John Roach's Debut on Farm Digest | Classic Market

Paul Yeager: Look at me. I'm inside of a box. Well, a 1977 box, because that's the way TV looked. I figured that would be the way to start this podcast. This is the MToM podcast. I'm Paul Yeager, we're going back in time. We're going to go back to 1977, June 10th is the first day that you saw John Roach appear on the TV program we now call Market to Market.  Back then, Farm Digest after was also Iowa Farm Digest in season one, which was 1975. This is an episode from season two in June. So this is the first time we see John Roach on the TV show. So Jimmy Carter was president, inflation was starting to flare and the farm crisis was looming. We just didn't know exactly all of those parts. I want you to watch a couple things in this episode. I want you to look at the graphics to see how time has gone and changed. You'll see the market analysis is up front, and then you're going to see some of the stories I want you to watch. Some of the stories are going to talk about housing. That'll be a thing in this story. So make sure you watch that. I want to let you know. Yes. We had buy for me the Rain as the theme music for the show. I'm not putting it on there so we can put it on YouTube because there is a lot of time that that song would be on. So that's why so many of you know the show “Buy for for Me The Rain” by the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band as being associated with this program. It's because it was on for so long. So that's what you're going to see here in this installment of the MToM podcast.

Announcer: Farm Digest with Chet Randolph, produced Friday, June 10th.

Hello, I'm Chet Randolph, this is Farm Digest. Welcome back. Last December, we took a two part look at the quality of life in rural America. We talked about the problems that lie behind the picture postcard beauty of many of our small towns and the rural countryside. Well, this week we're going to do the same, but this time with the USDA's new Assistant Secretary for Rural Development, Alex McCurry. Since our first report last December, the problems in rural America haven't gotten any better. There still are five times as many people per doctor in the country as compared to the cities. Over 5000 towns in rural America don't even have a physician. 47% of our country's poor live in small towns and rural areas, but they receive only 27% of federal welfare and poverty payments. Ironically, amidst all the body of agriculture, one of the most serious problems confronting the rural poor is undernutrition and hunger. The list could go on and on because historically, the problems of low income rural residents have been compounded by the popular belief that rural life was the good life, the problems of rural folks weren't visible, therefore they simply didn't exist. Big city problems were visible, and they received the federal government's attention and its money. Later on, we'll be talking with Alex McCurry about all of this. But before we do, we want to turn as usual. We do at this time to this week's commodity markets with market analyst John Roach of the Farmers Grain and Livestock Corporation. And John, with low subsoil moisture, how much lower is this corn going?

John Roach: Well, Chet, it surprised me and how far it's sold off this past week. I don't think we'll see too much further decline before we see it start to recover.

Chet Randolph: We've got some other pressures on it, like wheat, but, it should rally unless we get a lot of rain.

John Roach: Well, at this point, the market seems to be watching the weather forecast a little closer than they are the crop development. Unless we see substantial moisture, you can expect a rally out of these price levels.

Chet Randolph: If you are a cattle or hog feeder, would you be buying corn ahead as much as you can?

John Roach: I sure would be. From this point here, I think a man can be comfortable owning corn at these prices to carry him all the way into the new crop.

Chet Randolph: Okay, before we go any farther, John, let's see how the markets did this week. There were horrendous losses in all the grains and livestock this week, the like of which we seldom see. There were limited down moves and beans, meal oil, cattle, bellies and hogs. Many bought corn Monday with a forecast of no rain for five days. Scattered showers came and the forecast of rain for this weekend caused heavy liquidation, dropping prices $0.15 in four days to the lowest level in four years in beans.

Chet Randolph: Add to the rain forecast a complete lack of buying in Europe for two weeks. Those who bought the dry forecast Monday, thinking they were heading back to their highs, were disillusioned and got out, causing prices to plummet almost a dollar in one week. Worry about cattle forced off dry pasture. Started selling in the cattle Monday stops were hit and they went limited down. Lack of retail buying hit a market already battered. Technically causing cattle to drop a dollar under the previous contract. Low down 350 in a week. Well, John, do you think that we've overdone it on the future side or the fundamentals that bad on the livestock?

