NOTICE: Return or renew all Library Materials! The Minimum Fee for
each Lost Book is $50.00.
The person charging this material is responsible for
its return to the library from which it was withdrawn
on or before the Latest Date stamped below.
Theft, mutilation, and underlining of books are reasons for discipli-
nary action and may result in dismissal from the University.
To renew call Telephone Center, 333-8400
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN
LI6I O-I096
ACES LIBRARY
FEB2 2 2002
UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
430. 7
X G b
an Movements
in the United States
Interregional Flow Patterns
and Transportation Requirements in 1985
nald W. Larson, Thomas R. Smith, and E. Dean Baldwin
lh Central Regional Research Bulletin 323
it hern Cooperative Series Bulletin 345
iversity of Illinois Bulletin 792
icultural Experiment Station
lege of Agriculture
iversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
v.
K
V\
t
\'
'
\*
Soybean Movements in the United States
Interregional Flow Patterns
and Transportation Requirements in 1985
Donald W. Larson, Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural
Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
Thomas R. Smith, Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and
Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
E. Dean Baldwin, Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics and
Rural Sociology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio.
North Central Regional Research Bulletin 323
Southern Cooperative Series Bulletin 345
University of Illinois Bulletin 792
Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station
Urbana-Champaign, Illinois
Agricultural Experiment Stations of Alabama, Arkansas, California, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa,
Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Wisconsin, and the United States
Department of Agriculture cooperating.
The participating agricultural experiment stations and government agencies provide equal opportunities in
programs and employment.
September, 1990
4.2M 75872 Softlink
Directors
Participating agencies and state agricultural experiment stations of the North Central
and Southern regions.
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station
Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station
Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station
Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station
Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station
Indiana Agricultural Experiment Station
Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station
Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station
Mississippi Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station
Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station
Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station
North Dakota Agricultural
Experiment Station
Ohio Agricultural Research and
Development Center
South Dakota Agricultural
Experiment Station
Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
USDA-ERS
Wisconsin Agricultural Experiment Station
L.T. Frobish
G.J. Mustek
D.F. Crossan
C.W. Donoho, Jr.
G.A.Lee
D.A. Holt
B.R. Baumgardt
D.G. Topel
W.R. Woods
C.O. Little
K.W. Tipton
R.G. Cast
C.E. Allen
V.G. Hurt
R.L. Mitchell
D.W. Nelson
H.R. Lund
K.M. Kerr
R.A. Moore
D.O. Richardson
N.P. Clarke
J.E. Lee, Jr.
L.M. Walsh
Auburn University 36849
Fayetteville 72701
Newark 19717-1303
Athens 30602
Moscow 83843
Urbana61801
West Lafayette 47907
Ames 50011
Manhattan 66506
Lexington 40506-0091
Baton Rouge 70893-0905
East Lansing 48824-1039
St. Paul 55208
Mississippi State 39762
Columbia 652 1 1
Lincoln 68583-0704
Fargo 58105
Wooster 44691
Brookings 57006
Knoxville 3790 1-1071
College Station 77843
Washington, D.C. 20250
Madison 53706
North Central and Southern regional agricultural experiment stations provide equal opportunities for
programs and employment
Technical Committee
NC-137 Administrative Advisor
Donald E. Anderson
North Dakota State University, Agricultural Experiment Station
Morrill Hall 315, Fargo, North Dakota 58105
S- 176 Administrative Advisor
Thomas H. Klindt
University of Tennessee Institute of Agriculture, Agriculture Experiment Station
P.O. Box 1071. Knoxville. Tennessee 37901-1071
Committee Members of NC-137
Idaho Agricultural Experiment Station
Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station
Indiana Agricultural Experiment Station
Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station
Kansas Agricultural Experiment Station
Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station
Minnesota Agricultural Experiment Station
Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station
North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
South Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
USDA-Economic Research Service
N.L. Meyer
R.J. Hauser
L.F. Schrader
C.P. Baumel
L.O. Sorenson
S.R. Thompson
J.E. Fruin
D.G. Anderson
W.K. Koo
D.W. Larson
C.E. Lamberton
S.W. Fuller
T.Q. Hutchinson
L.D. Hill
Committee Members of S-176
Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station
Arkansas Agricultural Experiment Station
Delaware Agricultural Experiment Station
Economic Research Service, USDA
Georgia Agricultural Experiment Station
Illinois Agricultural Experiment Station
Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station
Louisiana Agricultural Experiment Station
Mississippi Agricultural and
Forestry Experiment Station
Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center
Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station
J.L. Stallings
E.J. Wailes
U.C. Toensmeyer
T.Q. Hutchinson
J.L. Jordan
L.D. Hill
M.R. Reed
H.D. Traylor
A.J. Allen
E.D. Baldwin
C.B. Sappington
M.N. Leath
S.L. Ott
J.E. Vercimak
W.L. Bateman
Requests
This bulletin is one in a series of North Central and Southern Cooperative bulletins. It represents a
contribution to North Central Project NC-137, "Effect of Changes in Transportation on Performance
of the U.S. Agricultural Transporation System," and to Southern Regional Project S-176,
"Interregional Marketing Systems for Grains and Soybeans." The Illinois Agricultural Experiment
Station is the publishing station. Requests for copies of this bulletin may be sent to Office of
Agricultural Communications and Education, 67 Mumford Hall, 1301 West Gregory Street,
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois 61801.
