Herald and Review from Decatur, Illinois • Page 196

Decatur, Illinois, Wednesday, May 1, 1985 Page A5 Marketplace Iowa loses some stake in cattle AP Laserphoto Eugene Obery holds a 1930s photo of his farm, which has been in the family over 100 years. make decisions between selling cattle herds or grain farming equipment, like tractors and planters, Quinn said. "Since grain prices were guaranteed by government programs, the banker would tell the farmer to send his livestock to town." Iowa's cattle business also was hurt by the corn crop failure of 1982, when drought and the government's Payment-in-Kind program combined to cut the crop in half, Futrell said. That forced corn prices sharply higher and raised feeding costs for cattlemen, who already were losing money, he said. Feeders in other states were able to switch to cheaper grain, like wheat and milo, while Corn Belt cattlemen were stuck with expensive corn because it is the only feed grain raised in the region, he added.

Although Iowa's farm economy is showing few signs of rejuvenation, there are some indications that the decline in the state's cattle-feeding industry may be The recent USDA cattle-on-feed report showed that the population of Iowa feedlots fell less than 1 percent from to 900,000 during March and fed-cattle marketings were actually higher. While Iowa cattle feeding is not likely to ever match the heady days of late 1960s and early '70s, Quinn is optimistic that the state will show some gains. "We're hoping to gain 500,000 head in the next 18 months," he said. Ironically, Quinn said, one reason for optimism in the cattle business is a change.of heart by many of the same bankers who had advised against feeding only aIew years ago. After seeing projections that corn prices would tumble under the Reagan administration's proposed 1985 farm bill, "it seems the bankers are promoting cattle feeding again," Quinn said.

Knight-Ridder News Service The Corn Belt the region that practically invented the juicy, corn-fed steak continues to lose its' feedlot population, while cattle feeding in the Great Plains states is booming. And nowhere is the Corn Belt's loss more evident than in Iowa, once considered the nation's prime beef state. From 1981 through 1984, the number of Iowa cattle sold for slaughter tumbled 29 percent, from 2.7 million head to 1.92 million head, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture statistics. By contrast, in Kansas a Great Plains state cattle marketings were up 18 percent in the same period, from 2.98 million head sold in 1981 to 3.65 million head last year.

And in the first quarter of 1985 the Iowa cattle-feeding industry is not faring much better. The USDA's first-quarter cattle-on-feed report, released last week, showed Iowa cattle marketings fell 2 percent, from 450,000 to 440,000. Behind those numbers is a combination of events that has made the current Iowa cattle business a mere shadow of the robust industry that sent 4.5 million cattle for slaughter in 1970, Iowa agricultural officials said. First and foremost, said Iowa State University economist Gene Futrell, is the depressed U.S. farm economy.

As the agriculture's financial situation began to deteriorate badly in 1983. the cattle market also was in the dumps, he said. "The farmerfeeder didn't want to take on the risk that is involved in cattle feeding so he dropped out," Futrell said. Irwin Quinn of the Iowa Cattlemen's Association said bankers also had a hand in helping farmers out of the cattle-feeding business. When it became apparent that a farm needed to scale back operation to stay afloat, farmers often had to Farm family lives heritage METAMORA (AP) When farmer Eugene Obery steps outside his front door, he sees history.

When he steps out the back door, he sees history. It's the kind of heritage that would make any farmer hang onto a 38-year-old slip of paper that lists all the farm equipment he bought from his father a tractor, plow, three wagons, grain elevator, corn planter and other items all for $1,900. "Just a tractor like that would cost $20,000 today," Obery says. Obery's modern white brick house just outside this Central Illinois town is surrounded by farmland plowed by five generations of Oberys. It's grown from 127 acres, bought by Eugene's great-great-grandfather, Paul, in 1874, to 1,350 acres plowed, planted and reaped by Eugene, 56, and his brother Eddie, 59, since 1947.

And each has two sons who have followed them into the fields. They also rent an additional 450 acres for the corn and beans that make up most of the Obery plantings. Obery Farms Inc. is a centennial farm that has been in the same family at least 100 years. There are about 5,000 in Illinois that are registered in the Illinois Department of Agriculture's Centennial Farm Program.

that farmers represent only 3 percent of the U.S. population and that family farms are being harvested by corporations, these centennial farmers are a rare breed, indeed. "It's not all that bad," Obery says. "There's still a future in farming." They're a breed, at least in the Obery fam ily, that isn't in danger of extinction. Eddie's son, John, 30, has wanted to be a farmer since he was a child and hasn't changed his mind despite hard times and bad weather that Illinois farmers recently have endured.

"We're diversified, so these adverse times right now haven't been as hard on us, although these last two years have been the worst we've ever had in farming. We just didn't advance any. We hardly got any rain." It's hard to get Uncle Eugene to talk about the down side of farming. "I still say a farm's a good place to live. You might not make much money, but you got plenty of fresh air, plenty of sunshine and you always got work," he said.

