Being elected to the board of directors for your local cooperative can be an intimidating experience. An agricultural cooperative may have some fundamental differences from a farm operation that makes it difficult for new board members to assess and direct. Part of these differences are due to business activities in adjacent parts of the supply chain. Additionally, cooperatives have unique financial and legal issues that use unfamiliar terminology, adding to the confusion.
Not surprisingly, education is a hallmark principle of cooperation. Many states offer educational programs for cooperative directors through their state agricultural cooperative council. Other resources for education include the farm credit system members and, of course, your state Extension service. Many of these offer traditional programs over 1-3 days, with speakers and workshops covering a variety of topics. Programs such as these continue to be widely available and appreciated.
However, directors are increasingly requesting alternative educational opportunities with online delivery. On-demand education is often a better fit for modern directors seeking a better balance of time devoted to home, business, and life in general. The pandemic of 2020 taught many boards that a lot of their activities can be effectively conducted online if needed. In response to this, a group of Extension specialists from across the nation established the Cooperative Director Foundations Program. This program provides 15 hours of training across 23 learning modules, targeted to directors of agricultural cooperatives. The course is available from Thinkific, on an online learning platform.
Directors needing cooperative specific training are encouraged to speak to their state Extension specialist for cooperatives and to check out the Foundations course on the Thinkific website at http://cacdd.thinkific.com.
Further Reading
Boland, Michael A., Kopka, Christopher J., Jacobs, Keri, Berner, Courtney, Briggeman, Brian, Elliott, Matthew, Friend, Diane, Kenkel, Phil, McKee, Greg, Olson, Frayne, Park, John L., Secor, William, Schweiss, Kristi, Scott, Hannah and Worley, Tom, (2022), Extension Programming During a Pandemic: The Cooperative Director Foundations Program, Applied Economics Teaching Resources (AETR), 4, issue 2, number 321906.
Citrus greening, also known as Huanglongbing (HLB), is a plant disease affecting citrus production. Citrus greening is caused by the bacterium Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus and spread by the Asian citrus psyllid. This disease affects plant tissue, specifically the phloem, and reduces nutrient uptake (Burrow et al. 2018).
In the United States, citrus greening was first observed in South Florida’s non-commercial citrus in August 2005. By February 2010, citrus greening had spread throughout the traditional citrus areas of the state: Central Florida, Southwest Florida, and Indian River. Elsewhere in the U.S., citrus greening was detected in Louisiana in 2008, and then detected in Georgia and South Carolina in 2009. In 2012, HLB was detected in Texas and residential areas of California (APHIS 2022).
The economic effects of citrus greening on commercial citrus production manifest in three primary ways. First, the disease increases the mortality rate of citrus trees. Second, symptoms reduce the marketable yield per tree by affecting the quantity, size, visual attributes, and flavor of the fruit (Figure 1). Third, greening increases production costs as growers implement practices such as applying additional insecticides and fertilizer to mitigate damage from greening (Dewdney, Vashisth, and Diepenbrock 2023).
Florida citrus production has significantly decreased since the introduction of greening. In the last 20 years, Florida citrus production has declined from nearly 300 million boxes in the 2003-04 season to under 20 million boxes in the 2022-23 season (Figure 2). The United States Department of Agriculture’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (2022) estimates that citrus greening has reduced Florida citrus production by 75% and more than doubled production costs. Further, consumer demand for citrus products has decreased during this period, import competition has increased, and major hurricanes have markedly reduced citrus production (Blazejczyk 2020).
In the 2004-05 season, citrus-producing regions of the state were impacted by four hurricanes within a six-week span, devastating citrus production (Albrigo, et al. 2005). Citrus losses from Hurricane Irma in 2017-18 season were estimated to be $490 million (Hodges et al. 2018). More recently, citrus losses from Hurricane Ian in 2022-23 season were estimated to be $247 million (Court et al. 2023). These hurricanes significantly reduced citrus production (Figure 2).
