kimberly vachal, phd upper great plains transportation institute … · 2018. 7. 26. · these...
TRANSCRIPT
Prepared by: Kimberly Vachal, PhD Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute North Dakota State University, Fargo UGPTI Department Publication No. 272 September 2014
ii
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to thank April Taylor, Export Specialist, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture for her knowledge and contribution to the project; and Sumadhur Shakya and Poyraz Kayabas, Upper
Great Plains Transportation Institute, North Dakota State University, for their work on the maps in this publication.
Preferred Citation: Vachal, Kimberly. Marketing U.S. Grain and Oilseed by Container, DP-272. North Dakota State University, Fargo: Upper Great
Plains Transportation Institute, 2014. Web: http://www.ugpti.org/resources/reports/details.php?id=773
Disclaimer
This research was supported by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for
Research & Technology under Grant DTOS59-06-G-00046 and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural
Marketing Service, Cooperative Agreement Number 12-25-A-5567. The contents presented in this report are the
sole responsibility of the Upper Great Plains Transportation Institute and its authors.
North Dakota State University does not discriminate on the basis of age, color, disability, gender expression/identity, genetic information, marital status, national origin, public assistance status, sex, sexual orientation, status as a U.S. veteran, race or religion. Direct inquiries to the Vice President for Equity, Diversity and Global Outreach, 205 Old Main, (701) 231-7708.
iii
ABSTRACT
Shipping grain in containers has been increasingly used as a shipment option by U.S. exporters.
Continued evolution and investment in this relatively young industry may open additional opportunities
for the grain industry. Grain shipping by container faces challenges in optimizing multimodal operations
and investment decisions in a dynamic market environment that is heavily influenced by international
shipping decisions. Analysis of rail and port container traffic activity was conducted to gain insight into
market activities, trends, and opportunities for marketing grain internationally via container. The ability of
the U.S. grain industry to understand and successfully respond to market signals is a key in continued
growth for the container transportation marketing alternative.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 1
2. METHOD AND DATA ........................................................................................................................... 4
3. INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT AND NETWORK ................................................................................. 5
3.1 Leading Container Ports ......................................................................................................5
3.2 Inland Container Transportation ..........................................................................................7
3.3 Rail Container Terminals .....................................................................................................8
4. FARM INDUSTRY AND GRAIN PRODUCT RAIL CONTAINER SHIPMENT ACTIVITY ........ 12
4.1 Farm and Grain Industry Origins and Destinations ...........................................................14
4.2 Rail Grain Container Products ...........................................................................................18
5. GRAIN CONTAINER EXPORT MARKET FLOWS .......................................................................... 20
5.1 Grain Container Export Commodities and Trends ............................................................21
5.2 U.S Ports’ Grain Container Traffic ....................................................................................24
5.3 U.S. Container Traffic Trade Lanes ...................................................................................28
5.4 U.S. Grain Container Destination Trends ..........................................................................31
6. DDG AND FEED GROUP EXPORTS ................................................................................................. 34
7. OCEAN FREIGHT RATES .................................................................................................................. 43
8. SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................... 46
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................... 47
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 49
v
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1.1 Containerized Traffic Index (Loaded and Empty) .............................................................. 2 Figure 3.1 Modal Costs ........................................................................................................................ 8 Figure 3.2 Rail Container Originations, by TAZ ................................................................................. 9 Figure 3.3 Rail Container Terminations, by TAZ .............................................................................. 10 Figure 3.4 Rail Container Market Origin/Destination Traffic............................................................ 11 Figure 4.1 Farm Product STCC Group Share in All Rail Container Traffic ...................................... 12 Figure 4.2 Industry Container Shipment Trends ................................................................................ 13 Figure 4.3 Container Share in All Rail Grain Volume ....................................................................... 13 Figure 4.4 Container Rail Farm Product Originations, Average 2009-2011 ..................................... 15 Figure 4.5 Container Rail Grain Originations, Average 2009-2011 .................................................. 15 Figure 4.6 Container Rail Farm Product Terminations, Average 2009-2011 .................................... 17 Figure 4.7 Container Rail Grain Originations, Average 2009-2011 .................................................. 17 Figure 4.8 Grain Rail Container Product Mix (when commodity was specified), 2009-2011 ........... 18 Figure 4.9 Rail Container Grain Trends, Selected Commodities ....................................................... 19 Figure 5.1 Grain Exports Shipments, Modal Trends .......................................................................... 21 Figure 5.2 Composition of Grain Container Exports ......................................................................... 22 Figure 5.3 Whole Grain Container Exports, 2003 to 2012................................................................. 23 Figure 5.4 Estimated Grain Container Origination, by State ............................................................. 24 Figure 5.5 Port District Grain Container Origination, Total TEU 2008 to 2012 ............................... 26 Figure 5.6 Grain Container Port District Destinations 2008-2012, by Commodity ........................... 27 Figure 5.7 U.S. Grain Container Export Destinations, 2008 to 2012 ................................................. 28 Figure 5.8 U.S. Grain Container Export Destination Countries, 2008 to 2012 .................................. 32 Figure 6.1 DDG and Feed Group Modal Trends ................................................................................ 34 Figure 6.2 Feed Group Export TEUs ................................................................................................. 35 Figure 6.3 Annual Container Commodity Export Shipments, 2003-2012 ......................................... 36 Figure 6.4 DDG Shipments, by State of Origin ................................................................................. 37 Figure 6.5 U.S. Port District DDG Container Exports, 2008-2012 .................................................... 38 Figure 6.6 Port District DDG Container Exports, Total TEU 2008 to 2012 ...................................... 39 Figure 6.7 U.S. Feed Group Exports, by Region ............................................................................... 41 Figure 6.8 U.S. DDG Container Export Destination Countries, 2008 to 2012 .................................. 42 Figure 7.1 Minneapolis, Minnesota Empty Container Market Situation ........................................... 43 Figure 7.2 Bulk and Container Ocean Freight Rates .......................................................................... 45
vi
LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Top U.S. Ports ..................................................................................................................... 6 Table 3.2 Top World Ports .................................................................................................................. 7 Table 4.1 Container Rail Origins, by Commodity Group ................................................................. 14 Table 4.2 Container Rail Destinations, by Commodity Group ......................................................... 16 Table 5.1 U.S. Port District Grain Container Volumes, 2003-2012 TEUs ....................................... 25 Table 5.2 U.S. Grain Container Exports by Port District & Import Region, in TEUs, 2008-2012 .. 30 Table 5.3 U.S. Grain Container Export Destinations 2008-2012, by Importing Country ................ 31 Table 5.4 U.S. Bulk and Container Grain Export Destination Rankings 2008-2012
(Based on Pounds), by Importing Country Volume ......................................................... 33 Table A.1 Rail Container Traffic 2000-2002 Compared to 2009-2011, by STCC Group ................. 50 Table A.2 Rail Container Origins, by TAZ (Avg. 2009-2011).......................................................... 51 Table A.3 Rail Container Destinations, by TAZ (Avg 2009-2011) ................................................... 53 Table A.4 Farm STCC Group Rail Container Origins, by TAZ (Avg 2009-2011) ........................... 55 Table A.5 Grain Rail Container Origins, by TAZ (Avg 2009-2011) ................................................ 55 Table A.6 Farm STCC Group Rail Container Destinations, by TAZ (Avg 2009-2011) ................... 56 Table A.7 Grain Rail Container Destinations, by TAZ (Avg 2009-2011)......................................... 56 Table A.8 Grain Container Exports by Commodity .......................................................................... 57 Table A.9 Estimated Grain Container Origins, by State .................................................................... 58 Table A.10 Grain Container Imports 2008-2012, by Importing Region and Country ......................... 60 Table A.11 U.S. Port District Composition, for Ports with Grain Container Traffic .......................... 65 Table A.12 U.S. Grain Container Export Markets, by Importing Region ........................................... 66 Table A.13 U.S. Grain Container Exports by Port, 2008-2012 ........................................................... 67 Table A.14 U.S. Port to Importing Country Container Grain Shipments, 20 Largest Importers
from 2008 to 2012 ............................................................................................................. 68 Table A.15 Feed Group Exports, by Bill-of-Lading Reported State of Origin ................................... 73 Table A.16 Feed Group Exports by U.S. Port District, 2003-2012 ..................................................... 75 Table A.17 Feed Group Exports, by Export Region and Country 2008-2012 .................................... 76
1
1. INTRODUCTION
Transportation is a key component in the ability of U.S. farmers to competitively position products in a
global market. Agriculture has long been a large user of the transportation system. Early on, inland
waterways and transcontinental rail lines provided a means to consolidate small wagon shipments of local
grain production into larger shipments for long hauls to domestic markets along the coasts. Today
continued investment underlies a successful and diverse agricultural industry that reliably serves
customers across the globe.
During recent decades, U.S. agriculture has continued to adapt to changes in the world food market. Some
of these changes include: increased demand for food security, dissolution of foreign government grain
purchasing agencies, rising costs of energy, and increasing sophistication (in terms of contract
specifications and expectations regarding product integrity and reliable delivery) of international buyers.
Amidst these changes, marketing traditional bulk grain and feed products in containers has emerged as a
sustained supply chain option. While still small in scale, it provides an opportunity to access new and
more diverse international markets. U.S. farmers are not alone in expanding market options. Little
containerized grain was traded internationally in the early 1990s. In recent years, two major competitors
in the grain export market, Canada and Australia, reported marketing 3.4 million tons and 2.7 million tons
of grains and oilseeds in containers, respectively (Quigley, 2012; Canadian Grains Commission, 2014;
Churchill, 2013).
International trade for dry goods such as grains relies primarily on two market types – tramp and liner.
Tramps are usually bulk vessel cargo shipments in charter service while liners are typically general cargo
vessels that follow predetermined trade routes (Hummels 2007). The container vessel, which was
formerly introduced in the 1950s, is a relatively new shipping option in international liner service.
International container cargos on these vessels are typically the standard ISO configurations of the 20-foot
(TEU) or 40-foot equivalent unit. The payload is approximately 40,000 pounds for a TEU and 50,000
pounds for a FEU. Early container ships had upper capacities of 1,000 containers. Today, the largest
container vessels on order are designed to handle 18,000 containers (World Shipping Council 2014).
While some specialized grain products have been marketed in containers for decades, a more general
commercialization of the grain container market has occurred over the past several years. Containers used
for grain require a special bulkhead to prevent leakage and are often lined with a plastic bladder to meet
equipment cleanliness standards for food and grain products (Vero Marine 2010). In the Australian
market, work is underway to test the application of a strong, transparent laminate film to the container
interior that would temporarily transform it into a food quality box (Churchill, 2013). Grain may also be
packaged in bags or large totes depending on customer preferences. As industry experience is gained and
investment decisions related to the grain container shipping alternative are made, the nature and activity
levels for U.S. agriculture in this market will change. Therefore, it is prudent to continue to offer context
for decisions related to this market, both from a general perspective and a more granular viewpoint.
Containerized shipping growth, in general, has been well-documented. Although a pull-back was
experienced in 2009 due to the economic crisis, a continued growth trend is evident in world container
trade volumes. Port figures and industry reports show the United States as an active participant in this
market. Figure 1.1 illustrates the trend for the World and the United States.
2
Figure 1.1 Containerized Traffic Index (Loaded and Empty)
During the past 15 years, container traffic has exhibited a strong growth trend. Worldwide, container
traffic was estimated at 564 million TEUs in 2011. The United States accounted for approximately 8% of
that traffic with 43.8 million of those TEUs. This traffic estimate includes loaded and empty TEUs. While
these industry facts provide some context for understanding container shipments, interest here is in how
the grain industry is adapting to utilize a container marketing option.
The U.S. grain industry has offered the container option for decades to fulfill orders such as food grade
soybeans to Japan. Wider use of containers for traditional bulk shipments such as feed grade corn is a
more recent phenomenon. The increase in containerized grain shipments has resulted from the market
changes mentioned earlier as well as industry investments that increase visibility and viability of this
option. For example, the grain industry near Chicago – America’s largest inland intermodal hub – has
converted several small, local grain facilities from bulk to container load-out to take advantage of the
close proximity to a supply of empty containers.
In a more recent development, the Union Pacific invested in a new transload facility. It couples the
economies of size associated with moving trainload units of grain from inland production regions to a
facility in Yermo, CA, with minimal drayage costs because of its close proximity to the nation’s largest
supply of empty containers at the port of Los Angeles/Long Beach. The facility is focusing initially on
distiller dried grain (DDG) feedstock shipments to Asia, but has potential for use in shipping grain and
oilseed products as well. While several transload facilities in the region have been operating in a smaller
capacity for many years, the Yermo facility is a major investment dedicated to large-scale transload of
agricultural products.
The goal here is to gain insight into grain container shipments based on activity levels and trends,
considering commodity, origin and destination. An initial step in understanding the grain container supply
chain is recognizing inland terminals, ports, and international port networks. Unlike the bulk supply chain
market, grain is a minor commodity in the spectrum products shipped by container. Grains are one of
many commodities classified as farm products. Thus, information regarding the larger containerized farm
product industry is provided as additional context. It is hypothesized that synergies exist within this
industry. In the subsequent section of the report, discussion moves specifically to grains. In addition, a
section is dedicated to containerized DDGs, a by-product of ethanol processing, as it has emerged as a
viable intermodal feed export. Some of this viability is in supply growth due to the inland investments in
handling facilities, such as dryers, pelletizers and transfer facilities – like those at Yermo.