Abstract
Information about the origin, destination, and mode of transport in marketing grain is often useful in
making policy and investment decisions related to grain. The data and analyses presented in this
publication were developed to aid in making these policy and investment decisions. This bulletin
contains the results of a nationwide study to obtain the volumes of soybean moved by truck, rail,
and water among destinations in 42 states during 1985. The study was designed to update a similar
survey conducted in 1977. This bulletin contains a description of the findings of the 1985 survey
and an analysis of the changes that have occurred between the 1977 survey and 1985.
Preface
This bulletin contains the results of nationwide research to obtain the volumes of soybeans
moved between U.S. origins and destinations using various transport modes in 1985. Other
publications in this series provide similar information for corn, sorghum, wheat, and oats. It
updates a similar survey conducted in 1977.
During 1986, members of two university research committees located in 21 states conducted
surveys to gather data about the origin and destination of wheat, corn, soybeans, sorghum, and
oats in each of their states. In another 12 states, private consultants or university faculty at
land grant institutions in the states administered the survey under contracts. Finally, data
about grain and soybean movement in an additional nine states were gathered using a combi-
nation of secondary data, neighboring state surveys, and interviews with managers of major
firms and state agricultural officials. The resulting database contained information from 42
states for the year 1985.
The industry surveys were coordinated in the Department of Agricultural Economics at the
University of Illinois at Champaign-Urbana. The data were summarized, verified, and recon-
ciled under the supervision of Joseph Vercimak, University of Illinois, and Dr. Dean Baldwin,
Ohio State University. The success of this research project is due to the cooperation of thou-
sands of grain marketing firms and the efforts of researchers around the United States.
The research was partially funded by the Federal Railroad Administration under contract No.
DTFR 53-84-C-00036, the Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA; the Agricultural Cooperative
Service, USDA; the Illinois Department of Agriculture and the Soo Line Railroad.
Administration of the grant funds was coordinated by Joseph E. Vercimak. The research is a
contribution to regional research projects S-176, "Effect of Changes in Marketing Systems for
Grains and Soybeans" and NC-137, "Effect of Changes in Transportation on Performance of the
U.S. Agricultural Transportation System."
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge the leadership of Joseph Vercimak of the University of
Illinois in managing the collection and processing of the 1985 grain flow information. The au-
thors also wish to thank Karlene Robison and Susie Sheller for assistance in typing the
manuscript and Janice DeCarolis for assistance in chart preparation. This research was car-
ried out with the cooperation of the Southern Regional Grain Marketing Committee and the
North Central Regional Transportation Committee. The authors thank the review committee of
Carl Toensmeyer, Eric Wailes, and T.Q. Hutchinson for their helpful comments.
