- Email: [email protected]
Reorganization of Dairy Herd Improvement Association in New York
Reorganization of Dairy Herd Improvement Association in New York J. D. BURKE Department of Animal Science, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York Organization
The present New York Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative, Inc. was organized in 1949 as an affiliation of county dairy herd improvement cooperatives. This approach to organization, in retrospect, was the only choice at the time, because of the independence of the existing county organizations and their reluctance to give up home rule; that is, to delegate authority to the state organization and to support a state organization financially. I n fact, it took more than five years to get all of the county cooperatives to affiliate. The New York Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative, in a way, has been on the defensive to prove to the counties that it could provide worthwhile services, provide leadership, and coordinate the total program at the state level. Need for change. Changes in dairy farming are occurring at a rate difficult for many dairymen to understand and accept: 1. Rapid decline in number of commercial dairy farms. 2. Decline in total cow numbers. 3. Constant increase in herd size. 4. More mechanization. 5. Inflationary costs, and scarcity of labor. These changes not only affect the dairy farm operation but also create new problems in the operation of Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperatives. Dairy farmers are becoming more business-oriented and have less time to devote to cooperative projects. The cooperative approach for providing services such as dairy records is fine in principle. Yet history shows that most cooperative ventm'es fail unless the organization is large enough and has sufficient finances to delegate authority for administration to paid management trained for the specific job. Local or state directors can establish broad policy and direction, but they usually have neither the time nor the training to manage as complex a business as the dairy records program. Most county units are too small to afford a paid manager. Perhaps the only reason the D H I A has smwived is the guidance and help received from cooperative extension agents. 406
Labor is the Number One problem and represents over 75% of the cost of providing record service. The D H I A supervisor's job, as presently structured, cannot compete with industry or even farm labor in terms of wages, hours, fringe benefits, and working conditions. The day of the entrepreneur supervisor who was willing to start with a few herds and hopefully build himself a circuit is long since gone. Industry and other farm jobs have more to offer. Historically, Dairy Herd Improvement Associations have always been under-financed. Capital has been lacking to provide modern equipment and laboratory facilities. Testing fees have been too low to pay competitive wages and fringe benefits. Furthermore, testing fees seldom reflect the true cost of providing each service. Small herds are subsidized at the expense of large herds. Business management has been sadly lacking. Everyone, extension dairymen, cooperative extension agents, boards of directors, and D H I A supervisors, have responsibilities to promote and cala'y out the program. No one has clear-cut authority to make the necessary decisions. There is no clearly defined chain of command. Often by the time a group decision can be reached, the situation has gotten out of hand. Progress toward reorganization. Some of our key leaders recognized the need for change. I n 1966 a long-range planning committee was established to ana~:cze the sit-nation and recommend a course of action. This group included cooperative extension agents, state directors, specialists, and supervisors. Nine long-range objectives for the future were developed. High priority was given to these two: a) Develop an organizational structure that will render services in an efficient and effective manner. b) Establish a situation under which the New York Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative can employ and hold qualified personnel as a means of assuring reliable, continuous quality service. I t was further reemmnended that a pilot area management trial be started with a regional manager and laboratory. Unfortunately, this trial area has been considerably delayed,
SYMPOSIUM
because of financial difficulties and changes in personnel. However, the operation did get under way in February, 1968. A laboratory equipped with a Foss Milko-Tester is in operation. All supervisors are direct employees of the New York Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative. Memorandum of understanding. A f t e r the recent revision of the Federal Memorandum of Understanding, the Memorandum of Understanding between the College of Agriculture and the New York Dairy H e r d Improvement Cooperative was rewritten to nmre clearly define the responsibility and authority delegated to the cooperative. Educational activities. To bring about change, many people must be informed and educated relative to the need for change. I n 1967, a full half-day of a cooperative extension agent's training school was devoted to a review of the situation, the need for change, proposed reorganization, and suggested activities to generate the desired action. This has been followed by regional meetings to discuss local situations and possible area developments. Hopefully, a master plan for the state will evolve. Discussions at regional delegate meetings have been held. Developments in other states, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, have been reviewed. Reorganization possibilities have been presented at the last two Dairy H e r d Improvement Cooperative annual meetings. The j