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
3.00
3.50
4.00
4.50
199
6
199
7
199
8
199
9
200
0
200
1
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0*
201
1*
TE
U T
raff
ic I
nd
ex,
Bas
elin
e=1
99
5
World
United States
Source: Informa; U.S.DOT; Worldbank; United Nations 2013
3
The remainder of this paper is organized into six sections. Following the method and data section, the
inland portion of the container supply chain is discussed. The following section provides additional detail
specific to the farm industry and grain products. Section four includes statistics related to grain container
export market flows. The next section is devoted to a growing containerized DDG export market. The
final two sections focus on freight rates and suggestions for future potential market developments and
research opportunities.
4
2. METHOD AND DATA
Descriptive analysis was used to compile facts about trends and recent activities in marketing farm (and
specifically grain) products via container. Statistical measures were used to test relationships in the
market. The information presented updates the industry profile that was presented in a previous
cooperative research effort (Vachal and Reichert 2001). In creating the profile, the U.S. Department of
Transportation’s U.S. Public Use Waybill (Public Waybill) and the JOC Group, Inc.’s Port Import Export
Reporting Services (PIERS) data were again the principal data sources. The Waybill is a sample of rail
shipments, so it does not guarantee a comprehensive look at the rail grain container traffic but it is a
valuable resource for insight into product mix and sector trends.
The Public Waybill uses Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) geographic boundaries which are used in
maps presented in the report. These boundaries are based on counties and county groups and do not
necessarily align with state borders. The BEA boundaries are equal to the trade analysis zones (TAZs)
used in the discussion of rail grain container movements. The PIERS data is analyzed based on origin and
destination ports specified in the bill of lading – these points would lie within these TAZs for the U.S.
portion of the container movement. The PIERS data does include an estimate of product origin, but it is
somewhat unreliable due to the participation of third party logistics agents in the market. Commodity
definitions for Waybill analysis use Standard Transportation Commodity Codes (STCC) (Federal
Highway Administration 2012). PIERS commodity definitions are aligned with the Harmonized Tariff
Schedule (HTS) of the United States. Grain commodity groups were defined for both datasets, with
efforts made to create similar definitions for each set. The processes followed the protocol established
with the earlier look into this sector. Consistency in the secondary data sources should strengthen the
ability to update trends and make comparisons to market information presented in the earlier publication.
5
3. INTERMODAL EQUIPMENT AND NETWORK
An initial step in discussing the marketing patterns for containerized agricultural and grain products is to
broadly understand the intermodal network in the United States. The major nodes and connectivity to this
network are keys in accessing containerized product markets domestically and internationally. Economic
viability in container markets is found in volume concentration and equipment velocity. Railroads have
long focused on these issues as indicated by their investment in double-stack operations for primary
container corridors. The latter is a more recent focus of leaders in the shipping industry. A prime example
of this quest for efficiency is liner ship sizes. The newest container ships, delivered in 2013, carry 18,000
TEUs – more than four times the volume that the largest ships carried 30 years ago. Ships designed for
these large volumes are limited in their trade lanes to fewer ports that can handle this type of depth and
width. The 12,500 TEU ships, introduced into service in the mid-2000s, were described in a recent Los
Angeles Time article: “The ship is just 30 feet shorter than the Empire State Building is tall, as wide as a
10-lane freeway and big enough to carry the contents of eight 1-million-square-foot warehouses” (White
2012). As carriers seek to increase load rates, the push by carriers for efficient and cost effective inland
container movements will likely intensify. 3.1 Leading Container Ports
The largest U.S. ports are Los Angeles and Long Beach. Los Angeles handled 6.0 million TEUs during
2011 and Long Beach handled 4.3 million TEUs (Table 3.1). The combined volumes for the port region
are close to that of the 10th largest port in the world in Rotterdam, Netherlands (Table 3.2). The combined
volume for the top 20 U.S. ports in 2011 was about equivalent to the volume handled by China’s largest
port, Shanghai.
6
Table 3.1 Top U.S. Ports
2008-2011, in TEUs
Rank Ports 2008 2009 2010 2011 Change
2008 to
2011
1 Los Angeles 5,670,897 5,028,998 5,572,051 6,034,474 6%
2 Long Beach 4,611,671 3,765,560 4,466,946 4,338,847 -6%
3 New York 3,992,258 3,587,740 4,093,693 4,302,237 8%
4 Savannah 2,115,986 1,914,751 2,171,325 2,281,273 8%
5 Oakland 1,394,684 1,398,420 1,527,352 1,562,281 12%
6 Norfolk 1,591,566 1,375,632 1,439,011 1,479,076 -7%
7 Houston 1,370,759 1,256,049 1,370,953 1,448,313 6%
8 Seattle 1,082,573 1,072,838 1,417,597 1,379,104 27%
9 Charleston, SC 1,330,919 954,836 1,069,602 1,141,320 -14%
10 Tacoma 1,129,301 873,708 836,401 888,913 -21%
11 Miami 669,199 625,716 683,459 743,087 11%
12 Jacksonville 618,670 636,150 706,416 739,379 20%
13 Port Everglades 680,536 543,387 594,380 643,161 -5%
14 Delaware River
Ports 511,258 469,718 505,968 528,030
3%
15 Baltimore 435,135 405,552 447,978 472,386 9%
16 New Orleans 239,792 229,869 281,119 308,069 28%
17 Wilmington, NC 147,443 187,955 260,700 231,529 57%
18 Gulfport 172,607 158,636 181,343 183,351 6%
19 Portland 198,375 155,245 130,278 153,719 -23%
20 Boston 148,839 148,177 123,716 146,112 -2%
Top 20 U.S. Ports – Total 27,651,917 24,350,443 27,880,288 29,004,660 5%
All U.S. Ports – Total 29,282,675 28,380,903 28,374,218 29,581,907 1%
Source: Intermodal Association of North America (IANA), Journal of Commerce Reported 2012
These leading U.S. ports participate in the global network. The world’s largest ports, in terms of annual
TEU handle, are located in Asia (Table 3.2). China is home to seven of the world’s 15 most active ports.
Singapore and South Korea also house ports among the five largest. Using this information for context,
statistics presented later will highlight ports most active in terms of U.S. grain container exports and
connectivity with Asian ports.
7
Table 3.2 Top World Ports
Rank Ports 2010 Traffic
(in TEUs)
1 Shanghai, China 29,069,000
2 Singapore 28,431,100
3 Hong Kong, China 23,669,242
4 Shenzhen, China 22,509,700
5 Busan, South Korea 14,194,334
6 Ningbo-Zhoushan, China 13,144,000
7 Guangzhou, China 12,486,900
8 Qingdao, China 12,012,000
9 Dubai, United Arab Emirates 11,575,775
10 Rotterdam, Netherlands 11,145,804
11 Tianjin, China 10,080,000
12 Kaohsiung, Taiwan 9,121,211
13 Kelang, Malaysia 8,871,745
14 Antwerp, Belgium 8,468,475
15 Hamburg, Germany 7,895,736
Source: American Association of Port Authorities 2012
3.2 Inland Container Transportation
The growth in U.S. container traffic has generated inland demand for truck and rail services to move
product from inland production and consolidation points to the ports areas along the U.S. coast.
Traditionally, ocean carriers have coupled drayage service with the ocean-borne portion of the container
shipment in their service contracts. More recently, shipping lines began to decouple the inland drayage
and ocean liner services to focus on their core competencies of managing the liner shipping schedules and
equipment. This shift in industry practice created an additional challenge in accessing chassis and
container supply pools, especially for smaller shippers not in close proximity to a container supply pool.
While the drayage trucking sector is not a primary topic here, it is worth noting its operation impacts the
economics and fluidity of container movements and that it continues to evolve in this altered market
environment (Transportation Research Board 2011).
While trucks are essential in draying individual loads, rail has been crucial in developing and deploying a
strategy to move containers in trainload shipments. Trainload economics, and particularly double stack
operations, have become critical to viability of this intermodal shipment option – especially for lower-
value commodities such as grain and oilseed which are sourced far inland and destined for overseas
markets (Figure 3.1).
8
Figure 3.1 Modal Costs
3.3 Rail Container Terminals
Inland terminals and ports are the activity nexus for container traffic which is intermodal and may involve
rail, truck, barge, and ship. Rail and truck involvement, due to the evolution of the industry, are most
heavily tied to the grain container exports of interest here. Due to the far inland location of the major
Midwest grain production region, truck involvement is often in dray. Drayage is service to transfer a
container between the loading and shipping sites. It is easy to understand why the drayage distance is an
important factor in the economics of container shipping because of the relationship between transport cost
and distance illustrated in Figure 3.1. With longer truck distances, other modes quickly become more cost
efficient. Although the Chicago market has been able to transition older bulk-grain facilities into
container loading, the smaller scale of these operations and the advantages of being in close proximity to
the country’s largest inland empty container pool are not easily replicated elsewhere.
Public Waybill data was studied to identify the most active inland terminals and ports, in terms of rail
container volumes originated and terminated. Considering all rail container shipments, including empty
containers, shows that Chicago (Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI) was the leading origin among all
TAZs, based on data from 2009 to 2011 (Figure 3.2). Chicago was an inland terminal with logistical
strength as a national gateway in east-west good movements via rail and highway. Six of 7 Class I rail
carriers are present in the Chicago market. Los Angeles (Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA-
AZ), with the ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, was second among ports in containers originated.
The Chicago to Los Angeles rail corridor was the busiest in the country in terms of container traffic
volumes. These two terminals account for 56.7% of the rail container originations where the origin was
identified. The origin was masked, due to confidentiality requirements for the Public Use Waybill, in
28.2% of the records.
Source: Rodrigue, J-P et al. 2012
9
Among the other terminals, Atlanta and Dallas-Fort Worth were identified as leading inland rail container
terminals. Along the coastlines, Seattle-Tacoma, New York-New Jersey, Washington-Baltimore, and San
Francisco-Oakland TAZs were larger volume handlers during the 2009 to 2011 marketing period.
Chicago is also the largest rail terminal as a destination for containers, including loaded and empty
containers, with again Los Angeles second among destinations. The composite share is somewhat less
than for origination as the two terminals accounted for 52.1% of the rail container deliveries between
2009 and 2011. The New York and Atlanta TAZs each accounted for more than 5% of the deliveries, with
Dallas-Fort Worth and San Francisco each attributing between 4% and 5% (Figure 3.3).
Figure 3.2 Rail Container Originations, by TAZ
10
Figure 3.3 Rail Container Terminations, by TAZ
A primary inland container traffic corridor, which links inland terminals to ports via rail carriage, is
between the Los Angeles and Chicago TAZs (Figure 3.4). This corridor accounted for 17.5% of all
shipments, inbound and outbound, between 2009 and 2011. Other busy TAZ rail container shipment
corridors include those between Seattle and Chicago, Los Angeles and Dallas-Fort Worth, and New York-
New Jersey and Chicago. Given statistics reported regularly by the Journal of Commerce regarding U.S.
container terminal port activities, these corridors all seem reasonable as rail delivery points.
A number of corridors have more recently developed in the system, while still others have experienced
declines compared to figures presented in the previous study. It is important, from the perspective of the
grain industry, to be aware of these shifts because grain is a lower-value commodity in the spectrum of
containerized goods. Grain shipments currently rely largely on backhaul or match-back opportunities
created by higher-value inbound consumer products which are associated with higher shipping rates for
the ocean carriers. For instance, Portland was among the top origins for containers in 1998 and is no
longer within the top 20 origins (Vachal et al. 2003). Industry sources indicate this may have to do with
changes to shipping line schedules and in the rail routing patterns for empty containers. Because container
shipping lanes are determined largely by international vessel operator decisions, it is important to
recognize these may change over time. The agility of the U.S. grain industry in recognizing and adapting
to these changes is a key to longer-term growth and sustainability.
11
Figure 3.4 Rail Container Market Origin/Destination Traffic
12
4. FARM INDUSTRY AND GRAIN PRODUCT RAIL CONTAINER SHIPMENT ACTIVITY
The Public Waybill provides information for understanding the inland origins and port region destination
network for container traffic. Because of the intermodal nature of this traffic, rail industry statistics
regarding container shipments can offer a means to disaggregate the traffic, at least for much of the traffic
that is sourced inland. The PIERS data includes information regarding shipper location, inland terminal
origin, and destination port regions. It can also be used to better understand the ultimate destination for
products moved offshore. Combining the datasets in this analysis, as was done with the earlier research by
Vachal and Reichert (2002), provides a more robust picture of industry activities and trends than either
source independently. In addition, an element of validation presents itself in consistency between the
independent data sources.
Although activity has increased over the past decade, the farm products group remains a minor
commodity in overall rail container traffic (Figure 4.1). Farm products, defined as STCC group 01,
attributed about 0.3% of container traffic in 2001 and 3.1% in 2011. Farm product share in U.S. rail
container traffic peaked during the economic slowdown in 2009 when rail container traffic dropped to its
lowest level in more than a decade.
Figure 4.1 Farm Product STCC Group Share in All Rail Container Traffic
The strengthening of farm products in the mix of containerized goods is also evident in comparing STCC
group shipments from 2000 to 2002 to more recent shipments for 2009 to 2011. Mixed miscellaneous and
empty containers are most commonly found in both time periods. Among the loaded containers for which
a commodity was specified, waste/scrap and food/kindred are the most common in both shipping periods.
