Back to GetFilings.com

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:
NONE

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT:
NONE

        Indicate by check mark whether the Registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the Registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
YES _X_ NO ___

        Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [X]

        Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative has previously registered securities for offer and sale pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the “Securities Act”). As a result of that previous registration under the Securities Act, under Sections 15(d) and 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), the Cooperative is obligated to file quarterly reports on form 10-Q, annual reports on Form 10-K and supplemental reports on Form 8-K. However, the Cooperative has not registered any of its securities under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act. The Cooperative is exempt from any obligation to register its securities under the Exchange Act due to the provisions of Section 12(g)(2)(E), which exempts from Exchange Act registration any security of an issuer, such as the Cooperative, which is a “cooperative association” as defined in the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1929.

1

As a result, those provisions of the Exchange Act, which are applicable only to securities registered under Section 12 of that act, do not apply to shares issued by the Cooperative. The provisions, which do not apply to the Cooperative’s shares, include the regulation of proxies under Section 14 of the Exchange Act and the reporting and other obligations of directors, officers and principal stockholders under Section 16 of the Exchange Act.

        As of November 13, 2003, 488 shares of the Company’s Common Stock and 72,200 “units” of the Registrant’s Preferred Stock, each consisting of 1 share of Class A Preferred Stock, 1 share of Class B Preferred Stock and 1 share of Class C Preferred Stock, were outstanding. There is only a limited, private market for shares of the Company’s Common or Preferred Stock, as such shares may be held only by farmer-producers who are eligible for membership in the Company. The Company’s shares are not listed for trading on any exchange or quotation system. A number of stock transfers, representing approximately 2% of available stock, were not arms length (estate settlements, estate planning from one generation to the next, etc.) and an accurate value for that stock was not available. Management believes that less than 1% of the Company’s available stock was traded at arm’s length during the fiscal year ended August 31, 2003. Of the stock transferred at arms length, the transfers were made during the first, second and third quarters of the Company’s fiscal year and range in price from $2,300 to $2,400 per unit the first quarter, and $2,450 to $2,550 per unit the second and third quarters. The fourth quarter did not have any arms length transactions.

        Any statements regarding future market prices, anticipated costs, agricultural results, operating results and other statements that are not historical facts contained in this annual report are forward-looking statements. The words “expect”, “project”, “estimate”, “believe”, “anticipate”, “plan”, “intend”, “could”, “may”, “predict”, and similar expressions are also intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements involve risks, uncertainties and assumptions, including, without limitation, market factors, the effect of weather and economic conditions, farm and trade policy, the available supply of sugar, available quantity and quality of sugarbeets and other factors detailed elsewhere in this and other Company filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual outcomes may vary materially from those indicated.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

        None

PART  I

ITEM 1.     BUSINESS

        Minn-Dak Farmers Cooperative (“Minn-Dak” or the “Company”) is a North Dakota agricultural cooperative that was formed in 1972 and has 488 members. Membership in the Company is limited to sugarbeet growers located in those areas of North Dakota and Minnesota within an approximate fifty (50) mile radius of the Company’s offices and sugarbeet processing facilities in Wahpeton, North Dakota. The Company’s facilities allow the members to process their sugarbeets into sugar and other products. The products are pooled and then marketed through the services of a marketing agent under contract with the Company. The sugar-marketing agent, United Sugars Corporation, is a cooperative association owned by its members, the Company, American Crystal Sugar Company, Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative and United States Sugar Corporation. The Company’s beet molasses and beet pulp are also marketed through a marketing agent, Midwest Agri-Commodities Company. Midwest Agri-Commodities Company is a cooperative association owned by its members, the Company, American Crystal Sugar Company, Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative and Michigan Sugar Company.

2

        Minn-Dak’s corporate headquarters are located at 7525 Red River Road, Wahpeton, North Dakota 58075, (telephone number (701) 642-8411). Its fiscal year ends August 31.

PRODUCTS AND PRODUCTION

        The Company is engaged primarily in the production and marketing of sugar from sugarbeets. The Company also markets certain co-products of the sugar it produces, such as beet molasses and beet pulp pellets. The Company also owns an 80% interest in Minn-Dak Yeast Company, Inc., which has facilities located near the Company’s sugar production location. Minn-Dak Yeast Company, Inc. produces fresh baker’s yeast and provided revenues totaling approximately 4% of the Company’s gross revenues for the fiscal year ended August 31, 2003.

        The Company processes sugarbeets grown by its members at its sugarbeet processing facility located in Wahpeton, North Dakota. The period during which the Company’s plant is in operation to process sugarbeets into sugar and co-products is referred to as the “campaign.” The campaign is expected to begin in September of each year and continues until the available supply of beets has been depleted, which generally occurs in March or April of the following year, depending on the size of the crop. Based on current processing capacity, an average campaign lasts approximately 210-225 days, assuming normal crop yields.