k4EMBERBHW J DELEGATES
.DHIA .......... COORDINATING GROUP AND COUNTY ' EXTENSION
NYDHIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS I I Disfr}cf
MEMORANDUMoF UNDERSTANDING'
Direcfors)
BREED ASSOCIATIONS
407
clubs, credit agencies, college staff, D H I C members, and cooperative extension agents has been working this spring to make concrete recommendations in the area of organization, finances, types of record services and supplemental services. The committee on organization has recommended a strong central organization with direct membership and with management of the cooperative business and activities delegated to a general manager. Fig. 1 illustrates the general flow of responsibilities. 1. Membership is in the New York Dairy H e r d Improvement Cooperative but organized on a county basis. 2. Delegates are elected by the membership. a) Act as an advisory committee at the county level. b) Act as an advisor committee in each management area or district. c) Elect state directors in each director district. d) Serve as member representatives at the state annual meetings. 3. The State Board of Directors is the basic governing body to: a) Establish policies, rules, and regulations. b) Employ a general manager with authority to : 1) Administer the business of the cooperative. 2) Employ the necessary personnel including district or area managers. c) Consult and advise with the College of Agriculture in program development and carrying out the respective responsibilities outlined in the State Memorandum of Understanding.
] J
I SUPERVISOR ]?IG.
1.
AI O RGANIZATIONS
AGENCIES
,J ]~ecommende(]
organizational
strne~stlre.
State Board of Directors of the Cooperative has been charged by resolution to have a definite plan for consideration by July, 1968. Work of the task force. An A d Hoc Committee made up of representation from the artificial insemination ( A I ) industry, breed
Thus, much preliminary planning has been done and the direction of reorganization and long range goals reasonably well established. Many details remain to be solved. I t is expected that in July, the New York Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative Board of Directors will present some specific propos~ls to a special delegate meeting with the possibility of positive action being taken at the annual meeting in November. The big question at this point is how nmeh reorganization the membership will accept.
J . DAIRy SCIENOE ~¢~OL. 52, NO. 3
The present New York Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative, Inc. was organized in 1949 as an affiliation of county dairy herd improvement cooperatives. This approach to organization, in retrospect, was the only choice at the time, because of the independence of the existing county organizations and their reluctance to give up home rule; that is, to delegate authority to the state organization and to support a state organization financially. I n fact, it took more than five years to get all of the county cooperatives to affiliate. The New York Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative, in a way, has been on the defensive to prove to the counties that it could provide worthwhile services, provide leadership, and coordinate the total program at the state level. Need for change. Changes in dairy farming are occurring at a rate difficult for many dairymen to understand and accept: 1. Rapid decline in number of commercial dairy farms. 2. Decline in total cow numbers. 3. Constant increase in herd size. 4. More mechanization. 5. Inflationary costs, and scarcity of labor. These changes not only affect the dairy farm operation but also create new problems in the operation of Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperatives. Dairy farmers are becoming more business-oriented and have less time to devote to cooperative projects. The cooperative approach for providing services such as dairy records is fine in principle. Yet history shows that most cooperative ventm'es fail unless the organization is large enough and has sufficient finances to delegate authority for administration to paid management trained for the specific job. Local or state directors can establish broad policy and direction, but they usually have neither the time nor the training to manage as complex a business as the dairy records program. Most county units are too small to afford a paid manager. Perhaps the only reason the D H I A has smwived is the guidance and help received from cooperative extension agents. 406