John Roach: Now temporarily, we're running into a problem where we've got too much meat that we're trying to move in the grocery store, and it's simply not moving as quickly as what they would like to see it.

Chet Randolph: Just not the demand there, it seems.

John Roach: It seems like it's just backed away in the last 30 day period of time. Quite surprisingly to a lot of people. I do think like what you're saying, however, that the futures market is maybe tending to overdo it just a bit because the cash market is not looking quite that serious.

Chet Randolph: How about the beans? And we overdone that too. Are they really that bad?

John Roach: Well, you can look back last year and there was a $2 sell off on soybeans and the month of July, and they came right back in August. We could be seeing the very same thing this year where after having an exciting market in April and seeing the early highs, now we're seeing somewhat of a disappointed type market as people start to bail out.

Chet Randolph

Do we gave to? What do we watch for buying in Europe? I suppose cash, meal prices, what those sort of things we watch for?

John Roach: Well, the number one thing to watch for, of course, is the weather conditions. Beyond that, I think that the export business is particularly crucial. The Brazilians are selling aggressively now in advance of our new crop harvest, and will most likely continue to do so. So that's something to watch. 

Chet Randolph: Also, how about on the new crop? Do you think that, we're going to see some more down or have we seen pretty well the correction here?

John Roach: It looks at this point we've probably seen most of the down that the market's going to have. I would expect to see some recovery back. And I think another move back toward the upside before we get through the summer months.

Chet Randolph: What do you hear about other areas of the US like the Mid South.

John Roach: On being the Mid South right now it's got some problems because they haven't received the rainfall that normally they would be during this time of the year, but other than the Mid South, the moisture pattern seems to be spotty more than any general type of a description.

Chet Randolph: But you think there's enough of a chance front up that you wouldn't suggest a fella contract any more beans now if he's already got some contract.

John Roach: And if if an individual's got some contracted, no. However, if he does not have any contracted, I think he has to be a little quicker at the trigger than what he has been here in the past couple of months.

Chet Randolph: Yeah. And how about for the feeder again, as we said on corn, what about on the meal side? Would you be laying in some even new crop meal now at these prices or not.

John Roach: Well, at these kind of price levels, I think meal is probably a better purchase relative than corn. As far as going on out into the new crop, I'd be a little cautious there, but I certainly would cover my needs through the summer months.

Chet Randolph: Thank you. John. One of the most serious problems facing rural America today is housing. The federal government currently supports several programs designed to encourage the flow of housing construction money into rural areas. One of those programs operating in several areas of the country is called Self-Help housing. Bill Hanley took a look at this rather unusual program and filed this report.

