Category: Specialty Topics

An effective board is a collection of “good leaders.” But how do we measure leadership and how do we create an effective board? Research shows that leaders are measured as “good” when they marshal all their skills, and abilities, and use their influence to affect and be affected by others (Northouse, 2016). Training new or existing individual board members and preparing them to serve others is the heart of producing good leaders. This can be accomplished by utilizing extension resources and participating in leadership development programs. 

Leadership is crucial in creating the standard for boards of directors. Agricultural cooperatives (co-ops) boards are no different when it comes to sound governance. Addressing leadership incompetency early, at the same time increasing director capacity, is vital to the co-op’s long-term success. While producers are the backbone of co-op boards, their farming and ranching experience may not prepare them entirely for a role in professional oversight, strategic decision thinking, communication, and representation. In fact, our research revealed that directors struggle with self-awareness and communication, which are essential elements of good leadership, and instead focus greater attention on their fiduciary duties. 

In a rapidly changing and uncertain world, cooperative boards of directors face enormous internal and external challenges. Many of these challenges stem from factors not in their control yet consume a great deal of attention. Other challenges more routine, are relegated to management, diluting the board’s influence over new strategy or direction. This may perpetuate the perception that the professional manager is more equipped to oversee leadership issues. The complexity of these challenges requires a higher-level thinking and superior board leadership to mitigate shifts in customer needs, profitability, and future sustainability. 

Usually, leadership development training for co-ops, stems from informal, unstructured, and “on-the-job” training. Although experience is a great asset, this learning process lacks the rigor of leadership technique and understanding and should not replace profession governance principles. The truth is new and continual leadership training is an essential activity in building effective boards and successful businesses. The responsibility of the governing board of directors is to lead strategically and intentionally to ensure sound governance prevails. The goal of the co-op should be to thrive, not simply survive.

Therefore, it is incumbent that co-ops should evaluate director performance and provide training opportunities for improvement. More importantly, a comprehensive and multidimensional approach to teaching effective leadership will not only grow better leaders but will lay the groundwork for a culture of continual learning. 

Fortunately, a well-researched framework and teaching model has emerged to help both new and seasoned leaders build and hone their personal leadership skills. The Multidimensional Leadership Model & Assessment, (Friend, 2020), identifies six leadership competencies and measures an individual’s proficiency in each level. Different from other management training, this model recognizes the unique skill set necessary to govern effectively. The six areas measured are consciousness, conduct, connectedness, interaction, representation, and cooperation.

The Leadership Lab website provides an online assessment tool to help individuals expand their leadership capacity, helping to serve effectively on a board. Developed by Texas A&M University researchers and co-op extension practitioners, the Leadership Lab integrates a grounded theory with practical application for leadership improvement. At the Leadership Lab, you can find the Multidimensional Leadership Assessment tool, which will measure all six competencies, providing participants with immediate feedback and suggestions to correct leadership deficiencies. Generally interrelated, competence and board effectiveness complement the qualities of the individual director, which improves dynamics in the boardroom and strengthens organizational performance (Coulson-Thomas, 1994). By assessing individual director competency and providing prescriptive suggestions for improvement, the collective board is strengthened and performs better. The Leadership Lab offers co-op directors, other boards of directors, and individuals the opportunity to learn and grow into the leaders they want to be.

If interested in learning more and accessing the multidimensional leadership assessment, go to: leadershiplab.online

---

References:

Coulson-Thomas, C. (1994). Developing directors: Building an effective boardroom team. Journal of European Industrial Training, 18(6), 29-52. 

Friend, D. (2020). Texas agricultural cooperatives: A study in governing competencies. Texas A&M University, Dissertation.