        Once the sugarbeets are harvested, rapid processing is important to maximize sugar extraction and minimize spoilage. Members transport their crop by truck to receiving stations designated by the Company. Beets are then stored in the Company’s factory yard and at outlying piling stations until processed. Under the Company’s “growers agreement” with its members, the Company furnishes all loading equipment at suarbeet receiving stations and, after delivery of the beets to the Company, pays all freight and mileage charges for hauling the sugarbeets from the piling stations to the factory for processing.

        The Company’s total sugar production is influenced by the amount and quality of sugarbeets grown by its members, by the processing capacity of the Company’s plant and by the ability to store harvested beets. Most of the beet harvest is stored in piles. Although piled sugarbeets that have been frozen by the winter temperatures may be stored for extended periods, beets stored in unprotected piles at temperatures above freezing must be processed within approximately 160 days.

        Sugarbeets deteriorate in storage due to the organic nature of their existence. Beets harvested prior to obtaining a root temperature of fifty degrees or less must be processed as soon as possible or sugar loss will occur and they will deteriorate. The plant start up in the fall is timed to the anticipated end of processing in the spring. The plan of the Company is to finish processing unprotected beets prior to early March, ventilated beets prior to early April, and storage shed beets as soon thereafter as is possible.

        Unprotected sugarbeet piles are “split” by processing the center of the piles first. This method allows the processing of the center beets, which do not freeze and therefore deteriorate more rapidly, at the earliest possible date.

        Ventilated beets have culverts with air holes running every eleven feet into the pile. Prior to freezing of the beets, air is blown into the piles to bring the pile temperature to an average temperature of approximately thirty-five degrees Fahrenheit. When a week or more of sub zero temperatures are

3

forecast, the fans are turned on when the temperature reaches zero degrees and continues to ventilate until the pile temperature reaches zero to five degrees.

        Storage shed beets are handled in the same manner as the ventilated beets. The difference between the processes is the building itself, which insulates the beets from sun, wind, and warmer spring temperatures. With the buildings, storage of the beets can run as late as mid May of each year. If a campaign is not expected to extend beyond early April, all or some of the buildings storing beets may be cooled down to a low thirty-degree temperature and maintained at that temperature until the beets are processed. The decision to freeze or cool the beets in a storage building is based upon the anticipated economic benefit that year of each of the options.

        In addition, unprotected and ventilated beets will, in long campaigns, have extra steps taken to extend their life. Beets can be sprayed with lime to create a reflectant and reduce the harmful impact from the sun’s rays in the spring. Straw can also be applied to the sides of some later processed piles to further insulate the beets from sun, wind, and temperature.

        Once the sugarbeets arrive in the factory, the basic steps in producing sugar from them include: washing; slicing into thin strips called “cossettes”; extracting the sugar from the cossettes in a diffuser; purifying the resulting “raw juice” and boiling it, first in an evaporator to thicken it and then in vacuum pans to crystallize the sugar; separating the sugar crystals in a centrifuge; drying the sugar; and storing sugar in bulk form for bulk and bag shipping.

        The Company’s sugarbeet co-products include beet molasses, beet pulp pellets and pressed pulp. After the extraction of raw juice from the cossettes, the remaining pulp is dried, processed into pellets and sold as animal feed or not dried and sold as wet animal feed to the local market. The beet molasses is the sugar juice left after all economical means have been taken to extract the sugar from the sugar juice. The beet molasses is sold primarily to yeast and pharmaceutical manufacturers and for use in animal feeds. The beet molasses and beet pulp pellets are marketed through Midwest Agri-Commodities Company.

RECENT CROPS

        The Company’s members harvested 2.3 million tons of sugarbeets from the 2003 crop, the second largest crop ever delivered to the Company. Sugar content of the 2003 crop at harvest was 7% above the average of the five most recent years because of crop growing conditions. Because of the near record size and above average quality of the crop delivered, the Company’s production of sugar from the 2003 crop sugarbeets is expected to set a new record for sugar produced. This forward-looking material is based on the Company’s expectations regarding the processing of the 2003 sugar beet crop; the actual production results obtained by processing those sugarbeets could differ materially from the Company’s current estimate as a result of factors such as changes in production efficiencies and storage conditions for the Company’s sugarbeets. The Company’s initial beet payment estimate totals $40.83 per ton or $.12606307 per harvested/bonus pound of sugar, with the final beet payment determined in October of 2004. This projected payment is less than the final 2002 crop payment per ton/pound, but higher than the original projected 2002 crop payment per ton/pound. The lower projected 2003 crop payment results from what management believes is a conservative approach to forecasting sugar production and sugar production costs from a commodity, while harvested, is still at risk for adverse storage conditions.