Bill Hanley: The concept involved in self-help housing is really very simple. Several low to moderate income families are wishing to live in the same rural community are organized by a local housing assistance group utilizing Farmers Home Administration financing. The families are offered low interest loans toward the purchase of their own brand new homes. The catch is that the families must build the homes themselves and so working together, the families, including husbands, wives and children over 16, attend planning sessions, construction classes and eventually begin the actual building process under the supervision of a professional housing contractor working both winter and summer. The projects are usually completed within 5 to 8 months. One such project, made up of five single family homes, is located in the small eastern Wisconsin town of Oakfield, eight miles southwest of Fond du Lac. The Oakfield Housing project, which stands on the extreme western edge of town, was begun back in December of last year and is now virtually complete. Having finished work on the interior of the homes, several families have already moved in while continuing to work on landscaping and garage construction. The first to move in was Sid Martin and his family, and he can remember the hard work and long hours that went into building his home. Well, he started on the foundations probably about a week, two weeks, maybe about a month later. And the problem there was with the frost and they would dig the hole, and then it was too much frost and couldn't get going. And then they put the forms and they couldn't because it was too cold. And we had, I don't know, almost two months to a weather where it was never above 32 degrees, and they said they wouldn't pour unless it was above 18. So very few days in there where it got above 18. But when they did pour, it was it was a start. Oh, I learned a lot. Yeah, it was a real challenge. It was a real challenge. And it was a lot of fun. And it was it was a pain and it was a problem. And you talked to so many people that build a house and they say, if I had to do over again, I never do it. And you never understand why until you do it. And when you get into it, you've got so many things you got to do. For every one project you finish, you start about three more and it seems like it never ends. But while the Oakfield project may have been a challenge for the participants, it was a challenge of a different sort for the people of Oakfield. As in almost any rural community of under 1000 residents, newcomers are viewed with some degree of suspicion. And especially last year when it came down to the village board deciding whether low income housing units should be allowed on the town's outskirts, questions were bound to be raised well, according to their specifications that they had drawn up. The applicants were supposed to have reasonably good credit ratings and so forth, and several of the applicants had, arrest records. And some of them, apparently even had, unpaid bills that, that the county people had contacted them on and so on and so forth. You know, there I'd say that their credit rating just wasn't quite like it should have been according to the contract. And when we did talk to the members of Self-Help Housing Office on this stuff, they, they assumed that they had been screened. But the screening was done by a different office. But even after self-help housing officials improved their screening process and presented the village board with a new list of applicants, the Oakfield Village Fathers continued to have concerns over such federally supported housing. We didn't want all these places to look alike. We didn't want it to be a development of, identical cracker boxes or something like that, you know? So they did consent to using different styled homes. And that was used in the program. We would have preferred to have garages on all units. Well, initially, as in most rural communities, there is a fair amount of conservatism. A lot of them are from the German background. They don't believe in any sort of assistance. I believe in, themselves. We tried to point out the fact that, our program goes along the same concept. This country was built on the idea of a person helping themselves. Look at the old barn raising tradition. And what is closer to it than a program whereby groups of families join together and build houses themselves. They have adequate supervision. We have professional, construction supervisors that show them how to build a house, but it's basically the same idea as a bunch of people getting together and throwing up a barn. In this case, it's five homes. Despite those self-help aspects of the project, however, there can be no doubt that it did cost money. The Oakfield units, for example, cost the federal government $2,600 a piece in supervisory and administrative costs, not to mention the expense incurred through the issuance of low interest loans. But there are also benefits, hidden benefits enjoyed by any rural community whenever construction occurs and new residents move in. Benefits which can sometimes spell the difference between poverty and prosperity for rural residents and businesses. Five homes appraised at anywhere from 25 to $30,000. That's a substantial amount of tax base to be added to a community and can only help, to keep the taxes down somewhat. Another aspect is in the economic end of it. There are stores here or there. There's a bank here, there's a grocery store or whatever. And, just the proximity of, living here in Oakville. They'll be adding money to the community in that respect. So perhaps not surprisingly, the attitudes of some of Oakfield's leaders have apparently turned more positive since the new residents actually began moving in. And there seems to be optimism on the part of both community officials and the families involved at the village of Oakfield will eventually be benefited by self-help housing. They would, definitely be an asset to the community, I would say, because young people usually get involved, if they're interested, they'll get involved in community projects. And, I'm not real sure, if but they've all they're always looking for, volunteer firemen in this village, and maybe we can interest some of them in that work. Oh, I would think so. I would hope any community would want to bring in people and, and, their tax money and children and, and, especially if the people are good and I feel I'm as good as anybody or better. You know, I think that's what you're gonna feel. And as long as I'm accepted within the community, I'll do everything I can to help.

And so the proponents of self-help housing believe they have found a program that works. Works not only to help moderate income American families move into decent and affordable housing with a sense of pride and accomplishment, but which also works to bring an economic and social lift to rural school systems. Rural businesses, and to the very quality of rural life. I'm Bill Hanley.

Chet Randolph: There's no easy solution for improving and preserving the quality of rural life. Projects like the one that Bill Hanley reported on are just one way of increasing the options that rural people have for improving their lives. Alex McCurry, newly appointed assistant secretary for rural development, understands the need for creating more of those options for real people. He's also an enthusiastic proponent of self-help housing.

As assistant secretary, Mister McCurry is responsible for the Farmers Home Administration, the Rural Electrification Administration, RTA, and the Rural Development Service. He stated that one of his first priorities is to provide realistic options for more rural Americans, which would require a minimum amount of paperwork in processing. Mr. McCurry, why is it that the Carter administration's budget didn't include funding for self-help programs such as the one at, that fund lack?