Northouse, P.G. (2016). Leadership: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

---

Friend, Diane. “Making Effective Board Leaders in Your Cooperative.” Southern Ag Today 4(45.5). November 8, 2024. Permalink

U.S. market awareness of mango, the world’s “King of Fruits,” has risen significantly since the new millennium began. In 2021, value-added fresh fruit aisles across US food outlets witnessed a 27.3% increase in dollar sales over the previous calendar year (Fig. 1). Chefs and home cooks continue to find ways to incorporate fresh-cut mango into menu offerings as a standalone fruit and as an ingredient in salsa, dessert, beverage recipes, and numerous other innovative uses. Industry experts are optimistic about future demand growth rates of ten percent or more over the next five to ten years for value-added mango. To continue introducing consumers to this nutrient-rich fruit’s candy-like flavor, we talked with industry professionals who work with value-added produce to learn how growers may better position themselves to sell into this supply chain.

Figure 1. Total U.S. multi-outlet fresh fruit and vegetable sales, nonvalue and value-added, 2021. 

While there exists an array of mango varieties available to the market, the Kent variety is preferred by large processors and food distributors, as it is less stringy, possesses a recognizable flavor profile, and is more suitable for processing in both size and year-round availability. There exists potential for smaller growers to process and market US-grown varieties to consumers who are looking for new and unique palate-pleasing flavors and textures for their menus.

Currently, a barrier to increased fresh fruit consumption and value-added processing is the difficulty (and injury risk) in peeling and coring mangos. There is potential for exploration and development of small-scale microtechnologies that may reduce the labor time and expense required to process mangos. We encourage entrepreneurial-minded growers to work with craftspeople to design and develop such equipment at costs that may be affordable to smaller-scale processors.

Adopting and adhering to a written food safety plan is of paramount importance for all participants in the mango industry across all product forms and marketing outlets. We recommend that growers invest time and resources in educating themselves and everyone involved in their supply chain to ensure regulatory compliance and transparency to buyers and auditors. This investment will provide dividends in the form of long-term business success, maintenance of customer relationships, and overall growth of the mango industry.

Sustainability factors, such as carbon neutrality, waste reduction, and fair labor practices, are growing important to the agricultural industry. Each of these factors impacts the bottom line of a value-added business, whether in the form of market access, financial performance, or impacts of regulatory policies and procedures. We suggest that Southeastern mango growers and processors spend time discussing and gathering information from company leadership, managers, and employees to review the variables in sustainable practices and implement a select few that best match the fruit grower’s mission and core values.

Funding Statement: This work was supported by the National Mango Board.

---

Morgan, Kimberly. “Opportunities for Southeastern-grown Value-added Mango Products: Conversations with fresh-cut produce professionals.” Southern Ag Today 4(44.5). November 1, 2024. Permalink

The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations defines a person as food insecure if s/he “lacks regular access to enough safe and nutritious food for normal growth and development and an active and healthy life.” According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) 2023 report on Household Food Security in the United States, 13.5% of households—approximately one in seven—experienced food insecurity (Rabbitt et al. 2023), underscoring the continued prevalence of this issue nationwide. Food insecurity exhibited an upward trend from 12.8% in 2022, reflecting a growing number of households with limited resources and chronic health conditions, among other factors. 

The Southern region faced higher food insecurity rates (14%) compared to the national average of 12.2% between 2021 and 2023 (see Figure 1). Only five of the thirteen Southern states fell below the national average: Florida (12.0%), Tennessee (11.7%), Alabama (11.5%), North Carolina (10.9%), and Virginia (10%). Arkansas ranked as the most food-insecure state in both the Southern region and the nation, with a rate of 18.9%. The state’s food insecurity rate has steadily increased since 2020, reflecting significant challenges many Arkansan households face in accessing adequate food. According to Feeding America, more than 560,000 Arkansans experienced food insecurity in 2022, with approximately 24% of those affected being children. Other Southern states with food insecurity rates above the national average include Texas (16.9%), Mississippi (16.2%), Louisiana (16.2%), Oklahoma (15.4%), Kentucky (14.5%), South Carolina (14.4%), and Georgia (12.8%).