When he looks out over his land, he says, "I'm just thankful to be able to be here all these years." Boosters: Buffalo meat's high-protein, low-cal Hebbring said the group is trying to expand sales in the gourmet food markets in the Northeast and the Southwest because of a high demand in those areas. She said consumers in those areas seem willing to pay the price, which is up to 75 percent higher than that of beef. The Food and Drug Administration was unfamiliar with any of the studies or claims concerning buffalo meat. And, said Emil Corwin, an FDA information officer, the agency has yet to see any evidence that buffalo meat is a cholesterol reducer. The FDA would need solid evidence on the meat's cholesterol-reduction properties before it would allow any nutritional claims on buffalo meat packages, he said.

disease will spend six months eating buffalo meat as their primary protein source, she said. "The study is just beginning, so we don't have any results yet," Stoy said. "But there are theories that certain fatty acids in wild meats might work on cholesterol." Even before the George Washington study, buffalo ranchers were promoting the positive aspects of eating buffalo meat. Among those positive qualities, said Hebbring, are that buffalo meat is lower in calories and higher in protein when compared with beef, is a naturally raised product, is similar to beef "in composition, texture and taste," and is economical because "what you see is what you get. You are not cooking away a lot of fat," she said.

Hebbring, spokeswoman with the National Buffalo Association in Custer, S.D. "And we suspect there may be something in buffalo that will lower your cholesterol." Documentation of that theory, which is now under study by a research team, could be just the boost the buffalo industry needs to take it off the range and into the dining room as steaks, roasts and burger patties, says the buffalo association, which counts 14 members and at least 1,000 buffalos in Kansas. No one in the meat industry or the research community expects a consumer stampede to the meat counter just yet. Buffalo raisers still must overcome one rather formidable hurdle the ill-tempered and none-too-cooperative buffalo itself and researchers are just start ing work on the cholesterol-fighting theory. Hebbring said, that meat analysis studies seven or eight years ago' proved that buffalo meat contains low cholesterol levels.

But recently the George Washington University's Lipid Research Center in Washington, D.C. was general diet-health study when researchers discovered very low cholesterol counts in one subject who had eaten mainly buffalo meat, said Diane Stoy, a center spokeswoman. Researchers found the man just happened to raise buffalo and it was part of his diet, Hebbring said. That's when the center decided to go a step further to determine whether buffalo meat might actually reduce cholesterol levels, Stoy said. In the study launched early this year, six men with a history of heart Knight-Ridder News Service WICHITA, Kansas The buffalo has long been an esteemed animal in Kansas it's on the state seal and in the state song but now it might be headed for star billing on America's dinner tables.

Recent research suggests that buffalo meat, which is low in cholesterol, might actually help the body reduce levels of cholesterol. And buffalo ranchers are beginning to build herds large enough that the industry for the first time can capitalize on consumer awareness of the meat with marketing campaigns like those used by the beef, pork and dairy industries. "We already know by meat analysis that buffalo meat contains very low cholesterol," lower than beef, poultry or fish, said Judy eregulate, says The program began Jan. 1,:1984, and ended March 30. 1985.

citrus segment Qtato? in 1984 than in 1983," the report said. "However, not all of the additional slaughter was the result of the diversion program. In fact, it seems likely that a third to a half of the extra kills last year would have occurred without the program," the agency said. The 15-month diversion program, which was financed by assessments on milk sold by all dairy farmers, provided cash payments only to those who agreed to reduce milk marketings. Some 38,000 producers about 12 percent of the nation's total milk cow operations signed up.

Those included about 20 percent of the commercial dairy farmsi WASHINGTON (AP) Dairy farmers thinned out their herds at a record pace last year, partly because of a milk diversion program that provided cash payments to those who cut back on production, the Agriculture Department says. The Jan. 1, 1985, inventory of dairy cows was 10,819,000 head, a decline of 290,000 or 2.6 percent from a year earlier. The record culling of herds in 1984 offset the number of replacementsv that were available, according to a new outlook report by the department's Economic Research Service. "Federally inspected dairy cow slaughter in 1984 was about 3.2 million head, implying that 341,000 more dairy cows went to slaughter Production per cow is expected to increase in 1985 by 1.5 per cent to 2.5 percent because of the termination of the diversion program and continued genetic improvements in the cow herd.

Total milk production in calendar 1984 dropped 3 percent to 135.4 billion pounds, the first annual decline since 1978. But by March, production was up 1.1 percent from the year-earlier level, and USDA experts say total 1985 production could be up 1 percent to 3 percent from last year. Foreign foods flood to U.S. Block in January, in a rare move that surprised many growers, lifted the system temporarily for this year's navel orange crop. The move had long been sought by administration officials with a philosophical antipathy for government regulation.

Marketing orders are essentially a form of government-sponsored supply control, a concept the administration vehemently opposes for other farm commodities and which it is trying to eliminate in the 1985 omnibus farm legislation now being developed by Congress. Block's action came after a freeze in Florida had damaged much of that state's orange crop and consumer prices had begun to rise sharply. Lifting of the regulation Brought prices down, although they remained relatively strong. "I am delighted with the experience of the last 10 to 12 weeks since Block deregulated navel said Carl Pescosolido, a leader of the independent growers seeking to abolish the system of allocating market shares. "The market has performed well, and the prophets of gloom and doom have been proved utterly wrong." Pescosolido, whose company controls more than 4,000 acres of orange, plum and cherry trees, described the marketing system as one that allows "a committee of my competitors to sit in a smoke-filled room and tell me how many oranges I can sell each week." He denied that the fight is over the survival of small growers, saying most of Sunkist's 5,800 members are more interested in real estate appreciation than farming and that many are absentee landowners.

