Davenport, Iowa - Today, Tuesday, Oct. 2, local activists held a call-in day and generated dozens of calls
to Senator Joe Seng, asking him to support mandatory labeling of genetically engineered food. The call-
in day was part of a statewide campaign initiated by the national consumer advocacy organization Food
&Water Watch to push for legislation to make the labeling of genetically engineered (GE) foods the law
in Iowa.

call in day.jpg

"We need to know what we are eating, and what we're feeding to our children. There should be a simple
label for genetically engineered foods," said Emily Clow, a local activist.

A local organic farmer, a mother, a professor at St. Ambrose, and a massage therapist are just a few of
the activists in the Quad Cities working to build support for GE food labeling in Iowa. While over 50
other countries?including Australia, Brazil, and European Union?require the labeling of genetically
engineered foods, the US does not.GE foods are very common in our food system and often come in the
form of ingredients like corn syrup and vegetable oil, which are most likely derived from GE corn and
soybeans. The vast majority of corn and soybeans produced in this country are genetically engineered.
Other genetically engineered foods include sugar beets, squash, and sweet corn.

A 2008 CBS/New York Times poll showed that 87% of consumers want all genetically engineered
ingredients labeled. Much of this public support for labeling is caused by consumer concerns over the
health impacts of genetically engineered foods.

The team of activists in Davenport is part of a statewide campaign to push for the mandatory labeling of
GE foods. Future events, such as film screenings, educational sessions and other exciting group actions,
will be taking place over the coming months.

Food & Water Watch works to ensure the food, water and fish we consume is safe, accessible and
sustainable. So we can all enjoy and trust in what we eat and drink, we help people take charge of where
their food comes from, keep clean, affordable, public tap water flowing freely to our homes, protect the
environmental quality of oceans, force government to do its job protecting citizens, and educate about the
importance of keeping shared resources under public control.

###

This summer, the United Soybean Board (USB) and soy checkoff partnered with South Dakota Soybean Processors and the South Dakota Pork Producers Council to host an event to connect soybean farmers with their No. 1 customer - animal ag. Chickens, pigs, cattle and fish consume 98 percent of U.S. soybean meal. It's important for soybean farmers to have these customers in mind throughout the stages of producing soybeans. Attendees at this event had the opportunity to meet with farmer-leaders of the soy checkoff and pork council and tour the processing facilities in Volga, S.D.

Watch the video to hear from checkoff farmer leader Lewis Bainbridge and others about this event and its importance to soybean farmers.

Senators ask White House to explain legal basis for covering lawsuit costs after instructing employers to disregard labor law

 

WASHINGTON - Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) are requesting information from the White House about new guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that says the government will pay for legal costs related to lawsuits resulting from private-sector employers failing to give employees notice of possible layoffs due to sequestration.  The Department of Labor told federal contractors this summer not to worry about complying with the federal labor law that requires notification.

 

The senators' inquiry involves the 1988 Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, known as the WARN Act, which requires large employers to send written notice to employees 60 days in advance of potential layoffs or plant closings.

 

In July, the Department of Labor issued guidance which said federal contractors potentially impacted by the budget sequestration scheduled to take effect on January 2, 2013, need not abide by the WARN Act requirement.  Despite sequestration being the law of the land, the Department of Labor suggests the WARN Act doesn't apply because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and how it would impact contracts.  To date, the administration has failed to be transparent about the impact of sequestration.

 

Despite the message from the Department of Labor, federal contractors have considered providing notices in order to comply with the law.  According to a news report last month, Lockheed Martin had said it might send notices to all 123,000 employees, for example.  Under the WARN Act, if notice isn't provided, an employer is liable for paying back pay, benefits and attorneys' fees.  If sent, notices would reach workers days before the presidential election in November.

 

On Friday, the OMB issued a memo that goes beyond the letter from the Department of Labor by apparently promising government payments for any lawsuits brought against employers who don't give WARN Act notices per the Department of Labor's instructions.  After the OMB memo was released, Lockheed Martin said it won't send notices.  Other contractors have not yet indicated what they will do.