4

        For a discussion of the 2002, 2001 and 2000 crops and results of operations for fiscal years 2003, 2002 and 2001, see “MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

MARKETING, CUSTOMERS AND PRICING

        Since January 1, 1994 United Sugars Corporation (“United Sugars”), a common marketing agency operating on a cooperative basis, has marketed the Company’s sugar. United Sugars is owned by the Company and three other sugar producing companies (American Crystal Sugar Company, Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative and United States Sugar Corporation) and exists to market sugar produced by the four member owners.

        As of this writing the Company has an ownership interest in United Sugars (year to date contributed capital) totaling $1.4 million, which represents approximately 12% of the total.

        The Company, as well as the other members of United Sugars, has entered into a “Uniform Member Marketing Agreement” with United Sugars. Under that agreement, the sugar produced by the Company is pooled with sugar produced by the other sugar-producing member owners and is then sold through the efforts of United Sugars. The Company receives payment for its sugar by receiving its pro rata share of the net proceeds from the sale of the pooled sugar. The net proceeds of such sales represent the gross proceeds of the sale of the sugar, adjusted for the various costs and expenses of marketing the pooled sugar, including the Company’s pro rata share of the marketing and sales expenses incurred by United Sugars. Any net proceeds from the operation of United Sugars are distributed to the various members on a patronage basis.

        On November 15, 2002 one of the members, Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative, provided United Sugars with a formal, written notice that it intends to leave the United Sugars organization. The Uniform Member Marketing Agreement provides that when a member serves notice of its intent to leave United Sugars it must provide a minimum of fifteen months notice. In this case, the member has provided United Sugars twenty-one months notice. The marketing or financial impact, if any, to United Sugars or to the Company of the departure of this member is not believed to be substantial.

        United Sugars sells industrial bulk sugar, industrial bagged sugar, and retail bagged sugar and specialty sugars. It distributes both cane sugar and beet sugar, and distributes sugar to customers over a large geographical area. United Sugars markets the Company’s sugar primarily to industrial users such as confectioners, breakfast cereal manufacturers and bakeries. The customer base of United Sugars includes most of the large industrial sugar users. The customer base also includes retail grocery and wholesalers. The Company has no single customer, which accounts for more than ten percent (10%) of its consolidated revenues. For the fiscal year ended August 31, 2003, 94% of the Company’s sugar was shipped in bulk form, mostly to industrial users, and 6% in bagged powdered sugar.

        The prices at which United Sugars sells the Company’s sugar fluctuate periodically based on changes in domestic sugar supply and demand. Bulk sugar, the largest portion of the Company’s sales, is contracted one or more quarters in advance, with the effect of stabilizing fluctuations in revenue from quarter to quarter. Retail (grocery) products are sold mostly on a spot or quarterly basis. Current net selling prices for sugar are forecast to be lower than the prior two years because of: (1) record production of domestic sugar from domestic sugarbeets and sugar cane; and (2) the Federal Government’s establishment of the overall marketing allotment quantity, which is provided for in the

5

2002 Farm Bill, was initially set too high, resulting in excessive amounts of sugar available to the domestic sugar market place.

        The Company markets its co-products, dried beet pulp and beet molasses, through Midwest Agri-Commodities Company (“Midwest Agri”), a cooperative whose members are the Company, American Crystal Sugar Company, Southern Minnesota Beet Sugar Cooperative and Michigan Sugar Company. Midwest Agri markets beet pulp, beet molasses and other liquid livestock feed for its member owners as well as non-members. Beet pulp is marketed to livestock feed mixers and livestock feeders in the United States and foreign markets.

        A “Uniform Member Marketing Agreement” evidences the sales and marketing arrangement with Midwest Agri. Under that agreement, the beet pulp and beet molasses produced by the Company is pooled with beet pulp and beet molasses produced by the other producing member owners and is then sold through the efforts of Midwest Agri. The Company receives payment for its beet pulp and beet molasses by receiving its pro rata share of the net proceeds from the sale of the pooled beet pulp and beet molasses. The net proceeds of such sales represent the gross proceeds of the sale of the beet pulp and beet molasses, adjusted for the various costs and expenses of marketing the pooled beet pulp and beet molasses, including the Company’s pro rata share of the marketing and sales expenses incurred by Midwest Agri. Any net proceeds from the operation of Midwest Agri are distributed to the various members on a patronage basis.

        For the year ended August 31, 2003, approximately 55% of the Company’s beet pulp production was exported to Japan and Europe, and the remaining 45% was sold domestically. The market for beet pulp is affected by the availability and quality of competitive feedstuffs and by the strength of the U.S. dollar relative to local currencies in export markets. Dried beet pulp prices increased in FY 2003 due to the impact of the drought conditions in the western United States, which resulted in a reduction in available feedstuffs, and therefore higher per ton prices. Beet molasses is marketed primarily to yeast manufacturers, pharmaceutical houses, livestock feed mixers and livestock feeders. Beet molasses prices increased in FY 2003 due to shrinking supplies of domestically produced molasses and improvement in worldwide prices for beet molasses and competitive commodities.

