureau are included in the local classifications. The Michigan Farm Bureau is a large farm cooperative. but its func- tion is generally not buying and selling. so farmers who are members of it will be counted as non—members unless they are members of other cooperatives. Farmers who are members of the mutual insurance companies will not be considered as members unless they are members of other cooperatives. because farmers do not generally think of insurance com- panies as cooperatives. as shown in Chapter III. Section 1. The total sample of 500 farmers contained 395 members or 79 percent of the sample and 105 non-members which is 21 percent of the sample. Of the 395 members. 353 were farmers who said they were members and M2 were "unaware members" or farmers who did not know they were members but were discovered by specific questions near the end of the interview. 0f the ”2 farmers who did not know they were members. 37.2 percent were less than 30 years old and 67.h percent were less than no years old compared to 10.7 percent of all the members who were under 30 years old and 35.5 percent of all the members who were less than MO years old. Be— sides being younger than other members. 55.8 percent of the unaware members were renters. compared to 13.2 percent of all the members who were renters. Of the 105 past members. 23 said they had dropped out of cooperar tives and were discovered to be past members of cooperatives by direct questions near the end of the interview. Thirty-five farmers or seven percent of the sample had never been members of any cooperative as de. fined in this study. r t .. u. i. M A .y n I all. I .. a «u . - «a a 1 n.. . c 1.. u a. ...... 1 ...- H r ...u II V u u .- q .. .... .I .. . o . . a. . .n. .. . m .. . . .. n n” a . . . l. .. 1 .. 1c. ..h .. . r w. , .. . L .. 1 . . . 4 I ..P. .. n. ..1 J .... a .. . .. N... u . , q ._ u... .|.. .. . a... h ... . . . ... .. ._ W7 A. _. _ . . I . . ...; . I” c . 4,1 2.}.11 a 4!: n. ..n U. . \ .‘ -37.. 2. Value of Business Done Through OOOperatives One of the measures of the extent of participation in cooperatives is the amount of business participation or the dollar value of the products purchased and marketed through cooperatives. Many types of cooperatives do business with farmers who are not members. Therefore. some of the farmers who were not members. did participate in coopera- tives through their business. Extent of participation as measured by business done in the cooperatives is shown in Table 3. Table 3. Business done through cooperatives by 395 members and 105 non-members Dollar value of Percentages of business Members non-members Total members Less than 100 .8 5.6 1.6 100.1199 111. 6 37. 5 18. 3 500.999 19.5 25.0 20.11 1000-1999 26.2 19.11. 25.1 2000—2999 13.8 8.3 12.9 3000 and over 25.1 )4.2 21.7 Total 10000 10000 10000 Twenty-five percent of the members had done $3000 or more worth of business through cooperatives as compared to only 1+.2 percent of the non- members who did this much business. Fifteen and four-tenths percent of the members had done less than $500 worth of business through cooperatives. whereas 113.1 percent of the non-members had done less than $500 worth 01‘ business. This indicates that the members participated in coopera— tives through their business to a much greater extent than did non— members. Over one—half or 58.7 percent of the farmers. both members and insist} 1! .11"?! ‘:'::- .1 "-3 ' -- '---':-:1‘-~.-'t x’ifv 1pm. a". - .-=-- n: .' uteri!!! vii -'.. r" ,v . TL!" -38. non-members did at least $1.000 worth of business through co0peratives. Even though non-members did less business through cooperatives than members did. their business is an important part of the total amount done by cooperatives. Non-member business in many c00peratives is important. because the added volume increases the efficiency of the business and places the cooperative in a better position to meet competition. Non- members. in general. are able to do more business with purchasing coopera- tives than with marketing cooperatives because some marketing cooperatives have marketing agreements with their members and do no business with non-members. The size of non-member patronage and the profits made on their business is sometimes an important method of maintaining substantial patronage refunds to members. Frequently cooperatives expand their membership by attrac— ting non-member business and then encouraging these non-members to Join by showing them the savings which would be returned to :them if they were members. Other cooperatives pay refunds to all of their patrons regard- less of membership. although some of these hold the refunds of the non- members until the amount held equals the share of stock which automati- cally makes the patron a member. Regardless of the plan of operation of a cooperative. non—members' business and their attitudes and opinions should be considered as they affect the position of the cooperative in the community and as an economic System of doing business. 3. Administrators One of the most important measures of participation is the actual h°1ding of offices which have to do with administering cooperatives. The administrators. such as managers or officers, have through accepting It!" as. Jai- _ --. 1' -'E='-.i.’_'1'¢¢ . - 3.1-1 ...... -39.. their offices. demonstrated their interest in working with or for the cooperative. Of the 395 farmers who were members of cooperatives. 29 farmers or 7.3 percent of the sample at one time had been in administrative pesitions Three farmers had been or were managers of cooperatives. and two farmers had been or were presidents of cooperatives. Five farmers had held other offices such as vice-president. secretary. or treasurer. Fourteen farmers had been directors and eight farmers were at one time officers. but the name of the office was not given. In three cases more than one office was held by one farmer. The Grange League Federation. in their audit of farmer attitudessl reported that a slightly higher per- cent (11.1 percent) of their sample had been Grange League Federation Committeemen. M. Attendance at Cooperative Meetings Attendance at cooperative meetings is another important measure of participation in cooperatives. In farm cooperatives. some of which have grown from community organizations to county and statewide systems of doing business. personal. face—to—face pressure to attend meetings is no longer strong enough to insure regular attendance. The farmers who said they were members of cooperatives were asked qu$stions about their attendance at cooperative meetings. The results 0f tliese questions are indicated in Table h. Of the members who re- sponjied to this question. h3.9 percent said they attended most of the meetings held by their cooperatives. Twenty-eight and six-tenths percent or owrer one-fourth said they attended only a few of the meetings: 27.5 _____‘____~___ 51 Grange League Federation. 92‘ cit. iii-"#- 7 . , I“. .' ”m” it"- 4-_ . 'I I"... lfl‘: a-i-Sr 1 I: , 1:. - 1:? "_::--.:I '0 ‘5'"; if‘ .Irru-U far-9 ..‘. i'..-wt‘4., ,m “ in... I Q , I. .' ' - ‘ ‘ \I ' w a. ‘ ‘ r n , i ‘ . ‘ . ‘ ' V Y ‘ . ' ‘ JIG- Table )4. Attendance at cooperative meetings by members Meetings attended Number Percent Most of them 155 43.9 Few of them 101 28.6 1 None of them 97 27.5 '13 Total answering question 323 100.0 No answer 2 Total number 395 percent or over one-fourth said they did not attend any of the meetings. The H2 farmers who did not respond to this question were "unaware members" as explained in Chapter III, Section 1. It is permissable to assume that many of the "unaware members" did not attend meetings or else they would have been more likely to recognize their membership in the cooperative. Therefore, if these "unaware members" were added to the members who said they did not attend meetings. it would mean that 35.2 percent or over one-third of the members in the sample did not attend any of the meetings held by the cooperative to which they belonged. The importance of attendance at meetings is recognized by most men “he have studied membership relation problems of cooperatives. Gibson52 reported that nearly one—half (149.7 percent) of the members of the cooperatives in his study attended no cooperative meetings the previous year- In fact, #0 percent of the cooperatives members did not know the number of meetings their local organization had during the previous \_______ 52 Gibson. 9p. Cit. P. 6. -hl- year. Sixty-three percent of the patron members of the Grange League Federation in Losey's53 study. had never attended any of their coopera- tive's local meetings. Walden and Stitts5n said that 30 percent of the members of live- stock cooperatives in their study did not attend any meetings during ‘1 the past year. Sixty-five percent of the farmers said the meetings were of value. 25 percent were indefinite. and 10 percent said they were of little or no value. I 1 i John55 found that 55.3 percent of the members did not attend meetings. Also. the farmers who did attend meetings were better able to criticize or praise their cooperatives. Sixty-eight percent of the farmers who were members of coopera- I tives did not regularly attend meetings of their cooperatives in Stern's56 study. However. attendance by members at cooperative meet- ings was twice as high as attendance at agricultural extension. Farm Bureau or Grange meetings. A still higher percent of non-attendance was reported by Kenning and Poling57 when they found that 85.3 percent of the members of live— stock cooperatives did not attend their meetings. When over a third of the cooperative's members are not attending its meetings, as this study shows. it indicates a lack of enthusiasm. mg?" in Anderson and Sanderson. _Op_. 931. P. 12. 5h Walden and Stitts. 92. 23. Pp. 67-68. 55 John. 92‘ gi_t.. in Anderson and Sanderson. 99. fit: P. 26. 56 Stem. 93. cit. P. 9. 57 Kenning and Poling. 92. c_i_§_. W. 25-26. -— I .- l I ' , e r ' v . v . - -. - .. . . .. . .. . . . - . K- - . .. - . . . . —— . r . . " "'2- a considerable inconvenience for the members to attend. or that the cooperative does not have its membership fully behind it. Local meetings are valuable means of communicating to members and stimulap ting their interest and loyalty. Poor attendance at meetings is usually accompanied by poor participation in election of directors and officers. by inadequate or incorrect information about payment of refunds. salary of managers and workers. other financial affairs and cooperative practices. and by unfair Judgment and false rumors about the cooperative. Poorly conducted. long business meetings become tiresome to al- ready tired farmers and poorly planned social programs are not desired. However. there are many problems which should be discussed thoroughly and methods adopted for their solutions by all the members. Generally it is the members who do not attend who have the most unfavorable attitude. and therefore. an attempt should be made to get them interested enough to attend. Some of the members who do not attend meetings could be asked to help plan them. With the ideas of these new committeemen and careful planning. the cooperative meeting might be made to take its place as the best-attended community affair. Analysis of the factors influencing attendance at meetings will be presented in Chapter IV. Section 2. 5. Length of Membership One of the measures of extent of membership in cooperatives is the nuMber of years that the farmers were members. Table 5 indicates the yeaI’ farmers joined the first cooperative of which they were still a mEMbezr. About one-fourth. or 2%.? percent. of the farmers answering and" " -h}. Table 5. Year joined earliest cooperative of which now a member Year Percent of members Joined Number answering 19116—147 228 8.0 min-M5 97 27.5 ' 19 36-110 66 18. 8 19 31-35 113 12. 2 1926—30 31 8.8 1925 and earlier 87 2M.7 Total answers 352 100.0 No answer #3 _ Total number 395 _ this question have been members of a cooperative for 22 years or more. Over one—third, or 35.5 percent. of those answering had joined from 19Ml through the summer of 19%? inclusive. Thirty—six of the M3 farmers who did not answer this were unaware of their membership. Farmers were asked if they had ever belonged to cooperatives and then dropped out. The number of members and non-members who dropped out of cooperatives with the number of years that they were members before dropping out is indicated in Table 6. Over one-fourth of the members and non—members belonged to a cooperative for 15 years or more before dropping out. Over three—fourths of the members and non-mem- bers had been members for five years or more before dropping out. In this chapter, it was discovered that the farmers interviewed did not participate equally in cooperatives. Some farmers became members of cooperatives while others did not. A surprisingly large number of the farmers who became members were not aware of that fact. The discussion of the value of business done through cooperatives by rlII33____________________________________________________________________________llllll' 1 -un. Table 6. Years of membership in cooperative dropped out of in which membership was longest Years of member- Members Non-members Total ship Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent One year only 5 13.9 6 2h.0 11 18.0 i 2—h years 11 30.5 6 2h.o 17 27.9 5.9 years 6 16.7 n 16.0 10 16.n 10.1u years 4 11.1 2 8.0 6 9.8 15 years and - ; over 10 27.8 7 28.0 17 27.9 1 Total 36 100.0 25 100.0 61 100.0 farmers showed important differences between those who were members and those who were not. An attempt will be made in Chapter IV to analyze the character— istics of these two groups of farmers to see what factors influence the extent of their participation. Chapter IV. Individual and Environmental Factors Iffecting Extent of Participation in Farm Cooperatives Participation in cooPeratives is often thought of as merely being a member. It is true that this is an important distinction. and there is a need to determine for the purpose of research and action whether the farmer is a member. but there are other elements of participation among farmers which are not revealed by their membership status. Such things as the extent to which farmers take part in their organization through attendance at meetings or through financial support are measures of participation influenced by many factors. Cooperatives must concern themselves with maintaining their memberships by examining the characteristics of both participants and non-participants so that they can alter existing practices or institute new ones which will appeal to a larger number of farmers. In this chapter. several measures of participation in cooperatives such as. membership. attendance at cooperative meetings. value of business done through cooperatives during the past year. reasons for joining cooperatives. and reasons for dropping out of cooperatives, are analyzed to determine some of the factors influencing the extent of participation in cooperatives. In the first section. members and non—members are compared by age. schooling. years of farming experience since age sixteen. tenure. size of farm. and membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau. *1.” 3"“ u' z-n‘.‘ :"é-t -116- 1. Members Compared with Non-members £g_. Age of members compared to nonpmembers is shown in Table 7. A larger percent of the farmers who were from 30 to N9 years of age than of any other age groups were members of cooperatives. but the diff- erences were not large enough to be significant according to the chi square test of significance at the five percent level.58 Table 7. Percentage distribution of members and non-members by age Age of farmen' Members Non-members Total percent number Under 30 years 75.0 25.0 100.0 56 gg. 9 years 83.8 16.2 100.0 117 - 9 years 82.0 18.0 100.0 117 50.59 years 79.5 20.5 100.0 117 60 years and over 72.2 27.8 100.0 90 Total 79.3 20.7 100.0 “97 Eleven and three-tenths percent of all the farmers interviewed were under thirty years of age. h7.1 percent were between 30 and M9 58 The chi square test for significance will generally be used in this study. When its use is more convenient. the standard error of the difference between two percentages will be used as a test of sig- nificance. When the standard error of the difference between two percentages is used. a T score of 1.96 or more will be considered significant. Chi square values are computed by squaring the difference between the observed and expected frequencies and dividing the result by the expected frequency. The probability ratio is then determined by the—use of a chi square table. bearing in mind the number of degrees of freedom rendered by the grouped data. A probability ratio of .05 or less shall be considered significant in this thesis. This means that in only five times out of 100. or less. could a deviation have occurred by chance alone which would be as large as that observed. For a further discussion of these statistical measures see F. E. Croston and D. J. Cowden. Applied General Statistics. Prentice Hall, New York. 19u6. Pp. 332-338. we.» -.-_a.' ‘ -..— -' :- u‘ 3£"::cr.--=~ j! -. a. e- 1: Intros! 5513!. . '4' '. I ' ' ur ‘-.- ' :.' ' ' " .'- 3‘ ')'-" ' '2!‘:'- “A: Ti! - . . . r _ I I‘ . I n I . J .' I . . . ‘ 1 v . . - . . I ! . . . I I . ., a v- . L . q . e v r e « ' f I n " . . x \' v .. . r . . . . 4 l . — . T p < r—'————‘— -147- years of age. and h1.6 percent were 50 years of age or over. 6 The studies by Gibson59 and John 0 indicated larger proportions of young dairy farmers who had never been members of dairy marketing co- operatives than is found in the general population. Losey61 did not find age as a factor in the patronage of the Grange League Federation. Schooligg. Table 8 presents the schooling of members and non- members. Sixty—five and six-tenths percent of all the farmers inter- viewed had not completed more than grade school. A larger percent of Table 8. Percentage distribution of members and non—members by schooling Members Non-members Total Schooling of farmer percent percent percent number None 50.0 50.0 100.0 6 Grade school not com- pleted 77.1 22.9 100.0 70 Grade school completed 75.11 211.6 100.0 2’48 High school not com- pleted 89.0 11.0 100.0 82 High school completed 85.0 15.0 100.0 60 College. some or com- pleted 78.6 21.11 100.0 28 Total 78.9 21.1 100.0 1191+ the farmers who had some high school or who had completed high school were members of cooperatives than of either those who had more than high school or those who had schooling under the high school level. but these differences were not significant at the five percent level with the chi square test. 59 Gibson. 92' cit. Pp. 32—3h. 60 John. Op. cit.. in Anderson and Sanderson. 92‘ cit. P. 13. 61 Losey. 92. cit., in Anderson and Sanderson. 9p. cit. P. 13. . 1 313:: '2 ’4.- '? -r_.-._'--':,'-rfi‘..t.-ere:-.T on - ' . . - '. ..'-3:"!r refit-Ia- ...I' - - . u o e _ r 1 . .. 4 . o I .. — . i - - - v . - - . - _ ‘ .- . . . - However. when the farmers were put into two groups-~those who had some high school or had completed high school. and all others. as in Table 9-—the differences were significant. Seventy-five and six- tenths percent of the farmers who either had less than high school or more than high school were members of cooperatives. compared to 87.3 percent of the farmers who had some or all of high school. The 11.7 percent more of the high school group who were members then of the rest of the farmers might be due to agricultural training in the high schools. Cooperatives are generally studied in agricultural courses in high schools and their advantages are emphasized. Thus the farmers who have had these courses are generally more willing to join cooperap tives. However. the college-schooled farmers also went through high school so that would not explain why a smaller percent of them than of the high school group were members of cooperatives. unless the college training changed their willingness to join. Table 9. Percentage distribution of members and non—members by schooling Members Non-members Total Schooling of farmer percent percent percent number Less than high school or more than high school 75.6 2n.u 100.0 352 High school. some or com- pleted 87.3 12.7 100.0 1H2 Total 78.9 21.1 100.0 ugh Gibsonea reported that the members of the Dairymen's League and 52 Gibson. 93. cit. Pp. 3u.35. ‘1 1%“ III'IF 71". 1" _,"1 . I. I I I . . ..‘ ' . . ‘ I I ' v V I \ r ,. w . ‘ : ‘ ' ‘ l -h9_ of the local cooperatives had slightly higher average schooling than the whole group. while those who belonged to Sheffield Cooperative had considerably less schooling. John63 found a slight advantage in years of schooling in the past members of dairy marketing cooperatives. Both men concluded that differences in school training were not too important 61+ ”:4 ‘ in determining participation. Losey discovered that the patron~ i T1 members of the Grange League Federation. a purchasing cooperative. did have more school than non-patrons. ‘ 1 Farm Experience. Sixty-four and nine—tenths percent of all the .— farmers interviewed had over twenty years of farm experience since they A . r;.3"_ were 16 years old. Twelve and five—tenths percent had less than ten years of farm experience since they were 16 years old. Members were compared ”a to non-members in Table 10. A higher percent (about 80 percent) of Table 10. Percentage distribution of members and non~members by years of farm experience since 16 years of age Members Non-members Total Years of farm experience percent percent percent number Less than 10 years 69.).L 30.6 100.0 62 10-11I years 71A 28.6 100.0 149 15.19 years 81L.l 15.9 100.0 63 20 years and over 81.0 19.0 100.0 321 Total 79.0 21.0 100.0 M95 the farmers with 15 years or more of farm experience after age 16 com- pared to about 70 percent of those with 1M years or less of farm 63 John. Qp. cit.. in Anderson and Sanderson. 92' gig. P. 13. 6M Losey. in Ibid. P. 13. .2 war-n ' Ju- .:""" - . an“ v':u. . . '. t . . !_ {T'Jfifflq-I ‘33". m._ '.' 3 .5... ‘ 1 t —' _ v . . i I v v . . . . - - I - . 7 ll 1‘ . l . l l ..‘ i ‘ ’7‘ 'A I I ~ . - . r' , T . I 1 l - \ -50- experience were members. According to the chi square test. these diff- erences were not significant. There is a tendency for a curvilinear relationship to exist, in that the percentage rises from 69.M percent of those with less than 10 years of experience who are members to 8h.1 percent of those who have 15 to 19 years of experience and then decreases to 81.0 percent of those who have had 20 years or more of farm experience. If the 20 years of experience group had been divided into those having 20 through 29. those having 30 through 39. and those having no years or more of farm experience after 16 years of age, this curvilinear relationship might have been more evident. Gibson65 and John66 found that. in milk marketing cocperatives. farmers with ten years or less of farm experience did not participate in them as much as did farmers with more than ten years of experience. However. Losey67 found that. in a purchasing cooperative. the length of farm experience was not a limiting factor on membership. The reason for the length of farm experience being important in a milk cooperative is that usually the younger. more inexperienced farmer does not have an adequate enough herd to market his milk through a cooperative. In a purchasing cooperative. farmers can make pur— chases without regard to their size of operation. §$§§ 2: EEEEE' More of the farmers with large farms are members of cooperatives than are those with smaller farms. Table 11 shows that as the size of farm which a farmer operates increases there is a greater tendency for him to be a member of a cooperative. The percentage €5’EESESET_EETEEEQ. P. 15. 66 John, in Ibid. P. 15. 67 Losey. in Ibid. P. 15. brig. " ”1‘ , "I -51.. Table 11. Percentage distribution of members and non-members by size of farm Members Ron-members Total Size of farm percent percent percent number Less than 50 acres 58.1 111.9 100.0 a} 50.99 acres 80.1 19.9 100.0 1 6 loo—199 acres 83.6 16.1; 100.0 171 200 acres and over 89.7 10.3- 100.0 87 Total 78.9 21.1 100.0 #97 of membership of the farmers increases regularly from 58.1 percent of those who have less than 50 acres to 89.7 percent of those who have 200 acres or more. Many of the non-members were city workers who had bought a house and a few acres of land or who had bought some land and built a house on it. Many of these people. having been brought up on a farm. had small enterprises which qualified them as farmers in this study. Also. many of the farmers in the celery and truck crop areas had very small farms and were not members of cooperatives because the existing cooperatives did not have the services they needed. Since this study includes many types of cooperatives, it is difficult to relate other studies to it on this point. Gibson68 and John69 found that the average sized dairy farms were the ones who made up the bulk of membership in the milk cooperatives. LoseyYO reported that in the purchasing cooperatives. the size of farms was not related may. Pp. 37-38. 69 John. 99. flu in Anderson and Sanderson. 933. 931. P. 11;. 7O Losey, in Ibid. P. 1%. -52- to membership. Tenure. Gibson71 and John72 found that membership in milk mar- keting cooperatives in New York State was almost completely from the farm-owner class. Also. Losey73 found that the Grange League Feder- ation's membership was predominantly composed of farm owners. ClementYu reported that members were more likely to be owners than were none members in his study of two North Carolina cooperatives. This study showed that 14.8 percent more of the part owners were members than of the owners and renters combined. Because generally the part-owners are farmers who own one farm and rent additional land. this means that the larger farmers are more likely to be members. A comment on the proportion of persons in the total sample who were part-owners seems appropriate. The large percentage. 27.3 per- Table 12. Percentage distribution of members and non~members by tenure Members Non-members Total Status of farmer percent percent percent number omer 714‘. 5 250 5 10000 29"} Renter 76-5 2305 100.0 68 Part-owner 89.7 10.3 100.0 136 Total 78.9 21.1 100.0 #98 cent. of part-owners in the total sample was caused by the conditions mgr. Pp. 35-37. 72 John. 92. £13., in Anderson and Sanderson. Qp. git. P. 1M. 73 Losey. in Ibid. P. 1M. 71+ Clement. 92. 933. P. 37. -53... in Michigan agriculture at the time of this study. Farmers were ex- panding their farms to take advantage of the high produce prices. There was not much land for sale, but since some land could be rented. many farmers were renting MO or 80 acres from people who generally were working in the cities or villages. Many farmers traveled several miles to the patches of land which they rented. If farm prices go down. this inability to purchase additional land may prove to have been an important factor in preventing farmers from over-expanding their normal economical size of farms during times of wider margins. Membership 13 223 Michigan E222 Bureau. Forty-six and seven-tenths percent of the farmers interviewed were members of the Farm Bureau, 17 percent had at one time been members. and 36.3 percent had never been members. There is a high correlation of membership in cooperatives and membership in the Farm Bureau. Over one half. 55.9 percent. of the mem- bers were also members of the Farm Bureau. compared to only one-eighth, 12.M percent. of the non-members who were members of the Farm Bureau. These data are presented with the percentages run by membership in the Farm Bureau in Table 13. Ninety-four and five-tenths percent of the present members of the Michigan Farm Bureau were also members of other cooperatives. compared to 68.3 percent of former Farm Bureau members who were also members of other cooperatives and 6M.l percent of the farmers who had never been a member of the Farm Bureau who were members of other cooperatives. This substantiates the results of GibsonZS of John,76 and of m: £1_t_. Pp. 394m. 76 John. 92' cit., in Anderson and Sanderson. Qp. cit. P. 15. -5h- Table 13. Percentage distribution of members and nonpmembers by membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau Whether a member Members Ron—members Total of Farm Bureau percent percent percent number Present member 9M.5 5.5 100.0 233 Past member 68.3 31.7 100.0 85 Never a member 6M.1 35.9 100.0 181 Total 78.9 21.1 100.0 n99 Losey77 in their studies where they reported that membership in cooper- atives was directly related to membership in the Farm Bureau and other farmer organizations. The Farm Bureau has generally promoted cooper- ation and has helped farmers to organize many of them. as well as organizing the Farm Bureau Services which is a chain of cooperatives locally controlled. Some farmers criticized their cooperatives for having too close a tie-up with the Farm Bureau. and others criticized the Farm Bureau oil and other supplies carried by the Farm Bureau. Part of this resentment was probably due to the method of getting members which the Farm Bureau used when it first organized. Many farmers told the interviewers that a salesman came and painted a glorious picture of what the Farm Bureau was going to do. so they paid the $15.00 member- ship fee or signed notes promising to pay. These farmers felt that they paid a heavy price for something which had done nothing for them. After explaining how hard it was to pay and how much they hated the Farm Bureau at that time, these farmers would add that things have changed and maybe the Farm Bureau was doing some good now. Besides. 