 

"What the administration has done raises serious questions," Grassley said.  "In our letter of inquiry, we're asking what authority the administration is using to say it is okay to disregard the law and commit to pay for monetary judgments and other expenses resulting from lawsuits.  If workers aren't given the notice they're due, the costs could amount to billions of dollars for taxpayers.  The public deserves answers and accountability without any delay."

 

"The President has prohibited the Pentagon from planning for defense sequestration and now cites this lack of specifics as the reason employers should ignore the WARN Act requirement.  The Administration's new guidance tells employers to willfully ignore the law and stay silent about looming layoffs until after the election - and promises them a taxpayer funded bailout for their legal expenses if they do so," Ayotte said.  "The Administration must explain its legal basis for this interpretation of the WARN Act that leaves taxpayers on the hook, American workers in the dark, and our national security in jeopardy."

 

Below is the text of the senators' October 1 letter to Jeffrey Zients, the Acting Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget.  Click here to see the letter.

October 1, 2012

The Honorable Jeffrey Zients

Acting Director

Executive Office of the President

Office of Management and Budget

Washington, DC  20503

 

Dear Mr. Zients:

 

We write regarding the Memorandum for the Chief Financial Officers and Senior Procurement Executives of Executive Departments and Agencies issued by the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on September 28, 2012.  The OMB memorandum purports to provide "guidance on allowable contracting costs with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification (WARN) Act."

 

In general, the WARN Act, 29 U.S.C. § 2101 et seq., requires employers with at least 100 employees to provide written notice to employees 60 days before ordering certain plant closings or mass layoffs.  Failure to provide this notice, subject to very limited exceptions, triggers civil liability for the employer.  Under the WARN Act, each aggrieved employee may sue their employer and may be awarded back pay, benefits and attorneys' fees.

As the OMB memorandum explains, on July 30, 2012, the Department of Labor (DOL) issued Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 3-12, which examined the WARN Act's requirements in the context of the sequestration (budget cuts) scheduled to take place on January 2, 2013.  The DOL opined that it was neither necessary nor appropriate for federal contractors to issue WARN Act notices to employees 60 days in advance of the potential sequestration because of uncertainty about whether sequestration will occur and, if it did, what effect it would have on particular contracts.

The DOL's speculation about the applicability of the WARN Act notwithstanding, some contractors indicated that they were still considering issuing notices.  Those notices would be received by employees and their families days before the Presidential election in November.   For example, according to a news report, Lockheed Martin initially indicated that it might send notices to all of its 123,000 employees.[1]

On the afternoon of Friday, September 28, the White House's OMB issued its memorandum.  In relevant part, that memorandum states:

To further minimize the potential for waste and disruption associated with the issuance of unwarranted layoff notices, this memorandum provides guidance regarding the allowability of certain liability and litigation costs associated with WARN Act compliance.  Specifically, if (1) sequestration occurs and an agency terminates or modifies a contract that necessitates that the contractor order a plant closing or mass layoff of a type subject to WARN Act requirements, and (2) that contractor has followed a course of action consistent with DOL guidance; then any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable.

The OMB memorandum concludes by stating that its representations do "not alter existing rights, responsibilities, obligations, or limitations under individual contract provisions or the governing cost principles set forth in the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) and other applicable law."  Thus, "agencies may treat as allowable other costs potentially associated with sequestration, including WARN Act-related costs arising under circumstances not specified in th[e memorandum], based on the usual cost principles of allocability, allowability, and reasonableness as set forth in the FAR."

According to one news report, the OMB memorandum tells contractors that "they would be compensated for legal costs if layoffs occur due to contract cancellations under sequestration - but only if the contractors follow the [DOL's] guidance [from July]."[2] As noted above, the DOL has advised contractors not to provide their employees with notices under the WARN Act.

In reliance on the promises in the OMB memorandum, Lockheed Martin has now indicated that it will not send out the notices.[3] Other contractors have yet to indicate whether they will send out the WARN Act notices to their employees, in light of the Administration's promises.