The farm product group, which includes grain, was among the largest gainers in TEUs in comparing
average shipments between the two periods, with volume increasing 239%. Among the 32 STCC groups
identified in the query, farm products moved from 13th in 2000-2002 to 5th in 2009-2011 for the ranking
based on TEUs. A complete list of the STCC groups active in container traffic during the past decade is
included in the Appendix (Table 4.1).
0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.4% 0.3% 0.3% 0.3%
1.7%2.0%
3.5%3.4%
3.1%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
Gra
in a
s %
of
Rai
l C
onta
iner
Tra
ffic
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
13
Figure 4.2 Industry Container Shipment Trends
Trends in railroad hauling of grain shows that although the traditional bulk hopper-car shipment remained
predominant in the market, shippers have increasingly opted to utilize containers in marketing grain
(Figure 4.3). Between 2000 and 2006 less than a half a percent of rail grain was marketed via container
based on volume. Following an increase to about 2% in 2007, the share doubled by 2011 with 3.9% of the
rail grain volume transported via container. Overall, U.S. grain exports trended upward between 2006 and
2011.
Figure 4.3 Container Share in All Rail Grain Volume
- 200 400 600 800
Farm Products
Pulp/Paper
Transport Eqpt
Food/Kindred
Waste/Scrap
Thousands
Avg TEUs 2000-2002 Avg TEUs 2009-2011
0.3%0.4%0.5%0.5%0.4%0.4%0.3%
1.9%2.3%
3.1%
3.7%3.9%
0.0%
0.5%
1.0%
1.5%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.5%
4.0%
4.5%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Shar
e of
Volu
me
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
14
4.1 Farm and Grain Industry Origins and Destinations
The Chicago TAZ is the largest origin for farm and grain products, consistent with the larger set of all rail
container traffic when the origin is identified in the Waybill). Grain, a subset of the larger family of farm
products, accounted for 77% of the farm containers that originated similarly at inland rail sources, as
expected. Second and third among origins for farm and grain were Minneapolis and Portland TAZs.
These ports fall much farther down in the ranking of origins by all rail container shipments, at 26th and
25th, respectively. The difference is evident in the Los Angeles and Philadelphia TAZs where the farm
group originates a measurable amount from these ports unlike grain. The Los Angeles TAZ is second
among origins for all rail containers. The Philadelphia TAZ is much lower, with a ranking of 31st based
on volume originated between 2009 and 2011. Additional detail about the origins is provided in Appendix
Table 2, Table 4, and Table 5. The ability of grain and farm products to more closely align with the
overall container market operations, such as in shipment origins, may be beneficial in competitive access
to the container supply pool. Service rates associated with backhaul opportunities from major supply pool
terminals is evidenced in the transload successes and investments near sites such as Chicago, Los
Angeles, and Kansas City. Given the geographical disparities between primary U.S. grain production in
the rural/Midwest and the urban/coastline container markets, this proves challenging (Figure 4.4, Figure
4.5).
Table 4.1 Container Rail Origins, by Commodity Group
Origin Rank, by Volume
Origin BEA Grain Farm All
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 1 1 1
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI-IA 2 2 25
Portland-Salem, OR-WA 3 3 24
Columbus, OH 4 6 12
Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY 5 7 15
Kansas City, MO-KS 6 8 17
Omaha, NE-IA-MO 7 9 43
Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO-KS-NE 8 10 28
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA 9 14 3
Los Angeles-Riverside-OrangeCnty, CA-AZ 4 2
Philadelphia-Wilmington- AtlanticCty, PA-NJ-DE-MD 5 31
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 11 8
Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI 12 18
Minot, ND 13 49
15
Figure 4.4 Container Rail Farm Product Originations, Average 2009-2011
Figure 4.5 Container Rail Grain Originations, Average 2009-2011
16
The Los Angeles TAZ is the leading destination for grain and farm rail container shipments (Table 4.2).
This likely reflects the backhaul and match-back opportunities at these large container port destinations.
Additionally, direct rail service and relatively cheaper ocean freight rates through the Los Angeles/Long
Beach port complex encourage the extensive volume of trade through this region. The Chicago TAZ is
the overall top destination for rail container shipments with Los Angeles 2nd. These figures consider all
shipments, loaded and empty, where a destination was specified in the Waybill record. The grain and
farm destinations are more similar to the larger, all-rail container shipment sample with the Seattle, San-
Francisco, and New York TAZs among the leading destinations. Mexico, Philadelphia, and Salt Lake
City were, however, relatively more important as destinations in marketing the grain and farm products
considering destination ranking by containers terminated. Illustrations of the market geography for farm
products, and more specifically grain products, are provided in Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7.
Table 4.2 Container Rail Destinations, by Commodity Group
Destination Rank,
by Volume
Destination BEA Grain Farm All
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA-AZ 1 1 2
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA 2 2 7
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 3 4 6
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 4 5 1
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC 5 7 8
Mexico 6 8 29
New York-NwJrsy-LgIsd,NY-NJ-CT-PA-MA-VT 7 3 3
Philadelphia-Wlmngtn- Atlntc Cty,PA-NJ-DE-MD 8 9 28
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT-ID 9 11 26
Portland-Salem, OR-WA 10 12 18
Boston-Wrcstr-Lawrence-Lwll-Brcktn,MA-NH-RI-VT 6 22
Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 10 11
Quebec 13 23
17
Figure 4.6 Container Rail Farm Product Terminations, Average 2009-2011
Figure 4.7 Container Rail Grain Originations, Average 2009-2011
18
4.2 Rail Grain Container Products
The grain product mix in the rail container information available with the Public Waybill was parsed to
select grain and oilseed field crops for the study. The STCC provides a description for the product in the
Waybill record. These codes are designed to provide additional details about the product as additional
numbers are added to the STCC. For example, the farm industry products were selected by specifying that
all 01 STCC codes should be included. As aforementioned, the 01 STCC is described as “Farm Products.”
The Public Waybill provides detail to the 5-digit level of the complete 7-digit STCC. The last two digits
in the STCC are not included as one of the confidentiality measures built into the generation of the Public
Waybill sample. The product was only specified in about 1 in 4 grain shipments, but the sample does
offer insight into the types of grain being marketed via container. For non-specified grain products, a label
of “Grain, Not Elsewhere Classified (NEC)” was the descriptor STCC.
Figure 4.8 Grain Rail Container Product Mix (when commodity was specified), 2009-2011
Corn was largest in terms of rail container share in the grain product mix, accounting for 31% of the grain
shipments in which the type of grain was specified (Figure 4.9). Cotton was second among the field crops
marketed via rail container, accounting for a slightly lower share of the containers than corn. Soybeans
and crops grown for seed were next among the field crops. Soybeans accounted for 14% of the reported
rail container grain shipments. Barley, rice, and wheat were the final three grains reported in quantities
large enough to report separately. Crops grouped into the “Other” category included cotton seed,
sunflower, popcorn, and flax. Each accounted for less than 1% of grain shipments between 2009 and
2011.
Corn
31%
Cotton
30%
Soybeans
14%
CropSeeds
11%
Barley
8%
Rice
2%
Wheat
2%
Other
2%
19
Figure 4.9 Rail Container Grain Trends, Selected Commodities
Trends in the rail container grain shipments are depicted in Figure 4.9. Increased containerization of corn
is evident initially in 2007 and 2008. Containerized corn shipment grew at an increased rate between 2009
and 2011, compared to the 3-year running average. U.S. cotton has been increasingly exported over the
recent years due to decreased domestic textile industry demand. Soybean and barley show positive trends
in their rail container shipment levels, especially since 2007. Rice appears fairly stable while wheat shows
a slight increasing tendency in its rail container shipments.
This completes the discussion of the rail grain container market based on the Waybill Sample. Interesting
changes have occurred since the previous study in that there is a growing interest in using containers for
marketing grain. New developments are also suggested with regard to the popular origins and destinations
for the rail grain container shipments. Continued evolution and investment in this relatively young
industry may open additional opportunities for the grain industry. As noted, intermodal rail continues to
be recognized as an attractive business growth area. The industry faces challenges in optimizing
multimodal operations and investment decisions in a dynamic market environment heavily influenced by
a global market and international shipping decisions. The ability of the grain industry to understand and
successfully respond to the market signals is a key to continued growth in containerized grain marketing.
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
200
2
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
3-y
r R
unnin
g A
vg, R
ail
Conta
iner
s
Corn
Cotton
Soybeans
Crop Seed
Barley
Rice
Wheat
20
5. GRAIN CONTAINER EXPORT MARKET FLOWS
PIERS data provide an opportunity to better understand the flow of containers through U.S. ports to their
foreign destinations. Although complete supply chain detail is not available for the inland portion of the
supply chain, the Waybill container rail shipments and limited PIERS export bill of lading information on
shipper locations can offer insight into the field-to-port flows. Because of the differing commodity
classification systems noted previously, the agricultural commodity definitions cannot be matched
between the Waybill and PIERS datasets. Attention was given to trying to match the agricultural
commodity definitions as closely as possible. DDGs and feed are not within the whole grain product
focus of this research, but they are both substantial in containerized agricultural volume so are given some
attention later in the report.
The grains included in the PIERS analysis, based on their harmonized system commodity definitions, are:
Barley Groats and Meal Of Wheat
Beans Not Elsewhere Specified Or
Included (NESOI), Dried Shelled,
including Seed
Hop Cones, Fresh Or Dried; Lupulin
Buckwheat Hop Cones, Ground, Powdered Or In
Pellets; Lupulin
Cereal Flours, NESOI Kidney Beans & White Pea Beans, Dried
Shell, Inc. Seed
Cereals (Not Corn) in Grain Form,
Prepared Lentils, Dried Shelled, Including Seed
Corn (Maize) Flour Malt, Not Roasted
Corn (Maize), Other Than Seed Corn Oats
Flaxseed (Linseed), Whether or Not
Broken Peas, Dried Shelled, Including Seed
Flours and Meals Of Soybeans Rice, Semi- Or Wholly Milled, Polished
Etc. or Not
Grain Sorghum Rye in The Grain
Grains Worked (Hulled Pearled Sliced
Kibbled) Of Barley Soybeans, Whether or Not Broken
Grains Worked Etc., Of Cereal, NESOI Sunflower Seeds, Whether or Not Broken
Groats and Meal Of Cereal, NESOI Wheat (Other Than Durum Wheat), and
Meslin
Groats and Meal Of Corn (Maize) Wheat Gluten, Whether Or Not Dried
Groats and Meal Of Oats
Using the grain group defined above, Figure 5.1 shows modal trends for U.S. exports over the past decade
(PIERS). Overall, exports were down in 2011 and 2012 compared to the previous four years.
Containerized shipments accounted for 1.1% of the volume in 2003 with about 1.2 million tons moved to
international ports via container. Containerized grain shipments showed strong growth through 2008 then,
with the global economic crisis, these shipments leveled off and began to decline. A share of the gain,
however, has been sustained as the amount of grain marketed via container remained at more than 5
million tons during the past three years. Since peaking as modal share in 2008 at 6.1%, containerized
exports have accounted for 4.3% to 5.6% of U.S. grain exports. The container export trends for grains
show similarities to rail container trends presented in Figure 4.3 reflect on the industry’s need for rail
service in positioning products for the container export markets.
21
Figure 5.1 Grain Exports Shipments, Modal Trends
5.1 Grain Container Export Commodities and Trends
The composition of the container grain exports for the most recent five years is shown in Figure 5.2.
Between 2008 and 2012, grain container exports totaled 1.9 million TEUs. The commodity mix in the
grain exports was dominated by soybeans and corn – accounting for 38.9% and 23.6% of the volume
between 2008 and 2012, respectively. Rice and wheat were also notable whole grains in the mix,
comprising 6.8% and 3.4%, respectively. Beans, peas, lentils, and sunflowers were also identified as
grains exported via container. About 20,000 TEUs of each of these grains were exported via container
between 2008 and 2012. Additional information about these and other grains is included in Appendix
Table 8.
-
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
9,000
-
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Thousa
nd C
onta
iner
Tons
Tho
usa
nd
Bu
lk T
on
s
Bulk Container
22
Figure 5.2 Composition of Grain Container Exports
Container exports of soybeans more than doubled in the most recent five years compared to the previous
five years. The United States exported 359 thousand TEUs of soybeans between 2003 and 2007,
compared to 741 thousand TEUs between 2008 and 2012. Container exports of corn also grew 65%
during the same time period. Year-to-year trends in the container exports are shown in Figure 5.3. The
large increase in container as a mode in grain exports occurred in 2007, driven by increases in
containerized shipments of corn and soybean. The soybean increase has been largely sustained while
other commodities have declined. The decline is especially notable in 2012 when dry conditions in many
production areas led to a smaller than average U.S. corn crop and decreased corn exports. Growing
domestic demand for corn from increased ethanol production could also have influenced the amount of
corn exports by container.