        Co-product sales accounted for approximately 9% of the Company’s total consolidated net sales revenues during FY 2003. This relationship is primarily a function of the average market prices for sugar, beet pulp, beet molasses and fresh yeast and is not necessarily indicative of future relationships between co-product, fresh yeast and sugar revenues, because prices of these products fluctuate independently of each other.

        The Company is an eighty percent (80%) equity owner of Minn-Dak Yeast Company, Inc. (“Minn-Dak Yeast”). Minn-Dak Yeast manufactures bagged and cream fresh baker’s yeast in a plant located adjacent to the Company’s sugar plant in Wahpeton, North Dakota. The Company started the yeast business in 1989 in order to add value to its co-product beet molasses. Beet molasses is the main ingredient (growth medium) in the fermentation process used to grow fresh baker’s yeast to commercial volumes. A portion of the Company’s beet molasses production is used in Minn-Dak Yeast’s process and is sold through a supply agreement between the two companies. Sensient Technologies Corporation, Milwaukee, Wisconsin, (“Sensient”) holds the remaining twenty percent (20%) equity stake. Minn-Dak Yeast Company, Inc. also has a long-term marketing agreement whereby Sensient will buy all production of yeast produced by Minn-Dak Yeast Company, Inc. in return for certain guaranteed sales volumes. That contract will expire in June 2004, but the Company has a unilateral right to extend it another three years beyond the expiration of the current agreement. The Company has not yet determined whether to exercise that unilateral right to extend its marketing agreement with Sensient.

6

JOINT VENTURE WITH PROGOLD LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

        Prior to fiscal year 2003, Minn-Dak was a five percent (5%) equity owner in ProGold Limited Liability Company (“ProGold”). ProGold was formed in 1994 by three entities for the purpose of building a plant to produce from corn and market high fructose corn syrup; and to produce and market corn gluten feed, corn gluten meal and corn germ, all co-products produced by the plant. The other two equity owners are American Crystal Sugar Company, Moorhead, Minnesota (46% ownership share) and Golden Growers Cooperative, Fargo, North Dakota (49% ownership share). The Company originally contributed approximately $5.2 million in exchange for its 5% ownership position. In April 2003 Minn-Dak sold its ownership position in ProGold for a gain, to American Crystal Sugar Company.

GROWERS’ AGREEMENTS

        The Company purchases virtually all of its sugarbeets from members under contract with the Company. All members have three-year contracts with the Company covering the growing seasons of 2003 through 2005 (the “Growers’ Agreements”). At the end of each year, the Growers Agreement automatically extends for an additional year, so that such agreements always have a remaining term of three years, unless the Company, prior to the automatic renewal, has given notice of termination. In that situation, the agreement will not renew, but will continue in effect for the two-year period then remaining under the agreement. Each Unit of Preferred Stock currently entitles a member to grow 1.35 acres of sugarbeets for sale to the Company. The Company’s Board of Directors has the discretion to adjust the acreage, which may be planted for each Unit of Preferred Stock held by the members. For the 2003 crop year the Company’s Board of Directors authorized members to plant 1.55 acres per unit. For the 2004 crop year, the Company’s Board of Directors has not yet authorized the number of acres per unit to be planted. The authorized acres per unit will be a direct result of the current farm bill sugar allocations. (For a discussion of the current farm bill sugar allocations, see Management’s Discussion on Government Programs and Regulations.)

        Under the terms of the Growers Agreement, each member receives payment for his or her sugarbeets based on a price per pound of extractable sugar. The price per pound of extractable sugar is determined by dividing the total grower distribution of net proceeds (less the amount credited to members investment from member patronage and credited to retained earnings from non-member patronage) by the total of members’ pounds of extractable sugar. Extractable pounds of sugar are obtained by the processing of beet samples taken from members’ sugarbeets during harvest. Each member’s grower payment is obtained by multiplying that member’s total pounds of extractable sugar times the price per pound of extractable sugar as determined above.

        Under the Growers Agreement, each member receives an initial installment of the payment for his or her sugarbeets on or about November 15, soon after delivery of his or her crop to the Company. That initial installment is subject to adjustment by the Cooperative’s Board of Directors and management, but will not exceed 65% of the estimated price per pound of extractable sugar. A second installment is paid in early February; that installment, in combination with the first installment, will not exceed 70% of the estimated price per pound of extractable sugar. A third installment is paid in early April, with the aggregate of all installments paid to that date not to exceed 80% of the estimated price per pound of extractable sugar. A fourth installment payment is paid in early July, with the total of installment payments to that date not to exceed 95% of the estimated price per pound of extractable sugar. The final payment is determined after the end of the Company’s fiscal year, ending on August 31, and is in an amount necessary to bring the total of all payments to the price to be paid per pound of extractable sugar to all growers during the applicable fiscal year. In addition, the Company’s annual

7

patronage net income, which is equal to the Company’s sales less all expenditures and member beet payments, is distributed to the members on the basis of the pounds of extractable sugar obtained from each of the members’ sugarbeets; such amounts are distributed in either cash payments or allocated in the form of patronage credits to the member’s patronage account on the books of the Company.