We are seriously concerned about the OMB's memorandum and the DOL's letter.  In particular, we are concerned about the authority of the Executive Branch to instruct private employers not to comply with federal law and to promise to pay the monetary judgments and litigation costs that arise out of the lawsuits that may follow.  Although the precise amounts of the judgments and costs are unknown, they could potentially reach tens or hundreds of millions of dollars, if not billions of dollars, all of which would be paid for with taxpayers' dollars.

Accordingly, respond to the following questions and requests for information:

1.         Identify the legal authority for the DOL to instruct federal contractors that they are not required to provide WARN Act notices to their employees in light of the pending sequestration.

2.         Identify the legal authority for the OMB to instruct federal contractors that they are not required to provide WARN Act notices to their employees in light of the pending sequestration.

3.         Identify the legal authority for the OMB to promise to pay the monetary judgments and litigation costs that arise out of the lawsuits that could follow from employers' failure to comply with the WARN Act.

4.         Set forth the analysis and supporting legal authority for the representation in the OMB's memorandum that "any resulting employee compensation costs for WARN Act liability as determined by a court, as well as attorneys' fees and other litigation costs (irrespective of litigation outcome), would qualify as allowable costs and be covered by the contracting agency, if otherwise reasonable and allocable."

5.         Explain in detail why you maintain that the Obama Administration did not have to first obtain approval from Congress before committing to pay tens or hundreds of millions of dollars (if not billions of dollars) in judgments, settlements and/or attorneys' fees that may be incurred by private employers.

6.         Identify in detail the costs that the OMB's memorandum represents the Administration will "cover" for contractors who are sued based on their failure to provide notices under the WARN Act.  For example, do the "costs" include reimbursing the contractors for the attorneys' fees they incur from defending themselves in WARN Act lawsuits?  What other "costs" will be "covered"?

7.         How many millions or billions of dollars has the OMB's memorandum obligated the federal government to pay, if WARN Act notices are not provided and layoffs and lawsuits do occur?

8.         What will be the source of the funds used to pay the monetary judgments and litigation costs that arise out of the lawsuits that follow from employers' failure to comply with the WARN Act?  Does the Administration maintain that these funds have already been appropriated by Congress?

9.         Before the release of OMB's memorandum, was any analysis done to determine how much the federal government would have to pay to "cover" the costs of these lawsuits, including potential attorneys' fees?  If so, provide that analysis and provide copies of all documents related to that analysis.

10.     Provide copies of any and all written analyses that were done in connection with the OMB's memorandum.

11.     According to the DOL's July 30, 2012 letter, if contractors provide WARN Act notices, it "would be inconsistent with the purpose of the WARN Act."  By contrast, 29 U.S.C. § 2106 (the WARN Act) provides that "[i]t is the sense of Congress that an employer who is not required to comply with the notice requirements of section 2102 of this title should, to the extent possible, provide notice to its employees about a proposal to close a plant or permanently reduce its workforce."  How does OMB justify DOL's statement in light of the plain language of section 2106 of the WARN Act?

12.     According to the OMB's memorandum, "some [contractors] have inquired about' whether Federal contracting agencies would cover WARN Act-related costs in connection with the potential sequestration."  Identify each of those contractors and produce all documents related to communications between the White House, DOL or any other federal agency and the contractors regarding this issue.

13.     Does the Administration maintain that the OMB's memorandum constitutes a binding legal promise to contractors that the federal government will fully indemnify them for any and all liability and legal defense fees that they incur as a result of their not providing WARN Act notices?  If not, explain in detail whether the OMB's memorandum makes any binding commitments and if it does, describe those commitments in detail.

14.     Were any other federal agencies consulted prior to the issuance of the OMB memorandum?  If so, identify each agency consulted and indicate whether any agency disagreed about whether the legal authority exists for the Administration to promise to pay the costs and legal fees associated with the failure to issue WARN Act notices.

If the OMB or any other office in the White House possesses documents relating to the subject matter of any of the foregoing questions, provide copies of those documents.

 

We ask that you provide written answers and documents by October 8, 2012.

 

Sincerely,

 

Charles E. Grassley                       Kelly Ayotte

Ranking Member                         Member

Senate Judiciary Committee                      Senate Armed Services Committee

 



[1] Jeremy Herb, "Obama administration tells contractors again: Don't issue layoff notices," The Hill (Sept. 28, 2012).