Soybeans, 38.9%
Corn, 23.6%
Cereal, 10.0%Grain Flour/Meal,
8.9% Soybean Flour/Meal, 6.8%
Wheat (not Durum), 3.4%
Wheat Flour, 1.2%
Beans/Seed, 1.2%
Peas, 1.2%
Lentils, 1.1%
Corn Meal/Groats, 1.1%
Sunflower, 1.1%
NESOI, 1.6%
23
Figure 5.3 Whole Grain Container Exports, 2003 to 2012
Some insight regarding the origin for these shipments was offered in the rail container discussion. PIERS
data also provides a field that indicates where the shippers’ container businesses are located. A valid U.S.
state location was included in about half of the bill of lading records analyzed between 2003 and 2012. It
cannot be determined, however, if the business location is equivalent to the origin of the exporter or the
location of a third party logistics provider. A summary of the state origin data for the most recent five
years is illustrated in Figure 5.4. As with the Waybill rail traffic, California and Illinois were the largest in
terms of grain container originations, based on the bill of lading summary, with each accounting for about
18%-19% of the annual shipments. Minnesota and Wisconsin were third and fourth in grain container
originations between 2008 and 2012. Minnesota has experienced less consistency in its container
shipment activity (Appendix Table 9). Wisconsin saw a decline in container shipments when comparing
2012 shipments to the previous four years. Kansas and Nebraska experienced a significant increase in
container originations in 2012 compared to recent years, while Indiana, Missouri, New Jersey, and
Washington saw declines. Additional historical data and annual shipment information are summarized in
Appendix Table 9.
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Soybean
Corn
Rice
Wheat
24
Figure 5.4 Estimated Grain Container Origination, by State
5.2 U.S Ports’ Grain Container Traffic
As discussed in the introduction, U.S. ports have been active in world container trade for decades. Port
and inland investments have been essential in the ability of U.S. businesses to source and market products
globally. While specialized consumer grains, such as food grade soybeans, have long been marketed via
container, other grains have more recently gained the attention of ocean carriers as potential match-back
traffic. Table 5.1 shows the trends among U.S. port districts over the past decade. Los Angeles and Seattle
remain the most active. New York has experienced increased volumes during recent years while the San
Francisco port district traffic levels have varied. Grain container activity at the Columbia-Snake and New
Orleans port districts has declined in recent years. The five largest-volume grain container port districts
accounted for 92% of the traffic over this same period. Individual ports located in these port districts are
listed in Appendix 11.
25
Table 5.1 U.S. Port District Grain Container Volumes, 2003-2012 TEUs
US Port District Avg.
2003-2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Los Angeles, CA 87,849 266,692 237,008 171,090 188,501 134,393
Seattle, WA 53,465 113,913 62,392 37,782 37,697 43,823
Norfolk, VA 14,617 46,800 45,313 39,336 24,721 35,243
San Francisco, CA 16,543 38,672 47,346 28,806 24,482 23,010
New York City, NY 8,725 17,007 17,434 22,258 27,567 29,305
Houston-Galveston, TX 6,636 7,197 6,070 9,326 7,478 6,985
Savannah, GA 1,032 7,716 5,854 4,743 2,805 3,063
Miami, FL 3,845 5,853 5,350 4,097 3,086 3,524
Tampa, FL 3,886 3,215 4,433 4,223 3,344 3,087
Columbia-Snake, OR 3,304 3,449 3,388 2,733 1,811 1,574
New Orleans, LA 2,822 2,188 3,094 2,726 1,168 981
Charleston, SC 1,253 855 794 1,335 716 813
Honolulu, HI 316 1,058 701 645 856 1,017
Baltimore, MD 536 940 726 582 363 973
Charlotte, NC 88 690 867 1,054 262 662
Philadelphia, PA 860 610 675 861 584 306
Mobile, AL 391 786 999 516 347 379
San Juan, PR 350 398 245 209 100 36
Boston, MA 3 2 3 21 23 28
Anchorage, AK - - - - 6 20
San Diego, CA 2 6 - 4 8 2
Port Arthur, TX - - - - 0 6
Portland, ME 0 - - - - -
26
Figure 5.5 Port District Grain Container Origination, Total TEU 2008 to 2012
With regard to market share in the grain container exports, a statistical significance test indicates the
market has been stable with regard to favored port districts when comparing the average volume between
2003 and 2007 to that of the most recent year (Table 5.2). The Los Angeles port region market share
ranged from 43% in the early 2000’s to 58% in 2011. A shift away from the Seattle port district is evident
in the pre-2009 traffic where this region accounted for about one in four grain containers. The share
rebounded from a low of 11% in 2010 to 15% in 2012. The New York port district continues to show
steadily increasing market share from 3% in 2008 to 10% in 2012. Smaller volumes move through other
port districts, but all remained under 2% of the total shipments in each time period.
27
With regard to the grains handled by these ports, a summary of the five largest volume ports for eight
crops is presented in Appendix Table 5. The summary was based on total volumes from 2008 to 2012.
Los Angeles-Long Beach is the largest containerized grain export gateway of the top five destinations for
the eight major field crops. Soybeans are the largest single crop handled in the port region. This port
district is also the largest delivery destination for soybeans delivered via container. Containerized corn is
also most likely to be delivered to Los Angeles-Long Beach. The Norfolk port district is second among
soybean and wheat destinations.
Figure 5.6 Grain Container Port District Destinations 2008-2012, by Commodity
The Seattle port district handles the largest volume of containerized wheat. This port district did handle
larger volumes of both corn and soybean containers during the same time period. This is also the largest
destination for rail container shipments of peas and lentils. Port details show the Columbia-Snake and
Seattle ports as major destinations for lentils within the port district. Containerized bean shipments are
most often marketed through the Tampa and Houston-Galveston port districts. Within the Tampa port
district, Jacksonville is identified as a major gateway. Rice and sunflower rail container shipment port
district gateways are most often San Francisco and New York, respectively, based on volumes reported
for 2008 to 2012.
0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000
Tampa, FL
Seattle, WA
Savannah, GA
San Francisco, CA
Norfolk, VA
New York City, NY
New Orleans, LA
Miami, FL
Los Angeles, CA
Houston-Galveston, TX
Columbia-Snake, OR
Hundreds of TEUs
Tampa,
FL
Seattle,
WA
Savannah
, GA
San
Francisco
, CA
Norfolk,
VA
New
York
City, NY
New
Orleans,
LA
Miami,
FL
Los
Angeles,
CA
Houston-
Galveston
, TX
Columbia
-Snake,
OR
Corn 68,505 31,019 16,844 8,316 318,431
Soybean 92,098 24,766 105,248 67,492 437,799
Wheat 28,635 3,097 15,579 3,242 8,435
Peas 13,358 1,978 3,082 425 2,247
Lentils 8,542 701 2,528 1,108 7,388
Beans 3,976 1,791 2,059 6,120 3,763
Rice 5,640 5,428 74,381 4,823 22,841
Sunflower 686 2,969 4,711 9,473 1,954
Corn
Soybean
Wheat
Peas
Lentils
Beans
Rice
Sunflower
28
5.3 U.S. Container Traffic Trade Lanes
The PIERS data included 49 U.S. port origins and 156 importing country destinations for container
shipments during the past five years. The U.S. ports were grouped into Census Port Districts. The United
Nations grouping of countries into geographic zones was used to define import trade regions for the
importing countries. The port district and import region definitions are provided in Appendix Table 10
and Table 11. Detail about the import port was also available but that degree of granularity was not
considered.
Figure 5.7 U.S. Grain Container Export Destinations, 2008 to 2012
A general picture of the trade lanes is provided in Table 5.2 with a summary of shipments between U.S.
port districts and importing regions. The table includes exports from the 15 largest U.S port districts to all
the potential importing regions. These shipments accounted for 99% of U.S. grain container exports.
Eastern Asia was the destination for 52% of the U.S. grain container exports. As detailed in Table , this
region includes the Republic of China (Taiwan), Peoples Republic of China (China), Japan, Korea, Macau
and Mongolia. It accounted for 66% and 61% of the grain container exports from the Los Angeles and
Seattle port districts, respectively. Eastern Asia also accounted for over half if the grain container
shipments routed through the San Francisco port district. Within this port district, Oakland account for a
majority of all grain container shipments (Appendix Table 13).
The leading destination for grain container exports shipped through the Norfolk port district was South-
Eastern Asia. This port district was second, behind Los Angeles, among U.S. port container grain
shipments destined for South-Eastern Asia. This import region was also an important destination for the
Seattle, New York, Savannah, and Baltimore port districts grain-filled containers.
29
The Caribbean was an important grain container destination for the Houston-Galveston, Miami, Tampa,
New Orleans, and Philadelphia port districts. This import region accounted for about one in four
containers from Houston-Galveston and Philadelphia and one in three from New Orleans. It is more
important to Miami and Tampa where 81% and 91% of grain containers were destined for the Caribbean,
respectively, between 2008 and 2012. Close by, the Central American market was a primary destination
from Houston-Galveston, New Orleans, and Mobile port districts.
The largest single destination for grain containers originating in the Philadelphia port district is Oceana,
which includes Australia and New Zealand. The Charleston port district’s most common grain container
destinations are Northern Europe and Western Europe. Columbia Snake grain container traffic was most
often destined for Southern Europe and Eastern Asia with these markets at 24% and 20% of the total
during the 5-year period, respectively. Continuous changes in Global economic conditions and shipping
schedules affect these trade flows, so a general understanding of the markets is presented with the five
years of grain container export traffic.
30
Lo
s
Angeles,
CA
Seattle,
WA
No
rfolk
,
VA
San
Francisco
,
CA
New
Yo
rk
City, N
Y
Ho
uston-
Galvesto
n,
TX
Savannah,
GA
Miam
i,
FL
Tam
pa,
FL
Co
lumb
ia-
Snak
e,
OR
New
Orleans,
LA
Charles-
ton, S
C
Balti-
mo
re,
MD
Char-
lotte,
NC
Philad
el-
phia,
PA
Mo
bile,
AL
Carib
bean
823
71
809
249
4,3
83
9,6
13
653
17,8
16
16,6
27
612
3,7
04
74
68
819
723
Central A
merica
1,1
65
1,0
74
1,3
04
305
1,7
96
9,5
45
206
1,2
80
134
1,1
31
4,2
06
112
78
4
221
1,3
87
Eastern A
frica222
10
839
43
3,6
18
216
2
5
2
81
6
5
Eastern A
sia654,6
03
180,9
17
55,0
23
84,7
26
10,1
25
22
3,1
14
7
37
2,6
08
425
996
1,3
09
3,3
68
2
460
Eastern E
urop
e150
62
1,2
80
1,5
57
2,8
76
845
16
139
3
40
4
2
Melanesia
90
264
28
15
70
1
59
Micro
nesia107
129
1,2
31
Mid
dle A
frica5
2
71
7
1,1
24
215
2
19
92
0
No
rth Am
erica231
48
45
91
2
3
61
11
135
57
No
rthern Africa
23
334
906
2,3
17
3,1
85
886
139
1
11
2
0
6
No
rthern Euro
pe
203
345
1,7
15
1,6
73
1,9
77
1,2
55
380
72
62
21
333
985
40
38
Oceania
1,5
65
1,0
27
44
5,9
73
415
10
101
2
1
21
27
12
6
1,5
59
Po
lynesia118
768
So
uth Am
erica765
2,0
92
1,5
05
194
2,2
69
1,2
03
166
1,6
44
967
1,3
28
220
150
375
226
8
So
uth-Eastern A
sia334,7
04
87,4
46
102,5
31
23,7
18
62,5
12
15
12,3
58
6
72
611
534
922
98
So
uthern Africa
30
39
448
72
789
41
25
4
1
25
So
uthern Asia
1,8
51
17,4
82
4,3
71
380
2,1
83
73
699
1
0
71
49
30
2
So
uthern Euro
pe
129
818
3,7
10
1,0
42
5,5
84
1,2
80
327
40
10
6,1
32
36
108
2
Unk
now
n15
10
368
5
Western A
frica44
94
61
63
830
888
112
6
2
813
10
23
151
9
2
Western A
sia920
2,0
22
14,7
82
32,0
92
6,1
33
5,8
92
5,2
61
28
4
37
93
325
712
4
103
Western E
urop
e153
1,1
39
1,9
66
5,4
67
3,6
61
4,9
85
618
920
369
172
74
1,1
04
38
12
23
182
997,6
85
295,6
07
191,4
14
162,3
17
113,5
72
37,0
57
24,1
81
21,9
10
18,3
02
12,9
54
10,1
58
4,5
13
3,5
84
3,5
35
3,0
36
3,0
28
US
Port D
istrict
TE
Us
Imp
orting R
egion
Ta
ble
5.2
Su
mm
ary o
f Sh
ipm
ents B
etween
U.S
. Port D
istricts and Im
portin
g R
egio
ns
31
5.4 U.S. Grain Container Destination Trends
With regard to individual importing countries, the 20 largest-volume importing countries account for 92%
of the grain container shipments originated from U.S. ports (Table 5.3). The Republic of China is by far
the largest U.S grain container destination, accounting for about 42% of traffic between 2008 and 2012.
Indonesia is also a substantial market with about 13% of the grain container shipments moved to that
country. The Peoples Republic of China and Vietnam are next among the top importers, during the five-
year period, serving as markets for 7% and 6%, respectively, of the U.S. grain containers. The other
countries that account for more than 1% of the U.S. grain container market include Japan, Malaysia,
Korea, Philippines, and Thailand. The market geography for the leading destinations is illustrated in
Figure 5.8. Considering a similar ranking of the top 20 grain container importing countries for 2003 to
2007, 15 of the 20 countries were included in these top rankings in both time periods. Countries included
in the earlier top 20 that have dropped to lower rankings are South Africa, Kenya, Germany, Netherlands,
and United Kingdom. A high degree of correlation, or stability, was found in the countries’ grain
container volumes for the two periods considering the Pearson Correlation coefficient (r, 163=.97, <.01).
This suggests that working to expand grain container shipments with current, larger volume importers
may be a successful strategy for expanding grain container export activity.