COMPANY DISTRICTS

        The Company’s by-laws provide that the Company’s members are to be divided into districts for the purposes of voting and the election of members of the Board of Directors. Those districts do not have specific geographic boundaries but, instead, contain a loosely defined area representing the area served by a particular piling station to which members deliver their sugarbeets for storage until the sugarbeets are to be processed. When a member joins the Company, he or she is assigned to a particular district based upon criteria including: (i) the physical location of the shareholder’s sugarbeet growing acres relative to a piling site, (ii) if the previous criteria do not clearly indicate the district to which the shareholder should be assigned, then the physical location of the shareholder’s base of farming operations relative to a piling site (some members deliver sugarbeets to more than one piling site due to the locations of their various fields, even though they are assigned to membership in only one district) and (iii) if the first two criteria do not provide a clear indication of the district to which the shareholder should be assigned, then the shareholder is given the option of being assigned to the district which would best serve the needs of that shareholder.

        Given that shareholders are assigned to districts based upon ease of delivery of harvested sugarbeets and because shareholders own different numbers of Units of Preferred Stock, each district includes a different number of acres of sugarbeet production and, therefore, a different quantity of sugarbeets delivered to the Company. However, none of the districts provides the Company with a materially disproportionate quantity of the sugarbeets produced by the Company’s members. While the allocation of members to the various districts has a significant impact on the election of directors, the Company does not believe that the districts represent a significant factor in the day-to-day business operations of the Company.

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT

        The Company is involved in very little of its own research and development activities, but does participate in some sugar industry research and development activities. Any research findings are then shared by the entire sugar industry. Participatory research and development is accomplished through such organizations as Beet Sugar Development Foundation, Sugar Association, and North Dakota/Minnesota Research and Education Board. The Company participates in the organizations listed above through the efforts of its representatives to the boards of directors of those entities. The Company’s representatives, either a member of the Company’s Board of Directors or a management employee of the Company, allow the Company to participate in and help direct agricultural and factory operations research and development activities carried out by the listed organizations. Those organizations also have established various committees on which the Company has placed certain of its employees. That practice is designed to provide the company with direct access to any research and development information available from the applicable committees. (Through its employees, the Beet Sugar Development Foundation also provides some legislative and lobbying efforts on a national level. Those efforts are directed at maintaining funding for the various federal sugarbeet research facilities.) None of the Company’s employees or directors devotes a significant portion of their time and energies to the activities described in this section; instead, such efforts are a minor portion of their continuing duties on behalf of the Company.

8

        During the fiscal year ended on August 31, 2003, the Company contributed approximately $95,000 to the North Dakota/Minnesota Research and Education Board to fund that entity’s research and development activities. $17,000 was given to the Beet Sugar Development Foundation in connection with their research activities, and $92,000 to the Sugar Association for their research activities and membership dues

        The Company also has established a sugarbeet seed committee, which reviews the performance of new and existing sugarbeet seed varieties. The committee then advises the Board of Directors with regard to those sugarbeet seed varieties that should be approved for use by the Company’s shareholders.

ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS

        The Company is subject to a broad range of evolving environmental laws and regulations. These laws and regulations include the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act. Currently, the Company is unaware of any areas of non-compliance.

        The Company has installed and begun using a $9.0 MM Steam Dryer project, which is intended to reduce solid waste and air emissions. In addition to the Steam Dryer Project, the Company has $1.0 MM of environmental capital improvements budgeted for FY 04.

        Compliance with these laws and related regulations is an ongoing process that, at the current levels of spending, is not expected to have a material effect on the Company’s capital expenditures, earnings or competitive position. Environmental concerns are, however, inherent in most major agricultural operations, including those conducted by the Company, and there can be no assurance that the cost of compliance with environmental laws and regulations will not be material. Moreover, it is possible that future developments, such as increasingly strict environmental laws and enforcement policies thereunder, and further restrictions on the use of agricultural chemicals, could result in increased compliance costs.