[2] Id.  

[3] Jeremy Herb, "After Obama guidance, Lockheed won't issue layoff notices this year," The Hill (Oct. 1, 2012).

Le Claire, Iowa, October 1, 2012 - It's beginning to feel a lot like fall outside, just in time for Mississippi River Distilling Company's second release of Iowa Coffee Company Liqueur on October 5, 2012.  This seasonal is back by popular demand after flying off the shelves last fall and winter.

MRDC takes hand roasted Peruvian blend coffee beans from Iowa Coffee Company, a Des Moines area small business, and infuses it into River Pilot Vodka.  Along the process, fresh cinnamon sticks and vanilla beans are added.  This year approximately 6,000 bottles will be available for distribution starting in October.  Grab a bottle for yourself and one to give as a gift this holiday season!

October 5 also marks the next release of the highly sought after Cody Road Bourbon Whiskey.  Approximately 1,500 bottles will be distributed.  Luckily, more is quickly on the horizon ready to come out of the barrel so it won't be so hard to get your hands on a bottle.  By the beginning of November, MRDC will be releasing approximately 1,000 bottles per week, thanks to finally catching up with the aging process.  Also coming up November 2, is the release of MRDC's latest spirit, Cody Road Rye Whiskey. This spirit is handmade from 100% local rye purchased from Dave and Jim Wherry in Fulton, Illinois. Our rye is a unique spirit that showcases the wonderful spiciness of this one-of-a-kind grain along with the delicate fruitiness that is often lost in rye whiskies.

Coffee enthusiasts, bourbon lovers and everyone in between are invited to join us Friday, October 5 from 5:30-8:00 p.m. to celebrate at MRDC's First Friday Feature.  There will be specialty cocktails prepared for the evening, including cocktails featuring the coffee liqueur, as well as some light appetizers.  During the First Friday party, fans get a free Iowa Coffee Company Liqueur coffee mug with any bottle of spirits purchased.

Mississippi River Distilling Company is open from 10 AM to 5 PM Monday through Saturday and from 12 to 5 PM Sundays.  Free tours are offered to the public daily on the hour from 12 to 4 PM or by appointment.  The tour takes visitors through the entire distilling process.  Tours end in the Grand Tasting Room with free samples of products for those patrons over 21 years of age.

Dreams come true, but not through wishful thinking, says John Berglund, author of the new memoir, A Beach Less Traveled: From Corporate Chaos to Flip-Flop Perfumer (www.abeachlesstraveled.com).

After successful careers as an attorney, lobbyist, trade-association executive and bowling industry magnate, Berglund tired of the corporate rat race.  He was also tired of winters bundled in layers of long johns, shoveling snow.

"Everybody has their own version of paradise," he says. "Whether it's New York City, the Great Smokey Mountains or my personal favorite, the French-Caribbean island of St. Martin, paradise is within reach - with a little planning."

An essential part of planning was deciding what to do for a living once he got there. Berglund would embark on his new career path as a perfumer with his wife of more than 30 years, Cyndi. In "A Beach Less Traveled," he shares the steps - and the missteps - he took as he and his wife crafted an idyllic new life for themselves.

His candid, humorous tale has won glowing reviews.

"My wife and I met the Berglunds when we visited their perfumery on Saint Martin and we were amazed by their adventurous energy and passion," writes Amazon.com reviewer Tito Francona, a Major League Baseball Player from 1956 to 1970. " 'A Beach Less Traveled' sizzles with the same enthusiasm - the driving force behind their incredible business venture in the tropics."

Lisa Burnett of Saint Martin's The Daily Herald enjoyed Berglund's stories about meeting and interacting with the other residents of the 37-square-mile island.

" 'A Beach Less Traveled' takes the reader through every challenge, every victory, and every touching encounter with the people," she writes. "(It's) a must-read for anyone seeking to make a Caribbean island their home, but also instructive from a business point of view."