IV
Contents
Purpose of the Study 1
Methodology 1
Production and Utilization 3
Analysis of Shipments and Receipts 8
Comparisons with 1977 18
Conclusions 23
Bibliography 25
Appendix 27
Figures and Tables
Figures
1. Soybean Production in the United States, 1920-1986 3
2. Soybean Usage in the United States 4
3. United States Soybean Processing Plants, 1987 5
4. Regions Used for the Projections of Soybean Production and
Shipping Patterns 6
Tables
1. Soybean Supply and Disappearance in the United States for
Marketing Years from 1971/72 to 1985/86 5
2. Soybean Production by Regions of U.S. for 1985/86
and 1977/78 7
3. 1985 Intrastate Shipments of Soybeans for Each State and
Mode of Transport 9
4. 1985 Interstate Receipts of Soybeans for Each State and Port by
Mode of Transport 10
5. 1985 Interstate Shipments of Soybeans for Each State and
Mode of Transport 11
6. Export Regions, Port Areas, and Port Cities 12
7. 1985 Shipments of Soybeans to Port Areas by Originating
State and Mode of Transport 13 & 14
8. Soybean Shipments to Port Areas by Originating States and
Percent of Total Receipts at All Ports, 1985 15
9. 1985 Receipts of Soybeans at Port Areas and Mode of
Transport 16
10. 1985 Exports of U.S. Soybeans by Export Region and
Destination 17
1 1 . Total Volume of Interstate Soybean Shipments by Mode of
Transport, 1977 vs. 1985 18
12. Interstate Shipments of Soybeans to Domestic Destinations
and Export Ports for Each Region by Mode of Transport, 1985,
and Total 1977 Shipments by Region, U.S 19
13. Percent Distribution of Soybean Exports by Export Region,
1985 and 1977 20
14. Percentage Share of Total Soybean Shipments to Points of
Export for Each Originating State, 1977 vs. 1985 21
15. Interstate Receipts of Soybeans at Domestic Destinations for
Each Region by Mode of Transport, 1985, and Total 1977
Receipts by Region, U.S 22
Appendix Tables
Receipts and Shipments of Soybeans by
State, 1985
16. Alabama 27
17. Arizona 27
18. Arkansas 28
19. California 28
20. Colorado 28
21. Delaware .; 29
22. Florida 29
23. Georgia 30
24. Illinois 30
25. Indiana 31
26. Iowa 31
27. Kansas 32
28. Kentucky 32
29. Louisiana 33
30. Maryland 33
31. Michigan 34
32. Minnesota 34
33. Mississippi 35
34. Missouri 35
35. Nebraska 36
36. New Jersey 36
37. New York 37
38. North Carolina 37
39. North Dakota 38
40. Ohio 38
41. Oklahoma 39
42. Pennsylvania 39
43. South Carolina 40
44. South Dakota 40
45. Tennessee 41
46. Texas 41
47. Virginia 42
48. Washington 42
49. Wisconsin 42
50. Chicago Port Area 43
51. Eastern Gulf Ports 43
52. Louisiana Gulf 43
53. North Atlantic Ports 44
54. Pacific Northwest 44
55. Saginaw Port Area 44
56. South Atlantic Ports 44
57. Texas Gulf 45
58. Toledo Port Area 45
59. Direct Exports from Interior Points 45
vi
Soybean Movements in the United States
Interregional Flow Patterns and Transportation
Requirements in 1985
Purpose of the Study
Introduction
Maintaining our competitive edge in world
soybean markets is an objective frequently ex-
pressed by soybean farmers, merchandisers,
processors, exporters, association groups and
government officials. Among the many differ-
ent factors that contribute to our ability to
maintain that competitive edge is having an
efficient flow of soybeans from production re-
gions to domestic destinations and export
ports. This efficient flow of soybeans can be
achieved with decisions based on information
about soybean shipping patterns that will en-
able soybean industry participants to improve
market performance. Such information may
also improve decisions about investments in
port facilities, rail, truck and barge services,
elevator and processor facilities, and farm
production.
Although data on the quantities of soy-
beans shipped from each port and on inland
waterways are available, little data exists to
match origins with destinations and to iden-
tify modes of transportation. The first com-
prehensive national study of grain movements
was completed for the 1977 calendar year
(Leath, Hill and Fuller, 1981). This bulletin
updates the earlier study by reporting soy-
bean shipping and receiving patterns for
1985.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of this study were:
(1) Identify the quantity of soybeans
shipped among various state, regional and ex-
port locations.