Alex McCurry: Well, the principal reason was that, the recommendations that were made last year by a previous administration were just slightly modified right before, right after the Carter administration took over without a great deal of time to really look at the choices that were being either added or subtracted from the recommendations. And these were basically all submitted before any of the assistant secretaries who had the key administrative responsibilities came on board.

Chet Randolph: So you've been talking to Mr. Berglund about the need for this kind of funding.

Alex McCurry: A number of, of, additions have been made in terms of the recommendations. We've asked OMB to approve that we ask Congress to reinstitute into the budget. Essentially, we're reacting to the House, the Congress's action on their legislative appropriations. And we've asked that, several pieces of the act be supported.

Chet Randolph

And you're very enthusiastic. You're enthusiastic about this self-help type program.

Alex McCurry

Yes. I personally have been involved in initiating the only program that existed in New Mexico several years ago.

Chet Randolph

So before you came with the department. Yeah. So now it's a matter of getting funding.

Alex McCurry

That's right. We also have to improve the way that the programs are administered and managed, both on our side and on the side of the local groups who operate them.

Chet Randolph

And this is one area of concern, isn't it, that it seems that in several times in inquiring on this, there is an understaffing, just an inability to physically get it done out in the local offices.

Alex McCurry

That's that's one of the major problems that I think generally operates for all of the programs that Farmers Home Administration is right now at, the employment levels of 1971 or 72. At the same time, our program responsibilities have expanded tremendously. I think we've probably had a three fold increase in both dollars and variety of programs since 72. And yet the same number of people are essentially having to carry on those those responsibilities.

Chet Randolph

Have you had another, problem possibly that many of those people that were hired to do the work at the time in the, let's say, ten years ago, many were working primarily with farmers and making farm loans, and now suddenly they're thrust into an area with which they're not as acquainted. Has there been enough training program to accomplish this?

Alex McCurry

Yeah, we've done a fair amount, considerable amount of training. We've got, relationship with, Oklahoma to provide training in a variety of, of, of the programs we've done training locally. And I think that probably is fairly well handled. I think that one looks at how the department and the employees, particularly at the local level, have pretty effectively distributed resources and gotten the programs going. I think that what we have to do is clear, clarify our priorities so that they understand that there are some elements that, of the program that are very important in terms of the broad rural development purpose that the department has been made responsible for.

Chet Randolph

Do we see quite a bit of that where most people favor improved quality of life in rural America? And yet they say, we've got to watch the budget, and here we come, right down to the crunch. Then all the time.

Alex McCurry

That's the perennial argument in the federal government down. Then everybody says, we have given you the responsibility for rural development. Mr. Secretary of Agriculture, and it's your responsibility to get it done. Then one gets the question, how much is it going to take? Well, I think one of the things that is misunderstood is that, for example, the Farmers Home Administration, which is about $7.5 billion now in terms of dollar authorization, authorization, however, only a few of those programs are actually federal dollars that are spent. For example.

Chet Randolph

You mean their loans or? 

Alex McCurry

Practically all our loans, only a small proportion of the programs that we make our grants? No, I'm not saying that those are subsidies. Those are public investments and public purposes. So they're legitimate grants.

Chet Randolph

Well, now then we.

Alex McCurry

But then we've got interest subsidies. Those are essentially, in a sense, a subsidy. Okay.

Chet Randolph

Could I explore that just a second. Why is it that, it seems that on the average here, according to a Pennsylvania study, anyway, that the interest rates on Metro loans were about 13% with 25 year payback were in the rural areas. They average more like 20% with a with a 15 year payback. Which seems a little discriminatory.

Alex McCurry

I don't know what what that interest.

Chet Randolph

Was the Pennsylvania study.

Alex McCurry

In terms of housing loans or. Yes.

Chet Randolph

And showing that, real housing loans simply didn't, weren't as favorable. Now, again, it's an it's an attitude. What can we do about this attitude. It again, you you know, we've got several other, figures that indicate that, that the rural areas have, what, 30% of the population. And yet, we're we don't have the medical service, we don't have the transportation.

We don't have that area. What can we do that the U.S is aware of? It?