MARKET AND COMPETITION

        Current U.S. Government statistics estimate total U.S. sugar deliveries at 181.4 million cwt refined for the fiscal year beginning October 1, 2002 and ending September 30, 2003. For the same period ending in 2002, total deliveries were 188.5 million cwt. refined. Comparing the two years shows demand reduction of 3.8% for U.S. sugar sellers. After experiencing strong and steady growth during the 1990‘s, U.S. demand for sugar has stagnated since fiscal year 2000. Deliveries for the period October 1, 2002 through August 31, 2003, the most recent period for delivery data provided by the U.S. Government, shows that Bakery and Cereal, Confectionary, Retail Grocery and Chain Stores, and multiple food use categories are down 3.8%. This group of categories represents 58% of the domestic deliveries by use for this period. While there is no clear explanation for the decline in sugar consumption, the decline coincided with a decline in U.S. economic activity, suggesting that aggregate disposal income and sweetener consumption may be related. Other factors that could have contributed to the decline include: (1) changes in dietary habits (such as the low carbohydrate high protein diets that are now popular with consumers) and (2) the effect of sugars contained in imported products, which have increased significantly since 1995.

9

        The U.S. government forecasts growth between 2002 and 2003 to be approximately 2%, at 185.5 million cwt. refined, indicating deliveries to non-industrial end users will likely increase along with population growth. Also, national economic recovery should help demand for products that contain sugar. A continued problem will be the upward trend in imported products that contain sugar. The Company has no reason to disagree with the U.S. Government’s estimate of sugar deliveries for fiscal year 2004, but it would mean that a reversal of a few years of contracted consumption is occurring. Given the size of the domestic market, the Company’s sugar production and sales represent between 2 and 3% of the total domestic market for refined sugar in 2003. United Sugars, which sells the Company’s production through a sugar marketing pool, represents approximately 26% share of the U.S. sugar market.

        The U.S. refined sugar market has grown over the past twenty years, despite the enormous amount of demand lost to the substitution of high fructose corn syrups for sugar in beverages and certain food products. Non-nutritive sweeteners such as aspartame have also been developed to substitute for sugar. The substitution of corn sweeteners for sugar not only reduced demand for sugar in the United States, but also resulted in a high degree of sugar industry consolidation. For example, in 1978 there were 28 sugar producers and sellers in the U.S. market. Today there are eight sugar sellers, with 85% of U.S. sugar market share concentrated in the top four sellers, most of which are fully integrated beet and cane suppliers. The Company’s main competitors in the domestic market are Imperial Sugar Company, Domino, Amalgamated Sugar Company and California and Hawaii Sugar Company. Competition in the U.S. sugar industry, because sugar is a fungible commodity, is primarily based upon price, customer service and reliability as a supplier.

GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS AND REGULATION

        Domestic sugar prices are supported under a program administered by the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”). Under the current program, which was initiated in 1981 and extended under the Food Security Act of 1985, the Food, Agriculture, Conservation and Trade Act of 1990, the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 and now The Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the “Farm Bill”), the price of sugar is required to be maintained above the price at which producers could forfeit sugar to repay non-recourse loans obtained through the Commodity Credit Corporation (“CCC”). The USDA maintains sugar prices without cost to the U.S. Treasury by regulating the quantity of sugar imports. The Farm Bill maintains the basic 18-cent per pound loan rate for raw sugar and puts in place a 22.90 cent per pound loan rate for refined beet sugar. Both loan rates are effective for crop years 2002 through 2007. Price support loans are made on a non-recourse basis, which means the sugar processor is able to forfeit sugar to CCC if sugar prices the Company receives in the marketplace are below the loan rate.

        However, the Farm Bill also provides that, to the maximum extent possible, the Secretary of Agriculture of the USDA (the “Secretary”) shall operate the sugar program at no cost to the Federal Government by avoiding the forfeiture of sugar to CCC. The Farm Bill further provides for the imposition of marketing allotments each crop year for the marketing by processors of sugar processed from sugarbeets and domestically produced sugarcane at a level that the Secretary estimates will be needed to avoid forfeitures of sugar to the CCC. The Secretary only suspends allotments whenever the Secretary estimates or re-estimates, or has reason to believe, that imports of sugar for human consumption will exceed 1,532,000 short tons raw value.

10

        Each domestic processor of sugar, which includes the Company, is provided an allocation whenever allotments are in effect, based upon a formula. The Company believes that the amount of allocation it can expect to receive from the Secretary in each year of the Farm Bill may not be sufficient to allow it to sell all of its production of sugar in the domestic market for human consumption. Any amount of sugar produced by the Company within an allotment year that does not have a corresponding allocation will have to be marketed into alternative markets or held until such time that allotments are lifted. The Company anticipates that it may well have to adjust its production of sugar each year to more closely match its anticipated allocation. To the extent that the Company has to market any over-allocation sugar into alternative markets, or reduce production to more closely match its anticipated allocation, it is not expected that those decisions would have a material adverse effect on the operations of the Company.