(2) Determine the extent to which various
transportation modes were employed in the
movement of soybeans in the United States.
(3) Compare the 1977 and 1985 patterns of
shipments and modes of transport.
Methodology
Grain flow data were collected for the 1985
calendar year primarily through personal in-
terviews with representatives of grain han-
dling, storage, and processing firms. These
firms included country elevators, subterminal
elevators, terminal elevators, feed manufac-
turers, export elevators, commercial feedlots,
poultry operations, processors, and millers.
Representatives in each of the states surveyed
were responsible for drawing a statewide sam-
ple and conducting the interviews. All 33
major producing and consuming states were
included in the survey. This was accom-
plished by using members of two regional
grain marketing and transportation commit-
tees at land-grant institutions in the states
and by contracting with individuals in those
grain producing states that were not repre-
sented on the regional committees. An addi-
tional nine states considered to be significant
grain producers were added using secondary
data and selected interviews.
In addition, information was obtained from
the Interstate Commerce Commission about
volumes shipped by rail and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) about volumes
shipped by barge.
Sampling Method
In those categories where the firms were
few in number (such as processors), all of the
firms were included in the survey. In those
categories where the number of firms was too
large for complete enumeration with available
resources, the researchers used a stratified
sampling technique. The stratified sample
data were then expanded using multipliers to
yield estimates of totals for each state.
For example, the stratified technique was
used with inland grain elevators. The sam-
pling of these elevators in each state was car-
ried out by listing elevators in descending
order of storage capacity. Then, starting with
those having the largest capacity, firms with
successively smaller capacities were added to
the sample until the total storage capacity of
firms in the sample equalled 25 percent of the
elevator storage in the state. A random sam-
ple of the remaining firms was then obtained,
with not less than 10 percent of all firms in
each category included. Additional stratifica-
tion was used in states with large numbers of
firms.
Some states derived samples using plants
rather than firms. The research methodology
allowed sampling by plant or firm provided
that elevator capacity was adequately repre-
sented in the sample and the samples could
be expanded to represent total grain trans-
ported. Some states used a complete enumer-
ation of all firms.
River elevators were sampled at a rate of
not less than 50 percent. Feed firms were
surveyed from the largest downward until 10
percent of the total capacity was surveyed. A
random sample was taken from the remaining
firms. Integrated firms such as feedlots and
poultry operations were sampled at the rate of
not less than 50 percent. For processing
firms, the sampling rate was usually 100 per-
cent since the number of firms in each state
was relatively small.
The data provided for 1985 were less com-
plete than those provided for 1977 because
some major processors and grain handlers re-
fused to provide volume data by origin and
destination. They gave a variety reasons for
not providing the data.
To compensate for the lack of usable data
from small firms, volume statistics from a
firm of similar size and geographic location
selected at random were included when avail-
able. For larger elevators or processors who
did not supply data, volumes and flows were
estimated from secondary sources or from the
interviewers' prior knowledge of the firms.
The estimates were then validated by the
grain marketing specialist in each state based
on his/her knowledge of grain movements and
price relationships in the state.
Procedure
Each of the grain handlers and processors
interviewed provided the same type of infor-
mation: the volume, origin, and mode of
transport for all grain received at and shipped
from their facilities. Data were coded using a
consistent format and sent to the University
of Illinois for processing. Processing involved
verifying the data and summarizing state to-
tals that would be used in reconciling flows.
The data were then sent to Ohio State
University where the estimates of quantities
transported between each origin and destina-
tion as reported by the shipping states were
reconciled with the estimates reported by the
receiving states. Responsibility for integrating
these data and generating the data tables for
the five commodities was distributed among
four universities: corn at the University of
Minnesota, soybeans and oats at Ohio State
University, wheat at the University of
Kentucky, and sorghum at the University of
Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Transport information was also obtained
from the Interstate Commerce Commission
about rail shipments (the Waybill sample),
and from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
about barge shipments (the COE sample).