77 Losey. in Ibid. P. 15. -55— they would say that the membership fee is lower now. However. some farmers objected to having their membership in the Farm Bureau taken out of their refunds from their oil purchases without their knowing it or having anything to say about it. Even though the older farmers. who remembered when the Farm Bureau first organized. are becoming less active, their opinions have a strong influence on the attitudes of other people in the community. and their good will would help cooperatives. Summary 2: factors gelated 22 Membership. The differences be- tween members of cooperatives and non-members in age and farm exper- ience were not large enough to draw conclusions regarding cooperative policies. However. schooling. tenure. size of farm. and membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau were found to be significant. Farmers who had some or all of high school were more likely to be members of cooperatives than farmers who had less than any high school or more than high school. The farmers with the larger acreages were more likely to be members of cooperatives than were farmers with smaller acreages. The part—owner group of farmers. who were generally also farmers with larger acreages. were more likely to be members of cooper- atives. Membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau was directly related to membership in other types of cooperatives. Past membership in the Farm Bureau also was directly related to membership in other cooper- atives although not as much as present membership in the Farm Bureau. This is easily understood because the Michigan Farm Bureau generally encourages cooperatives and helps farmers organize them. Furthermore. membership in the Farm Bureau is compulsory in some cooperatives. -56. 2. Attendance at Meetings In the discussion of the extent of participation in cooperatives in Chapter IV. it was found that over one-third, 35.2 percent. of the members did not attend any meetings of their cooperatives. Increasing the attendance at meetings is an imoortant problem with which most cooperatives have to contend. It is important to understand some of the characteristics of the farmers in relation to their attendance at meetings in order to find out if there are any factors which influence attendance. A coOperative might find. by studying the members who attend their meetings and comparing them with those who do not. that their program could be slanted to fill more of the desires of the non-attenders. The members of cooperatives were put into three groups: those attending most of the meetings. those attending few. and those attending none. Ibr purposes of this analysis. farmers who were unaware of their membership were considered as attending no meetings. Although they were not specifically asked whether they attended any meetings. it was assumed that. if they had. they would have reCOgnized their member- ship. These groups were broken down according to age. schooling, years farm experience since age 16. tenure. size of farm. membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau, length of membership, and sources of information about cooperatives. £52. The percentage distribution of cooperative members by atten- dance at meetings and by age is shown in Table 1H. A smaller percent of the farmers who were under 30 years of age attended most of the meetings than of those who were 30 years or over. As the age of the ‘ i—Tfi'fifix nix; sp- :--§s.-3;:;m 7g" 11?- l-vtt 310,-}: -57- farmer increased. he was more likely to attend cooperative meetings. Age was not as important a factor in the farmers attending few of the Table 114. Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance . ‘1 at meetings and by age 'V. - At tendence at meetings Total Total Age Mo st Few None percent number Under 30 years 26.2 28.6 LL52 100.0 12 0.39 years £66 32.6 36.8 100.0 98 ao—h-g years .6 2209 36.5 100.0 96 L k 50—59 years 1+7.3 20A 32.3 100.0 93 p - 60 and over l47.7 23.1 29.2 100.0 65 Total 39.3 25.h 35.3 100.0 39; meeting 9. but it was important in the group not attending meetings. l"brill“:f'ive and two-tenths percent of the farmers who were under 30 years ‘ °f age did. not attend meetings compared to 29.2 percent of those over H 60 years of age who did not attend meetings. Younger farmers were not as likely to attend meetings as were older farmers. A program to increase attendance at meetings should emphasize activities which would interest younger people. In many cases meetings are arranged by the older directors who are unable or unwilling to plan a meeting program which would interest younger farmers enough to get them to attend meetings. %. Attendance at meetings as compared by schooling (Table 15) does not reveal any significant relationship except that the far— more Who did not attend meetings tended to have more schooling than other groups, primarily because they tended to be younger. as shown in the discussion of age. _ _. . r . u. 5.. . , . I I . . .. . . a nu . .. ... . _ . . .p L . . . . . ... § 5. u . . n . r r . v r . . v n . . . q . .- u ' ..--.--_. fl -.. u 1 -53- Table 15. Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by schooling Attendance at meetings Total Total Schooling Most Few None percent number No school 33.3 33.3 33.4 100.0 3 Grade school not completed M6.3 2h.1 29.6 100.0 5n Grade school com- pleted No.6 2h.1 35.3 100.0 187 High school not completed 3M.3 31.5 3h.2 100.0 73 High school com- pleted h1.2 21.6 37.2 100.0 51 College some or completed 2702 1802 5,406 100.0 22 Total 39.5 2h.9 35.6 100.0 390 Years g: Farm §§perience Since égg lg. The effect of years of farm experience on attendance is presented in Table 16. This table Table 16. Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by years farm experience after 16 years of age Attendance at meetings Years farm Total Total experience Most Few None percent number Under 10 20.9 20.9 58.2 100.0 M3 10-1u 31.u 3u.3 3b.: 100.0 35 15.19 2h.5 39.6 35.9 100.0 23 20 and over ]""602 21.9 3109 100.0 2 0 Total 39.1 25.3 35.6 100.0 391 Shows that the farmers with more than twenty years of farm experience .. . . . . :— . n . . . _ e . . . . ._ . \ . r . m .. r .U A ; . .. . a .. . -‘I "-..-fl—J— o—u-‘u_ :- n l u q,— - on ----A .- ..— -59- after age 16 were more likely to attend most of the meetings than were farmers with less than 20 years of experience. This is demonstrated by ”6.2 percent 0} those having 20 years or more of farm experience attending most of the meetings compared to 20.9 percent of the members having less than 10 years of farm experience attending most of them. The non-attendance group tended to have a higher percent of farmers with under ten years of farm experience as shown in this table. Farm experience is comparable to the age of farmers. because generally as the age of the farmer increased. so did his years of farm experience. Lepgth 2: Membership lg Earliest Joined Cooperative Still 5 Member 2;. Since length of membership is directly related to age. the characteristics found when age was related to attendance at meetings were similar to those found when length of membership is compared to attendance (Table 17). The M3 farmers Who were unaware of their mem- Table 17. Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by length of membership in cooperative Joined earliest which still a member of Length of Attendance at meetings membership Total Total Year joined Most Few None percent number* 1925 or earlier 65.5 23.0 11.5 100.0 87 1926—1930 58.1 25.8 . 16.1 100.0 31 1931-1935 nu.2 25.6 30.2 100.0 M3 1936—19u0 u3.1 23.2 27.7 100.0 65 19u1-19u5 27.8 3 .o 38.2 100.0 97 19h6.19u7 22.2 29 6 us.2 100.0 27 Total uu.3 28.3 27.h 100.0 350 *In addition to this total. H3 farmers were not asked when they joined. bership have been left out of this table because they were not asked to give the year of Joining. The earlier the members joined cooperatives. the more likely they were to attend most of the cooperative meetings. as reflected by less than 30 percent of the farmers joining from 19u1 through 19h7 who attended most of the meetings as compared to 65.5 percent of the farmers who Joined in 1925 or earlier attending most of them. The farmers attend— ing none of the meetings were the reverse of those attending most of them in that a larger proportion. over 38 percent. of the farmers Joining since 19hl did not attend any of the meetings as compared to 11.5 percent who Joined in 1925 or earlier who did not attend any of the meetings. ‘ It must be remembered that length of membership was directly re- lated to age; therefore. the important factor influencing attendance might have been age instead of year joined. Tenure. The attendance at meetings compared by tenure. as pre— sented in Table 18. reveals that the renter class of farmers did not Table 18. Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by tenure Attendance at meetings Total Total Tenure Most Few None percent number Omar 140.2 2501 31".7 100.0 219 Renter 21.2 21.1 57.7 100.0 52 Part owner M53 27.0 27.1 100.0 122 Total 39-” 25.3 35. 3 100.0 393 attend meetings as much as did the owner or part-owner groups. Only 21.2 percent of the renters attended most of the meetings and only H2.h —61. percent attended any of the meetings. compared to over ”0 percent of the owners and part-owners attending most of the meetings and over 65 percent of the owners and part-owners attending some of the meetings. A large percent (57.7 percent) of the farmers who were renters did not attend meetings. Probably the reason that the renters attended fewer of the meetings than the owners or part-owners is that they gen, erally were more mobile and did not have as much interest in the comm- unity. However. farm renters are an important group and furnish a sub- stantial amount of business to co0peratives, and therefore. cooperatives should make an effort to increase their attendance at meetings. §EEE 2f Egan. The size of farms as related to attendance at cooper- ative meetings. in Table 19. probably reveals more about the economic Table 19. Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by size of farms Size of Total Total farms Most Few None percent number Under 50 acres 18.5 25.9 55.6 100.0 5h 50.99 acres 36.8 26.» 36.8 100.0 117 100.199 acres h3.h 29.3 27.3 100.0 1&3 200 and over M8.7 15.8 35.5 100.0 76 Total 39.0 25.u 3M.6 100.0 390 status of farmers than does tenure. One thing the table shows is that only 18.5 percent of the farmers having less than 50 acres attended most of the meetings as compared to h8.7 percent of those with 200 acres and over attending most of the meetings. -62- A. large percentage. 55.6 percent. of the farmers having under 50 acres did not attend any of the cooperative meetings as compared to a smaller percentage. 32.1!» percent. of those having 50 acres or over. This shows that many of the small farmers (under 50 acres) are not attending cooperative meetings. It is important to remember that the small farmer on a much area may have only five to 10 acres but still be the largest farmer in his community. Therefore. a cooperative should study its own particular area regarding the size of farms oper- ated by its members attending meetings compared to those who do not attend. Membership lg thg_yichigan Eggm.gggggg. Because of the nature of the Michigan Farm Bureau. it would seem that farmers who were members of that organization would tend to attend more of their cooperatives' meetings. In Table 20 the attendance is compared by membership in the Farm Bureau. The results show that membership in the Farm Bureau is Table 20. Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau Attendance at meetings Membership Total Total in Farm Bureau Most Few None percent number Present 50.9 23.6 25.5 100.0 220 Past 36. 2 25.9 37.9 100.0 58 Never 19-1 ‘ 23-7 52.2 100.0 115 Total 39-5 25.3 35.2 100-0 393 directly related to attendance at meetings. The policy of the Michigan Farm Bureau is generally to encourage participation in other cooperap tives, and this comparison indicates that their program has influenced - Fir? (arrest: at ' i .3 - f m’ ‘5‘); '15" - ' ' '- '::.'.'..'.‘£h.a.. ""1"" 2193?: P :4- -g;-,'-_1n.~.§ l . . I , . . ‘ . _ . * ~ ' . . . . | .. I . ‘ ‘ y ,. ‘ . ~. I V . . , i6}. the attendance of farmers at meetings of other cooperatives. . Sources 2; Information £3233 Cogperatives. Cooperatives have long considered their meetings one of their important means of commun- icating information to the members about the cooperative. its program and its financial and other policies. as well as a method of stimup lating interest and loyalty. Table 21 shows the percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by sources of information about cooperap Table 21. Percentage distribution of cooperative members by attendance at meetings and by sources of information about cooperatives Attendance at meetings Sources of ins Total Total formation Most Few None percent number At the cooperative 283+ 32.7 35.6 32.2 259 Farm publications 13.9 13.0 1N.5 13.9 112 Other farmers 9.9 13.6 17.7 lh.0 112 Cooperative meetings 30.6 27.8. 13.0 22.7 182 Radio. farm meetings 12.9 8.0 7.1 9.5 76 None 1|». 3 159 12.1 7.7 62 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 —-- Total number 303 162 338 -—~ 803 tives. The most important sources of information about cooperatives for the farmers who attend most of the meetings were first. the cocper— ative meetings with 30.6 percent of the farmers naming it as a source of their information. and second. at the cooperative with 28.M percent naming it as one of their sources of information. Farm publications. radio and farm meetings and other farmers were indicated in that order as sources. The members who said they attended few of the meetings Elli-Ea-“nF'I 1, .RL 1 7:1“2-Il .- ... . . fl . 1 ' ‘ " c ' sft. “L 5. H" n I ‘l . .fi : . -l i .— . . _ . ,‘ Y r , I '2; ' - 's 7 -.. , x), ' .' {1 ."I' 7 , , v 3 -6h— named sources similar to those named by farmers attending most of the meetings. Thirty-five and six-tenths percent of those not attending meetings gave "at the cooperative" as a source of their information. and 1h.5 percent said farm publications were their source. Even though most of these members said they did not attend meetings. 13 percent said that cooperative meetings were a source of their information about cooperatives. This may indicate that they received their information from meetings arranged by cooperatives but which are not strictly cooperative business meetings. The reason for a larger percentage of the farmers not attending meetings naming other farmers as their source or saying they did not a receive any information about cooperatives is that the unaware mem— E, g. s. here are included in the non—attending group. Many of the unaware ".1? members being new in their communities have not had many opportunities to hear about cooperatives except from farmers they have associated with in their neighborhoods. Summary 3: Factors gglatgd £2 Attendance at Meetings. An analysis of the factors related to attendance of farmers at seeperap tive meetings revealed that as the age of the farmers increased. a higher percentage of the farmers in each group attended meetings. Years of farm experience and length of membership were similar to age in that they were directly related to attendance at meetings. Member— ship in the Michigan Farm Bureau was directly related to attendance at meetings of other cooperatives. Renters and farmers with small acreages attended fewer meetings than did owners, part-owners and 5'1: the 15!: 2M 1 .- ,-... I . -65. larger farmers. Schooling did not have any significant effects on attendance. Attendance at meetings compared by sources of information showed that farmers who attended most of the meetings said the meetings were an important source of their information with "at the cooperan tive" a second most important source. Farmers who did not attend meetings tended to say that they received their information when they went to the cosperative to do business by talking with the manager or other workers. This analysis showed that cooperative meetings were the most important source of information about cooperatives for the farmers who attended most of the meetings. However. only 39.2 percent of the members attended most of the meetings. The younger. less farm- experienced. renter class of farmers who never were members need to be encouraged to attend meetings. For those who attend few or no meetings. the manager. clerks. and other workers at the cooperative become the most important source of information about cooperatives. It would seem imperative that cooper- ative boards of directors make sure that the managers and other workers at the cooperative are correctly informed about cooperative policies and are capable of transferring this information accurately to the members and patrons. Boards of directors are usually careful to select managers and workers who are experienced in running a business and who are cour- teous and respected by farmers. A manager with these qualities probably could run a successful non-cooperative business but if he did not reocgnize or accept some of the principles of running a cooper- .4 . m. u 1 . \ . a . n a . . . . I I‘ l . u. i A: r t . .- ..!— fu . u e .. .. a a _ n U \ r 4 ‘ tlli.’ I y. in?!» ‘ 1314 n ... 5.... 2. ...,LI.. wdfltlnl Jwfi| i ‘ I!“ .. I .rrfly ...t f. v r. A U‘ -66- ative business. he might fail in managing a cooperative. .Ehe managerial staff should consist of cooperative-minded . people. They need to be people who know how the cooperative is organs ‘ ized and who are interested in knowing why the board of directors passed certain rules so that they can more adequately answer patrons' questions. Desperative managers should be interested in cosperating with other managers and attending meetings where suggestions for improving cooperative programs can be discussed. Boards of directors should encourage attendance at these meetings and provide funds necessary for training their managerial staff and workers. 3. value of Business Done Through COOperatives Even though the method of operation is different than other businesses. a cooperative is still a system of doing business and as such cannot maintain itself permanently without meeting the compe— tition of other businesses in the community. However. an efficient. competitive cooperative may not appear to be saving the farmers any money because of its method of returning the savings at the end of the year instead of at the time of doing the business. Many cosper- ative members tend to judge the cooperative by comparing its prices with those of another business without considering the refunds. The strength of a cooperative depends on the voluntary support of its members in a financial manner as well as in other ways. This financial loyalty is analyzed by age, schooling. length of member- ship, years of farm experience. tenure. size of farms. and membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau to determine what characteristics of farmers influence their financial participation in cooperatives. ; 'rsoyf-e- as. " i Mi -;4?"~»—lw£fi'-' - _ '._ . ._ ‘. '..':r':.' : '1 ‘;!'-:3;-.:.--.-3-‘." '- - ' :.'": 12:" less It. _ 4 "PH. 11‘. aw is ."":""b{.- ‘ ‘1, I . ‘ I, _ i I ' ‘ ., s .l '. A t. . . .. ‘x' "1:: . ‘ ' t. . . __ ( { -s I ‘ l ‘ - ' . E t r r I I \ rip . , .1 . -67. Aggy The percentage distribution of farmers by value of business ' which they did through cosperatives in the past year and by age is presented in Table 22. As the age of the farmers increased. a larger percent of them in each age group did less than $500 worth of business Table 22. Percentages distribution of farmers by value of business done through cooperatives in the past year and by age Value of business done in past year Age of $1000. $2000. $3000 Total Total Farmer $0-N99 $500-999 1999 2999 and over percent number Under 30 yrs. 11.1 11.1 28.9 31.1 17.8 .100.0 #5 0- 9 years 19.h 22.6 2n.1 19.u 1h.8 100.0 108 30- 9 years 17.1 18.1 27.6 21.0 15.2 100.0 105 50—59 years 18.3 22.1 26.0 26.0 7.7 100.0 10h 60 and over 30.8 23.1 19.2 15.u 11.5 100.0 78 Total 19.8 20.3 25.1 21.9 13.0 100.0 tho with cooperatives. Eleven and one-tenth percent of the farmers who were less than 30 years old did less than $500 worth of business. but 30.8 percent of those 60 years and over did less than $500 worth. The reverse was true in the group of farmers who did $3000 or more worth of business. because as the age of the farmers increased. a smaller per- cent of each age group did that much business. The trend went from 17.8 percent of those less than 30 years of age who did $3000 or over worth of business to 11.5 percent of those 60 years or over doing that much. This table showed that the younger farmers tended to do more business with cooperatives than older farmers did. Length 2: Membership 2: Cooperative §till E Member pf 32 flhigh Membership was Lopgest. The age of farmers influenced the time of their Joining cooperatives to a large extent; therefore. it would be if: utiqi" ,- " . ‘ will... ..:..r-. _. .43» 7" "0‘ 3:0 -a.-.:.'.l"*'.l ' ": ' J! r 113* 29‘. c}; f, I ”:5!" "'t-r ll. -_ . - '. a. 1}: ..'... ' I"! 1110‘?" u, 3- : q a . 1 if, . . - r ' 1. .' I ‘3 ._£ . . ..> - , ‘4‘ ' I I . :1 . I‘ 7‘. u! -2 1‘ _ e. 'I' w .‘ ‘ . x: , ' .‘l -68- erpodted that length of membership would have an effect on the value of business done through cooperatives similar to the effect of age. Table 23 shows this to be true. although the results are not as Table 23. Percentage distribution of farmers by value of'business done through cooperatives in the past year and by length of member- ship Length Of Amount of business done in the past year “mun“? $1000.. $2000— $3000 Total Total Year Joined $0—n99 $500-999 1999 2999 and over percent number 1925 or Earlier 24.0 21!».0 2800 1200 1200 10000 25 1926-1930 20.0 211.2 27.1; 13.7 1b..7 100.0 95 ‘ 1931-19 35 15.9 15.9 25. 3 25.1; 17.5 100.0 63 1936-19ho 11. 23.3 27.9 32.6 m6 100.0 M3 6 191+1—19h5 6. 7 13.3 33.3 36.7 10.0 100.0 30 19%_191+7 11 9 13.8 2 .LL 36.0 13.9 100.0 86 Total 15.2 19.0 26.9 25.7 13.2 100.0 311.2 strongly evidenced probably because of different groupings. Nearly one half. M8 percent. of the farmers who joined in 1925 or earlier did less than $1.000 worth of business with cooperatives compared to less than one—fourth. 2M.1 percent. of those who joined from l9ul to 19h? doing that amount of business. In the groups doing $2.000 worth of business or over. it is found that only 24 percent of the farmers who joined in 1925 or earlier did that much business while M9.l per- cent of those who Joined from l9h1 to 19%? did that much business. Schoolipg. More of the farmers who did not complete grade school than of those who had more schooling did less than $500 worth of busi- ness (Table 2M). Schooling was inversely related to age so that the , r I p' , b c ._ 1 ‘- ‘r ‘ i 7 .7 w‘ ' L 93-":‘r .1 ‘ "1:. .. '1...- ..'-or“?- on! . .: :.‘ Muir-masts" -69.. . Table 21}. Percentages distribution of farmers by value of business done through cooperatives in the past year and by schooling Amount of business done in past year. $1000.. $2000- $3000 Total Total Schooling $0489 $500-999 1999 , 2999 and over percent number No school“ (3) - y (2)_ - - (5) 5 - Grade school not complete 30.2 19.0 15.9 22.2 12.7 100.0 63 Grade school complete 16.2 22.2 29.2 18.5 13.9 100.0 216 High school not complete 11w 21.3 26.7 25.3 12.0 100.0 75 High school ‘ complete 20.3 1&8 20d; 31.5 13.0 100.0 51+ College 28.0 20.0 16.0 also 12.0 100.0 25 Total 19.6 20.3 25.2 21.9 13.0 100.0 1438 l“Actual numbers were put in the no school row because of the small numbers. older farmers tended to have less schooling than the younger farmers. Except for those who had less than a grade school education. schooling was not a very important factor influencing the amount of business a farmer did through cooPeratives. . 3233 Egperience Eipgg Ag; gé. Table 25 shows that there are no significant differences among the farmers with different years of farm experience. However. if the farmers having 20 years or more of farm experience had been divided into those who had 20 to 29 years and those who had 30 years or more. it probably would have been found that the farmers with 30 years or more of experience generally did less business than the rest of the farmers. This would likely be true be- cause farm experience was found to be negatively related to the amount of business done through cooperatives. Ffié* . ..: ..'Lr. -....|-.1-; - " .. s.- .. x E. o .— J; '1.-. ... .J' .- ii. .... .-n. ..:. - . . . ..—- "'T"""‘i"“" , .‘Jnuifii :2 7n. n , . at we... ., y u .1. 1..er e. 1.. I ll; -70. ‘4 Table 25. Percentages distribution of farmers by value of business done ough cosperatives in the past year and by farm experience since age 16 Amount of business done in past year l‘arm $500. $1000. $2000— $3000 Total Total experience $0—M99 999 1999 2999 and over percent number Under 10 years 20.5 18.2 31.8 15.9 13.6 100.0 111+ lo—llt years 18.2 18.2 27.2 20.5 15.9 100.0 1m 15.19 years 21.1 22.7 21.1 21.1 11+.O 100.0 57 20 and 0761' 1907 200M> 2’4.8 22.8 1203 10000 293 Total 19.9 20.3 25.1 21.7 13.0 100.0 158 Tenure. Owners and renters tended to be alike in the amount of business they did through cooperatives, but the part-owners were not like either the owners or the renters as shown in Table 26. About . .4' Table 26. Percentage distribution of farmers by value of business done I. through cooperatives in the past year and by tenure ' I Amount of business done in past year ' $500- $1000- $2000— $3000 Total Total Tenure $0—h99 999 1999 2999 and over percent number F ‘I-' F,7 . H. Owner 26.2 21.2 21.8 15.8 15.0 100.0 260 f; Renter 18.5 27.8 20.9 25.9 7_h 100.0 5n { Part-owner 7.9 15.7 33.8 32.3 10.3 100.0 127 7 Total 20.0 20.1; 25.2 21.8 12.6 100.0 M1 M7 percent of the owners and renters did less than $1000 worth of f business compared to only 23.6 percent of the part-owners who did that small amount of business. Also only about 31 percent of the owners and renters did $2000 or more worth of business compared to -71. h2.6 percent of the part-owners doing that much. The owners and renters did less business through the cooperatives than did the part-owners. The part-owners were usually farmers who Operated larger farms than the owners or the renters because they generally owned one farm and rented additional acres and therefore would have had a larger total number ofttransactions from the farm. Size 2; Farms. The size of farms operated by farmers (Table 27) Table 27. Percentage distribution of farmers by value of business done hrough cooperatives in the past year and by size of farms Amount of business done in past year Size of $1000- $2000. $3000 Total Total farm $0-999 $500-999 1999 2999 and over percent number Under 50 As 5n.u 19.1 16.2 1.5 8.8 100.0 68 50-99 acres 22.3 26.3 26.9 19.1 10.u 100.0 13h 100.199 A. 11.h 19.9 25.9 25.3 18.u 100.0 158 200 and over 2.6 14.9 25.2 n7.3 10.5 100.0 78 Total 19.9 20.3 2h.9 21J9 13.0 100.0 M38 1 was directly related to the amount of business a farmer did through cooperatives. The majority. 5N.“ percent. of the farmers who had under 50 acres did less than $500 worth of business; the majority. 53 percent. of those having 50 to 99 acres did from $500 to $1999 worth of business; the majority. 51.2 percent. of those who had 100 to 199 1 acres did $1000 to $2999 worth of business; and the majority. 57.8 percent. of those with 200 acres or more did $2000 or more of business \ through cooperatives. This increase in the amount of business done through cooperatives as the size of farms increased is easily under- stood because as a farmer increases the size of his farm. he generally {0* ..:J $.um | a. «...... 151.191.}‘1’ l,‘ :1? n .; .A... a.“ risotto? 1-, \ l .. ....Itv. . Jr . _72- does more business. However. these figures do not show what percent of his total business each farmer did through cooperatives. Membership in _t_h_e Michigan Farm Bureau. Table 28 shows the percentage distribution of farmers by value of business which they Table 28. Percentage distribution of farmers by value of business done through cooperatives in the past year and by membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau Membership Amount of business done in past year in Farm $1000— $2000— $3000 Total Total Bureau. $O-1t99 $500-999 1999 2999 and over percent number Present 19.0 20.9 25.3 26.3 11.1.0 100.0 221 Past V 15.7 17.3 30.7 214.0 9. 3 100.0 75 Never 29.6 21.11 22.1 13.8 13.1 100.0 1145 Total 1909 2002 2502 2108 1209 10000 M1 did through cooperatives and by membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau. Farmers who were present members of the Farm Bureau did more business with cooperatives than those who were past members or those who were never members. Fourteen percent of the farmers who were present mem- bers of the Farm Bureau did less than $500 worth of business with cooperatives compared to more than double that percent. or 29.6 per- cent. of those who had never been members doing that amount of business. The Farm Bureau probably has an effect on encouraging farmers to do business at their cooperatives. Summéil of Factors Related 33 £22323 2; Business 29mg Through Cooperatives by Farmers. In this section. age. length of membership. and schooling were found to be inversely related to the amount of business done through cooperatives. Size of farms and membership in git-awn I_ -. ' _ - - . . '3'-;:7” . :.' l , ‘ , ' '_ _ ”- . “stiff, ‘17-‘30 ,‘ , -. . . - - :.' n-wi: :vt'rane I'm ‘5 .'-’-"'t': J, Q-lu ' -73- the Michigan Farm Bureau were directly related to amount of business done through cooperatives. Part-owners did more business with co0per~ atives. and farm experience. as it was grouped in this study. did not have any influence on the amount of business farmers did through cooperatives. h. Reasons for Joining Cooperatives Cooperative drives for membership stress many reasons why farmers should Join. When their membership increases. cooperative leaders usually credit it to the fact that farmers realized the advantages which were pointed out. However. the real reasons why the farmers Joined may be quite different than those suggested to them. To discover these reasons from the farmers. they were asked to give the main reasons they joined cooperatives. This was an open-end or free-response question78 meaning that there were few suggestions for farmers to follow when stating their reasons, except that since the question came late in the interview, the farmers could have named ideas which had been discussed in previous questions. The farmers who belonged to cooperatives gave M68 main reasons for Joining c00peratives, which means that the average number of reasons given per farmer was 1.3 (Table 29). Forty—three farmers were unaware of their membership and thus were not asked this question. Thirty—six and nine-tenths percent of the members said that one of the main reasons they joined cooperatives was that they were given a share membership after they had done business at the cooperative. If the unaware members. most of whom probably having become members in this manner. were included. the percentage joining because of 78 Appendix A. question 65. _ p a . . z . z _ . a o -. p . a . < . . . .. .. . .u .u . . .