        Under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade Act o f 1990 (“GATT”), tariff rate quotas were implemented for certain sugar producing countries, that provided for a fixed quantity of sugar imports duty-free or subject to minimal duties. Unlimited additional quantities may be imported upon payment of a tariff of 16.21 cents per pound of refined sugar prior to shipment (to date, very little sugar has been imported under this higher tariff level). Further, imports of sugar under the tariff rate quota are based upon the difference between domestic sugar consumption and domestic sugar production, with one exception. Under the terms of the GATT the minimum imports of sugar are established at 1,257,000 short tons, raw value. Therefore, even if the difference between domestic sugar consumption and production are less than 1,257,000 short tons, raw value, GATT will require that 1,257,000 short tons be imported into the United States from the quota holding foreign countries.

        In November 1999, the so-called Millennium Round of the World Trade Organization (WTO) began in Seattle, Washington with the goal of continuing to move toward multilateral free trade in all sectors. The WTO met again in November 2001 in Doha, Qatar where members launched new multilateral trade negotiations aimed at improving market access, reducing and eventually phasing out of all forms of export subsidies and substantial reductions in trade-distorting domestic support. Any agreements reached at the Millennium Round could represent a threat to the domestic sugar industry because sugar is one of the most highly protected sectors within world agricultural trade and is thus a target for reform. The trend toward liberalization will most likely focus on the minimum import requirement of 1,257,000 short tons. There will likely be a movement to raise the minimum import requirement, and if successful, such a movement could cause additional supply/demand pressure in the United States. To date, additional meetings have taken place to move the process along of completing the Millennium Round of WTO, but without much success because of major disagreements on agricultural trade and other issues between developed and third world countries.

        The Company believes the North American Free Trade Agreement (“NAFTA”) currently represents a serious public policy challenge to itself and the domestic sugar industry. Under the terms of the original NAFTA text, Mexico would have been allowed to ship any excess production of sugar into the United States if Mexico were to achieve net surplus producer status two years in a row. Concerned that Mexico’s productive capabilities and possible conversion to the use of high fructose corn sweeteners could quickly change Mexico from a net sugar importer to a net sugar exporter, the U.S. sugar industry insisted that NAFTA be changed to delay Mexico’s access to the U.S. market. To embody these changes, a side agreement on sugar was reached prior to passage of NAFTA to give Mexico incrementally larger but capped volumes of duty-free access, and an ability to send additional quantities if it were to pay a gradually descending second tier tariff. The side agreement establishes a common market between the United States and Mexico in sugar by 2008. The side agreement has been contested by Mexico as invalid, contending that the side agreement was not signed by Mexico. To date, the United States has contended that the side agreement is valid and has dealt with sugar imports from

11

Mexico accordingly. The two countries continue to negotiate over this issue and the Company cannot predict the outcome of those negotiations. However, should Mexico prevail on this issue with the United States, the Company believes that imports from Mexico could increase dramatically and therefore have a material adverse affect on the domestic price of sugar.

        The Company is concerned that low world sugar prices and a trade conflict between the U.S. and Mexico over high fructose corn sweeteners could permit de facto acceleration of the side agreement under NAFTA. Under the NAFTA tariff schedule, second tier sugar tariffs are set at approximately 7.78 cents in 2003 but decline by approximately 1.5 cents per year until reaching zero in 2008. The Company believes that current low world raw sugar prices make it feasible for Mexican second tier sugar to enter the United States marketplace. In contrast to Mexico’s duty free access to the United States sugar market, which is at 250,000 metric tons per year, NAFTA contains no restrictions on second tier imports. To date Mexico has exported very little second-tier tariff sugar to the U.S. because their sugar marketplace is in balance between supply and demand. This balance was created when the Mexican government imposed a 20% “soda” tax on all beverages that contain high fructose corn syrup. The tax was imposed in response to the NAFTA side agreement issue between the U.S. and Mexico, and is meant to reduce the amount of high fructose corn syrup imports to Mexico. The move has been successful in reducing the amount of high fructose imports from the U.S., and as a side benefit has created a demand for excess domestic sugar in Mexico.

        Under the current terms of NAFTA and the side agreement, the Company is concerned that imports from Mexico could oversupply the U.S. market forcing sugar prices significantly lower. Any fluctuation in the price of sugar has a direct impact on any sugarbeet payments that are made to members. The Company, along with the domestic sugar industry, is seeking improvements to NAFTA and is also pursuing legal remedies to address the matter. If the sugar industry is unsuccessful in these or any other endeavors it pursues to prevent the influx of Mexican sugar into the U.S. market, there could be adverse financial consequences to the Company and its members.

        The Company also believes, that should the U.S. Congress pass certain proposed regional or bi-lateral trade agreements that are currently being negotiated, that those trade agreements also will represent a serious public policy challenge to itself and the domestic sugar industry. These proposed agreements are being negotiated with Central American Countries, Australia and Thailand. There could be other proposed agreements too in the future as the current U.S. Government Administration has started an initiative to pass any number of regional or bi-lateral trade agreements as an alternative to WTO should that agreement stall out.