Alex McCurry

Well, one of the things that I think we have to do is take seriously part of the Rural Development Act, which says that the Secretary of Agriculture has responsibility for assuring that other public investments of the federal government and local government are coordinated to improve the quality of life in rural communities. That includes those expenditures by the federal government, which contribute to the delivery of medical care so that rural residents can have access to it. It also includes some problems that affect many rural communities, the decline of these secondary road system and the support for that. At the same time that we're also sometimes permitting the elimination of some of those rail lines that, are used for transporting commodities and products. For example, we have, developed some concern that, as you pointed out, by one interpretation, 40% of the people live in rural areas. Yeah. By another, it's 30. Okay. But regardless of that, a very small proportion of, of the public housing money has in fact been delivered to small towns, you know, and we need to to target more effectively and identify those areas that have serious need and assure that we get the housing there.

Chet Randolph

We at least one study says 60% of the substandard housing is in the rural areas.

Alex McCurry

That's right. Actually, in, 1970, I believe 60% of the housing is in rural areas in 1965, and now it's about 50%. But when you consider that 50% of the substandard housing in this country is in rural areas, but only 40% of the people, there's a disproportionate need for housing. And yet the allocation of those resources is not found its way there.

Chet Randolph

So what can we do again here? Not we see that in the state of Wisconsin, where we did the film work, that they have 900 loan applications pending for farmers. Which what can we do? They just there seems to be a backlog which is hard to catch up in.

Alex McCurry

The entire state. Yeah, yeah. Well, that probably breaks down to maybe somewhere in the neighborhood of 10 or 12 per county. Yeah.

Chet Randolph

Now I just we've been accustomed to, you know, there's no.

Alex McCurry

We've we've got a particular problem, a number of states because of the drought, drought and weather issues. The emergency loan activity has built up the volume much, great, much, much heavier than it would have been otherwise. And we have attempted to move in resources where we're told that the backlog are getting harder than the heavier than they ought to be. We had that kind of problem in Minnesota. We've got that work down to some 3 or 400 loans backlog, and that's a fairly kind of current level.

Chet Randolph

Now, you've said that you wanted to simplify the process of getting this work done because you want to see it done. That's right. Have you had what have you had but been able to do to simplify government forms?

Alex McCurry

Well, in one case so far, in one case, we developed the weatherization loan program, which I think I may have told you when we had lunch in Washington. It's one page application and it's only one side. The other side is, I note, the instrument itself. This may be the simplest federal form in existence.

Chet Randolph

Congratulations to you. Now, you said that you want to give more options to the local community so that that you don't have a rigid, proposal for towns all over the country.

Alex McCurry

That's right.

Chet Randolph

What have you been able to do to give us that option and yet had some control over it?

Alex McCurry

Well, it's, you know, it's really has to get back down to training people first. Yeah. I think we need to develop a training program, number one, that makes people knowledgeable of the choices that are available through Farmers Home as well as other federal agencies. Give you an example of housing. It's too easy sometimes to focus on rental subsidy programs, and they become fairly easy to get out there. But I think it's important for people to to improve their ability to own. We've got a variety of programs which all are necessary in a community in housing, but in some communities you need more rental housing than in others. In others, you ought to emphasize probably the self-help housing program.

Chet Randolph

How do you how do you involve the local community in this decision making?

Alex McCurry

Well, fortunately, I think as we develop a, an operational philosophy with, with the department, with Farmers Home, the fact that we're organized at a county level and at a state level permits us to work more closely with entities of local government and state government. That's one of the major goals.

Chet Randolph

Where are you saying it's primarily an attitude that comes down from you as the boss.

Alex McCurry

That, well, me and the secretary and whoever else, to recognize that to the extent that we're able to cooperate with state and local government, to that extent, we're able to also bring our priorities and local priorities closer together so that federal programs are really solutions to local problems, not federal solutions to local problems.

Chet Randolph

Let's again tackle what we can do in the cities. You have riots, a lot of rock throwing. And you get something done. And it seems but out in the rural areas there are no riots and, nobody seems to notice. And yet we've got the problems with transportation, with crime, with medical, with housing, even poor diets, you know, in an area rich with food. What do we do to really get funding comparable to the city area?