"I don't believe a group that consists ot hobbyists, syndicators and land speculators should be able to reach into the pockets of consumers" who pay higher prices because of the system, he said. WASHINGTON (AP) A small slice of the Western citrus industry is hoping to harness the Reagan administration's deregulatory philosophy to squeeze out a 50-year-old marketing system, and it has the growers who control the system worried. The growing controversy is over rules that allow a small board to hold down the amount of oranges and lemons that go into grocery stores each week, and to tell each grower what proportion of that amount he can sell. The rules are called "marketing orders," and they have been in existence since a 1937 law was passed to protect small farmers and ensure an orderly flow of perishable fresh fruit to market at stable prices. There are some 47 separate marketing orders nationwide for fruits, vegetables and nuts, but only 11 of them limit production and sales.

"Our agriculture is working," said Russell Hanlin, president of the Western region's dominant citrus cooperative, Sunkist, at a news conference recently. "This government needs to concentrate on the things that need to be fixed. We're not one of them." Hanlin said he was concerned that opponents of marketing orders are gaining the upper hand in the lobbying and propaganda war over whether the marketing system should be preserved. He said small growers, organized inUf cooperatives like Sunkist, overwhelmingly favor the system because it maintains their prices and preserves stability in the industry. Removing the marketing orders would cause chaos, he contended, allowing large growers who want them removed to run roughshod over-small growers and eventually put them out of business.

Adding to Sunkist's worries is the fact that Agriculture Secretary John U.S. Farm Imports (In billions; fiscal years) 1980 1981 17.2 1982 15.5 1983 16.7 1984 18,9 1985 (estimate) 19.5 Source: USDA The most controversial item on the imports list was live hogs, which flooded in from Canada last year. Hog imports more than doubled to 1.1 million head worth $124 million in fiscal 1984, compared with 457,572 head worth $61 million in fiscal 1983. "And more than 99 percent of those imports were from Canada," Goode said. That import flood brought a chorus of protest from U.S.

farmers and restrictions from the Commerce Department. Canadian imports of hogs have now been ruled subject to countervailing duties, subject to final review of the complaints. While the new restrictions, if enacted, are expected to trim pork imports, the import boom of farm goods is likely to continue, Goode said. Although the dollar has weakened the past month, it has a long way to fall before it will stem the flow of foreign farm products into the United States, Goode said. And another dose of Mother Nature's might the killing frost that hit Florida in January likely will prompt another flood of fruit and juice imports through early fiscal 1986, he said.

"I guess that would be the primary reason that imports set a record last year," he said. Fruit imports and especially juice imports jumped 38 percent in fiscal 1984 to $543.4 million compared with a year earlier, the Agriculture Department reported. Juice imports alone soared 108 percent to $265.6 million in fiscal 1984. Vegetable imports also were sharply higher last year, rising 22 percent to $101 million, the USDA reported. While fruit and vegetable imports soared, they couldn't match the purchases of America's traditional major imported product coffee beans.

Last year, America's coffee urge was satisfied with $715 million worth of imported coffee, easily making it the nation's largest imported farm product. Still, the import figures show that coffee may be losing some of its grip as the nation's favorite imported beverage. Coffee imports slipped 4 percent in fiscal 1984, while imports of cocoa and tea were sharply higher. Cocoa imports jumped 41 percent to $258.8 million, and tea purchases were 37 percent higher at $51.7 million, the USDA reported. Knight-Ridder News Service Yes, we grow no bananas.

And coffee, rubber trees, and dozens of other agricultural products that the United States must import because they cannot be grown in this country, except in Hawaii. In total, the United States is expected to import a record $19.5 billion in farm goods in fiscal 1985, which ends Sept. 30. That's up 3 percent from last year's $18.9 billion, also a record. But there's more behind the import boom than just a taste for exotic foodstuffs.

Economics and weather are playing a big part in the strong demand for foreign farm goods, a government expert said. The soaring dollar and the healthy U.S. economy are two of the main factors in the rising tide of imports, said Charlie Goode, an import market analyst for the U.S. Department of Agriculture. "We just have a lot more money to spend on consumer goods than other nations" and the strong dollar makes imports cheaper, he said.

With these global economic forces, it is not a coincidence that U.S. farm exports are slumping while imports are soaring. The strong dollar and sluggish world economy are expected to help trim U.S. farm exports to $36.5 billion in 1 fiscal 1985, down 4 percent from $38 billion a year earlier. Mother Nature has played a big part in the import boom, with the December 1983 severe cold snap.

That freeze hit Florida orange groves and Texas vegetable fields and opened the door for a good portion of the imports in fiscal 1984, Goode said. i.