        The recently passed Farm Bill provides price support provisions for sugar. However, if the price support program including the Tariff Rate Quota system described above, were eliminated in its entirety, or if the effectiveness that the United States’ price support program provides from foreign competitors were materially reduced, the Company could be materially and adversely effected. In such a situation if the Company were not able to adopt strategies that would allow it to compete effectively in a greatly changed domestic market for sugar, the adverse affects could impact the Company’s continued viability and the desirability of grower sugarbeets for delivery to the Company.

EMPLOYEES

        As of October 30, 2003, the Company had 251 full-time employees, of whom 219 were hourly and 32 were salaried. It also employs approximately 329 additional hourly seasonal workers during the sugar beet harvest and processing campaign. In August 2000 the Company concluded the negotiations for a collective bargaining agreement with the American Federation of Grain Millers (AFL-CIO) union

12

for its factory employee group. The written contract is in effect from June 1, 2000 through May 31st of the year 2005. Office, clerical, management and harvest employees are not unionized. Full time employees are provided with health and dental insurance, a defined benefit pension retirement plan, a 401(k) retirement savings plan, a short and long-term disability plan, term life insurance, and vacation and holiday pay plans. Seasonal workers are also provided some of these same employee benefits. The Company considers its employee relations to be excellent.

ITEM 2.     PROPERTIES

        The Company operates a single sugarbeet processing factory at Wahpeton, North Dakota that is located in the Red River Valley of Minnesota-North Dakota. The Company owns the factory, receiving sites, and the land on which they are located.

        The properties are adequate to process normal and above normal crop sizes with a three-year post expansion average slice rate of 9,400 tons per day. The processing factory is anticipating processing the 2003 crop, which, while having less tons delivered than the 2002 record size crop, is expected to produce a record amount of sugar. If the Company encounters normal weather patterns, which will in turn provide normal beet storage conditions, then it should have little difficulty successfully processing the high-quality crop.

        Minn-Dak Yeast Company, Inc, of which the Company is an 80% owner, operates a single yeast manufacturing factory at Wahpeton, North Dakota that is located in the Red River Valley. Minn-Dak Yeast Company, Inc. owns the factory and the land on which it is located. During fiscal 2003, fresh yeast was produced and sold into the domestic yeast marketplace.

        All properties are held subject to a mortgage by the Company’s primary lender.

ITEM 3.     LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

        From time to time and in the ordinary course of its business, the Company is named as a defendant in legal proceedings related to various issues, including worker’s compensation claims, tort claims and contractual disputes. Other than as provided herein, the Company is not currently involved in legal proceedings that have arisen in the ordinary course of its business, and the Company is also unaware of certain other potential claims that could result in the commencement of legal proceedings. The Company carries insurance that provides protection against certain types of claims.

        The Company is subject to extensive federal and state environmental laws and regulations with respect to water and air quality, solid waste disposal and odor and noise control. The Company conducts an ongoing and expanding control program designed to meet these environmental laws and regulations. As disclosed under “ENVIRONMENTAL MATTERS” above, there currently are no pending regulatory enforcement actions and the Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations.

ITEM 4.     SUBMISSION OF MATTERS TO A VOTE OF SECURITY HOLDERS

        There were no matters subjected to a vote of security holders in the fourth quarter of the Company’s fiscal year.

13

PART  II

ITEM 5.     MARKET FOR COMPANY’S COMMON EQUITY AND RELATED STOCKHOLDER MATTERS

        There is only a limited, private market for shares of the Company’s Common or Preferred Stock, as such shares may be held only by farmer-producers who are eligible for membership in the Company. The Company’s shares are not listed for trading on any exchange or quotation system. A number of stock transfers, representing approximately 2% of available stock, were not arms length (estate settlements, estate planning from one generation to the next, etc.) and an accurate value for that stock was not available. Management believes that less than 1% of the Company’s available stock was traded at arm’s length during the fiscal year ended August 31, 2003. Of the stock transferred at arms length, the transfers were made during the first, second and third quarters of the Company’s fiscal year and range in price from $2,300 to $2,400 per unit the first quarter, and $2,450 to $2,550 per unit the second and third quarters. The fourth quarter did not have any arms length transactions.

14

ITEM 6.     SELECTED FINANCIAL DATA

        The following table summarizes selected financial data for each of the last five completed fiscal years. The selected financial data of the Company should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Report.

15

16

ITEM 7.     MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION
                   AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS:

        The following discussion of the financial condition and results of operations of the Company should be read in conjunction with the Company’s financial statements and notes included elsewhere in this Report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. The Company’s actual future results may differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements contained in this section; such differences could arise as a result of a variety of factors including, but not limited to, the market and regulatory factors described elsewhere in this Report.

External Risk Factors That May Affect the Company.