About John Berglund

John Berglund began his career as a chief county prosecutor at age 24 and then transitioned into a lobbyist and trade-association executive. Another career shift led him to being voted the bowling industry's most influential person for a decade. He followed his passion for chemistry, which he'd studied in college, and left the "rat race" for his Caribbean perfumery in St. Martin. Berglund lives with his wife of more than 30 years, Cyndi, who has significantly contributed to his dream job in paradise. The couple has two grown children.

Just a Reminder on this Local Event:

The Book Rack has moved from Duck Creek Plaza in Bettendorf, Iowa, to a larger store in Davenport, and on Saturday, Oct. 6, from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., The Book Rack will host an Open House with refreshments at their new location, 4764 Elmore Ave., Davenport, to thank the community for all the support it has shown The Book Rack over the years.
Customers visit The Book Rack's two Quad-Cities locations (Davenport and Moline) from as far away as Clinton, Fulton, Aledo, Dubuque, Muscatine, Geneseo and beyond.

DES MOINES, IA (10/02/2012)(readMedia)-- State Treasurer Michael L. Fitzgerald announced today that College Savings Iowa has reached $3 billion in assets. "Families are taking advantage of the benefits of saving with College Savings Iowa," Fitzgerald said. "We are thrilled the Plan has continued to grow at such an exciting pace. More and more families are aware that saving early for their children's higher education is of the utmost importance."

As a way to encourage families to continue saving early, College Savings Iowa is giving away a $5,290 College Savings Iowa account - its largest giveaway to date. For more information about the program and to enter the giveaway, please visit www.collegesavingsiowa.com any time before November 30, 2012.

College Savings Iowa, created in 1998, is a budget-friendly 529 plan that offers multiple investment choices, as well as significant federal and state tax benefits to help families grow their savings even more. An account can be started with as little as $25 and the assets can be used to pay for qualified higher education expenses at any eligible college, university, community college or accredited technical training school in the United States or abroad. Iowa state taxpayers can deduct up to $2,975 in contributions per beneficiary account from their 2012 adjusted gross income.*

*Adjusted annually for inflation. If withdrawals are not qualified, the deductions must be added back to Iowa taxable income. The earnings portion of nonqualified withdrawals may be subject to federal income tax and a 10% federal penalty tax, as well as state and local income taxes. The availability of tax or other benefits may be contingent on meeting other requirements.

###

Investment returns are not guaranteed and you could lose money by investing in the plan. Participants assume all investment risks as well as responsibility for any federal and state tax consequences. If you are not an Iowa taxpayer, consider before investing whether your or the designated beneficiary's home state offers any state tax or other benefits that are only available for investments in such state's qualified tuition program.

For more information about the College Savings Iowa 529 Plan, call 888-672-9116 or visit www.collegesavingsiowa.com to obtain a Program Description. Investment objectives, risks, charges, expenses, and other important information are included in the Program Description; read and consider it carefully before investing. Vanguard Marketing Corporation, Distributor.

College Savings Iowa is an Iowa trust sponsored by the Iowa State Treasurer's Office. The Treasurer of the State of Iowa sponsors and is responsible for overseeing the administration of the College Savings Iowa 529 Plan. The Vanguard Group, Inc., serves as Investment Manager and Vanguard Marketing Corporation, an affiliate of The Vanguard Group, Inc., assists the Treasurer with marketing and distributing the Plan. Upromise Investment Advisors, LLC, provides records administration services. The Plan's portfolios, although they invest in Vanguard mutual funds, are not mutual funds.

Story and photo by Sgt. Courtney Selig

Adviser team coordinates communications, operations in Land of the Light

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

FORT GEORGE G. MEADE, Md.- With the number of soldiers decreasing overseas, the mission has shifted and welcomed a new type of team to ensure a seamless transition.

Team Bluetick, a Security Force Assistant Adviser Team from First Army Division East, and Occupational Coordination Center - Provincial Nuristan staff recently conducted a site survey of the Nuristan Provincial Capital, Parun.

During this visit, they assessed the current and planned infrastructure to determine the feasibility of co-locating Nuristan with the provincial headquarters in Parun.

Nuristan, known as the "Land of the Light," is treacherous with its sheer cliffs sheltered by the spurs of the Eastern Hindu Kush. Its terrain, comprised of nearly 99 percent mountains, leaves only the most minimal amount of flat land.