-.. u. I: . V . I II .Ihu I. -71“ share memberships would have been about #6 percent. Some of the farmers receiving their membership in this manner said that they did not know that the shares had any value. A few called their shares "worthless paper" and said they had thrown them away or misplaced them. Some expressed displeasure on receiving the share memberships instead of the cash. A few farmers said they were surprised but pleased to see that the cooperative was interested enough in them to give them a share. Table 29. Percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by main reasons for joining Percent of Main reason for joining farmers"I Through refunds in the form of stock (share dividends) 36.9 For a better market or better prices 2h.3 Because they liked the cooperative idea 17.0 For service and/or refunds 1M.O Because the cooperative was convenient 13.6 Because they thought membership in the cooperative was a good idea 9.0 Membership was inherited (Dad was a member) or a gift 7.” Because they came out and asked them to 2.8 Because others joined 3. Because it was a good investment 2.6 Miscellaneous 2.0 Total number of farmers responding was 352. Forty-three farmers were not asked this question because they were unaware members. I'These percentages total more than 100 because some farmers gave more than one reason for joining. When over one-third of the members of cooperatives join through share memberships. as found in this study, a membership relations problem may exist because many of these farmers are involuntary members. 1).! an r-° a E5, :39": . ‘ l ‘. . '., ~ ' r. ... ' I . . ' I i" . .I :.I _ “ . ‘- .. I I II . . ‘ . . . -75.. Special attention should be given to these involuntary members to acquaint them with the cooperative organization so they will become cooperatively minded. These results are similar to those which John79 found in Pennsylvania. He reported that 20.2 percent of the farmers in his study joined the c00perative without critically evaluating it. He said that the farmers who had a definite objective in joining the cooperative were more likely. than those who had little or no opportunity to make a choice. to have a favorable attitude. About one-fourth (2M.3 percent) of the members joined for a better market or better prices. Stern80 reported that a majority of the members in his study joined because they expected a year-round market and higher prices for all of their milk. Fourteen percent of the members in Gibson' e81 study said they hoped to be able to obtain a higher price for their milk by joining. Seventeen percent of the members joined because they liked the cosperative idea or believed in c00peratives. This is a larger per— centage than what John found in his New York State study or what Stern reported. but it is about the same as what Gibson and Losey reported. Nine percent of the members in John‘s82 work said they joined because they believed in cooperatives. and Stern83 reported four percent of the Mg. P. 19. SO Stern. Qp. git. P. 5. 81 Gibson. 92' gig. P. 50. 82 John. 92. git. P. 19. 83 Stern. fl. iii. P. 5. -76.. members in his study joining for that reason. Twenty-three and one- tenth percent of the members in Gibson'ssu study joined because they liked the cooperative method as a way of doing business and Losey85 reported that one-fifth of the Grange League Federation members joined because they liked the cooperative idea. Fourteen percent of the members in this study gave as their reason for joining. the services and the refunds which the cooperative offered. This is similar to Losey's86 findings. because he stated that 13 per- cent of the members in his study said they became members because they wanted to same money. The convenient location of the cooperative was an important in, fluence in 13.6 percent of the members' willingness to join. When the cooperative is the only business in an area offering services which farmers need, there will be members who join because of the circum- stances. Large marketing cooperatives generally exert a monopolistic pressure on farmers. especially fluid milk marketing associations. Stern87 reported that some of the members in his study joined because they had no alternative place to market their milk. Gibson88 re- ported that nearly one-third of members of all cooperatives sampled by him joined because the cooperative offered the only nearby outlet for selling their milk. In his New York state study, John89 reported that mg. P. 50. 85 Losey. 22. gii.. in Anderson and Sanderson. Qp. gig. P. 9. 86 3115;. P. s. 87 Stern. 92. 213' P. 5. 88 Gibson. 92' gig. P. 50. 89 John. 92. gi£., in Anderson and Sanderson. 9p. gig. P. 8. . r -' ' .. ' , . l I I . I I . . ’ . x 4. . I I I I I ' - I -I o .." I ' . . I .' I. g . .-.v I I .I' ', s u 1 a - ,- . I ' .I II I . . . . . U . . _I I II 1 . - v . - v - I . - u - - 1 4 . v 1 p- . . -77. 39 percent of the members of the Dairymen's League whom he inter- viewed said they had no choice in'joining. Because they thought membership in the cooperative was a good idea. nine percent joined. and 7.h percent inherited their membership or received it as a gift. Several other reasons were given of which one is probably more important than many people realize. Because someone came out and asked them to join was given as a reason for joining by only a few farmers, but this personal approach by directors and committeemen undoubtedly influenced many farmers. One farmer stated it very clearly when asked why he joined. He said. "Mob psychology. that's what it was. I refused them for awhile. but when all those committeemen came down here and explained it. I was sorry I hadn't joined earlier." The study of the Grange League Federation by Losey9° found that one—fifth of the farmers started buying at the cooperative after someone induced them to try the Grange League Federation. It is interesting to compare the characteristics of a group of farmers who gave similar reasons for joining with other groups of farmers who gave different reasons for joining. To do this. the far- mers were divided into four groups: those who gave present economic advantages; those who believed in the cooperative system of doing business; those receiving involuntary memberships through patronages; and those giving all other reasons. The present economic gain group included 18M farmers. or 51.9 percent of the farmers answering the question. This group included those who said they joined because the cooperative paid higher prices or 90 Losey. 92. cit., in Anderson and Sanderson. gp. cit. P. 9. .53“ ‘.'.'.'. I a. . 9 a . ... .e n‘ v I V I . . . fl .. I! my}? 'I". .. . I . D . :rm . l C "-n' cw! I t fit I 'I. \ n'—. F II‘I I .IIIlII l IIIIII‘SIf: J -73.. their farm supply prices were lower or the cooperative was convenient and saved chasing or for service and refunds or for investment. Ninetyb four farmers. or 26.5 percent of those answering the question. were included in the belief-in—cooperation group. It included those who joined because they thought that cooperatives were a good idea or that they liked the philosophy of cooperation or that farmers should stick together.. The involuntary membership-throughapatronage group included 130 farmers. or 36.7 percent of those responding. The miscellaneous- reasons group included 60 farmers. or 17.1 percent of the sample. The percentages add up to more than 100 because farmers gave an average of 1.3 reasons for joining, meaning that some farmers were included in more than one of these groups. These groups were compared by each of the following character- istics: age. length of membership. schooling, farm experience. tenure. size of farm. and membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau. igg. Table 30 shows the percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by reasons for joining and by age. This table shows that a smaller percentage of the farmers under 39 years of age joined cooperatives because they believed in them than those over MO years of age. The percentage of farmers joining for economic gain from the cooperatives is nearly the same in all age groups. Forty—four and eight—tenths percent of the farmers between 30 and 39 years of age joined through patronage compared to a lower percentage in the other age groups. This higher percentage is due to the farmers joining cooperatives 12 to 19 years before the study was made. which would be during the depression. F has." «41%.» ~- v.2 .' -. | ua-1 .‘-_' O i ill ;: I .. - 3|. : .r, . l I — I _... a .n . C -. I . . . . . a -. . .' .. . . . ;. I-v. -79- Table 30. Percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by reasons for joining and by age Age in years Reasons for Joining Under 30 30.39 "OJ-19 50-59 60 a: over Total Economic gain 39.h 32.n 33.3 36.u h2.8 36.0 Belief in cooperation 15.2 7.6 23.n 26.2 29.9 20.8 lnvo lunt ary memb er- ship through patron— age 2h.2 un.s 31.6 26.2 15.6 30.0 All other reasons 21.2 15.2 11.7 11.2 11.7 13.2 Total Percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 10000 10000 Total number 33 105 111 107 77 #33 Lepgth 2; Membership. Percentage distribution of members of cooper— atives by reasons for joining and by length of membership in Table 31 shows that a smaller percentage of farmers who joined between 1931 and Table 31. Percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by reasons for joining and by length of membership Year joined first cooperative of which still a member 1925 or 1926— 1931- 1936- 19u1- 19 - Reasons for joining earlier ‘30 '35 'ho Ihfi 'h7 Total Economic gain 39.u M2.5 32.1 3u.5 32.6 u1.3 36.2 Belief in cooperation ho.u 22.5 7.6 lh.3 1h.6 13.8 21.2 Involuntary member- ship through patron— age 9.7 20.0 h3.3 38.1 38.2 ul.u 29.8 All other reasons 10.5 15.0 17.0 13.1 lu.6 3.5 12.8 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 111‘ 110 53 8” 110 29 ”30 1935, joined because they believed in cooperatives than of the farmers who joined in other years. This table shows that the percent of farmers ...._-. - .. 1...; .. u a v e e e . . . e I q o p n I ~ ‘ u v u . joining because they believed in cooperatives was high before 1925. As the year of joining approached the depression. the percent of farmers joining because they believed in cooperatives decreased from ho.h per— cent to a low of 7.6 percent between 1931 to 1935. and then increased after the depression to a high of 1h.6 percent for those who joined between 19M1 to 19h5. The percentage of members joining because of economic reasons was not significantly different during any of the per- iods listed in this table. The farmers joining because they did business in the cooperative and were involuntarily given shares was at a low point of 9.7 percent in 1925 and increased to a high of ”3.” percent during 1931 to 1935. This increase is probably due to changes which cooperap tives made in their organization structure when they renewed their 10— year charters in the late 1920's and early 1930's. Schooling. Many cooperatives maintain that an educational pro- gram is essential to the success of the cooperative business. This study has no measure of the effectiveness of cooperative—sponsored educational programs. but it is worth comparing the years of formal schooling of farmers giving different reasons for joining cooperatives. Table 32 shows that there is no significant difference in the amount of schooling of members giving economic gain as their reason for joining cooperatives. As the education of the farmers increased. a smaller per- cent of them joined because they believed in cooperation, as shown by 3M.9 percent of the farmers having less than a.grade school education who joined because they believed in cooperatives. This was higher than the percentages of the farmers in the other age groups who joined because they believed in cooperations. However. this could be due to their age or to the length of their membership, because age and length I .‘_ . 5&9 _-':1;I;: -""'I-‘:.'I - I .l ‘! I: I a K I I u. n I . t ‘ I I III III :- .' a I II I s ' w: I Table 32. Percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by reasons for joining and by years of schooling Amount of school Grade High school Grade school High College Reasons for not com— school not com— school ; Joining plated completed pleted completed amount Total I 3 Economic gain 33.1; 38.0 30.1 37.7 36.1; 35.9 .. Belief in co- operation 311.9 17.6 214.1 17.0 13.6 21.2 rig Involuntary membership through pat- ronage 23.8 30.2 30.1 311.0 110.9 30.1 All other reasons 7.9 11.1.2 15.7 11.3 9.1 12.8 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number" 63 205 83 53 22 11.29 ‘In addition to this total. 3 farmers had no schooling. of membership are inversely related to the amount of schooling which the I; farmers have had. -:3 E252 ggperience. The number of years of farm experience since age 16 did not affect the percentage of farmers joining for economic reasons 9 as shown in Table 33. However. the percentage of farmers joining be— cause of belief in cooperation in the 15 to 19 years of experience group was lower than the percentage joining for this reason in any of the other years of experience groups. This may not be due to farm experience because it correlates with the length of membership as shown in Table 31. The farmers in the 15 to 19 years of experience group joined cooperatives during the depression years which showed that a lower percentage of them joined because of belief during these years. A similarity also exists between the high percent of farmers receiving involuntary membership in the 15 to 19 years of experience group and the group of farmers who joined during the depression. r" ...—'4.” _ - .. ;-'v-o .- 1"": Table 33. Percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by reasons for joining and by farm experience since age 1 'Reasons for Years of farm experience since age 16 joining Under 10 10—14 15-19 20 and over Total Economic gain 39.h 37.1 32.8 36.3 36.1 Belief in cooperation 9.1 20.0 5.2 25.u 20.9 Involuntary membership through patronage 39.h 22.9 N8.2 26.4 30.0 All other reasons 12.1 20.0 13.8 11.9 13.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 33 35 58 303 M30 Tenure. Table 3M presents the percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by reasons for joining and by tenure. This table shows that the status of the farmer as being owner. part-owner. or renter has Table 3h. Percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by reasons for joining and by tenure Reasons for Status of farmer joining Owner Renter Part—owner Total Economic gain 36.1 30.6 37.3 36.1 Belief in cooperation 22.5 25.0 17.6 21.0 Involuntary membership through patronage 20.9 33.3 29.h 30.0 All other reasons 11.5 11.1 15.7 12.9 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 2MH 36 153 M33 no significant effect on reasons why members said they joined cooperap tives. -33.. §igg‘g§ 33525 Qperated. A better measurement than tenure of the status of the farmer was the size of farms which were operated. Many farmers in the part-owner group own more land than farmers in the full- ouner group. but they are part-owners because they rent additional land. A slightly higher percentage of the farmers having under 50 acres received their memberships involuntarily than did the larger farmers (Table 35). This table shows that the size of farms has no significant bearing on the reasons for joining. Table 35. Percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by reasons for joining and by size of farms Reasons for Size of farms in acres joining Under 50 50-99 100—199 200 and over Total Economic gain 30.2 1+1.1 35.2 32.3 35.6 Belief in cooperation 20.8 17.8 23.9 20.8 21.1 Involuntary membership through patronage 1L1.5 29.8 2H. 33.3 30.1 All other reasons‘ 7.5 11.3 16. 13.6 13.2 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 53 12h 159 96 LL32 Membership in the Michigan Earn Bureau. Because of the educational function of the Michigan Farm Bureau. it seemed probable that the farmers who were present members of this organization would realize some of the advantages of membership in other cooperatives in addi- tion to that of economic gain. and therefore. they should have a stronger belief in cooperation. Table 36 shove that membership in the Farm Bureau had little effect on the percentage of farmers who said they joined because of aeonomic gain. However. a higher percen— i .. P": Inna-517.: gigs sf?! Lia-P ."fJ: the .' .| .- ..' . est-tat: . . .' ' 1 ‘ ' I - ‘ - ' . ' I I IV . E ' I ..' . f . I . . . I . ll . ‘ g II II -8h— Table 36. Percentage distribution of members of cooperatives by reasons for joining and by membership in the Michigan Farm Bureau Reasons for Whether a member in Farm Bureau joining Present Past Never Total Economic gain 37.0 31.3 36.1 35.9 ' Belief in cOOperation 23.” 23.5 l2.M 21.0 Involuntary membership through patronage 26.” 25.0 M3.Z 30.0 All other reasons 13.2 20.2 8.3 13.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 273 on 97 1+3h tage of the Farm Bureau members joined because they believed in cooper- atives than did those who had never been members of the Farm Bureau. A higher percentage of those who never were members of the Farm Bureau received their memberships involuntarily. Summggy 2; Factors Related 32 Reasons :2; Joining. In this dis- cussion several things stand out as being important. Through all of it there is evidence that farmers are no longer looking at cooperap tives as a movement which will by itself solve many of their problems. Farmers, especially the younger ones. are beginning to accept cooperap tives as a system of doing business which must compete with other DOD! Cooperative organizations in order to interest them in belonging. Over one-half of the farmers said they joined because the cooperap tive Would help them increase their profits, while only about one- fourth said they joined because they liked the cooperative idea or believed in cooperation or thought farmers should be organized. This tendency of farmers to see a means of bettering their own -~- I ----.--__ i ,u -35- financial condition and forgetting about other benefits may be Jus— tified. One of the earliest cooperative leaders to take a stand which implies that cooperatives are not an idealistic movement but are largely economic implementations was H. E. Babcocks1 who said. "I regard a farmer-owned. farmer-controlled c00perative as a legal. prac- tical means by which a group of self-selected, selfish capitalists seek to improve their individual economic positions in a competitive society”. Regardless of whether Babcock's opinion is correct or not. cooper- ative leaders should recognize the situation as it is. and if farmers are increasingly coming to consider the economic advantage of cooper- atives as the major advantage. it may call for a reexamination by cooperative leaders of the promotional methods which they use. 5. Reasons for Dropping Out of Cooperatives In the studies by Gibson92 and by John,93 the major reason given for dropping out of the milk marketing cooperatives was the low price paid for milk. Another important reason was that the farmers had to drop out when they moved or when the plant closed. Some of the farmers dropped out because of personal differences with the cooperative manap gers or directors. 91 H. E. Babcock. "Cooperatives. the Pace—Setters in Agriculture". (December 1934). Ithaca. New York: Mimeograph publication (wp 36: 126-cr) for Business Organization 126 - Cooperative Marketing-—a course of the Agricultural Economics Department. Cornell University. 92 Gibson. 9p. git. T;H;. 93 John. 92’ cit., in Anderson and Sanderson. Qp. cit. P. 9. ~86- If farm cooperatives want to prevent members from dropping their memberships in cooperatives. they should be concerned with the reasons shy members drop>out of cooperatives. However. only 6” farmers in the present report said they had ever dropped out of a cooperative. which is a small number from which to draw many conclusions. In this free-response question.9u 10.9 percent of the farmers who dropped out of cooperatives said they moved away from the town where the cooperative was located. Ibrty and six-tenths percent said the cooperative business folded up. Twelve and five-tenths percent had personal differences with the managers or directors. Twenty-one and nine—tenths percent said they did not receive any financial advantage or doing business at the cooPerative was a financial disadvantage to them. Seven and eight—tenths percent changed their type of business and therefore could no longer do business through the cooperative. Six and two-tenths percent gave reasons which were so varied they could not be grouped satisfactorily. The importance of personality and administrative ability of the manager and directors is illustrated here because 12.5 percent of the farmers who dropped out said it was because they disliked the managers or directors or because they felt they were not treated right by them. Twenty percent of the non—members who said they dropped out might still be members if they had not had misunderstandings or other per- sonal conflicts with managers or directors. Twenty-one and nine- tenths percent of the farmers who said they dropped out apparently would have remained in the cooperative if they would have received a finanp cial return greater than what they felt they received elsewhere. For 9E Appendix A. Question 71. "‘QFL' -37; this same reason. 28 percent of the non-members who dropped out might not have done so. Cooperatives need to stress advantages other than financial or actually show the farmers who feel they received higher returns else- where that the returns were not higher. Chapter V. Factors Inherent in Farmers' Attitudes Toward Cooperation as System of Doing Business Along with participation in cooperatives. a favorable attitude by the farmers toward c00peration is important. Failure in cooperap tives many times is blamed on poor financial management when the real cause of the difficulties lies in the social relations among the cooperative managers. members. and patrons. Uhhealthy internal con» ditions which prevent group solidarity have been the true causes of many unnecessary crises in cooperatives. Good human relations are necessary in cooperatives. especially between the c00perative management and the members. because it is within the power of the members to supply or withhold the volume of business necessary for success. Lack of representation in adminis— trative capacities may make whole communities or neighborhoods oppose cocperative policies because they are not properly informed through their accepted lines of communication of the reasons for changes. It is imperative that local leadership be used in mobilizing the membership for participation in the affairs of the association and for mutual contact between the individual farmer and cooperative management. Management many times visualizes a different picture of the association's policies than the farmers who do the Judging and award their participation which is essential. Before the judgments of dissatisfied farmers are manifested in the loss of their business to . . II.1|I Iris» . .|1tu..r II.I. Illl." I . . -39- . the cooperative. and inorder to gain new member patrons. it is necessary for cooperative management to see itself and its policies from the farmers' point of view in the neighborhoods. A survey of the farmers' attitudes toward the cooperative and its program can be utilized to discover that parts of the program are desired and should be continued and what parts are not desired and should be eliminated.95 However. for a successful interpretation of the attitudes. the relationships or factors inherent in the attitudes should be studied. There are many factors which influence farmers' attitudes such as: age. schooling. farm experience. size of farm operated. tenure status. attendance at meetings. sources of information. amount of business done through cooperatives. and length of membership. Howa ever. many of these are inter-related so that if it were found that length of membership influenced the farmer's attitude. the real in- fluence might be his age. since age and length of membership are directly related. Farm experience is also directly related to age. and schooling is inversely related as shown in Table 37. This direct relationship is observed when it is noted that 35.2 percent of the farmers under 30 years of age had 12 years or more of schooling compared to only 5.7 percent of those 60 years or older who had that much ed. ucation. 95 For a discussion of attitudes and opinion measurements. see Lundberg. QB. cit. Chapter VIII. "." «‘.fi «if: I . -- ‘3" 53': -t '-'.' - “ I °- i. c-l‘ .‘wzfi’ién: . "‘ - ,I . ' I I I :-I ... ‘ ." ' A. . . I II ! 0 ‘ t I I ‘ ‘ -90. Table 37. Percentage distribution of farmers by age and years of schooling Age Schooling Under 30 30-39 Mo—Mg 50—59 60 and Total over None 0.0 0.0 000 206 30” 1.2 Under eighth grade 1.9 .9 8.7 22.2 35.9 1h.2 Ehghth grade completed 37.0 52.0 57.3 53.8 h1.5 50.1 High school not completed 25.9 18.0 17.h 12.0 13.5 16.h High school completed 29.6 19.7 9.6 6.0 3.u 12.n College. some or completed 5.6 9.u 7.0 3.u 2.3 5.7 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 5k 117 115 117 89 #92 Tenure is related to size of farm as presented in Table 38. The farmers who had less than 50 acres were mostly (8H.9 percent) owners. Table 38. Percentage distribution of farmers by size of farm and by tenure Size of farms in acres Less than 200 and Tenure 50 50-99 loo—199 over Total Owner 8h.9 72.6 M9.1 27.h 59.1 Renter 7.5 12.3 15.7 19.0 13.8 Part—owner 7.6 15-1 35.2 53-6 27.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 93 1&6 171 an ugh As the size of the farms operated increased. the number of farmers who were owners decreased to 27.h percent for those with 200 acres or more. u......... ._ . e. —-—-I-----*- -‘ ' In. . ' f r... q . V . :.'. .i n ’ 'i 'I I " ' I. 1 . I l I l . e ' ' ‘ . ‘ '5 n ' ~ I! ' v . - _ . . I...-' ‘ I ", ’ ‘ .91. As the percentage of farmers who were owners decreased. the percentage who were part-owners increased. Part-owners generally operated larger farms than either owners or renters. Attendance at meetings is related to sources of information about cooperatives because farmers attending meetings should name the cooper- ative meetings as a source of their information.- Sources of infor— mation would be a better indication than attendance at meetings because it includes all of the farmers regardless of membership. Because of these relationships between factors. four of them have been selected to be primarily used in analyzing farmers' attitudes in this study. The four that will be used are: age. size of farm. sources of information about cooperatives. and amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year. Whenever a better analysis can be made with other factors. they will be used. Chapter V deals mainly with the farmers' attitudes toward cooPer- atives as a system of doing business. 1. Main Advantages One of the first attitude questions which the farmers were asked was: "What would you say were the main advantages of cooperatives for farmers?"96 Table 39 presents the number and percent of the farmers responding to this question by the main advantages which they gave for cooperatives. Seventy-two farmers or 1M.h percent of those responding to this question said that there were no advantages or that they could not think of any advantages of cooperatives. More of the non-members (about 21 percent) than of the members (about eight percent) said that there were no advantages of cooperatives. 95 Appendix A. Question 6. -92. Eable 39. number and percent of farmers by their.opinions of the main advantages of cooperatives Kain advantages Number“l Percent* Economic 367 73.5 Services 159 31.9 Farmers' own organization 81 16.2 Miscellaneous Ml 8.2 None 72 1"". 1" Total number of farmers responding M99 1hh.2 I”Phase total more than #99 or 100 because farmers gave more than one advantage. 0f the M27 farmers naming advantages. the average number of ad» vantages given by each was 1.5. All of the farmers were put into five groups according to their Opinions of the main adVantages of cooperatives: economic. services. farmers' own organization. miscellaneous. and none. The economic advantages group contained all of the farmers who said that the main advantages of c00peratives were the lower costs and higher returns. dividends and refunds. competition which cooperatives offered to bring other businesses in line. cutting out of middlemen's profit. and giving of credit. The services advantage group were those saying that the main advantages of cooperatives were that they gave better service. were convenient. had a more complete line of goods. had better quality supplies. and assured farmers of honest treatment. The groups of farmers who said that one of the advantages of c00peratives was that they were the farmers' own organization contained those who mentioned the advans tages of cooperatives as being that everyone had something to say about the business. that the farmers should be organized. too. and that it was -93— the farmers' own organization. The miscellaneous advantages group inp eluded those who said they could get good advice. that cooperatives represented farmers' interest in the legislature. and other reasons. Nearly three-fourths of the farmers (73.5 percent) gave economic advantages as the main advantages of cooperatives to farmers. The next important advantages given were the services the cooperative gave to the farmer of which nearly one-third (31.9 percent) of the farmers gave these reasons. Farmers' own organization was given by 16.2 percent. and miscellaneous reasons were given by 8.2 percent. The percentages did not add up to 100 because farmers gave more than one advantage. The farmers in these five groups were compared by age. size of farm. sources of information about cooperatives. and by amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year in order to determine if any of those factors influenced the farmers' attitudes on this question. However. none of these factors had any significant influence on the farmers' attitudes. 