The sharp declines in citrus production due to hurricanes combined with falling citrus yields due to citrus greening have greatly diminished the size of the Florida citrus industry since the detection of citrus greening in 2005 (APHIS 2022). Major orange juice brands that once sourced exclusively from Florida now blend their juice with imports from Mexico and Brazil (Figure 3) (Bohman 2023). Nevertheless, researchers and growers continue to seek solutions to bring back the Florida citrus industry. There has been extensive research into nutritional supplements, reflective mulch, heat treatments, insecticides, and bactericides to combat the disease. Researchers are also attempting to breed a greening resistant tree, and some citrus growers have taken the prevention route by growing their citrus under protective screens (Florida Department of Citrus 2017). However, implementing these practices requires significant financial investment, meaning a low-cost comprehensive solution to the problem of greening does not yet exist.
Figure 1: Photo of citrus fruit infected with citrus greening
The findings and conclusions in this publication are those of the authors and should not be construed to represent any official USDA or U.S. government determination policy.
References
Albrigo, L G, R S Buker, J K Burn, W S Castle, S Futch, C W McCoy, R P Muraro, et al. 2005. “The impact of four hurricanes in 2004 on the Florida citrus industry: Experiences and lessons learned.” Proceedings of the Florida State Horticultural Society 118: 66-74.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2022. Citrus Greening. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/planthealth/plant-pest-and-disease-programs/pests-and-diseases/citrus/citrus-greening.
Blazejczyk, A. 2020. Citrus Fruits Accounted for 14 Percent of Fresh Fruits Available for Americans to Eat in 2018.Amber Waves, Economic Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2020/august/citrus-fruits-accounted-for-14-percent-of-fresh-fruits-available-for-americans-to-eat-in-2018/.
Bohman, D. 2023. Orange juice brands no longer making juice from 100% Florida-grown oranges. WPTV, Scripps Media, Inc. https://www.wptv.com/news/region-indian-river-county/vero-beach/orange-juice-brands-no-longer-making-juice-from-100-florida-grown-oranges#:~:text=Then%20in%20May%202022%2C%20Florida’s,outside%20of%20the%20Sunshine%20State.
Burrow, J D, M M Dewdney, T Vashisth, and L M Diepenbrock. 2108. Citrus Greening (Huanglongbing): A Serious Threat to the Florida Citrus Industry. https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/CH198.
Court, C D, X Qiao, B B Saha, F He, and K McDaid. 2023. Estimated Agricultural Losses Resulting from Hurricane Ian.Economic Impact Analysis Program, Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. https://fred.ifas.ufl.edu/media/fredifasufledu/economic-impact-analysis/reports/FRE-Final-Hurricane-Ian-Report.pdf.
Dewdney, M M, T Vashisth, and L M Diepenbrock. 2023. 2023–2024 Florida Citrus Production Guide: Huanglongbing (Citrus Greening). https://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/publication/CG086.
Florida Department of Citrus. 2017. “Potential Citrus Greening Solutions.” https://www.floridacitrus.org/grower/fdoc-citrus-411/potential-citrus-greening-solutions/.
Florida’s Natural. 2023. Our Family of Juices. https://floridasnatural.com/our-juices/orange-juices.
Hodges, A W, C D Court, R L Clouser, J J Vansickle, and S E Stefanou. 2018. Economic Losses of Hurricane Irma on Agriculture. Economic Impact Analysis Program, Food and Resource Economics Department, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences, University of Florida. https://fred.ifas.ufl.edu/destudio/t4/pdf/Economic%20Losses%20of%20Hurricane%20Irma%20on%20ag%20in%20Florida%20counties%2010-26-2018.pdf.
National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2023. Citrus Summary Reports, 2001-2023. United States Department of Agriculture. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/Florida/Publications/Citrus/index.php.
Where do you go beyond home and work? Do you commute speedily between the two without much interruption, or do you take a detour to spend time at other fixtures within the community? The idea of the “third place” – where community members spend time outside of their home or workplace – has gained attention in recent years, viewed as a generator of social capital.