"Our mission is to train and advise our Afghanistan counterparts of Nuristan on how to coordinate both air and ground operations with all elements of the Afghanistan National Army, Afghanistan Border Police, Afghanistan National Police and their National Directorate of Security," said MAJ Lucas Morales, Team Operations and Communications Officer, First Army Division East, a native of Kellogg, Idaho.

Team Bluetick and other SFA ATs mentor and assist Afghan National Security Forces as they take the lead in conducting security operations. The SFA ATs are a key step in continuing efforts to improve ANSF capability and to help them assume responsibility for the security of Afghanistan.

"One of our significant challenges is assisting the OCC-P to overcome the significant geographical challenges of this province and improve their communications with the Provincial Capital of Parun," Morales said. All parties continue to explore options for a combined facility.

Morales said the relationship between Team Bluetick and OCC-P Nuristan is strong. He went on to say the OCC-P not only understands the SFA AT member's mission, but they welcome it since they have not had the assistance of an Advisor Team in the past.

"As with all good relationships, it helps both teams learn and expand to improve their capabilities," said Morales. "The biggest advantage is that the OCC-P wants to learn and wants to help their province and country."

The SFA ATs, teams of highly trained officers and noncommissioned officers, mentor and advise Afghan Army and Police units as they conduct security operations. SFA ATs began training in mid-January 2012 and deployed in Spring, 2012. A second iteration is planned this fall.

First Army Division East is responsible for the overall mission of mobilizing, training, validating, and deploying Reserve Component Soldiers around the globe and demobilizing them upon their return home. Last year, First Army Division East mobilized more than 20,000 Soldiers and demobilized almost 26,000.

It's National Cooperative Month: Co-ops set Sales and Income Records, Number of Co-op Jobs Also up

WASHINGTON, Oct. 2, 2012 - Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said today that farmer, rancher and fishery cooperatives posted record sales and income in 2011, surpassing the previous record sales year of 2008 by $10 billion while besting the old income record by $500 million. Dallas Tonsager, under secretary for Rural Development, made the announcement on the Secretary's behalf, kicking-off National Cooperative Month. Tonsager said co-op employment levels remained strong, with cooperatives employing 184,000 full-time, part-time and seasonal workers, up slightly from 2010.

"These new cooperative sales and income records for 2011 underscore the strength and productivity of the nation's farmer- and rancher-owned cooperatives, and the vital role they play in the nation's economy," said Tonsager. "Primarily because of mergers, the number of farm co-ops continued to decline, but memberships and asset values are up."

Net income before taxes for all agricultural co-ops was a record $5.4 billion, eclipsing the previous high of $4.9 billion, set in 2008. Net income was up more than 25 percent, or $1 billion, from 2010.

The year also saw double-digit increases in prices for dairy products, cotton, livestock and grains and oilseeds. Farm production expenses also increased by double-digits in 2011, with feed, fertilizer and fuel prices leading the upward trend. The 2,285 surveyed cooperatives had sales of $213 billion, exceeding 2010 sales by more than $40 billion.

Top 100 Ag co-ops

USDA's annual list of the nation's 100 largest agricultural cooperatives, also released today, shows that they also had record sales and income in 2011. The 100 largest ag co-ops reported revenue of $148 billion in 2011, an increase of almost 30 percent over 2010, when revenue totaled $113 billion. Net income for the 100 top co-ops was $3.17 billion, up from $2.35 billion in 2010. The previous top 100 co-op records were $130 billion for sales and $2.42 billion for income, both marks set in 2008.

CHS Inc., Saint Paul, Minn. - an energy, farm supply, grain and food co-op - was once again the nation's largest ag co-op, with $36.9 billion in revenue in 2011. It was followed by Dairy Farmers of America, Kansas City, Mo.; with $12.9 billion in revenue. It traded places from 2010 with third-ranked Land O' Lakes Inc., St. Paul, Minn., a dairy, food and farm supply co-op, with $12.8 billion in revenue in 2011.

