-20- 

 Disadvantages ,, ,^ , ,. , . , 



1. Since sales would be handled separately by the two cooperatives, the 

 advantages of large-scale selling or marketing operations would be lost.. 

 (See section on Marketing and advantage 5 under alternative number 2) . ^ 



2. Considerable work as x<rell as mutual understanding would be involved in 

 developing the rules of procedure needed to coordinate the joint operation 

 of storage and packinghouses, so as to insure equal treatment of members 

 of both associations. 



3. The necessity to further segregate fruit between the two associations 

 may increase investment and cost. 



4. Adequate financing, both for facility and operating purposes, would 

 probably be more difficult co obtain than for a completely merged operation. 



■;■; -'- - ■-; ". : ■■ • ■.,' ■ :- r- ■::-■!...; l, ;,1VT'"'i• 

 5. The difficulty of obtaining a manager who could adequately handle a 

 joint storage and packing operation with tv/o separate sales organizations. 



ALTEEINATIVE Number 4 - Have Each Cooperative Rebuild Its Own Facilities . 



Under this alternative each cooperative would retain its ovjn identity, and 

 each would rebuild its own facilities and conduct its sales and other 

 operations separately as in the past. 



Advantages 



1. Problems involved in working out mutually satisfactory storing, packing, 

 and selling operations would not arise. 



2. Determining the relative share of equities and investments that would 

 be required in a merger, either total or partial, would be avoided. 



Disadvantages 



1. If each cooperative builds its ovm facilities, the size of each facility 

 would be smaller than if they built a facility jointly. Thus the amount 



of investment per box and per grower for a smaller facility would be 

 greater than in the case of one large facility. (See advantages under 

 alternative number 2). ^; o: ...- :,tv a 



2. The total investment for constructing and equipping two smaller 

 facilities would be greater than for one large unit V7ith the equivalent 

 packing capacity. (See advantages under alternative number 2). , u.;.'. 



3. A smaller-size plant would not be able to benefit from some technological 

 advances and the "economies of scale''; that is, the per unit operating cost 

 of the smaller units would be higher than in the case of a larger plant. 

 (See advantages under alternative number 2). 