2. Criticism After the farmers were asked to give the main advantages of cOOper- atives. they were asked to give their criticisms of cooperatives.97 Over one-half. 58.9 percent. of the farmers did not have any criticisms of cooperatives. Farmers were more willing to name advantages of cooper— atives than to mention criticisms. Nearly the same percent of both members and non-members did not criticize cooperatives. The 205 farmers who did criticize cooperatives gave 2M3 criticisms. or an average of 1.1 per far- mer. The number and percent of farmers by the criticisms are indicated in Table no. 97 Appendix A. Question 7. *‘ :I-iuil‘é‘klf'flk‘ i" ;. 9- ”Refit-‘- m. . . a. . II.“ .II — n .0 . .. _ .. .91.... Table to. Number and percent of farmers by their criticisms of cooperatives number of Percent of Criticism farmers farmers ane 29H 58.9 Poor service 87 17.4 not a true cooperative 50 10.0 Economic disadvantages M6 9.2 Miscellaneous 60 12.0 Total 537 107.5* IllThe total percent is more than 100 because some farmers gave more than one criticism. Poor service was given by 17.“ percent of the farmers as their criticism of cooperatives. Poor service included those farmers who said: poor service and poor parts for machinery sold. not enough supplies. inexperienced and/or inefficient managers. poor help. and poor quality supplies. Not a true cooperative was given as a criticism by 10 percent of the farmers. It included farmers who said: manager is not c00peratively minded. and business is run by a clique and favoring some person or some group. Nine and two—tenths percent said doing business at cooperatives was an economic disadvantage. and this included those who said they had not received any refunds. Miscellaneous criticisms were given by 12 per- cent of the farmers. and this group included criticisms such as: too close a tie-up with the Farm Bureau. hurts private business and/or is communistic. cooperatives should pay taxes. coOperative is dishonest. manager's salary is too high. and farmers won't cooperate. The farmers in these four groups were compared by age. size of farm. “a. .I-lfill ' ‘._-I 0' t . an: a. . .1III.I:1HII.I. 1.1 . I :{Iulcfld - ,3..u..‘..‘.z ..: ughib‘.;.1\lf‘ . .4 . ~95- sources of information about cooperatives. and amount of business done through soaperatives during the past year. Age. In the comparison by age. fewer of the farmers under 30 years of age had criticisms about cooperatives. .Of the farmers under 30 years. 70 percent did not have any criticisms. while 52.8 percent of those over 30 years had no criticisms. The longer years of experience of the farmers over 30 may have influenced the amount of criticizing which they did. The younger farmers also had more schooling. Therefore. to discover whether schooling or age influenced their unwillingness to criticize. the farmers in the five groups were compared by age and by schooling. The most critical group of farmers were those from MO—M9 years of age who had nine or more years of schooling. These farmers were in the most productive years of the farm family. Because of their greater activity in the communities. it would seem important for cOOperatives to make the changes necessary to reduce the criticism from this group. §i§§ 2f Earm. Some cooperative managers say that the small farmer. who does not have much of an interest in cooperatives because he does not do much business. is the man who does most of the criticizing. How— ever. Table #1 shows that the smaller farmer does the least criticizing. Sixty-four and two—tenths percent of the farmers with less than 50 acres had no criticism. while only M8.9 percent of the farmers who had 200 acres or more did not criticize. The size of farm which they operated had little effect on the per- centage of farmers criticizing the COOperative for not being a true cooperative or who said that they were economically disadvantageous. However. the size of farm did influence the percentage of farmers giving miscellaneous criticisms and those criticizing the services. Eight and "".f.v.'.".'i-' - ¢fl1.I-r‘"-f‘.r '[V‘ll'L I man. ....u ‘ . 14...: I . . \ .‘ ..‘... _ ..., \ .H. .3: .96. Table M1. Percentage distribution of farmers by their criticisms and by the size of their farms Size of farm Under 50 50-99 loo—199 200 acres Criticism acres acres acres and over Total Not a true cooper- tive 11.2 5.7 11.3 9.8 9.1: Economic disadvan- teges 8.2 9A! 9.1 6.5 8.6 Poor services 8.2 18.9 17.2 19.6 16.5 Miscellaneous 8.2 12.0 10.2 15.2 11.2 None 6h.2 51w 52.2 15.9 5%} Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 98 159 186 92 535 two-tenths percent of the farmers who had less than 50 acres criticized the service of cooperatives. and this increased in each size of farm group to 19.6 percent of the farmers who had 200 acres or more who criticized for that reason. The miscellaneous criticisms increased from 8.2 percent of the farmers with under 50 acres to 15.2 percent of the farmers with 200 acres or more giving miscellaneous criticisms. This increase in the percent of the farmers criticizing as the size of their farms increased may be due to the farmers' greater use of the cooperative services because of the larger farm operations. There- fore. they were better able to see things in the cooperative which they think could be improved. The size of the farm was related to the age of the farmer. so part of the influence may have come from other factors such as age. Sources g: Information Apgut Soaperatives. The comparison of the farmers by their criticisms and by their sources of information about c00peratives in Table #2 shows significant differences among the farmers Au ..: . hl u I 1 u v v l v . w . l o I \ ~ . w ,. v ‘ ”..."...Mlillluslf; 9‘ ‘ Q . 1| 915.. , I ...-u I v I u .u... l . .l. . - u. . 1 . .. . an Ikefi... ‘rJnI ..lizlilthl 1......VI.V‘M. 1 ‘ .-. . .. ...! I.(. .1 r -9 7.. Table #2. Percentage distribution of farmers' criticism by sources of information Sources of information Farm pub— Cooperap lications. tive meet— farm meet- ings and At co- ings and Other publicap Criticism operative radio farmers tions None Total Not a true cooperative 1003 707 608 908 1003 903 Economic dis- advantage 10.3 5.5 9.6 9.8 5.1 8.5 Poor services 17.9 13.3 16.11 19.5 10.3 16.3 Miscellaneous 9.6 9.9 16.11 11.2 11.5 11.3 j None 51.9 63.6 50.8 19.7 b2.8 511.6 ‘ Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 . Total number 156 90 73 1M3 78 51+o ; in the extent of criticizing. Those farmers who named; at the cooperap tive. other farmers. or cooperative meetings as their sources of infor- mation about the cooperatives were more critical. since h9.2 percent gave criticisms. than were the farmers who said they did not get any informa- tion or who said they received it from farm publications. radio programs. or meetings. since 36.9 percent of these gave criticisms. Farm publications. radio programs. and meetings other than those sponsored by cooperatives would appear to have had a positive effect on attitudes of farmers toward cooperatives. On the other hand. cooperap tive-sponsored meetings and publications have tended to make the farmer more critical of cooperatives. Because of the greater attention given to cooperatives by those attending meetings. reading publications. and talking with the cooperative managers at the cooperative. the farmers might be in a better position to criticize. Some of the criticism was -98- constructive since suggestions were made uhich_could be used by cooper- ative managers and directors for improvements. Amount 2; Business Done Throggh Cooperatives Durigg thg Past Year. The amount of business done through cooperatives did not have much in— fluence on the opinions of the farmers when criticizing. 3. The Importance of Owning and Controlling the Farm Supply Business Cooperatives differ from other organizations in that the farmers who own and control the business are also served by it. In order to find out how important farmers think owning and controlling the business which served them was. they were asked a question which was preceded by a statement, thus: "Some people say that one of the advantages of farm supply cooperatives is that farmers can own and control the business which serVes them. Would you say that this is very important. important. or not important as an advantage of farm supply cooperatives?"98 Of those responding to this question. 50.2 percent said that for farmers to own and control the business which served them was a very important advantage. 36.1 percent rated it important. and 13.7 percent said that it was not important. The farmers in these three groups were compared by age, size of farm, sources of their information about cooperatives. and amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year in order to de- termine if any of these factors influenced their opinion on this question. Age and size of farm did not significantly influence the farmers' opinions. However. more of the larger farmers tended to say that owning and controlling the farm supply business was a very important advantage 98 Appendix A. Question 16. . , . I - I "1‘ I‘Hr ' v ' Elf-I'll . . 7 H. L amid}. . . . w I 7 .. (Il..\‘l1.l JVAII‘II 7 -99- of cosperatives. but the differences were not large enough to be sig- nificant. Sources 2; Information Abggt Cooperatives. The sources of farmers' information about cooperatives did influence their attitude on this question because more of the farmers who said that their information came from cooperative meetings tended to say that owning and controlling - the farm supply business was a very important advantage of farmer cooper- atives (Table M3). Sixty and seven-tenths percent of those receiving Table H3. Percentage distribution of farmers expressing opinions about the importance of owning and controlling the farm supply business by their sources of information about cooperatives. Sources of information Farm pub— Cooperap lications. tive meet- radio. and ihgs and Opinion At co- farm meet- Other publica, expressed operative ings farmers tions None Total Very or— tantimp ME.6 u9.3 h5.9 60.7 M2.2 50.3 Important 3 .3 38.3 h1.o 30.8 35.9 35.9 Not important 16.1 12.u 13.1 8.5 21.9 13.8 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 1M3 81 61 130 6h M79 their information from cooperative meetings rated it very important. About H9.5 percent of those getting their information from farm publi— cations. radio. farm meetings. and at the cooperative rated it very im— portant. Ibrty—five and nine—tenths percent of those receiving their information from other farmers and M2.2 percent of those who said that they did not get any information about cooperatives rated it very im- portant. More of the farmers who did not receive any information about “an; I‘m-J. . 1". -' I ‘snffl-‘v‘; 'fifi' L IL": .. . 1 .- '.E' on: 3 -.: 1.! o. . u u u o. _ t _ u .. .. .. .1 . . ; . . . Infilvl‘Ii cooperatives tended to rate the owning and controlling of the farm supply business not important. The farmers expressing opinions to this same question are compared by amount of business they did through c00peratives during the past year in Table MN. The amount of business done through cooperatives had Table HM. Percentage distribution of farmers expressing opinions on the importance of owning the farm supply business by amount of business done through 000peratives during the past year Amount of business done through cooperatives Opinion ex. $1000. $2000— $3000 and pressed $0-u99 $500.999 1999 2999 over Total Very important 39.7 no.9 55.3 56.2 60.0 50.3 Important uu.7 38.6 3u.o 22.8 30.5 35.9 Not important 15.6 1h.5 10.7 21.0 9.5 13.8 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 1th 83 103 57 95 M79 a very important influence on the farmers' opinions of how important an adVantage it was for the farmers to own and control the farm supply business which served them. As the amount of business which the farmers did through their cooperative increased. a larger percent of them rated it very important. The percent of the farmers rating it very important increased from 39.7 percent of those doing less than $500 worth of business to 60 percent of those who did $3000 or more of business through their cooperatives. As the amount of business which a farmer did through cooperatives increased, the more important he felt it was for him to have control over the farm sueply business with which he did business. This question was asked with the word. marketing. substituted for, farm supply. later in the interview. The response to the importance of owning and controlling the marketing business was similar to that re- corded about the farm supply business. M. Cooperatives as a Measuring Stick Some cooperative leaders say that cooperatives are important to farmers because they serve as a measuring stick with which farmers can compare the prices, quality. and services of other businesses in their community. To discover what farmers thought of this. they were first read a statement and then asked to rate it in importance. This state— ment and question was: "Some people say that the farm supply cooperap tivee help farmers because they are a sort of measuring stick with which farmers can compare the price, quality} and services of other businesses. Would you say that this is very important. important. or not important as an advantage of farm supply cooperatives?"99 Farmers did not rate this as important as they did the question about owning and controlling the farm supply business. However. 37.3 percent of those interviewed said that it was very important and H3.3 percent said that it was important. Nineteen and fouratenths percent said it was not important. The farmers rating this question very important, important. or not important. were compared by age. size of farm. sources of information about cooperatives, and by amount of business which they did through Cooperatives during the past year in order to determine if any of these factors would influence their answers. Age did not significantly affect farmers' opinions. 99 Appendix A. Question 17. Size 2; Farm. The size of farm tended to influence opinion in that as the size of the farm increased. more of the farmers tended to rate the advantage of the farm supply cooperative serving as a measuring stick very important. as presented in Table NS. The percent of the farmers rating it very important gradually increased from 31.3 percent of those farmers haying under 50 acres to h7.6 percent of those having 200 acres or more. Table M5. Percentage distribution of farmers giving opinions of the importance of the farm supply cooperative serving as a measuring stick and by size of the farms which they operated Size of farm Opinion Under 50 50—99 loo—199 200 acres expressed acres acres acres and over Total Very important 31.3 32.9 39.3 M7.6 37.5 Important 1+8.2 nan 143.11 32.14 i434 Not important 20.5 20.7 17.3 20.0 19.h Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 83 1140 168 8’4 1:75 Sources 2; Information £923: Sooneratives. The farmers saying that they did not get any information about cooperatives were different from the rest of the farmers in that they did not consider the farm supply cooperative being a measuring stick as important as did the other farmers (Table h6). Thirty-five and nine—tenths of the farmers who said they received no information about cooperatives said that the farm supply cooperative serving as a measuring stick was not an important advantage of cooperatives compared to 16.9 percent of those listing some source of information. However. other than this. the sources of their information had very little effect on their opinion except for those naming the .nl‘w t w rif ...»«1- .\ t ., V.x..u.h_...u . -103. cooperative meeting as one of their sources. Those saying that one of their sources of information about cooperatives was the cooperative meet- ing rated the measuring stick idea a little more important than did any of the other farmers. Cooperative meetings have tended to help farmers see the advantages of having the cooperative so that they can compare other businesses with it. Table M6. Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of the importance of cooperatives as measuring sticks and by sources of information about cooperatives. Sources of information Farm pub— Cooperap lications. tive meet- radio and ings and Opinion At coop— farm meet— Other publicap expressed erative ings farmers tions None Total Very important 7.0 36.6 8.7 H3.2 25.0 37.2 Important Ina M75 1.9 had; 39.1 15.3 Not important 18.8 15.9 19A 11%)!» 35.9 19.5 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 138 82 62 132 on LL78 Amount 2: Business 2222 Through Cooperatives Quring the East XEEE' The farmers doing over $3000 worth of business with cooperatives tended to rate the measuring stick as an advantage higher than the other farmers. but the differences were not large enough to be significant. 5. Importance of Farm Supply Cooperative Giving Farmers a Share in Business Through Patronage Refunds In the discussion about what the farmers thought the main advantages of cooperatives were. many farmers gave refunds as one of the main ad- vantages. Later in the interview. farmers were given a chance to evaluate r o _ u I . I. . .‘ ‘ 1.5”;in l I $1111 I11, .. l. a on 1.2.1“th -10M- the importance of refunds. The question was preceded by a statement as follows: "It is sometimes said that farm supply cooperatives help farmers because they give farmers a share in business through patronage refunds. Would you say that this is very important. important. or not important as an advantage of farm supply c00perativesfflloo Thirty-nine and five-tenths percent of the farmers rated it very important. M0.5 percent rated it important. and 20 percent said it was not important. These three groups of farmers were compared by age. size of farm. sources of information about COOperatives. and amount of bus- iness done through cooperatives during the past year to determine if any of these factors influenced the opinions of the farmers on this question. Agg. Age was the only one of these factors which seemed to affect their opinions on this question. and this comparison was indicated in Table M7. The farmers under 30 and those 60 or over were similar in Table M7. Percentage distribution of farmers eXpressing opinions on the importance of cooperatives giving farmers a share in business through patronage refunds and by age Age of farmers answering Question Opinion 60 and expressed Uhder 30 30-39 M0—M9 50-59 over Total Very important 50.0 36.0 36.2 33.0 50.0 9.5 Important 37.5 no.5 n1.u M3.8 29.6 30.5 Not important 12.5 17.5 22.u 23.2 20.u 20 0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 56 11k 116 112 88 use that one-half of the farmers in each of those age groups said that giving farmers a share in business through patronage refunds was a very important function of cooperatives. compared to about 35 percent of the farmers in 100 Appendix A. Question 18. . l , *n-tdl-trs ‘ -105- the other age groups. The farmers in the other age groups tended to say it was important instead of very important. This tendency for farmers who were under 30 or 60 or over to rate refunds as a share of business very important may be due to their positions in the life cycle of a farm family. When a farmer is under 30. he is in the early part of the life cycle of a farm family. He generally is attempting to get established in farming and usually has a fairly large family started. Because of these things. he often must go into debt and therefore any returns. regardless of how small, look very important to him. The farmers who are 60 or over are in the later stages of the farm family cycle. In this stage. the children who supplied much of the labor during the productive years. have left. and the farmer no longer has the ability to run a large farm. so his income has decreased. Any refund from the coOperative will generally look very important to a farmer in this stage of the cycle.101 6. Size of Farm Benefiting from Cooperatives In order to determine if farmers think that cooperatives benefit them according to their size of operation. they were asked: "Which kind of farmer do you think gets the most benefit from belonging to a co-op; the man with a big farm. or the man with a small farm. or do you feel that 101 For a further discussion of the farm family cycle see: C. P. Loomis. The Growth of the Farm Family in Relatign to 135 Activities. Raleigh. Earth Carolina: Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 298. June 193M. or: c. P. Loomis. Studies 2; Rural Social Organization 12 the United States. Latin America. and Germany. East Lansing. Michigan: State College Book Store. 19M5. Chapter 9, pp. 190-199. or: J. Allen Beagle and C. P. Loomis. "Life Cycles of Farm. Rural-Nonfarm. and Urban Families in the United States as Derived from Census Materials." Rural Sociology, x111, March 19u8. Pp. 70-7u. ..o .r v o a. _. -106- there isn't such difference?"102 There was not much difference in the response to this question by members and non-members. One and four—tenths percent of the lL86 farmers answering this ques- tion said the big farmers benefited most. but gave no reason for their decision. Fortyaeight and six-tenths percent said that the big farmer benefited most because he bought and sold more. and thus. he obtained a larger refund. Six percent said big farmers because they were favored more and had more influence. Forty—three percent of the farmers said there was no difference in who benefited more. Eight-tenths percent said the smaller farmer benefited most because he needed more marketing and supply help and he obtained the advantage of strong bargaining power. It would seem logical that the smaller farmers would have realized the advantage the cooperative was to them in increasing their bargaining power. Therefore. more of the smaller farmers should have said that there was no difference in who received the most benefit. In order to see if there were any correlation between these. the farmers were divided into those saying the big farmers and those saying no difference and these groups were compared by the size of the farms which the farmers were operating. These data were set forth in Table U8. The difference of opinions between the farmers who had different size farms were large enough to be significant. Fifty—six percent of all the farmers interviewed said that the big farmer received the most benefit and MM percent said that there was no difference in who received the most benefit. However. 62.9 percent of the farmers having less than 50 acres compared to the #2.} percent of farmers haying over 200 acres said that large farmers got the most benefit. 102 Appendix A. Question In. [1‘ Table ”8. Percentage distribution of farmers saying the large farmer gets the most benefit and saying no difference by size of farm Size of farm in acres Who gets the 200 and most benefit Under 50 50-99 loo—199 over Total Big farmer 62.9 60.8 5.0 M2.3 56.0 No difference 37.1 39. 2 .o 57.7 who Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number“ 89 11:3 169 85 1486 *In addition to the total. four farmers said the small farmer gets the most benefit and 10 farmers' opinions were not expressed. As the size of the farm increased. the percentage of the farmers saying the big farmer gets the most benefit decreases. However. as the size of the farm increases. the percentage of farmers who say that there is no difference in who gets the most benefit increases. The reasons for farmers tending to say the big farmers receive the most benefit is that they see and hear about the large refunds based on the amount of business done at the cooperative which the large farmers receive. Few farmers think about other ways they benefit from the cooperatives when they have the facts about the large refunds. Farmers who said that there was no difference in who received the most benefit probably based their judgment on the treatment which farmers received at the cooperap tive. These findings indicated that farmers were more interested in the cash returned to them which immediately increased their incomes than in other more intangible benefits. With this kind of loyalty. cooperatives cannot expect much support in a crisis which reduces the ability of the cooperative to compete with other businesses. ; I.Vx shirflvfll‘. 4 . w -108- Opinion of Marketing Members Compared to Members of Other Types of Cooperatives. With Regard to Ihich Benefits the Former More. a Marketing or a Purchas- ing Cooperative. It is interesting to find out if present members of marketing cosperatives would see more clearly than members of other types of coOper- atives the value of marketing cooperatives as compared to farm supply cooperatives. The present members of these three marketing cooperatives: Michigan Milk Producers Association. Michigan Livestock Exchange. and the Detroit Packing Company were separated from all other members and run on this question: "Which cooperative do you think helps the farmer most. the farm supply cooperative or the marketing cooperative”;03 Farmers had memberships in other marketing cooperatives, including some cooperatives which were both purchasing and marketing. but the three large cooperatives considered here were strictly marketing associations. The members in these three cooperatives, who constituted the group of marketing members. may have also been members of other marketing cooper- atives as well as members of purchasing cooperatives. The members who were not members of the Michigan Milk Producers Association. Michigan Livestock Exchange. or the Detroit Packing Company were the group called, other members. These other members may have been members of marketing cooperatives, other than the three organizations mentioned, as well as being members of purchasing cooperatives. The non—members were farmers who were not members of any cooperative. A higher percentage of the marketing members than of members of other types of cooperatives said that the marketing cooperatives benefited the farmers more than did farm supply coOperatives. As shown in Table 103 Appendix A. Question 35. I‘ l I u - r . c , n.‘ . . . .u f. . . . . h. .. . I.. I . a. .. . m . . W. e . e . , H. . I I I l\ 1 n .. - )3... . 1 4hr..{ . ‘ 1,. -109- - n9. NM.7 percent of the farmers who were members of cooperatives other than marketing cooperatives said that the farm supply cooperatives Table #9. Percentage distribution of members of marketing cooperatives. members of other types of cooperatives. and non-members by their opinions of which benefits the farmers most; a marketing cooperative or a farm supply cooperative Which benefits the Marketing Other farmer most members‘ members# Eon-member Total I . 1 Farm supply 15.3 Mm 35. 1 35.1 1 Marketing 31. 5 18.11 16. 5 21.11 Equal 53.2 36.9 hen. 113.5 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total numberl 12” 255 97 M76 *This group included all the farmers who were members of the Michigan Milk Producers Association. Michigan Livestock Exchange, and the Detroit Pack— ing Company. The farmers in this group may have also been members of other marketing cooperatives. purchasing cooperatives, or combination marketing and purchasing cooperatives. #This group included all of the cooperative members who were not members of the three marketing cooperatives named. However. the farmers in this group may have been members of other marketing cooperatives as well as purchasing cooperatives. lIn addition to this total. six farmers said neither type of cooperative benefits the farmer. 11 farmers said "don't know". and seven gate no ‘ answer. benefited the farmer most compared to only 15.3 percent of the marketing members. Non—members tended to be more like other members probably be— cause they usually can do business at farm supply cooperatives and are not allowed to do business with marketing cooperatives. Thirty—one and five-tenths percent of the marketing members said the marketing cOOpera- tive benefits the farmer most. compared to 18.h percent of the other members and 16.5 percent of the nonnmembers who said that the marketing cooperative benefits the farmer the most. More of the marketing members 9* he“ --"'.'I ' :, stew-Pearson 1126 ._-_..u'-—"' _ n- 4.10- and non-members said that marketing cooperatives and farm supply coopera- tives benefits the farmers about equally. These differences between the marketing members. other members. and non-members are highly signifi- cant. with a probability of these results happening by chance of less than one percent of the time. The tendency for farmers to say that the farm supply cooperatives help them the most is probably due to their wider experience with farm supply cOOperatives. Farmers tend to forget the marketing services which their marketing cooperatives perform for them. because many times the services are performed many miles from the farms. whereas the farm supply cooperatives are usually located in the village where the farmers go to do business. Farmers generally have many business contacts with the managers and directors of local farm supply cooperatives. but few with managers and directors of marketing cOOperatives. Six farmers said that neither type of cooperative benefits the farmer and 18 did not give an opinion. . . I I'llllllullllI II I III.. 1. . I . I .l u I . I .IiI. I :- l .I I u \ it! .. JIlITtr. I‘I‘.A11I¥I.fi‘l . . .«a I... ...»b...sfl.i...m. . I. . y .... ..ft I::i.‘wl1 I 1 . . ‘ ... .I.|,,..,.I.l|IlIIl((|t1I5.III’7. .I‘ .{I"...Ni . . l. .y.. V. V. V .__, . rI .. . . 1: ‘ Chapter VI. Characteristics of Farmers Affecting Their Opinions when Comparing Cooperatives with Other Businesses Just as important as the attitudes of farmers toward cooperation as a system of doing business are their opinions when comparing coopera- tives with other businesses. A cooperative cannot maintain itself permanently unless it can meet the competition of nonpcooperative business in the areas in which it operates. If a farm supply or marketing c00perative is not able to meet its competition over long periods of time. it has little reason for existing. since one of the main purposes of cooperatives is to reduce the costs involved in the transfer and processing of goods and services between the farmers and the consumers and between the manufacturer and the farmers. However. because of the structure of cooperative organization and the method of doing business. some of its advantages may not be obvious to the farmer. The financial savings are not demonstrated in lower prices for supplies they buy or higher prices for what they sell. Instead. the influences are savings in the form of refunds. which are not returned until after the end of the year. or increased bargaining power and competitive control. which are not easily measured except as farmers remember conditions existing before the cooperatives were organ- ized or except as they would be able to see conditions after a cooperap tive has disappeared. A functioning cooperative cannot do much to improve the memories of farmers who were in the community before the time of its organization nor L______— 5V ..u ... .