Alex McCurry

Well, I don't know if it's.

Chet Randolph

Just funding, but I mean, no, not just funding, but the.

Alex McCurry

Development of resources and.

Chet Randolph

Attitude.

Alex McCurry

I think that right now rural areas don't have such serious problems in crime yet there are some pockets of malnutrition.

Chet Randolph

Yeah.

Alex McCurry

We have symptoms, you know, like an increase in crime rate, accident rate, things like that of problems. And we ought to use those early warning signals to make sure that we develop policies that assist local people in solving their own problems. To the extent that I think we give people the resources that permit them to deal with their own resource needs, I think to that extent, we prevent the growing of social problems, which later cost us money to recover.

Chet Randolph

And aren't we talking here that when farmers do well, when they're rural community is attractive? We have less problems in the city?

Alex McCurry

I don't think there's any doubt. The publication came out recently from the Southern Regional Conference, which, by the way, President Carter served on Secretary of Labor. Marshall served on. And Secretary of Commerce, Krebs served on identifies that the neglect of rural communities, to a large extent created many of the problems of inner cities.

Chet Randolph

Well, now, let me ask you, Secretary Marshall of Labor, is a specialist in rural, jobs. Are you and he coordinating?

Alex McCurry

Oh, yes. Next week, he, or a couple of his people, my counterparts in the Labor Department, will be spending a couple of days together looking and discussing in rural communities and discussing opportunities for cooperation at the same time that we're looking at rural communities. And I think there's a very important sometimes we sit at the esoteric level in Washington, but it becomes more meaningful when we get the planning right there in town.

Chet Randolph

In the last minute. We're worried about young people in the cities who have trouble with jobs, and they get in trouble without jobs. But in the rural areas, we find one out of six boys looking for work, even though we always think there's plenty of work on the farm. We got something going in this area.

Alex McCurry

Oh yes, our business and industry program is going great.

Chet Randolph

What do you mean by? 

Alex McCurry

The guarantee for industry to locate in rural communities, for expansion of current or existing business, or for the development of new businesses, where we provide guarantees for loans to those people who want to start businesses? No. And in fact, it's working very well.

Chet Randolph

It sounds encouraging. Now, the National Advisory Council on Women's Educational Programs said that, many rural women don't realize the opportunities that are maybe available to them, besides being the homemaker and a farm help wife, if they want to be begun. There's many non farmers on the. Really? That's right. You have a program that's helping the wives to, get into some areas they might want to go.

Alex McCurry

You know, it was very interesting. The, the unemployment rates don't show that kind of lack of job opportunity. And I think that the diversification of job choices in rural towns and places is important in terms of those people need second jobs for women who don't have you, and.

Chet Randolph

You have some program that is beginning to, work in the direction of showing them the opportunities.

Alex McCurry

We're hoping that the whole business and industry and diversification of jobs will accomplish that. We need to work more closely with extension service, for example, as it moves into those community development activity.

Chet Randolph

And can we expect the president himself to give us more support in terms of funding in this area? I don't mean this. The women I mean this whole world about.

Alex McCurry

The whole rural development. I think what the president will do and we're undertaking now, at his request, an analysis of rural development goals is define a national rural policy, which will put a foundation on the kinds of things we need to do.

Chet Randolph

Thank you. There's a lot more we'd like to talk about, but that's our time. Thank you. Mr. McCurry, Assistant Secretary and that's it for Farm Digest. This week on our next edition will be focusing on an issue that concerns both farmers and consumers, and that is agriculture and energy. How will we continue to produce enough food at a reasonable price as energy gets more expensive and more scarce? Well, we'll find out next week. Till then, I'm Chet Randolph, thanks for joining us and have a good week.

Paul Yeager:  And as you heard John Roach talk about this first appearance, it was on, the episode The Market. Plus, when he was on in August of 2025. And then in that episode where we recorded with 11 of our analysts, in a recent MToM podcast. So that's kind of fun to hear. So anyway, thanks for watching. If you like something else, you want to make comments, send it to me in an email at MarkettoMarket@IowaPBS.org. Thank you so much for being a part of this program for more than 50 years.