It is important to address a lack of sufficient access to food due to its negative impact on health, which leads to poor productivity and lower overall economic growth and development. This is especially important given the increasing risk of food insecurity from greater uncertainty in global developments, such as wars in various parts of the world. These conflicts have disrupted food supplies in the US and worldwide (Filho et al. 2023; Kemmerling et al. 2022). Furthermore, higher domestic food prices and reduction in overall economic activity make it more difficult for low-income households to achieve food security (Elmes 2016). 

To address this issue, the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) provides temporary assistance to help households purchase food until they regain financial stability. Non-profit organizations, such as food banks and food pantries, also play an important role in local communities. Sustainable efforts to reduce food insecurity must be intensified. Prospects for improving long-term food security are tied to the same economic factors that influence household income and budgeting, especially those connected to labor productivity and wages (LeBlanc et al. 2005). Efforts of this nature generally require the collaboration of community stakeholders to ensure a resilient economy, so that the benefits reach all community members.

Figure 1. Prevalence of Household Food Insecurity by State, average 2021-2023

References

Elmes, M. B. 2018. Economic Inequality, Food Insecurity, and the Erosion of Equality of Capabilities in the United States. Business & Society 57(6): 1045-1074. https://doi.org/10.1177/0007650316676238

Filho L. W., M. Fedoruk, JH Paulino Pires Eustachio, J. Barbir, T. Lisovska, A. Lingos, and C. Baars. 2023. How the War in Ukraine Affects Food Security. Foods. 12(21): 3996. 

Kemmerling, B., C. Schetter, and L. Wirkus. 2022. The logics of war and food (in)security. Global Food Security 33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfs.2022.100634.

LeBlanc, M., B. Kuhn, and J. Blaylock. 2005. Poverty amidst plenty: food insecurity in the United States. Agricultural Economics 32(s1): 159-173.

Rabbitt, M. P., Reed-Jones, M., Hales, L. J., & Burke, M. P. (2024). Household food security in the United States in 2023 (Report No. ERR-337). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.

Feeding America, Food Insecurity among the Overall Population in Arkansas, Retrieved September 27, 2024, from https://map.feedingamerica.org/county/2022/overall/arkansas

---

Thomas, Chrystol, and An-Ting Liao. “The Food Insecurity Challenge: A Snapshot of the Southern U.S.” Southern Ag Today 4(40.5). October 4, 2024. Permalink

Serving on a cooperative board can be a thankless job.  The pay is nominal and dissatisfied members find it easy to blame the board of directors.  Despite those challenges, there is a lot of satisfaction and growth from both running for and serving on the board of directors.  Here are the most compelling reasons you should run for your cooperative board.

• One seldom mentioned perk is the self-satisfaction of stepping up to help your fellow producers. It takes time and energy to oversee a cooperative’s health and ensure that it is there for the next generation. There is personal satisfaction in being part of the solution.

• You will gain an increased understanding of the cooperative. Board members open the hood and learn about the moving pieces, both operational and financial. It can be rewarding to better understand the organization that you use and own. 

• You will gain increased financial knowledge.  Cooperative board members have fiduciary duties to protect the member’s investment.  That forces board members to up their game and take their financial skills to the next level. Many board members report that their time on the cooperative board made them better financial managers of their own operation.

• You will have a chance to broaden your horizons and understanding of agriculture. Board members hear about members’ needs and while that can be challenging, it also provides insights into how other producers manage their farming operation. Strategic planning sessions give board members the opportunity to explore the broader trends in the agricultural industry.  Positioning the cooperative for the future goes hand in hand with future-proofing your own farming operation.

Of course, being willing to run for the board of directors does not guarantee that you will be selected. That willingness to run is also a service to your fellow producers.  As John Minton said: “They also serve who stand and wait!”  By agreeing to run for the board you contribute to the democratic process of member control. Running for the board also broadens your connections with other producers and allows you to evaluate your own leadership and communication skills. Some cooperatives have associate board positions.  Associate board members are usually appointed and serve for shorter terms.  Associate board members attend meetings and participate in discussions but do not have a voting role.  That can be a great way to get a trial view of being a board member.