‘ I .n . n. ... .. u. .. . .\ a. I. . a. s .. \ no. N. 2 Va l c . G . .. .1. ..dwhh.. . . ‘ ; mullwir‘itlflua. I .. .... . . I 7 .10‘}; .fiJqul... . . .. “1.. n I . I t .. {LL pvt cen they suspend operations for a long enough time for farmers to see what would happen when and if the cooperative no longer competed with other businesses. The argument which some cooperatives use to Justify themselves and to gain the support of farmers in the face of competition. which they have not met. is that if the cooperatives were not there, what would the other businesses be paying or charging? This probably was a good argu- ment before the ethics of business were improved or controlled either by government legislation or through voluntary realization on the part of businessmen that it is for their benefit to imrove conditions. Farmers today feel that any organization has to be fairly honest in order to continue to do business. A frequent statement made by farmers was that farmers aren't as dumb as they used to be and there— fore merchants know they can't cheat them very much if they want to continue re oeiving their business. Cooperatives should recognize that farmers do not consider all of the merits of a cooperative when they make judgments. Values other than present economic gains will decrease in importance unless cooperatives can convince farmers of their existance. A program to improve their condition could be greatly enhanced if it is based on a survey which determines what farmers are thinking and some of the factors which in- fluence their thinking. This chapter is a discussion of the characteristics of farmers which influence their opinions when comparing cooperatives with other businesses. cooperative and non-cooperatives will be compared by farmers on these items: a general comparison. value to community. soundness of informa- : .5 . J . . -h ... . .5 . .. [AH _ ..‘. . . . a ...: .. : M. . 1 . «A . I t q. 1. ..n— P I I 6 a fish's-4;- aha-“Fifi- ‘Vtii L, -113. tion. net costs of farm supplies. quality of farm supply services. and efficiency of marketing functions. These comparisons will be analyzed by age. size of farm. sources of information about c00peratives, and the amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year, in order to determine if they had any influence on the farmers' opinions. In general. farmers in these comparison questions were asked to evaluate cooperatives and their functions, in relation to other businesses. as to whether they were better. equal. or poorer. A small percentage of farmers Judged the cooperatives poorer on any of the questions. Findings regarding these farmers would not be significant because of the small numbers. therefore. they will be left out of the analysis except as noted after the totals in the tables. It is assumed that coopera~ tives strive to be better than other organizations. Thus the important comparison can be between those who say better and those who say about the same or equal. 1. General Comparison In order to get farmers to give a general comparison of cooperatives with other businesses before more specific functions were discussed. they were asked. near the beginning of the interviews. this question: "In general. how would you say that farmer-owned cooperatives compare with other businesses? Would you say that cooperatives are doing a better job. a poorer job. or about an equal job of buying and selling for farmers'”.10h Forty-eight percent of the farmers said that the cooperatives were doing a better job than other businesses and 52 percent said that they 10% Appendix A. Question 8. A " "rim“- «'3': 1 . of- ‘i' ‘\)len.v‘r\rk .10w: 4 J! y 1 -11h— were doing an equal Job of buying and selling for farmers. The farmers rating cooperatives equal or better were compared by age. size of farm. sources of information about cooperatives. and amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year. However. the only factor which showed any significant influence on their opinions was the sources of information about cooperatives. Table 50 presents these data. About Table 50. Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether cooperatives. compared to other businesses. are doing a better job. a poorer Job or an equal Job of buying and sell- ing for farmers and by sources of information about cooperap tives Sources of information Farm pub- Coopers» lications. tive meet- radio. and ings and Opinion At co— farm meet— Other publicap expressed operative ings farmers tions None Total 1 ‘ Better job n7.1 58.5 M1.7 5.0 28.8 us.o Equal job 52.9 M1.5 58.3 5.0 71.2 52.0 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number* 136 82 131 66 M75 I"In addition to this total, nine farmers said poorer job. 56 percent of the farmers who said that their sources of information about cooperatives were farm publications. radio. and farm meetings. and the farmers who said that cooperative meetings and publications were the sources of their information. rated the cooperative as doing a better job of buying and selling for farmers than other organizations were doing. About #5 percent of the farmers who said they received infor— mation at the cooperative or from other farmers said the cooperative was doing a better job. Only 28.8 percent of the farmers who did not get iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII__________________________________ a r n a a. ... «. -115. sny information about cooperatives rated the cooperative as doing a better Job. My source of information was better than none in influencing the farmers to say a better Job. Cooperative meetings and publications. radio. farm meetings and publications had a more positive influence than any of the other sources of information. The farmers getting their information at the cooperative were not as favorable. which indicates that cooperatives need to improve the information given at the compare.- tives. Farmers getting information from cooperative managers and workers at the cooperative ought to be favorably influenced. It also would seem very important that cooperatives have some program of com-- icating with the farmers who were not receiving any information. be— cause their Judgment wae the most unfavorable to cooperatives. 2. Value to the Community The farmers' comparisons of the value to the community of coopera- tives and other businesses were analyzed by age. size of farm. sources of information about cooperatives. and amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year. The question asked was: "How would you rate co-ops as to their value to the community in comparison with other businesses? Would you say that co—Ops are a greater asset than other businesses to the community. not as much of an asset. or about the same”.105 Fifty-three and one—tenth percent of the farmers said that c00pera- tives were a greater asset than other businesses to the community and 14-6.9 percent said they were about the same. 105 Appendix A. westion 37. H 1 s _ . _ 1 t . .r. . .3 a. . m _ .n r , u ”M . ... . ..’ a .v . I . a . . ..‘... N. n . a bun. p.. t . . . -. — .3 ..fl .... .. . . . tn _ . r . a... V L . . I h. ...u . as. ... . F ._ .. . . . t .1. .. .. a a...» .... ... . .5 I .... . - .1 v .u. . ...... . . . _. or. .... . A u t . .S .. u. . .. , ... .J n - . ... fl. . ‘ — _ -116-.- Age and size of farm did not significantly influence their opin- ions about the value to theLcommunity of cooperatives compared to other businesses. . ‘ M if. Business Egg Throgh Cooperatives 2.1533 t_he_ P_e_s£ 2959 The analysis of farmers by their opinion of the value to the community of cooperatives and other businesses as compared by amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year is shown in Table 51. Table 51. Percentage distribution of farmers by their rating of value to the community of cooperatives compared to other busi- nesses and by amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year Amount of business done Value to $1000.. $2000- $3000 community $0—1+99 5500—999 1999 2999 and over Total Greater M823 1.43.3 62.7 51.8 51+.8 53.1 Same 51.7 51.7 37.3 1L8.2 15.2 h6.9 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number"I INS 89 107 56 93 M90 *In addition to this total. four farmers said less of an asset. The differences among the farmers in the different amounts of business groups were not large except for one group. The farmers doing $1.000— 1,999 worth of business were different from those doing less business or those doing more business. Sixty—two and seven-tenths percent of them said that the cooperative was a greater asset to the community com- pared to about 50 percent of all other farmers who said that the cooper- atives were a greater asset. The reasons for this inpbetween group value ing the cooperatives higher in the community might be due to the farmers‘ relative position in the community. -117- Sources 2; Information About Cooperatives. Cooperative meetings and publications tended to favorably influence the farmers more than any other source of information (Table 52). Sixty-two and three—tenths percent of the farmers in that group said that cooperatives were a Table 52. Percentage distribution of farmers by their rating of value to the community of cooperatives compared to other businesses and by sources of information about cooperatives. Sources of information Farm pub— COOpera- lications. tive meet- radio. and ings and At oo- farm meet— Other publicap Rating operative ings farmers tions None Total Greater 0.7 h6.9 8.5 62.3 #2.9 3.1 Same 9-3 53.1 1.5 37.7 57-1 6-9 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number* lhh 81 65 130 70 M90 I“In addition to this total four farmers said less of an asset. greater asset to the community than other businesses. Farmers getting their information from other farmers were the next most favorable group with 58.5 percent rating cooperatives as a greater asset. Forty-six and nine—tenths percent of the farmers who named farm publications. radio. and farm meetings as their sources of information about c00peratives said cooperatives were more valuable to the community. The most unfavor- able group was the farmers not receiving any information about cooperap tives, because only h2.9 percent of them rated the cooperative a greater asset. It is difficult to explain why farmers getting their information from other farmers rated this high. They may have interacted more within -118- . their neighborhoods and communities and therefore be more snare of what were of value in their social systems. Cooperatives have the problem of improving the information given out at cooperatives so that the farmers who get their information there will be more favorable and also they should consider ways of getting E information to farmers who do not receive any. 3. Soundness of Cooperative information An argument for cooperatives has been that they help the farmer by giving him information which he can use to improve his farming activities. The structure of cooperative organization, from national and state associations down to county and local cooperatives. and the assistance of agricultural extension service and state agricultural colleges places cooperatives in a favorable position for relaying infor— mation about farming practices. However. the evaluation of whether coop- erative information is better than information from other businesses should be studied from the farmers' viewpoint because from them come the support for cooperatives. To secure this information farmers were asked this question: "Some people say that co-ops help farmers because they give out sounder infor- mation about new farming ideas than other kinds of business do. Would you say that co-ops do a better job. a poorer Job. or about the same job as other businesses in giving out sound information about new farming ideasl".106 Forty-five and eight-tenths percent of the farmers said that cooper— atives gave out sounder information about new farming ideas than did 106 Appendix A. Question 38. . . . ‘ _ ..d . v y . . ...“... .7 . . , v r 0 w. I up I .. l I a n . n l I . I I . . c F . 1 . . I t . ... v. n. - a. II I\ n J: _ 1 V. .m. . -. n I. . ... .‘ ... tun. . ..r. 1. fines xylem “ ‘.t “Hub: . —119— other businesses. and 52.h percent of the farmers said they did about the same quality Job. The amount of business which farmers did through cooperatives and age did not influence their opinions on this question but size of farm and sources of information about cooperatives did affect their opinions. L '§igg 2f farm. The opinions of farmers about cooperative infor- mation compared to that of other businesses shows that farmers having under 100 acres express a more favorable opinion of the quality of cooperative information compared to other businesses than do those having 100 acres or over (Table 53). Over one-half of the farmers Table 53. Percentage distribution of farmers by their rating of. whether cooperatives give out sounder information than other businesses and by size of farms Size of farm Opinion Under 50 50-99 100.199 200 acres expressed acres acres acres and over Total Better 51.8 o. 7 35.8 36.1 15.0 Same use 9.3 6u.2 63.9 57.0 3.. Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number" 85 13% 165 83 M67 *In addition to this total seven farmers said cooperatives did e.poorer Job of giving out sound information. having under 100 acres said that cooperatives did a better job in giving out information compared to about 36 percent of those having 100 or more acres who said that they did a better job. The larger farmers may have been more unfavorable because they 1'} felt that the cooperative managers and workers were not qualified to give information about new kinds of supplies or innovations for the ¥—i ..'}: "Praia farm whereas a smaller farmer might have been better able and more willing to use théir suggestions. 1). L. 911.302.3107 discussed a situation similar to this. that of the use of agricultural extension services compared by size of farm. in his study of the agricultural extension service clientele. He said that there was increasing participation among operators as the size of their farms increased to 199 acres. Beyond this there was a. sharp decline in contacts with the extension service including the reading of mimeographed material. Sources 2: Information 23222 Cooperatives. An interesting com- parison is that of the opinions of farmers about the quality of infor- mation compared by their sources of information (Table 51+). It would Table 5’4. Per centage distribution of farmers by their rating of whether cooperatives give out sounder information than other busi- nesses and by their sources of information about cooperatives Sources of information Farm pub— Coopers! lications. tive meet- radio. and ings and Opinion At co— farm meet— Other publica- expressed operative ings farmers tions None Total Better 1+6.0 35.9 15.0 Mus 37.9 142.7 Same 51+.o and 55.0 55.5 62.1 57.3 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number" 139 78 60 128 66 1.171 *In addition to this total. eight farmers said cooperatives did a poorer job of giving out sound information. 107 D. L. Gibson. "The Clientele of the Agricultural Extension Service". East Lansing, Michigan: Article BS-MO. May 19MM. Reprinted from Michi an sricultural Experiment §tation anrterly Bulletin. 26, May 19 . Pp. E7. -121— sesm that the farmers who said they received their information from ' cooperative meetings and publications or at the cooperative would have felt that the cooperative was doing a better Job of giving out infor- mation than other businesses. However. the differences presented in this table were not large enough to be significant. Slightly more of the farmers who said they received their information at the cooperative or from other farmers or from cooperative meetings and publications tended to say that the cooperative was doing a better job than the farmers who said they received their information about cooperatives from farm pub— lications. farm meetings. or radio programs. h. Net Costs of Farm Supplies To get farmers to compare the net costs of farm supplies at the cooperatives with the net costs at other businesses they were asked this question: "In general, do you feel that the net costs of farm supplies to members of farm co—ops are higher, lower, or about the same as the net costs of purchases made at other businesses”.108 If there was any indication that the farmer did not understand what net costs meant. it was explained to him that it was purchase price of the supplies minus any discounts or refunds given by non-cooperative businesses as well as by coOperatives. Forty-three and three-tenths percent of the farmers expressed the opinion that the net costs were lower at the cooperative than at other businesses and 57.7 percent said they were about the same. Later in the interview a similar question was asked about whether marketing coOperatives return to the farmer more money, less money. or 108 Appendix A. Question 9. ..: ‘.I. ( v s . c I 0: .fl. ‘ ‘I :(1Ji‘||‘l;‘.|l‘} I as, . r u I .i p Jalrfiéuwm. . t. t , l \ 1411‘ 3.1, . . -1287 about the same amount of money for his products than do other busi- nesses.109 Thirty-six and three-tenths percent of the farmers said that marketing cooperatives net the farmer more money than other busi— nesses and 63.7 percent said cooperatives net the farmer about the same amount of money for what he sells through them as do other businesses. The farmers expressing opinions on the question about the net costs of farm supplies were compared by these four factors: age. size of farm. sources of information about cooperatives. and amount of business done during the past year through cooperatives. Age and size of farm did not significantly influence their opinions about net costs of farm supplies. Amount of Business Done Through Cooperatives Durigg the Past Year. __——_—______——____. Table 55 indicates the farmers by their opinions of the net cost of farm Table 55. 'Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether net costs of farm supplies at couperatives are higher. lower. or the same as at other businesses and by amount of business done through cOOperatives during the past year. Amount of business done Opinion $1000. $2000— . $3000 expressed «to-M99 331500.999 1099 2999 and over Total Lower 39.3 31+.9 19.0 1+8.1 #7.} 15.3 Same 60.7 65.1 51.0 51.9 52.7 57.7 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number* 127 83 98 5h 91 M53 I"In addition to this total. 21 farmers said prices were higher at farm supply cooperatives than at other businesses. supplies and by amount of business which they did through cooperatives 109 Appendix A. Question 212-. . 1.1.57le IJ.I‘\.\ 7 . v . _ t — .. _ a . . ‘- .. F v . q n. . _ J ...-... . it" ... M I u 4 _ . 4 v _ £ a v .1 ..:\.I.. . 1 I Ill. ...: l | \ n . .. a i _ A I. .1. k. ("1.7 \ z .. -123— smppliee and by amount of business which they did through cooperatives during the past year. than the percentage (M8.2 percent) of those who idid $1.000 or more worth of business. said that the net costs of farm supplies at the cooperative were lower. The farmers who did more than $1.000 worth of business probably were more willing and better able to wait until the end of the year for their refunds and thus were more favorable in their judgment than those who did less than $1.000 worth of business. Those doing less than $1.000 worth of business may have needed the cash and therefore considered less important the refunds returned at the end of the year. Cooperatives might initiate a program which would show the farmers the value of the refunds or perhaps return the refunds to the farmers more than once each year. A poorer farmer who sees an article three cents lower in price at a non-cooperative business than at the cooperative probably will buy it at the lower cost even though the cooperative may return five cents to him at the end of the year. because he needs the cash and is unable to have his money tied up for any length of time. Sources 2: Informatigp £2222 Cooperatives. Sources of farmers' in- formation about cooperatives presented in Table 56 influenced their opinions about the net costs of farm supplies. The most favorable group was the farmers receiving their information about sceperatives from farm publications. farm meetings. and radio programs in which 5M.5 percent said that the net costs were lower. Forty-two and eight—tenths percent of the farmers receiving their information from cooperative meetings and publications and at the cosperative and from other farmers said that the net costs were lower at the cooperative and only 31 percent of the farmers lip! 1!. .— . . .. § . r In. I! I I; at. a... a . . o .I .l. . u: m. . . . . rl ... t .- 1 l . . . ... . t A _ o .. a f O ... u 4 n p . . s . . .l ' m . ..L .. . . \ . I . . . 1 _ . . 1 . s _ h . . _. .4 _ ...I..!....|!llliu....\..n 91.11.... . .l l. . . . . .. ...Ia 3.07 .. . . - . .l.. .. I ...: shall a x . -12h— receiving no information about cooperatives said that net costs of farm supplies at cooperatives were lower. Table 56. rercentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether net costs of farm supplies at cooperatives are highp er. lower. or the same as at other businesses and by sources of their information about cooperatives Sources of information Farm pub— Coopers? lications. tive meet- radio. and ings and Opinion At co— farm meet— Other publicap expressed operative ings farmers tions None Total Lower n1.2 u.5 39.3 M6.0 31.0 n3.3 Same 58.8 5.5 60.7 5u.0 69.0 56.7 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 131 77 61 126 58 M53 This indicates that farmers who did not receive any information about cooperatives are least favorable. and it seems that if cooperap tives could reach them with information their opinions would improve. If information given out at c00perative meetings and in cooperative pub— lications about not costs of farm supplies was effective. it seems that farmers indicating them as sources of their information about cooperap tives would not have been less favorable than farmers getting informan tion from farm publications. farm meetings. and radio programs. 5. Farm Supply Services Many cooperatives came into existence in order to provide services which were not adequately or economically performed by other organizations. Some cOOperative leaders have stated that 000peratives are primarily interested in providing more adequate services and that greater economic ..Iu. ... . I. .. .. 0 cl . u . . I -125- returns are secondary in importance.110 To determine farmers' opinions about the quality of the services provided by cooperatives compared to other businesses. they were asked this question: "Now I'd like to ask you about the service of farm supply co—ops as compared with other busi- nesses. By service I mean deliveries of orders. special orders, cour— teous treatment by the managers and clerks. and things of that kind. In general. do you feethhat the service of farm supply co—ops is better. poorer. or about the same as other businesses”.111 Thirty-five and two-tenths percent of the farmers felt that the services of the farm supply cooperatives were better than the services of other organizations and 6h.8 percent said they were about the same. A similar question was asked concerning the service of farm marketing 112 Only 30.h percent of the farmers cooperatives later in the interview. said the service provided by marketing cooperatives was better than that provided by other businesses. When only about one-third of the farmers say that the services of cOOperatives are better than other businesses. it seems that cooperatives need to analyze the farmers' opinions in order to discover what improve— ments are needed. The farmers in this study were not asked how the services could be improved. Age. size of farm. and amount of business done through cooPeratives did not significantly influence the farmers' opinion on this question. However. the sources of information were highly significant (Table 57). The farmers who received their information from cooperative meetings 110 Orne Anders. Co-operative Ideals Egg Problems. Manchester: Co- operative Union. Ltd.. 1937. P. 2. 111 Appendix A. Question 13. 112 Ibid. Question 28. ... . . ... ... t v . . . H. m c . .. 1. ... u ‘ ... .f 9 ... . .7 . 5 n.. e. . q ... . h n . . _. . . If I 1 Hm I ‘ V n ... u 4 . ...... ...1. v\ "A... I . 1 P. . . a (a. u. . .m . . . . . . . .r .. x e .u: r. . . ..: 1.. An . . «u . T . . .4 . . . .. . I“ .l- . n . u :- ...- wtrz-t’ 7.x.- -126- Table 57. Percentage distribution of farmers by their rating of the services of farm supply cooperatives compared to other businesses and by their sources of information about cooperh atives Sources of information Farm pub— Gosperap lications. tive meet- radio. and ings and At co- farm meet— Other publica- Rating operative ings farmers tions Hone Total Better 38.7 28.0 3n.u ua.u 22.2 33.2 same 61.3 72.0 65.6 57.6 77.8 6 .8 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number‘ 137 82 63 132 63 M77 I"In addition to this total. 27 farmers said the service of cooperatives was poorer than other businesses. and publications and at the cooperative. tended to be the most favorable group with about #0 percent of them saying that the services were better. Thirty-four and four—tenths percent of the farmers who received their in— formation from other farmers rated the services of cooperatives better. Twenty-eight percent of the farmers getting information from farm publicap tions. farm meetings and radio programs rated it better and 22.2 percent of those farmers who did not get any information about cooperatives said that the services of cooperatives were better than those of other busi- nesses. This indicates that the cooperative controlled sources of infor— mation have positively influenced the farmers' Opinions on this question. However. it would seem that cooperatives would want a larger percen- tage of all of the farmers rating the services of the cooperatives better than other businesses. Also the farmers not getting any information should be reached by the cooperatives because information about cooperap t_lfs! - .m a a . u. “...... .. , «nu m o o s. . _ ..‘.“ - ..|.. u v .n m . _ I. _ ..: ”..‘. .q .t. s . .. . . . .amwemt . _ .“In r . _ a c u 4.... .. u . . 1.; _ .....JJHNHuHsRU'. A H _ A .. 7 . ,7 ..;.J.il..,u..sr, .127- tives would improve their opinions. 6. Efficiency of Marketing Functions The efficiency of the marketing organization is usually measured by the analysis of financial statements and accounts showing services renp dared per unit. But these measures even when favorable are not of much value when business begins to decrease. There is another important measurement of efficiency. that of farmers' opinions. which should be considered because on it depends the future of cooperatives. To determine what farmers felt about the efficiency of cooperatives compared to other businesses. they were asked: "How about the efficiency with which a marketing co-0p operates as compared with other marketing businesses? Would you say that the marketing co-ops are more efficient, less efficient. or about the same as other businesses?".113 Only 22.7 percent of the farmers thought that the marketing cooper- atives were more efficient and 77.} percent said the same as other busi— nesses. Cooperatives should be concerned when less than one-fourth of the farmers think they provide a more efficient marketing system. The age. size of farm. sources of information about cooperatives. and amount of business done through c00peratives during the past year did not have any significant effect on the farmers‘ answers to this question. However. there seemed to be a tendency for the favorableness of farmers to decrease as their age increases. Twenty-eight and three- tenths percent of the farmers under 30 years of age (Table 58) said that the cooperative was more efficient and this percentage decreases to only 16.2 percent of the farmers 60 years and over who said that the marketing 113 Appendix A. Question 36. . . . . .. . u . . - . C - r . .. . o . t I\ I 1 . ... t . t J ¢ e 1.... .. t u. .. P. .v.. .. I. In I 1 n.... . _ . u . . . . a ... a . . . IE I. . t I a . H. .n .1 e .. . ,. . ..." . . . . (..k h r c _ r . . , . ..u.‘ .. . . . - u. . .. .. . a n q . . . . a u. . _ . i . R. u. . . \ . ... u. I c f . . n .l r "....lq. 1. u... . . . . .s n. . . .... ... . a. . r . . k. .1. H A . : . . . . P. . .n a. _ .. . . — .r a. . . Mn. . n .. _ _ L -128— Table 58. Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether marketing cooperatives were more efficient. less efficient or about the same as other marketing businesses and by age. Age of farmers Opinion - 60 and expressed under 30 30-39 MO-HB 50-59 over Total More 28.3 2M.0 23.3 20.2 16.2 22.7 Same 71.7 76.0 79.8 85.8 77.3 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number‘ 53 10h 95 99 68 h19 l"In addition to this total 17 farmers said marketing cooperative! were less efficient than other marketing businesses. cooperative was more efficient than other businesses. The reason for this may be that the younger farmers had a chance to study cooperative marketing in their high school training and thus were better able to understand the marketing function of cooperatives. p . . n. . IN‘ N. ....‘l...1J a}? . . . .... {I'vIIIIlllu‘ll-i I.II .. . «vex u~.\. ..... 4:11.13. .39 . L. . h . . a... ... l . 1.