Table 5.3 U.S. Grain Container Export Destinations 2008-2012, by Importing Country
Rank Import Country TEUs Rank Import Country TEUs
1 Republic Of China 667,495 11 Puerto Rico 20,615
2 Indonesia 255,290 12 India 15,694
3 Peoples Republic of
China
134,914 13 Spain 13,292
4 Vietnam 118,488 14 Dominican Rep. 12,027
5 Japan 103,800 15 Jordan 11,859
6 Malaysia 94,215 16 Haiti 10,179
7 Korea 91,489 17 Singapore 9,790
8 Philippines 77,887 18 Israel 8,812
9 Thailand 68,233 19 Guatemala 8,668
10 Saudi Arabia 22,913 20 Australia 7,676
Source: PIERS
32
Figure 5.8 U.S. Grain Container Export Destination Countries, 2008 to 2012
33
Nine of the top twenty container importing countries, measured in total pounds imported, are also in the
top twenty among countries ranked by the volume of bulk grain imports as indicated in the shaded cells in
Table 5.4. The pound volume measure was used in this comparison because the TEU metric is not
relevant for bulk grain. While this does shuffle the container ranking compared to the TEU listing
included in Table 5.3, trade relationships in the two shipment types is significant. Countries that imported
bulk or container grain products in the 2008 to 2012 market period were likely to import both types
(r,163=.80, p<.01). This relationship strengthened in the more recent time period when compared to the
2003 to 2007 period (r, 163=.72, p<.01). The bulk grain to grain container shipment relationship is not as
strong as the relationship of all container shipments to grain container shipments across time periods. The
absolute and increasing strength of the relationship between a country’s bulk grain shipments to a county
and its container grain shipments to that country suggests an opportunity to build or expand the grain
container exports with current bulk trade partners. Although not possible with the current data set, it
would also be interesting to test the significance of all container traffic to that of the grain container traffic
as another aspect of building or expanding trade relationships.
Table 5.4 U.S. Bulk and Container Grain Export Destination
Rankings 2008-2012 (Based on Pounds),
by Importing Country Volume
Container
Ranking
Bulk
Ranking
Republic of China 1 1
Indonesia 2 10
Japan 3 2
Vietnam 4 52
Malaysia 5 46
Korea 6 3
Thailand 7 26
Philippines 8 9
Saudi Arabia 9 20
India 10 75
Jordan 11 54
Dominican Republic 12 11
Puerto Rico 13 132
Spain 14 16
Singapore 15 64
Haiti 16 37
Israel 17 15
Australia 18 62
Lebanon 19 50
Guatemala 20 12
34
6. DDG AND FEED GROUP EXPORTS
The feed export product group, which includes DDGs, is defined to include four harmonized tariff
schedule codes. Overall the commodities attributed 2.1 to 7.6 million tons in the agricultural export
market during the past decade. The commodities are described as:
Bran Sharps & Other Residues Derived from Milling Corn (bran)
Residues of Starch Mfr and Similar Residues (residues)
Brewing or Distilling Dregs and Waste, W/Not Pellet (DDGs)
Animal Feed Prep, Except Dog or Cat Food, Retail Pk (animal feed)
The container marketing option has shown strong and sustained growth in this market. The DDG and feed
exports were marketed by container in 9.8% of shipments in 2003. In 2012, containers were used to
market a majority of the product at a 53.1% share in shipments.
Figure 6.1 DDG and Feed Group Modal Trends
-
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Thousa
nd P
ounds
Bulk
Container
35
The feed product volume and mix has changed during the recent decade. Between 2003 and 2007, the
animal feed commodity was the largest-volume product (Figure 6.2). While this product line has
experience additional growth in the most recent five-year marketing period DDGs have overtaken the
Animal Feed group with strong growth. DDGs accounted for less than 1% of the feed group products
marketed between 2003 and 2007, and in the following five years attributed 52.6% of the volume.
Figure 6.2 Feed Group Export TEUs
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
Bran Sharps &
Other Residues
Derived from
Milling Corn
Residues of Starch
Mfr and Similar
Residues
Brewing or
Distilling Dregs
and Waste, W/Nt
Pellet
Animal Feed Prep
Except Dog or Cat
Food, Retail Pk
TE
Us
2003-2007 2008-2012
36
Evidence that DDGs were increasingly marketed via container is shown in Figure 6.3. As ethanol plants
and third party marketing firms have become more adept at preparing and marketing DDGs in the export
feed market, volumes have steadily increased. Although a slowing in growth is suggested by the change
from 2011 to 2012, this may be attributed to strong domestic demand for the DDGs during a wide-spread
drought in the United States. In addition, there were continued uncertainties about ethanol market
sustainability related to national energy policies and reduced ethanol production associated with high corn
prices.
Figure 6.3 Annual Container Commodity Export Shipments, 2003-2012
-
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
200
3
200
4
200
5
200
6
200
7
200
8
200
9
201
0
201
1
201
2
TE
Us
Bran
Residues
DDGs
Animal Feed
37
As with the grain discussion, the reliability of the state of origin reported in the bill of lading as the true
physical place of origin is not guaranteed because of the involvement of third parties and freight
forwarders in placing and managing these shipments. The 10 largest origin states account for 93% of
DDG shipments. California, Minnesota, Illinois, and New Jersey are the largest with 22%, 11%, 13%, and
13%, respectively (Figure 6.4). Additional information about volumes and shipment trends for individual
states is presented in Appendix Table 15.
Figure 6.4 DDG Shipments, by State of Origin
U.S. port district figures show that the Los Angeles region dominates the DDG export market, accounting
for 65% of the volume exported in 2012 (Figure 6.5). The top five ports, in DDG export volume, account
for 94% of U.S. DDG exports. While smallest among these five, the eastern gateways that comprise the
Norfolk, New York City, and Savannah port districts, have experienced relatively stable volumes (Figure
6.6). The Norfolk gateway market share declined slightly in 2012 but volumes for all ports are up when
compared to 2008.
38
Figure 6.5 U.S. Port District DDG Container Exports, 2008-2012
-
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
200
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Thousa
nd T
EU
s
Los Angeles, CA
Seattle, WA
Norfolk, VA
Savannah, GA
New York City, NY
39
Figure 6.6 Port District DDG Container Exports, Total TEU 2008 to 2012
40
The feed group container exports have a very strong correlation with total U.S. container exports (r,
18=.99, <.01). However, unlike grain, they have a very weak correlation to the shipment pattern in the
bulk shipments of the same group’s markets based on a comparisons of volumes by export region
between 2008 and 2012 (r, 18=.19, .44). The largest export region destinations for the container feed
group products were Eastern Asia and South-Eastern Asia with 55% and 33%, respectively, of volume
destined for these regions (Figure 6.9). The Peoples Republic of China in the Eastern Asia region is the
largest country destination for the feed group products, accounting for 32% of all container shipments.
The Republic of China is third among the DDG destination countries accounting for 10% of exports.
Indonesia and Vietnam, in the South-Eastern Asia region, were second and fourth among export
destinations with 11% and 9%, respectively, of the feed group containers marketed to these countries.
Korea accounted for 7% of feed container exports, followed by Japan, Philippines, and Thailand, each
accounting for 5% of the volume between 2008 and 2012. PIERS export data showed that U.S. feed
group commodities were marketed by container to 131 countries, in at least one year, between 2008 and
2012 (Figure 6.8).
41
Figure 6.7 U.S. Feed Group Exports, by Region
0 10,000,000 20,000,000
Western Europe
Western Asia
Western Africa
Unknown
Southern Europe
Southern Asia
Southern Africa
South-Eastern Asia
South America
Polynesia
Oceania
Northern Europe
Northern Africa
North America
Middle Africa
Micronesia
Melanesia
Eastern Europe
Eastern Asia
Eastern Africa
Central America
Caribbean
Thousand Pounds
Bulk
Container
42
Figure 6.8 U.S. DDG Container Export Destination Countries, 2008 to 2012
43
7. OCEAN FREIGHT RATES
Vessel freight rates are considered in assessing container and bulk ocean transportation options for U.S.
grain exports. As mentioned previously, many traditional bulk grain exporters use both modes of
transportation, meaning the ultimate decision may be influenced by multiple factors such as customer
preference, customer port and inland logistical capabilities, container availability, and rates. The
economies of size in gathering and shipping low-value grains in large quantities, however, continue to
favor traditional bulk grain market logistics. Containerized shipments do offer flexibility for smaller
shipment volumes and commodity quality integrity; and in hedging risk for instances when ocean rate
savings may be realized with shipping containers. The container option is also widely available from
several U.S. competitors in the export grain market including, Canada and Australia, and may be seen as a
necessary option for some customers seeking to utilize both shipping options.
Figure 7.1 Minneapolis, Minnesota Empty Container Market Situation
Accessing container supply at competitive rates, particularly in recent years when bulk shipping rates
have been relatively low due to excess market capacity, is challenging. Part of this dilemma is related to
the U.S. trade imbalance in which container velocity, or turn-around time, for higher-value inbound
products is a business priority for ocean shipping lines. The other challenge is the location of major
container terminals relative to Midwest grain production areas, as previously noted. For traditional bulk
grain exporters, container availability challenges can be mitigated by choosing to transload cargo at the
port locations where container availability is often most plentiful. This is often not an option for specialty
grain exporters that rely on source loading grains to ensure product segregations and identity preservation.
For these exporters container availability can be difficult in those traditionally deficit locations such as
Minneapolis, Omaha and others (see Table 4.1). Figure 7.1 shows the market imbalance in Minneapolis,
MN, as an example, reflected in the supply and demand for TEU and FEU containers during 2013. The
-650
-550
-450
-350
-250
-150
-50
50
150
250
350
450
Wk
1
Wk
3
Wk
5
Wk
7
Wk
9
Wk
11
Wk
13
Wk
15
Wk
17
Wk
19
Wk
21
Wk
23
Wk
25
Wk
27
*W
k 2
9
Wk
31
Wk
33
Wk
35
Wk
37
Wk
39
Wk
41
Wk
43
Wk
45
Wk
47
Wk
49
**W
k 5
1
Nu
mb
er
of
Co
nta
ine
rs
Weekly Container Availability Estimates in Minneapolis, 2013
20ft Containers
40ft Containers
40ft High-Cubes
Source: Ocean Shipping Container Availability Report (OSCAR), www.ams.usda.gov/oscar. Note: Negative estimates indicate there are more containers demanded than the participating ocean carriers can provide.*Data reflect 7 of the 8 participating carriers. Starting with Week 30, carrier participation falls from 8 to 6 carriers. **Data reflect 5 of the 6 participating carriers.
44
negative container figures indicate demand is greater than the supply that carriers participating in the
survey can supply (USDA 2014).
Over the past few years, ocean freight rates and the health of the ocean carriers has been negatively
impacted by the global economic recession. Demand for container traffic has declined in all major trade
lanes including the Transpacific, Asia-Europe, and Inter-Asia. Overcapacity has resulted from decreasing
cargo demand and increasing vessel fleet capacity as newly built vessels enter the market. Competition
and overcapacity have put downward pressure on ocean freight rates. As a result, over the past few years
exporters have experienced relatively low ocean freight rates for container movements. Only a couple of
demand spikes have introduced sharp and brief increases in container spot rates.
In response, ocean carriers have made structural changes in an attempt to contain costs and maintain
profits. One major change has been the implementation of slow steaming which reduces fuel costs during
transit and allows carriers to absorb extra vessel capacity. Carriers have also laid up vessels and delayed
the delivery of new vessels. The new vessels add to the carriers’ overall assets, but can be less costly if
they are out of operation. However, carriers have also used the new vessels to their advantage at times.
The category of vessels growing the fastest among the order books today is the over-10,000 TEUS
category. Some vessels that recently joined the global fleet have 18,000 TEU capacities. These larger
vessels allow ocean carriers to reduce costs by offering greater economies of scale. Finally, there have
been talks of mergers among some carriers and some smaller carriers have been unable to maintain a
presence in the industry.
Figure 7.2 compares container and bulk ocean freight rates since January 2011 and displays the spread
between the two transport options. The bulk and container rates spread narrows — falling 54 percent in
September, another 23 percent in October, and 18 percent farther in November. As the spread narrows,
the two ocean transportation alternatives become more competitive for shippers who have the option of
using either mode. The graph shows narrow spreads during the fall of 2012 and again in the fall of 2013
when container rates fell in response to the slowing of peak import season and bulk rates begin to rise in
anticipation for the fall grain harvest. Typically, this will be when containerized grain exports are at their
highest.
45
Figure 7.2 Bulk and Container Ocean Freight Rates
(5)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50Ja
n 2
011
Feb
201
1
Mar
20
11
Ap
r 2
011
May
201
1
Jun
201
1
Jul 2
011
Au
g 2
01
1
Sep
201
1
Oct
20
11
No
v 2
011
De
c 2
011
Jan
201
2
Feb
201
2
Mar
20
12
Ap
r 2
012
May
201
2
Jun
e 2
012
July
201
2
Au
g 2
01
2
Sep
201
2
Oct
20
12
No
v 2
012
De
c 2
012
Jan
201
3
Feb
201
3
Mar
20
13
Ap
r 2
013
May
201
3
Jun
201
3
Jul 2
013
Au
g 2
01
3
Sep
201
3
Oct
20
13
No
v 2
013
US$
/me
tric
to
n
Monthly Ocean Freight Rates--Bulk and Container
Spread b/w Container and Bulk Rates
Container Rates Los Angeles to Shanghai
Bulk Rates U.S. PNW to Japan
46
8. SUMMARY
Competitive and reliable transportation services are fundamental in the ability of U.S. agriculture’s
success in a global market. Recent statistics show an increasing trend in world grain traded via container.