Iowa is home to 14 of the top 100 ag co-ops, the most of any state. It is followed by Minnesota with 13, Nebraska with 10, California with 6 and Wisconsin with 5. The biggest gains on the list were made by cotton cooperatives, due primarily to sharply higher cotton prices in 2011. Carolinas Cotton Growers Cooperative, Garner, N.C., made the largest jump, rising from 129 in 2010 to 71 on the 2011 list. It was followed by Calcot Ltd., Bakersfield, Calif., which climbed from 131 in 2010 to 85 in 2011. The next eight biggest gainers on the list were all grain or mixed (grain and farm supply) co-ops, due largely to high grain prices.

Most Ag co-op sectors see gains

Looking at the entire ag co-op sector, grain and oilseed sales by cooperatives climbed by almost $14 billion in 2011, while dairy product marketing increased by $8 billion. Cotton sales increased more than $1.5 billion while livestock and sugar sales both gained more than $600 million. Sales of farm supplies increased by $10 billion, primarily due to increasing energy prices. Farm supply co-ops recorded gains of more than $3 billion for petroleum products, while sales were up by $1 billion for fertilizer, feed and crop protectants.

Marketing of food, fiber, renewable fuels and farm supplies by cooperatives experienced 24 percent increases over the previous year, according to the annual survey conducted by the Cooperative Programs office of USDA Rural Development. Gross business volume of $213 billion was the largest ever, as was net income before taxes.

The value of cooperative assets in 2011 grew by about $13 billion, with liabilities increasing by $11 billion and owner equity gaining $2 billion. Equity capital remains low but is clearly showing an upward trend, with an 8 percent increase over the previous year.

Patronage income (refunds from other cooperatives due to sales between cooperatives) fell by more than 11 percent, to $613 million, down from $674 million in 2010.

Farmer, rancher and fishery cooperatives remain one of the largest employers in many rural communities and also provide jobs in many cities. The total farm co-op workforce of 184,000 was up slightly from 2010. While full-time jobs at co-ops increased by 1,800, the number of part-time and seasonal employees declined by 1,600.

There was a continued downward trend in farm numbers, with USDA counting 2.2 million farms in 2011, down about 10,000 from 2010. The number of farmer cooperatives continues to decline; there are now 2,285 farmer, rancher and fishery cooperatives, down from 2,314 in 2010. Mergers account for most of the drop, resulting in larger cooperatives.

Producers held 2.3 million memberships in cooperatives in 2011, up 2 percent from 2010. The number of U.S. farms and cooperative memberships are now about equal. This does not mean that every producer is a member of an agricultural cooperative. Previous studies have found that many farmers and ranchers are members of up to three cooperatives, so farm numbers and cooperative memberships are not strictly comparable.

For more in-depth information about how the nation's agricultural cooperatives performed in 2011, see the September-October issue of USDA's "Rural Cooperatives" magazine at: http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/BCP_Coop_RurCoopMag.html.

President Obama's plan for rural America has brought about historic investment and resulted in stronger rural communities. Under the President's leadership, these investments in housing, community facilities, businesses and infrastructure have empowered rural America to continue leading the way - strengthening America's economy and strengthening small towns and rural communities. USDA's investments in rural communities support the rural way of life that stands as the backbone of our American values. President Obama and Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack are committed to a smarter use of existing Federal resources to foster sustainable economic prosperity and ensure the government is a strong partner for businesses, entrepreneurs and working families in rural communities.

USDA, through its Rural Development mission area, has an active portfolio of more than $170 billion in loans and loan guarantees. These programs are designed to improve the economic stability of rural communities, businesses, residents, farmers and ranchers and improve the quality of life in rural America.

#

USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, Office of Adjudication, 1400 Independence Ave., SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410 or call (866) 632-9992 (Toll-free Customer Service), (800) 877-8339 (Local or Federal relay), (866) 377-8642 (Relay voice users).


#
We asked President Obama and Governor Romney four questions, including:
How will you use the power of your office to fight cancer and put our country on track toward defeating this disease?
They responded and I want to share their answers with you.

Watch my short video and see where your candidates for president stand on the cancer issues we fight for every day.

Pages