- 5s-.. .. . Inn-u. . .... .129. Chapter VII. Characteristic Elements in the Loyalty of Members to Their Cooperatives One of the most important requirements for success of a cooperative is the loyalty of its members as measured by their willingness to support the cooperative by giving it their business. taking part in its organ~ ization. and promoting its activities. Cooperatives are not benefited much by a blind or fanatical loyalty to the association. because members having such a loyalty are not inp clined to be analytical or to demand the economy and skill in adminis- tration essential to success. A better loyalty is one based on underb standing of the policies and problems and a feeling of ownership. re- sulting from participation in the affairs of the association and from assisting it in meeting its problems or in facing any crisis that may develop.11h Loyalty can be partially measured by finding out what the beliefs of farmers are about cooperation and cooperatives, their reasons for doing business at the cooperatives. and whether they will voluntarily promote the organization. Some farmers criticized the officers. directors. and members of c00peratives in their communities for doing some or all of their busi- ness with non-cooperative organizations. A similar situation was discussed by H. E. Larzelere115 after he found that members of a co— m 221. 1:. 5. 115 LEIZeleree go Elie P. 19. -130. operative were not always patrons of their organizations. Whole— hearted support means that each member will constantly sell through his cooperative all of his products which the association markets and purchase through it all of his supplies which it handles. A member will be more loyal if he feels that he belongs or is a part of the cooperative through having a say in running it and feeling that he 13 a part—owner of the business. On this the solidarity of the :.' cooperative depends. The test of loyalty comes when cooperatives have to face crises such as membership losses, bad management, and unusual happenings which put the cooperatives at a competitive disadvantage. Confidence in the c00perative as a system of doing business and as a valuable part of the community will greatly enhance the success of the cooperative and its programs. Too much idealism of the values of cooperatives in the social system and too little realization of the financial and social limitations may impede the healthy development of an association. A balance between idealism and realism will probably bring satisfactory results. In this chapter. farmers' attitudes and Opinions will be analyzed to determine some of the characteristic elements in the degrees of 116 Some of the discussion will loyalty of members to their cooperatives. include nonpmembers as well as members because many times their good will and support is an important part of the cooperative '5 program. 115 For a discussion of loyalty as related to opinion of the principles of cooperation see Kanffman. gp. cit. Chapter VIII. -- :r m- ‘ .‘I‘F'Jkéfid 'r . - 431.. ’ 1. Support of Farm Supply Cooperatives when Their-Prices are Somewhat Higher Than at Other Businesses One indication of whether farmers are willing to financially support cooperatives is whether they are occasionally willing to pay a little more for an article at the cooperative than they would here to pay at other businesses. To determine farmers‘ attitudes toward supporting the cooperative by paying a little more at the time of pur— chase for an article at the cooperative. they were asked this question: “Do you think that a member should continue to buy from his farm supply co—op even though prices may sometimes be a little higher than at other businesses?".117 To emphasize only a small difference in price. the words. Wprices may sometimes be a little higher" were used. There was very little difference between the responses of members and non-members on this question. Sixty and two-tenths percent of the farmers said that a member should continue to buy from his farm supply cooperative when prices are sometimes a little higher than at other businesses. Thirty-nine and eight-tenths percent of the farmers stated that the members should not continue. This means that two—fifths of the farmers would not support cooperatives if they did not continue to meet their competition. These farmers are interested in present economic advantages from cooperatives. When cooperative prices are higher than at other places. they no longer will support them. The Grange League Federation‘s Audit118 reported that on a similar question Mh.7 percent of the farmers in their study said that they would continue to buy through their cooperatives even when they could get the III'Appendix A. suestion 20. 118 Grange League Federation. 92° cit. P. 5. . b I t _ F .... . . . ...ou. . .. t n .3... I“ ..l a . a. _ .... .. . -132. same'things cheaper e1 L s. 28.2 , --- ‘ said that they would not con» tinue to buy through their cooperative. An analysis of the characteristics of farmers answering this question fayorably and of those answering it unfavorably may show some factors influencing their opinion. They were compared by age. size of farm. sources of information about cooperatives. and amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year. Size of farm and amount of business done through cooperatives had no significant effect on their opinions. Age. A study of ages. however. as compared in Table 59. shows a sig— Table 59. Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether a member should continue to buy from his farm supply cooperative when prices are somewhat higher than at other businesses and by age Age of farmers Opinions 60 and expressed Under 30 30-39 MO-M9 50-59 over Total Should continue 57.2 It. 5 61.2 70A 68.9 62. 3 Should. not continue L1‘208 5.5 3808 2906 31.1 3707 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 56 11h 116 115 90 1491 nificant difference between the farmers who are less than 60 years old and those 60 years and over with respect to their opinions. Fifty—seven and nine-tenths percent of the farmers who were less than 60 years of age said that a member should continue and 68.9 percent of those 60 years of age and over said that a farmer should continue to buy from his farm supply cooperative when prices are somewhat higher than at other businesses. This means that the farmers 60 years of age and over were more favor— :‘n £04,; ~a' ~133- able toward cooperatives on this question than those under 60 years of S! age. Probably many of the farmers in the 60 years of age or over group helped to organize cooperatives from 1917 to 1921. when many were started, which would mean that they could remember the conditions in their comm- unities before cooperatives were organized and have seen failures and successes of cooperatives during price wars and depressions. Sources 2: Information About CooBeratives. Sources of information about cooperatives (Table 60) shows significant relationships with refer- Table 60. Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether a member should continue to buy from his farm supply cooperative when prices are somewhat higher than at other businesses and by sources of information about cooperatives Sources of information Farm pub- Coopers» . lications. tive meet- radio. and ings and Opinions At co- farm meet— Other publican expressed operative ings farmers tions None Total Should coup tinue 61.1 63.8 57.6 70.8 53.5 62.6 Should not continue 38.9 36.2 nan 29.2 M6.5 37.1; Total percent 10000 100.0 10000 10000 100.0 100.0 Total number 1m; 83 66 130 71 1+91+ ence to the opinions expressed by farmers. The most favorable group of farmers were those receiving their information from cooperative meetings and publicationS, of which 70.8 percent said members should continue to buy from their cooperatives even though the prices were sometimes a little higher than at other businesses. The least favorable group were those not receiving any information. of which 53.5 percent said farmers . ,.<- _1 A .i-ps.~ ‘5 ' ’13. «r. to Y ‘34, J ow: :z’ annl'fibfi'cf ~-';__- -.'--:.. aft-3:} l ,3 ' --(- ""'.::.I1“ .- -- “HAM-throw l .3 ‘_ . "- ..: .— .... --. ..1314- should continue to buy. There was not much difference among farmers receiving their information at the cooperative. from farm publications. radio. farm meetings. and from other farmers. About 61 percent of those said the farmers should continue to buy. Cooperative meetings and publications had a strong positive effect on the opinions of the farmers. However. the farmers receiving their in.- formation at the cooperative were not influenced much by their sources of information. It would seem that cosperatives interested in getting . better support. when it is necessary for their prices to be higher. would encourage attendance at their meetings and try to get more farmers to read their publications. The information given out by the managers and the workers at the cooperative should also be improved. 2. Support of Marketing Cooperatives when Returns are a Little Lower than at Other Businesses A question similar to the one Just discussed was asked concerning marketing cooperatives as follows: "Do you think that a member should continue to sell his products through his co—Op even though prices may sometimes be a little lower than at other businesses? ".119 The responses to this question were similar to those about support when farm supply prices were a little higher than at other businesses. Fifty-nine and nine—tenths percent of the farmers said that a member should continue to sell and ’41.1 percent said that they should not con— tinue. 120 The Grange League Federation also found that farmers responded 119 Appendix A. f.77.).estion 33. 120 Grange League Federation. 92. cit. P. 5. “F 435- nearly the same to questions about buying when.prices are higher and selling when prices are lower. Forty and eight-tenths percent of the farmers in their study said that the farmer should continue to sell through his cooperative even though he can get a higher price elsewhere. 27.3 percent said that it depends, and 31.9 percent said he should not continue to sell. Age. size of farm, and sources of information about cOOperetives did not significantly influence farmers' responses to this question. £52333 2: Business Epng Throggh Cooperatives. Amount of business done through cOOperatives during the past year as indicated in Table 51. Table 61. Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of whether a member should continue to sell his products through his marketing cooperative when prices are somewhat lower than at other businesses and by amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year Amount of business done Opinions $1000— $2000- $3000 expressed $0-N99 $500—999 1999 2999 and over Total Should continue 56.3 55.6 61.3 60.7 67.h 59,9 Should not coup tinue #3.? uu.u 38.7 39.3 32.6 no.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 1H2 90 111 56 95 ugh shows a slight tendency for a larger proportion of the farmers who do $3000 worth and over of business with cooperatives to say that a member should continue to sell his products through his marketing cooperative even though prices are somewhat lower than at other businesses. Sixty—seven and four-tenths percent of the farmers doing $3000 worth of business and over said that a member should continue to sell, compared to 58.2 percent ..136- of the rest of the farmers who said that the members should continue to sell. Even though these differences are not large enough to be signifi- oent. it is interesting to note that as the amount of business which a farmer did through cooperatives increased. he tended to become more favor-- able. Both of these questions in section 2 and 3 have indicated that about to percent of the farmers would not support a cooperative if it were unp able to maintain competitive prices. Members were slightly more favorable to this question than were nonpmembers. but the differences were not significant. This financial type of loyalty was commented on by Robotka who said that loyalty of the dollars and cents kind provided a poor foundation on which to build because it disappears as soon as the organization ceases to be the best bidder. thus destroying the stability of the organization. When the organization is under urgent stress to meet current bids of competition. it is in no position to undertake programs. adopt objectives. or to initiate improvements in marketing. the carrying out of which re— quires time and some experimentation but which in the long run builds results of a real benefit to farmers.121 3. Support of Cooperatives During Times of Membership Losses A test of the loyalty of members is what they do when the cooperap tive begins to fail. To find out what farmers in this study would do when their cooperatives began to lose money. they were asked: "Suppose you belonged to a co-Op and so many members dropped out that the co-op be- gan to lose money. Which of these things would you do: go out and help 121 Robotka. Tog. cit. P. 178. -137- get new members; vote to continue the co-op but on a smaller scale: drop your own membership; or vote to disolve the co-op‘l".122 The question appeared in this form in one—half of the schedules. On the alternate form. the farmer was asked what he would do in a free-response type of question which did not provide suggestions from which he could select his answer. However. answers not relating to those suggested were recorded in the categorized question. Thirty and one—tenth percent of the farmers said they would recruit new members for the cooperative. 21.1 percent said that they would in, vestigate to find the cause of members dropping out. 17.M percent said they would stick with the cooperative.and put more money in it. and 8.1 percent said the cooperative should get a new manager. This means that 77.8 percent of the farmers would support the coop- erative in some way when it is facing a crisis which makes it lose its members. However. only h7.5 percent indicated they would actively do something to improve conditions of the cooperatives. Twenty-two and two-tenths percent of the sample would drop out or Would dissolve cooperatives or reduce their Operations. There was very little difference between what members and non—members would do in this situation. It is interesting to see that 9.1 percent of the farmers felt that the manager was the fault of the cooperative's failing. The size of farm did not influence the farmers' opinion of what they would do as members of a cooperative which was losing money because mem- bers were dropping out. 959' There were a.few interesting differences among the farmers 122 Appendix A. Question 1+3. h I . _ l l t l s. q .0. .- ..:” u. r . .. u, . . n . s u f. 3 ... _ .... , - . l s ... II .... l [of n I15 .."I It}... i I . J V..l 7 \ 1:)d“ ”.83" I H .\ x ..l.‘ . -133. responding to this question when compared by age (Table 62). More of Table 62. Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of what they would do as members of a cooperative which was losing money because of members dropping out and by age Age of farmers Opinions 60 and 1 expressed Under 30 30-39 h0-h9 50—59 over Total Drop out. dissolve the coOperative. or reduce operations 18. 17.9 23.2 _20.0 31.8 22.2 Get new manager 7. 9.8 9.3 13.6 3.M 9.1 Find out cause 1h.8 22.3 2u.9 18.2 22.7 21.1 1 Stick with them and put in more money 14.8 1H.3 18.6 18.2 20.5 17.M Recruit new members HM.5 35.7 2M.o 30.0 21.6 30.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number* 5k 112 108 110 88 M72 I"In addition to this total. 12 farmers gave other opinions. the younger farmers. those under no years of age. said they would recruit new members. The proportions decreased from uh.5 percent of those under 30 years of age who would recruit to 35.7 percent of those 30 to 39 years of age to about 25 percent of those MO years of age and older who would recruit. A larger proportion (31.8 percent) of the farmers 60 years of age and over would drop out. dissolve the cooperative or reduce its operations than of those under 60 years of age (about 20 percent). It is difficult to explain why the farmers over 60 years of age would be least willing to help the cooperative and most willing to speed its disorganization or why the farmers under no years of age and espec- ially those under 30 were more willing to recruit new members. -:. ..‘]..‘I. u- - -—'—-o—~' n ' -1.m “ '1 . ---..-.1'- an“! 1 I\_' - , . . . . - W3: 0 - u v v n - - ' E", f 5:: f. . "7.! .. ‘ " . IJ'L. -139- Sources 25 Information About Cooperatives. The farmers responding to this question were compared by their opinions and by their sources of information about cooperatives in Table 63. The most significant Table 63. Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of what they would do as members of a moperative which was losing money because of members dropping out and by sources of in- formation about cosperatives Source s of information Coopera— Farm pub- tive meet- lications. ings and radio and Opinions publicap At co— farm meet— Other expressed tions operative ings farmers None Total DrOp out. dis- solve cooper- ative. or re- duce opera- tions 15.7 18.8 22.8 30.6 32.8 22.2 Get new manager 7.8 10.1 11.u 9.7 7.5 9.3 Find out cause 82.? 18.8 2502 20.9 17.9 21.]. Stick with them and put in more money 21.1 15.2 15.2 19.u 1h.9 17.3 Recruit new mem- bers - 32.7 37.1 25.u 19.h 26.9 30.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number* 128 138 79 62 67 u7u “Tn—addition to this total. 12 farmers gave other opinions. relationships were among the farmers who would drop out. dissolve the cooperative. or reduce its Operations as compared by their sources of information about cooperatives. The most favorable group were the far- mers receiving their information from cooperative meetings and publi— cations of which only 15.7 percent would drop out, dissolve the cooper- ative, or reduce its operations. The next most favorable group were the farmers who received their information at the cooperative. of which 18.8 so - . . .. . r _ .o m -. ”Mn. o q q . .. h. . s. . < nv . fl .. n I a. .... at. . .. . 1 q . . a 1 _ .s . 1:. o . r us . .. . . o. . p . _. . . I l e . ... ; _ a . WU V . n .. 1.. . . a.” I. r .v. a .m: .. . ...". "‘._-l. .. . .I . a... . a _. s n u e t .. .... .. . . “u I .- . .. .- J J u u.- 1...: . f .. . . .. .1. '1 I l . —1h0— tive. or reduce its operations decreased (Table 1h). ing any information of which 32.7 percent said they would drop out. tion have had a positive effect in decreasing the number of farmers percent reacted negatively. The least favorable were those not obtain— This indicated that the cooperative sponsored sources of informap who would drop out. dissolve the cooperative or reduce its operations. Amount 2: Business Eggs Throggh Cooperatives Egring 322 Egg: 2235. As the amount of business which farmers do through cooperatives increased. the proportion of the farmers who would drop out. dissolve the cooperap Forty percent of Table 6%. Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinions of what they would do as members of a cooperative which was losing money because of members dropping out and by amount of busi— ness done through cooperatives during the past year Amount of business done $100— $500. $1000— $2000. $3000 Opinions given $0—99 M99 999 1999 2999 and over Total 1 Drop out. dissolve. or reduce operap tions No.0 29.5 23.5 23.8 12.7 13.2 23.8 Get new manager 8.6 5.1 5.9 10.5 12.7 12.1 9.1 Find out cause 15.7 19.2 23.5 18.1 20.0 26.M 20.7 Stick with them and put in more money 15.7 11.5 11.7 20.0 20.0 21.9 16.9 Recruit new members 20.0 34.7 35.N 27.6 3N.6 26.M 29.5 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number"l 70 78 85 105 55 91 h *In addition to this total. 12 farmers gave other opinions. the farmers who did less than $100 worth of business would drop out, dissolve the cooperative. or reduce its operations. The percentage de- creased as the amount of business done through cooperatives increased, until only about 13 percent of the farmers doing business of $2,000 or —_ . . t a. _ t __ a . .. . . r x w u 1 a s I I ‘ 4 1 I h u v v C v u. v .- ..m. . . ... . . c .rn ..... . u 1 e s s I u u 4 n. . . _ in a, .fi. .‘ . . < . . ..n n. . . . a. .. .. ”on & ..— . v o .. a s c . . . h. . as“! If: ... ”..’. ‘- over reacted in this manner. Perhaps the small farmer would more likely want to get his money out if he felt that the cooperative would fail. because the amount in- vested as shares is a larger item proportionately to him than it is to the larger farmer. However, the smaller farmer should realize that the failure of a cooperative would put him in a more unfayorable position relatively than it would put the larger farmers because the larger far- mer having more volume can have more control over his buying and selling transactions. M. Feeling of Ownership A cooperative organization is owned by its members. The members. however. may not feel that they own any part of it. One reason for this may be that membership shares are usually small in comparison with the total value of the cooperative's plant and facilities. The member may feel that his part is too small a percentage of the total for him to be recognized as an owner. It is important for farmers to have a feeling of ownership if they are also to feel responsibility in the support of the cooperative. The feeling of ownership is generally accompanied by pride in one's organization and its program, which means more voluntary pro— moting will be done. To determine if the members of Michigan cooperatives felt they owned part of the cooperative. they were asked this question: "Do you feel that you are part—owner of the co—op you belong to”.123 Three—fourths (75.9 percent) of the farmers said they felt as if they were part-owners. and the rest did not have this feeling. 123 Appendix A. Part II. question 6. -112- 2” reported 59.h percent of The Grange League Federation's audit1 the farmerustockholders as saying they strongly felt that the Grange League Federation belonged to them. Stern125 reported in his study that less than one-eighth of the members spoke of the organization as if though they were a part of it. It is important for cooperatives to study their members to see why one—fourth of them do not feel they own the cooperative. Perhaps this one-fourth of the members also tend to be less favorable than other members on other parts of the cooperative program. In this study cooper— ative members were analyzed according to age. size of farm. sources of information about cosperatives and amount of business done through c00per- atives during the past year. The first two did not significantly in- fluence responses to the question. Sources 2: Information ébggt Cooperatives. A larger proportion (8M.l percent) of the farmers hearing about cooperatives through its meetings and publications felt that they were part-owners than did far- mers having other information sources as presented in Table 65. The next most favorable group was the members receiving their information from other farmers in which 80.5 percent felt that they were part-owners. About 71 percent of the farmers receiving their information at the coop- erative and from farm publications, radio, and farm meetings regarded themselves as partnowners. The most unfavorable group was those not re— ceiving any information of which 67.7 percent considered themselves part-owners. Cooperative meetings and publications had the best influence on the We Federation. 92. gig. P. 7. 125 Stern. 99. 933. P. 16. —1h3- Table 65. Percentage distribution of members by whether they feel they are part-owners of the cooperative: to which they belong and by sources of information about cooperatives Sources of information Farm pub- Cooperap lications. tive meet— radio and ings and "Part-owner" At co- farm meet— Other publica- feeling operative ings farmers tions None Total Yes 7006 72.5 8005 she]. 6707 7209 Nb 29.h 27.5 19.5 15.9 32.3 2 .1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number‘ 109 69 31 113 31 353 *Forty—two members were not asked this question. members in helping them to feel they were part—owners. However. some improvements could be made in the information given out at the cooperap tive so that it will have a better influence on members regarding owner- ship of the cooperative. Farmers receiving no information should be encouraged to attend meetings and to read information published by cooper- atives. Amount of Business 2253 Through Eggpgratives During the East 2323' The feeling of being part-owner of a cooperative increased as the members did more business through their cooperative as indicated in Table 66. Fifty-four and eight—tenths percent of the farmers doing less than $500 worth of business felt they were part—owners with the proportion in- creasing to 90.9 percent of those doing $3000 worth of business and over who regarded themselves as part-owners of cooperatives. This is easy to understand because the small farmer would feel that his business is too small a part of the total in the cooperative to matter. It would mi‘l 1.". . 5!:"I'JIVJ I . I I v I - I l . . 'I I . ' V ' I I- . _ - _ I -s I - I Q . J _ - I .. . I II I I II ‘- l I I . I I ‘ ' ... o ,_ . 1'- I I ~I I ~1hh— Table 66. ?ercentage distribution of members by whether they feel they are part—owners of the cooperatives to which they belong and by amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year Amount of business done ”Part-owner" $1000.. $2000— $3000 feeling $04199 $500-999 1999 2999 and over Total Yes 11.8 62.1 81. 5 81+.14 90.9 75.9 No 5.2 37.9 18.5 15.6 9.1 211.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number"l 62 66 92 #5 88 353 l“Forty-two members were not asked this question. seem important that cooperatives have a program reaching these smaller farmers which shows them that the larger farmers have no more votes than they do and that the amount of business done through cooperatives is not the criterion used to measure the contributions of members. ‘ 5. Feeling of Having a Voice in the Affairs of the Cooperative Similar to the part—ownership feeling in a cooperative is the feeling of having a say in the management of the cooperative. Members of coops were asked if they felt that they had a say in the way their cooperative was run.126 A smaller percentage of the members felt that they had a say in the way the c00perative was run than the percentage of the members who felt that they were part-owners. Sixty-eight and seven—tenths percent of the farmers responding to this question felt they had a say in the running of their cooperative. 126 Appendix A. Part II. ’Qaiestion 7. F— -115. An analysis by age and by sources of information about coopera~ tives showed no significant relationships. However. there were sig- nificant differences among the members when compared by other factors. §i§§ gflgggg. This comparison by size of farm showed a signifi- cant difference between the group of farmers having less than 50 acres and the group having 50 acres or more (Table 67). Fifty-three and two- Table 67. Percentage distribution of members by whether they feel they have a say in running the cooperative and by size of farm Size of farm "Having a Under 50 50—99 100-199 200 acres say" feeling acres acres acres and over Total Yes 53. 2 67.6 7M6 70.1 68.7 No 1+6.8 32$ 25A 29.9 31.3 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total. number" M7 105 126 67 3M5 *Forty-two members were not asked this question. tenths percent of the members having less than 50 acres felt they had a say in running their cooperative and 71.2 percent of the members having more than 50 acres felt this way. Amount 2: Business Qgpg Thrgugh Eggpgratives Buying the East XEEE' An influence similar to that of the size of farm existed in the amount of business done through cooperatives as indicated in Table 68. The pro— portion of the members feeling they had a say in the way the couperative was run nearly doubled as the amount of business which the members did increased.fr0m $u99 or less to $3000 or more. Sources 3; Information About Cooperatives. The differences are not large enough to be significant among the farmers indicating different sources Fgl, _1u6— Table 68. Percentage distribution of members by whether they feel they have a say in running the cooperative and by amount of busi- ness done through cooperatives during the past year Amount of business done "Having a $1000— $2000. $3000 say" feeling $0-h99 $500-999 1999 2999 and over Total Yes nu.3 58.5 73.9 73.3 86.2 68.9 Nb 55.7 M1.5 26.1 26.7 13.8 31.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number* 61 65 92 M5 87 350 l"Forty--two members were not asked this question. of information in Table 69. However. it should be noted that farmers receiving their information at the cooperative tended to be somewhat Table 69. Percentage distribution of members by whether they feel they have a say in running the cooperative and by sources of in- formation about cooperatives Sources of information Farm pub- Coopera- lications. tive meet- radio and ings and "Haying a At co— farm meet— Other publicap say" feeling Operative ings farmers tions None Total Yes 63.0 73.9 63.3 75.2 60.0 68.9 No 37.0 26.1 36.7 2h.8 no.0 31.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number* 108 69 30 113 30 350 *Forty-two members were not asked this question. less favorable than those naming other information sources. Most cooperatives in the United States follow the one—vote per mem— ber principle (about 86 percent of them according to the Farm Credit -1h7. Administration;27)-membsr. regardless of the number of shares owned or amouht of business done through the cooperative. has the same voice in its affairs. This principle. however. does not seem to be realized by smaller farmers because many of them feel that they are not part-owners and do not have a voice in the affairs of their cooperative. 6. Reasons that Members do Business Through Cooperatives Some of the previous discussion indicated what farmers thought of c00peratives as a system of doing business compared to other businesses in their communities. Many farmers indicated a belief in cooperation. and others stressed economic advantages of cooperatives. but pressure was not put on them in the interview to get them to decide which advenp tage was more important to them. economic or belief in cooperation. How; ever. near the end of the interview. members of cooperatives were asked specifically why they did business with cooperatives. They were asked to choose whether they did business because they believed in cooperatives or because it meant money to them. If they indicated both these reasons. their responses were recorded on the schedule. The question asked was: "Do you do business with your co-op mostly because it means more money to you or mostly because you believe in the idea of co<:’peration?