Although bulk shipping remains dominant in the world grain export market, the niche container
marketing option is increasingly being used by U.S. grain companies and by competitors such as Canada
and Australia. Analysis shows that, although it is a relatively small part of the U.S. grain market,
container exports of grain have begun to attract more attention from investors and shipping lines as a
viable mode of international grain trade. The distant proximity of major grain production areas to the
largest container inland terminals and ports remains the largest challenge for the industry. The ability of
the U.S. grain industry to adapt to a dynamic market through terminal investments, expanded transload
facilities and increased match-back traffic, will prove challenging but potentially advantageous in longer-
term benefits associated with market diversification and an expanded customer base.
47
REFERENCES
Agricultural Marketing Service. 2014. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Ocean Shipping Container
Availability Report. Accessed February. www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/ATContainerReport.
American Association of Port Authorities. 2012. World Port Rankings. aapa.files.cms-
plus.com/Statistics/WORLD%20PORT%20RANKINGS%202010.pdf.
Federal Highway Administration. 2012. Freight Analysis Framework: FAF2 Technical Documentation,
U.S. Department of Transportation.
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/faf/faf2_reports/report4/index.htm.
Canadian Grain Commission. 2014. Canadian Grain Exports (Annual).
https://www.grainscanada.gc.ca/statistics-statistiques/cge-ecg/cgem-mecg-eng.htm.
Churchill, John. 2013. “Relieving the Pressure on Australian Grain.” Maersk Post, October, 22-23.
Hummels, David. 2007. “Costs and International trade in the Second Era of Globalization.” Journal of
Economic Perspectives 21(3): 131-154.
Intermodal Association of North America (IANA). 2012. Top 20 U.S. Ports.
http://www.intermodal.org/statistics_files/stats4.shtml.
JOC Group, Inc., Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), Newark, New Jersey, Data Subscription
Services, 2003-2012.
Rodrigue, J-P. et al. 2012. The Geography of Transport Systems Hofstra University, Department of
Global Studies & Geography. http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans.
Statistics Canada. 2012. Shipping in Canada 2011. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/54-205-x/2011000/t076-
eng.pdf.
Surface Transportation Board. U.S. Public Use Waybill, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington,
D.C. www.stb.dot.gov/stb/industry/econ_waybill.html. Various years.
Transportation Economics & Management Systems, Inc. 2008. Impact of High Oil Prices on Freight
Transportation: Modal Shift Potential in Five Corridors. Technical report, prepared for the Maritime
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Transportation Research Board. 2011."Overview of Port Drayage." NCFRP Report 11: Truck Drayage
Productivity Guide. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
United Nations. 2013. Geographic Region and Composition. Accessed March.
http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm
U.S. International Trade Commission. 2013. Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.
http://hts.usitc.gov/.
Vachal, Kimberly and Heidi Reichert. 2002. U.S. Containerized Grain and Oilseed Exports – Industry
Profile: Phase I,MPC-02-132. North Dakota State University - Upper Great Plains Transportation
Institute, Fargo.
48
Vachal, Kimberly, Tamara VanWechel, and Heidi Reichert. 2003. U.S. Containerized Grain & Oilseed
Exporters – Industry Profile and Survey: Phase II, MPC-03-151. North Dakota State University - Upper
Great Plains Transportation Institute, Fargo.
Vero Marine. 2010. “Grain in Shipping Containers.” Vero Marine Insurance News.
http://www.vero.com.au/vero/sites/default/files/fm/pdf/marine-and-aviation/industry-updates/Grain-in-
Containers_June2010.pdf.
White, Ronald. 2012. “Record-Sized Cargo Ships Require Port Changes.” Los Angeles Times. March 24.
Quigley, Leo. 2012. “Canadian Grain in Containers Gets Stamp of Approval.” World Grain. November.
World Shipping Council. 2014. http://www.worldshipping.org.
49
APPENDIX
50
Table A.1 Rail Container Traffic 2000-2002 Compared to 2009-2011,
by STCC Group
Avg TEUs
2000-2002
Avg TEUs
2009-2011 Change
Misc Mixed 6,983,248 7,598,817 9%
Empty Containers 1,389,969 1,381,653 -1%
Waste/Scrap 590,546 677,807 15%
Food/Kindred 390,287 535,347 37%
Transport Eqpt 254,392 320,595 26%
Pulp/Paper 161,060 277,720 72%
Farm Products 77,753 263,227 239%
Chemical/Allied 222,681 218,999 -2%
Apparel 101,760 214,787 111%
Freight Fwdr 300,825 204,885 -32%
Rubber/Plastics 107,020 147,653 38%
Electric Machnry 90,627 118,467 31%
Sm Pkg Freight 177,293 110,973 -37%
Misc Freight 100,070 106,209 6%
Fabrictd Metals 59,819 82,787 38%
Funiture 68,360 81,093 19%
Misc Manufactrng 46,013 58,613 27%
Lumber 60,927 46,853 -23%
Ordnance/Accssry 8,647 36,672 324%
Machinery 35,453 36,547 3%
Primary Metals 36,347 29,853 -18%
Concrete Product 47,140 26,787 -43%
Printed Matter 27,787 26,693 -4%
Textile/Mill 15,120 26,120 73%
Mail 119,700 18,253 -85%
Photogphy/Clocks 4,653 11,027 137%
Petro/Coal Prod 16,227 9,387 -42%
Non-Metallc Ores 25,742 9,160 -64%
Leather & Prod 4,587 2,947 -36%
Marine/Fish 4,533 2,533 -44%
Hazardous Waste 4,320 2,240 -48%
Forest Products 6,700 1,133 -83%
Shipper Assn 48,673 907 -98%
Metallic Ores 20,668 173 -99% Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
51
Table A.2 Rail Container Origins, by TAZ (Avg. 2009-2011)
Origin TAZ (BEA) Number of
Containers
Origin
Share
Other Origins 3,577,209 28.2%
Among Named Origins:
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 3,007,920 33.0%
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA-AZ 2,177,253 23.9%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA 540,653 5.9%
New York-NewJrsy-LongIsland,NY-NJ-CT-PA-MA-VT 483,453 5.3%
Atlanta, GA-AL-NC 416,347 4.6%
Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA 387,201 4.2%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-AR-OK 349,587 3.8%
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 234,080 2.6%
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 180,627 2.0%
St. Louis, MO-IL 168,667 1.9%
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA 167,093 1.8%
Columbus, OH 146,853 1.6%
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC 122,840 1.3%
Savannah, GA-SC 101,640 1.1%
Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY 94,707 1.0%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 92,387 1.0%
Kansas City, MO-KS 87,813 1.0%
Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI 72,547 0.8%
Boston-Worcstr-Lawrence-Lowell-Brckton,MA-NH-RI-VT 62,547 0.7%
Jacksonville, FL-GA 49,373 0.5%
San Antonio, TX 42,800 0.5%
Cleveland-Akron, OH-PA 40,773 0.4%
Charleston-North Charleston, SC 35,747 0.4%
Portland-Salem, OR-WA 13,747 0.2%
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI-IA 7,973 0.1%
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT-ID 7,507 0.1%
New Orleans, LA-MS 4,093 0.0%
Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO-KS-NE 3,973 0.0%
Toledo, OH 2,200 0.0%
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 1,693 0.0%
Philadelphia-Wilmington- Atlantic City,PA-NJ-DE-MD 1,253 0.0%
Reno, NV-CA 1,080 0.0%
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 1,000 0.0%
Pittsburgh, PA-WV 707 0.0%
Fresno, CA 693 0.0%
Birmingham, AL 600 0.0%
52
Table A.2 Rail Container Origins, by TAZ (Avg. 2009-2011)
Origin TAZ (BEA) Number of
Containers
Origin
Share
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY-PA 480 0.0%
Casper, WY-ID-UT 440 0.0%
Louisville, KY-IN 387 0.0%
Nashville, TN-KY 307 0.0%
Jackson, MS-AL-LA 227 0.0%
Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA 220 0.0%
Omaha, NE-IA-MO 187 0.0%
Indianapolis, IN-IL 160 0.0%
Lexington, KY-TN-VA-WV 147 0.0%
Orlando, FL 80 0.0%
Evansville-Henderson, IN-KY-IL 80 0.0%
Huntsville, AL-TN 60 0.0%
Minot, ND 40 0.0%
Richland-Kennewick-Pasco, WA 40 0.0%
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
53
Table A2.3 Rail Container Destinations, by TAZ (Avg 2009-2011)
Origin TAZ (BEA) Number of
Containers
Destination
Share
Other Destinations 3,836,812 30.2%
Among Named Destinations:
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 2,763,093 31.2%
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA-AZ 1,853,093 20.9%
New York-NewJrsy-LongIsland,NY-NJ-CT-PA-MA-VT 520,960 5.9%
Atlanta, GA-AL-NC 453,440 5.1%
Dallas-Fort Worth, TX-AR-OK 409,160 4.6%
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 354,036 4.0%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA 297,547 3.4%
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC 205,053 2.3%
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX 195,987 2.2%
Savannah, GA-SC 182,600 2.1%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 161,840 1.8%
Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI 158,453 1.8%
St. Louis, MO-IL 156,200 1.8%
Jacksonville, FL-GA 154,427 1.7%
Columbus, OH 150,213 1.7%
Harrisburg-Lebanon-Carlisle, PA 137,413 1.6%
Cleveland-Akron, OH-PA 97,280 1.1%
Portland-Salem, OR-WA 82,507 0.9%
Washington-Baltimore, DC-MD-VA-WV-PA 81,600 0.9%
San Antonio, TX 74,120 0.8%
Kansas City, MO-KS 73,813 0.8%
Boston-Worcstr-Lawrence-Lowell-Brckton,MA-NH-RI-VT 73,280 0.8%
Quebec 68,360 0.8%
Charleston-North Charleston, SC 50,760 0.6%
Pendleton, OR-WA 34,680 0.4%
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT-ID 28,853 0.3%
British Columbia 20,467 0.2%
Philadelphia-Wilmington- Atlantic City,PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,373 0.1%
Mexico 2,613 0.0%
Ontario 1,973 0.0%
New Orleans, LA-MS 1,853 0.0%
Tulsa, OK-KS 1,803 0.0%
Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY 1,627 0.0%
Alberta 1,160 0.0%
Minot, ND 1,140 0.0%
Tucson, AZ 1,000 0.0%
54
Table A2.3 Rail Container Destinations, by TAZ (Avg 2009-2011)
Origin TAZ (BEA) Number of
Containers
Destination
Share
Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO-KS-NE 960 0.0%
Birmingham, AL 933 0.0%
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN 787 0.0%
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI-IA 760 0.0%
Orlando, FL 373 0.0%
Saskatchewan 200 0.0%
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC 147 0.0%
El Paso, TX-NM 147 0.0%
Syracuse, NY-PA 120 0.0%
Louisville, KY-IN 120 0.0%
Phoenix-Mesa, AZ-NM 120 0.0%
Tampa-St. Petersburg- Clearwater, FL 107 0.0%
Omaha, NE-IA-MO 107 0.0%
Buffalo-Niagara Falls, NY-PA 100 0.0%
Reno, NV-CA 100 0.0%
Toledo, OH 60 0.0%
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX 60 0.0%
Pittsburgh, PA-WV 53 0.0%
Nashville, TN-KY 53 0.0%
Albany-Schenectady-Troy, NY 40 0.0%
Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, NC-VA 40 0.0%
Jackson, MS-AL-LA 40 0.0%
Fresno, CA 40 0.0%
Manitoba 40 0.0%
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
55
Table A.4 Farm STCC Group Rail Container Origins, by TAZ (Avg 2009-2011)
Origin TAZ (BEA) Number of
Containers
Origin
Share
Other Origins 188,693
Among Named Origins:
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 66,653 89.1%
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI-IA 3,093 4.1%
Portland-Salem, OR-WA 2,093 2.8%
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA-AZ 773 1.0%
Philadelphia-Wilmington- Atlantic City,PA-NJ-DE-MD 667 0.9%
Columbus, OH 387 0.5%
Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY 387 0.5%
Kansas City, MO-KS 200 0.3%
Omaha, NE-IA-MO 200 0.3%
Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO-KS-NE 120 0.2%
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 80 0.1%
Detroit-Ann Arbor-Flint, MI 40 0.1%
Minot, ND 40 0.1%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA 40 0.1%
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Table A.5 Grain Rail Container Origins, by TAZ (Avg 2009-2011)
Origin TAZ (BEA) Number of
Containers
Origin
Share
Other Origins 132,400
Among Named Origins:
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 66,027 94%