Many rural communities have seen their traditional institutions – churches, bowling leagues, civic organizations, etc. – dwindle over the years, due to population decline and the increasing encroachment of digital connections over face-to-face interactions. Thus, the “third places” of today might not resemble those of yesterday, as bowling alleys and fraternal lodges have largely been replaced by gastropubs and axe-throwing ranges.
A recent study attempted to shed light on what rural third places look like and the community functions they serve.[1]Data collection included a survey, sent to all county Extension agents in Oklahoma, which asked a few basic questions about the kinds of institutions and businesses that strengthen the community and contribute to its sense of vitality. Among the numerous findings that came from the survey responses, one common theme was that of the third place: where community members gather to strengthen relationships and share information.
Responses from the survey highlighted both conventional third places, such as diners and coffee shops, and less traditional social fixtures, such as hardware stores, seed and feed stores, and even gas station convenience stores. The overall sentiment from the responses was positive, emphasizing the contribution of third places to the community. One response stated: “People like to gather there to meet up with friends, and its location is close to downtown.” Another response mentioned that the local coffee place is “where the community has come together.” Several responses described positive social aspects, such as gathering: “It has been in the community at least since the 1970’s…it’s like a school reunion on Friday and Saturday nights.” And conversation (or gossip): “If you need info about who, what, when, where, or how, stop in between 6-8 am and set down in one of the booths…it’s where the towns problems are all solved.”These comments reinforce the idea that such places are vital assets that rural communities cannot afford to lose. Rural stakeholders, such as local government and the small business community, must take steps to accommodate and encourage the flourishing of these spaces. The potential consequences of losing these valuable third places extend beyond mere financial considerations. Preserving these institutions helps safeguard the cohesion and vitality that tie rural communities together.
[1] A. Van Leuven, E. Hill, and S. Low. Redefining Local Economic Anchors: Not Just Eds and Meds. In progress.
Organizations, particularly agricultural cooperatives, are facing changes from all directions. As legacy cooperatives retire managers and directors, and potential succession prospects take the reins, changing times are knocking on the door requiring greater leadership skill. Now more than ever, powerful macroeconomic forces are pushing businesses to reduce costs, improve quality of products and services, find new opportunities for growth, and increase productivity to avert catastrophic change. Change is inevitable and how leaders address this change will define what the outcome will be. Will they succeed in adapting or fail by ignoring it?
To overcome organizational change, it is incumbent upon leaders to develop a plan thoughtfully and carefully with realistic expectations. Failure to do so may lead to frustrated employees, wasted resources and disappointing results. Whenever people are forced to adjust to a new paradigm, the organization runs the risk of chaos. Therefore, leaders should roll out improvement plans in a committed and orderly fashion that avoids several errors.
According to John Kotter, leadership expert and Harvard Business School Professor, there are eight errors organizations commonly make in trying to transform their businesses effectively to meet imminent change. What many leaders overlook is the fact that change can be good. Change can transform us, and force organizations to reassess their purpose by reengineering, strategizing, and reorganizing. Although it is common for cooperative members and employees to experience a certain amount of pain with organizational change, good leadership can temper feelings of uncertainty and rescue the organization from a downward spiral into uplifting renewal.
Identifying eight common errors help leaders understand where leading and managing change can go awry. Each mistake obstructs a path forward and slows the process of positive change. Common errors in leading change are:
Allowing too much complacency – lacks urgency and fails to achieve objectives.
Failure to create a strong guiding coalition – top to bottom “Buy-in” is required.
Underestimating the power of vision – vital role in helping direct, align and inspire actions.
Under communicating the vision – It must be credible communication and a lot of it!
Permitting obstacles to block the vision – proclaiming failure is not an option.
Failing to create short-term wins – real transformation takes time. Be patient, celebrate baby steps.
Declaring victory too soon – Changes need to sink into the organization’s culture. New and innovative approaches are fragile, so reinforce them frequently. Communicate the milestones but keep eyes on the end goal.
Neglecting to anchor the change into the organization’s culture – Until new behaviors are rooted in the organization’s shared values, they are always subject to falling back to old ways. Anchoring means building the change into the next generation of management and leadership.