“.128 Forty-two percent of the members said they did business with co- operatives because they believed in the idea of cooperation, 28.6 percent said it meant more money to them. and 31.2 percent gave both reasons. Size of farm. amount of business done through Cooperatives during 127 A Statistical Handbook of Farmers' Cooperatives. Washington. D.C.: __—__——.———_—-——___—__ Farm Credit Administration Bulletin 26. NovembEr 1938. P. 54. 128 Appendix A. Part II. Question 8. ' .f'I‘!ilfl .sllafllpl- ‘- .: . ' e . .'- . I I t c I I 'l. I l ’ .a ' ..‘ ( ‘ ‘ | ,I I - I n r . . I - o. n f ‘ u _ ‘ ' r: u .- | . . .... ‘- I A . -1Ms— the past year. and age did not significantly influence members' Opinions on why they did business through cooperatives. £53. Even though the relationships among the farmers according to age were not large enough to be significant, there was a downward trend in the proportion of farmers saying they did business through cooperatives both because it meant money to them and because they believed in the idea of cooperation. Table 70 shows that as the age of the members increased. Table 70. Percentage distribution of members by their reasons for doing business with their cooperatives and by age Age of members Reasons given Under 30 30—39 MO-N9 50-59 60 and over Total It means money 2301 2806 figs} 2709 29.5 egsb Believe in idea h.6 3n.5 .5 nu.2 nu.3 no.2 Both 2.3 36-9 29.2 27-9 26.2 31.2 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number"I 26 8M 89 86 61 3M6 l"Forty-two members were not asked this question. there was a tendency for a larger percentage of them to say they believed in the idea. This is demonstrated by an increase from 3H.6 percent of those under 30 years of age to Nu.2 percent of those 50—59 and HM.3 per- cent of those 60 years of age and over. Sources 2: Information ébgut Cooperatives. The reasons that members did business with their cooperatives compared by their sources of infor- mation about cooperatives, as presented in Table 71. showed several un- expected relationships. It would seem that the members who received their information from cooperative meetings and publications or at the cooperative would be more likely to do business because they believed in -1119- Table 71. Percentage distribution of members by their reasons for doing business with their cooperatives and by sources of information about cooperatives Sources of information Coopera~ Farm pub— tive meet— lications. ings and radio and. publicap At co- farm meet— Other Reasons given tions operative ings farmers Hone Total It means money 21.h 32.h 2h.6 38.7 #3.} 28.8 Believe in idea 11.1.1 no.0 blag 25.8 11.0.0 110.1 Both 37.5 27.6 30.5 35.5 16.7 31.1 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number" 112 105 69 31 3o 3M7 *Fbrty-tWo members were not asked this question. the idea of cooperation than members indicating other sources._ Also. fewer of the members receiving no information about cooperatives would be expected to have done business because they believed in cooperatives. However. more of the members (MH.9 percent) receiving information about cooperatives from farm publications. radio and farm meetings believed in the idea of cooperation than of those getting information at the'cooper- ative meetings, cooperative publications. and at the cooperative of which about “0.6 percent said they did business because they believed in the idea. Similar to the members receiving information from cooper- ative sponsored sources were those not receiving any information about cooperatives of which no percent said they did business because they be- lieved in the idea. Farmers receiving information from other farmers were least favorable with 25.8 percent of them doing business because they believed in cooperation. h_—_il -150- It should be noted also. that 32.h percent of the farmers who received their information at the cooperative said they did business because it meant money to them compared to a smaller percentage of about 23 percent of those receiving information from cooperative meetings and publications and from farm publications. radio. and farm meetings. Important deductions from the table are these: members receiving information from cooperative meetings and publications or at the cooper- ative have not been any more favorably influenced toward believing in cosperatives than those receiving information from farm publications. radio and farm meetings; a larger percentage of the members receiving infor- mation at the c00perative said they did business because it meant more money to them than would be expected if that source had influenced them toward thinking otherwise. 7. Voluntary Recruiting by Members The voluntary promotion resulting when farmers visit with other farmers has been recognized as an important method of securing new mem— bers in cooperatives. To discover whether the members of cooperatives in this study were promoting the cooperative idea to non-members. they were asked if all of their farmer friends or farmer relatives in their communities were members of cooperatives. Thirty-nine percent of the members said not all of their friends and relatives were members. These 39 percent were then asked if within the past year they had tried to interest any of their non—member friends in joining a cooperative.129 Twenty-eight and nine—tenths percent of the members responding to this question said they had tried to interest their friends and relatives 129 Appendix A. Part 11. Question 11. -151. in Joining a cooperative and 78.1 percent said they had not. It should be noted that at the time of this study some cooperan tives were not interested in increasing their memberships. Some of them were involved in patron relations problems resulting from not allowing any additional farmers to join. Losey'slBo study of the Grange League Federation showed that 32 per— cent of the farmers interviewed said they boosted the Grange League Federation to other persons. and h1.8 percent of the members urged others to patronize Grange League Federation agencies. An analysis of the data in this study showed no significant differ- ences for age. size of farm. and sources of information about cooperap Amount of Business Done Through Cooperatives During the Past Year. \ l tive 5. Table 72 shOWS members' answers to the question about getting other farmers Table 72. Percentage distribution of members by whether they tried to interest others within the past year in joining a cooperative and by amount of business done through cooperatives during the past year Amount of business done Voluntary , $1000— $2000— $3000 recruiting $0499 $500—$299 1999 2999 and over Total Yes 18.8 29.2 30.6 234.0 36.6 28.2 no 81.2 70.8 69A 76.0 63.x; 71.8 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number 16 2M 36 25 1+1 11a interested in cooperatives by the amount of business done through COOper- atives during the past year. The relationships in this table are not significant according to the chi square test of significance at the five 130 Losey. 92. cit.. in Anderson and Sanderson. 92. cit. P. 13. —_ '. . nil-'1 ”agha- wit-5' .51}... r “:2 i '1'": “fift-"lrih ' ”I . . C . l f f ‘ I ' ' ‘ 1 ‘ 1 ‘ ‘ I. C . I ' - ' . < - - ' I ‘ p . . -152- percent level. However. there was a tendency for a higher proportion of the members doing less than $500 worth of business to say that they did not try to interest others in Joining than for those doing more than $500 worth of business. Eighty-one and two-tenths percent of those doing less than $500 worth of business said they did not try to interest others compared to about 69 percent of the rest of the members. Also a higher percentage (36.6 percent) of the members doing $3000 worth of business said that they had tried to interest others in joining a cooperative compared to only twenty-five percent of those doing less business through the c00peratives. 8. Comparison of Cooperatives and Other Businesses During Low Periods in the Business Cycle If farmers have faith that their cooperative will pull through a business slump. they will be more likely to support it. and thus the cooperative's chances of pulling through successfully will be greatly enhanced. Farmers were asked a question concerning their opinion about the ability of a cooperative compared to other businesses to withstand successive poor business years. The question was: "If business were poor for a few years, which do you think would be more likely to pull through. a farmer-owned co-op or a business which is not a cooperative”.131 To offset the effects of the word, "fail". in the question. it was worded. "more likely to pull through". on alternating schedules. Eight and six-tenths percent of those responding said that farmer- owned cooperatives would be more likely to fail and 7M percent said that non-cooperative type of businesses were more likely to fail. Six percent 131 Appendix A. Part II. Question 13. 453- said either one. and ll.h percent said they did not know which would fail first.. When about three-fourths of the farmers. both members and nonnmembers. feel that the cooperative is better able to withstand a slump. it in- dicates that they have faith in the soundness of the financial structure of the cooperative. Seventeen and four-tenths percent are in-between and their faith in a cooperative's ability to remain in operation might be favorably influenced. With this faith. cOOperatives may be able to hold up through many nation—wide. poor business years. An analysis of the farmers responding to this question showed few significant relationships among the farmers according to the amount of business which they did through cooperatives during the last year or by their sources of information about cooperatives. However. farmers re- ceiving information from cooperative meetings and publications tended to be the most favorable group and those not receiving any information the least favorable group. £53. In this analysis. the farmers saying they did not know which would fail first and those saying both cooperatives and non—cooperative businesses have about the same chance of failing were not included be- cause of the small sample. The comparison by age showed a significant difference between the farmers under #0 years of age and those 60 years and older (Table 73). A smaller percentage of the farmers under N0 years of age said that the farmer—owned cooperative would be more likely to fail than of the farmers 60 years of age or over. The proportion of farmers feeling the cooperative would fail first increased from 5.2 percent of those under #0 to 10.“ percent of those Mo—hg, 1M.3 percent of those 50—59. to 16.9 percent of those 60 years and over. The reason for farmers f' .r. urn-975$}?! J-rr; I'- I l l . I — - A I I. V l‘ ‘ ..= , . I ' ¢ ', n .: " r» . .I .. I' 1 IL " i I ' _ I \ l-l - Y _ - -1514. Table 73. Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinion of which would more likely fail during poor business years. a farmer- owned cooperative or a non-couperative business and by age Age of farmers Opinion given Under No uo-hs 50.59 60 and over Total Farmer-owned cooperatives 5.2 1o.u 1n.3 16.9 10.3 Eon-cOOperstive business 9M.8 89.6 85.7 83.1 89.7 Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number‘ 155 96 an 71 ho6 l'This does not include farmers saying equal or don't know. 60 years and over being more skeptical of cooperatives during depression years may have been due to their exPerience with cooperatives in the early years of cooperative growth. Size 2; Farm. The percentage distribution of farmers by their opin- ions of which would be more likely to fail during poor business years. a farmer-owned cooperative or a non—cooperative business. in Table 7N. does Table 7%. Percentage distribution of farmers by their opinion of which would more likely fail during poor business years. a farmer- owned cooperative or a non-cooperative business and by size of farm Size of farm in acres Opinion given Under 50 50-99 100.199 200 and over Total Farmer—owned cooperative 901 5.6 1205 1707 10.6 Non—cooperative business 90.9 9h.u 37.5 82.3 89.h Total percent 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 Total number‘ 77 12h 1h; 62 M06 I"This does not include farmers saying equal or don't know. I ' "II. '-"""" I!» ..:. --'i I 455- not show any significant differences. However. there is a tendency for a. larger proportion of the farmers having 100 acres or more to say the cooperative would fail first than of those having less that 100 acres. Seven percent of those having less than 100 acres compared to 11% percent of those having over 100 acres said the cooperative would fail first. -156— Chapter VI II 0 Summary and Conclusions 1. Summary a. In this study. first-hand information was gathered about the kinds and amount of participation by farmers in Michigan agricultural coopera» tives and about the attitudes of farmers toward cooperatives. These attitudes were analyzed to reveal information which might be used by cooperatives in understanding and solving some of their problems in the field of membership relations. Five hundred Michigan farmers. in five general areas in the south, ern half of the lower peninsula in which 30 cooperatives functioned, were interviewed with the aid of a schedule. Three hundred ninety-five farmers were members of cooperatives and 105 were non-members. 0f the 395 members, #2 were "unaware members" or farmers who did not know they were members but who were discovered by Specific questions near the end of the interview. An average of 1.3 reasons for joining cOOperatives were given by members of which over one—half gave economic reasons. one—third became members through patronage refunds returned as share memberships and only about one-fourth indicated a belief in cooperatives as one of their main reasons for joining. Sinilar to these results were those concerning what all of the farmers considered to be the main advantages of cooperatives to farmers. Nearly three—fourths named economic advantages. about one— third named one or more services provided by their cooperatives. and one— sixth said that they were the farmers' own organizations. — ~157- Sevenyeights of the farmers who had some or all of high school were members of cooperatives compared to only three—fourths of the farmers having either less than high school or more than high school who were members. This meant that a larger proportion of the farmers who had some or all of high school were members than of those who had more school- ing or less schooling. Cooperative members tended to Operate larger farms than did non-members. Over»one—third of the members did not attend meetings of their cooperatives. Fewer of the smaller farmers and of the younger members did not attend meetings than of the larger farmers and of the older members. Over one—half of the farmers did not have any criticisms of cooper— atives. One out of every ten farmers stated that the cooperative was not a true cooperative and about one—tenth said doing business at cooperap tives was not an economic advantage. The most critical group of farmers were those from hO-h9 years of age who had nine or more years of schooling. Farmers operating larger farms and doing more business with coopera- tives generally were more favorable to cooperatives than those with less business or less acreage. They had a stronger ownership feeling and more of them felt that they had a voice in cooperative affairs. They con— sidered more favorable such things as owning and controlling the farm supply buSiness. receiving a share in business through patronage refunds. the importance of cooperatives serving as measuring sticks. and net costs of farm supplieS. However. they were more critical and tended to say‘ that cooperative-sponsored sources of information were not better than other sources. Over one-half of all the farmers said that the big farmers received the most benefit from cooperatives. and nearly all of the rest said there was no difference. ——— -153. Information about cooperatives given to farmers at cooperative meet- ings and in publications generally had a favorable influence on farmers' attitudes. but the information furnished at the cooperative did not inn fluence them. In general. farmers did not rate cooperatives better than other businesses on such things as efficiency, net returns. net costs. value to the community, and services rendered; instead. they tended to rate them equal. The farmers under 30 and those 60 years and over rated the importance of refunds much higher than did other farmers. Although generally the opinion of farmers was favorable to cooper- atives. two-fifths of them said they thought a member should not continue to patronize his cooperative if it did not meet current competition. This summary included some of the main findings of this study. which are discussed more fully in earlier parts of the thesis. Other more specific findings discussed in previous sections and in section or chap— ter summaries. may be as useful to cooperatives as these general findings. 2. Conclusions From the standpoint of action programs in the field of membership relations. generalizations can be made from these findings if consider— ation is given to the description of the sample and conditions of this study. Effective use of these data by cooperatives involves the recog- nition of variables and the proper adjustment for them in relation to the conditions under which the generalizations are to be applied. The consideration by cooperatives of some of these findings should result in a better understanding of their own membership relations prob- lems. Although it is true that there may be differences between this 459- sample and other areas where cooperatives might wish to apply the find.- .ings. this should not be looked upon as a weakness of the study. Ibr not only are these areas typical of many in the state but also it was hoped that one of the real contributions of the study to action research would be to initiate a recognition of existing problems Which would result in a desire for further more intensive. localized research on the part of managers. directors. administrators. and members of cooperatives. For example, a.portion of a report132 based on data collected in this study, which concerned the unaware members was read by an extension economist to officers and directors at a cooperative meeting. These officials immediately raised a question as to whether there were any members in their cooperatives who did not know they were members. This resulted in a discussion about their own membership and ways of making sure that their members realize their membership. Another example of parts of this study initiating a recognition of problems in cooperatiVes resulted when questions were asked and discuss- ions evolved among managers. officers and directors of local cooperatives after a report of this survey was presented to them at cooperative clinics.133 Several times. during these clinics. officers would raise the question: "I wonder what our members think about us?" "...about our service?" Some officers asked how much it would cost them to do a study in their areas. If resulting studies, regardless of their scope. are carefully i}§‘fi£§£§"fi?‘6§bson. "Co-ops as the Farmer Sees Them". East Lansing, Michigan: Social Research Service. Michigan State College, Iimeo- graph report. October 30. l9fi7. P. h. 133 A report of this survey was presented by Walter E. Boek to H76 farmers at cooperative clinics conducted in 10 different areas in Michigan, during February 19M8. for coonerative managers. officers. and directors. grub”. I . X); r. 1. , ..160- planned and executed and then carried thrOugh with the‘adoption of c00per— ative policies based on the results of that research. and. if the results enhance the success of the cooperative. it will establish a precedent of successful understanding and solving of membership relations problems which may be a boon to many other cooperatives. This study presented data concerning the broad membership relay tions problems faced by cooperatives. In the analysis of the data. some of the inherent elements influencing the attitudes and opinions of farmers toward cooperatives were discussed from the standpoint of human motivation and the understanding of the social—psychological aspects of human re— lations. Several problems have evolved from the analysis which were not answered by the data collected. It would seem that further research in the field of membership relations should attempt to answer some of these questions. Perhaps one of the fundamental things which should be determined Concerns the belief by farmers in cooperatives. The questions which a consideration of this brings up are: What does the farmer mean when he says that he believes in cooperation? What does he mean when he says that a cooperative which begins to fail is not a true cOOperative? These terms. "belief in cooperation". "like the cooperative idea". "it isn't a true cooperative". are often used by farmers; yet, before they can be used in analyzing opinions and attitudes, their meaning should be care- fully studied. A study of this involves an analysis of the sentiments and values of the farm people. Several answers to these questions can be suggested but they need to be tested. One hypothesis might be that farmers have an abstract emotional idea about cooperatives which is not what they discover -161- in an actual cooperative. Therefore. when a cooperative begins to fail they tend to say that it is not a true cooperative. meaning that it does not meet the abstract ideal cosperative which exists only in their minds. Another hypothesis might be that a belief in cooperatives is a belief in greater economic returns. or more security. or some social satisfaction which they feel they receive from cosperatives. It would be interesting to discover whether the older farmers mean the same things as the younger farmers when they say they believe in cooperation. Perhaps there are differences because the younger farmers. being instilled with the competitive spirit in their schooling, think that their individual resources are enough to secure their needs in the free competition which they believe exists. whereas the older farmers have tried to compete for many years and have discovered that there were limitations to the existence of free competition and that cooperatives were a solution to some of their problems. This study showed that older farmers tend to go to more cooperative meetings than do younger farmers. Perhaps they have found that the social atmosphere of the cooperative meeting satisfies one of their psychological needs. One of the things which was not discussed in this study was the kind of social values. if any. which are inherent in cooperatives. In a con— sideration of social values. the type of cooperative should be considered because some cooperatives would reduce social interaction. For example. 31+ Larzelere.1 in a study of the commission type of marketing cooperatives 135 H. E. Larzelere. Costs of Marketing Fruits and vegetables ig the Columbus Wholesale Curb Market. Columbus. Ohio: Unpublished master's thesis. Ohio State University, 193M. . .wq {v .1 HI}! .2311?! .w Fr. .lill:llul '1‘" l“. y i —162- in Ohio. found that some farmers did not join the commission house co- operative because they liked to go into the public market and sell their produce. The excitement and tension and social interaction was worth more to those farmers than the time saved and the other advantages of the commission house. However, livestock auctions organized by cooper- atives might have the effect of increasing social interaction. I Another fundamental problem which needs some consideration in mem- bership relations research is what farmers consider membership in a cooperative to be. Some suggestions are that to some farmers membership in a cooperative means sharing in the voting and administrative respon- sibilities of a community enterprise. Other farmers may consider it as meaning a share in the economic returns from the cooperatives. A study that considers this problem should be more intensive and more explicit than the discussions of the reasons farmers joined cooperatives or why they did business at cooperatives presented in this thesis. Generally when a cooperative is first formed. attendance at organi— zational meetings is high and much enthusiasm is displayed. Later the attendance and the interest decreases. Eor example the Red Cedar Con— sumer Cooperative of students and faculty at Michigan State College, at its organizational meetings drew enough people to fill a recreational hall. but now it is difficult for its officers to secure a quorum at its meetings. Other organizations have life cycles similar to this.135 The reasons for this great enthusiasm and its decline should be studied. An hypothesis is that cooperatives and other organizations in the minds of people are abstractions which are much different from what lig‘FEF‘E‘EEEEEssion of life cycles of institutions see: Francis S. Chapin. Contemporary American Institutions. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1935. Part II. h;— '.uas} _ ' t \r "v ’t-h ’ A» P”. m L' S-‘-' 3‘ (if: I ~ .1 own , 463- exists when the organization is functioning. When the members discover the difference between their ideal and the reality. they may begin to lose interest and stop attending meetings. Another hypothesis as to why some poeple Join at first is that they may feel that they are needed and that their contributions and ideas are necessary in selecting the kind of organization which will meet their needs. After this policy is formed. they may feel they are no longer needed. Perhaps people join at first because they want social recognition and prestige. They desired to be elected, thus being recognized by their society. If they do not achieve this, they become inactive members. Later they do not attend meetings because they are afraid of not being elected. It may be that they rationalize and actually look down on the people who do attend and are not elected to official positions. Another hypotheses might involve the study of clique groups.136 At the first organizational meeting of a cooperative. the attendance con- sists of many different clique groups from the different neighborhoods and communitieS, each with their own leaders. The leaders of these clique groups may be on an equal footing at the first meetings before any offi- cers are elected. Since all of the clique leaders cannot be elected to the offices, some of the leaders 0f the cliques after the election would necessarily be in a subordinate position to those elected. Therefore, communication of ideas and action would go to the individual clique members ‘ directly. by—passing existing clique leaders. This could not be toler- 136 For a discussion of the importance of small groups in rural areas see: ated by the clique leaders because it reduces the importance of their former Charles P. Loomis. Studies 9: Rural Social Organization. 92' cit. \ 46!»— position by decreasing the dependence of clique members on them. Therefore it would be desirable for them to remain away from the meet— ings so that they would not have to participate in the situation of losing prestige by acting on the same level as the members of their group. Perhaps at the organizational meetings of cooperatives. the soli- darity of the group results from an external force. such as the lack of a. desired service or the large profits taken out of farmers' income by middlemen or dealers. After the causes of the solidarity decreases in importance. the group begins to disintegrate. Later. new crises may arise from without in the form of resistance to the cooperative. such as the recent proposed cooperative tax. This opposition tends to re- unite the members. and their interest and enthusiasm is strengthened. These elements just discussed are suggested as items which might be considered in planning for future studies. The hypotheses suggested have not been tested by the data collected in this study. but it is hoped that they may and further researchers in this field. .. dlwhvhtqlft . ll ‘ '1“ yICIt Ir.n -165- Bibliography Books Anders, Orne. Co-operative Ideals 229 Problems. Manchester: Co- operative Union, itd., T937. Croston, F. E. and Cowden, D. J. Applied General Statistics. Prentice Hall, New York, l9h6. Emelianoff, Ivan V. Economic Theo 23 Coopgration. Ann Arbor, Michi- gan: Edwards Brothers, Inc., Igfi2. Loomis, C. P. Studies gf Rural Social Organization i3 thg'United States, Latin America and Germggy. East fins ng, Mic gen: State College BooE Store, 1953: Lundberg, G. A. Social Research. New York: Longmans, Green and Com- pany, 19h2. Sanderson, Dwight. Rural Sociolo E23 Rural Social Organization. New York: John Wiley and Sons, I9E§. Bulletins and Articles Anderson, W. A. and Sanderson, Dwight. Membershi Relations in Coo era- tive Organizations. Ithaca, New York: CorneIE UBIversity’IgricuI- tural Experiment Station Mimeograph Bulletin 9, April l9h3. Annual Report. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Association of Farmer Cooperatives, August 19h7. A Statistical Handbook 2: Farmers' Coo eratives. washington, D. C.: Farm Credit Administration—Eulletin 53, November 1938. Babcock, H. E. "Cooperatives, the Pace—Setters in Agriculture". (December 193k). Ithaca, New York: Mimeograph publication (wp 36: 126-er) for Business Organization 126—-Cooperative Marketing-— a course of the Agricultural Economics Department, Cornell University. Beagle, J. Allan and Loomis, C. P. "Life Cycles of Farm, Rural-Nonfarm, and Urban Families in the United States as Derived from Census Materials". Rural Sociology, XIII, March l9h8. Bradley, W. L. Audits g; Aggicultural Coo eratives. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: American Institute of Cooperation, July l9h5. -166- Chapin. Francis S. Contmorfl American Institutions. Part II. New York: Harper and Brothers. 1935. Clayton. C. F. and Horner. J. '1‘. Farmers' Cooperative Meg fl Sellig Organizations 35 Michigan. East Lansing. Michigan: Michi— gan Agricultural Esperiment Station. Special Bulletin 171. 