UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 



MISCELLANEOUS PUBLICATION NO. 14 



Washington, D. C 



April. 1929 



POOLING AS PRACTICED BY COOPERATIVE 

 MARKETING ASSOCIATIONS 



By Chris L. Chrihtensen. rriiicij)al Agri< uUiiml Emnomixt, Division of Coop- 

 erative Markttinff, Uunati of Ayncultural Kconomics 



CONTEXTS 



Page 



Advanta|!es of (troup effort facilitated by 



pooling 2 



Improvement of bargaining position of In- 

 dividual growers 2 



Elimination of waste 3 



Spreading marketing risks among all 



members 3 



Possibility of market expansion 4 



Page 



Pooling marketing expense;; 4 



Pooling sales returns 6 



On the basis of quality fl 



I^englh of pooling period 7 



Area to be included In a pool 9 



Pooling; as practiced by aj^riculdiial coopcM-afive marketing; nsso- 

 «'iatif)ns involves two essential activities: First, the min<i;lin<!; or 

 jiroiipinf; together under unified action or control of any function of 

 production or marketinf;; second, the determination of the results 

 of such group action and the allocation to each participant in the 

 pool of his share of the sales returns, service, expenses, or risks that 

 may arise therefrom. 



This is a somewhat lu'oader conception than is accepted by some 

 coojK'rative leaders. Pooling in i(s relation to cooperative market- 

 ing has been subject to various in(eri)retalions. By some, the prac- 

 tice of pooling has been confused with the principles of cooperation, 

 and a certain method or practice of pooling has been often used as 

 a measure to determine not only whether an association was or was 

 not engage<l jp pooling but also whether it was or was not coopera- 

 tive in character. 



Theie has been a tendency in some (juaiters to group cooperative 

 marketing associations in two divisions: (1) AssfK'iations which 

 pool sales returns or sales returns and expenses: and (2) th(»se which 

 pool only sales expenses. Associaticjns in the lir.st group have been 

 ( onsidered pooling organizations, whereas those in tiie second group 

 have not. 



Certain cooperative leaders, as far lia<k as I!MI> and 1 !•'_'( ). ad- 

 vanced a theory of cooperative marketing whi<-h linkeij jiooling 

 (lelinitely with control of large (|uaiitities of the rommoiiity. This 

 con(e]')tion of pooling, by implication at least, limits the use of the 

 term ''cooperative" not only to those organizations that p<M)I >alcs 



1 



'MJ441*- 20 