After the survey data were compiled and
tabulated, representatives from the major re-
ceiving and shipping states met to reconcile
differences among the three sources of volume
information: (1) the survey data from the re-
ceiving states, (2) the survey data from the
shipping states, and (3) secondary data in-
cluding the Waybill sample from the Interstate
Commerce Commission and the complete
enumeration of all barge movements recorded
on the data tapes by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE).
The variable sampling rate for some types
of shipments included in the Waybill sample
gives rise to potential errors when the data
are summarized on a state or sub-state basis.
Records of total volume of barge shipments
Figure 1 .
Soybean Production in the United States, 1920-1986.
Million Bushels
2500
(5 year increments)
Source: Agricultural Statistics, U.S.D.A., Selected Years
(1 year increments)
and receipts in the COE data tapes were quite
accurate but the tapes did not always identify
ultimate origins and destinations when barges
were transhipped or destinations were
changed in transit.
Truck data were available only from the
survey. Shipments from farms to elevators
were identified only through records of eleva-
tor receipts. Truck shipments across state
lines were especially difficult to verify since
neither truckers nor farmers were included in
the survey.
A final verification process was then under-
taken using secondary data about movements
into or out of each state, and the estimate of
"exportable surplus" for each state. A grain
marketing specialist from each state univer-
sity in the regional committee calculated the
surplus or deficit in his/her state in the fol-
lowing way: the estimate of the total amount
of soybeans used for seed and processing dur-
ing calendar year 1985 was subtracted from
the estimate of the amount of soybeans pro-
duced during 1985. The remainder was then
adjusted by the amount of increase or de-
crease in inventory during the year. The re-
sulting figure was accepted as an estimate of
the surplus available for export or the deficit
to be filled by imports from other states.
Because volume processed in each state was
based on estimates, the numbers were not ex-
pected to match reconciled flows exactly.
However, these data provided additonal infor-
mation from which to judge the reasonable-
ness of receipts and shipment data from the
various sources (Wailes and Vercimak, 1989).
These comparisons among the various data
sources increased the confidence in the accu-
racy of estimates based on the less-than-com-
plete samples we obtained from the popula-
tion of all firms handling soybeans.
Finally, the logic and consistency of each
flow summary contained in these reports was
checked by the representative who organized
and conducted the survey in each state.
r reduction and Utilization
Soybeans, the miracle crop, have become
the most important oilseed crop in the
United States. Production has increased
very rapidly from less than 5 million bushels
in the 1920s to over 2 billion bushels in the
1980s (Figure 1). In the 1979/80 marketing
year, production reached a peak of 2.2 billion
bushels (Table 1). Production in the drought
year of 1983 declined to 1.6 billion bushels.
Since then, production has fluctuated
around two billion bushels annually. Among
the major field crops, soybeans rank either
third behind corn and wheat or second be-
hind corn in annual volume produced.
Soybean use for domestic crush and export
markets has increased very rapidly from the
1940s to the 1980s (Figure 2). During the
1979/80 marketing year, soybean exports
reached a peak of 850 million bushels and the
domestic crush reached a peak of 1 . 1 billion
bushels (Table 1). Between that record year
and 1985/86, exports declined significantly
and domestic crush declined slightly (Figure
2). The amount crushed (about 1 billion
bushels in 1985/86) varied from year to year
depending upon soybean production and the
demand for oil and meal. Soybean disappear-
ance for feed, seed, and residual was a rela-
tively small amount each year.
The rapid growth in soybean production,
domestic crush, and exports placed large de-
mands on the transportation system to handle
these flows. Many changes in soybean ship-
ping and receiving facilities at origins and des-
tinations were made to handle the increased
flows. The 88 United States soybean process-
ing plants operating in 1988 are concentrated
in the Cornbelt, Delta, and Southeast regions
(see Figure 3), which are also the main pro-
ducing regions (American Soybean Associ-
Figure 2.
Soybean Usage in the United States.
Million Bushels
1200
1000
(5 year increments)
^ Crush Exports
Source: Agricultural Statistics, U.S.D.A., Selected Years
(1 year increments)
Table 1.
Soybean Supply and Disappearance in the United States for Marketing Years from 1971/72 to 1985/86.