1928. Clement. S. L. .5113. Organization. Practices. £6. Membership Participa- tion o_i[ E North Carolina Farm Cooperatives. Raleigh. North Caro- line: The North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 311. July 1937. Farmer Cooperatives 531 Michigan. St. Paul. Minnesota: St. Paul Bank for Cooperatives. 1937. Fetrow. Ward W. Cooperative Marketing 21; grimltural Products. Wash- ington, D. C.: Farm Credit Administration. Cooperative Division. Bulletin 3. February 1936. _ Fetrow. Ward W. Three Principlej 2;: grimltural Cooperation. Washing- ton. D. C.: Farm Credit Administration. 19 5. Gibson. D. L. "The Clientele of the Agricultural Extension Service". East Lansing. Michigan: Article 26.no. May 19th. Reprinted from Michi an griculturel Experiment Station 'Suorterlz Bulletin 26. Iv 19ml. ""— Gibson. D. L. "Co-ops as the Farmer Sees Them“. East Lansing. Michigan: Social Research Service. Mimeograph report. Michigan State College. October 30, 19u7. Grange League Federation. Audit 2: Farmers' Attitudes. Report on Research Project Number 1 for Manager's Conference. July 12. 19M. Hauck. C. '.v’. and Lerzelere. H. 3. Cost; 2;: Marketipg Fruits and Vege— tables 25 the Columns Wholesale Curb Market. Ohio: Ohio Experiment Station. Wooster. Mimeograph Bulletin. 1935. Homing. George F. and Poling. Earl P. Attitudes 3i; Farmers Toward Cooperative l-ierketigg. 'vfooster. Ohio: Ohio Agricultural Emeri— ment Station Bulletin 606. September 1939. Hill. E. B. Tarp, es of Farming la Michigan. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Special Bulletin 206 (Revised), June 1939. Hulbert. H. H. Organization and Operation 9_f tile Illinois Livestock Marketiag Association. Washirvton. D. .3 Farm Credit Administra— tion. Cooperative Division, Bulletin 5. May 1936. John. Mscklin E. Fact9_r_s_ Influencing Fermers' Attitudes Toward g Coonerative Marketing Orvenin-tion. State College. Pennsylvania: __._.J._———— - ._9_._ Pennsylvania Agricultural Fineriment Station Bulletin 1.157. 19’43. v e t c c r r x . . . . V . _ . . . r . . e r . . . . t . . y i . . r . . . . s . . r . . . l . , ~ . V Y . . . f . . n t . , t ,1. .L. f , i. :x t u to. r e r... . . c z ...-«z x e u. C. I t t, i . , e n x i .s. S a . . , 4 , , e i . i . m. .5 W . an . I ...... :4. .. J o . l 1. I a! . . .n. in! t . . ., 1 n. l .» .. ,w . th , -167. Jones. J. tn Membership Relations 2; Cogperative Associations. Wash- ington. D. C.: Farm Credit Administration. Cooperative Division. Bulletin 9. October 1936. Larzelere. R. E. Financial Management Analzsis 2; Farmers' Cooperatives 32 Michigan. East Lansing. Michigan: Michigan State College Agri— cultural Experiment Station. Special Bulletin 315. May lguz. Loomis. C. P. 222 Growth 2; £22 Farm Family 33 Relation 32 its Acti- vities. Raleigh. North Carolina: Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 298. June 193k. Miller. B. W. "The Place of Public Relations in Business". Reprinted from Business Administration. New York: American Institute of Banking. 19E . Morgan. E. L. and Gearreald, T. N. Farmer Cooperation 12 Southwest Virginia. Blacksburg. Virginia: Virginia Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 331. March 1931. Motts. G. N. Fruit 22$ Vegetable Cooperatives ip Michigan. East Lansing. Michigan: Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station. Special Bulletin 317, June 19u2. Robotka. Frank. Cooperative Organization pf Iowa Farmers' Creameries. Washington. D. C.: Farm Credit Amninistration. Cooperative Division. Bulletin 1h. April 1937. Robotka. Frank. Membership Problems Eng Relationships ip Iowa Farmers' Elevators. Ames. Iowa: Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 321. July 193u. , Salter, L. C. and Morgan. E. L. Farmeg Cooperation 13 Northern Alabama. Auburn. Alabama: Alabama Polytechnic Institute Agricultural Experi— ment Station Bulletin 2M9. March lgul. Sandage. C. H. "Survey of Opinion of Farm Families Toward Retail Farm Supply Stores in Indiana". Urbano. Illinois: Farm Research In- stitute. December 1997. Scanlan. John J. Business Analysig 2: the Utah Poultrz Producepg Cg? operative Assggiation. Washington. D. C.: Farm Credit Administra— tion. Cooperative Division. Bulletin 19. December 1937. Stern. J. K. Membership Problems in E M113 EEIketiEE Organization. State College. Pennsylvania: The Pennsylvania State College Bulletin 256. May 1930. Stitts, T. G. and Langhlin. Gordon C. Economic Analysis 9; Bargainipg PrOblems 2: Milk Cooperatizgg. Washington. D. C.: Farm Credit Administration. Cooperative Division. Circular C-loh. April 1937. -168- Stitts. T. G. and Laughlin. Gordon C. Organization £9 @eratig Prob- lems of Nebraska Cooperative Creameries. Washington. D. C.: Farm 3 Credit Administration. Cooperative Division. Bulletin 11. March 1937. Thaden. J. F. "Ethnic Settlements in Rural Michigan". Michigan £131- cultural Eeriment Station anrterlz Bulletin. max. 2. November 1946. Thaden. J. F. "The Farm People of Michigan According to Ethnic Stocks: 1915". East Lansing. Michigan: Michigan State College map. United States Census 9}: grimlture. 1911-5: Em Population and Labor. II. Chaoter V. Washington. D. C.: United States Government Printing Office. 19h7. United States Census 91 gg‘ riculture. 1945: Michigan. I. part 6. Wash- ington. D. C.: United States Government Printing Office. 1914-7. Walden. William C. and Stitts. T. C. Milk Cooperatives 22 Four Ohio Mar- kets. Washington. D. C.: Farm Credit Administration, Cooperative Division. Bulletin 16. April 1937. Zimmerman. C. C. and Black. J. D. The Market Attitudes 93 Minnesota Farmers. St. Paul. Minnesota: Minnesota Agriculturé. Experiment Station Technical Bulletin M5, 1926. The se 3 Diehl, Wilbur W., Jr. The Use of Crop Contracts ‘31 Producers‘ Coopera- tive Associations. East Lansing, Michigan: Unpublished master's thesis. Michigan State College. lgho. ———_———_ zations in the New York Milk Shed. Ithaca. New York: Unpublished __.—...____—___._— doctor's dissertation. Cornell University. 19 . Kauffman, Howard. The Principles o_f Operations 9; Farmers' Coopera- tives _a_§ Viewed bx Michigan Farmers. East Lansing. Michigan: Un- published master's thesis. Michigan State College. 19148. Klgman. Saul B. The Revolvipg Fund Plan 2:: Cooperative Financing _an_d its Application i3 Michigan. East Lansing. Michigan: Unpublished master's thesis, Michigan State College. 1942. Larzelere. H. E. Costs 9_f_ Marketing Fruits and Vegetables jg the Columbus Wholesale Curb Market. Columbus. Ohio: Unpublished master's thesis. Ohio State University. 193%. MacPherson. Donavon Dale. Cost o_f Credit Extension in Reoresentative Michigan Agricultural Coooeratives. East Lansing. Michigan: Un— published master's thesis. Michigan State College. 191+2. APPENDIX A. Date 1947 Form Interviewers ' A Initials MICHIGAN MEMBERSHIP RELATIONS OF MICHIGAN SOCIAL STATE FARMERS. COOPERATIVES RESEARCH COLLEGE SERVICE Schedule Draft IX, July 20, 1947 name is .... and I am with the Social Research Service of Michigan State College. We are making a study of what farmers think about cooperatives as a way to help farmers with their buying and selling problems. Would you be willing to talk with For code me a few minutes about cooperatives right now? Number Schedule Number 1-5. First, have you had any kind of experience with co—ops? léYes( ) 2—No( ) 4. In general, do you think that co-ops are a good thing or a bad thing for farmers? l—Good thing( ) 2—Bad thing( ) S—Don't know( ) 5. What would you say are the main advantages of co—ops for farmers? Schedule No. What are your criticisms of co—ops? 7, In general, how would you say that farmer-ouned co-ops compare with 8. other businesses? Would you say that CO—Ops are doing a better job, a poorer job, or about an equal job of buying and selling for farflJrs? l—Better job( ) 2-Poorer job( ) 5—Equal job( ) 4~Don't know( ) I'd like to aSK you a few questions about farm supply co-ops or 9. purchasing co—ops; that is, the kind that farmers organize to buy supplies for its members, suco as seeds, feeds, fertilizers, etc. In general, do you feel t.at the net costs of farm supplies to members of farm co—oos are hifher, lower, or about the same as the net costs of purchases made at other businesses? 1.51gher( ) 2-Lower( ) S-About the same( ) 4-Don't know( ) , _. n-—-o;!l.u-‘.11h3;"3' 319E271“: 1‘31““ —2- (If “higher" or "lower") How important do you feel these 10. lower (higher) prices are as an advantage (disadvantage)of farm supply co-ops? Do you feel that they are very important, important, or not im ortant? _ l—Very important( y 2—Important( ) S-Not important( ) 4-Don't know( ) What do you think about the quality of the supplies which co-ops ll. handle for farmers? Do you think it is better, poorer, or about the same as those handled by other businesses? lsBetter( ) 2—Poorer( ) S—About the same( ) 4—Don't know( ) (If "better" or "poorer") How important do you feel this better 12. (poorer) quality is as an advantage (disadvantage) of farm sup- ply co-ops? Do you feel that it is very important, important, or not important? l-Very important( ) 2—Important( ) S-Not important( ) 4-Don't know( ) Now I'd like to ask you about the service of farm supply co-ops 15. as compared with other businesses. By service I mean deliveries of orders, special orders, courteous treatment by the manarers and clerks, and things of that kind. In general, do you feel that the service of farm supply co-ops is better, poorer, or about the same as other businesses? l—Better( ) 2—Poorer( ) S-About the same( ) 4—Don't know( ) (If "better" or "poorer") In what way? (If "better" or "poorer") How important do you feel this better 14. (poorer) service is as an gdygntgge (dissdzaniags) of farm sup— ply co-ops? Do you feel that it is very important, important, or not important? l—Very important( ) 2—Important( ) S-Not important( ) 4-Don't know( Some farmers say that farm supply CO—Ops should provide better 15. service than other kinds of business even though it minht mean that the patronage refunds would have to be lower. Do you agree with that statement, or not? l—Agree( ) 2—Disagree( ) S-Don't know( ) Some people say that one of the advantages of farm supply co—Ops 16. is that farmers can own and control the business which serves them. Would you say that this is very important, important, or not im- portant as an advantage of farm supply co-ops? l—Very important ( ) 2~Importent( ) S-Not important( ) 4-Don't know( Some people say that farm supply co-ops help farmers because 17. they are a sort of "measuring StiCK" with which farmers can comparn the price, qufility and service of other businesses. Would you say that this is very important, important, or not important as an advantage of farm supuly co—oos? l-Very impor— tant( ) 2-Important( ) E—dot important( ) 4-Don't know( ) _-5- It is sometimes said that farm supply co-ops give farmers a 18. share in business through patronage refunds. Would you say that this is very important, important, or not important as an advantage of farm supply co—ops? l—Very important( ) 2\—Important( ) 5-Not important( ) 4-Don't know( ) DD you feel that farm supply co-ops should make it a general 19. practice to sell at lower prices in the first place rather than give refunds later? lJYes( ) 2—No( ) S-Don't know( ) Do you think that a member should continue to buy from his 20. farm supply co—op even though prices may sometimes be a little higher than at other businesses? l—Should continue( ) 2—Should not continue( ) S-Don't know Are non—members allowed to trade at the farm supply co—ops you 21. know about? l-Yes( ) 2—No( ) 5—Don't know( ) (If nyes") Do you think that they get the same service as 22. members? lJYes( ) 2—No( ) S—Don't know( ) (If "yes") Do you know whet er non-members get patronage 25. refunds? l-Yes( ) 2-No( ) S-Don't know( ) Now I'd like to ask some of the same kinds of questions about 24. marketing co-ops that i have just asked about farm supply co—ops. By marketing co—ops i mean co—ops which farmers or- ganize to process and sell products for them, such as milk, fruit, livestocn, beans, etc. In general, would you say that marketing co-ops as compared with other businesses, net the farmer more money, less monev or about the same amount of money for his products? l-More( 2—Less( ) F-About the sane( ) 4—Don't know( (If "more" or "less") how important do you feel these higher 25. (lower) returns are as an adventeae (disadvantage) of market— ing co-ons? Do you feel that it is very important, imQOrtant, or not importsnt? l-Very import:nt( ) 2—Important( ) S—Not important( ) 4-Don't know( How about the efficiency with which a marketing co—op operates as 26. compared with other narrating businesses? Would you 3:? that the marketiny co—ops are more efficient, less efficient, or about the sane as o+her businesses? l—morek ) E—Less( S—About the sa’:e( ) 4—Don't lmov:( ) (If "more" or less") How important do you feel this efficiency 37. (inefficiencv) is as an advanthge (disadVSntnre) of marketing 00-033? Do you feel th t it is very important, important, or not important? l-Very important( ) E-Important( ) S—Aot ineortant( ) 4-Don't know( ) —4- How about the services of marketing co-Ops as compared with 28. other marketing businesses on such things as grading, pro— cessing, testing, trucking, etc.? Would you say that the service of co—ops is better poorer, or about the same as other businesses? 1-Better( ) 2-Poorer( ) 5-About the same( ) 4rDon't know( (If "better" or "poorer") How important do you feel this 29. matter of better (poorer) service is as an advantage (dis— advantage) of marketing co-Ops? Do you feel that it is very important, important, or not important? l-Very impor- tant( ) 2—Important( ) S-Not important( ) 4-Don't know( ) Some people say that one of the advantages of marketing co-ops 30. is that farmers can own and control the business which serves them. Do you feel that this is very important, important, or not important as an advantage of marlcetin" co-ops'? l-Vew important( ) 2—Important( ) S—Not important( ) 4—Don' t know( ) Some people say that marketing co—ops help farmers because 51. they are a sort of "measuring stick" with which farmers can compare the price, efficiency, and service of other market— ing busi1nsses. Would you 3w: that this is verv important, important, or not imnort— ntc an advah_ag e of marketing co—ops'? l-Very importe.nt( ) 2—Important( ) 5—Not impor- tant( ) 4-Don't £30W< Some people say that maraetinfi co-ops help farmers becruse 52. they give farmers a share in business throurh patronage re— funds. Would vou saw, tb:-t this is verv important, importmlt, or not 1r~ortc11 as an adv ~ igzz _e of marz=ting co—Ops? 1‘V92Y important( ) k—Imoortaa+( ) S-Not important( ) 4-Don't know( ) Do you think that a mailer should continue to sell his products throufh his co-oo even thou h prices may sometimes be a little lower than at 0+.ler b_;si1esses? CH } l-Yes( ) 2—No( ) S-Don't kaow( ) \ \ In :enerai, 60 you feel’31 that a furnnr should be allowed to ' E4. ‘ jOin or drop out o. a mar (oting co-op any time he pleases or should be be rerni1en to have a contrac+ "his” runs for an agreed oeriod of time? l—Any time< ) E—Contrect( ) é-Dewoafs( ) 4—Don‘t know( ) (If "contract" or "depends") that kind of reru lire-neq+s for fettini in and out do you think would work best? -5- I have asked you pretty much the same kinds of questions about farm supply co-ops and marketing co-ops separately. Now I'd like to have you compare those two types. Which of these two kinds of co—Ops which we have been talking about do you think heops the farmer most; the fann supply co-op or the marketing co—op? l—Farm supply( ) 24Marketing( 5—Equal( ) 44Neither( ) 5-Don't know ) (If "farm supply" or "marketing") Why do you feel that way? How would you rate co—ops as to their value to the community in comparison with other businesses? Would you say that co—ops are a greater asset than other businesses to the community, not as much of an asset, or about the same? 5 5 l-Greater( ) 2-Less( ) S—About the same( ) 4-Don't know( ) Some people say that co-ops help farmers because they give out sounder information about new farming ideas than other kinds of businesses do. Would you say that co—Ops do a better job, a poorer job, or about the same job as other businesses in giving out sound information about new farming ideas? l-Better( ) 2-Poorer( ) E—About the same( ) 4-Don't know( Some people say that co-ops help the farmer because they aren't as likely to "gyp" the farmer as other businesses are. Do you agree with this statement, or not? l—Agree( ) 2-Disagree( ) Z-Don't know( Do you feel that the emplovees of co-ops are more efficient, less efficient, Or about the same as the employees of other businesses? 5 z u 6. 7. 8. ) 9' ) 40. 1—uore( ) ?—Less( ) 5—About the same( ) 4—Don't know( In general, do you feel that the managers of co-Ops should have farm bacxgrounds, or not? lJYes( 2—No( ) Z-Don't know( ) In general, do you feel that anegers or officers of co—oos should belong to local business or service clubs, or not? lAYes( ) 2-d0( ) E-Don't know( ) Supoose you belonged to a co-op and so many members dropped out that the co—oo began to lose monQJ. Which of these things would you do: Go out and help get new members; vote to con- tinue the co—op but on a smsller scale; dron your own membership: or vote to dissolve the co—op? l—Recruit( ) Z-Reduce oper( s—Drop out( ) 4—Dissolve( ) s-D. I.( ) ) -3- (6n alternate schedule Question 45 appeared in this form: Suppose you belonged to a co—op and so many members dropped out that the co—Op began to lose money. What do you think you would do? -) Do you think that co-0ps should let anyone join who wants to" l-Yes( ) 2—No( S-Don‘t 1cnow( ) 44. (If "no") What sort of persons shouldn't be allowed to Jom‘? -. _.) Do you think that farmers who don't belong to co-ops get any bene— fit from them? l—Yes( ) 2-No( ) (If “yes") In w. n-P. 45. S-Don't know( ) Lat way? Some farmers ssv they can't afford to belong to a co—Op because 46. they would have to ha.ve too much money tied up in it. Do you agree with that statement, or not? 1-Agree( ) 2—Disagree( ) —Don't know( ) which kind of farner do you think gets the mos+ benefit from 47. belons in: to a co—op; tI_e min with E bi“? rm, or the mcn with a small f'frrm, or do vou feel that there isn' t much difference? l—Biff Hr er( ) E—Small far..ler( ) E—Ho differe-qce( ) _—Don‘t know( ) (If "big“ or "smell") Thy do you thing so? Do you think that the frovt._o cit! conr ,umer 00—03: v -ich are 48. . organized'fir citr onKle to handle food, clothing services, etc. ' for their Jembers is a5 inst the Lest interests of firmer co— ons, or not? b / l—Y es ) .~.--).\ 0 \ ) E—Don't know( ) (On alternate sc souls Question 48 aooe;reo 1n t”lS 1orn- you thini‘c that f."‘e (frouL C7? (”1+2"— Do 1 ! consuuer ‘O—OWS rhich are . é ’ or'rnized b; citr neonle +0 rendie fooo, clothiny, Servi093’ qtc. for their members is workin for the nest interests of f ruers, ' or not? l—Yes( i—Ho u~Don't know( ).) When a voiel is jeid at co—on meeting do you thinn *b“ neuter should W1a ejust vote for e = tuat each 49. one vote 2; should c—ach me..1be r hn"e a ever" u . re of stocs he ovns? l—One vote per .nember( ) i—Une vote oer S ~-:.=re( ) E—Don't know( ) -7. Do you think that co—ops should be set up so that the more 50. business a man does with it the more votes he should be allowed to cast at meetings? léfes( ) 2—No( l 5-Don't know( ) Suppose a co—op needed to increase its capital. Which of 51- these things do you think it should do: Borrow money from a bank 9; pay its patronage refunds in the form of shares of stock rather than cash? l—Borrow from bank( 2-Pay refunds in stock( ) 5—Both( ) 4-Don't know( ) ., 52- When a co—op wants to get new members, which of these ways 55. do you think it should use: Hold back the patronage refunds of new purchasers until they have enough to pay for their membership 2; go out and sell memberships directly to farmers? l-Hold back refunds( ) 2—Sell memberships( ) 5-Don't know( ) When a co-op has a surplus at the end of the year,,who do 54. you think should get most of it: The stockholders through dividends on stock 93 the patrons through refunds on the business they did? l-Stockholders( ) 2-Patrons( ) S-About equa1( ) 4—Don't know( We take it for granted in this country that ordinary busi- 55. uses is out to make a profit. Do you think of co—ops as typical profit—making businesses, or not? lAYes( ) 2—No( ) S—Don‘t know( ) A business which pays out its earnings only to stockholders 56. has to pay an income tax on these dividends to stockholders. If a co-op pays refunds to members on the basis of patronage do you think it Should be required to pay an income tax on these refunds? l-Yes( ) 2—Ho( ) S—Don't know( ) A business which holds bac; some of its earnings to build up 57. the business has to pay an income tax on the money it holds back. Do you think that a co—op should be taxed on the earnings it holds been if each patron's share of it is re— corded on the boons? l—Yes( ) 2—Mo( ) 5-Don't know( ) Do you know whether most farmers' ccoons are required to pay 58- income taxes, or not? l-Reguired( ) 2—Not required( ) S-Don't know( ) Many co—ops call themselves "non—nrofit organizations" be— 59- cause they say the amount leit over at the end of the year is returned to purchasers similar to a discount. Do you feel that co—ocs that operate in this gunner are right in calling themselves "non-profit orgaiizetions?" lAYes( ) 2-No( ) 5—Don't know( ) 60. (On alternate schedules questions 55 through 59 appeared in this order: 56, 57, 55, 55, 59.) . ...-u. 2 1g .— -8- .Are you.a member of a co—op now? léYes( ) 2—No(‘ ) 61. S-Don't know( (If “yes" fill in all (If "no", but does business with of table below) co-ops, indicate name and amount of business) Now I'd like to have you think back over your acquaintance with 75 the cooperative method of doing business and try to remember what your first impressions were about co—ops. Would you say that your first impressions were favorable or unfavorable? l—Favorable( ) 2—Unfavorable( ) 5-Don't know( ) ear Main Reason Amt. Name of Co—op joined for Joining Bus. with 62. 65. 64. 65. 66. ' 670 Have you ever belonged to any co—ops and then dropped out? 68. l—Yes( ) 2-No ) 5—Donlt know( ) (If "yes", fill in table below) Year Year {69. Name of Co—op joined DrOpped Reason for dropping out i 70. Out 71. 72. 75. 74. Since that time have you become more favorable or less favorable 76. toward co—ops or haven't your feelings changed? l—More favorable( ) Z-Less favorable( ) 5-No change( ) 4-Don't know( I : (If "more" or "1955") What kinds of experiences have you had 77- with co—ops which have changed your first impressions? _Where do you get most of your information about co-ops? 7gi (Card 2) “Schedule Number 1.5. ’ (Q uestions 4 through 11 are for those who are co-Op members. If the informant is not a co—op member, go to Question 12 and continue from there.) Have you ever been an officer or a director in a co-op? 4. . 6-Yes( ) 7—No( ) (If "yes") What offices have you held? __ I'd like to have some idea as to how often you attend meet— 5. ings held by your co—op(s). Would you say you attend most of them, a few of them, or none of them? 6-Most of them( ) 7-A few of them( ) 8-None of them( ) 9-Don't know( ) Do you feel that you are a part owner of the co—0p(s) you 6. belong to? 64Yes( ) 7—No( ) 8—Don't know( ) Do you feel that you have a "say" about the way your co—op 7. is run? 6-Yes( ) 7-No( ) 8-Don't know( ) Do you do business with your co-op(s) mostly because it 8. means more money to you or mostly because you believe in the idea of coooeration? G—Means money( ) 9, 7—Believe in idea( ) 8—Both( ) 9-Don't know( ) Are your farmer friends and farmer relatives in this com— 10_ munity all members of co—ops, or not? 6—Yes( ) 7-No( ) 8—Don't know( ) (If "no") Within the past year have you tried to interest 11. any of your non—member friends in joining a co-op? 64Yes( ) 7-No( ) 8—Don't know( ) (To be aSked of non—mgnbers) What changes would a co—op need 12. to make in order to interest you in becoming a member? ‘ If business were poor for a few years which do you think 15. would be more likely to fail; a farmer—owned cooperative or a business which is not COOperative? 6-Farmer—owned co—op( ) 7-Non—co-0p business( ) Don't know( ) (On alternate schedules Question 15 appeared in this form: If business were poor for a few years which do you think would be more likely to pull through; a farmer-owned co-op or a ‘ business which is not a cooperative? 6—Farmer-owned co-op( ) 7-fion-co—op business( ) B-Don't gnow( ).) ”1ft. tag. {1‘ Clbe. , J . If , -10- Now a few questions about you and your farm. “We need to have this so that we can compare the ideas of_men with different backgrounds and experiences. (The names of the people we talk with will not appear in any report which is written and it will not be possible to figure out who gave any part of the information.) What is the total number of acres you Operate? acres 14- (Gheck here if part-time farmer.) Are you owner or renter of this farm? 6—0wner( ) 7-Renter( ) 8-Part—owner( ) 15. (If "owner" or "part-owner") Is your farm paid for 5-Entirely( ) 6-Over 75%( ) 7—50 to 75%( ) 8-25 to 5Q£( ) 9-Less than 257? ( ) 16 . What is your major farm enterprise? 17. How many years have you lived in this community? years 18. How many years of farm experience have you had since you were 16? years 19. How old are you? years 20. How many years of school did you complete? years 21. Do you belong to any mutual insurance companies, such as: 22. Fire insurance? Windstorm insurance? Hail insurance? Auto insurance? Sickness? t: has Lth insurance'? Accident insurance? Life insurance? 0+her mutual insurance? Are you now, or have you been, a member of the following farm 25. organizations: Farm Bureau? 6-Present member( ) 7—Past member( ) 8—Never member( Grange? 6-Present member( ) 7-Past member( ) 8—Never member( ) 'go Other farm organization? 6—Present member( ) 7—Past member( ) a—Never member( ) Name or orgs. 25. Are you a member, or have you ever been a member, of the 26. .iichiaan Milk Producers' Association? 6-Presemt member( ) 7-Past member( ) 8-Never member( ) 9—N.é.( “(in 4+4 _ ‘ —‘~—-* .11.. Do you market, or have you ever marketed, through the Mich. 27. Livestock Exchange? 6—Now markets( ) 7—Once marketed( ) 8—Never marketed( ) 9~N.-.( Do you ship, or have you ever shipped, any crops to the 28. Elevator? 6—Now ships( 7—Used to ship( ) 8—Never shipped( ) 9—N.A.( ) Are you now, or have you ever been, a member of any crop or 29. livestock association? 6-Present member( ) 7-Past member( ) 8—Never member( ) 9—NA( ) (If "yes") Which ones? 50. Do you get your electricity from the Electric? 51. 6—Yes( ) 7-No( ) 8-N.A.( Are you a member of a Farm Labor Services organization? 52. 6JYes( ) 7—No( ) 8—NA( At what hours do you usually listen to farm programs over 55. the radio? __ Are these the best times for you to hear these programs? 54. 6-Yes( ) 7—No( ) 8-D.K.( (If "no") What times would be better? _____ Are there times when you would like to hear a good farm pro- 55. gram but there isn't one on the air? 64Yes( ) 7—No( ) 8-Don't know( ) (If "yes") What times are these? 56. Do you market, or have you ever marketed, through the Detroit 57, Packing Company? 6—Now markets( ) 7—0nce marketed( 8-Never marketed( Number of visits to the farm required to secure interview. 58. APPENDIX B Cooperatives in which Farmers had Memberships and maber of Members in Each Cooperative Area 1: Branch County Name 2: cooperative Number 2: memberships Goldwater Cooperative Company 57 Batavia COOPerative Company 27 Branch County Farm Bureau Oil Company 6 Quincy Cooperative Company 5 ‘Burr Oak Cooperative Company 5 Goldwater Dairy Company 3 .Bronson Cooperative Company 3 Litchfield Dairy Association 3 Constantine COOperative Creamery 1 Tri—Stete Cooperative Company 1 Area 2: Berrien and Cass Counties Eau Claire Fruit Exchange 62 Berrien County Farm Bureau Oil Company 28 Dowagiac Farmers Cooperative 16 Millburg Growers Exchange 6 Producers' Creamery, Benton Harbor 5 2 1 l 1 Berrien County Fruit Exchange. Stevensville Farm Bureau Fertilizer Company South Bend Farmers' Public Market Association Credit Cooperative Area 3: E223. Qttewa. and Allegen Counties Salem Couperative Company 26 Byron Center Cooperative Company 17 Moline Cooperative Company Hamilton Farm Bureau Cooperative 10 Hudsonville, Jamestown. Vrieslend Farmers' Cooper- ative Elevator Company 3 Salem Cooperative Creamery Zeeland Farmers Ccooerative Falmoth Cooperative Company Vrieslend Growers Association Otsego Sanitary Milk Company Middleville Cooperative Creamery Ottawa and Allegen Electric Company :4 para k-klnaxnld ~2- Area 4: Huron County Elkton Cooperative Farm Produce Company Pigeon Cooperative Elevator Company People's Oil and Gas Company Bad Axe Farmers Elevator Huron County Beef Producers' Association AArea 5: Lenawee and Monroe County Blissfield Cooperative Company Deerfield COOperative Company Lenawee County Farm Bureau Oil Company Ottawa Lake Cooperative Company Farm Bureau Fertilizer Company Farmers' Cooperative, Eontoeligg, thg State—wide Cooperatives Michigan Milk Producers' Association Michigan Livestock Exchange Detroit Packing Company Rural Electrification Association 56 29 59 N l—‘NNCNO w ”7T:Jé 4! saw , \ “58“,??? g f??? 368???" Aug 3153' 4,; :.‘ .1 i \ , M : P. 1" l ,\ . ‘ u ”If H 7 I, ‘ .‘ - l, NOV 26 ‘05 , W .‘ 3,11“ r 1.“ ‘10 ( \ I \ / iv t‘ x ‘_ ‘ . I I . . g .V 1 V '> ~h‘1" , l “r" ‘ I: K; ‘ ‘ /‘ 2: J‘\ V p ‘. w; ‘ .. ‘ I hi ‘ my ' ‘, m _ C'/» 1-‘ y l ‘ ‘ I 1 ‘ ' -.i. , __ _ ‘ I i “ \/ . I. U L: ‘ ' \‘I u} l: f». T , ‘ . [w J I" , {A i. _ ‘1 “I I 4 f l I I ‘ \ J 1"!" . '3 v ‘ ‘ ‘ Y ‘ \ ‘ k." /u‘ y I V I " l b I!‘ v | / x .j‘ ‘ 1 ‘ ‘M ‘ I l. _‘L ‘ I ‘ M '1 7%“ '- 4 _\ 7 V‘ I . w , 1' ‘ ~ 7. ‘ ‘ l I , , i ‘ ‘ Q J, 2‘ l \ V l , “n ‘ ‘ ‘ .‘ \ , Ht A V x ,\ ' l . .\’ “I . i ‘ I M ‘ 1 ,’ W ’ 4 W \\ , :i" . ‘V ‘ 4 7 . ‘x . t h :.’- ‘ \ l ‘ V‘ \ , H I ‘ r ‘/ J I, K ,t ‘ ‘J ‘ I w . 1 f V v. I ‘I V f v L , ,' . , ‘ r y x 1 J ‘ 1 l 4n) , - wu _, v"! v ' '1, LC fénll‘fi’ H \Al .~, g ‘. ‘n. I; .‘ "w qw-r, ~_ 4 x ,. ‘ ‘lHMK“1I‘,“;_3<\"‘\ ‘ pf C I” \ ’ ’ » ‘ W ‘ Li in" 17:]: «up; _‘ J LEI] “4!, I (l (55 Y (I r\ ’ ‘ . ”duty ”A ‘.J “3 Mt; , \‘.)n}t’r;,f‘/ ": (In K,‘ 4“ . “4‘ .5 I ..._ .‘f J “kW/j? L \. M, 1 ’1 ‘3‘ \ :‘ i .1’ L/ \ A , r ; ~ ; .,;" ,- ff" - ..—.. . _ « "‘TlwillallluurlES