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI-IA 2,187 3%
Portland-Salem, OR-WA 893 1%
Columbus, OH 387 1%
Memphis, TN-AR-MS-KY 387 1%
Kansas City, MO-KS 200 0%
Omaha, NE-IA-MO 200 0%
Denver-Boulder-Greeley, CO-KS-NE 120 0%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA 40 0%
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
56
Table A.6 Farm STCC Group Rail Container Destinations, by TAZ (Avg 2009-2011)
Destination TAZ (BEA) Number of
Containers
Destination
Share
Other Destinations 63,173
Among Named Destinations:
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA-AZ 171,947 85.8%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA 18,507 9.2%
New York-NewJrsy-LgIsd,NY-NJ-CT-PA-MA-VT 4,000 2.0%
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 2,547 1.3%
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 2,253 1.1%
Boston-Wrstr-Lawrnc-Lowl-Brktn,MA-NH-RI-VT 627 0.3%
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC 160 0.1%
Mexico 160 0.1%
Philadelphia-Wlmngtn-Atlntic Cty,PA-NJ-DE-MD 40 0.0%
Miami-Fort Lauderdale, FL 40 0.0%
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT-ID 40 0.0%
Portland-Salem, OR-WA 40 0.0%
Quebec 40 0.0%
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
Table A.7 Grain Rail Container Destinations, by TAZ (Avg 2009-2011)
Destination TAZ (BEA) Number of
Containers
Destination
Share
Other Destinations 9,053
Among Named Destinations:
Los Angeles-Riverside-Orange County, CA-AZ 171,880 92.3%
Seattle-Tacoma-Bremerton, WA 17,933 9.6%
San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA 3,760 2.0%
Chicago-Gary-Kenosha, IL-IN-WI 1,080 0.6%
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News, VA-NC 160 0.1%
Mexico 160 0.1%
New York-NewJrsy-LgIsd,NY-NJ-CT-PA-MA-VT 107 0.1%
Philadelphia-Wlmngtn-Atlntic Cty,PA-NJ-DE-MD 40 0.0%
Salt Lake City-Ogden, UT-ID 40 0.0%
Portland-Salem, OR-WA 40 0.0%
Source: Bureau of Transportation Statistics
57
Table A.8 Grain Container Exports by Commodity
HS Description 2003-2007 2008-2012
Change Share in
2008-2012 TEUs
Soybeans, Whether or Not Broken 359,398 741,893 106% 38.9%
Corn (Maize), Other Than Seed Corn 272,493 449,423 65% 23.6%
Grains Worked Etc, of Cereal, NESOI 35,898 189,886 429% 10.0%
Flours And Meals Of Soybeans 85,719 170,658 99% 8.9%
Rice, Semi- or Wholly Milled, Polished Etc, or Not 81,602 129,962 59% 6.8%
Wheat (Other Than Durum Wheat), and Meslin 56,555 65,646 16% 3.4%
Wheat or Meslin Flour 25,907 22,893 -12% 1.2%
Beans NESOI, Dried Shelled, Including Seed 20,732 22,612 9% 1.2%
Peas, Dried Shelled, Including Seed 15,570 22,096 42% 1.2%
Lentils, Dried Shelled, Including Seed 10,815 20,983 94% 1.1%
Groats and Meal Of Corn (Maize) 18,392 20,979 14% 1.1%
Sunflower Seeds, Whether Or Not Broken 20,099 20,622 3% 1.1%
Buckwheat 2,432 3,917 61% 0.2%
Kidney Beans & White Pea Beans, Dri Shel, Inc Seed 2,914 3,663 26% 0.2%
Malt, Not Roasted 4,416 3,567 -19% 0.2%
Wheat Gluten, Whether or Not Dried 3,219 3,080 -4% 0.2%
Corn (Maize) Flour 3,955 2,757 -30% 0.1%
Groats and Meal of Oats 578 2,647 358% 0.1%
Grain Sorghum 1,899 2,272 20% 0.1%
Barley 3,602 2,208 -39% 0.1%
Cereal Flours, NESOI 669 2,087 212% 0.1%
Hop Cones, Ground, Powdered or In Pellets; Lupulin 1,293 1,782 38% 0.1%
Oats 1,459 913 -37% 0.0%
Flaxseed (Linseed), Whether or Not Broken 316 531 68% 0.0%
Hop Cones, Fresh or Dried; Lupulin 393 449 14% 0.0%
Groats and Meal of Wheat 834 394 -53% 0.0%
Rye In The Grain 796 249 -69% 0.0%
Cereals (Not Corn) In Grain Form, Prepared 470 51 -89% 0.0%
Groats and Meal of Cereal, NESOI 170 17 -90% 0.0%
Grains Worked (Hulld Pearld Sliced Kibld) Of Barley 28 10 -63% 0.0%
Source: PIERS
58
Table A.9 Estimated Grain Container Origins, by State
State 2003-2007
Avg.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Estimated Annual TEUs
Alabama 30 0 39 83 4 -
Alaska 0 - - - - -
Arizona 666 560 1,059 123 609 182
Arkansas 113 42 0 0 28 68
California 41,505 84,897 64,417 55,033 53,372 45,828
Colorado 528 941 176 331 399 299
Connecticut 179 206 297 423 203 96
Delaware 0 0 0 13 386 266
D. of Columbia 583 116 13 117 1,059 325
Florida 3,390 6,335 8,068 5,339 4,731 4,614
Georgia 835 732 223 34 235 341
Hawaii 38 23 8 7 18 7
Idaho 504 1,031 1,087 1,257 1,213 704
Illinois 32,272 96,642 55,861 36,153 53,245 49,998
Indiana 2,098 10,284 15,763 14,202 2,230 960
Iowa 1,262 986 715 460 33 727
Kansas 6,327 12,452 9,831 5,182 2,683 10,415
Kentucky 383 422 2,064 1,947 1,144 108
Louisiana 792 676 1,687 1,056 647 490
Maine 9 1 - - - 1
Maryland 2,633 2,849 1,401 2,811 2,514 2,328
Massachusetts 303 218 322 546 722 576
Michigan 301 218 800 59 322 281
Minnesota 22,353 13,370 108,489 55,527 3,907 30,813
Mississippi 17 3 - - 0 -
Missouri 2,463 4,506 5,884 5,406 6,382 2,349
59
Table A.9 Estimated Grain Container Origins, by State
State 2003-2007
Avg.
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Estimated Annual TEUs
Montana - - - 2 551 1,074
Nebraska 1,952 7,745 11,194 10,204 15,219 16,413
Nevada 5 2,808 - - - -
New Hampshire 1 0 4 0 6 -
New Jersey 3,180 17,137 19,412 21,771 15,365 13,069
New York 3,490 1,137 10,405 9,658 7,324 6,494
North Carolina 321 434 130 1,957 437 538
North Dakota 1,593 2,868 1,933 1,745 2,552 1,189
Ohio 1,017 5,154 14,436 183 31,509 19,258
Oklahoma 19 0 0 4 46 53
Oregon 1,888 2,943 2,875 3,789 2,656 1,996
Pennsylvania 171 19 182 3 1,624 2,113
Rhode Island 14 - 0 - - -
South Carolina 192 1,080 1,689 54 37 369
South Dakota 0 0 166 744 1,775 1,582
Tennessee 332 777 703 740 253 146
Texas 2,166 2,352 2,023 2,227 238 1,387
Utah 5 0 0 33 0 4
Vermont 0 - - - - -
Virginia 1,192 4,538 4,242 2,491 1,299 658
Washington 18,733 24,563 16,546 12,260 13,205 7,475
West Virginia 0 - 0 80 0 -
Wisconsin 6,562 46,471 48,891 39,691 39,548 28,906
Source: PIERS
60
Table A.10 Grain Container Imports 2008-2012,
by Importing Region and Country
Importing Region Importing Country TEUs
Caribbean Puerto Rico 20,615
Dominican Republic 12,027
Haiti 10,179
Bahamas 4,964
Trinidad And Tobago 3,731
Jamaica 2,366
Barbados 1,121
United States Virgin 1,027
Leeward And Windward 764
Cuba 252
Cayman Islands 248
Turks And Caicos Is 172
British Pacific Is 77
Central America Guatemala 8,668
Honduras 4,070
Costa Rica 2,910
El Salvador 2,569
Panama 2,462
Mexico 1,785
Nicaragua 1,145
Belize 350
Eastern Africa Kenya 1,384
Tanzania 1,367
Djibouti 1,261
Mozambique 688
Malagasy Republic 182
Mauritius 54
Uganda 51
Ethiopia 47
Malawi 11
Burundi 4
Eastern Asia Republic Of China 667,495
People’s Republic of China 134,194
Japan 103,800
Korea 91,489
Mongolia 100
Macau 8
Eastern Europe Russia 3,465
61
Table A.10 Grain Container Imports 2008-2012,
by Importing Region and Country
Importing Region Importing Country TEUs
Eastern Europe
(cont.)
Romania 2,975
Czechoslovakia 190
Bulgaria 132
Poland 108
Hungary 104
Melanesia Fiji 364
Papua New Guinea 161
Other Pacific Is Nec 7
Micronesia Guam 3,090
Middle Africa Angola 676
Cameroon 649
Dem Rep Of The Congo 142
Zaire 35
Equatorial Guinea 27
Congo (Brazziville) 6
Gabon 3
North America Canada 537
Bermuda 151
Northern Africa Sudan 2,262
Libya 2,134
Egypt 1,910
Morocco 831
Algeria 627
Tunisia 46
Northern Europe United Kingdom 6,219
Sweden 904
Denmark 402
Norway 332
Latvia 291
Ireland 274
Finland 268
Iceland 255
Lithuania 122
Estonia 77
Oceania Australia 7,676
New Zealand 3,088
Polynesia American Samoa 718
Western Samoa 173
62
Table A.10 Grain Container Imports 2008-2012,
by Importing Region and Country
Importing Region Importing Country TEUs
Polynesia (cont) Tonga 1
South America Peru 3,275
Colombia 2,754
Venezuela 2,324
Brazil 1,501
Chile 872
Argentina 766
Surinam 589
Ecuador 513
Guyana 337
French Guiana 66
Bolivia 62
Uruguay 56
Paraguay 26
South-Eastern
Asia
Indonesia 255,290
Vietnam 118,488
Malaysia 94,215
Philippines 77,887
Thailand 68,233
Singapore 9,790
Burma 1,167
Cambodia 1,014
Brunei 141
Southern Africa South Africa 1,472
Namibia 5
Southern Asia India 15,694
Pakistan 5,163
Sri Lanka (Ceylon) 3,557
Bangladesh 2,185
Afghanistan 515
Iran 64
Nepal 14
Southern Europe Spain 13,292
Italy 4,620
Greece 773
Portugal 368
Albania 138
Yugoslavia 93
63
Table A.10 Grain Container Imports 2008-2012,
by Importing Region and Country
Importing Region Importing Country TEUs
Southern Europe
(cont)
Malta And Gozo 79
Canary Islands 2
Azores 1
Unknown T Pac I 2,191
Western Africa Ghana 817
Liberia 581
Togo 360
Nigeria 326
Benin 270
Sierra Leone 235
Western Africa 172
Guinea 163
Senegal 51
Ivory Coast 48
Mauritania 33
Mali 31
Burkina Faso 13
The Gambia 4
Niger 3
Upper Volta 2
Western Asia Saudi Arabia 22,913
Jordan 11,859
Israel 8,812
Turkey 7,549
Lebanon 5,970
United Arab Emirates 4,831
Syria 2,624
Georgia 1,103
Yemen 988
Kuwait 952
Qatar 402
Bahrain 181
Oman 147
Cyprus 78
Iraq 4
Western Europe Germany 6,369
Netherlands 6,344
France 4,881
64
Table A.10 Grain Container Imports 2008-2012,
by Importing Region and Country
Importing Region Importing Country TEUs
Western Europe
(cont)
Belgium 3,165
Austria 546
Switzerland 44
Source: PIERS
65
Table A.11 U.S. Port District Composition, for Ports with Grain Container Traffic
U.S. Port District U.S. Port
U.S. Port District U.S. Port
Anchorage, AK Anchorage
Norfolk, VA
Newport News
Dutch Harbor Norfolk
Baltimore, MD Baltimore Richmond
Boston, MA Boston
Philadelphia, PA
Camden
Salem Chester
Charleston, SC Charleston Pennsauken
Charlotte, NC Wilmington Philadelphia
Wilmington Salem
Columbia-Snake, OR Portland Wilmington
Vancouver Port Arthur, TX
Beaumont
Honolulu, HI Honolulu Sabine
Houston-Galveston,
TX
Freeport San Diego, CA San Diego
Houston San Francisco, CA
Oakland
Los Angeles, CA
Long Beach San Francisco
Los Angeles San Juan, PR
Mayaguez
Port Hueneme San Juan
Miami, FL
Ft Pierce Savannah, GA Savannah
Miami Seattle, WA
Seattle
Port Everglades Tacoma
West Palm Bch
Tampa, FL
Fernandina Beach
Mobile, AL Gulfport Jacksonville
Mobile Manatee
New Orleans, LA Lake Charles Panama City
New Orleans Tampa
New York City, NY New York
Source: U.S. Census
66
Table A.12 U.S. Grain Container Export Markets, by Importing Region
2003-2007 2008-2012
Region Frequency TEU Frequency TEU
Eastern Asia 42,763 625,699 55,433 997,805
South-Eastern Asia 12,964 176,297 31,023 626,225
Western Asia 7,616 27,697 7,993 68,411
Caribbean 26,508 53,721 26,950 57,543
Southern Asia 2,291 16,089 3,908 27,192
Central America 4,451 16,648 6,374 23,960
Western Europe 9,556 19,790 7,869 21,348
Southern Europe 4,134 12,993 4,914 19,366
South America 4,478 14,902 3,854 13,141
Oceania 3,249 4,752 5,134 10,764
Northern Europe 5,120 11,936 3,764 9,144
Northern Africa 1,719 3,695 636 7,811
Eastern Europe 2,868 8,534 1,741 6,974
Eastern Africa 3,688 14,801 277 5,049
Western Africa 412 4,057 568 3,108
Micronesia 1,969 3,379 1,772 3,090
Unknown 2,360 3,702 1,596 2,191
Middle Africa 259 2,346 197 1,538
Southern Africa 1,580 9,219 346 1,477
Polynesia 657 1,050 592 892
North America 473 375 361 688
Melanesia 473 942 134 532
Source: PIERS
67
Table A.13 U.S. Grain Container Exports by Port, 2008-2012
U.S. Port District U.S. Port TEU
Los Angeles, CA Los Angeles 535,524
Los Angeles, CA Long Beach 462,153
Norfolk, VA Norfolk 191,203
Seattle, WA Tacoma 188,292
San Francisco, CA Oakland 162,309
New York City, NY New York 113,572
Seattle, WA Seattle 107,315
Houston-Galveston, TX Houston 33,399
Savannah, GA Savannah 24,181
Tampa, FL Jacksonville 17,627
Columbia-Snake, OR Portland 12,900
Miami, FL Miami 11,819
New Orleans, LA New Orleans 7,045
Miami, FL Pt Everglades 5,722
Charleston, SC Charleston 4,513
Honolulu, HI Honolulu 4,277
Miami, FL W Palm Bch 4,201
Houston-Galveston, TX Freeport 3,658
Baltimore, MD Baltimore 3,584
Charlotte, NC Wilmington 3,531
New Orleans, LA Lk Charles 3,113
Philadelphia, PA Philadelphia 1,863
Mobile, AL Mobile 1,642
Mobile, AL Gulfport 1,386
San Juan, PR San Juan 957
Philadelphia, PA Pennsauken 751
Tampa, FL Tampa 539
Philadelphia, PA Wilmington 246
Miami, FL Ft Pierce 167
Norfolk, VA Richmond 157
Tampa, FL Panama City 105
Boston, MA Boston 76
Philadelphia, PA Salem 76
Philadelphia, PA Chester 74
Columbia-Snake, OR Vancouver 54
Norfolk, VA Newport News 54
*Includes Ports with at least 50 TEUs.