None of these leadership mistakes would be that costly in a slower moving and less competitive and complicated world. Handling changes quickly is not imperative in a relatively stable economy or controlled environment. But the problem for most organizations today is that stability is no longer the norm. And most experts agree that over the next few decades the business environment will be more volatile than most of us want to believe or deal with. Change is inevitable, but errors in leading change are not. With awareness and skill, leaders can guide their organizations by instituting mitigation efforts designed to embrace the change and meet it head on. Agricultural cooperatives have met the needs of many over the years by offering consistent and reliable services. But if they are to survive change, leadership must drive the process forward in a socially and economically healthy way. Leading change means that “change” will not deter progress. And when it raises its ugly head, change will not dismantle a business model that does so good for so many.
References:
Kotter, J.P. (2012). Leading Change. Harvard Business Review Press. Boston: MA
In the U.S., native plants are defined as being present prior to European settlement and “have evolved and occur naturally in a particular region, ecosystem, and habitat” (U.S. Forest Service, 2023). As a result, native plants are often associated with numerous ecological and production benefits, including reduced inputs (fertilizer, irrigation, pesticides), improved biodiversity, increased pollinator foraging and habitat sources, and so forth. When considering the ornamental plant market, native plant sales and demand have increased. Consumers are actively seeking them in the garden center and will drive further distances to shop at native plant retailers. What makes these products so interesting to customers? In 2022, we addressed this question using an online survey of 2,066 U.S. consumers.
Most of the sample (58%) had purchased native plants in the previous year, 25% had not purchased native plants, and 17% did not know if they had purchased native plants. Of those participants who did not purchase native plants, their uncertainty was primarily driven by seeking other plant attributes (e.g., aesthetics, care requirements, availability), followed by lack of familiarity and knowledge. Regarding the motivations behind purchasing native plants, many of the motivations focused on ecological benefits or aesthetic preferences (Table 1). The largest portion of the sample indicated that benefiting pollinators was the primary reason they purchased native plants. For several years, consumers have identified pollinator friendly promotions as one of the top important benefits of plants (behind aesthetics and quality) that influences their purchasing behavior. Complementing the previous plantings/gardens was second, followed by natural habitat restoration, aesthetics, and wildlife benefits. Motivations that were selected less frequently were related to marketing (recommendations, availability, media exposure, social media) and solving problem areas in the landscape (water gardens, difficult planting sites).
Table 1. U.S. Consumer Motivations to Purchase Native Plants in 2022 (n=2066)
Consumers are also actively seeking native plants using different retail outlets than those traditionally used by gardeners. Historically, home improvement centers have dominated the ornamental plant retail market, followed by mass merchandisers, garden centers, and hardware stores (Whitinger and Cohen, 2021). These are still the primary players when considering ornamental plants in general. However, when purchasing native plants, participants indicated they frequent stores that specialize in ornamental plant sales. Specifically, they seek native plants at single-location retail garden centers the most, followed by directly from nurseries or greenhouses, home improvement centers, multiple-location garden centers, and then mass merchandisers. This may indicate that they view native plants as niche products and need to visit specialty stores to find natives and have a wider selection of products. Industry trends have identified an uptick in sales from these outlets relative to years past (Whitinger and Cohen, 2021).
Moving forward, as consumers are spending their money on items (including plants) that they perceive as more sustainable, focusing on production methods and products that meet those needs will be increasingly important. There is also an opportunity to improve traffic to retail garden centers through promoting the availability of these products to the end consumer.
References:
Whitinger, D. and P. Cohen. 2021. National Gardening Survey 2021 Edition: A Comprehensive Study of Consumer Gardening Practices, Trends, and Product Sales. National Gardening Association.
Acknowledgements: Funding for the project was provided by the Horticulture Research Institute (HRI). Its contents are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of HRI. Collaborators include Ariana Torres (Purdue Univ.), Sue Barton (Univ. of Delaware), and Bridget Behe (Michigan State Univ.).
Photo by Hassan OUAJBIR: https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-wearing-blue-dress-holding-flower-pot-2232566/