Labor is the Number One problem and represents over 75% of the cost of providing record service. The D H I A supervisor's job, as presently structured, cannot compete with industry or even farm labor in terms of wages, hours, fringe benefits, and working conditions. The day of the entrepreneur supervisor who was willing to start with a few herds and hopefully build himself a circuit is long since gone. Industry and other farm jobs have more to offer. Historically, Dairy Herd Improvement Associations have always been under-financed. Capital has been lacking to provide modern equipment and laboratory facilities. Testing fees have been too low to pay competitive wages and fringe benefits. Furthermore, testing fees seldom reflect the true cost of providing each service. Small herds are subsidized at the expense of large herds. Business management has been sadly lacking. Everyone, extension dairymen, cooperative extension agents, boards of directors, and D H I A supervisors, have responsibilities to promote and cala'y out the program. No one has clear-cut authority to make the necessary decisions. There is no clearly defined chain of command. Often by the time a group decision can be reached, the situation has gotten out of hand. Progress toward reorganization. Some of our key leaders recognized the need for change. I n 1966 a long-range planning committee was established to ana~:cze the sit-nation and recommend a course of action. This group included cooperative extension agents, state directors, specialists, and supervisors. Nine long-range objectives for the future were developed. High priority was given to these two: a) Develop an organizational structure that will render services in an efficient and effective manner. b) Establish a situation under which the New York Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative can employ and hold qualified personnel as a means of assuring reliable, continuous quality service. I t was further reemmnended that a pilot area management trial be started with a regional manager and laboratory. Unfortunately, this trial area has been considerably delayed,
SYMPOSIUM
because of financial difficulties and changes in personnel. However, the operation did get under way in February, 1968. A laboratory equipped with a Foss Milko-Tester is in operation. All supervisors are direct employees of the New York Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative. Memorandum of understanding. A f t e r the recent revision of the Federal Memorandum of Understanding, the Memorandum of Understanding between the College of Agriculture and the New York Dairy H e r d Improvement Cooperative was rewritten to nmre clearly define the responsibility and authority delegated to the cooperative. Educational activities. To bring about change, many people must be informed and educated relative to the need for change. I n 1967, a full half-day of a cooperative extension agent's training school was devoted to a review of the situation, the need for change, proposed reorganization, and suggested activities to generate the desired action. This has been followed by regional meetings to discuss local situations and possible area developments. Hopefully, a master plan for the state will evolve. Discussions at regional delegate meetings have been held. Developments in other states, such as Wisconsin and Michigan, have been reviewed. Reorganization possibilities have been presented at the last two Dairy H e r d Improvement Cooperative annual meetings. The j
k4EMBERBHW J DELEGATES
.DHIA .......... COORDINATING GROUP AND COUNTY ' EXTENSION
NYDHIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS I I Disfr}cf
MEMORANDUMoF UNDERSTANDING'
Direcfors)
BREED ASSOCIATIONS
407
clubs, credit agencies, college staff, D H I C members, and cooperative extension agents has been working this spring to make concrete recommendations in the area of organization, finances, types of record services and supplemental services. The committee on organization has recommended a strong central organization with direct membership and with management of the cooperative business and activities delegated to a general manager. Fig. 1 illustrates the general flow of responsibilities. 1. Membership is in the New York Dairy H e r d Improvement Cooperative but organized on a county basis. 2. Delegates are elected by the membership. a) Act as an advisory committee at the county level. b) Act as an advisor committee in each management area or district. c) Elect state directors in each director district. d) Serve as member representatives at the state annual meetings. 3. The State Board of Directors is the basic governing body to: a) Establish policies, rules, and regulations. b) Employ a general manager with authority to : 1) Administer the business of the cooperative. 2) Employ the necessary personnel including district or area managers. c) Consult and advise with the College of Agriculture in program development and carrying out the respective responsibilities outlined in the State Memorandum of Understanding.
] J
I SUPERVISOR ]?IG.
1.
AI O RGANIZATIONS
AGENCIES
,J ]~ecommende(]
organizational
strne~stlre.
State Board of Directors of the Cooperative has been charged by resolution to have a definite plan for consideration by July, 1968. Work of the task force. An A d Hoc Committee made up of representation from the artificial insemination ( A I ) industry, breed
Thus, much preliminary planning has been done and the direction of reorganization and long range goals reasonably well established. Many details remain to be solved. I t is expected that in July, the New York Dairy Herd Improvement Cooperative Board of Directors will present some specific propos~ls to a special delegate meeting with the possibility of positive action being taken at the annual meeting in November. The big question at this point is how nmeh reorganization the membership will accept.
J . DAIRy SCIENOE ~¢~OL. 52, NO. 3