Source: PIERS
68
Table A.14 U.S. Port to Importing Country Container Grain Shipments,
20 Largest Importers from 2008 to 2012
For Port Origins with Total TEUs over 100
Importing Country US Port Shipments TEUs
Australia
Oakland 2,265 4,858
Long Beach 478 891
Seattle 281 719
Philadelphia 283 585
New York 139 188
Los Angeles 86 155
Tacoma 37 132
Dominican Republic
Miami 1,892 4,347
Houston 1,157 3,839
New Orleans 277 1,729
Portland Or 209 612
New York 157 308
Norfolk 136 295
San Juan 186 247
Lk Charles 19 207
Savannah 38 111
Guatemala
New Orleans 495 3,305
Houston 156 1,253
Freeport Tx 133 1,146
Gulfport 154 854
New York 93 503
Lk Charles 39 468
Los Angeles 155 329
Miami 121 207
Tacoma 9 140
Norfolk 41 136
Haiti
Miami 2,412 3,149
Houston 116 2,366
Lk Charles 18 1,600
Pt Everglades 1,215 1,428
New York 188 573
Mobile 10 458
Norfolk 19 226
New Orleans 21 124
W Palm Bch 365 116
India Seattle 2,265 12,074
Tacoma 233 1,833
Los Angeles 78 742
69
India (cont.)
Norfolk 83 351
Oakland 74 264
New York 89 253
Indonesia
Long Beach 4,468 97,220
Los Angeles 2,352 49,171
New York 1,021 39,936
Norfolk 1,176 38,766
Tacoma 833 15,133
Seattle 417 5,927
Savannah 157 4,678
Oakland 313 3,539
Baltimore 11 456
Charleston 16 386
Israel
Oakland 538 5,361
New York 546 1,350
Norfolk 104 1,191
Savannah 209 636
Houston 39 126
Japan
Los Angeles 5,310 31,924
Tacoma 4,052 24,493
Seattle 3,044 14,515
Oakland 2,452 14,380
Long Beach 2,776 13,693
Norfolk 371 3,285
Portland OR 125 701
New York 147 632
Savannah 27 110
Jordan
Oakland 601 10,747
Houston 33 342
Norfolk 96 245
New York 44 211
Los Angeles 39 131
Malaysia
Norfolk 899 31,170
Long Beach 923 17,042
Los Angeles 880 15,863
New York 417 12,256
Seattle 513 6,731
Tacoma 317 3,912
Oakland 311 3,850
Savannah 89 2,746
Baltimore 9 414
70
Peoples Rep Of China
Los Angeles 1248 45,562
Long Beach 1139 43,580
Norfolk 413 21,062
Seattle 413 6,783
Tacoma 265 5,633
Oakland 318 5,496
New York 115 4,051
Savannah 56 1,450
Charleston 13 555
New Orleans 9 424
Wilmington Nc 33 214
Philippines
Los Angeles 1,588 29,754
Seattle 719 14,437
Long Beach 939 13,058
Norfolk 418 7,528
Oakland 435 5,394
Tacoma 382 4,843
Savannah 74 1,453
New York 39 732
Portland OR 94 439
Honolulu 31 203
Republic Of China
Los Angeles 11074 271,645
Long Beach 7578 195,728
Tacoma 4302 103,493
Oakland 2216 43,624
Norfolk 985 29,664
Seattle 973 12,053
New York 197 3,979
Wilmington Nc 94 3,154
Savannah 68 1,304
Baltimore 23 1,295
Portland Or 182 1,011
Charleston 19 428
Los Angeles 11074 271,645
Korea
Los Angeles 1,548 27,660
Long Beach 1,397 24,713
Oakland 915 21,218
Tacoma 459 7,527
Seattle 610 6,420
New York 118 1,464
Norfolk 109 1,012
71
Korea (cont.)
Portland OR 64 849
Mobile 16 372
Savannah 55 251
Saudi Arabia
Norfolk 299 10,003
Oakland 353 4,240
Houston 150 3,538
Savannah 743 3,183
New York 216 1,051
Baltimore 19 690
Singapore
Norfolk 178 2,966
Seattle 201 2,248
Oakland 1,006 1,627
Los Angeles 235 856
Long Beach 162 741
New York 61 653
Tacoma 123 494
Savannah 24 196
Spain
Portland OR 1,089 5,327
New York 810 3,875
Norfolk 702 3,003
Seattle 82 454
Oakland 85 281
Houston 79 178
Thailand
Los Angeles 1,288 28,705
Long Beach 659 14,654
Norfolk 403 8,450
Tacoma 344 5,597
Seattle 393 4,586
New York 160 3,803
Oakland 167 1,694
Savannah 36 581
Turkey
Oakland 174 3,241
New York 283 1,853
Norfolk 160 1,240
Seattle 60 397
Houston 60 386
Savannah 30 252
Mobile 4 103
Vietnam
Long Beach 1,684 37,806
Los Angeles 1,460 29,087
Norfolk 497 13,197
72
Vietnam (cont.)
Tacoma 743 13,007
Seattle 489 9,436
Oakland 361 7,593
New York 152 5,127
Savannah 99 2,704
Honolulu 68 490
Source: PIERS
73
Table A.15 Feed Group Exports, by Bill-of-Lading Reported State of Origin
Origin State 2003-07 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
TEUs Exported
Alaska - 8 - 20 58 30
Alabama 502 34 195 205 92 32
Arizona 25 17 52 4 4 7
Arkansas 37 6 4 2 15 539
California 45,340 7,536 11,436 28,094 51,000 53,738
Colorado 75 26 9 54 101 729
Connecticut 1,303 78 122 315 295 69
Dist. Columbia - - - - 1 -
Delaware 18 2 - 162 143 50
Florida 15,783 3,983 2,631 2,801 3,171 2,265
Georgia 6,486 729 956 848 515 1,732
Hawaii 1 - - - 5 -
Iowa 2,134 760 693 521 592 829
Idaho 17 10 8 213 97 146
Illinois 50,151 13,612 11,444 15,872 34,919 32,154
Indiana 5,870 1,461 1,645 3,984 1,330 1,029
Kansas 10,266 2,917 2,500 6,460 5,477 7,300
Kentucky 1,255 365 168 212 377 192
Louisiana 2,443 192 354 830 1,360 683
Massachusetts 187 58 26 39 101 68
Maryland 864 232 62 492 661 384
Maine - - - 2 - 0
Michigan 156 114 8 408 300 219
Minnesota 58,398 21,709 9,306 17,165 38,227 36,649
Missouri 2,682 851 1,129 2,716 2,270 1,421
Mississippi 12 4 1 - 10 14
Montana 4 - - - - -
74
Table A.15 Feed Group Exports, by Bill-of-Lading Reported State of Origin
Origin State 2003-07 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
TEUs Exported
North Carolina 186 42 36 53 73 48
North Dakota 258 41 57 77 20 16
Nebraska 24,991 5,224 4,878 9,985 21,917 17,045
New Hampshire - 2 - - - -
New Jersey 6,737 4,562 6,434 20,837 22,055 30,711
Nevada 21 2 1 1 2 2
New York 4,650 611 454 4,198 5,156 7,212
Ohio 2,589 3,739 3,620 3,799 4,919 9,688
Oklahoma - 2 - - 2 5
Oregon 2,762 982 548 797 339 271
Pennsylvania 4,008 572 439 379 1,081 3,096
Rhode Island 8 - - - - -
South Carolina 72 164 1,139 1,124 840 1,174
South Dakota 18 6 - 6 1,404 392
Tennessee 950 1,193 606 237 326 313
Texas 1,928 632 363 242 512 945
Utah 744 86 98 168 119 120
Virginia 1,291 368 295 453 578 288
Vermont - - - - 6 -
Washington 31,966 6,556 4,933 5,867 10,718 9,152
Wisconsin 1,944 3,853 4,592 10,986 21,546 20,682
West Virginia - - - - - -
Wyoming - - - - - -
Source: PIERS
75
Table A.16 Feed Group Exports by U.S. Port District, 2003-2012
Avg. 2003-
2007
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
TEUs
Boston, MA 8 - 3 2 0 5
New York City, NY 2,146 2,792 2,310 4,012 5,188 11,826
Philadelphia, PA 661 635 709 660 448 362
Baltimore, MD 149 170 97 576 377 366
Norfolk, VA 4,259 11,667 11,029 10,633 13,892 13,774
Charlotte, NC 98 70 153 87 120 407
Charleston, SC 1,310 1,502 650 684 924 2,943
Savannah, GA 947 3,590 4,377 8,276 11,447 14,886
Tampa, FL 1,663 869 1,180 945 815 584
Mobile, AL 304 227 459 279 146 128
New Orleans, LA 507 187 213 297 361 895
San Diego, CA 18 12 9 16 19 14
Los Angeles, CA 22,278 35,259 27,119 86,777 162,058 175,957
San Francisco, CA 3,613 3,414 6,470 8,763 6,059 5,296
Columbia-Snake, OR 269 184 405 309 725 2,066
Seattle, WA 19,693 20,861 14,978 18,191 30,275 39,296
Anchorage, AK 10 10 4 6 14 34
Honolulu, HI 76 275 142 172 269 317
San Juan, PR 180 175 80 237 149 40
Miami, FL 2,967 3,037 2,591 2,224 1,910 1,982
Houston-Galveston, TX 1,371 1,213 1,270 1,247 1,293 1,428
Source: PIERS
76
Table A.17 Feed Group Exports, by Export Region and Country 2008-2012
Export Region Country* TEUs
Caribbean Bahamas 4,117
Puerto Rico 3,368
Dominican Republic 1,242
Trinidad And Tobago 1,044
Cayman Islands 829
United States Virgin 706
Leeward And Windward 671
Jamaica 549
Barbados 496
Haiti 244
Central America Guatemala 2,671
Belize 1,747
Panama 1,606
Honduras 1,128
Costa Rica 831
El Salvador 686
Nicaragua 326
Mexico 200
Eastern Asia Peoples Republic Of China 259,338
Republic Of China 85,160
Korea 60,524
Japan 43,216
Eastern Europe Russia 565
Czechoslovakia 237
Melanesia Fiji 1,150
Papua New Guinea 297
Guam 1,367
North America Bermuda 533
Canada 481
Northern Africa Egypt 1,612
Northern Europe United Kingdom 1,818
Denmark 174
Finland 125
Oceania Australia 9,046
New Zealand 3,902
Polynesia American Samoa 122
South America Brazil 3,904
Colombia 2,060
Ecuador 1,502
77
Table A.17 Feed Group Exports, by Export Region and Country 2008-2012
Export Region Country* TEUs
South America (cont.) Venezuela 1,497
Chile 1,476
Peru 1,247
Argentina 471
Guyana 402
South-Eastern Asia Indonesia 92,825
Vietnam 69,523
Philippines 40,098
Thailand 39,765
Malaysia 24,204
Singapore 3,454
Cambodia 1,597
Southern Africa South Africa 1,200
Bangladesh 1,640
India 1,118
Sri Lanka (Ceylon) 311
Pakistan 104
Southern Europe Spain 785
Italy 539
Western Africa Nigeria 786
Ghana 402
Western Asia Saudi Arabia 9,737
United Arab Emirates 3,134
Israel 2,187
Georgia 1,295
Turkey 955
Oman 928
Jordan 612
Lebanon 451
Kuwait 280
Qatar 150
Western Europe Netherlands 3,251
France 2,595
Germany 2,229
Belgium 609
*Includes countries with at least 100 TEU imported during the 2008-2012 marketing period.
Source: PIERS