Consider running for your cooperative board. You can improve your cooperative and become a better farmer!

---

Kenkel, Phil. “Why You Should Run for Your Cooperative Board.” Southern Ag Today 4(39.5). September 27, 2024. Permalink

Beekeepers provide valuable services to the population and agricultural community in Southern states. Many beekeepers produce honey, which they sell to retailers or directly to consumers. In addition, many specialty crops grown in the South rely on pollinators – both wild pollinators and those managed by beekeepers – to produce fruit and seeds. Blueberries and watermelon in particular are entirely dependent on insect pollinators, and other crops such as avocados, oranges, strawberries, and tomatoes are moderately dependent on insect pollinators (Mallinger et al. 2021). Reflecting this dependence, the largest number of acres that farmers pay to have pollinated in many Southern states is blueberries, followed by watermelon (USDA 2023).

Given the importance of beekeepers to Southern consumers and to farmers, we conducted an electronic survey of 150 Alabama beekeepers. Our response represented about 12% of the registered beekeepers in Alabama. Alabama has fewer honeybee colonies and lower honey production than Florida or Georgia, but comparable to South Carolina (USDA 2024). Despite the lower total production, Alabama honey yield per colony is higher than other Southern states except for South Carolina (USDA 2024). Alabama also had the highest honey price per pound of all the states in the Southern region in 2023 (USDA 2024). 

Figure 1 describes the operation size and revenue sources for the surveyed beekeepers. Almost all of the beekeepers sold honey (80%), and many beekeepers sold bees to other beekeepers (42.6%). Very few beekeepers provided pollination services (12%). The most immediate potential for revenue growth among beekeepers thus consists of improving the marketing potential of honey. For farmers in specific regions, it may also be difficult to find a beekeeper that provides pollination services. 

The majority of our sample (62%) were “hobbyist” beekeepers with small numbers of hives, and only 6% of our sample were large commercial beekeepers. Farmers looking for pollination services would thus need to find the few beekeepers who have enough capacity to pollinate the required number of acres. Alternatively, farmers may wish to contract with many different hobbyist beekeepers either individually or through a cooperative of hobbyist beekeepers. 

Of the sampled beekeepers who did provide pollination services, 72.2% only offered them within Alabama, while 27.8% offered them both within Alabama and in other states (Florida, Georgia, and California). Reflecting the fact that most of the beekeepers were hobbyists, when asked about barriers to providing pollination services, those that did not offer these services cited a lack of time, resources, and the fact that their operations were too small. Respondents also cited barriers to expanding honey production, which also included a lack of time, as well as difficulty identifying new markets and competing with mass-produced honey that may be mixed with non-honey sweeteners. 

Given the presence of hobbyist beekeepers in Alabama, facilitating coordination between smaller beekeepers will be essential to improving beekeeper revenue from honey as well as providing pollination services. Beekeepers associations may help connect farmers with beekeepers with the capacity to provide pollination services. Hobbyist beekeepers may also find it beneficial to organize into cooperatives that either provide pollination services or coordinate marketing efforts of local honey. Such cooperatives may have the collective capacity that an individual beekeeper lacks to identify new honey markets or provide consumer education on honey. At the extreme, a state- or region-specific honey marketing board may further improve marketing coordination between large numbers of smaller beekeepers. 

Figure 1: Characteristics of a sample of 150 Alabama beekeepers

Sources:

Mallinger, Rachel E., John J. Ternest, Sarah A. Weaver, James Weaver, and Samantha Pryer. 2021. Importance of insect pollinators for Florida agriculture: A systematic review of the literature. Florida Entomologist 104(3): 222-229. 

United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Cost of Pollination, December 15, 2023. 

United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service. Southern Region News Release Honey, March 15, 2024. 

---

Scarbrough, Lawson, and Joel Cuffey. “Beekeeping Operations and Revenue Sources in Alabama.” Southern Ag Today 4(38.5). September 20, 2024. Permalink